format: text

text:
# The effect of dust on photometric redshift measurement; A self-consistent technique

## 1 Introduction

Recent multi-waveband galaxy surveys, carried out from UV to radio wavelengths, have identified a population of rapidly star forming galaxies in the range $`0<z<3`$ (Sullivan et al 1999, Lilly et al 1996, Cowie et al 1997, Rowan-Robinson et al 1997, Barger et al. 1998; Hughes et al 1998, Mobasher et al 1999). In particular, these studies confirm a relatively higher rate of star formation in the past, as supported by the discovery of a population of massive, starforming galaxies at $`z3`$ (Madau et al 1996; Steidel et al 1996). These objects are likely to be progenitors of the present day galaxies (Giavalisco et al 1996; Lowenthal et al 1997) and hence, a statistical study of this population from the epoch of galaxy formation to the present, gives clues towards scenarios of the formation and evolution of galaxies (Fukugita et al 1996). This can also constrain the star formation history of galaxies out to $`z3`$. Such studies require redshift information for a population of starforming galaxies at faint levels. Recently, the depth of the available surveys is greatly extended by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of the Hubble Deep Fields (HDF). The large spectral coverage of the HDFs provide a unique opportunity to study evolutionary properties of faint galaxies.

Ground-based spectroscopic measurements of the brighter ($`I<25`$ mag.) sub-sample of the HDF have been performed (Cohen et al 1996; Steidel et al 1996; Lowenthal et al 1997; Zepf et al 1996). However, for the fainter galaxies in the HDF, redshift measurements are more difficult with spectroscopic features almost impossible to identify. For these objects, the photometric redshift technique (Loh and Spillar 1986; Connolly et al 1995) is faster than its spectroscopic counterpart and applicable to much fainter magnitudes. This is due to a larger bin size in photometry compared to spectroscopy ($`1000`$ Å $`vs\mathrm{.\; 1}2`$Å), leading to a shorter exposure time with a trade-off in accuracy of the measured redshifts.

Considering the new generation of 8m class telescopes, the planned instrumentation on the HST and future, high sensitive radio telescopes, a substantial number of deep surveys at different wavelengths will soon become available. Most of these galaxies will be too faint for spectroscopic study and hence, the photometric redshift technique is the only practical way for estimating their redshifts. In a recent assessment of different photometric redshift techniques, using a redshift-limited spectroscopic survey, it was shown that photometric redshifts can be predicted with an accuracy of 0.1 (0.3) for $`68\%`$ ($`99\%`$) of the sources examined (Hogg et al 1998). Therefore, photometric redshifts could provide a powerful tool for statistical studies of evolutionary properties of galaxies and in particular of faint galaxies for which spectroscopic data are difficult to obtain.

The most important step in any study concerning photometric redshift measurement, is the choice of the template Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) for different populations of galaxies, with which the observed SEDs should be compared. There are two general ways for adopting the template SEDs:

a). Empirical templates: in this case one uses the mean observed SEDs corresponding to different types of galaxies. The problem here is that there are not enough information about the observed SEDs for different classes of objects at different redshifts (particularly at high redshifts). Therefore, incorporating the spectral evolution of galaxies of different types on their template SEDs is difficult and uncertain.

b). Synthetic templates: uses model SEDs for different spectral types of galaxies, shifted in redshift space, assuming evolutionary population synthesis models. The main problem here is to constrain the evolutionary model parameters to produce realistic model SEDs (for different types) as a function of redshift. In particular, the effect of dust at high redshifts (specially in star forming galaxies) is not known.

To avoid these problems, we introduce a combined approach, producing realistic model SEDs based on chemo-photometric Evolutionary Population Synthesis (EPS) models, extending from UV to 1 mm in wavelength. The template SEDs here, are consistently and simultaneously optimised to; a). produce the observed colours of galaxies at $`z0`$; b). incorporate chemo-photometric evolution for galaxies of different types, in agreement with observations; c). allow treatment of dust contribution and its evolution with redshift, consistent with the EPS models; d). include absorption and re-emission of radiation by dust and hence, realistic estimates of the far-infrared radiation; e). include correction for inter-galactic absorption by Lyman continuum and Lyman forest. The evolutionary models and hence, the template SEDs, are constrained by minimising the scatter between the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts for a calibrating sample of galaxies with known spectroscopic data.

