text:
# Ω⁻ Hyperon Decay Modes with the HyperCP Experiment at Fermilab.

## 1 Theoretical Background

The $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ hyperon with three strange quarks is of great theoretical interest because of its unique ability to tell us about the processes involved in the decay . However to be able to actually use this wonderful tool provided by nature it is first necessary to obtain a large sample of interesting decays. The HyperCP experiment has made great progress in this pursuit with a recent observation of a rare decay mode.

The decays of interest and their theoretical expected  or previously reported Branching Ratios (BR) are:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\gamma 1.6\times 10^4`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}4.3\times 10^4\text{[3]}`$ (2)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}e^+e^{}1.4\times 10^6`$ (3)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}6.6\times 10^8`$ (4)
(The equivalent anti-particle processes are also of interest.) All of these decay modes have a high-$`Q`$ released energy and should not be limited by phase space. The radiative decay mode listed first has yet to be seen, but it has a high theoretical BR. The second decay mode has many possible suppressed feynman diagrams that can contribute (such as tree, penguin, and double-Zweig) and perhaps others due to new particles including higgs or supersymmetry, but experimentally it has a substantial BR. The last two decays are flavor-changing neutral currents, which have never been seen with hyperon decays.

Observation of these decays, especially with high statistics, can be a useful tool for both probing the accuracy of the standard model, and as a means to look for new physics. A large decay sample can be useful for more than just the BR measurement. The subsequent decay of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ can tell us about the decay itself by using its analyzing power to look for an asymmetry in the decay , similar to that done with other hyperon radiative decays .

There are also two other processes that can contribute to the decay in equation (2). These are when the final observed five tracks have gone through a short lived resonance:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530)\pi ^{}(5)`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\sigma ^0(400)(6)`$
$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$
Observation of the $`\sigma ^0(400)`$ would be important since the existence of this state is highly debated and has never been observed in any decay chain. Its mass value is stated in the PDG as being from 400 to 1200 Mev/c2 and its Breit-Wigner width is anywhere from 600 to 1000 MeV/c2! All of these parameters could be resolved if this particle is studied in a decay.

## 2 New Results in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ Decays

The HyperCP experiment E871 at Fermilab took data in 1997 and 1999 . The experiment is depicted in figure 1. It was designed to search for CP violation in Hyperons . The 800 GeV/c proton beam hit a target at the entrance of a hyperon channel with a nominal momentum of 170 GeV/$`c`$ and a bite of $`\pm 35`$ GeV/$`c`$ FWHM. The experiment’s decay volume started at the exit of the hyperon channel and was 13 meters long. The experiment itself is a charged particle tracking spectrometer, with 4 MWPC before a high-field analysis magnet and 4 MWPC after the analysis magnet. These were followed by a hodoscope of 10-cm wide vertical paddles in the positive and negative arms of the spectrometer. There was a muon identification system further downstream that consisted of a muon hodoscope and three layers of steel and proportional tubes.

The trigger of the experiment consisted of at least two charged tracks of opposite polarity and energy in the calorimeter, which was a combination electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeter. The experiment wrote more than 40,000 5Gb Exabyte data tapes. These raw data tapes were processed to produce different output data streams which had further requirements such as three charged tracks, good masses, and identified muons depending upon the intended physics use of each stream. Anti-particle processes (referred to as “positive” data) were studied in the same spectrometer under identical conditions (except for their production momentum spectra and daughter-particle interaction cross sections) by reversing the magnetic field in the hyperon channel and analysis magnets.

The results presented here come from an analysis of the stream with at least three charged tracks for the decay mode $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and at least three charged tracks plus two opposite polarity muon tracks for the decay mode $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The selection cuts were devised with a blind analysis on signal, normalizing and background modes generated with a dedicated Monte-Carlo simulation program. The cuts used in this analysis were: (a) three negative and two positive tracks, (b) all decay vertices inside the decay volume, (c) vertex topology consistent with the intended decay, (d) total $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ momentum between 120 and 220 GeV/$`c`$, (e) all reconstructed masses within $`\pm 3`$ sigma of their nominal mass, and (f) the reconstructed $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ track appeared to come from the aperture of the hyperon channel exit. For the muon decay mode of equation (4) an additional requirement from the muon identification system was imposed. For the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, the number of different charged particles required was inverted.

Normalization of the candidate events could be done with both the five- and three-track decays $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ where the $`K^{}`$ either does or does not decay into three charged pions. In either case the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays into proton and $`\pi ^{}`$. The five-track decay mode is the most valuable decay for normalization since the topology is very similar to the signal modes and is the one used in all BR calculations presented here. The Monte-Carlo was used for acceptance corrections among the various modes. For the signal mode of equation (2) a uniformly populated phase space generator was used. The Monte-Carlo was also used to simulate possible backgrounds before opening the signal box. At that stage of the analysis there was confidence that no significant backgrounds to these decay modes existed.

## 3 Observations and Measurements

The full HyperCP data sample was analyzed . The observed “negative” five-track signal of the decay $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is shown in figure 2, and the normalization was done with the five-track decay mode $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ where $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ shown in figure 3.

When combined with the acceptance correction from Monte-Carle simulation and the appropriate known BR from the PDG  it permitted measuring

$`BR(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(7)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}}{N_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K3pi^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K3pi^{}}}{A_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{BR(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})\times BR(K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{BR(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{})}}.`$
All data sets and their combinations yields statistically consistent results as shown in figure 4. The signal events within $`\pm 3`$ sigma were used, and the background under the signal peak was estimated using the side bands at $`\pm 711`$ sigma.

## 4 Conclusion

The final combined preliminary BR for this decay mode is $`3.6\times 10^4`$ with a statistical error of $`\pm 0.3\times 10^4`$, which is slightly better than a 10% measurement. The HyperCP data sample was also used to measure the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ hyperon (referred to in the graph as “Pos.” data), and this yields a very similar result within errors. The full data sample was also used to look for the flavor-changing neutral-current decay modes with muon pairs. No candidate events were observed yielding a preliminary BR limit with only the negative data as $`<1\times 10^4`$ at the 90% confidence level.

A first look at the resonance mode of equation (5) shows no clear sign of its existence (see figure 5), but the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(1530)`$ is a wide resonance and spin has not yet been taken into account in the Monte-Carlo simulation of this decay so the exact expectations of its signature may be not be an obvious peak.

Further work is needed to refine these results and their associated systematic errors which are not worse than these statistical errors. There are also plans to use this data to understand what, if anything, resonance decays could be contributing. Furthermore, by using the self-analyzing power of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays it should be possible to look for any asymmetries of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair, similar to the asymmetry seen in hyperon radiative decays, to yield clues to the decay mechanism.

## Acknowledgments

The data used in this analysis is the direct result of a lot of hard work by members of the HyperCP experiment, and by the Fermilab and University technical staffs. This work was partly done in conjunction with Nathan Stobie, a senior thesis student at the Illinois Institute of Technology. I am also greatly indebted to Jon Rosner and Paul Singer for many useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we continue investigation of the black-brane solutions with arbitrary intersection rules . These solutions are governed by functions $`H_s=H_s(R)`$ obeying a set of second order non-linear differential equations (equivalent to Toda-type ones) with certain boundary conditions imposed.

More general spherically symmetric solutions were obtained in  using the sigma-model approach from . For another (algebraic) approach see also  and references therein.

In order to simplify the investigation of such model and obtain exact solutions the following conjecture was suggested in : the functions $`H_s`$ are polynomials if the $`p`$-brane intersection rules correspond to semisimple Lie algebras. This conjecture was verified for solutions with $`A_m`$ and $`C_m`$ series of Lie algebras  and also confirmed by special black-brane ”block-orthogonal” solutions considered earlier in . It should be noted that an analogue of this conjecture for extremal black holes was considered earlier in .

Although the conjecture mentioned above allows one to reduce the set of differential equations to the system of algebraic one, it still seems to be very difficult to get the general solution to this set of equations too. So, the only way of obtaining exact solutions is to investigate special cases with different Lie algebras (such as $`A_2`$, $`C_2`$ etc.).

The simplest nontrivial example of black-brane solution corresponding to Lie algebra $`A_2=sl(3)`$ was obtained in  (e.g. dyonic solutions in $`11`$-dimensional supergravity). This $`A_2`$-solution was governed by two polynomials $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ of degree $`2`$. The coefficients of polynomials and charges were the functions of some parameters $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ and had a rather simple form.

