format: text

text:
# Study of Exclusive 𝐵 Decays to Charmed Baryons

## Abstract

Using 29.1 fb-1 of data accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ with the Belle detector at KEKB, we have studied the decay modes $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, and $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$. We report branching fractions of exclusive $`B`$ decays to charmed baryons with four-, three- and two-body final states, including intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ states. We observed $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ for the first time with a branching fraction of $`(2.38_{0.55}^{+0.63}\pm 0.41\pm 0.62)\times 10^4`$ and observed evidence for the two-body decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^0\overline{p}`$ with a branching fraction of $`(0.45_{0.19}^{+0.26}\pm 0.07\pm 0.12)\times 10^4`$. We also set improved upper limits for the two-body decays $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{B}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)^0\overline{p}`$.

preprint:   Belle preprint 2002-29 KEK preprint 2002-84 hep-ex/0208041

on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica The Belle Collaboration

Baryon production in flavored meson decays is unique to the $`B`$ meson system due to the heavy mass of the constituent b-quark. Several studies of inclusive charmed baryon production in $`B`$ meson decays incl-lc  have been made and a large branching fraction for $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+X`$ of ($`6.4\pm 1.1`$)% has been reported. However, the mechanism is not well understood. The measured inclusive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ momentum spectra indicate that multi-body final states are dominant in baryonic $`B`$ decays. With a data sample of 2.39 fb-1, CLEO cleo-lamc  has studied exclusive charmed baryonic decay modes and measured the branching fractions for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. They found no evidence for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and provided an upper limit. So far, no observations of two-body decays have been reported. On the other hand, there are theoretical predictions for branching fractions of two-body baryonic modes based on a pole model jarfi , a QCD sum rule chernyak , a diquark model ball , and a bag model cheng . The predictions of the different models vary by an order of magnitude, and experimental measurement can be used to discriminate among them. We have made a systematic study of exclusive charmed baryonic decays of $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ mesons into four-, three- and two-body final states including $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++/0}`$ intermediate resonances, by analyzing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ final states. Charge conjugate modes are included unless otherwise mentioned. This analysis is based on a data sample of 29.1 fb-1 corresponding to $`3.17\times 10^7`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs. The data were accumulated at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric collider of 3.5 GeV $`e^+`$ and 8.0 GeV $`e^{}`$ kekb .

The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer cylindrical drift chamber (CDC), a mosaic of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like array of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an array of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux return located outside the coil is instrumented to detect muons and $`K_L`$ mesons (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhere belle . We use a GEANT based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to model the response of the detector and determine the acceptance sim .

In searches for the decay modes $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, and $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode is used. Particle identification information from the CDC $`dE/dx`$, ACC and TOF is used to provide a mass assignment for each track. A likelihood ratio $`LR(A,B)=L_A/(L_A+L_B)>0.6`$ is required to identify a particle as type $`A`$, where $`B`$ is the other possible assignment among $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$ and $`p(\overline{p})`$. Electron and muon candidate tracks are removed if their probabilities from the ECL, CDC $`dE/dx`$ and KLM are greater than 95%. Candidate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$’s are tagged if the invariant mass of the $`p`$, $`K^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ track combination is within 0.010 GeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass; tagged events are then examined for the three search modes by adding $`\overline{p}`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`\pi ^+`$ tracks. The width $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ is found to be 4.9 MeV/$`c^2`$, consistent with the MC.

In order to select $`\overline{B}`$ meson candidates, we use the beam energy-constrained mass and energy difference, which are defined as $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2(\stackrel{}{p_i})^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_iE_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ in the center-of-mass (CM) frame of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collision. $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy, and $`E_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ are the energy and momentum vector for the $`i`$-th daughter particle of a $`B`$ candidate. $`B`$ candidates are selected with a loose cut to retain sideband events by requiring $`M_{\text{bc}}>5.2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.2`$ GeV. A vertex-constrained fit for the three daughter tracks is carried out at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ vertex. For each decay mode, the virtual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ track and additional tracks are required to form a good vertex. If there are multiple candidates for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`B`$, the candidate with the minimum $`\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2+\chi _B^2+(M_{\mathrm{bc}}5.279)^2/\sigma _{M_{\mathrm{bc}}}^2`$ is selected. Here, $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2`$ and $`\chi _B^2`$ are the $`\chi ^2`$’s from the fits for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`B`$ vertices, respectively, and $`\sigma _{M_{\text{bc}}}`$ is the MC value of the $`M_{\text{bc}}`$ width (2.8 MeV/$`c^2`$). Loose cuts on $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2`$ and $`\chi _B^2`$ are applied to remove background from tracks arising from $`K_S^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays.

Event selection requirements are optimized using signal MC events and continuum background MC events consisting of $`u\overline{u}`$, $`d\overline{d}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$, and $`c\overline{c}`$ quark-antiquark pairs generated with the expected fractions. To suppress the continuum background, we use a Fisher discriminant constructed from 10 variables: 8 modified Fox Wolfram moments sfw , cos$`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$, and cos$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$. Here, cos$`\mathrm{\Theta }_B`$ is the cosine of the direction of the $`B`$ meson with respect to the electron beam direction, and cos$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ is the cosine of the direction of the daughter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ with respect to the thrust axis of the tracks not associated with the $`B`$ candidates. Both quantities are defined in the CM system. A set of 10 coefficients for each mode is optimized to maximize separation of the signal from the continuum background. The probability density functions for the signals and for the continuum, $`P_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{con}}`$ respectively, are parameterized with Gaussian functions for the three search modes and for the continuum events. A cut on the likelihood ratio $`R_{\mathrm{sfw}}=P_{\mathrm{sig}}/(P_{\mathrm{sig}}+P_{\mathrm{con}})>0.6`$ is applied to all decay modes. In the MC simulation this cut removed 76% of the continuum background while retaining 86% of the signal for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

Figure 1 shows the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions for the three decay modes, after a tight cut is made in the ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$,$`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$) variable not plotted. The $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ background distributions are parameterized by the ARGUS function ArgusF , while a Gaussian is used for the signal. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions are fitted with a second-order polynomial for the background and a double Gaussian for the signal. Here, the width parameters are fixed to the values fitted to the signal MC events. The mean and width of $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ in the data are found to be consistent with the MC values of $`5.279`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`2.8`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, respectively. The width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is also consistent with the MC value ($`9.9`$ MeV) when fit to a single Gaussian. We obtain signal yields of $`154_{16}^{+17}`$ and $`38.8_{7.0}^{+7.6}`$ from the fits to the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions (a) and (c), and $`141_{15}^{+16}`$ and $`30.2_{6.4}^{+7.0}`$ from the fits to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions (b) and (d), respectively. Here, we choose the asymmetric range of $`0.100<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.200`$ GeV to exclude feed-down from higher multiplicity modes with extra pions; these produce the structure observed in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.150`$ GeV. Since $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ is used in the $`\chi ^2`$ calculation for the best candidate selection as described previously, we use the yields resulting from the fits to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions to calculate branching fractions.