The main advantage of this technique over the previous works is that it simultaneously and self-consistently allows for the treatment of both the photometric and chemical evolution of individual galaxies with time. Moreover, since the synthetic template SEDs cover the range from UV to sub-mm wavelengths, one could consistently use the optimised SEDs to estimate contributions from individual galaxies to the far-infrared and sub-mm wavelengths. Also, the effect of dust and its evolution with redshift is self-consistently accounted for in the template SEDs and optimised to produce the observations. This is crucial in any photometric redshift technique if it is to be applied on high redshift, star-forming galaxies (Meuer et al 1997; Cimatti et al 1998).

The new photometric redshift technique is outlined in the next section. In section 3, the evolutionary population synthesis models are briefly discussed. Section 4 presents the calibration sample. This is followed by the optimised template SEDs in section 5. The uncertainties in the photometric redshifts and spectral types are explored in section 6. The conclusions are presented in section 7.

## 2 Photometric Redshift Technique

For a given galaxy, the photometric redshift can be estimated by comparing its observed SED with a set of template SEDs, corresponding to different morphological types and shifted to different redshifts, accounting for galaxy evolution with look-back time. The redshift and spectral type associated with the template SED closest to the observed SED will then be assigned to that galaxy. The comparison is carried out by minimising the $`\chi ^2`$ function

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}((F_{obs}^i\alpha F_{template}^i)/\sigma ^i)^2$$

where the summation, $`i`$, is over the passbands with $`F_{obs}^i`$ and $`F_{template}^i`$ being, respectively, the observed and template fluxes at a given passband, $`n`$, $`\sigma ^i`$ the uncertainty in the observed flux and $`\alpha `$ the normalisation, estimated in two different ways. First, it is estimated by forcing the template SED to have the same total energy (calculated by integrating the SED over the observed wavelength range) as the observed SED. Second, the normalisation is used as a free parameter in the fit in minimising the $`\chi ^2`$. The two methods give very close results. The comparison between the observed and model SEDs, over the entire range of observed SEDs, will constrain the three free parameters (i.e. redshift, spectral type and normalisation). However, due to changes with redshift in the properties of galaxies, we also need to allow for evolutionary effects on the model SEDs. This introduces more free parameters which will be constrained using observed data, as discussed in the following sections.

In order to construct the template SEDs needed for photometric redshift measurements, we use Evolutionary Population Synthesis (EPS) models, required to estimate changes in properties of galaxies with redshift. These models allow us to develope the template SEDs as a function of redshift for different types of galaxies. In the next section, the EPS models used to derive the template SEDs for different types of galaxies, and their underlying assumptions are discussed. The models are constrained, using observed local SEDs for different types of galaxies and by optimising the estimated photometric redshifts to produce their spectroscopic counterparts for a calibrating sample of HDF galaxies with known spectroscopic redshifts. Details of the procedure adopted in this study are summarised in the flow chart in Figure 1.

## 3 The Evolutionary Population Synthesis Models

Synthetic SEDs are constructed following a self consistent procedure, incorporating stellar emission, internal extinction and re-emission by dust. These chemo–photometric EPS models, providing the SEDs extending over four decades in wavelength (ie. from 0.05$`\mu m`$ to 1 mm)- (Mazzei et al 1992, hereafter MXD92), allow us to investigate the local properties and the evolution with galactic age of the SEDs of different galaxy types. In particular, we use realistic EPS models for disc galaxies (MXD92), early–type galaxies (Mazzei, De Zotti and Xu (1994), hereafter MDX94; Mazzei and De Zotti (1996)) and the far-infrared luminous starburst population (Mazzei, Curir and Bonoli (1995)).