Here we present a new solution corresponding to the Lie algebra $`A_3`$ and governed by three polynomials of degree 3, 4 and 3. The coefficients of polynomials exhibit a non-meromorphic dependence upon parameters $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$: a term, which is a square root of a polynomial of degree 4, appears. (For the special case with $`P_1=P_3`$ the solution was already obtained and investigated in ). Here we also suggest an example of $`A_3`$-solution with three $`3`$-branes in $`12`$-dimensional model from .

## 2 $`p`$-brane black hole solutions

Consider a model governed by the action

$`S={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{|g|}\left\{R[g]h_{\alpha \beta }g^{MN}_M\phi ^\alpha _N\phi ^\beta \underset{a\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\theta _a}{n_a!}\mathrm{exp}[2\lambda _a(\phi )](F^a)^2\right\}}`$ (1)
where $`g=g_{MN}(x)dx^Mdx^N`$ is a metric, $`\phi =(\phi ^\alpha )^l`$ is a vector of scalar fields, $`(h_{\alpha \beta })`$ is a constant symmetric non-degenerate $`l\times l`$ matrix $`(l)`$, $`\theta _a=\pm 1`$,

$$F^a=dA^a=\frac{1}{n_a!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^adz^{M_1}\mathrm{}dz^{M_{n_a}}$$
(2)
is a $`n_a`$-form ($`n_a1`$), $`\lambda _a`$ is a 1-form on $`^l`$: $`\lambda _a(\phi )=\lambda _{\alpha a}\phi ^\alpha `$, $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},l`$. In (1) we denote $`|g|=|det(g_{MN})|`$, $`(F^a)_g^2=F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_{n_a}}^aF_{N_1\mathrm{}N_{n_a}}^ag^{M_1N_1}\mathrm{}g^{M_{n_a}N_{n_a}}`$, $`a\mathrm{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is some finite set. It should be noted that in the models with one time all $`\theta _a=1`$ if the signature of the metric is $`(1,+1,\mathrm{},+1)`$.

Let us consider (black-brane) solutions to the field equations corresponding to the action (1) from . These solutions are defined on the manifold

$$M=(R_0,+\mathrm{})\times (M_1=S^{d_1})\times (M_2=)\times \mathrm{}\times M_n,$$
(3)
and have the following form

$`g=\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_sd(I_s)/(D2)}\right)\{f^1dRdR+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d_1}^2`$ (4)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s}\right)fdtdt+{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{2h_s\delta _{iI_s}}\right)g^i\},`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\phi ^\alpha )={\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}H_s^{h_s\chi _s\lambda _{a_s}^\alpha },`$ (5)
$`F^a={\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}\delta _{a_s}^a^s,`$ (6)
where $`f=12\mu /R^{\overline{d}}`$,

$$^s=\frac{Q_s}{R^{d_1}}(\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}})dR\tau (I_s),sS_e,$$
(7)
$$^s=Q_s\tau (\overline{I}_s),sS_m.$$
(8)
Here $`Q_s0`$ ($`sS`$) are charges, $`R_0>0`$, $`R_0^{\overline{d}}=2\mu >0`$ and $`\overline{d}=d_11`$. In (4) $`g^i=g_{m_in_i}^i(y_i)dy_i^{m_i}dy_i^{n_i}`$ is a Ricci-flat metric on $`M_i`$, $`i=3,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`\delta _{iI}=_{jI}\delta _{ij}`$ is the indicator of $`i`$ belonging to $`I`$: $`\delta _{iI}=1`$ for $`iI`$ and $`\delta _{iI}=0`$ otherwise. Here $`g^2=dtdt`$, and $`g^1=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d_1}`$ is a canonical metric on unit sphere $`M_1=S^{d_1}`$,

The $`p`$-brane set $`S`$ is by definition

$$S=S_eS_m,S_v=_a\mathrm{}\{a\}\times \{v\}\times \mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v},$$
(9)
$`v=e,m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e},\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ is the set of all non-empty subsets of $`\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, i.e. all $`p`$-branes do not “live” in $`M_1`$.

Any $`p`$-brane index $`sS`$ has the form $`s=(a_s,v_s,I_s)`$, where $`a_s\mathrm{}`$, $`v_s=e,m`$ and $`I_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{a_s,v_s}`$. The sets $`S_e`$ and $`S_m`$ define electric and magnetic $`p`$-branes, correspondingly. In (5) $`\chi _s=+1,1`$ for $`sS_e,S_m`$, respectively. All $`p`$-branes contain the time manifold $`M_2=`$, i.e.

$$2I_s,sS.$$
(10)
All manifolds $`M_i`$, $`i>2`$, are oriented and connected and

$$\tau _i\sqrt{|g^i(y_i)|}dy_i^1\mathrm{}dy_i^{d_i},$$
(11)
are volume $`d_i`$-forms, where $`d_i=\mathrm{dim}M_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, with $`d_1>1`$ and $`d_2=1`$. For any $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k`$, we denote

$$\tau (I)\tau _{i_1}\mathrm{}\tau _{i_k},d(I)=\underset{iI}{}d_i.$$
(12)
The forms $`^s`$ correspond to the electric and magnetic $`p`$-branes for $`sS_e,S_m`$, respectively. In (8) we use the notation $`\overline{I}=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}I`$.

The parameters $`h_s`$ appearing in the solution satisfy the relations: $`h_s=(B_{ss})^1`$, where

$$B_{ss^{}}=d(I_sI_s^{})+\frac{d(I_s)d(I_s^{})}{2D}+\chi _s\chi _s^{}\lambda _{\alpha a_s}\lambda _{\beta a_s^{}}h^{\alpha \beta },$$
(13)
$`s,s^{}S`$, with $`(h^{\alpha \beta })=(h_{\alpha \beta })^1`$ and $`D=1+_{i=1}^nd_i`$. Here we assume that

$$(𝐢)B_{ss}0,$$

$`sS`$, and

$$(\mathrm{𝐢𝐢})\mathrm{det}(B_{ss^{}})0,$$

i.e. the matrix $`(B_{ss^{}})`$ is a non-degenerate one.

Let us consider the matrix

$$(A_{ss^{}})=\left(2B_{ss^{}}/B_{s^{}s^{}}\right).$$
(14)
Here some ordering in $`S`$ is assumed.

The functions $`H_s=H_s(z)>0`$, $`z=2\mu /R^{\overline{d}}(0,1)`$, obey the equations

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{(1z)}{H_s}\frac{dH_s}{dz}\right)=B_s\underset{s^{}S}{}H_s^{}^{A_{ss^{}}},$$
(15)
equipped with the boundary conditions

$`H_s(10)=H_{s0}(0,+\mathrm{}),`$ (16)
$`H_s(+0)=1,`$ (17)
$`sS`$. Here

$$B_s=B_{ss}\epsilon _sQ_s^2/(2\overline{d}\mu )^2,\epsilon _s=(\epsilon [g])^{(1\chi _s)/2}\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s},$$
(18)
$`sS`$, $`\epsilon [g]signdet(g_{MN})`$. More explicitly eq. (18) reads: $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$ for $`v_s=e`$ and $`\epsilon _s=\epsilon [g]\epsilon (I_s)\theta _{a_s}`$, for $`v_s=m`$.

Eqs. (15) had to be solved in order to obtain explicit solutions. They are equivalent to the Toda-type equations . The first boundary condition (16) guarantees the existence of a regular horizon at $`R^{\overline{d}}=2\mu `$. The second condition (17) ensures an asymptotical flatness (for $`R+\mathrm{}`$) of the $`(2+d_1)`$-dimensional section of the metric.

Due to eqs. (7) and (8), the dimension of $`p`$-brane world volume $`d(I_s)`$ is defined by relations: $`d(I_s)=n_{a_s}1`$, $`d(I_s)=Dn_{a_s}1`$, for $`sS_e,S_m`$, respectively. For a $`p`$-brane we use a standard notation: $`p=p_s=d(I_s)1`$.

The solutions are valid if the appropriate restriction on the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$ is imposed. This restriction guarantees the block-diagonal structure of the stress-energy tensor. We denote $`w_1\{i|i\{2,\mathrm{},n\},d_i=1\}`$ and $`n_1=|w_1|`$ (i.e. $`n_1`$ is the number of 1-dimensional spaces among $`M_i`$, $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$). It is clear, that $`2w_1`$.

Restriction. Let 1a) $`n_11`$ or 1b) $`n_12`$ and for any $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`v\{e,m\}`$, $`i,jw_1`$, $`ij`$, there are no $`I,J\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,v}`$ such that $`iI`$, $`jJ`$ and $`I\{i\}=J\{j\}`$.

This restriction is satisfied in the non-composite case: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,e}|+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,m}|=1`$, (i.e when there are no two $`p`$-branes with the same color index $`a`$, $`a\mathrm{}`$.) The restriction forbids certain intersections of two $`p`$-branes with the same color index for $`n_12`$.