We observe $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ signals. For $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ we find a statistical significance of only $`1.9\sigma `$ from a fit to a Gaussian function for the signal with mean and width fixed to those from the signal MC, and a linear background function. We thus set an upper limit of 6.1 events at the 90% confidence level based on the likelihood function, using the Bayesian method with a prior uniform in the branching fraction.

Table 1 summarizes the observed yields and branching fractions. Here, the detection efficiencies are calculated assuming nonresonant decays and do not include the branching fraction $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+)`$=($`5.0\pm 1.3`$)% pdg2000 . We assume the fractions of charged and neutral $`B`$ mesons to be equal in the branching fraction calculations. We include a correlated systematic error of 2% per track for tracking and particle identification. Systematics due to the $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}^2`$, $`\chi _B^2`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{sfw}}`$ cuts are estimated by varying cut values. The signal shape systematic error is evaluated from the variation in fit results obtained with different-order polynomials used for the background and single and double Gaussians used for the signal. The resulting total systematic errors for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ are 17.2%, 14.8% and 13.3%, respectively. Table 1 shows the CLEO measurements renormalized to the same $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+)`$ for comparison. Our branching fraction for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is consistent with their measurement; however, our result for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ is somewhat lower (1.5$`\sigma `$). We also set a more restrictive upper limit on $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$.

Figure 2 shows the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm `$ invariant mass distributions in the $`B`$ signal region, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.030`$ GeV and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.270`$ GeV/$`c^2`$. Significant signals are observed for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)`$.

The shaded histograms are the distributions for events in the sideband region $`0.040<|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.100`$ GeV, normalized to the signal region $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.030`$ GeV; these account for continuum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ background. The two curves indicate the results of separate fits to the distributions for the $`B`$ signal and the sideband regions, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ masses and widths fixed to fit values for the signal MC events generated with PDG values for masses and widths pdg2000 . The background shapes are taken from a nonresonant signal MC. To extract the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ yields, we performed a simultaneous likelihood fit to the distributions for the $`B`$ signal and sideband regions. We express the expected number $`N_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}`$ of $`B`$ events as $`N_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}=N_{Bb}rN_{sb}`$, where $`N_{Bb}`$ is the yield in the $`B`$ signal region, $`N_{sb}`$ is the yield in the sideband region, and $`r=0.5`$ is the normalization factor due to the ratio of their $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ranges, assuming a linear background shape.

Table 2 summarizes the observed signal yields and branching fractions.

We observe the $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ decay for the first time with a statistical significance of 5.3$`\sigma `$. We also see 3.5$`\sigma `$ evidence for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, 2.6$`\sigma `$ evidence for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$, and less evidence for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)^0\overline{p}\pi ^+`$. We see 3.0$`\sigma `$ evidence for the two-body decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^0\overline{p}`$, and less evidence for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2520)^0\overline{p}`$. For those modes with a significance of three sigmas or less, we set upper limits on their branching fractions.

Our results provide stringent constraints upon theoretical predictions jarfi ; chernyak ; ball ; cheng . The predictions for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ in jarfi ; chernyak ; ball  were already much larger than the CLEO experimental upper limit cleo-lamc ; here we set an even more restrictive upper limit. A recent study based on a bag model cheng  gives predictions of branching fractions of $`(0.10.3)\times 10^4`$ for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ and $`(4.315.1)\times 10^4`$ for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$. Our upper limit for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$ does not contradict this model, while our measured result for $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ is much smaller than its predicted value.

In summary, we have observed the exclusive three-body decay $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^{++}\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$ for the first time and observed evidence for the exclusive two-body decay $`B^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(2455)^0\overline{p}`$. We make improved measurements of the branching fractions for $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}\pi ^{}`$, and also set a more restrictive upper limit on $`\overline{B}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{p}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent years have seen remarkable progress in the quantum treatment of two dimensional models of gravity, so-called Generalized Dilaton Theories (GDTs) (for a recent review cf. ), which include, most prominently, the Schwarzschild Black Hole (BH) and the string inspired dilaton BH .

GDTs have been quantized in the last decade mostly by Dirac’s canonical method  and, less frequently, by the path integral technique . Indeed path integral quantization of a system with no propagating physical modes may appear to be something of an overkill, although both formalisms encounter essentially the same subtleties, albeit in different disguises.

However, once matter is switched on the path integral approach to us appears to be superior. In addition to purely technical advantages the main reason is the much closer relation to genuine physical observables111 By observable we mean “objects to be measured” rather than observables in the formal sense of Dirac. Of course the latter play a crucial role in Dirac quantization, but they are not necessarily identical to the former. Measuring the angular momentum of an electron (which is an observable in Dirac’s sense) means to couple it to an external (magnetic) field and to calculate a corresponding $`S`$-matrix element which is an observable in the physical sense because it can be compared with experiments. like $`S`$-matrix elements. In fact, results like the ones to be discussed in our present note have been derived until now exclusively within this theoretical setup222Of course, within the Dirac quantization approach since the seminal work of Kuchař on the quantization of gravitational waves  also interesting results with matter have been obtained, e.g. in the thin shell approach where bound states might occur . .

Especially as a consequence of the nonperturbative treatment of the geometric part, achieved in a “covariant Hamiltonian” action, together with a specific temporal gauge choice , rather powerful new tools are available to tackle some persistent problems surrounding especially the Schwarzschild BH, but with consequences in other situations of General Relativity which can be reduced effectively to a two dimensional problem333At the quantum level the complications due to the “dimensional reduction anomaly”  may come into play, but reasonable results for specific questions like the Hawking flux from BHs  suggest that even these complications may be of limited importance..

Proceeding along well established paths of quantum field theory, already at the level of the (nonlocal) vertices of matter fields, to be used in a systematic perturbative expansion in terms of Newton’s constant, a highly nontrivial and physically intriguing phenomenon can be observed, namely the so-called “virtual black hole” (VBH). This notion originally has been introduced by S. Hawking , but in our recent approach the VBH for spherically reduced gravity (SRG) emerges naturally in Minkowski signature space-time, without the necessity of additional ad hoc assumptions. The following observations are helpful to understand our notion of a VBH: the effective geometry that is obtained after taking into account the first nontrivial matter correction in our background independent quantization procedure contains a BH geometry localized on a light-like cut (see the Carter-Penrose diagram fig. 3.2 below). The nontrivial part of this geometry looks like a BH geometry in a Rindler background. This type of BH is not felt by the asymptotic states but only indirectly via scattering processes (which are encoded in the lowest order vertices to be calculated in this work). It can be traced back to a discontinuity in the geometric part of a conserved quantity (denoted by $`𝒞^{(g)}`$) which exists in all theories under consideration, eq. (3.14) below. Thus, whenever $`𝒞^{(g)}`$ has a discontinuity a VBH is present. The first discussion in  (SRG with in $`D=2`$ minimally coupled scalars) was too simple to yield an interesting $`S`$-matrix, unless mass terms of the scalar field were added. The situation had improved for non-minimally coupled scalars  where the lowest order $`S`$-matrix indeed exhibited interesting features: forward scattering poles, monomial scaling with energy, CPT invariance, and pseudo-self-similarity in its kinematic sector .