In order to match the photometric properties of the galaxy types, expected to dominate deep surveys, we consider 4 different templates, consisting of; elliptical, spiral, irregular and starburst. Details of the SED models for these types and their evolution with cosmic time are given in the above references. In this section, an overview of the main parameters (to be optimised using observed SEDs) will be presented.

The ESP models, used to generate synthetic SEDs for different types of galaxies, have been linked to their chemical evolution so that the increased metallicity of successive stellar generations is taken into account. We adopt a parametrization for the time evolution of the star-formation rate as

$$\psi (t)=\psi _0f_g^n(t)M_{}/yr,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`f_g`$ is the fractional mass of gas which takes part in the star formation ($`f_g=m_{gas}/m_{gal}`$) and $`\psi _0`$ is the initial star-formation rate ( i.e. SFR at $`z=z_{form}`$; where $`z_{form}`$ is the formation redshift). We assume that initially $`f_g=1`$ with $`m_{gal}=10^{11}`$ M.

The synthetic spectra for the stellar generations with different metallicities which contribute to the galaxy SED are estimated at any given time, using the recent set of isochrones constructed by Bertelli et al. (1994). These incorporate the results of new stellar evolutionary calculations, based on six metallicity values: 0.0004,0.001,0.004,0.008,0.02 and 0.05. The isochrones have a fine coverage of masses and ages and include almost all the evolutionary phases from the main sequence to the stage of planetary nebulae ejection or carbon ignition, as appropriate for a given initial mass. This allows us to link the photometric and chemical evolution in galaxies. Further, at any given time and wavelength, the models incorporate both the average correction due to internal extinction by the enriched ISM, assuming a dust–to–gas ratio proportional to the gas metallicity and the dust re-radiation from 3 $`\mu `$m up to 1 mm. We assume that gas and stars have the same distribution. In particular, for spiral, starburst and irregular galaxies we follow the same approach as described in MXD92 (i.e. an exponential function of the galacto-centric radius- see their eq.(11)) whereas for ellipticals we follow MDX94 (i.e a density profile given by the King (1966) model). Results are not strongly dependent on the adopted geometry. The evolution of the optical depth, $`\tau `$, follows directly from that of the gas metallicity, $`Z_{gas}`$ and $`f_g`$ since $`\tau (t)Z_{gas}(t)^sf_g`$ ( as a consequence of the assumption of a gas-to-dust ratio being proportional to the gas metallicity; MXD92, MDX94). This results in very different histories for the effective optical depths (where $`L_{FIR}/L_{bol}=1exp(\tau _{eff}`$)) in the early phases of the evolution of ellipticals in the model, which is based on the adopted IMF parameters.

The IMF and the SFR are the main parameters, controling the $`e`$-folding star formation time scale, the chemical evolution and, as a direct consequence, the optical depth of the system. Thus, the far-infrared data, where available, are expected to constrain the galaxy metallicity. Therefore, by comparing the local observed SEDs of different galaxy types with models, we constrain both $`\psi _0`$ and the IMF. The observed SEDs for nearby spiral and elliptical galaxies with known metallicities and far-IR (IRAS) observations are used to constrain the IMF parameters so that these models successfully reproduce the local chemo–photometric properties of both these types over four decades in wavelength. However, the parameter which is most sensitive to the local properties (i.e. the gas content and optical colours) of galaxies along the Hubble sequence, is the initial star formation rate, $`\psi _0`$ (Sandage 1986), which will be constrained for different types of galaxies, using the observed SEDs (section 5.1).

## 4 The Calibration Sample

To further constrain the evolutionary parameters in these models, in particular $`n`$ and $`z_{form}`$, a calibration sample of HDF galaxies with available spectroscopic redshifts is compiled. The calibration sample contains galaxies bright enough to allow spectroscopic redshift measurements, consisting of both objects with UBVI detections and the UV ‘drop outs’ (i.e. high redshift objects). The advantage of using the HDF galaxies as the calibration sample here is two-fold: (a). HDF galaxies cover the spectral range required for photometric redshift measurement, containing galaxies in the range $`0<z<3.5`$; (b). they are selected using a uniform criteria, for both nearby and distant galaxies, making this an unbiased calibration sample.