The Hawking temperature corresponding to the solution has the form

$$T_H=\frac{\overline{d}}{4\pi (2\mu )^{1/\overline{d}}}\underset{sS}{}H_{s0}^{h_s},$$
(19)
where $`H_{s0}`$ are defined in (16).

The solution under consideration describes a set of charged (by forms) overlapping black $`p`$-branes ”living” on submanifolds of $`M_2\times \mathrm{}\times M_n`$.

## 3 Examples of solutions

### 3.1 “Block-orthogonal” solutions

The simplest polynomial solutions of eqs. (15) occur in orthogonal case , when

$$B_{ss^{}}=0,$$
(20)
for $`ss^{}`$, $`s,s^{}S`$. In this case $`(A_{ss^{}})=\mathrm{diag}(2,\mathrm{},2)`$ is a Cartan matrix for semisimple Lie algebra $`A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$ and

$$H_s(z)=1+P_sz,$$
(21)
with $`P_s0`$, satisfying

$$P_s(P_s+1)=B_s,$$
(22)
$`sS`$. For positive parameters $`P_s>0`$ we get negative $`B_s<0`$.

In  this solution of eqs. (15) was generalised to the ”block-orthogonal” case:

$$S=S_1\mathrm{}S_k,S_iS_j=\mathrm{},ij,$$
(23)
$`S_i\mathrm{}`$, i.e. the set $`S`$ is a union of $`k`$ non-intersecting (non-empty) subsets $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$, and relation (20) is satisfied for all $`sS_i`$, $`s^{}S_j`$, $`ij`$; $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. In this case eq. (21) is modified as follows

$$H_s(z)=(1+P_sz)^{b^s},$$
(24)
where

$$b^s=2\underset{s^{}S}{}A^{ss^{}},$$
(25)
$`(A^{ss^{}})=(A_{ss^{}})^1`$ and parameters $`P_s`$ are coinciding inside blocks, i.e. $`P_s=P_s^{}`$ for $`s,s^{}S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Parameters $`P_s0`$ satisfy the relations (22) and parameters $`B_s`$ are also coinciding inside blocks, i.e. $`B_s=B_s^{}`$ for $`s,s^{}S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. In this case all the powers in (25) are natural numbers coinciding with the components of twice the dual Weyl vector in the basis of simple roots , and hence, all functions $`H_s`$ are polynomials, $`sS`$. The following conjecture may help in finding solutions of eqs. (15).

Conjecture . Let $`(A_{ss^{}})`$ be a Cartan matrix for a semisimple finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Then the solution to eqs. (15)-(17) (if exists) is a polynomial

$$H_s(z)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_s}{}}P_s^{(k)}z^k,$$
(26)
where $`P_s^{(k)}`$ are constants, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n_s`$, the integers $`n_s=b^s`$ are defined in (25) and $`P_s^{(n_s)}0`$, $`sS`$.

This conjecture was verified for $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$ series of Lie algebras . In the extremal case $`\mu =+0`$ an a analogue of this conjecture was suggested earlier in .

### 3.2 Solution for $`A_2`$ algebra

Here before coming to solutions for $`A_3`$ algebra we present the polynomial solution from  corresponding to the Lie algebra $`A_2=sl(3)`$ with the Cartan matrix

$$\left(A_{ss^{}}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}2& 1& & & & \\ 1& 2& & & & \end{array}\right).$$
(27)
The moduli polynomials read in this case as follows

$$H_s=1+P_sz+P_s^{(2)}z^2,$$
(28)
where $`P_s=P_s^{(1)}`$ and $`P_s^{(2)}0`$ are constants and

$`P_s^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{P_sP_{s+1}(P_s+1)}{2(P_1+P_2+2)}},`$ (29)
$`B_s={\displaystyle \frac{P_s(P_s+1)(P_s+2)}{P_1+P_2+2}},`$ (30)
$`s=1,2`$. Here $`P_1+P_2+20`$.

In the $`A_2`$-case the solution is described by relations (4)-(8) with $`S=\{s_1,s_2\}`$ and intersection rules are following from (13), (14) and (27)

$`d(I_{s_1}I_{s_2})={\displaystyle \frac{d(I_{s_1})d(I_{s_2})}{D2}}\chi _{s_1}\chi _{s_2}\lambda _{a_{s_1}}\lambda _{a_{s_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K,`$ (31)
$`d(I_{s_i}){\displaystyle \frac{(d(I_{s_i}))^2}{D2}}+\lambda _{a_{s_i}}\lambda _{a_{s_i}}=K,`$ (32)
where $`K0`$ and functions $`H_{s_i}=H_i`$ are defined by relations (28)-(30) with $`z=2\mu R^{\overline{d}}`$, $`i=1,2`$. Here and in what follows $`\lambda \lambda ^{^{}}=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta ^{^{}}h^{\alpha \beta }`$.

### 3.3 Solution for $`A_3`$ algebra

Now we present the new solution related to the Lie algebra $`A_3=sl(4)`$ with the Cartan matrix

$$\left(A_{ss^{}}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& 1& 0\\ 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
According to Conjecture we seek the solution to eqs. (15)-(17) in the following form

$`H_1(z)=1+P_1z+P_1^{(2)}z^2+P_1^{(3)}z^3,`$ (34)
$`H_2(z)=1+P_2z+P_2^{(2)}z^2+P_2^{(3)}z^3+P_2^{(4)}z^4,`$ (35)
$`H_3(z)=1+P_3z+P_3^{(2)}z^2+P_3^{(3)}z^3,`$ (36)
where $`P_s=P_s^{(1)}`$ and $`P_s^{(k)}`$ are constants, $`s=1,2,3`$.

Here we outline the result obtained by computer calculations. For $`B_s`$-parameters (18) we get the following relations

$`B_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2+P_1+P_2P_3)}}[12\mathrm{\Delta }2P_1^32P_1^2(3P_3)+6P_3`$ (37)
$`+P_2(4+P_2)(3+P_3)+P_1(2+P_2(4+P_2)+6P_3)],`$
$`B_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[12\mathrm{\Delta }+6P_1+(3+P_1)P_2(4+P_2),`$ (38)
$`+(2+6P_1+P_2(4+P_2))P_32(3P_1)P_3^22P_3^3],`$
$`B_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2+P_1+P_2P_3)(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[(2+P_2)(\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (39)
$`(2+P_2)(2+(2+P_2)^2+2P_1P_3+3(P_1+P_3)))],`$
and for parameters $`P_s^{(k)}`$ in (15)-(17) we obtain

$`P_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2+P_1+P_2P_3)}}[12\mathrm{\Delta }+2P_1^2P_2+6P_3+P_2(4+P_2)(3+P_3)`$ (40)
$`+P_1(6+P_2(6+P_2)+4P_3)],`$
$`P_3^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[12\mathrm{\Delta }+6P_1+(3+P_1)P_2(4+P_2)`$ (41)
$`+(6+4P_1+P_2(6+P_2))P_3+2P_2P_3^2],`$
$`P_1^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(2+P_1+P_2P_3)}}[(2+P_1+P_2)(12\mathrm{\Delta }+6P_1+(3+P_1)P_2(4+P_2))`$ (42)
$`+(2P_1^2(2+P_2)+(2+P_2)(6+P_2(4+P_2))+P_1(14+P_2(10+P_2)))P_3],`$
$`P_3^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[P_1((2+P_2)(6+P_2(4+P_2))+(14+P_2(10+P_2))P_3`$ (43)
$`+2(2+P_2)P_3^2)+(2+P_2+P_3)(12\mathrm{\Delta }+6P_3+P_2(4+P_2)(3+P_3))],`$
$`P_2^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2+P_1+P_2P_3)(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[((2+P_2)(12\mathrm{\Delta }+3P_2(4+P_2))`$ (44)
$`+2P_1(4+3P_2)P_3+3(2+P_2)^2(P_1+P_3)+P_2(1+P_2)(P_1^2+P_3^2))],`$
$`P_2^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6(2+P_1+P_2P_3)(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[(2+P_2)((P_2^3(3+P_1+P_3))`$ (45)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }(2+P_1+P_2+P_3)P_2^2(18+P_1(9+P_1)+P_3(9+P_3))2(2+P_1+P_3)`$
$`\times (6+2P_1P_3+3(P_1+P_3)+P_2(9+P_1P_3+2(P_1+P_3))))],`$
$`P_2^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24(2+P_1+P_2P_3)(2P_1+P_2+P_3)}}[(2+P_2)(((3+P_2)(2+P_2+P_3)`$ (46)
$`\times (12\mathrm{\Delta }+6P_3+P_2(4+P_2)(3+P_3)))+P_1((2P_2)(3+P_2)^2(4+P_2)`$
$`2(42+P_2(42+P_2(12+P_2)))P_32(2+P_2)(6+P_2)P_3^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(3+P_2+2P_3))`$
$`P_1^2(P_2^3+2(3+2P_3)^2+P_2^2(7+2P_3)+P_2(18+4P_3(4+P_3))))],`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=[P_1^2((6+P_2(4+P_2))^2+12(2+P_2)^2P_3+4(2+P_2)^2P_3^2)`$ (47)
$`+2P_1(3(2+P_2)^2(6+P_2(4+P_2))+(84+P_2(4+P_2)(26+P_2(4+P_2)))P_3`$
$`+6(2+P_2)^2P_3^2)+(6(2+P_3)+P_2(4+P_2)(3+P_3))^2]^{1/2}.`$
Here $`2+P_2\pm (P_1P_3)0`$.