In the present work we extend this analysis to arbitrary GDTs and show that the VBH phenomenon is generic. However, for one particular class of models, including the in the $`2D`$-community well-known CGHS model, no tree-level scattering exists. Therefore the VBH phenomenon is not observable there (at least at the classical level). This result again pinpoints its special role among GDTs and provides a somewhat physical way to explain its simplicity. It also confirms that the Schwarzschild BH and the dilaton BH differ essentially.

In order to make this note self-contained we recapitulate in section 2 some basic features of the path integral quantization. Section 3 is devoted to the determination of the vertices which are already nonlocal at the tree level, generalizing previous results on SRG  to generic dilaton theories (cf. (2.2) or (2.4) below). Although the consequences of these vertices for tree level scattering of scalars under the influence of their own gravitational interactions is a classical phenomenon, their treatment from an $`S`$-matrix point of view is advantageous. Even without an explicit evaluation of special cases the general features can be discussed quite broadly (section 4).

## 2 Two dimensional quantum gravity with matter

In its first order gravity (FOG) version the GDT action reads

$$L=L^{(FOG)}+L^{(m)},$$
(2.1)
with the geometric part

$$L^{(FOG)}=\underset{_2}{}\left[X_aDe^a+Xd\omega +ϵ𝒱(X^aX_a,X)\right].$$
(2.2)
Geometry is expressed by the one form zweibeine $`e^a`$ ($`a=+,`$ in the local Lorentz frame using light-cone gauge) and the one form spin connection $`\omega ^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\epsilon ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\omega `$, appearing in the covariant derivative $`D^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\delta _b^ad+\omega ^a_b`$ (the volume form is denoted by $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ab}e^ae^b`$). The dependence on the auxiliary fields $`X^a`$ and the dilaton field $`X`$ in the potential (using $`X^aX_a=2X^+X^{}`$)

$$𝒱(X^aX_a,X)=X^+X^{}U(X)+V(X)$$
(2.3)
encodes the models relevant for our purposes. The action (2.2) is classically and quantum mechanically equivalent  to the more familiar general second order dilaton action

$$L^{(SOG)}=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[X\frac{R}{2}\frac{U(X)}{2}(X)^2+V(X)\right].$$
(2.4)
For the matter part we choose a (non-minimally coupled) massless scalar field:

$$L^{(m)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{_2}{}F(X)d\varphi d\varphi ,$$
(2.5)
with an – in principle arbitrary – coupling function $`F(X)`$. In practice the cases $`F=\mathrm{const}.`$ (minimal coupling) and $`FX`$ (SRG) are the most relevant ones.

The path integration can be performed using e.g. a “temporal gauge”

$$\omega _0=0,e_0^{}=1,e_0^+=0.$$
(2.6)
It is convenient to introduce comprehensive notations (in accordance with ) for the remaining geometric variables:

$$(q_1,q_2,q_3):=(\omega _1,e_1^{},e_1^+),(p_1,p_2,p_3):=(X,X^+,X^{}).$$
(2.7)
In terms of (2.7) the action (2.1) can be rewritten as

$`L={\displaystyle }d^2x[p_i\dot{q}_i+q_1p_2q_3(V(p_1)+U(p_1)p_2p_3)`$
$`+F(p_1)((_1\varphi )(_0\varphi )q_2(_0\varphi )^2)],`$ (2.8)
where the gauge condition (2.6) has been taken into account. The abbreviations

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0:=\frac{1}{2}(_0\varphi )^2,\mathrm{\Phi }_1:=\frac{1}{2}(_0\varphi )(_1\varphi ).$$
(2.9)
are suggested by (2.8).

The action (2.8) is linear in $`q_i`$. This is also true for the matter action (2.5) when it is expressed in terms of the variables (2.7) and for the source terms for $`q_i`$ which are neither included explicitly in (2.8) nor in what follows. Therefore, the integration over $`q_i`$ can be performed exactly – without the necessity of introducing a split of geometry into “background” and “fluctuations” – yielding three functional $`\delta `$-fuctions $`\delta (p_ip_i^{cl})`$, where $`p_i^{cl}`$ are solutions of the classical equations of motion for $`p_i`$ in the presence of external sources. For each specific model the $`p_i^{cl}`$ are given functions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. The three delta functions are then used to integrate $`p_i`$. Retaining only the dependence on the source $`\sigma `$ of the scalar field the simplified generating functional of Green functions reads444 In the present context questions regarding the measure, back reactions and geometric source terms are irrelevant. Therefore, the generating functional of Green functions simplifies considerably as compared to the exact case .

$`W(\sigma )={\displaystyle (𝒟\varphi )\mathrm{exp}iL^{\mathrm{eff}}},`$ (2.10)
$`L^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle d^2x\left[2F(p_1^{\mathrm{cl}})\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\stackrel{~}{}(p_i^{\mathrm{cl}})+\sigma \varphi \right]},`$ (2.11)
$`\stackrel{~}{}(p_1^{\mathrm{cl}})=\stackrel{~}{g}w^{}(p_1^{\mathrm{cl}}),`$ (2.12)
where

$$w(p_1):=^{p_1}I(y)V(y)𝑑y,$$
(2.13)
with

$$I(p_1):=\mathrm{exp}^{p_1}U(y)𝑑y.$$
(2.14)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ plays the role of an effective coupling. It will be fixed below establishing the unit of length. Note that $`p_1^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ depends non-locally and non-polynomially on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. In the absence of external sources it is determined by the classical equations of motion (e.o.m.) (3.3),(3.4) below.

Up to this point all path integrals have been exact. In the next step the quadratic terms in $`\varphi `$, resp. the linear expressions in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, are isolated in (2.11). Terms of higher order in $`\varphi `$ are interpreted as vertices in a standard perturbation theory.

