text:
# Gauge invariance and form factors for the decay 𝑩→𝜸𝒍⁺𝒍⁻

## I Introduction

Recently, the decay $`B\gamma l^+l^{}`$ has been the subject of a number of investigations sehgal ; bllg:decay ; asym ; aliev ; geng , where it has been pointed out that this process may serve as an important probe of the standard model (SM) and possible extensions. However, knowledge of the long-distance QCD effects, which are inherently non-perturbative, is important to extract quantitative information on the underlying short-distance interactions.

From the analyses of the decay $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ it is known silvano ; gustavo  that the uncertainties due to the hadronic form factors are considerably reduced if one considers asymmetries such as the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry of the lepton. This empirical observation later received an explanation within the large energy effective theory (LEET) leet . According to LEET, all the heavy-to-light meson transition form factors are given at leading order in $`1/M_B`$ and $`1/E`$ ($`E`$ is the energy of the light meson) in terms of a few universal form factors, and thanks to that the form factor effects largely drop out from the asymmetries.

As for the radiative dilepton decay $`B\gamma l^+l^{}`$, one expects the same to be true. However, a surprisingly strong dependence of the FB asymmetry on the specific form factor model can be found in the existing literature sehgal ; bllg:decay ; asym , which needs better understanding.

In this paper, we analyse the form factors for the $`B\gamma `$ transition induced by vector, axial-vector, tensor, and pseudotensor currents.

We show that important relations between form factors of different currents arise as a consequence of the gauge invariance of the $`B\gamma `$ amplitude. We derive an exact relation between the form factors of tensor and pseudotensor currents at $`q^2=0`$, where $`q^2`$ is the dilepton invariant mass in the decay $`B\gamma l^+l^{}`$. We note that the form factors from a recent sum-rule calculation of Ref. aliev  are inconsistent with this exact relation.

We investigate the behavior of the various form factors at large $`q^2`$ and find interesting relations corresponding to the resonance contributions to the form factors. We argue that these contributions signal substantial corrections to the Isgur-Wise relations valid to $`1/m_b`$ accuracy at large $`q^2`$ iw .

Combined with the relations among the form factors from LEET, the results obtained provide strong restrictions on the $`B\gamma `$ form factors. We propose a simple model for the form factors which is valid over the full range of the photon energy, and which satisfies all known constraints. An important remark is in order here: It has been shown recently that a proper account of collinear and soft gluons leads to a different effective theory – the so-called soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) cset1  which supersedes the LEET. Important for our discussion is that interactions with collinear gluons preserve the relations for the soft part of the heavy-to-light form factors from LEET cset2  \[the differences appear in the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ part\]. Our analysis is therefore fully compatible with SCET.

As an application of our form factor model, we examine the FB asymmetry in the decay $`B_s\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. We find that this asymmetry, and particularly its zero arising in the SM, can be predicted with small theoretical uncertainties.

## II Form factors for the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸`$ transition

We are concerned with the amplitudes of the $`B\gamma `$ transition resulting from various quark currents. In our analysis, we adopt the following conventions:

$`\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3,\sigma _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ],ϵ^{0123}=1,`$ (1)
and accordingly

$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }.`$ (2)
### II.1 Transition to a virtual photon

We start with the amplitude describing the transition of the $`B_q`$ ($`q=s,d`$) meson with momentum $`p`$ to a virtual photon with momentum $`k`$. In this case, the form factors depend on two variables: that is, the photon virtuality $`k^2`$ and the square of the momentum transfer $`(pk)^2`$. As we shall see, gauge invariance and the absence of singularities in the amplitude lead to several relations among the form factors at $`k^2=0`$, thereby reducing the number of independent form factors for the transition to a *real* photon.

(i) For the $`B_q\gamma ^{}`$ transition induced by the *axial-vector current*, the gauge-invariant amplitude (with respect to the photon) contains three form factors and can be written in the form111 Notice that for the $`B`$-meson transition to a virtual photon the amplitude of the axial-vector current contains a contact term, which is proportional to the charge of the $`B`$ meson. The contact term is thus present for the charged $`B`$-meson transition, but is absent in the case of a *neutral* $`B`$ meson. For a detailed discussion of form factors and contact terms in this amplitude, see Ref. ms .

$`\gamma ^{}(k)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)=ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)\left\{\left(g_{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\mu }{k^2}}\right)f+p_\mu \left(p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}k_\alpha \right)a_1+k_\mu \left(p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}k_\alpha \right)a_2\right\},`$ (3)
where we have explicitly written the gauge-invariant Lorentz structures. In the above, $`\epsilon ^\alpha `$ denotes the polarization vector of the photon, $`e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }`$, and the form factors are defined according to Ref. ms . Since the amplitude is a regular function at $`k^2=0`$, the requirement of gauge invariance results in the following constraints on the form factors at $`k^2=0`$:

$`f+(kp)a_2=0,a_1=0.`$ (4)
(ii) For the transition induced by the *vector current*, the amplitude is parametrized in terms of a single form factor $`g`$; namely,

$`\gamma ^{}(k)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`2eg\epsilon ^\alpha (k)ϵ_{\mu \alpha \rho \sigma }p^\rho k^\sigma .`$ (5)
(iii) For the $`B_q\gamma ^{}`$ transition induced by the *pseudotensor current*, the amplitude can be written in terms of three form factors:

$`\gamma ^{}(k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`e\epsilon ^\alpha (k)\{[(g_{\alpha \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\nu }{k^2}})p_\mu (g_{\alpha \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha k_\mu }{k^2}})p_\nu ]g_1`$ (6)
$`+(g_{\alpha \nu }k_\mu g_{\alpha \mu }k_\nu )g_2+(p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}k_\alpha )(k_\mu p_\nu p_\nu k_\mu )g_0\}.`$
At $`k^2=0`$, gauge invariance leads to the condition

$`g_1(kp)g_0=0.`$ (7)
(iv) The amplitude for the transition induced by the *tensor current* can be obtained from Eq. (6) by applying the identity in Eq. (2), and is given by

$`\gamma ^{}(k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)\left\{\left(ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \rho }p^\rho {\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha }{k^2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }k^\sigma p^\rho \right)g_1+ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \sigma }k^\sigma g_2+\left(p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}k_\alpha \right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p^\rho k^\sigma g_0\right\}.`$ (8)
### II.2 Transition to a real photon

For the transition to a real photon, the matrix element of the vector current is given by Eq. (5) while the amplitude for the axial-vector current, employing the relation in Eq. (4), reads

$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)=ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)[g_{\mu \alpha }(pk)p_\alpha k_\mu ]a_2(k^2=0).`$ (9)
As for tensor and pseudotensor currents, their matrix elements have the form

$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`e\epsilon ^\alpha (k)\left\{\left(g_{\alpha \nu }k_\mu g_{\alpha \mu }k_\nu \right)g_2+\left([g_{\alpha \nu }(pk)p_\alpha k_\nu ]p_\mu [g_{\alpha \mu }(pk)p_\alpha k_\mu ]p_\nu \right)g_0\right\},`$
$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)\left\{ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \sigma }k^\sigma g_2+\left[p_\alpha ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p^\rho k^\sigma (pk)ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }p^\rho \right]g_0\right\}.`$ (10)
It should be noted that in the case of a real photon the gauge-invariant amplitudes of the pseudotensor and tensor currents contain two Lorentz structures and not only one as stated in Ref. korch . Multiplying Eq. (II.2) by $`(pk)^\nu `$, we arrive at the following set of amplitudes that describe the $`B\gamma `$ transition:

$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)[g_{\mu \alpha }(pk)p_\alpha k_\mu ]{\displaystyle \frac{F_A}{M_{B_q}}},`$
$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}_q(p)`$ $`=`$ $`e\epsilon ^\alpha (k)ϵ_{\mu \alpha \rho \sigma }p^\rho k^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{F_V}{M_{B_q}}},`$
$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b|\overline{B}_q(p)(pk)^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`e\epsilon ^\alpha (k)[g_{\mu \alpha }(pk)p_\alpha k_\mu ]F_{TA},`$
$`\gamma (k)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b|\overline{B}_q(p)(pk)^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`ie\epsilon ^\alpha (k)ϵ_{\mu \alpha \rho \sigma }p^\rho k^\sigma F_{TV},`$ (11)
where the dimensionless form factors $`F_i`$ are given in terms of the form factors $`g`$, $`a_2`$, $`g_0`$, $`g_2`$ at $`k^2=0`$:

$`F_V=2M_{B_q}g,F_A=M_{B_q}a_2,`$ (12)
$`F_{TV}=g_2[p^2(pk)]g_0,F_{TA}=g_2(pk)g_0.`$ (13)
For a real photon in the final state, the form factors depend on the square of the momentum transfer, $`q^2(pk)^2`$. Equivalently, one may consider the form factors as functions of the photon energy in the $`B`$-meson rest frame,

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2}}\right).`$ (14)
For massless leptons, the kinematically accessible range is

$`0q^2M_B^2,0EE_{\mathrm{max}}=M_B/2.`$ (15)
Then, rewriting Eq. (13) in the form

$`F_{TV}=F_{TA}M_B(M_B2E)g_0,`$ (16)
we derive the following *exact* relation:

$`F_{TA}(E_{\mathrm{max}})`$ $`=`$ $`F_{TV}(E_{\mathrm{max}}).`$ (17)
We stress that the equality of the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ is valid only at $`E=E_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

### II.3 LEET and form factors at large $`𝑬`$

Interesting relations between the form factors emerge in the limit where the initial hadron is heavy and the final photon has a large energy leet . In this case, the form factors may be expanded in inverse powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E`$. As a result, to leading-order accuracy, one finds

$`F_VF_AF_{TA}F_{TV}\zeta _{}^\gamma (E,M_B),`$ (18)
where $`\zeta _{}^\gamma (E,M_B)`$ is the universal form factor for the $`B_q\gamma `$ transition (cf. Ref. leet ).222 For a massive particle in the final state one has two universal form factors $`\zeta _{}(E,M_B)`$ and $`\zeta _{||}(E,M_B)`$. The latter does not contribute in the case of a massless final vector particle. We also note the relation $`\zeta _{}^{B_u\gamma }(E,M_B)=Q_u/Q_d\zeta _{}^{B_d\gamma }(E,M_B)`$, where $`Q_u/Q_d=2`$. We emphasize that this relation is violated by terms of order $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/M_B)`$ and $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E)`$, as well as by radiative corrections of $`O(\alpha _s)`$ beneke .

For large values of $`E`$, the energy dependence of the universal $`B\gamma `$ form factor can be obtained from perturbative QCD, the result being korch

$`\zeta _{}^\gamma (E,M_B)f_BM_B/E.`$ (19)
### II.4 Heavy quark symmetry and form factors at large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

As found by Isgur and Wise iw , in the region of large $`q^2M_B^2`$ the form factors satisfy the relations

$`g_22M_Bg,g_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_B}}(2g+a_2),`$ (20)
which are valid at leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$.333 It should be noted that at large $`q^2`$ there are in general three independent relations between the $`BV`$ form factors. The third relation, however, is automatically satisfied in the case of a photon in the final state, due to the gauge-invariance constraints in Eqs. (4) and (7). Combining these expressions with Eqs. (12) and (13), we derive the following result for the tensor-type form factors in the region of small $`E`$:

$`F_{TV}`$ $``$ $`F_V{\displaystyle \frac{M_BE}{2M_B}}(F_VF_A),`$
$`F_{TA}`$ $``$ $`F_V{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2M_B}}(F_VF_A).`$ (21)
It is obvious that these relations are compatible with those in Eq. (18), which emerge in the region where $`E`$ is large, and hence are valid to leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ in the full range of $`E`$. Yet the leading-order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ relations in Eq. (II.4) may not be sufficient to understand the behavior of the form factors $`F_{V,A}`$ and $`F_{TA,TV}`$ in the region where $`q^2M_B^2`$.