The $`A_3`$ black-brane solution is described by relations (4)-(8), with $`S=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}`$, and intersection rules following from (13), (14) and (33)

$`d(I_{s_1}I_{s_2})={\displaystyle \frac{d(I_{s_1})d(I_{s_2})}{D2}}\chi _{s_1}\chi _{s_2}\lambda _{a_{s_1}}\lambda _{a_{s_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K,`$ (48)
$`d(I_{s_2}I_{s_3})={\displaystyle \frac{d(I_{s_2})d(I_{s_3})}{D2}}\chi _{s_2}\chi _{s_3}\lambda _{a_{s_2}}\lambda _{a_{s_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K,`$ (49)
$`d(I_{s_1}I_{s_3})={\displaystyle \frac{d(I_{s_1})d(I_{s_3})}{D2}}\chi _{s_1}\chi _{s_3}\lambda _{a_{s_1}}\lambda _{a_{s_3}},`$ (50)
$`d(I_{s_i}){\displaystyle \frac{(d(I_{s_i}))^2}{D2}}+\lambda _{a_{s_i}}\lambda _{a_{s_i}}=K,`$ (51)
where $`K0`$ and functions $`H_{s_i}=H_i`$ are defined by relations (34)-(36) with $`z=2\mu R^{\overline{d}}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$.

For $`P_1=3P`$, $`P_2=4P`$ and $`P_3=3P`$ with $`P>0`$ we get a special “block-orthogonal” solution

$$H_1(z)=(1+Pz)^3,H_2(z)=(1+Pz)^4,H_3(z)=(1+Pz)^3,$$
(52)
in agreement with the relations (24) and (25).

In the special case $`P_1=P_3`$ the relations for $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$ (34)-(35) describe the solution corresponding to Lie algebra $`C_2=so(5)`$ .

#### 3.3.1 Solution with three $`3`$-branes in $`D=12`$ model

Now we illustrate the general $`A_3`$ formulae by considering a bosonic field model in dimension $`D=12`$  that admits the bosonic sector of 11-dimensional supergravity as a consistent truncation. The action for this model has the following form

$`S_{12}={\displaystyle _M}d^{12}z\sqrt{|g|}\{R[g]g^{MN}_M\phi _N\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda _4\phi )(F^4)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda _5\phi )(F^5)^2\}`$ (53)
$`+c_{12}{\displaystyle _M}A^4F^4F^4.`$
Here $`F^4=dA_3`$ is the $`4`$-form, $`F^5=dA^4`$ is the $`5`$-form, $`c_{12}`$ is constant and

$$\lambda _4^2=\frac{1}{10},\lambda _5=2\lambda _4.$$
(54)
The model describes electrically charged 2- and 3-branes and magnetically charged 6- and 5-branes (corresponding to $`F^4`$ and $`F^5`$, respectively) with (orthogonal) intersection rules given in .

First, we consider the $`A_3`$-solution for the truncated model (i.e. without Chern-Simons term) defined on the manifold

$`M=(2\mu ,+\mathrm{})\times (M_1=S^2)\times (M_2=)\times (M_3=^2)`$ (55)
$`\times (M_4=^3)\times (M_5=^2)\times (M_6=),`$
with three electric 3-branes with sets $`I_i=I_{s_i}`$ defined as follows

$$I_1=\{2,3,6\},I_2=\{2,4\},I_3=\{2,5,6\},$$
(56)
The $`A_3`$-intersection rules (48)-(51) read

$$d(I_1I_2)=d(I_2I_3)=1,d(I_1I_3)=2,$$
(57)
(here $`K=2`$). The black-brane solution has the following form

$`g=(H_1H_2H_3)^{4/10}\{f^1dRdR+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ (58)
$`(H_1H_2H_3)^1fdtdt+H_1^1g^3+H_2^1g^4+H_3^1g^5+H_1^1H_3^1g^6\},`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\phi )=(H_1H_2H_3)^{\lambda _5/2},`$ (59)
$`F^5={\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{R^2}}H_1^2H_2dtdR\tau _3\tau _6+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_2}{R^2}}H_1H_2^2H_3dtdR\tau _4+`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{R^2}}H_2H_3^2dtdR\tau _5\tau _6,`$
and $`F^4=0`$, where $`f=12\mu /R`$.

Here $`Q_i0`$ are charges related to parameters $`P_i`$, by formulae $`B_i=Q_i^2/(2\mu ^2)`$, and (37)-(39); $`\mu >0`$, and the functions $`H_i=H_i(z,(P_j))`$ are defined by (34)-(36), (40)-(47), and $`z=2\mu /R`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. In (58) $`g^a`$ is a flat metric on $`M_a`$, $`a=3,\mathrm{},6`$.

This solution satisfies the equations of motion for the model (53) itself, since the only modifications due to Chern-Simons term are related to “Maxwells” equations

$`dF^4=\mathrm{const}F^5F^4,dF^5=\mathrm{const}F^4F^4,`$ (61)
and are trivial (since $`F^4=0)`$.

We remind that the twelve-dimensional model from  can be consistently truncated to a ten-dimensional Lagrangian that contains all the $`BPS`$ $`p`$-brane solutions of the type $`IIB`$-theory.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we presented a new black-brane solution with three branes and intersection rules corresponding to the Lie algebra $`A_3`$. The solution is governed by polynomials of degree $`3,4,3`$ and the coefficients of polynomials exhibit a special dependence upon the parameters $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ due to appearance of the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see (47)). (The case $`P_1=P_3`$, corresponding to Lie algebra $`C_2=so(5)`$ was considered recently in .)

The $`A_3`$-solution is more complicated then the $`A_2`$-one, which has a rather simple analytical structure. This means that the polynomial solutions for other $`A_n`$-algebras ($`n>3`$) may be even more complicated.

Other topics of interest is the application of this result to black-brane thermodynamics (e.g. relations for the entropy, Cardy-Verlinde type formulas etc) and analysis of post-Newtonian effects . On this way one may expect to clarify the appearance of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the solution. Another problem is to find the polynomial solutions for other Lie algebras (at least for $`A_k`$ ones).

Here we also considered as an example the $`A_3`$-solution with three $`3`$-branes in $`12`$-dimensional model from  (this model imitates the low-energy limit of hypothetical $`F`$ theory ). This solution may be also generalized to the case of $`B_D`$-models  in dimensions $`D12`$.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFFI-01-02-17312-a) and DFG project (436 RUS 113/678/0-1(R)). The results of the work were reported at the Fifth International Conference on Gravitation and Astrophysics of Asian-Pacific countries.


text:
# Double deeply virtual Compton scattering off the nucleon

## Abstract

We study the double deeply virtual Compton scattering (DDVCS) process off the nucleon, through the scattering of a spacelike virtual photon with large virtuality resulting in the production of a timelike virtual photon, decaying into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. This process is expressed in the Bjorken regime in terms of generalized parton distributions (GPDs) and it is shown that by varying the invariant mass of the lepton pair, one can directly extract the GPDs from the observables. We give predictions for the DDVCS cross section and beam helicity asymmetry and discuss its experimental feasibility.