A peculiar property of $`2D`$ gravity theories is the presence of an “absolute” (in space and time) conservation law $`d𝒞=d(𝒞^{(g)}+𝒞^{(m)})=0`$  even when matter is taken into account . Its geometric part only depends on the auxiliar fields, resp. $`p_i`$ (cf. (2.7)). The (classical) expression for the latter

$$𝒞^{(g)}:=I(p_1)p_2p_3+w(p_1),$$
(2.15)
will be needed below with $`I`$ of (2.14) playing the role of an integrating factor. $`𝒞^{(g)}`$ is related to the so-called “mass-aspect function”  and becomes simply proportional to the ADM mass for asymptotically flat metrics.

It should be noted that in models (2.4) which are connected by a conformal transformation

$$g_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\rho (X)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu },U(X)=\stackrel{~}{U}(X)+2\rho ^{}(X),V=e^{2\rho (X)}\stackrel{~}{V}(X),$$
(2.16)
the combination $`w(p_1)=\stackrel{~}{w}(p_1)`$ as defined in (2.13) is invariant.

## 3 Construction of the lowest order tree-graphs

In the present paper we are interested in the tree level amplitudes and in the generic properties of ensuing $`S`$-matrix elements. The final result can be formulated in a rather intuititive way as explained below. A more rigorous derivation can be found in our previous work .

The lowest order vertex from (2.12) is quartic in $`\varphi `$. Thus in the notations (2.9) the generic four-point interaction term reads

$$\begin{array}{c}V^{(4)}=d^2xd^2y[V_a^{(4)}(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)+V_b^{(4)}(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)\hfill \\ \hfill +V_c^{(4)}(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)]\end{array}$$
(3.1)
with some kernels $`V_{a,b,c}^{(4)}(x,y)`$. As $`p_1^{cl}`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (cf. (3.3), (3.4) below) it is clear that the interaction term with $`V_c^{(4)}`$ never appears in $`V^{(4)}`$ which is graphically represented in fig. 3.1.

In principle $`V^{(4)}`$ could be abstracted directly from (2.11). However, the expressions $`p_i^{\mathrm{cl}}=p_i^{\mathrm{cl}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ require the solution of three coupled first order differential equations which are nothing else than the classical e.o.m. (3.3)-(3.5) below. The geometric quantities $`q_i`$ could be obtained as expectation values. Also for them it is much preferable to go back to their (classical) e.o.m. . Then, for example, to calculate $`V_a^{(4)}(x,y)`$, one may use the following recipe : With the matter distribution localized at a point $`y`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)=c_i\delta ^2(xy),i=0,1.$$
(3.2)
one computes solutions $`q_i(x;c_i,y)`$, $`p_i(x;c_i,y)`$ of the classical e.o.m. with the matter sources given by (3.2). Recalling that the coefficient in front of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in (2.8) is $`[2F(p_1)q_2]`$, $`V_a^{(4)}(x,y)`$ simply is given by $`[2F(p_i(x;c_i,y))q_2(x;c_i,y)]`$, taken at linear order of $`c_0`$. The vertex $`V_b^{(4)}(x,y)`$ can be constructed in a similar manner. In fact, for all tree-graph vertices (with $`2N`$ outer legs) the knowledge of the solutions of the classical e.o.m. with localized matter sources (at $`N1`$ different points) is sufficient.

### 3.1 Equations of motion

The gauge-fixed action (2.8) yields the following e.o.m.:

$`_0p_1`$ $`=p_2,`$ (3.3)
$`_0p_2`$ $`=2F(p_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (3.4)
$`_0p_3`$ $`=V(p_1)p_2p_3U(p_1),`$ (3.5)
$`_0q_1`$ $`=q_3(V^{}(p_1)+p_2p_3U^{}(p_1))2F^{}(p_1)(\mathrm{\Phi }_1q_2\mathrm{\Phi }_0),`$ (3.6)
$`_0q_2`$ $`=q_1+q_3p_3U(p_1),`$ (3.7)
$`_0q_3`$ $`=q_3p_2U(p_1).`$ (3.8)
The system (3.3)-(3.8) can be solved exactly for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_1=0`$, as well as for localized matter (3.2). Then two patches ($`x^0<y^0`$ and $`x^0>y^0`$) must be matched by appropriate conditions at $`x^0=y^0`$. The structure of (3.3)-(3.8) shows that $`p_1,p_3,q_2,q_3`$ are continuous, whereas $`p_2,q_1`$ may jump at $`x^0=y^0`$. This yields six conditions relating the “asymptotic” integration constants ($`x^0>y^0`$) to the “inner” ones ($`x^0<y^0`$).

The conditions for the determination of the six asymptotic integration constants are:

* $`p_1|_{x^0\mathrm{}}=x^0`$ fixes two integration constants. It implies $`p_2|_{x^0\mathrm{}}=1`$.
* $`𝒞^{(g)}|_{x^0\mathrm{}}=𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ by (2.15) yields the constant in $`p_3`$. We will choose $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, which corresponds to the ground state – e.g. for SRG which is asymptotically flat this condition yields Minkowski space-time.
* $`q_3|_{x^0\mathrm{}}=1I(p_1)`$ establishes the unit of length.
* The remaining two integration constants are called $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$, because for SRG they correspond to a Schwarzschild and a Rindler term, respectively. Both of them enter $`q_2|_{x^0\mathrm{}}`$.

It should be noted that not all six integration constants are independent from each other: Eqs. (3.3)-(3.8) are not the complete set of (classical) e.o.m. of the model. Without gauge fixing also equations from variation of $`e_0^\pm `$ and $`\omega _0`$ – the secondary constraints in the Halitonian formalism  – must hold. In the quantum formalism they appear as “Ward identities” and resemble (3.3)-(3.4), but with the $`_1`$ derivative replacing $`_0`$. It turns out that they imply two additional independent relations,

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{}}=m_{\mathrm{}},a_{\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(3.9)
leaving the only non-trivial asymptotic quantity to be $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$. Due to our conventions $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ is negative for a positive BH mass.

Fixing these integration constants in this manner the global solutions for the momenta from (3.3)-(3.5) to $`𝒪(c_0)`$ are

$`p_1`$ $`=x^0+2F(y^0)(x^0y^0)h_0,`$ (3.10)
$`p_2`$ $`=1+2F(y^0)h_0,`$ (3.11)
$`p_3`$ $`=I^1(p_1)\left(m_{\mathrm{}}2F(y^0)w(y^0)h_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2}}w(p_1)\right),`$ (3.12)
with the abbreviations

$$h_i=c_i\theta (y^0x^0)\delta (x^1y^1),i=0,1.$$
(3.13)
From now on all quantities will be given only to the required linear order in $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$. The geometric part of the conserved quantity from (2.15) becomes

$$𝒞^{(g)}=m_{\mathrm{}}+2F(y^0)\left(m_{\mathrm{}}w(y^0)\right)h_0.$$
(3.14)
Thus, $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ fixes the asymptotic value of $`𝒞^{(g)}`$. One can observe already the VBH-phenomenon: The discontinuity in $`h_0`$ at $`x^0=y^0`$ also carries over to $`𝒞^{(g)}`$. Thus the VBH is a generic feature of all GDTs.