The calibrating galaxies are individually inspected and for galaxies with close neighbours, a smaller aperture is adopted to avoid contamination of their light by nearby objects. For the objects with no UV detection (i.e. UV ‘drop outs’), a U-band magnitude of 28.01 mag. was assumed for the photometric redshift measurement. Although this is likely to introduce a bias due to a colour-magnitude relation (i.e. fainter galaxies are bluer), we do not expect it to be significant. This is examined by exploring the range $`28.0<U<30.0`$ for each of the galaxies in the UV- drop out sample and estimating their respective photometric redshift. Using models with the same parameters, we find, on average, only a small sensitivity of the estimated photometric redshifts ($`<3\sigma `$) to changes in the UV magnitudes in the above range.

The calibrating sample, consisting of 73 galaxies, is listed in Table 1 together with their UBVI photometry and spectroscopic redshifts. The reliability of the spectroscopic redshifts and the photometric accuracy of individual galaxies are discussed in the footnote to this table. The calibration sample in Table 1 was selected to be in the HDF area, to allow accurate UBVI photometry and to have unambigious spectroscopic redshifts. Moreover, objects with non-stellar sources of energy (i.e. gravitationally lensed candidates; Zepf et al (1996)) are not included. The magnitudes are in the AB system and are measured over an aperture of 3 arcsec diameter (unless stated otherwise in the footnotes to Table 1).

The EPS models for different types of galaxies are therefore further constrained by minimizing the rms scatter between the photometric redshifts, predicted by our models, and their spectroscopic counterpart, using the calibration sample in Table 1. Thus, the final EPS models for different types of galaxies, which we define as templates (see below), have local ($`z=0`$) SEDs which match the local, observed, SEDs of the corresponding galaxy types and evolutionary properties constrained, using the calibration sample here.

## 5 The Template SEDs

### 5.1 EPS Model Parameters

A large number of EPS models with different input parameters (IMF, $`\psi _0`$, $`n`$ and $`z_{form}`$) are developed, each accounting for both the local properties and evolutionary behaviour of the 4 types of galaxies considered here. For a given spectral type, the model parameters are normalised at $`z=0`$ by fitting them to the local observed SED of their respective type. The evolutionary behaviour of the EPS models are then constrained by estimating the photometric redshifts to our calibrating sample in Table 1, considering template SEDs with different parameters (i.e. IMF and $`z_{form}`$) and allowing for Lyman continuum and Lyman forest absorption for $`z>2`$ galaxies. The template SEDs corresponding to the evolutionary parameters which give the closest agreement between the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts are then adopted (see below). The sensitivity of the final results (i.e. photometric redshifts) to the input parameters in the EPS models is studied in the next section while, details of the final templates for individual types, which best satisfy the above requirements, are summarised below:

a). Ellipticals. The synthetic SEDs, representing elliptical galaxies, are constructed taking $`n=0.5`$ and $`\psi _0=100M_{}/yr`$. This gives an $`e`$-folding star formation time scale of 1 Gyr and reproduces the observed local SEDs for the ellipticals (Figure 2.1a). A formation redshift of 5 is estimated, corresponding to an age of 13 Gyrs. These models predict a noticeable extinction by dust (A$`{}_{B}{}^{}<4.6`$ mag) in the first stages of their evolution which are characterized by intense star formation activity, making them powerful far-infrared sources (Fig 2.2a) (see MDX94 for more details).