The understanding of hadron structure in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom, remains an outstanding challenge. An important source of information is provided by experiments involving electroweak probes. In this way, elastic form factors as well as quark and gluon distributions in the nucleon have been mapped out in quite some detail. In recent years, a whole new class of hard exclusive reactions have become accessible both theoretically and experimentally to study hadron structure. In particular, the deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) and hard electroproduction of meson processes are at present under investigation at different facilities (HERMES Air01 , JLab Step01 , HERA Adl01 ; Sau00 ), or will be addressed by experiments in the near future. In these processes, a highly virtual photon (with large virtuality $`Q^2`$) scatters from the nucleon and a real photon (in the case of DVCS) or a meson is produced. Due to the large scale $`Q^2`$ involved, these hard exclusive processes are factorizable in a hard part, which can be calculated from perturbative QCD, and a soft part, which contains the information on nucleon structure and is parametrized in terms of generalized parton distributions (GPDs) (see Refs. Ji98 ; Rad01 ; GPV01  for reviews and references therein).
The GPDs depend upon the different longitudinal momentum fractions $`x+\xi `$ ($`x\xi `$) of the initial (final) quarks (see upper left panel of Fig. 1). As the momentum fractions of the initial and final quarks are different, in contrast to the forward parton distributions, one accesses in this way quark momentum correlations in the nucleon, which are at present largely unknown. Furthermore, sum rule integrals of GPDs over $`x`$ provide new nucleon structure information and are also amenable to lattice QCD calculations for direct comparison. In particular, the second moment of a particular combination of GPDs gives access to the total angular momentum carried by quarks in the nucleon Ji97 . Such a quantity would be highly complementary to the information extracted from polarized deep-inelastic scattering experiments, which found that about 20 - 30 % of the nucleon spin originates from the quark intrinsic spins (see Ref. FJ01  for a recent review).
To obtain these new informations, one of the main challenges is to directly extract the GPDs from observables. In the DVCS or hard exclusive meson electroproduction observables, the GPDs enter in general in convolution integrals over the average quark momentum fraction $`x`$, so that only $`\xi `$ (half the difference of both quark momentum fractions) can be accessed experimentally. A particular exception is when one measures an observable proportional to the imaginary part of the amplitude, such as the beam helicity asymmetry in DVCS. Then, one actually measures directly the GPDs at some specific point, $`x=\xi `$, which is certainly an important gain of information but clearly not sufficient to map out the GPDs independently in both quark momentum fractions, which is needed to construct sum rules. In absence of any model-independent “deconvolution” procedure at this moment, existing analyses of DVCS experiments have to rely on some global model fitting procedure.

The double DVCS (DDVCS) process, i.e. the scattering of a spacelike virtual photon from the nucleon with the production of a virtual photon in the final state, provides a way around this problem of principle. Compared to the DVCS process with a real photon in the final state, the virtuality of the final photon in DDVCS yields an additional lever arm, which allows to vary both quark momenta $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ independently. This additional lever arm of the DDVCS compared to the DVCS process has already been noted in Refs. Mul94 ; BR00 ; BMK02 . Also, the lepton pair production process induced by a real photon, i.e. the $`\gamma pe^+e^{}p`$ reaction has been studied BDP02 . In this letter, we provide the first numerical estimates of the DDVCS and its competing processes and show how the GPDs can be directly extracted from DDVCS observables.
The DDVCS process can be accessed through the $`lplpe^+e^{}`$ reaction, which is characterized by the four-momenta : $`k`$ ($`k^{}`$) of the incoming (scattered) leptons $`l`$, $`p`$ ($`p^{}`$) of the initial (final) nucleons, and $`l_e^{},l_e^+`$ of the leptons in the produced $`e^+e^{}`$ pair.
To see how the DDVCS process can yield more complete information of GPDs than the DVCS process, one first has to discuss its richer kinematics. The DDVCS process is characterized by 8 independent kinematical variables. Firstly, there are the same 5 kinematical variables which specify the DVCS process and which we choose as : the initial beam energy $`E_e`$; the virtuality $`Q^2`$ of the incoming photon in the upper left diagram of Fig. 1, i.e. $`Q^2q^2`$, where $`qkk^{}`$; the usual Bjorken variable $`x_BQ^2/(2p.q)`$; the four-momentum transfer to the nucleon $`t\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p^{}p`$; and the out-of-plane angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between the production plane, spanned by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$, and the scattering plane spanned by the vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$. Furthermore, one needs 3 additional variables to fully characterize the DDVCS process which we choose as : the virtuality $`q^2(l_e^{}+l_{e^+})^2`$ of the produced $`e^+e^{}`$ pair; and the 2 angles of one lepton of the produced lepton pair, evaluated in the c.m. system of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair, and which span the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{}^{}`$.
At large $`Q^2`$, we calculate the DDVCS process in the handbag approximation as shown in Fig. 1 (upper left diagram), which yields the amplitude :

$`H_{\mathrm{DDVCS}}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g^{\mu \nu })_{}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dxC^+(x,\xi ,\xi ^{})[H^p(x,\xi ,t)\overline{N}(p^{^{}})n/N(p)`$
$`+E^p(x,\xi ,t)\overline{N}(p^{^{}})i\sigma ^{\kappa \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{n_\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda }{2m_N}}N(p)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(ϵ^{\nu \mu })_{}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dxC^{}(x,\xi ,\xi ^{})[\stackrel{~}{H}^p(x,\xi ,t)\overline{N}(p^{^{}})n/\gamma _5N(p)`$ (1)
$`+\stackrel{~}{E}^p(x,\xi ,t)\overline{N}(p^{^{}})\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{2m_N}}N(p)],`$
where $`\mu `$ ($`\nu `$) refer to the four-vector indices of the incoming spacelike (outgoing timelike) virtual photons respectively, $`n`$ is a light-like vector along the direction of the incoming virtual photon, and where we refer to Ref. GPV01  for the expressions of the symmetrical (antisymmetrical) twist-2 tensors $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ ($`ϵ_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ ). Furthermore, in Eq. (1), $`N(p),N(p^{})`$ represent the nucleon spinors and $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass. The GPDs $`H,E,\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{E}`$ in Eq. (1) are the same as in the DVCS case, and depend on the arguments $`x`$, $`\xi `$, and $`t`$, with $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ as defined in Fig. 1. The coefficient functions $`C^\pm `$ in the DDVCS amplitude of Eq. (1) take the form :

$`C^\pm (x,\xi ,\xi ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x\left(2\xi ^{}\xi \right)+i\epsilon }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+\left(2\xi ^{}\xi \right)i\epsilon }},`$ (2)
where $`2\xi ^{}`$ and $`2(\xi \xi ^{})`$ are the longitudinal momentum fractions of the incoming spacelike and outgoing timelike virtual photons respectively (see Fig. 1). In the large $`Q^2`$ limit, one has $`2\xi ^{}x_B/(1x_B/2)`$. The difference $`(2\xi ^{}\xi )`$ appearing in the quark propagators in Eq. (2) can be expressed as (relative to $`\xi `$) :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi ^{}\xi }{\xi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1(q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)/Q^2+8\xi ^2\overline{m}^2/Q^2}{1+(q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)/Q^2}}`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1q^2/Q^2}{1+q^2/Q^2}},`$
with $`\overline{m}^2=m_N^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2/4`$. For the DDVCS process, by varying the virtualities of both incoming and outgoing virtual photons, one can vary independently the variables, $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$, whereas, in DVCS, only one variable can be varied as $`\xi \xi ^{}`$. One then sees from Eqs. (1,2) that the imaginary part of the DDVCS amplitude (which can be directly measured through the beam helicity asymmetry as discussed further on) will access, in a concise notation, the GPD$`(2\xi ^{}\xi ,\xi ,t)`$, and allows to map out the GPDs as function of its three arguments independently. In the second line in Eq. (3), we have indicated the expression in the large $`Q^2`$ limit, which is displayed in Fig. 2.