The solution for the component $`q_1`$ of the spin-connection is not needed for the line element and only $`_0q_1`$ (which can be read off from (3.6)) is needed for the curvature scalar555For SRG the curvature scalar can be calculated more elegantly using the Kerr-Schild decomposition .. The line element in the gauge in (2.6) from (2.7) only depends on the zweibeine $`q_2,q_3`$ which are the solutions of (3.6),(3.7):

$`q_2`$ $`=m_{\mathrm{}}w(p_1)2(x^0y^0)F^{}(y^0)h_1`$
$`+\left[4F(y^0)\left(w(x^0)w(y^0)\right)2(x^0y^0)(Fw)^{}|_{y^0}\right]h_0,`$ (3.15)
$`q_3`$ $`=I(p_1).`$ (3.16)
### 3.2 Effective geometry

The line element $`(ds)^2=2e^+e^{}`$ in the gauge (2.6) reads

$$(ds)^2=2q_3dx^0dx^1+2q_2q_3(dx^1)^2.$$
(3.17)
In order to bring it into a more familiar form we define a “radial” variable

$$dr=bq_3(x^0)dx^0,b^{},$$
(3.18)
and a “null coordinate”

$$du=b^1dx^1,$$
(3.19)
thus obtaining the line element in Sachs-Bondi form

$$(ds)^2=2drdu+K(r,u;r_0,u_0)(du)^2,$$
(3.20)
with the “Killing norm”666The quantities $`(r_0,u_0)`$ are related to $`(y^0,y^1)`$ like $`(r,u)`$ to $`(x^0,x^1)`$. $`K(r,u;r_0,u_0)=2b^2q_2q_3`$.

More explicitly $`K`$ reads

$$\begin{array}{c}K(r,u;r_0,u_0)=K_{\mathrm{}}\left[1+2F(y^0)U(x^0)(x^0y^0)h_0\right]4b^2I(x^0)(x^0y^0)\hfill \\ \hfill \left[F(y^0)\left(V(x^0)I(x^0)+V(y^0)I(y^0)\right)h_0+F^{}(y^0)\left(w(y^0)h_0+h_1\right)\right]\\ \hfill +8b^2I(x^0)F(y^0)\left(w(x^0)w(y^0)\right)h_0,\end{array}$$
(3.21)
with

$$K_{\mathrm{}}=2b^2I(x^0)\left(m_{\mathrm{}}w(x^0)\right)|_{c=0}.$$
(3.22)
Its continuity at $`x^0=y^0`$ is manifest in (3.21). For SRG in the VBH region a Schwarzschild term (proportional to $`1/r`$) and a Rindler term (proportional to $`r`$) are present in (3.21). Their appearance is somewhat surprising because apart from fixing the asymptotic boundary values of all geometric quantities we have made no assumption whatsoever on the geometry, except for its (Minkowskian) signature.

Depending on $`I(x^0)`$ and $`w(x^0)`$ asymptotic flatness777Statements about asymptotic flatness are in general not invariant under conformal transformations because in addition to $`w`$-dependence we have dependence on the boundary value $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ and also dependence on $`I`$, a conformally non-invariant quantity.
For definiteness we assume that the asymptotic region corresponds to $`x^0,r\mathrm{}`$. can be achieved for which there are two possibilities:

* $`I(x^0)w(x^0)|_{c=0}=\mathrm{const}.^{}`$ and $`lim_r\mathrm{}I(r)r^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 0`$.
* $`I(x^0)=\mathrm{const}.^{}`$ and $`lim_r\mathrm{}w(r)r^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 0`$.

The first scenario is fulfilled for all SRG models arising by reduction from $`D`$ dimensions ($`FX`$, $`x^0r^{D2}`$, $`D>3`$, $`\lambda ^{}`$)

$`U(X)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(D3)}{(D2)X}},V(X)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}(D2)(D3)X^{(D4)/(D2)},`$ (3.23)
$`I(X)`$ $`=X^{(3D)/(D2)},w(X)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}(D2)^2X^{(D3)/(D2)},`$ (3.24)
including the CGHS model as the formal limiting case $`D\mathrm{}`$, $`F=\mathrm{const}.`$ and $`\lambda 1/D`$ . The second case applies e.g. when SRG models are transformed conformally so that $`\stackrel{~}{U}=0`$.

For GDTs the only independent physical geometric quantity is the curvature scalar888There is a slight subtlety at this point, as there are two possible definitions of the curvature scalar (one with torsion, which is the one we are using here and one without torsion): in conformal frames where $`I1`$ the curvature scalar (as defined by the Hodge dual of the curvature two form) is not just the second derivative of the Killing norm, because part of the geometric information is encoded in the torsion. In the absence of matter one obtains for the curvature as derived from the Killing norm
$$R=2\left(V^{}(p_1)+p_2p_3U^{}(p_1)\right)4\frac{w^{\prime \prime }(p_1)}{I(p_1)},$$
(3.25)  while curvature as defined as the Hodge dual of the curvature 2-form reads
$$R=2\left(V^{}(p_1)+p_2p_3U^{}(p_1)\right).$$
(3.26)  In the absence of torsion ($`U=0`$) both definitions coincide. The torsion 2-form $`T^a`$ is proportional to the volume 2-form times $`U(p_1)t^a`$ with $`t^+=I(p_1)`$ and $`t^{}=𝒞^{(g)}w(p_1)`$. $`R^{(\mathrm{VBH})}=2(e)^1\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \omega _\beta =2q_3^1_0q_1`$ which in terms of the solutions (3.16) and (3.6) becomes

$$R^{(\mathrm{VBH})}=2\left(V^{}(p_1)+p_2p_3U^{}(p_1)\right)+4(I(p_1))^1F^{}(p_1)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1q_2\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right).$$
(3.27)
One can read off from (3.27) that the first term provides a step function at $`x^0=y^0`$ while the second term yields a contribution999In some models (e.g. all SRG models) an additional ($`\delta `$-like) contribution at the “origin” $`x^0=0`$ may arise . $`\delta (y^0x^0)`$. The latter is absent for minimal coupling. If additionally $`U^{}=0`$ – as for instance in the Katanaev-Volovich model  – the curvature scalar becomes even continuous. As the curvature depends on $`U`$ and $`V`$ separately it is quite different in conformally related theories.