To explain this point, it is useful to express the form factors $`F_i`$ in terms of the Wirbel-Stech-Bauer (WSB) form factors wsb . The advantage of the WSB form factors is that each one has definite spin and parity, and hence contains contributions of resonances with the corresponding quantum numbers. Explicitly, we have

$`F_V=2V^{B\gamma },F_A={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{E}}A_1^{B\gamma },F_{TV}=2T_1^{B\gamma },F_{TA}={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{E}}T_2^{B\gamma }.`$ (22)
Notice that the relation $`F_{TV}=F_{TA}`$ at $`q^2=0`$ (or $`E=M_B/2`$) is just the well-known relation $`T_1(0)=T_2(0)`$. Then, making use of the constraints in Eqs. (4) and (7), which are due to electromagnetic gauge invariance, we obtain exact relations between the WSB form factors that are relevant for the transition into a real photon; namely,

$`T_2^{B\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{2E}{M_B}}T_3^{B\gamma },A_1^{B\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{2E}{M_B}}A_2^{B\gamma }.`$ (23)
By virtue of these relations, we may rewrite Eq. (22) in the form

$`F_A=2A_2^{B\gamma },F_{TA}=2T_3^{B\gamma },`$ (24)
which exhibits the absence of a singular behavior of $`F_A`$ and $`F_{TA}`$.

We now examine the analytic structure of the form factors near $`q^2=M_B^2`$, starting with $`V`$ and $`T_1`$, which have a pole at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$. This pole is located very close to the upper boundary of the physical region, $`q^2=M_B^2`$, since $`M_B^{}M_B=45\mathrm{MeV}O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_b)`$. Moreover, as shown in Refs. ms ; stech , the residues of the form factors $`V`$ and $`T_1`$ in the pole at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$ are equal in the heavy quark limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, $`F_V`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ should be approximately equal and rise steeply as $`q^2M_B^2`$.

As for the form factors $`F_A`$ and $`F_{TA}`$, they are expected to have qualitatively different behavior near $`q^2=M_B^2`$. Indeed, the masses of the resonances that correspond to $`A_2`$ and $`T_3`$ \[Eq. (24)\], denoted by $`B^{}`$, are expected to be several hundred MeV higher than $`M_B`$, since $`M_B^{}M_BO(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$. Thus, singularities of the form factors $`F_A`$ and $`F_{TA}`$ are much farther from the physical region, compared to the form factors $`F_V`$ and $`F_{TV}`$. Consequently, $`F_A`$ and $`F_{TA}`$ are relatively flat as $`q^2M_B^2`$.

It is now clear why the leading-order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ relations (II.4) are not useful for understanding the behavior of the form factors near $`q^2=M_B^2`$. As a matter of fact, at leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ all the $`b\overline{q}`$ resonances with different spins have the same masses, so that all the form factors $`F_i`$ have poles at $`q^2=M_B^2`$ (i.e., at $`E=0`$). This picture is fully consistent with Eq. (II.4), but it is far from reality, since $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$ corrections to the form factor relations in Eq. (II.4) become crucial in the region near $`q^2=M_B^2`$. We expect, then, the following relation between the form factors near $`q^2=M_B^2`$:

$`F_AF_{TA}F_VF_{TV},`$ (25)
in agreement with the resonance location.

### II.5 The general picture of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸`$ form factors

Combining the above information on the form factors, the following picture of the $`B\gamma `$ form factors emerges.

* At $`E=E_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ are equal, $`F_{TA}(E_{\mathrm{max}})=F_{TV}(E_{\mathrm{max}})`$.
* In the region where $`E\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the form factors obey the LEET relation, which is valid to $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$, $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/E)`$, and $`O(\alpha _s)`$ accuracy:

$`F_VF_AF_{TA}F_{TV}f_BM_B/E.`$ (26)
* At large $`q^2M_B^2`$ (i.e., at small $`E`$), the following relation for the form factors should hold:

$`F_AF_{TA}F_VF_{TV}.`$ (27)
We expect these relations to work with $`10`$$`15\%`$ accuracy.

Given these features, we now turn to the analysis of existing predictions for the $`B\gamma `$ form factors.

#### II.5.1 Form factors $`F_A`$ and $`F_V`$

The form factors $`F_A`$ and $`F_V`$ for the $`B_d\gamma `$ transition have been calculated in Ref. ms  within the dispersion approach of Ref. m .444 The form factors $`F_{A,V}`$ for the $`B_u\gamma `$ transition have been calculated in Refs. ali ; eilam:etal  using light-cone sum rules. These results agree with the results from the dispersion approach ms . It should be noted that the form factors $`F_{A,V}`$ for the $`B_u\gamma `$ transition have the opposite sign and are approximately twice as big as the corresponding form factors $`F_{A,V}`$ for the $`B_d\gamma `$ transition; see the discussion in Ref. ms . For large and intermediate values of $`E`$, these form factors can be well parametrized by a particularly simple formula:

$`F(E)=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{f_BM_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }+E}},`$ (28)
with $`f_B=0.2`$ GeV, $`M_B=5.28`$ GeV, and $`\beta _V\beta _A=O(1/m_b)`$ in accord with LEET. In order to use this formula for the form factors in the full range of $`E`$, we should take into account that the form factors $`F_V`$ and $`F_A`$ have, respectively, poles at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$ and $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_V=M_B^{}M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=M_B^{}M_B`$. Although the masses of the positive-parity states with higher spins $`B^{}`$ are not known, we can use data on $`D`$ mesons to estimate the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A0.3`$$`0.4`$ GeV; here we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=0.3`$ GeV. The numerical parameters are listed in Table 1.

The maximal difference between the form factors at $`E=0`$ is at the level of $`50\%`$. The difference between $`F_A`$ and $`F_V`$ is around $`10\%`$ for $`E0.7`$ GeV, indicating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ corrections to the LEET relation between the form factors at the level of $`5`$$`10\%`$.

#### II.5.2 Form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$

There are several calculations of the $`B\gamma `$ form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ available in the literature aliev ; geng . Let us check whether the results for the form factors satisfy the constraints derived above.

(i) The light-cone sum rule calculation of Ref. aliev  predicts the form factors $`F_{TV}F_{TA}`$ for large values of $`E`$, including $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$, which points to a very strong violation of the LEET relations. More importantly, the exact relation in Eq. (17) between the form factors at $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is also drastically violated. Thus, we conclude that the calculation of form factors performed in Ref. aliev  cannot be trusted.

(ii) The quark model calculation of Ref. geng  satisfies the exact constraint in Eq. (17), with values of the form factors $`F_{TA}=F_{TV}=0.115`$ at $`q^2=0`$ (or, equivalently, $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=M_B/2`$) geng:private . Taking into account the LEET relation (18), this value is in agreement with our results for the form factors $`F_A=0.09`$ and $`F_V=0.105`$ at $`q^2=0`$. On the other hand, there are several features of the predicted form factors that do not seem realistic. First, as can be seen from Fig. 1 of Ref. geng , the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ differ considerably, with $`F_{TA}F_{TV}`$ for the values of $`E0.5`$$`1`$ GeV. This signals a very strong violation of the LEET condition, with corrections of the order of several hundred percent. Let us recall that the form factors may indeed be very different in the region $`q^2M_B^2`$, since $`F_{TV}`$ contains a pole at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$ while $`F_{TA}`$ does not. But then one would expect the relation $`F_{TV}F_{TA}`$, opposite to the one obtained in Ref. geng . Second, the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ of Ref. geng  vanish at $`q^2=M_B^2`$. Taking into account that the form factor $`F_{TV}`$ contains a pole at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$, it seems very unlikely that the form factor $`F_{TV}`$ vanishes at $`q^2=M_B^2`$. Therefore, the predictions of Ref. geng  for values of $`q^210`$ GeV2 cannot be considered very reliable.

To sum up: There are no fully convincing results for the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$; thus, for the analysis of the FB asymmetry, we prefer to rely upon a simple model for the $`B\gamma `$ transition form factors which satisfies explicitly all the constraints discussed above.

### II.6 Model for the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸`$ form factors

We assume the ansatz in Eq. (28) to be valid for all $`B_{d,s}\gamma `$ form factors with their own constants. Together with the condition in Eq. (16), this leads to the following relation between the parameters of $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{TV}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{TV}+M_B/2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{TA}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{TA}+M_B/2}},`$ (29)
such that $`\beta _{TV}\beta _{TA}=O(1/m_b)`$. Furthermore, according to our arguments mentioned above, we set

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{TV}=\mathrm{\Delta }_V,\mathrm{\Delta }_{TA}=\mathrm{\Delta }_A.`$ (30)
The remaining parameter to be fixed is the constant $`\beta _{TV}`$, for which we write

$`\beta _{TV}=(1+\delta )\beta _V,`$ (31)
and choose $`\delta =0.1`$ according to the result of Ref. geng . This completes our simple model for the form factors which are consistent with the exact relations at $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$, LEET at large $`E`$, and heavy quark symmetry at small $`E`$. Table 1 contains the various numerical parameters for the $`B_d\gamma `$ form factors, and Fig. 1 shows the form factors in our model as a function of the scaled photon energy, $`x2E/M_B`$.

For the $`B_s\gamma `$ transition, we do not know the precise values of the form factors, but we shall assume that the LEET-violating effects in the $`B_s\gamma `$ form factors have the same structure as those in the $`B_d\gamma `$ transition. With this assumption, the form factors as given in Table 1 are sufficient for the analysis of the FB asymmetry in the $`B_s\gamma l^+l^{}`$ decay presented in the next section.

## III Forward-backward asymmetry in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝜸𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝒍^{\mathbf{}}`$

We now assess the implications of our form factor model for the FB asymmetry of $`\mu ^{}`$ in the decay $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Referring to Refs. sehgal ; aliev ; eilam:etal ; geng , the radiative dilepton decay receives various contributions. The main contribution in the case of light leptons comes from the so-called structure-dependent (SD) part, where the photon is emitted from the external quark line. Contributions coming from photons attached to charged internal lines are suppressed by $`m_b^2/M_W^2`$ eilam:etal . The bremsstrahlung contribution due to emission of the photon from the external leptons is suppressed by the mass of the light leptons $`l=e,\mu `$ and affects the photon energy spectrum only in the low $`E`$ region sehgal ; geng .

Neglecting the bremsstrahlung contributions, the decay is then governed by the effective Hamiltonian describing the $`bsl^+l^{}`$ decay, together with the form factors parametrizing the $`B\gamma `$ transition, as discussed in the preceding section. Using the effective Hamiltonian for $`bsl^+l^{}`$ in the SM heff:SM , the matrix element is ($`m_s=0`$)

$`_{\mathrm{SD}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[(c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l+c_{10}\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5l)\gamma (k)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb|\overline{B}_s(p)`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}m_b}{q^2}}\gamma (k)|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu P_Rb|\overline{B}_s(p)\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu l],`$
where $`q=pk`$ and $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$. Within the SM, the Wilson coefficients, including next-to-leading-order corrections heff:SM , have numerical values ($`m_t=166\mathrm{GeV}`$)

$`c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.330,c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}=c_9+Y(q^2),c_9=4.182,c_{10}=4.234,`$ (33)
where the function $`Y`$ denotes contributions from the one-loop matrix elements of four-quark operators (see Ref. heff:SM  for details), and has absorptive parts for $`q^2>4m_c^2`$. In addition to the short-distance contributions, there are also $`c\overline{c}`$ resonant intermediate states such as $`J/\psi ,\psi ^{}`$, etc., which we will take into account by utilizing $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data, as described in Ref. res:exp .