For a timelike virtual photon (i.e. $`q^2>0`$), one can only access the $`x<\xi `$ region in the arguments $`(x,\xi ,t)`$ of the GPDs because, for kinematical reasons, $`q^2/Q^2`$ will always be less than 1. Therefore, the imaginary part of the DDVCS amplitude maps out the GPD where its first argument lies in the range $`0<2\xi ^{}\xi <\xi `$. In particular, when $`q^2`$ is varied from 0 to $`Q^2/2`$, the argument $`x`$ spans about 2/3 of the range $`[x,\xi ]`$. Although one does not access the whole range in $`x`$, clearly, the gain of information on the GPDs is tremendous as no deconvolution is involved to access this region of the GPDs. Furthermore, $`x<\xi `$ is just the range where the GPDs contain wholly new information on mesonic ($`q\overline{q}`$) components of the nucleon, which is absent in the forward limit (where $`\xi =0`$). To access the range $`x>\xi `$ one would need two spacelike virtual photons, necessitating to select the two-photon exchange process in elastic electron nucleon scattering.
Besides the DDVCS process, the $`lplpe^+e^{}`$ reaction contains two classes of Bethe-Heitler (BH) processes as shown in Fig. 1. The BH processes are fully calculable as they involve elastic nucleon form factors. Furthermore, the outgoing timelike photon which couples pointlike to the quark line in the DDVCS process can also originate from a neutral vector meson (VM) which couples to the quark line through a one-gluon exchange (upper right diagram in Fig. 1). For the contamination of the VM production, we estimate it by the leading order amplitude for the hard electroproduction of longitudinally polarized VM VGG98 . For this process, which is of order $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ in the strong coupling constant compared to the handbag process, a factorization theorem has been proved Col97 , allowing to express its amplitude also in terms of GPDs.
In the following, we will estimate the coherent sum of all these processes. The fully differential cross section of the $`lplpe^+e^{}`$ reaction can then be expressed as :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2dx_Bdtd\mathrm{\Phi }dq^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{}^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_By^2}{32Q^4\left(1+\frac{4m_N^2x_B^2}{Q^2}\right)^{1/2}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^3}}\left|T_{BH}+T_{DDVCS}+T_{VM}\right|^2,`$ (4)
where $`y(p.q)/(p.k)`$, and where $`T_{BH}`$, $`T_{DDVCS}`$, and $`T_{VM}`$ are the amplitudes for the BH, DDVCS and VM processes respectively. When integrating Eq. (4) over the angles of the produced $`e^+e^{}`$ pair, the resulting DDVCS cross section reduces in the limit $`q^20`$ to :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2dx_Bdtd\mathrm{\Phi }dq^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2dx_Bdtd\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{N}{q^2}},`$ (5)
where the DVCS cross section appears on the rhs of Eq. (5). The factor $`N`$ in Eq. (5) is given by

$`N={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}},`$ (6)
where $`\alpha _e1/137`$ is the fine structure constant, introduced by the decay of the outgoing photon into the lepton pair. One sees that the downside of the DDVCS process is that it involves small cross sections : at a virtuality $`q^2`$ = 1 GeV2, the DDVCS cross section is reduced by at least a factor $`N^1`$ ($`1.3\times 10^3`$) compared to the DVCS cross section. At lower values of $`q^2`$, the DDVCS cross section rises however as $`1/q^2`$.
Besides the DDVCS cross section, a particularly informative observable is obtained by scattering a longitudinally polarized lepton beam and flipping its helicity. The resulting single spin asymmetry (SSA) originates from the interference of the DDVCS and BH processes as :

$`SSA\mathrm{Im}\left[T_{BH}\left(T_{DDVCS}+T_{VM}\right)^{}\right].`$ (7)
Because the BH process is real, the SSA accesses the imaginary part of the DDVCS + VM process, which is proportional to the GPD($`2\xi ^{}\xi ,\xi ,t`$) (see Eqs. (1,2)).

In Fig. 3, we show the $`q^2`$ dependence of the estimated cross section and SSA for the $`epepe^+e^{}`$ process in kinematics accessible at JLab. As the twist-2 SSA basically displays a $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ structure, we show its value at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=90^o`$. For the GPDs, we use a $`\xi `$-dependent parametrization (see Refs. VGG98 ; GPV01 ), using the MRST01 MRST01  forward quark distributions as input. As is seen from Fig. 3, we firstly confirm numerically that the $`epepe^+e^{}`$ cross section scaled with the factor $`N^1q^2`$ reduces to the $`epep\gamma `$ cross section when approaching the real photon point. Similarly, the SSA for the $`epepe^+e^{}`$ process reduces to the corresponding SSA for the $`epep\gamma `$ process. When going to larger virtualities $`q^2`$, the DDVCS shows a growing deviation from the $`1/q^2`$ behavior and the magnitude of the SSA decreases. Furthermore, we show in Fig. 3 the contribution of the $`\rho _L^0e^+e^{}`$ process (upper right diagram of Fig. 1), which is the most pronounced VM process. We find that, except in the immediate vicinity of $`q^2m_\rho ^2`$, the $`\rho _L^0e^+e^{}`$ process is very small. This can be understood because the cross section for the $`\rho _L^0e^+e^{}`$ process is reduced by a factor $`\alpha _{em}^2`$ compared to the $`\rho _L^0`$ process, whereas the DDVCS cross section is only reduced by a factor $`\alpha _{em}`$ compared to the DVCS cross section. Similarly, the SSA is only slightly affected by the VM process and is dominantly proportional to the imaginary part of the DDVCS process according to Eq. (7). The strong sensitivity of the SSA on $`q^2`$, as seen from Fig. 3, should therefore allow to map out the GPDs in the range $`x<\xi `$.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison between the $`epep(\gamma ,\rho _L^0)`$ and $`epep(\gamma ,\rho _L^0)ep(e^+e^{})`$ processes for a typical kinematics accessible at JLab at 6 GeV. Whereas the $`epep\rho _L^0`$ process is roughly comparable to the DVCS + BH one for these kinematics, their “timelike” analogues, show that the $`\rho _L^0`$ channel is suppressed by 2 orders of magnitude with respect to the DDVCS+BH.
Given that about $`10^4`$ DVCS+BH events were measured recently at CLAS Step01  in an effective 4-day data taking period at a luminosity of $`10^{34}cm^2s^1`$ in a non-dedicated experiment, it can certainly be envisaged that the DDVCS+BH cross section, which is about 3 orders of magnitude lower, be measured with a dedicated long-time experiment. A luminosity of $`10^{35}cm^2s^1`$, projected at CLAS for the upgrade of JLab at 12 GeV, or at a future dedicated lepton facility, would allow to measure this reaction with reasonable statistics.

In conclusion, we have studied the DDVCS process with the production of a timelike virtual photon, decaying into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. We have expressed the DDVCS amplitude in terms of GPDs and have shown that by varying the virtuality $`q^2`$ of the timelike photon, one can map out the GPDs as function of both initial and final quark momentum fractions. We have given cross section estimates for the DDVCS and its associated processes. Although the cross sections are small, their measurement seems feasible with a dedicated experiment at JLab and at a future high-energy, high-luminosity lepton facility. Of particular interest is the SSA using a polarized lepton beam. We have shown that by measuring the SSA, one can directly extract the GPDs in the domain where one is sensitive to $`q\overline{q}`$ correlations in the nucleon, providing a whole new source of nucleon structure information which is absent in forward quark distributions.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB443), by the CNRS/IN2P3, and in part by the European Commission IHP program (contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130).


text:
# 𝐵_{𝑠,𝑑}→𝜇⁺𝜇⁻in technicolor model with scalars

## I Introduction

The flavor-changing neutral-current B-meson rare decays play an important role for testing the Standard Model (SM) at loop level and probing new physics beyond the SM. Among these decays, $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$are of special interest due to their relative cleanliness and good sensitivity to new physics.

There are numerous speculations on the possible forms of new physics, among which supersymmetry and technicolor are the two typical different frameworks. Both frameworks are well motivated. As a low-energy effective theory, the technicolor model with scalars introduces additional scalars to connect the technicolor condensate to the ordinary fermions sim-a . The phenomenology of this model has been considered extensively in the literature xiong-a ; sim-a ; caronet ; Chivukula:1992ap ; sdk ; evans ; Carone:1995mx ; yumian . It has been found that this model does not produce unacceptably large contributions to neutral meson mixings or to the electroweak $`S`$ and $`T`$ parameterssim-a ; caronet . On the other hand, this model does predict potentially visible contributions to b-physics observables such as $`R_b`$ Carone:1995mx  and the rate of various rare $`B`$-meson decays Carone:1995mx ; yumian ; xiong-a .

Studies Babu00  showed that the processes $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$are sensitive to supersymmetry. In this Letter we will extend our previous studies xiong-a ; xiong  and evaluate the branching ratio of $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$in the technicolor model with scalars. First we will present a brief description of the model, then give the analytical calculations for $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. We will focus our attention on the neutral scalars contributions, which are likely to be sizable because, as shown in our following analysis, they will be enhanced by a factor $`(f/f^{})^4`$ as the parameter $`f/f^{}`$ gets large. Before performing the numerical calculations, we examine the current bounds on this model from a variety of experiments, especially the latest measurements of $`R_b`$rbvalue . Since the theoretical expression for $`R_b`$ used in constraining the model parameter space Carone:1995mx  seems not right, we will recalculate the contributions to $`R_b`$ from the scalars in this model. We find the constraint from $`R_b`$ is still strongest as indicated in sim-b , compared with those from the direct searches for neutral and charged scalars pdg , $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, $`bs\gamma `$ bsgamma  as well as the muon anomalous magnetic moment E821 . Further, we evaluate restriction on $`f/f^{}`$ arising from $`R_b`$ which was not considered in previous studies. Subject to the current bounds, the numerical results are presented in Sec. V. Finally, the conclusion is assigned in Sec. VI.