b). Spirals. The models used to produce synthetic SEDs for spiral galaxies have $`n=2`$ and $`\psi _0=10M_{}`$/yr. They are consistent with an e-folding star formation time scale of 10 Gyrs, corresponding to a formation redshift of 2 (i.e. an age of 10-11 Gyrs). This gives a local value of $`L_{FIR}/L_{BOL}=0.3`$, very similar to that of our own Galaxy. This model re-produces the local SED of NGC 3627 out to the far-infrared wavelengths (Figure 2.1c). Spiral galaxies are slowly evolving with time ($`L_{FIR}/L_{BOL}<0.1`$ beyond $`z=1`$), resulting a smooth evolution for their SED (Figure 2.2c)- (see MXD92 for more details).

c). Starbursts. The template SEDs for the starburst population are produced taking $`n=1`$, $`\psi _0=2M_{}/yr`$ and a formation redshift of 5. This template does not produce powerful far-infrared emission at any redshift and hence, its local SED (Figure 2.1b) is different from that of local luminous far-infrared starbursts (ie. M82 and Arp 220). The SFR in this model is a gradual process with a smooth time scale, leading to formation of very blue, metal poor systems at $`z0`$ (Figure 2.1b) and a blue, dust-free ($`L_{FIR}/L_{BOL}<0.05`$) system at $`z>1`$ (Figure 2.2b). This mimics a scenario involving frequent but short bursts of star formation, which use a small fraction of gas in these systems (strong bursts of star formation rapidly exhaust the gas, leading to ellitpical like systems). The starburst templates here represent the average evolutionary behaviour expected for this population of galaxies.

d). Irregulars. The Irregular template has been produced with the same recipe as the starburst but with a formation redshift of $`z_{form}=1`$ (ie. an age of 0.8-0.9 Gyr). The local SED of the irregular galaxy NGC 4449 (Kennicutt, 1992) is compared in Figure 2.1d with our local templates for both irregular and starburst galaxies. These templates are also compared at $`z=0.975`$ (Figure 2.2d), showing a significant difference beyond $`\lambda 1\mu m`$.

The model SEDs at $`z=0`$ for the four galaxy types discussed above, agree well with the local observed SEDs, as shown in Figures 2.1a-2.1d. The effects of Lyman break and Lyman forest opacities are included to the template SEDs, using the relations $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ vs. $`z`$ for different wavelengths, given in Madau et al (1996). These relations were fitted to parametric forms, which were then used to estimate the respective correction (due to absorption by inter galactic medium) to the SEDs at any given redshift. The correction due to Lyman break and Lyman forest absorption ranges from $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_{UV})=0.25`$ mag. at $`z=2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_{UV})1`$ mag. at $`z=2.5`$.

### 5.2 Sensitivity of the Template SEDs on the Model Parameters

In this section we study the dependence of the results (i.e. the photometric redshifts) to the model parameters which most strongly affect the final template SEDs and hence, the predicted photometric redshifts. These parameters consist of the shape of the IMF and its lower mass limit, the total number of templates (i.e. spectral types) and the formation redshift for each galaxy type. New template SEDs are generated corresponding to EPS models for elliptical, spiral, starburst and irregular galaxies, using the parameters listed in Table 2, with the rest of the parameters taken to be the same as discussed in section 5.1. For each set of the new templates, the photometric redshifts are estimated for galaxies in the calibrating sample (Table 1) with the rms scatter in the quantity $`(z_{phot}z_{spec})/(1+z_{spec})`$ (ie. between the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts) calculated and listed in Table 2. The templates corresponding to the model which gives the smallest rms estimate in Table 2 (i.e. model 4) is then adopted. The photometric redshifts estimated for the calibration sample, using the adopted template SEDs (model 4 in Table 2), are listed in Table 1 and compared with their spectrosopic counterparts in Figure 3. The rms scatter of 0.11 here is taken as the uncertainty in the photometric redshift estimates in the range $`0<z<3.5`$. The uncertainties in correcting for intergalactic absorption at $`z>2`$ indirectly affect the optimisation of the EPS model parameters in this section. To explore this, we constrained the calibration sample only to galaxies with $`z<2`$ (which are much less affected by the IGM absorption) and estimated the EPS model parameters so that to minimise the rms scatter in Figure 3. No change is found in the EPS model paremeters. Also, we explored the sensitivity of the rms scatter in Figure 3 to the number of template SEDs used (ie. including templates for different sub-classes of spirals), taking the number of SEDs as a free parameter. This did not reduce the optimum rms scatter, derived using the four templates.