Defining the angle $`\theta `$ between the three-momentum vectors of $`\mu ^{}`$ and the photon in the dilepton centre-of-mass system, and recalling the scaled energy variable $`x2E/M_{B_s}`$ in the $`B_s`$ rest frame, we obtain the differential decay rate ($`\widehat{m}_im_i/M_{B_s}`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_s\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{})}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^3M_{B_s}^5}{2^{11}\pi ^4}}|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2x^3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_\mu ^2}{1x}}\right)^{1/2}[B_0(x)+B_1(x)\mathrm{cos}\theta +B_2(x)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ].`$ (34)
Here, we have summed over the spins of the particles in the final state, and have introduced the auxiliary functions

$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`(1x+4\widehat{m}_\mu ^2)(F_1+F_2)8\widehat{m}_\mu ^2|c_{10}|^2(F_V^2+F_A^2),`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`8\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_\mu ^2}{1x}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{Re}\{c_{10}[c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(1x)F_VF_A+c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{m}_b(F_VF_{TA}+F_AF_{TV})]\},`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`(1x4\widehat{m}_\mu ^2)(F_1+F_2),`$ (35)
with the form factors defined in Eq. (II.2), and

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`(|c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2+|c_{10}|^2)F_V^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4|c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2\widehat{m}_b^2}{(1x)^2}}F_{TV}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}c_9^{\mathrm{eff}})\widehat{m}_b}{1x}}F_VF_{TV},`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`(|c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2+|c_{10}|^2)F_A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4|c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2\widehat{m}_b^2}{(1x)^2}}F_{TA}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}c_9^{\mathrm{eff}})\widehat{m}_b}{1x}}F_AF_{TA}.`$ (36)
Recall that the Wilson coefficient $`c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ \[Eq. (33)\] depends on $`x`$ via $`q^2=M_{B_s}^2(1x)`$.

The term odd in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in Eq. (34) produces a FB asymmetry, defined as555Note that the FB asymmetry is equivalent to the asymmetry in the $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ energy spectra discussed in Ref. sehgal . Our results in Eqs. (34) and (38) agree with those given in that paper.

$`A_{\text{FB}}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}}{{\displaystyle _0^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}+{\displaystyle _1^0}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}}},`$ (37)
which is given by

$`A_{\text{FB}}(x)=3\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{m}_\mu ^2}{1x}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\{c_{10}[c_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(1x)F_VF_A+c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{m}_b(F_VF_{TA}+F_AF_{TV})]\}}{[(F_1+F_2)(1x+2\widehat{m}_\mu ^2)6\widehat{m}_\mu ^2|c_{10}|^2(F_V^2+F_A^2)]}}.`$ (38)
Note that there are also non-factorizable radiative corrections to the asymmetry which are not contained in the transition form factors.666In the case of the $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$ decay these corrections were analysed in beneke .

We plot in Fig. 2 the FB asymmetry as a function of the scaled photon energy $`x`$, by using our model for the form factors, Eq. (28), and the universal form factors, Eq. (18). In the latter case, omitting the non-factorizable corrections the dependence on the form factors drops out completely, and so the asymmetry is fully determined by the Wilson coefficients.

From Fig. 2 one infers an interesting feature of $`A_{\text{FB}}(x)`$ in the SM: namely, for a given photon energy $`x=x_0`$, and far from the $`c\overline{c}`$ resonances, the FB asymmetry vanishes. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the $`1/M_B`$ and $`1/E`$ corrections to the form factors, which are taken into account by our form factor model, Eq. (28), shift the location of the zero by only a few percent, and do not change the qualitative picture of the asymmetry for $`x0.4`$. Using the numerical values of the standard model Wilson coefficients given in Eq. (33), together with $`m_b=4.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, we obtain $`x_00.85`$$`0.88`$ depending on the form factors used. Notice again that the location of zero is further affected by non-factorizable radiative corrections beneke .

We would like to emphasize that the absence of the zero in the SM forward-backward asymmetry in the region $`x0.7`$ reported in asym  is due to using the form factors of Ref. aliev , inconsistent with the rigorous constraints discussed in the present paper. In view of this, the various distributions and asymmetries calculated in Refs. bllg:decay ; asym  with the form factors of Ref. aliev  should be revised.

## IV Conclusions

We have analysed the form factors that describe the $`B\gamma `$ transition, and investigated their implications for the FB asymmetry of the muon in the decay $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, within the SM. Our results are as follows.

* We have derived an exact relation for the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ of the $`B\gamma `$ transition induced by tensor and pseudotensor currents at maximum photon energy:

$`F_{TA}(E_{\mathrm{max}})=F_{TV}(E_{\mathrm{max}}).`$ (39)
* We have investigated the resonance structure of the form factors at $`q^2M_B^2`$ and found that singularities of $`F_T`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ are located much closer to the edge of the physical region (i.e., $`q^2=M_B^2`$) than those of the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_A`$. Hence we expect $`F_T`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ to rise rapidly as $`q^2M_B^2`$ but $`F_A`$ and $`F_{TA}`$ to remain relatively flat, so that at $`q^2M_B^2`$ we have the relation

$`F_AF_{TA}F_VF_{TV}.`$ (40)
This behavior indicates a strong violation of the Isgur-Wise relations between the form factors at large $`q^2`$.
* We have found a serious discrepancy between the just-mentioned constraints and existing calculations of the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ from QCD sum rules aliev  and quark models geng :

(i) the form factors of Ref. aliev  violate both the exact constraint (39) and the relations expected from the large energy effective theory (18);

(ii) the form factors of Ref. geng  signal a very strong violation of the LEET relation \[Eq. (18)\]. Moreover, the vanishing of the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ at $`q^2=M_B^2`$ in geng  contradicts the resonance structure of these form factors.
* We would like to stress that there is an important relation between the universal form factors describing the $`B_u\gamma `$ and $`B_d\gamma `$ transitions:

$`\zeta _{}^{B_u\gamma }(E,M_B)=Q_u/Q_d\zeta _{}^{B_d\gamma }(E,M_B),`$ (41)
where $`Q_{u,d}`$ represent the charge of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. As a consequence of this relation, the form factors $`F_{A,V,TA,TV}`$ of the $`B_u\gamma `$ transition have opposite sign, and their moduli are approximately twice as big as the corresponding form factors of the $`B_d\gamma `$ transition. Furthermore, it is worth emphasizing that this relation has not been properly taken into account in Ref. aliev  when using the $`B_u\gamma `$ form factors of Ref. eilam:etal  for the description of the $`B_{d,s}\gamma l^+l^{}`$ decay.
* By using the exact relation between the form factors $`F_{TA}`$ and $`F_{TV}`$ at $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the resonance structure of the form factors in the region $`q^2M_B^2`$, and the LEET relations $`F_AF_VF_{TA}F_{TV}`$ valid for $`E\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, we proposed a simple parametrization for the form factors:

$`F_i(E)=\beta _i{\displaystyle \frac{M_Bf_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i+E}},i=A,V,TA,TV.`$ (42)
The numerical parameters (Table 1) have been fixed by utilizing reliable data on the form factors at large and intermediate values of the photon energy.
* We have applied our form factor model to the FB asymmetry of the muon in $`\overline{B}_s\gamma \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay. Comparing the distribution of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ based on these form factors with the one obtained by using the leading-order LEET form factors shows that the behavior of the FB asymmetry remains essentially unchanged in the region $`x=2E/M_{B_s}0.4`$.

Our analysis confirms the result of Ref. sehgal  that the shape of the FB asymmetry as well as the location of its zero are typical for the SM. We point out that the asymmetries and distributions reported in a number of recent publications bllg:decay ; asym  should be revised as they are based on the form factors of Ref. aliev  which are inconsistent with the rigorous constraints on the form factors.

According to the above results we conclude that the FB asymmetry in the $`B\gamma l^+l^{}`$ decay, particularly its zero arising in the SM, can be predicted with small theoretical uncertainties. This is similar to the decay $`BK^{}l^+l^{}`$, where a full next-to-leading-order calculation (second reference in beneke ) shows that a measurement of the zero of the FB asymmetry would allow a determination of $`c_7^{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{Re}(c_9^{\mathrm{eff}})`$ at the 10% level. (This order of magnitude should also hold in the case of the $`B\gamma l^+l^{}`$ decay.)

To sum up, the study of the decay $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$ at future hadron collider experiments will provide complementary information on the structure of the underlying effective Hamiltonian describing $`bsl^+l^{}`$ transitions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Berthold Stech for valuable discussions. F.K. has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under contract Bu.706/1-1. D.M. would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Bayesian analysis of magnetic island dynamics

## I Introduction

Magnetic islands are structures appearing on resonant surfaces of plasmas in toroidal magnetic confinement devices. They have been found to limit the maximum achievable energy which can be stored in a fusion plasma and may therefore be a problem for a future reactor. Concepts of stabilizing the plasma in order to handle these instabilities include electron cyclotron current drive which can only be useful if it is accurately adjusted to the needed quantity. Therefore a thorough understanding of the island is necessary.

The time dependence of the magnetic island width $`W`$ is theoretically described by the generalized Rutherford equation sau97 . This first order nonlinear differential equation with respect to time contains in our case three free parameters which have to be determined from measured data since theoretical considerations can only provide estimates for these values. They are assigned to three terms describing stabilizing and destabilizing effects in the plasma, i.e. the bootstrap effect (with parameter $`a_{BS}`$), the Glasser-Greene-Johnson effect ($`a_{GGJ}`$) and the polarization currents ($`a_{pol}`$). We use a simplified form of the Rutherford equation which comprises the relevant dependencies on the parameters $`\stackrel{}{a}^T=(a_{BS},a_{GGJ},a_{pol})`$ only. The full account of all physical constants and time dependent quantities may be found in zoh97 .

$$\frac{dW(t)}{dt}=\mathrm{const}+a_{BS}c_{BS}(t)\frac{W(t)}{W_{min}^2+W(t)^2}a_{GGJ}c_{GGJ}(t)\frac{1}{W(t)}a_{pol}c_{pol}(t)\frac{1}{W(t)^3}.$$
(1)
$`W_{min}`$=1.8cm is the minimum width of an island. The variables $`c_{BS}`$, $`c_{GGJ}`$ and $`c_{pol}`$ contain fundamental constants and time dependent input quantities like plasma temperature or pressure.

## II Generating the data

The data is obtained from the so called Mirnov coils which are distributed poloidally around the torus and measure any change of the poloidal magnetic field. The time variation $`dm/dt`$ of the magnetic flux $`m(t)`$ through the Mirnov coil is proportional to the recorded signal. We are interested in the time evolution of the amplitude $`m`$ of the integrated signal which can be connected to the magnetic island width $`W`$ via

$$W(t)=\sqrt{\frac{m(t)m_o}{b}},$$
(2)
where $`m_o`$ is the offset of the magnetic signal and $`b`$ a proportionality constant. Additional information about the absolute size of the magnetic island for a certain time comes from the electron cyclotron emission (ECE) diagnostic. From this we know that $`W_{ECE}=7`$cm within a range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE}=1`$cm. This information will be used later in setting up a prior.