## II The technicolor model with scalars

In this section we will briefly discuss the technicolor model with scalars and give the relevant Lagrangians which are needed in our calculations. More details of the model have been described in Refs. sim-a ; caronet .

The model embraces the full SM gauge structure and all SM fermions which are technicolor singlets. It has a minimal $`SU(N)`$ technicolor sector, with two techniflavors that transform as a left-handed doublet and two right-handed singlets under $`SU(2)_W`$,

$`T_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ m\end{array}\right)_L,p_R,m_R`$ (3)
with weak hypercharges $`Y(T_L)=0`$, $`Y(p_R)=1`$, and $`Y(m_R)=1`$. All of the fermions couple to a weak scalar doublet $`\varphi `$ to which both the ordinary fermions and technifermions are coupled. This scalar’s purpose is to couple the technifermion condensate to the ordinary fermions and thereby generate fermion masses. If we write the matrix form of the scalar doublet as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\varphi }^0& \varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^{}& \varphi ^0\end{array}\right]\frac{(\sigma +f^{})}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},$$
(4)
and adopt the non-linear representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=exp(\frac{2i\mathrm{\Pi }}{f})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=exp(\frac{2i\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}{f^{}})`$ for technipion, with fields in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ representing the pseudoscalar bound states of the technifermions $`p`$ and $`m`$, then the kinetic terms for the scalar fields are given by

$`_{K.E.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \sigma ^\mu \sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f^2Tr(D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}D^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\sigma +f^{})^2Tr(D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}D^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}).`$
Here $`D^\mu (D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })`$ denote the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ covariant derivatives, $`\sigma `$ is an isosinglet scalar field, $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ are the technipion decay constant and the effective vacuum expectation value (VEV), respectively.

As mixing between $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{^{}}`$ occurs, $`\pi _a`$ and $`\pi _p`$ are formed with $`\pi _a`$ becoming the longitudinal component of the W and Z, and $`\pi _p`$ remaining in the low-energy theory as an isotriplet of physical scalars. From Eq. (5) one can obtain the correct gauge boson masses providing that $`f^2+f^{}_{}{}^{}2=v^2`$ with the electroweak scale $`v=246GeV`$.

Additionally, the contributions to scalar potential generated by the technicolor interactions should be included in this model. The simplest term one can construct is

$$_T=c_14\pi f^3Tr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_+& 0\\ 0& h_{}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right]+h.c.,$$
(6)
where $`c_1`$ is a coefficient of order unity, $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$ are the Yukawa couplings of scalars to $`p`$ and $`m`$ . From Eq. (6) the mass of the charged scalar at lowest order is obtained as

$`m_{\pi _p}^2=2c_1\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi f}{f^{}}}v^2h`$ (7)
with $`h(h_++h_{})/2`$. To absorb the largest Coleman-Weinberg radiative corrections Coleman:Weinberg  for the $`\sigma `$ field which affect the phenomenology of the charged scalar, the shifted scalar mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\varphi `$ and coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are determined by

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{2}}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=8\sqrt{2}c_1\pi hf^3.`$ (8)
Therefore, the mass of the scalar $`\sigma `$ can be expressed as

$`m_\sigma ^2=\stackrel{~}{M}_\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\pi ^2}}\left[6\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{f^{}}}\right)^4+Nh^4\right]f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (9)
in limit ($`i`$) where the shifted $`\varphi ^4`$ coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is small and can be neglected and

$`m_\sigma ^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\left[6\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{f^{}}}\right)^4+Nh^4\right]f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$ (10)
in limit ($`ii`$) where the shifted mass of the scalar doublet $`\varphi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\varphi `$ is small and can be neglected. The advantage of this model is at the lowest order, only two independent parameters in the limits ($`i`$) and ($`ii`$) are needed to describe the phenomenology. We choose $`(h,m_\sigma )`$ as physical parameters and assume $`N=4`$ and $`c_1=1`$ in numerical calculations.

## III Calculations

We start the calculation by writing down the effective Hamiltonian describing the process $`B_q\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$(q=s,d)

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F}{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}\{2C_7^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{p^2}}\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }p^\nu P_Rb`$ (11)
$`+C_9^{eff}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu P_Lb\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu \mu +C_{10}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu P_Lb\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mu `$
$`+C_{Q_1}\overline{q}P_Rb\overline{\mu }\mu +C_{Q_2}\overline{q}P_Rb\overline{\mu }\gamma _5\mu \},`$
where $`P_{R,L}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)`$, $`p`$ is the momentum transfer. Operators $`𝒪_{7,9,10}`$ which correspond to the first three Wilson coefficients are the same as those given in Grinstein89  and $`𝒬_{1,2}`$ corresponding to the last two are the additional operators arising from the neutral scalars exchange diagrams Dai97  .

Using the effective Hamiltonian and

$`0|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|B_q=f_{B_q}p_\mu ,`$
$`0|\overline{q}\gamma _5b|B_q=f_{B_q}m_{B_q},`$
$`0|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma _5)b|B_q=0,`$ (12)
we find that only operator $`𝒪_{10}`$ and $`𝒬_{1,2}`$ contribute to process $`B_q\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$with the decay rate given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_q\mu ^+\mu ^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2G_F^2}{64\pi ^3}}\left|V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}\right|^2f_{B_q}^2m_{B_q}^3`$
$`\times \left[C_{Q_1}^2+\left(C_{Q_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mu }{m_{B_q}}}C_{10}\right)^2\right].`$ (13)
For convenience, we write down the branching fractions numerically

$`Br(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`3.8\times 10^9\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{B_d}}{1.65ps}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_d}}{210MeV}}\right]^2`$
$`\times |{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{0.008}}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_d}}{5.28GeV}}\right]^3[C_{Q_1}^2`$
$`+(C_{Q_2}+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_{B_d}}}C_{10})^2],`$
$`Br(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`1.2\times 10^7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{B_s}}{1.49ps}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}}{245MeV}}\right]^2`$ (14)
$`\times |{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}}{0.04}}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_{B_s}}{5.37GeV}}\right]^3[C_{Q_1}^2`$
$`+(C_{Q_2}+2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_{B_s}}}C_{10})^2],`$
where $`\tau _{B_q}`$ and $`f_{B_q}`$ are the $`B_q`$ lifetime and decay constant, respectively.

In the technicolor model with scalars, the additional contributions arise from the scalars. The contributions of the charged scalar $`\pi _p^\pm `$ with gauge boson $`Z,\gamma `$ exchanges to the Wilson coefficients $`C_{10}`$ at $`m_W`$ scale have been calculated by using Feynman rules derived from Eq. (5), (6) and given by yumian ; xiong-a

$`C_{10}(m_W)_{TC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f^{^{}}}})^2[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\pi _p}}{8(x_{\pi _p}1)}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\pi _p}}{8(x_\pi 1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\pi _p}],`$
where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle and $`x_i=m_t^2/m_i^2`$. As for the contributions arising from the neutral scalars exchanges, when only the leading terms in large $`f/f^{^{}}`$ limit kept, they can be expressed as xiong-a

$`C_{Q_1}(m_W)_{TC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f^{^{}}}})^4{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_\mu }{m_\sigma ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4x_{\pi _p}^27x_{\pi _p}+1}{16(x_{\pi _p}1)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\pi _p}^22x_{\pi _p}}{8(x_{\pi _p}1)^3}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\pi _p}],`$
$`C_{Q_2}(m_W)_{TC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f^{^{}}}})^4{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_\mu }{m_{\pi _p}^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\pi _p}+1}{8(x_{\pi _p}1)}}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_{\pi _p}}{4(x_{\pi _p}1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x_{\pi _p}].`$
From Eqs. (14-16) we find that (1) both the contributions arising from the neutral scalar exchange $`C_{Q_{1,2}}`$ and gauge boson exchange $`C_{10}`$ are subject to helicity suppression, (2) the contributions arising from the neutral scalar exchanges are proportional to $`(f/f^{^{}})^4`$, while those from the gauge bosons exchanges proportional to $`(f/f^{})^2`$. So for a sufficiently large $`f/f^{}`$, the contributions of neutral scalar exchanges are relatively enhanced and may become comparable with those from the gauge boson exchanges.