The Carter-Penrose (CP) diagram of the VBH geometry is analogous to the SRG case discussed in ref. : there will be a light-like cut where the non-trivial part of geometry (namely the VBH) is localized with $`\delta `$-like contributions to the curvature scalar on its end-points. The rest of the CP-diagram is determined by (3.22). For instance, if the potentials and the asymptotic mass $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ are chosen such that $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ is constant, then the CP diagram is given by the one for Minkowski space beside the VBH. One can simply determine the full CP-diagram by disregarding the VBH in a first step (thus drawing an ordinary CP-diagram for a line element (3.20) with $`K`$ being replaced by $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$) and then simply adding the light-like cut representing the VBH.

As in the previous case one obtains a family of CP-diagrams labelled by the endpoint (denoted by $`y`$ in fig. 3.2). All these (off-shell) geometries are (continuously) summed in the $`S`$-matrix.

### 3.3 Symmetric four-point vertex

To obtain the interaction vertex $`V_a^{(4)}`$ one has101010Especially at this point it might be convenient to consult section 8 of the review  or corresponding parts of the original papers . to substitute the classical solutions (3.10)-(3.16) in the interaction term $`F(p_1)q_2\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)`$, truncate it to linear order in $`c_0`$, multiply by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)`$, and integrate over the space-time.

$$\begin{array}{c}V_a^{(4)}=2_x_y\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(y)\theta (x^0y^0)\delta (x^1y^1)F(x^0)F(y^0)\hfill \\ \hfill [4(w(x^0)w(y^0))2(x^0y^0)(w^{}(x^0)+w^{}(y^0)\\ \hfill +\frac{F^{}(y^0)}{F(y^0)}w(y^0)+\frac{F^{}(x^0)}{F(x^0)}(w(x^0)m_{\mathrm{}}))].\end{array}$$
(3.28)
This vertex has the following properties:

* It vanishes for $`x^0=y^0`$.
* It depends only on the combination (2.13) of $`U`$ and $`V`$ in the function $`w(p_1)`$; since $`w(p_1)`$ is invariant under conformal transformations also the vertex is invariant, if $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ was fixed to the same value in all conformal frames.
* It respects the $`_2`$ symmetry $`F(p_1)F(p_1)`$; thus, a change of the sign of the gravitational coupling constant (implicitly contained in $`F(p_1)`$) does not change the result for this vertex111111 It is interesting to note that the one-loop quantum effective action for non-minimally coupled matter fields respects a different $`_2`$ symmetry : $`F(p_1)F(p_1)^1`$..

### 3.4 Non-symmetric four-point vertex

An additional vertex arises for non-minimal coupling ($`F^{}0`$ in (2.5)):

$$V_b^{(4)}=4_x_y\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)\delta (x^1y^1)F(x^0)F^{}(y^0)\left|x^0y^0\right|.$$
(3.29)
It shares the properties with its symmetric counterpart, except for the fact that it is even independent of $`U`$ and $`V`$.

No further vertices appear, unless one adds mass-terms (they yield additional vertices as shown in ref. ) or local self-interactions (which are rather trivial).

## 4 $`𝑺`$-matrix elements

The $`S`$-matrix element with ingoing modes $`q`$, $`q^{}`$ and outgoing ones $`k`$, $`k^{}`$,

$$T(q,q^{};k,k^{})=\frac{1}{2}0\left|a_k^{}a_k^{}^{}\left(V_a^{(4)}+V_b^{(4)}\right)a_q^+a_q^{}^+\right|0,$$
(4.1)
depends not exclusively on the vertices (3.28), (3.29), but also on the asymptotic states of the scalar field with corresponding creation/anihilation operators $`a^\pm `$ obeying canonical commutation relations of the form $`[a_k^{},a_k^{}^+]\delta (kk^{})`$.

Their explicit form is model dependent and sensitive to $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$. That is why from now on we restrict ourselves to general statements rather than calculations which have been already rather lengthy in previous work on SRG .

### 4.1 Asymptotic matter states

The metric extracted from $`(ds)^2`$ in (3.17) at $`x^0\mathrm{}`$ determines the asymptotic matter states in the $`S`$-matrix. They not only depend on the model but also on the value of $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$. In this limit the Klein-Gordon equation, expressed by the asymptotic form of $`q_2=m_{\mathrm{}}w(x^0)`$ reads

$$_1_0\varphi +\frac{F^{}(x^0)}{2F(x^0)}_1\varphi =q_2_0_0\varphi +q_2\frac{F^{}(x^0)}{F(x^0)}_0\varphi w^{}(x^0)_0\varphi ,$$
(4.2)
If (4.2) can be solved exactly and the set of solutions is complete and normalizable (in an appropriate sense) a Fock space for incoming and outgoing scalars can be constructed in the usual way. Eq. (4.2) is conformally invariant with the previous caveat concerning $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$. Since the integration constant $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ enters (4.2) the asymptotic states depend on the choice of boundary conditions.

Most string inspired dilaton models exclusively use minimally coupled scalars ($`F(p_1)=\mathrm{const}.`$). In that case (4.2) simplifies drastically:

$$_0(_1\varphi q_2_0\varphi )=0$$
(4.3)
Solutions of this equation are outgoing modes

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}=a_k^+\mathrm{exp}\left(ikx^1\right),$$
(4.4)
and ingoing ones

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}=a_k^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(ik\left(x^1+^{x^0}\frac{dz}{m_{\mathrm{}}w(z)}\right)\right).$$
(4.5)
Using first (3.18) and (3.19) and then the Regge-Wheeler redefinition $`dt=du+dr/K_{\mathrm{}}(r;r_0)`$ with $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ given by (3.22) one can switch to the more transparent $`(r,t)`$ coordinates. In terms of these we obtain ordinary asymptotic plane waves. After defining a properly normalized commutation relation between $`a_k^{}`$ and $`a_k^+`$ one can build the Fock space and calculate the $`S`$-matrix using the vertex (3.28) in complete analogy to  where the special case $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, $`U(p_1)=1/(2p_1)`$ and $`V(p_1)=\mathrm{const}.`$ has been investigated.

We emphasize that only one vertex is present in the minimally coupled case. For the model considered in  this has led to the conclusion that one of the following three alternatives must hold: 1. the scattering amplitude diverges, 2. the scattering amplitude vanishes (if the virtual black hole is plugged by an ad hoc regularity condition) or 3. the scalar field acquires a mass term, thus producing a second four-point vertex.

Considering non-minimally coupled scalars induces two important complications: firstly, the asymptotic Klein-Gordon equation (and hence also the asymptotic states) differs and secondly, an additional vertex (3.29) exists. For SRG especially the second drawback turned into a virtue, since the scattering amplitude exhibited some very nice features (to start with, it was finite without additional regularity conditions as opposed to the minimal case) .

### 4.2 CPT invariance

Since our effective theory is non-local, CPT-invariance is not guaranteed by the CPT theorem121212The parent dilaton gravity theory is local but contains singular interactions.  . Therefore, possibilities of CPT violation must be explored because they could imply a preferred direction of time.