### II.1 Extracting the data from the Mirnov signal

The original signal from the Mirnov coils is shown in Fig. 1.

A closer look (upper graph in Fig. 2) reveals two kinds of structures: On the one hand peaks at intervals of approximately 3-5ms which are due to an edge plasma phenomena where energy and particles are expelled out of the confined region, and on the other hand the signal originating from the change of the magnetic field which shows sinusoidal behavior (interval approximately 0.08ms) with an amplitude connected to the magnetic island width. This is the information we want to extract.

First one has to identify the positions of the peaky structures. Since the height of the peaks is not everywhere larger than the highest amplitude of the sinusoidal signal we can not simply look for all points which are higher than a certain level. Fortunately the two structures live on two different scales in frequency domain. Therefore we Fourier transform (FFT) the complete data set and discard all the higher frequencies which refer to the sinusoidal structure (see Fig. 2). Back transformation gives then a signal where peaks are easy to identify. With the peak positions at hand we are set to go for the amplitude of the sinusoidal structure in between two peaks. Again Fourier transformation is applied where in addition we integrate over time and are finally left with the magnetic signal $`m`$ shown in Figs. 3 and 4 .

### II.2 Finding the valid range of the model

The Rutherford equation (1) describes the dynamics of a magnetic island considering certain plasma physics effects. However, at the onset of the mode the magnetic island is not stabilized and subjected to fluctuations which are not covered by the model used. We therefore have to identify the region in which the Rutherford equation is valid.

Fig. 3 depicts the amplitude of the magnetic signal. The left part differs from the right one where the island has stabilized in amplitude and noise and we have to look for the certain time incident $`t_c=t(N_c)`$ when the change of the behavior happens – a typical Bayesian change point problem. Since we are out for the change point only we describe the time variation of the amplitude of the magnetic signal by low order polynomials

$`m_i={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\alpha _kt_i^k,iN_c,`$ (3)
$`m_i={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{K}{}}}\beta _kt_i^k,i>N_c.`$ (4)
For convenience we use matrix notation in the following, with matrix elements $`\{\text{M}\}_{k1,i}=t_i^k`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }^T=(\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _K)`$. The index $`<`$ ($`>`$) denotes time points before (after) the change point. The data is corrupted by noise:

$`\stackrel{}{m}_<=\text{M}_<\stackrel{}{\alpha }+\epsilon _<,`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{}{m}_>=\text{M}_>\stackrel{}{\beta }+\epsilon _>.`$ (6)
Again we assume $`\epsilon _{</>}=0`$ and $`\epsilon _{</>}^2=\sigma _{</>}^2`$. Then the likelihood reads

$`p(\stackrel{}{m}|N_c,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\beta },\sigma _<,\sigma _>,I)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \sigma _<^2)^{N_c/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \sigma _>^2)^{(NN_c)/2}}}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sigma _<^2}}(\stackrel{}{m}_<\text{M}_<\stackrel{}{\alpha })^T(\stackrel{}{m}_<\text{M}_<\stackrel{}{\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sigma _>^2}}(\stackrel{}{m}_>\text{M}_>\stackrel{}{\beta })^T(\stackrel{}{m}_>\text{M}_>\stackrel{}{\beta })\right\}.`$ (7)
We need the posterior distribution for the change point. With the help of Bayes theorem we get

$$p(N_c|\stackrel{}{m},I)=\frac{p(N_c|I)}{p(\stackrel{}{m}|I)}p(\stackrel{}{m}|N_c,I).$$
(8)
The nominator in the fraction is the prior distribution in absence of any data which is a constant $`p(N_c|I)=\mathrm{const}`$ since no change point is preferred, but limits the possible values to $`K+1<N_c<NK1`$. The marginal likelihood $`p(\stackrel{}{m}|N_c,I)`$ is obtained by marginalizing over all parameters in (7).

$$p(\stackrel{}{m}|N_c,I)=d\stackrel{}{\alpha }d\stackrel{}{\beta }d\sigma _<d\sigma _>p(\stackrel{}{m}|N_c,\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\beta },\sigma _<,\sigma _>,I)p(\stackrel{}{\alpha },\stackrel{}{\beta }|I)p(\sigma _<,\sigma _>|I).$$
(9)
For the prior in $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ we take a constant but use Jeffreys prior for $`p(\sigma _<,\sigma _>|I)=1/(\sigma _<\sigma _>)`$. All integrations can be performed analytically and finally yield

$`p(N_c|\stackrel{}{m},I)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\text{M}_<^T\text{M}_<}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{N_cK}{2}\right)}{\left[\stackrel{}{m}_<^T\stackrel{}{m}_<\stackrel{}{m}_<^T\text{M}_<(\text{M}_<^T\text{M}_<)^1\text{M}_<^T\stackrel{}{m}_<\right]^{(N_cK)/2}}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\text{M}_>^T\text{M}_>}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{NN_cK}{2}\right)}{\left[\stackrel{}{m}_>^T\stackrel{}{m}_>\stackrel{}{m}_>^T\text{M}_>(\text{M}_>^T\text{M}_>)^1\text{M}_>^T\stackrel{}{m}_>\right]^{(NN_cK)/2}}}.`$
The posterior change point distribution is shown in Fig. 3 for a polynomial with order $`K=4`$. We checked order three to five to get the same result.

## III Likelihood and Prior

The measured quantity in Eq. (2) is the magnetic signal $`m`$ with measurement uncertainty $`\epsilon `$. It is given in the form of a time series with $`N`$ successive events, where we can write

$$m_i=m_o+bW_i(\stackrel{}{a})^2+ϵ,i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(11)
Assuming that $`ϵ=0`$ and $`ϵ^2=\sigma ^2`$ we get by virtue of the principle of maximum entropy the likelihood siv96

$$p(\stackrel{}{m}|m_o,b,\stackrel{}{a},\sigma ,I)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \sigma ^2)^{N/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[m_im_obW_i(\stackrel{}{a})^2\right]^2\right\}.$$
(12)
Next step is the assignment of prior distributions for the conditional dependencies on $`m_o`$, $`b`$, the free parameters $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and $`\sigma `$. Due to the above mentioned treatment of Fourier transforming the data back and forth we loose any information about the actual scatter originating from the measurement process. All we know is that a variance $`\sigma `$ exists and that it functions like a scale parameter – justified reasons for employing Jeffreys prior.

$$p(\sigma |I)=\frac{1}{\sigma }.$$
(13)
Looking at the data before or after the formation of the magnetic island provides an estimate $`\stackrel{~}{m}_o`$ and its uncertainty $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{m}_o}`$ for the offset and leads to a Gaussian prior distribution

$$p(m_o|\stackrel{~}{m}_o,\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{m}_o},I)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{m}_o}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{(m_o\stackrel{~}{m}_o)^2}{\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{m}_o}^2}\right\}.$$
(14)
The ECE measurement is a constraint on the range of the proportionality constant $`b`$. Given a certain value for the offset $`m_o`$ we insert $`W_{ECE}`$ in Eq. (2) which gives an estimate $`b_{ECE}=(m_{ECE}m_o)/W_{ECE}^2`$. The ECE measurement uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE}`$ may be used in order to set up an upper and lower limit: $`b_{up/low}=(m_{ECE}m_o)/(W_{ECE}/+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE})^2`$ A convenient prior function given an estimate within boundaries is the beta prior gcs95 . However, it operates for values between 0 and 1 only, so we have to renormalize $`x(b)=(bb_{low})/(b_{up}b_{low})`$:

$$p(b|m_o,W_{ECE},\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE},m_{ECE},I)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(v)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(u+v)}x(b)^{u1}[1x(b)]^{v1},$$
(15)
where

$$u=\frac{(1\mu _b)\mu _b\sigma _b^2}{\sigma _b^2}\mu _b,v=\frac{1\mu _b}{\mu _b}u$$
(16)
and

$$\mu _b=x(b_{ECE}),\sigma _b=\frac{2}{b_{up}b_{low}}\frac{b_{ECE}}{W_{ECE}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE}.$$
(17)
From theoretical considerations we have some idea about the quantities of the free parameters but unfortunately only for certain ideal configurations of the confined plasma. $`a_{BS}=1.7`$, $`a_{GGJ}=65/9`$ and $`a_{pol}=7`$ are provided by literature sau97 ; wil96 . The maximum entropy principle gives us in this case an exponential function.

$$p(\stackrel{}{a}|\stackrel{}{a}_o,I)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{a_{oj}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{a_j}{a_{oj}}\right\}.$$
(18)
## IV Parameter Estimation

We are out for the parameters of the Rutherford equation $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ together with $`m_o`$ and $`b`$ from Eq. (2). In the expectation value for a component of $`\stackrel{}{\theta }^T=(m_o,b,a_{BS},a_{GGJ},a_{pol})`$ we marginalize over all variables entering the likelihood Eq. (12):

$$\theta _j=\frac{d\theta _j\theta _jp(\theta _j|\stackrel{}{m},I)}{d\theta _jp(\theta _j|\stackrel{}{m},I)}=\frac{d\stackrel{}{\theta }\theta _jd\sigma p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |\stackrel{}{m},I)}{d\stackrel{}{\theta }d\sigma p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |\stackrel{}{m},I)}=d\stackrel{}{\theta }\theta _j\rho (\stackrel{}{\theta }).$$
(19)
$`\rho (\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ may be used as a sampling density in Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Invoking Bayes theorem

$$p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |\stackrel{}{m},I)=\frac{p(\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma ,I)p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |I)}{p(\stackrel{}{m}|I)}$$
(20)
gives

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{\theta })=\frac{d\sigma p(\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma ,I)p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |I)}{d\stackrel{}{\theta }\theta _jd\sigma p(\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma ,I)p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |I)}.$$
(21)
The full prior in Eq. (21) disentangles into the functions given in Eqn. (14,15,18,13)

$$p(\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma |I)=p(m_o|\stackrel{~}{m}_o,\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{m}_o},I)p(b|m_o,W_{ECE},\mathrm{\Delta }_{ECE},m_{ECE},I)p(\stackrel{}{a}|\stackrel{}{a}_o,I)p(\sigma |I).$$
(22)
The integration over $`\sigma `$ can be treated analytically and results in

$$d\sigma p(\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{\theta },\sigma ,I)p(\sigma |I)\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[m_im_obW_i(\stackrel{}{a})^2\right]^2\right\}^{\frac{N1}{2}}.$$
(23)
The final integrations over the parameters $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ are performed numerically by employing MCMC, while the first order differential equation (1) is solved applying second order Runge-Kutta method.

## V Results

The analysis is performed for discharge #12238 of the plasma device ASDEX Upgrade.

Fig. 4 depicts the dynamics of the magnetic island width. The thin line is the width obtained from the magnetic signal $`m`$ employing Eq. 2 with the expectation values of $`m_o`$ and $`b`$ from the analysis (see table 1).

Only that time interval of the complete signal is examined which comprises the island after is has stabilized until the temperature signal shows decoupling from the behavior of the collapsing island. The comparison with the experimental data (thin line) gives a very good agreement. The accompanying parameters are given in table 1.