Considering the results in Table 2, it seems that one set of models (Salpeter IMF with $`m_l=0.01`$), give a considerably better fit to observations. This was extensively tested by exploring the parameter space, consisting of the IMF shape and its mass limits, total number of templates and formation redshifts. It was found that this is not due to sampling a particular region of the parameter space or the number of templates, and is indeed, a real effect. A similar study, using a different set of EPS models and the optimised parameters in Table 2, would be extremely valuable.

The galaxies in the calibration sample in Table 1 also have near-IR data (Fernández-Soto et al. 1998). The above procedure was repeated, using the combined optical and near-IR magnitudes (UBVIJK) for the calibrating sample. This did not change the optimized EPS model parameters in section 5.1 and Table 2. As an independent test of the template SEDs here, we include the near-IR magnitudes to the observed SEDs of the calibrating sample in Table 1 and estimate their photometric redshifts, using the template SEDs predicted in section 5.1 (model 4 in Table 2). Compared to their spectroscopic counterparts, an rms scatter of 0.13 is found, in agreement with 0.11 from Figure 3.

The amount of dust and its evolution with redshift is an important characteristic of the EPS models in this study. This, at any time, is computed self–consistently, accounting for both the SFR and the IMF parameters. By extending the IMF to low $`m_l`$ values ($`m_l=0.01`$ M), the gas depletion rate becomes faster, reducing the dust enrichment rate. This leads to higher optical depth in the early evolutionary phase of our elliptical models (templates)-(see also Mazzei & DeZotti 1996 for more details). The UV extinction ($`A_U`$) corresponding to different IMF and $`m_l`$ values is estimated for both elliptical and spiral templates at different redshifts and are listed in Table 3. By changing the shape of the IMF and its lower mass limit, the UV extinction for ellipticals at $`z2`$ changes in the range $`14`$ mag. Considering the optimised model in Table 2 (model 4), the extinction in spirals is significantly larger than in ellipticals at $`z0`$ while, at higher redshifts ($`z1.5`$), ellipticals are obscured more than the spirals. Using our optimised model in section 5.1, the template SEDs at $`z1.5`$ are compared in Figure 2.2 with their counterparts at $`z0`$. These show a significant dust contribution to the elliptical SEDs at $`z1.5`$, as indicated from the peak at the far-IR wavelengths.

## 6 Uncertainties in the Photometric Redshifts and Spectral Types

A potential source of uncertainty in estimating the photometric redshifts and spectral types of galaxies is the possibility that the models might be degenerate (i.e. different synthetic SEDs, corresponding to different redshifts and galaxy types producing the same result). Furthermore, the photometric errors in the observed SEDs are likely to affect the final estimate of both the photometric redshifts and the spectral types of their respective galaxy. Also, due to the relative similarity of the model SEDs for starburst and irregular galaxies (Figure 2), the accuracy with which the spectral types for these systems are predicted, needs to be established.

To investigate the above problems, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed. A simulated catalogue is generated to resemble the observed HDF survey, with UBVI magnitudes, known redshifts ($`z_{input}`$) and spectral types. The galaxies are randomly selected to have SEDs similar to the synthetic SEDs for the four types of galaxies (elliptical, spiral, starburst and irregular) considered in section 5.1, shifted in redshift space. Random Gaussian noise, resembling photometric errors, are then added to the simulated SEDs. The simulated catalogue has a magnitude limit of I=28 mag and an apparent magnitude distribution similar to the observed HDF survey.

The photometric redshift code is used to predict the redshifts ($`z_{output}`$) and spectral types of individual galaxies in the simulated catalogue and to compare them with their input values. Two sets of simulations is carried out, assuming different observational errors (i.e. $`\sigma `$ in the Gaussian noise distribution). The difference between the input (simulated) and the output (predicted) redshifts is presented in the histogram in Figure 4, with the spectral types compared in Table 4.