Indeed, the result obtained for SRG in  can be generalized straightforwardly to arbitrary dilaton models. There is, however, a subtlety: in those previous calculations $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ was a natural consequence of the asymptotically flat metric. Under this assumption, the gauge choice $`\omega _0=0`$, $`e_0^{}=1`$, $`e_0^+=0`$ led to some trivial sign changes in intermediate formulae (in particular, $`e_1^{}`$ flipped its sign) and an overall sign change in the (real) scattering amplitude. From this and the fact that $`C`$ and $`P`$ act trivially $`CPT`$ invariance could be established.

In the presence of a non-vanishing integration constant $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ the question arises how to relate its values for different gauges. There is only one way to retain $`CPT`$ invariance: the new value for $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ must be related to the old one by $`m_{\mathrm{}}^{CPT}=m_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then $`e_1^{}`$ (and also the vertices and the amplitude) again simply flip their sign.

The physical interpretation of this treatment of the integration constant is model dependent. For asymptotically flat models it means that the space-time and its mirror version must have the same ADM mass. For instance, in SRG the term $`12m_{\mathrm{}}/r`$ present in the Killing norm has to change into $`1+2(m_{\mathrm{}}^{CPT})/r`$ and thus $`m_{\mathrm{}}^{CPT}=m_{\mathrm{}}`$; note that the ADM mass is $`+m_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the first case and $`m_{\mathrm{}}^{CPT}`$ in the second case, so (by construction) it does not change. For generic other models no such interpretation seems to be available.

### 4.3 Conformal invariance

#### 4.3.1 General considerations

As can be seen directly from (3.27) the curvature scalar obviously is not invariant under conformal transformations. For GDTs without matter (but with coupling to test particles because otherwise geometry is void131313Geometry without test-particles to probe it is like the fiction of “empty space” or the fiction of quantum mechanical “observables” without external sources to probe them .) this leads to the immediate conclusion that GDTs are not conformally invariant – for instance, the global structure can change by conformal transformations because in general they have one or more singular points (cf. e.g.  and references therein).

In the present context, however, we do not need test-particles anymore, because we have (scalar) matter available to test geometry, e.g. by preparing some initial scalar field configuration and measuring the final one141414We note parallels to the concept of “quantum singularities”, where test-particles are replaced by a wavefunction and singularities can be smoothed out .. The $`S`$-matrix describes the physical content of scattering processes.

Since both the asymptotic states and the vertices depend only on $`w`$ (a conformally invariant combination of the potentials $`U`$ and $`V`$), $`F`$ (the coupling function, which by assumption is not changed by conformal transformations), and $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ (the asymptotic mass-scale, which can be fixed to the same numerical value in each conformal frame) we can conclude that at tree level to lowest order in the scalar field conformal invariance exists. Classically one can trivially extend this result to the non-perturbative level (cf. eqs. (2.11) and (2.12) which only depend on $`w^{}(p_1)`$), but not to 1-loop level because the conformal anomaly will destroy this invariance.

#### 4.3.2 The special role of CGHS

In the CGHS model ($`U_{\mathrm{CGHS}}=1/X,V_{\mathrm{CGHS}}=2\lambda ^2X,F_{\mathrm{CGHS}}=\mathrm{const}.`$) the derivative of the quantity (2.13) is constant. Therefore, according to (3.28) $`V^{\left(4\right)}`$ vanishes. Actually the absence of classical scalar vertices, to be used in perturbation theory, extends to arbitrary orders in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ of (2.9) as can be verified by inspection of the Lagrangian (2.11) with (2.12). Thus, nontrivial scattering with an arbitrary number of external scalar legs would have to result from higher order quantum effects, to be derived e.g. from quantum back reaction which has not been considered in the simplified path integral (2.10). The absence of classical scattering from the string inspired CGHS model explains its simplicity and, at the same time, questions its status as an emblematic BH laboratory relative to all other GDTs (including especially SRG itself) where $`w^{}\left(p_1\right)\mathrm{const}.`$

Obviously this “scattering triviality” extends to a wider class of GDTs with minimally coupled scalars: if the potentials $`V_{ST}`$ and $`U_{ST}`$ in (2.2) or (2.4) are related by

$$U_{ST}(p_1)V_{ST}(p_1)+V_{ST}^{}(p_1)=0$$
(4.6)
the crucial quantity $`w_{ST}^{}`$ remains constant. As an example of such models the “$`ab`$-family” $`U=a/X`$, $`VX^{(a+b)}`$  can be considered. The triviality condition (4.6) establishes $`b=0`$, containing the class of soluble models studied by Fabbri and Russo . As can be seen from fig. 3.12 in  the value $`b=0`$ is a critical one for it separates different “phases” of Carter–Penrose diagrams.

#### 4.3.3 Presence of the VBH phenomenon

The VBH effect was tied to the appearance of a discontinuity in $`𝒞^{\left(g\right)}`$ of (3.14). Again the conformally invariant quantity $`w`$, here combined with the constant $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$, plays a central role. By the same token as above the VBH is conformally invariant.

Despite the presence of the VBH in the CGHS model we register the peculiar situation that it has no (classically) observable consequences due to “scattering triviality” (4.6). Thus, scattering non-triviality implies the VBH phenomenon but not vice versa. Only for “generalized teleparallel151515Teleparallel theories obey $`U=\mathrm{const}.`$, $`V=0`$ while “generalized” refers to arbitrary $`U(p_1)`$ but retaining $`V=0`$.” theories with $`w(p_1)=w_0=\mathrm{const}.`$ the VBH phenomenon will be absent provided $`m_{\mathrm{}}=w_0`$.

## 5 Conclusion and Outlook

We have established the existence of the virtual black hole phenomenon for all Generalized Dilaton Theories with (scalar) matter, with the notable exception of “generalized teleparallel” theories. The corresponding effective geometry (3.20) shows essentially the same features as the previously discussed case of spherically reduced gravity . The ensuing tree-level $`S`$-matrix for scattering of scalars is CPT and conformally invariant. For the CGHS model and a class of similar ones (4.6) where $`w^{}(p_1)`$ as defined in (2.13) is constant no tree-level vertices with any number of scalar legs are produced.

One can apply our methods to evaluate the $`S`$-matrix for all models where the set of solutions of (4.2) is complete and normalizable, i.e. where an asymptotic Fock space can be constructed. In some cases the results will be not very illuminating , in other cases they exhibit interesting properties . For instance, spherically reduced gravity from arbitrary dimension $`D`$ could be worthwhile studying, since on the one hand for $`D=4`$ we already know the result to be highly non-trivial and it would be rewarding to verify whether this is generic or rather a special feature of $`D=4`$. On the other hand the formal limit $`D\mathrm{}`$ will yield the CGHS model with nonminimally coupled scalars. Moreover, for $`m_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ the Fock space construction is straightforward in these particular cases, the asymptotic modes being $`D`$-dimensional $`s`$-waves.