## VI Summary

Bayesian analysis was employed in order to identify the valid region in a data set needed for further examinations. The evolving data was used to determine free parameters in the Rutherford equation, a first order nonlinear differential equation describing the magnetic island dynamics in toroidally confined plasmas.


text:
# CERN-TH/2002-184IFT - 32/2002hep-ph/0208076August 2002 Precision muon 𝑔-2 results and light Higgs bosons in the 2HDM(II)

## 1 Introduction

A precision measurement of the $`g2`$ for the muon at BNL is expected to test the electroweak (EW) sector of the Standard Model (SM) and at the same time to shed light on possible effects of “new physics”. After a release of the new E821 result , based on the $`\mu ^+`$ data collected in the year 2000, a current mean of experimental results for $`(g2)_\mu `$ is (:

$$a_\mu ^{exp}\frac{(g2)_\mu ^{exp}}{2}=11659203(8)\times 10^{10},$$
(1)
with an uncertainty (in parentheses) that is almost two times smaller than in the previous measurement , and only two times larger than the ultimate goal of the E821 experiment.

The Standard Model prediction for $`a_\mu `$ consists of the QED, EW and hadronic contributions:

$$a_\mu ^{SM}=a_\mu ^{QED}+a_\mu ^{EW}+a_\mu ^{had}.$$

The QED contribution, which constitutes the bulk of the SM contributions, is calculated up to four loops and the $`𝒪(\alpha ^5)`$ term is estimated ; its uncertainty is very small $``$ $`3\times 10^{11}`$. The EW contribution, based on one- and two-loop diagrams, is also known to a similar accuracy \[4–8\] The EW contribution is small (152 $`\times 10^{11}`$) and is only about two times larger than the present experimental uncertainty (see (1)). The hadronic contribution, $``$ 7000 $`\times 10^{11}`$, is the second largest contribution to $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$. It is known at present with an accuracy of 1 %. This uncertainty is the main source of the uncertainty in the SM prediction. Predictions for the hadronic contribution \[9-21\] differ among themselves, however, these differences seem to be much less significant than, say, one year ago (see e.g. discussions in \[11,12,17-21\], and also in ). The dominant contribution to $`a_\mu ^{had}`$, as well as one of the dominant errors in its value, come from the leading vacuum-polarization (vp1) term. Some preliminary results of the improved calculations of the vp1 have been presented recently . These are data-driven analyses using the most recent data on hadron production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions from BES, CMD-2, SND . The corresponding uncertainties for the vp1, $`58\times 10^{11}`$, are now even smaller than those obtained previously by using the data on $`\tau `$ decays in addition to the then available $`e^+e^{}`$ data, e.g. see . Another important issue has been the hadronic contribution to the light-by-light (lbl) scattering, and its contribution to $`(g2)_\mu `$. After a sign error, first pointed out in , was found in the earlier calculations of this contribution, a few re-evaluations  of this part have appeared during the last few months. All of them confirm the finding of , i.e. a positive sign of the lbl contribution. The central value for the lbl varies from 80 to $`110\times 10^{11}`$, depending on the analysis. Since this contribution can be estimated only on a purely theoretical ground, it has a sizeable uncertainty of the order of $`40\times 10^{11}`$  (or maybe even larger, as discussed in ).

The latest SM predictions and the present world average of the experimental result (1) differ by $``$ 3$`\sigma `$ (a theoretical and experimental error combined in quadrature), if preliminary results of the evaluation of the vp1 contribution from  are used together with the estimation for the lbl given in . The significant progress in the reduction of the error on the experimental side and the stabilization of the SM prediction of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ makes it essential for the possible implications of the $`(g2)_\mu `$ results to be reanalysed. The issue of whether this is a signal of supersymmetry is already being addressed . Here we focus on the implication of the latest $`(g2)_\mu `$ results for the light-Higgs boson scenarios in the non-supersymmetric, CP-conserving Two-Higgs-Doublet-Model (2HDM) in its version called “Model II”; this is a continuation of earlier studies .

In sec. 2 we collect some results based on the recent calculations of $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$. As a reference for the vp1 contribution we take the $`e^+e^{}`$ data-driven analysis done by Jegerlehner , FJ02, where the new CMD-2 results were used. The difference between the experimental data and the SM prediction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}`$, can be used to derive stringent constraints on the parameters of models, which give additional contribution(s) to $`a_\mu `$. We calculate the interval $`\delta a_\mu `$, which can then be used to constrain any such contribution, at 95% CL. In sec. 3 we introduce the 2HDM(II), which we wish to constrain using this interval, and discuss briefly the existing constraints. In sec. 4 we derive the 95% CL limits on the parameters of this model, using $`\delta a_\mu `$. Section 5 contains the combined constraints, while the conclusions and outlook are given in sec. 6.

## 2 The $`g2`$ for the muon: the new experimental <br>and theoretical results

Here we collect the SM contributions (and their uncertainties), which we take into account in our analysis. First we discuss the hadronic contributions (see table 1). We use the higher order contribution from  and, for the lbl scattering contribution, we take an estimate from . The leading vacuum polarization contribution is taken from a preliminary result of an analysis by Jegerlehner, FJ02 , where the experimental input is based only on the $`e^+e^{}`$ data, including the latest ones from CMD-2 . We sum all the hadronic contributions, adding in quadrature the corresponding errors. This leads us to the result for $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ given in the last row of table 1 (which we label by the author of the analysis of the vp1 contribution).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{TABLE}1\hfill & \\ & \\ & \\ \mathrm{Hadronic}\mathrm{contribution}\hfill & \hfill [\mathrm{in}10^{11}]\\ & \\ \mathrm{ho}\text{[16]}\hfill & \hfill 100(6)\\ \mathrm{lbl}\text{[20]}\hfill & \hfill 80(40)\\ \mathrm{vp1}\text{[13]}\hfill & \hfill 6889(58)\\ & \\ & \\ \mathrm{had}[\mathrm{FJ02}]\hfill & \hfill 6869(71)\end{array}$$

We take the QED and EW terms from  and , respectively (see table 2). We then calculate the total SM prediction presented in this table, by adding the QED and EW to the full hadronic contributions, and by adding in quadrature the corresponding errors. This leads us to the SM prediction (we label it, as above, by the author of the analysis of the vp1 contribution):

$$[\mathrm{FJ02}]a_\mu ^{SM}=116591726.7(70.9)\times 10^{11}.$$
(2)
Taking the new world average we calculate the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, defined as the difference between the central values of the experimental and theoretical (SM) predictions for $`a_\mu `$. The error for this quantity we estimate by adding in quadrature the corresponding experimental and theoretical errors, $`\sigma =\sqrt{\sigma _{exp}^2+\sigma _{SM}^2}`$. Next we calculate the regions of $`\delta a_\mu `$, allowed at 95% CL, assuming Gaussian errors. This leads to an interval symmetric around $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, quoted in the last row of table 2.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{TABLE}2\hfill & \\ & \\ & \\ \mathrm{SM}\mathrm{contribution}\hfill & \hfill [\mathrm{in}10^{11}]\\ & \\ \mathrm{QED}\hfill & \hfill 116584705.7(2.9)\\ \mathrm{had}[\mathrm{FJ02}]\hfill & \hfill 6869.0(70.7)\\ \mathrm{EW}\hfill & \hfill 152.0(4.0)\\ & \\ \mathrm{tot}\hfill & \hfill 116591726.7(70.9)\\ & \\ & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )\hfill & \hfill 303.3(106.9)\\ & \\ \mathrm{lim}(95\%)\hfill & \hfill 93.8\delta a_\mu 512.8\end{array}$$

The 95% CL interval $`\delta a_\mu `$ thus obtained is positive, and hence it leads to an allowed positive contribution (an allowed band). At the same time it also leads to the exclusion of any negative contribution to the $`a_\mu `$. Note that the additional positive contribution to $`a_\mu `$ can be up to a few times larger than the EW one.

Using results for the vp1 contribution obtained by the HMNT group , from their “exclusive” analysis, the values we get for $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )`$ and $`\delta a_\mu `$, are numerically very close to those obtained above, using the FJ02 analysis. Keeping all the other contributions as before, but with the HMNT(ex) results for the vp1 term , we get, in units of $`10^{11}`$,

$$[\mathrm{HMNT}(\mathrm{ex})]:\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )=297.0(107.2)87.2\delta a_\mu 507.4,$$
(3)
while their “inclusive” analysis leads to a more stringent constraint, namely

$$[\mathrm{HMNT}(\mathrm{in})]:\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu (\sigma )=357.2(106.4)148.7\delta a_\mu 565.7.$$
(4)
Note that the above 95% CL intervals are positive for both the HMNT results, just as in the FJ02 case. Also note that the relative differences between the upper bounds in all three analyses are small (below 10%). However, the use of HMNT “inclusive” analysis leads to a lower bound, which is relatively much higher (up to 70%) than in the FJ02 and HMNT(ex) cases.

The other recently published SM predictions , to which the BNL paper  refers, were obtained from analyses of the vp1 contribution based on the older, often not very precise $`e^+e^{}`$ data. To improve the accuracy of the estimation of the vp1 part, $`\tau `$ decay data were included in addition in those analyses. However, predictions obtained there for $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$ and for $`\sigma _{SM}`$ are not very different from these new preliminary results used by us. It is worth mentioning that the following trend is observed (see discussion e.g. in ): if one uses the $`\tau `$-decay data in the calculation of vp1, then its estimation for the value of vp1 increases while that for the uncertainty decreases. On the other hand, the preliminary FJ02 and HMNT analyses of the vp1 contribution, the ones used here, rely solely on the low-energy data for the $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. The accuracy of these analyses increases significantly with respect to the earlier analyses of the same kind thanks to an inclusion of new, high-precision measurements  and the use of more refined theoretical methods. Moreover, the central value for the vp1 contribution did not increase in these new analyses. Thus, the preliminary analyses by FJ02 and HMNT lead to a deviation from the experimental value for the muon $`(g2)`$ larger than the published results mentioned above, which differ by “only” 1.6 to 2.6 $`\sigma `$, as pointed out in .

Let us conclude this general part by the following comment. It becomes clear that already at present there is a need of a coherent and a comprehensive error analysis for all components contributing to the calculation of $`\sigma _\mu ^{SM}`$. It will be even more nessesary in a near future, when the BNL experiment will reach the planned accuracy. Since an estimate combining all the different contributions does not exist for $`a_\mu ^{SM}`$, and hence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, which is needed for estimating the effects of new physics, is not available at the moment, a simplified error analysis, as presented in this section, is unavoidable. This is sufficient for a rough estimation of new effects; however, to reach a final conclusion, better error analyses are necessary.

## 3 2HDM and existing constraints

### 3.1 The model

The non-supersymmetric, CP-conserving 2HDM (“Model II”)  based on two doublets of complex, scalar-fields $`\varphi _1`$,$`\varphi _2`$. This is a simple extension of the SM, in which only the Higgs sector is enlarged. To avoid possible large effects due to the flavour-changing neutral currents (FCNC), the 2HDM potential can be chosen in a $`Z_2`$-symmetric form, i.e. without ($`\varphi _1`$,$`\varphi _2`$) mixing. In the general case, the potential can have terms, characterized by a mass parameter $`\mu `$, which break the $`Z_2`$ symmetry softly; see e.g. .

The 2HDM has five Higgs particles: two neutral Higgs scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$, one neutral pseudoscalar $`A`$, and a pair of charged Higgses $`H^\pm `$. Their masses are free parameters of the model. Other parameters are: the angle $`\alpha `$, which describes the mixing in the neutral Higgs-scalar sector; $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the ratio of two vacuum expectation values of scalar doublets, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$; and the parameter $`\mu `$. Small values of $`\mu `$ seem to be more natural from the point of view of the FCNC effects . It is worth noticing that for such a case, a non-decoupling of the heavy Higgs sector can be realized .