The $`log(z_{output}/z_{input})`$ distribution (Figure 4), including all the four types of galaxies, shows a distinct peak at zero, indicating that the redshifts for the simulated galaxies are well re-produced within $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.11`$. The objects, located at the tails of the distribution in Figure 4, are all galaxies classified as spirals, irregulars or starbursts for which, the degeneracy of their SEDs appears to be more serious (see below). When increasing the photometric errors in the simulated SEDs, the agreement between the simulated (input) and predicted (output) redshifts decreases but the distribution still peaks around zero (dotted line in Figure 4).

The spectral types of the simulated galaxies are compared with the predicted types in Table 4. This gives the ratio of galaxies of a given spectral type, which are correctly classified in the simulation (i.e. galaxies for which their spectral type in the input catalogue were successfully re-produced), to the total number of galaxies of the same type in the input catalogue. In both simulations, we re-produce the spectral types for all the ellipticals in the input catalogue with no mis-identifications. However, due to the relative similarity of the UV-to-optical part of the synthetic SEDs for the spirals, irregulars and starburst galaxies (Figure 2), we can recover respectively $`79\%`$, $`85\%`$ and $`71\%`$ of the spectral types of galaxies in the input catalogue.

The conclusion from the simulation here is that the photometric redshifts are, on average, well produced (within the expected accuracy) and are not affected by the degeneracy in the template SEDs. Furthermore, the spectroscopic type classification for ellipticals is reliable with 100% re-produced (i.e. no mis-identifications) from the input catalogue while, for the spirals, irregulars and starbursts, there is a slight degeneracy in predicting their spectral types.

## 7 Summary and Conclusion

A new technique is developed for estimating the photometric redshifts to galaxies. The advantage of this over the previous methods is that it allows a self-cosistent treatment of both photometric and chemical evolution of the template SEDs for different types of galaxies, in agreement with observations. For this reason, the present technique is particularly useful for application to high-redshift galaxies. The template SEDs are constrained to simultaneously satisfy the following criteria: a). produce the observed colours of galaxies at $`z=0`$; b). incorporate the spectral evolution for galaxies of different types; c). allow a self-consistent treatment of the dust contribution and its evolution with redshift; d). include correction for inter-galactic absorption by Lyman continuum and Lyman forest. The model parameters are then constrained, using a a calibrating sample of HDF galaxies. Using only four optical passbands (UVRI), the photometric redshifts to galaxies can be estimated with an rms accuracy of 0.11. Including near-IR data (UVRIJK), gives a similar rms scatter in the photometric redshifts from this method. The sensitivity of the results to different EPS model parameters are explored and the degeneracy of the photometric redshifts and spectral types for galaxies are examined using a simulated catalogue.


text:
# Gravitational waves from extreme mass ratio inspirals: Challenges in mapping the spacetime of massive, compact objects

## References


text:
# 𝑏→𝑠ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ decays in and beyond the Standard Model Work supported by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515

## Introduction

Flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) $`b`$ decays do not occur at tree level in the Standard Model (SM). Being loop induced, they feel scales of order $`𝒪(m_W,m_t)`$ and in principle much higher ones, making them important probes of the flavor sector of the SM and beyond.

Rare radiative $`bs\gamma `$ decays proceed via so-called electromagnetic penguins. They have been measured in exclusive $`BK^{}\gamma `$ cleo99excl  and inclusive $`BX_s\gamma `$ cleobsg ; lepbsg  decays. In dilepton channels $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$), we identify two additional structures in the Feynman diagrams: boxes and $`Z`$-penguins. None of the dilepton modes has been detected to date, but we expect large data samples from operating $`B`$-factories (CLEO,BaBar,Belle), dedicated $`B`$-physics programmes at colliders (Tevatron Run II,Hera-B) and LHC-B in the long term. Corresponding $`bd`$ transition amplitudes are CKM suppressed $`V_{td}^{}/V_{ts}^{}\lambda 0.22`$.