Although some of our statements like tree-level conformal invariance and “scattering triviality” in certain models are valid for tree-vertices with any number of scalar legs, we were concerned mostly with the lowest order of these vertices ((3.28), (3.29)). The non-symmetric one vanishes for minimal coupling $`F(p_1)=\mathrm{const}.`$.

The next obvious step at tree-level is a generalization to arbitrary 6-point vertices. They will be the first ones to break the $`_2`$-symmetry discussed in the paragraph below (3.28). Loop calculations, which will give insight into the nature of the information paradox are in progress. First results for the CGHS model are already available: the otherwise trivial specific heat becomes mass dependent at 1-loop level .

We conclude this paper by noting that virtual black holes may be significant already at the collider energies according to some models (cf. e.g. ). In principle, our analysis may be extended even to creation of real black holes at future colliders . However, in a theoretical analysis one would have to give up spherical symmetry, so that a direct application of our approach would no longer be possible.

## Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by project P-14650-TPH of the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) and the MPI MIS (Leipzig). We thank P. Fischer for discussion. D.G. is grateful to D. Konkowski for drawing his attention to the concept of quantum singularities.


text:
# Zero cycles on generic hypersurfaces of large degree

## Abstract.

We show that given a smooth projective variety $`X`$ over $`𝐂`$ with $`dim(X)3`$, an ample line bundle $`𝒪(1)`$ on $`X`$ and an integer $`n>1`$, any $`n`$ distinct points on a generic hypersurface of degree $`d`$ are linearly independent in $`CH_0(X)`$ if $`d>>0`$. This generalizes a result of C. Voisin.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective algebraic variety over $``$ of dimension $`r+13`$. Let $``$ be an ample line bundle on $`X`$. Let $`S^d=H^0(X,^d)`$ and for a point $`xX`$, let $`S_x^d=H^0(X,^d_x)`$, where $`_x`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`x`$. Let $`R=_{d0}S^d`$.

###### Lemma 1.

There exists an integer $`m>0`$ such that, for all $`d>>0`$, the following holds:

(i) The natural map $`S^dS^mS^{d+m}`$ is surjective.

(ii) The natural map $`S^dS_x^mS_x^{d+m}`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Let the ring $`R`$ be generated in degrees $`t`$. Let $`m_1=t!`$ . It is easy to see that $`am_1`$ satisfies condition (i) of the lemma for $`d>at!t(t+1)/2`$, for any positive integer $`a`$. Let $`d^{}`$ be a positive integer so that $`^d^{}`$ is generated by its global sections. There exists $`m`$, a positive multiple of $`m_1`$, such that the maps $`S^d^{}S_x^mS_x^{d^{}+m}`$ are surjective for all $`xX`$. For $`d>>0`$, both the maps $`S^{dd^{}}S^d^{}S^d`$ and $`S^{dd^{}}S_x^{d^{}+m}S_x^{d+m}`$ are surjective since $``$ is ample, hence the map $`S^{dd^{}}S^d^{}S_x^mS_x^{d+m}`$ is also surjective. The following commutative diagram then shows that the map $`S^dS_x^mS_x^{d+m}`$ is surjective.

Let $`𝒳X\times S^d`$ be the universal hyperplane section. For $`sS^d`$ we denote the fibre $`p_2^{}(s)`$ by $`X_s`$, which we shall assume to be smooth. For a vector bundle $`𝒱`$ on $`X`$, by $`𝒱(b)`$ we shall mean $`𝒱^b`$.

###### Proposition 1.

For $`d>>0`$, the bundle $`T𝒳(m)_{|X_s}`$ is generated by its global sections.

###### Proof.

The proof, given the previous lemma, is identical to Proposition 1.1 of  and is hence omitted. ∎

###### Corollary 1.

There exists a linear function $`d(n)`$ of n, such that for all $`dd(n)`$, the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒳^{dimS_d}|_{X_s}`$ separates any $`n`$ distinct points of $`X_s`$ i.e. the global sections of the bundle surject onto the global sections of the bundle restricted to any subscheme consisting of $`n`$ distinct reduced points.

###### Proof.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒳^{dimS_d}|_{X_s}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒳^r|_{X_s}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒦_𝒳|_{X_s}^rT𝒳|_{X_s}𝒦_{X_s}^rT𝒳(rm)|_{X_s}𝒦_{X_s}(rm)^rT𝒳(rm)|_{X_s}𝒦_X(drm)|_{X_s}`$. By the proposition $`^rT𝒳(rm)|_{X_s}`$ is generated by global sections if $`d>>0`$. Since $``$ is ample, there exists a linear function $`d(n)`$ such that $`𝒦_X(drm)|_{X_s}`$ separates $`n`$ points if $`dd(n)`$. It follows that the tensor product also separates $`n`$ distinct points. ∎

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $`r+13`$ and let $``$ be an ample line bundle on $`X`$. Then there exists a linear function $`d(n)`$ such that for all $`dd(n)`$, any $`n`$ distinct points of a generic hypersurface $`X_s`$, $`sS^d`$, are linearly independent in $`CH^r(X_s)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose not. Then there exists an etale map $`SS^d`$ and $`n`$ distinct sections $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$ of $`𝒳_S`$ such that the classes of these sections in $`CH^r(𝒳_S)`$ are linearly dependent. We may assume that $`S`$ is affine and that all the fibres are smooth. Consider the classes of these cycles, $`[\sigma _i]`$, in the Hodge cohomology group $`H^r(𝒳_S,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_S}^r)`$. By the Grothendieck-Serre duality, it is easy to see that as an element of $`Hom(H^0(𝒳_S,\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳_S}^{dimS}),H^0(S,\mathrm{\Omega }_S^{dimS}))`$, $`[\sigma _i]`$ is nothing but the restriction map $`\sigma _i^{}`$ on differential forms. By the previous corollary we see that all the $`\sigma _i^{}`$ are linearly independent, which is a contradiction. ∎

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`X`$, $``$ be as above. There exists a linear function $`d^{}(n)`$ such that for all $`dd^{}(n)`$, the generic hypersurface $`X_s`$, $`sS^d`$, does not contain any (possibly singular) $`n`$-gonal curves.

###### Proof.

Follows easily from the theorem by considering two distinct elements in the linear system corresponding to a degree $`n`$ map from the normalisation of the curve to $`^1`$. ∎

*Acknowledgements.* This note was written while the author was partially supported by an N.S.F. grant at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, during the year 1995-1996.