In the 2HDM one can choose the Yukawa couplings in a few different ways. Here we consider the Model (II) implementation, where one doublet of fundamental scalar fields couples to the $`u`$-type quarks, and the other to the $`d`$-type quarks and charged leptons. This way FCNC processes are avoided at the tree level . This Higgs sector is identical to the one in the MSSM; however, in the 2HDM (II) considered by us, there are no tree-level relations between parameters as in the MSSM case. Therefore even for very heavy supersymmetric particles, the 2HDM (II) and MSSM have very different phenomenology.

To be more specific, let us consider the ratios of the direct coupling constants of the Higgs boson $`h`$ or $`H`$ to the massive gauge bosons $`V=W`$ or $`Z`$, as well as to the fermions (i.e.  Yukawa couplings) for the $`u`$-type quarks and $`d`$-type quarks and the charged leptons, to the corresponding couplings for the SM. They are determined in terms of angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ . For $`\chi _i^hg_i^h/(g_i^h)_{SM}`$ (and similarly for $`H`$) we have, in a form suitable for a simultaneous discussion of $`h`$ and $`H`$:

$`\chi _V^h=\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha ),`$ $`\chi _V^H=\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha ),`$ $`\chi _V^A=0,`$ (5)
$`\chi _u^h=\chi _V^h+\mathrm{cot}\beta \chi _V^H,`$ $`\chi _u^H=\chi _V^H\mathrm{cot}\beta \chi _V^h,`$ $`\chi _u^A=i\gamma _5\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$ (6)
$`\chi _d^h=\chi _V^h\mathrm{tan}\beta \chi _V^H,`$ $`\chi _d^H=\chi _V^H+\mathrm{tan}\beta \chi _V^h,`$ $`\chi _d^A=i\gamma _5\mathrm{tan}\beta .`$ (7)
Here we have $`(\chi _V^h)^2+(\chi _V^H)^2=1`$. Observe a pattern relation between these couplings (for $`h`$ or $`H`$): $`(\chi _u\chi _V)(\chi _V\chi _d)=1\chi _V^2`$, or $`(\chi _u+\chi _d)\chi _V=1+\chi _u\chi _d`$, found in .

For $`\chi _V^h=1`$ all couplings of $`h`$ have the SM values, the couplings of $`H`$ to gauge bosons are equal to zero, while one of the couplings of $`H`$ to fermions may differ considerably from the corresponding SM one, for a small or large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. If $`\chi _V^H=1`$ then the $`H`$-boson has SM couplings, while $`h`$ has very different properties: $`\chi _V^h=0`$ and the Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d^h`$ can be large, for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This is a case that may correspond to a light-scalar scenario discussed below.

The Yukawa coupling $`\chi _d`$, relevant to a Higgs boson coupling to a muon, plays a basic role in the calculation of the 2HDM contribution to $`a_\mu `$. It is equal (up to a factor $`i\gamma _5`$) to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a pseudoscalar and $`H^+`$. If in addition $`\chi _V^h=\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )=0`$, then the same holds for a scalar $`h`$; more precisely then $`|\chi _d^h|=\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (see eq. (7)). In the calculation of the two-loop contribution to $`a_\mu `$, the coupling of $`H^+`$ to a scalar $`h`$ is involved as well, and it is given by

$$\chi _{H^+}^h=\left(1\frac{M_h^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}\right)\chi _V^h+\frac{M_h^2\mu ^2}{2M_{H^+}^2}(\chi _d^h+\chi _u^h),$$
(8)
with the same normalization as that for an elementary charged scalar particle in the SM. For $`\chi _V^h=0`$ one gets $`\chi _{H^+}^h=(\chi _d^h1/\chi _d^h)(M_h^2\mu ^2)/(2M_{H^+}^2)`$. We see that this coupling depends on the parameter $`\mu `$. In this paper we consider only the case with $`\mu =0`$. A more general case will be studied elsewhere.

### 3.2 Existing constraints

Many searches for a light Higgs particle in the 2HDM (II) were performed at various energies and machines; the most systematic studies were performed at LEP. All existing LEP data, see for instance , allows for the existence of one light neutral Higgs boson, $`h`$ or $`A`$, with a mass even below 20 GeV. According to the results presented in the left panel of Fig. 1, the other Higgs particle ($`A`$ or $`h`$, respectively) should be heavy enough to avoid the exclusion region in the ($`M_h,M_A`$) plane, given roughly by $`M_h+M_A90`$ GeV.

This is in contrast to the case of the SM Higgs boson, which should be heavier than 114.4 GeV (95% CL). Also the MSSM Higgs particles should be heavier than $``$ 90 GeV . An analysis of the Bjorken process leads to an upper limit on the coupling of $`h`$ to the gauge boson $`\chi _V^h`$. This limit, obtained at 95% CL, is presented in the right panel of Fig. 1. We see that this coupling is much smaller than 1 for $`M_h\stackrel{<}{}`$ 50 GeV.

The Yukawa couplings $`\chi _d`$ of a very light scalar or of a very light pseudoscalar, with mass below 10 GeV, are constrained in the form of upper limits by the low-energy data , whereas LEP experiments  do that for for masses $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 4 GeV (see Figs. 4, 5). It is only the analysis of the decay $`Zh/A\gamma `$ at LEP  that gives both the upper and lower limits for $`|\chi _d|`$. Note that $`|\chi _d|`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`A`$ and, if $`\chi _V^h=0`$, also for $`h`$.

The constraints from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h(A)\gamma `$ process, mentioned above, have been measured by a few groups . We present their results in Fig. 4 (lines denoted by K, N and L). Unfortunately, the corresponding predictions have large experimental and theoretical uncertainties, the latter ones both being due to the QCD and relativistic corrections. Nevertheless, as we will see below, the constraints coming from this process, even when accounting for some additional uncertainties, play an important role in closing a low mass window for the scalar $`h`$.

Finally, note that in the 2HDM there is an important lower limit on the mass of $`H^+`$, coming from the NLO analysis of the $`bs\gamma `$ data, given by $`M_{H^+}500`$ GeV at 95% CL .

## 4 Constraining 2HDM(II) by $`g2`$ for the muon data

We apply the $`\delta a_\mu `$, obtained in sec. 2, to constrain parameters of the 2HDM (II) (see also earlier papers ). We assume that the lightest Higgs boson, $`h`$ or $`A`$, dominates the full 2HDM (II) contribution, $`\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.`$ we have $`a_\mu ^{2HDM}a_\mu ^h`$, or $`a_\mu ^A`$ (a simple approach in ). This approach should hold for masses below 50 GeV, according to results presented in the left panel of Fig. 1. For higher masses, which are also considered here, this is essentially equivalent to assuming a large mass gap between the lightest one, $`h`$ or $`A`$, and the remaining Higgs bosons, which lead to a light-$`h`$ or a light-$`A`$ scenario. The relevant one- and two-loop diagrams, studied in  and , respectively, are shown in Fig. 2 for the $`h`$ and $`A`$ contributions.

According to the LEP limits, discussed in sec. 3.2, we assume that $`h`$ does not couple to $`W/Z`$, and therefore we neglect the $`W`$-loop in the light-$`h`$ scenario. We include, however, an $`H^+`$-loop with $`M_{H^+}`$ equal to 400, 800 GeV (and for $`\mu =0`$).

In Fig. 3 we present the contributions to $`a_\mu `$ obtained for an $`h`$ (solid lines) and for a $`A`$ (dashed lines), assuming Yukawa couplings $`\chi _d`$ equal to 1. For both $`h`$ and $`A`$, the one-loop  and two-loop  results are shown separately. For the purpose of comparison, a one-loop $`H^+`$ contribution is presented. The one-loop diagram gives a positive contribution to $`a_\mu `$ for a scalar, whereas it is negative for a pseudoscalar, independently of the value of the Higgs-boson mass. The signs of the two-loop contributions are reversed, these diagrams contribute negatively (positively) for a $`h`$ ($`A`$) case . These two-loop diagrams can give large contributions, since they allow us to avoid one small Yukawa coupling with a muon in favor of a coupling with other, potentially heavy, particles circulating in the loop . Indeed, the contributions of two-loop diagrams dominate over the corresponding one-loop ones when the mass of $`h`$ or $`A`$ is above a few GeV, as shown in Fig. 3. As a result, in the two-loop analysis, based on a sum of the one- and two-loop (fermionic and bosonic) contributions, a positive (negative) contribution can be ascribed to a scalar $`h`$ with mass below (above) 5 GeV or a pseudoscalar $`A`$ with mass above (below) 3 GeV.

In our calculation, $`a_\mu ^h`$ and $`a_\mu ^A`$ contain contributions proportional either to $`\chi _d^2`$, equivalently to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ for $`A`$ and for $`h`$ (if $`\chi _V^h=0`$), or to $`\chi _d\chi _u=1`$. Assuming $`a_\mu ^h=\delta a_\mu `$ for a light-$`h`$ scenario, and $`a_\mu ^A=\delta a_\mu `$ for a light-$`A`$ one, and using the estimate of the interval $`\delta a_\mu `$ from table 2, we can derive constraints on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for $`h`$ and $`A`$. They are, as expected, in the form of allowed regions (the area between thick lines in Fig. 4) for masses below 5 GeV for $`h`$, shown in the left panel of Fig. 4, and for masses above 3 GeV for $`A`$, the right panel of Fig. 4 (see also ).

## 5 Combined 95% CL constraints

The 95% CL constraints from the $`(g2)_\mu `$ are presented in Fig. 4 (area between thick lines in the left and right panels) together with current upper limits from LEP, from the Yukawa processes  (see ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL results). Also the lower limits from the $`Zh(A)\gamma `$  can be seen in Fig. 4. In addition, the upper 90% CL limits from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay (lines denoted K,N and L, with the K results rescaled by a factor 2, as discussed in ) and from the Tevatron , are presented as well.

We see that our two-loop analysis, based on the latest $`(g2)_\mu `$ data and on the FJ02 estimation of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$ (vp1), if combined with constraints from other experiments, allows for the existence, in the 2HDM (II), of a pseudoscalar with mass between $``$ 25 GeV and 70 GeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ above $``$ 25. The mass region for $`A`$ allowed by $`(g2)_\mu `$ data, between $``$ 3 and 25 GeV, is excluded by the constraints from LEP, based on OPAL and DELPHI data. On the other hand the constraints from the Tevatron close the pseudoscalar-mass window above 70 GeV. For a light scalar the combined constraints are even more severe; if the old constraints from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decay data are taken into account, the area allowed by the latest $`(g2)_\mu `$ data disappears. Note that the exclusion of a light $`h`$ is in agreement with the conclusion of the theoretical analysis reported in .

## 6 Conclusions and outlook

Using the latest precise measurement of the $`(g2)_\mu `$ and comparing it with the improved, theoretical estimations of the SM contribution, we derive the 95% CL $`\delta a_\mu `$ interval to be used to constrain an additional contribution to $`a_\mu `$, beyond the SM ones. It allows one to constrain strongly the additional contribution, which arises in a CP-conserving, non-supersymmetric 2HDM (II) for a small parameter $`\mu `$, studied in this paper. The additional contribution, allowed at 95% CL, has to have a positive sign, and can lead to a clear prediction for a light-scalar and a light-pseudoscalar scenario in the model considered here. These two scenarios correspond to the case when one of the Higgs bosons, $`h`$ or $`A`$, is very light, much lighter than the other Higgs particles of the model. It should be further noted that both of these scenarios are in agreement with existing data from other experiments. An exchange of such light particle dominates in the one- and two-loop contributions to the $`a_\mu `$. Constraints from $`(g2)_\mu `$ are such that they exclude a light $`h`$ with a mass above 5 GeV and a light $`A`$ if its mass is below 3 GeV, as the corresponding contributions are negative in these regions.