The Wilson coefficients at the lower scale of about $`m_b`$ can be evaluated down from $`m_W`$ scale by using the renormalization group equation. At leading order, the Wilson coefficients are Grinstein89 ; Dai97

$`C_{10}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}(m_W),`$ (17)
$`C_{Q_i}(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\gamma _Q/\beta _0}C_{Q_i}(m_W).`$ (18)
where $`\beta _0=112n_f/3`$, $`\eta =\alpha _s(m_b)/\alpha _s(m_W)`$ and $`\gamma _Q=4`$ is the anomalous dimension of $`\overline{q}P_Rb`$.

## IV Constraints from $`R_b`$

Before presenting the numerical results, let us consider the current bounds on technicolor with scalars from a variety of experiments, especially the measurement of $`R_b`$. Using the Feynman rules in Ref. xiong-a , one can easily find that the contributions from neutral scalars are negligible compared with those from charged scalars which appear in Fig. 1, and the bottom mass-dependent terms in $`R_b`$ can also be omitted safely. In these approximations the addition contribution in the technicolor with scalars is obtained as

$`\delta R_b=R_b^{SM}(1R_b^{SM})\mathrm{\Delta }^{TC}`$ (19)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{TC}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f^{}}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{bL}}{v_{bL}^2+v_{bR}^2}}\{v_{bL}B_1`$ (20)
$`+v_{tR}\left[m_Z^2(C_{22}^aC_{23}^a)+2C_{24}^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]`$
$`2v_{tL}m_t^2C_0^a\mathrm{cos}2\theta _WC_{24}^b\}.`$
Here $`B_1=B_1`$($`p_1`$,$`m_t`$,$`m_{\pi _p}`$), $`C_{0,ij}^a=C_{0,ij}`$($`p_1`$,$`P`$, $`m_{\pi _p}`$, $`m_t`$, $`m_t`$) and $`C_{24}^b=C_{24}(p_1,P,m_t,m_{\pi _p},m_{\pi _p})`$, with $`p_1(p_2)`$ and $`P`$ denoting the four-momentum of $`b(\overline{b})`$ and Z boson respectively, are the Feynman loop integral functions and their expressions can be found in bcanaly . The coupling constants $`v_{qL}`$ and $`v_{qR}`$ are given by

$`v_{qL}=T_3^qe_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,v_{qR}=e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.`$ (21)
Our explicit expressions are not in agreement with those used in Carone:1995mx  where the results obtained in the framework of the two-Higgs doublet model (THMD) Boulware91  were adopted directly. We checked the calculations and confirmed our results.

The current measurement of $`R_b`$ reported by the LEP is $`R_b^{expt}=0.21646\pm 0.00065`$ rbvalue . Comparing with the SM value $`R_b^{SM}=0.21573\pm 0.0002`$, we obtained the constraints in $`h`$ versus $`m_\sigma `$ plane shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Although our explicit expression for $`R_b`$ is different from that used in sim-b , a comparison of Fig. 2, Fig. 3 with Figure 1 in Ref. sim-b  suggests that there is not a qualitative change in the results plotted.

Our numerical results show that the constraint on $`f/f^{}`$ from $`R_b`$ is quite stringent, i.e., the ratio of $`f/f^{}`$ must be smaller than 1.9 at 95% C. L., implying that the neutral scalars will not give dominate contributions to the processes of $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Since previous studies did not comment on any restriction on $`f/f^{}`$ arising from $`R_b`$, this is a new and interesting conclusion.

In Figs. 2 and 3 we also display the bounds from $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and from the limits of Higgs masses sim-b . In technicolor theories where the charged scalars couple to fermions in a similar pattern as in type-I two-Higgs doublet model, the strongest limit $`m_{\pi _p^\pm }79`$ GeV has been obtained directly from LEP experiments pdg . On the other hand, the LEP collaborations pdg  have placed a 95% C. L. lower limit on the SM Higgs boson $`M_H^0113.5`$ GeV from searching for the process $`e^+e^{}Z^{}ZH^0`$. Although the limit on technicolor scalars may differ from that on $`M_H^0`$, in practice, the contour $`m_\sigma =114`$ GeV can serve as an approximate boundary to the experimentally allowed region caronet ; sim-b . Note that the chiral Lagrangian analysis break down only constrain on the parameter space in limit $`(i)`$ Carone:1995mx , the area above and to left of $`hf^{}=4\pi f`$ line is excluded because the technifermion current masses are no longer small compared to the chiral symmetry breaking scale. For references, we also plotted the contours $`m_{\pi _p}=m_tm_b`$ and $`m_{\pi _p}=1TeV`$. If the top quark doesn’t decay to $`\pi _p^+b`$, the areas outside of $`m_{\pi _p}=m_tm_b`$ curve is excluded in Fig. 2. Similar situation occurs to $`m_{\pi _p}=1TeV`$ curve in Fig. 3 if all scalar masses are restricted to the sub-TeV regime. In contrast to these, the excluded parameter space are the areas inside of $`m_\pi =m_tm_b`$ curve in limit ($`ii`$) and $`m_{\pi _p}=1TeV`$ curve in limit ($`i`$).

The constraint from $`bs\gamma `$ is close to that from $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing xiong-a ; yumian ; gsw ; mbsg , which are weaker than those from $`R_b`$ Carone:1995mx . As for the constraints from the measurement of $`g_\mu 2`$, our previous study xiong-b  showed that if the deviation of the E821 experiment result E821  and SM prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=(43\pm 16)10^{10}`$ persists, it would severely constrain the technicolor models because the technicolor models can hardly provide such a large contribution. However, over the last year the theoretical prediction of $`a_\mu `$ in the SM has undergone a significant revision due to the change in sign of the light hadronic correction, which leads to only a 1.6$`\sigma `$ deviation from the SM Knecht01 , yielding no more useful limits on this model.

## V Numerical results

Bearing the constraints on technicolor with scalars in mind, and for the same values of $`m_{\pi _p}`$ and $`f/f^{}`$, the allowed value of $`m_\sigma `$ is generally smaller in limit $`(i)`$, from Eq.(16) one can infer easily that the additional contributions to $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$in limit $`(i)`$ will be larger than those in limit $`(ii)`$. Furthermore, as can be seen from the numerical coefficients in Eq. (14), the decay rate of $`B_s`$ is significantly larger than $`B_d`$ due primarily to the relative size of $`|V_{ts}|`$ to $`|V_{td}|`$. We thus take the $`B_s`$ decay in limit $`(i)`$ as an example to show the numerical results.

The experimental bound on $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$comes from the CDFCDF

$`Br(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<2.6\times 10^6`$ (22)
at 95% C.L. with the corresponding integrated luminosity about $`100pb^1`$, while the SM prediction

$`Br(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})=4.0\times 10^9`$ (23)
is obtained by taking the central values for all inputs in Eq. (14). The branching ratio of $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$as a function of $`m_\sigma `$ is displayed in Fig. 4 for various values of $`f/f^{}`$. The $`2\sigma `$ bounds at the upgraded Tevatron with $`10fb^1`$ and $`20fb^1`$ are also plotted under the assumption that the background for this decay is negligible. The corresponding expected sensitivity can be reach a branching ratio of $`1.3\times 10^8`$ and $`6.5\times 10^9`$ (dash lines), respectively. We see that the $`R_b`$ constraint $`f/f^{}1.9`$ at 95% C.L. shown in Fig. 4 is the strongest bound. Comparatively, the current upper bound on $`Br(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ from CDF CDF  is much weaker, which only excludes a small region with large $`f/f^{}`$. Under the constraint $`f/f^{}1.9`$, the enhancement factor for the branching ratio in the technicolor model can still be up to 5. The upgraded Tevatron with $`20fb^1`$ will be sensitive to enhancements of $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$in this model provided that $`m_\sigma `$ is below 580 GeV.

## VI Conclusions

We have evaluated the decays $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$in the technicolor model with scalars, taking into account various experimental constraints, especially $`R_b`$, on the model parameter space. We first examined the restriction on $`f/f^{}`$ arising from $`R_b`$ which that previous study did not consider. We found that large $`f/f^{}`$, which might cause significantly enhancement for $`Br(B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ from neutral scalars in the model, has been excluded by the constraints from $`R_b`$. Nevertheless, under the renewed $`R_b`$ constraint, the branching ratio of $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$can still be enhanced by a factor of 5 relative to the SM prediction. With the maximum allowed value of $`f/f^{}1.9`$ from $`R_b`$, the upgraded Tevatron with $`20fb^1`$ will be sensitive to enhancements of $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$in this model provided that $`m_\sigma `$ is below 580 GeV. Since the theoretical uncertainties, which primarily come from the B-meson decay constants and CKM matrix elements, will be reduced in the on-going B-physics experiments and the lattice calculations, the processes $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$will promise to be a good probe of new physics.