Our two-loop analysis presented in this paper is based on the newest $`(g2)_\mu `$ data and on the (preliminary) FJ02 estimation of $`a_\mu ^{had}`$. Combining the constraints from the $`(g2)_\mu `$ data with those from other experiments, a pseudoscalar with mass between $``$ 25 GeV and 70 GeV and $`25\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}115}`$ is allowed. However, a light scalar is excluded.

The main results will hold also if the $`g2`$ constraints are based on the HMNT results for the vp1. For the HMNT(in) case the window for a pseudoscalar will be even smaller: $`35M_A70`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 40 and 120. The results will not change significantly, if the uncertainty for the lbl contribution is up two times larger than in the estimation we used in the analysis. If such an error is still added in quadrature, then the lower bounds go down, with respect to results given in Fig. 4, by a factor $``$ 1.4. There will be no visible changes in the upper bounds.

Finally, we stress a need for a coherent and comprehensive error analysis for the SM contributions to the $`a_\mu `$ (see a very recent paper ).

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Fred Jegerlehner and Thomas Teubner for many valuable discussions of the recent results on the $`g2`$ for the muon. I am especially indebted to Rohini Godbole for critical comments and important suggestions. I thank also Sławek Tkaczyk and other colleagues for useful discussions and information. I am grateful to M. Boonekamp, M. Kobel and F. Akesson for sending me results on the Yukawa process and on other searches at LEP. I acknowledge the important contribution by Suzy Vascotto. Finally, I would like to thank the organizers of this excellent and a very special meeting for their help.


text:
# Scalar leptoquark production at TESLA and CLIC based 𝑒𝛾 colliders

## I Introduction

In the standard model (SM) of electroweak (EW) and color (QCD) interactions, quarks and leptons appear as formally independent components. However, the observed symmetry between the lepton and quark sectors in the SM could be interpreted as a hint for common underlying structures. If quarks and leptons are made of constituents then, at the scale of constituent binding energies, there should appear new interactions among leptons and quarks. Leptoquarks (LQs) are exotic particles carrying both lepton number (L) and baryon number (B), color (anti)-triplet, scalar or vector particles which appear naturally in various unifying theories beyond the SM. The interactions of LQs with the known particles are usually described by an effective lagrangian that satisfies the requirement of baryon and lepton number conservation and respects the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$ symmetry of the SM. There are nine scalar and nine vector leptoquark types according to the BRW model 1 . The scalar leptoquarks $`(S,R)`$ can be grouped into singlets $`(S_0,\stackrel{~}{S}_0),`$ doublets $`(R_{1/2},\stackrel{~}{R}_{1/2})`$ and triplet $`(S_1).`$

The leptoquarks are constrained by different experiments. Direct limits on leptoquark states are obtained from their production cross sections at different colliders, while indirect limits are calculated from the bounds on the leptoquark induced four fermion interactions at low energy experiments. The mass limits for scalar leptoquarks from single and pair productions assuming electromagnetic coupling are $`M_{LQ}>200`$ GeV 2  and $`M_{LQ}>225`$ GeV 3 , respectively. Other bounds on the ratio $`M_{LQ}/g`$ can be obtained from low energy neutral current experiments (weak charge measurement for Cesium atoms) 4 .

The single production of scalar leptoquarks coupled to $`eu`$ and $`\nu d`$ pair in $`e\gamma `$ collisions using only the resolved structure of the photon was suggested by 5 . The direct single production of scalar leptoquarks in $`e\gamma `$ collisions was analyzed in 6 .

In order to make an analysis with the LQs we make the following assumptions: The leptoquarks couple to first generation leptons and quarks, and the couplings $`g_{L,R}`$ within one generation of fermions satisfy flavour conservation. The product of couplings $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ vanishes to respect the lepton universality. One of the scalar leptoquark types gives the dominant contribution compared with other leptoquark states, and we neglect the interference between different leptoquark states, i.e. there is no mixing among LQs. The different leptoquark states within isospin doublets and triplets are assumed to have the same mass. Under these assumptions, only the mass and the couplings to right-handed and/or left-handed leptons, denoted by $`g_R`$ and $`g_L`$, remain as free parameters.

We study the potential of the TESLA and CLIC based $`e\gamma `$ colliders to search for scalar leptoquarks taking into account both direct and resolved photon processes. We adopt the Buchmuller-Ruckl-Wyler (BRW) model 1  which assumes lepton and baryon number conservation. In the model the interactions of scalar LQs, having fermion number $`F=L+3B`$, with fermions can be described by the effective lagrangian with the dimensionless couplings and SU(3)$`{}_{C}{}^{}\times `$ SU(2)$`{}_{W}{}^{}\times `$ U(1)Y invariance:

$`L_{eff}`$ $`=L_{F=0}+L_{|F|=2}+L_{\gamma ,Z,g}`$ (1)
$`L_{F=0}`$ $`=g_{1/2L}\overline{u}_Rl_LR_{1/2}+g_{1/2R}\overline{q}_Li\tau _2e_RR_{1/2}+\stackrel{~}{g}_{1/2L}\overline{d}_Rl_L\stackrel{~}{R}_{1/2}+\text{H.c.}`$ (2)
$`L_{|F|=2}`$ $`=g_{0L}\overline{q}_L^ci\tau _2l_LS_0+g_{0R}\overline{u}_R^ce_RS_0+\stackrel{~}{g}_{0R}\overline{d}_R^ce_R\stackrel{~}{S}_0+g_{1L}\overline{q}_L^ci\tau _2\stackrel{}{\tau }l_L\stackrel{}{S}_1+\text{H.c.}`$ (3)
here the indices of scalar leptoquarks $`S`$ or $`R`$ denote the weak isospin, and an additional subscript on the couplings indicates the coupled lepton chirality. A tilde sign is introduced to differentiate between leptoquarks with different hypercharge. The $`l_L`$ and $`q_L`$ are the left-handed lepton and quark doublets while $`e_R`$ and $`q_R`$ are the right-handed charged lepton and quark singlets, respectively. Charged conjugated quark field is defined as $`q^C=C\overline{q}^T`$ and $`\overline{q}^C=q^TC`$.

The gauge interaction of scalar leptoquarks with the EW and QCD gauge bosons can be described by

$$L_{\gamma ,Z,g}=\underset{\mathrm{\Phi }=S,R}{}\left(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)^{}\left(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is any type of scalar leptoquark, and $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the mass of the scalar leptoquark. The covariant derivative is $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_eQ_SA_\mu ig_eQ_ZZ_\mu ig_sT^aG_\mu ^a`$ , here $`Q_S`$ is the charge of scalar leptoquark and $`g_e`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant. $`Q_Z=(I_3Q_S\mathrm{sin}\theta _W)/\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$. In the above equation, $`A_\mu ,Z_\mu `$ and $`G_\mu `$ denote the photon, $`Z`$-boson and gluon fields, respectively. $`I_3`$ is the third component of the weak isospin and $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle. $`T^a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices and $`g_s`$ is the strong coupling constant. From the effective interaction lagrangian (1) one can deduce quantum numbers of scalar leptoquarks as given in Table 1.

In this work, a search for singly produced scalar leptoquarks is presented at electron-photon colliders. The decay of a heavy LQ into a quark and a charged lepton leads to final states characterized by an isolated energetic charged lepton and a hadronic jet, while for decays into a quark and a neutrino, the final state would have large missing energy and a jet. Therefore, under our assumptions on the couplings, the topologies resulting from the processes $`e\gamma q\overline{q}^{}e`$ and $`e\gamma q\overline{q}^{}\nu `$ are given in Table 2.

## II Single production of scalar leptoquarks

Scalar leptoquarks can be produced singly in $`e\gamma `$ collisions via the process $`e\gamma Sq`$ where $`S`$ is any type of scalar leptoquarks (S or R). At $`e\gamma `$ colliders, with photon beam produced by Compton backscattering, the maximum $`e\gamma `$ center of mass energy is about 91% of available energy. The projects of TESLA 7  and CLIC 8  colliders will be working at $`\sqrt{s_{e^+e^{}}}=1`$ TeV and $`\sqrt{s_{e^+e^{}}}=3`$ TeV, respectively. High energy photon beam can be obtained from the linacs with energies $`415`$ GeV and $`1245`$ GeV for TESLA and CLIC, respectively.

The relevant diagrams for single direct production of scalar leptoquarks with fermion number $`F=0`$ ($`R`$ type) and $`|F|=2`$ ($`S`$ type) are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The Feynman amplitude for the subprocess $`e\gamma Sq`$ consists of $`s,u`$ and $`t`$ channels which correspond to electron, quark and scalar LQ exchanges, respectively.

On the base of the effective lagrangian, the differential cross section for scalar LQ productions through subprocess $`e\gamma Sq`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{N_cg^2g_e^2}{16\pi \widehat{s}^2}}(c_1^2+c_2^2)[{\displaystyle \frac{Q_e^2\widehat{u}}{\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_q^2\widehat{s}\widehat{u}}{\left(\widehat{u}m_q^2\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_S^2\widehat{t}\left(\widehat{t}+M_{LQ}^2\right)}{\left(\widehat{t}M_{LQ}^2\right)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q_eQ_q\left(\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}\right)\left(\widehat{s}M_{LQ}^2\right)}{\widehat{s}\left(\widehat{u}m_q^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_eQ_S\widehat{t}\left(\widehat{s}2M_{LQ}^2\right)}{\widehat{s}\left(\widehat{t}M_{LQ}^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_qQ_S\widehat{t}(\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+M_{LQ}^2)}{\left(\widehat{u}m_q^2\right)\left(\widehat{t}M_{LQ}^2\right)}}]`$ (5)
where we use the Lorentz invariant Mandelstam variables $`\widehat{s}=(k_1+p_1)^2`$, $`\widehat{u}=(p_2k_1)^2`$ and $`\widehat{t}=(k_2k_1`$)2. $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the constants equal to $`1/2`$ and $`(+)1/2`$ corresponding to left (right) couplings, respectively; $`g`$ is LQ-lepton-quark coupling constant; $`Q_e,Q_q`$ and $`Q_S`$ denote electron, quark and LQ charges, respectively. We denote the interaction coupling constants of scalar LQs with fermions as $`g^2=4\pi \alpha \kappa `$ with $`\kappa =1`$ and color factor $`N_c=3`$ . Since cross section varies with $`\kappa `$ we can simply rescale it for the various $`\kappa `$ values.

The cross section for the direct production of scalar leptoquarks via subprocess $`e\gamma Sq`$ is given by

$$\sigma _D=\stackrel{0.83}{\underset{y_{\mathrm{min}}}{}dy}\text{ }f_y(y)\text{ }\widehat{\sigma }(ys)$$
(6)
where $`y_{\mathrm{min}}=M_{LQ}^2/s,`$ and $`f_\gamma `$ is the energy spectrum of the Compton backscattered photons from electrons,

$$f_\gamma (y)=\frac{1}{D(\varsigma )}\left[1y+\frac{1}{(1y)}\frac{4y}{\varsigma (1y)}+\frac{4y^2}{\varsigma ^2(1y)^2}\right]$$
(7)
where

$$D(\varsigma )=\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{8}{\varsigma }\frac{1}{2(1+\varsigma )^2}\right)+\left(1\frac{4}{\varsigma }\frac{8}{\varsigma ^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}(1+\varsigma )$$
(8)
with $`\varsigma =4E_e\omega _0/m_e^2,`$ and $`y=E_\gamma /E_e`$ is the ratio of backscattered photon energy to the initial electron energy. The energy $`E_\gamma `$ of converted photons is restricted by the condition $`y_{\mathrm{max}}=0.83`$. The value $`y_{\mathrm{max}}=\varsigma /(\varsigma +1)=0.83`$ corresponds to $`\varsigma =4.8`$ 9 . Energy spectrum of backscattered photon is given in Fig. 3. When calculating the production cross sections for scalar leptoquarks, the divergencies due to the $`u`$-channel exchange diagram in Figs. 1b and 2b are regulated by taking into account the corresponding quark mass $`m_q`$. The main contribution to total cross section comes from the quark exchange diagram in Figs. 1b and 2b. For this reason, the total cross sections for production of scalar leptoquarks $`R_{1/2}(5/3),`$ $`S_0(1/3)`$ and $`S_1(1/3)`$ practically coincide. This is also true for $`R_{1/2}(2/3),`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{1/2}(2/3),\stackrel{~}{S}_0(4/3)`$ and $`S_1(4/3)`$ type scalar leptoquark production.

The scalar leptoquarks can also be produced in $`e\gamma `$ collisions by the resolved photon processes, Fig. 3. In order to produce leptoquarks in the resonant channel through the quark component of the photon, we study the following signal for the scalar leptoquark $`S`$ (or $`R`$)

$$e+q_\gamma Se+q$$
(9)
Using the effective lagrangian, the parton level cross section for scalar leptoquark resonant production can be found as

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s})=\frac{\pi ^2\kappa \alpha }{2M_{LQ}}\delta (M_{LQ}\sqrt{\widehat{s}})$$
(10)
For CLIC and TESLA based $`e\gamma `$ colliders, the total cross section for resolved photon contribution is obtained by convoluting with the backscattered laser photon distribution and photon structure function. The photon structure function consists of perturbative pointlike parts and hadronlike parts $`f_{q/\gamma }=f_{q/\gamma }^{PL}+f_{q/\gamma }^{HL}`$ 8 . The pointlike part can be calculated in the leading logaritmic approximation and is given by

$$f_{q/\gamma }^{PL}(y)=\frac{3\alpha Q_q^2}{2\pi }\left[y^2+(1y)^2\right]\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}$$
(11)
where $`Q_q`$ is the charge of quark content of photon. The cross section for hadronic contribution from resolved photon process can be obtained as follows

$$\sigma _R=\frac{\pi ^2\alpha \kappa }{s}_{x_{\mathrm{min}}}^{0.83}\frac{dx}{x}f_{\gamma /e}(x)\left[f_{q/\gamma }(z,Q^2)f_{q/\gamma }^{PL}(z,Q^2)\right]$$
(12)
where $`z=M_{LQ}^2/xs,`$ $`x_{\mathrm{min}}=M_{LQ}^2/s`$, and $`Q^2=M_{LQ}^2.`$ Since the contribution from the pointlike part of the photon structure function was already taken into account in the calculation of the direct part it was subtracted from $`f_{q/\gamma }(z,Q^2)`$ in the above formula to avoid double counting on the leading logarithmic level. Here, $`f_{q/\gamma }`$ is a $`Q^2`$-dependent parton distribution function 8  within the backscattered photon.

Both schemes give comparable results for the single production cross section. Therefore, we add their contribution to form the signal. In this case, the total cross section for the single production of scalar LQs is

$$\sigma =\sigma _D+\sigma _R$$
(13)
here $`\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _R`$ denotes the direct and resolved contribution to the total cross sections. The total cross sections including both direct and resolved contributions are plotted in Figs. 5-8 for TESLA and CLIC based $`e\gamma `$ colliders. In Tables 3 and 4, direct and resolved contribution to the scalar leptoquark production are shown for TESLA and CLIC based $`e\gamma `$ colliders, respectively. From the figures 5-8 the contribution from resolved process is dominant for small leptoquark masses. The distribution function of partons within the photon has the order $`O(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$ where $`\alpha `$ is due to the photon splitting into $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`\alpha _s^1`$ due to the QCD evolution. Therefore, the contribution from resolved photon is $`O(\alpha ^2/\alpha _s)`$ where the hard subprocess in the resolved photon case has $`O(\alpha )`$. The direct contribution has $`O(\alpha ^2)`$. On the other hand, direct contribution is effective for large masses up to the kinematical limit.

## III Signals and backgrounds

When the scalar leptoquarks singly produced at $`e\gamma `$ colliders the signal will be double jets and a charged lepton $`2j+l`$ (S and R leptoquarks), or double jets plus a neutrino $`2j+\overline{)}p_T`$ (S leptoquarks). Since leptoquarks generate a peak in the invariant ($`lj`$) mass distribution, singly produced leptoquarks are easy to detect up to the mass values close to the kinematical limit. A scalar leptoquark decays into a lepton and a quark. The partial decay width for every decay channel is given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{g^2M_{LQ}}{16\pi }$$
(14)
The leptoquark branchings predicted by the BRW model 1  are given in Table 1. In the case of $`g_L=g_R`$ branchings for $`S_0`$ can be obtained as $`2/3`$ for $`LQlq`$ and $`1/3`$ for $`LQ\nu q`$ channels. For a given electron-quark, branching ratio is defined as $`BR(LQlq)`$ and branching ratio to the neutrino-quark is $`BR(LQ\nu q)=1BR(LQlq)`$ by the definition.

All scalar leptoquark types and signals at the $`e\gamma `$ collisions are given in Table 2. The numbers in paranthesis denote the leptoquark charge. In order to calculate the statistical significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ at each mass value of a scalar leptoquark for each decay channel we need also to calculate the relevant background cross sections. The Feynman amplitude for the background subprocess $`e\gamma W^{}\nu `$ consists of $`t`$ and $`s`$ channels which correspond to $`W^{}`$ and electron exchanges, respectively. The differential cross section for this process is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g_W^2g_e^2}{32\pi \widehat{s}^3(\widehat{t}m_Wm_W^3)^2}}[\widehat{s}\widehat{t}(\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{s}\widehat{t}+2\widehat{t}^2)(3\widehat{s}^3+2\widehat{s}^2\widehat{t}+5\widehat{s}\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{t}^3)m_W^2`$
$`+(\widehat{s}^2+5\widehat{t}^2)m_W^4+(\widehat{s}5\widehat{t})m_W^6+m_W^8]`$ (15)
here $`\widehat{s}=(p_e+p_\gamma )^2`$ and $`\widehat{t}=(p_\gamma p_W)^2`$ are the Lorentz invariant Mandelstam variables. The Feynman amplitude for the background subprocess $`e\gamma Ze`$ consists of $`s`$ and $`u`$ channels which both correspond to electron exchanges. The differential cross section for this subprocess can be written as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(c_V^2+c_A^2)g_e^2g_z^2}{64\pi \widehat{s}^3m_Z^2(\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+m_e^2m_Z^2)^2}}[2(\widehat{s}+\widehat{t})(2\widehat{s}^2+2\widehat{s}\widehat{t}+\widehat{t}^2m_Z^2`$
$`2(2\widehat{s}+\widehat{t})^2m_Z^4+2(3\widehat{s}+\widehat{t})m_Z^62m_Z^8)]`$ (16)
here $`\widehat{s}=(p_e+p_\gamma )^2`$, $`\widehat{t}=(p_\gamma p_Z)^2;`$ $`c_V=1/2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`c_A=1/2.`$

For the background processes $`e\gamma W\nu `$ and $`e\gamma Ze`$ we find the total cross sections $`41.20`$ $`(49.48)`$ pb and $`2.36`$ $`(0.49)`$ pb at $`\sqrt{s_{e^+e^{}}}=1`$ $`(3)`$ TeV, respectively. We multiply these cross sections with the branching ratios for corresponding channels. We take the branching ratios $`68.5\%`$ and $`69.89\%`$ for the $`W`$ boson and $`Z`$ boson decaying into hadrons, respectively.

## IV Results and Discussions

The scalar leptoquarks of any type can be produced with a large cross section due to direct and resolved processes at $`e\gamma `$ colliders. The production cross sections for scalar leptoquarks with the charges $`|Q|=5/3`$ and $`1/3`$ are practically the same, the same situation takes place for the scalar leptoquarks with the charges $`|Q|=4/3`$ and $`2/3.`$ The contribution to the cross sections from direct and resolved processes can be compared in Tables 3 and 4. The resolved contribution is effective relatively at low mass range. Depending on the center of mass energy this contribution decreases sharply beyond the leptoquark mass value of about $`70\%`$ of the collider energies. The direct contribution for scalar leptoquark with $`|Q|=5/3`$ is larger than the scalar leptoquark with $`|Q|=4/3.`$ This can be explained due to the quark charge dependence of the cross sections for direct contribution. The coupling for lepton-quark-leptoquark vertex can be parametrized as $`g_{LQ}^2=4\pi \alpha \kappa `$ where $`\kappa `$ is a parameter. For smaller values of this parameter the cross section decreases with $`\kappa .`$

From the Table 5, we find acccesssible upper mass limits of scalar leptoquarks for TESLA based $`e\gamma `$ collider with the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }^{\mathrm{max}}}911`$ GeV and luminosity $`L=10^5`$ pb-1. The scalar leptoquarks of types $`S_0,S_1^0`$ and $`R_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ can be produced up to mass $`M_{LQ}900`$ GeV, and $`R_{1/2}^{1/2},\stackrel{~}{S}_0,S_1^1,\stackrel{~}{R}_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ up to $`M_{LQ}850`$ GeV in the $`2j+e`$ channel. However, the leptoquarks of type $`S_0,S_1^0`$ can be produced up to $`M_{LQ}850`$ GeV and $`R_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ up to $`M_{LQ}650`$ GeV in the $`2j+\overline{)}p_T`$ channel. For the CLIC based $`e\gamma `$ collider with $`\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }^{\mathrm{max}}}2733`$ GeV and luminosity $`L=10^5`$ pb-1, the scalar leptoquarks of type $`S_0,S_1^0,R_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ could be produced up to mass $`M_{LQ}2600`$ GeV and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{1/2}^{1/2},\stackrel{~}{S}_0,S_1^1`$up to mass $`M_{LQ}2500`$ GeV and $`R_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ up to $`M_{LQ}2100`$ GeV in $`2j+e`$ channel, and scalar leptoquarks of type $`R_{1/2}^{1/2}`$ up to $`700`$ GeV, $`S_0`$ up to $`900`$ GeV and $`S_1^0`$ up to $`1300`$ GeV in the $`2j+\overline{)}p_T`$ channel. The statistical significance for these channels are given in Table 6.

As to conclude, the scalar leptoquarks can be produced with a large numbers at both TESLA and CLIC based $`e\gamma `$ colliders. We have analyzed the contributions from direct and resolved photon processes to the total cross section. We find the latter contribution is important and can not be ignored especially for small leptoquark masses. Looking at the final state particles and their signature in detectors scalar leptoquarks of some types can be identified.