The existing best bound in the dimuon channels for inclusive decays is $`(BX_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<5.810^5`$ at 90% C.L. CLEO98 , which is one order of magnitude above the NLO SM expectation $`(BX_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{SM}=5.7\pm 1.110^6`$ AHHM . Note that the NNLO calculation in $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is only partially available bobethetal . Corresponding bounds for the exclusive channels are $`(B^+K^+\mu ^+\mu ^{})<5.210^6`$, $`(B^0K^0\mu ^+\mu ^{})<4.010^6`$ at 90% C.L. CDF99  and their respective SM predictions are $`(BK\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{SM}=5.9\pm 2.110^7`$, $`(BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{SM}=2.0\pm 0.710^6`$ with the dominant theoretical uncertainty resulting from hadronic matrix elements, which are estimated here using Light cone sum rules ABHH99 . Currently, the exclusive $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay has the most interesting bound, which is only a factor of 2 away from the SM prediction. Despite larger theoretical uncertainty than in the inclusive cases, rare exclusive decays are more accessible experimentally in the near future and have observables (e.g. existence and position of the zero of the Forward-Backward asymmetry discussed below), which are as clean as the respective ones in the inclusive modes.

## Model independent analysis <br>photon and Z penguins

The calculational tool for the description of $`bs(\gamma ,\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ decays is the low energy effective Hamiltonian $`_{eff}G_FV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}_{i=1}^{10}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )`$ heff . This enables the analysis of relevant observables in a model independent way, with the goal being to extract the Wilson coefficients $`C_i`$ from data agm95 . The mayor player is the $`bs\gamma `$ vertex $`O_7m_b\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }b_RF^{\mu \nu }`$. Its effective coupling strength $`C_7^{eff}`$ is related to the branching ratio $`(BX_s\gamma )|C_7^{eff}|^2`$ thus $`0.25|C_7^{eff}|0.37`$ cleobsg ; ABHH99  which is in good agreement with the SM value $`C_7^{eff}|_{SM}=0.31`$ at $`\mu =m_b`$ at leading log. We see that the $`bs\gamma `$ data fix the modulus of $`C_7^{eff}`$, but not its sign (phase).

In $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, in addition to $`O_7`$, also 4-Fermi operators involving dileptons contribute, given by $`O_9\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}`$, $`O_{10}\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}`$. Due to the charge assignments of lepton-$`Z`$ couplings the $`Z`$-penguin contribution to $`C_9`$ is suppressed with respect to $`C_{10}`$ by $`(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}Z|_V)/(\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}Z|_A)=1+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.08`$. We thus identify $`C_{10}`$ as a measure of the $`sZb`$ coupling modulo the box contribution GGG .

Decomposition of the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching ratio yields $`=a|C_7^{eff}|^2+b|C_9|^2+c|C_{10}|^2+dC_7^{eff}C_9+eC_7^{eff}+fC_9+g`$ ABHH99 . Using the CDF bound CDF99  on this mode and allowing $`C_7^{eff}`$ to have both SM-like and SM-opposite signs gives the present best bound on the strength of generic FCNC $`Z`$-penguins of $`|C_{10}|10`$, which is a factor of 2-3 larger than the SM value $`C_{10}|_{SM}=4.7`$ GGG . Scenarios with non-standard $`Z`$-penguins arise in many extensions of the SM like such as supersymmetry, 4th generation and $`Z^{}`$ GGG . Another interesting possibility to test the $`sZb`$ vertex arises in $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays, since here no photon penguins contribute.

## Exclusive $`BK,K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays

Supersymmetric effects in inclusive $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays have been studied in susy ; goto98 . The reach of a new physics search in the dilepton invariant mass distribution in $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays is exemplified in Fig. 1 ABHH99 . Supergravity (SUGRA) (dotted) and a supersymmetric scenario with non-minimal sources of flavor violation in the mass insertion approximation (dashed), can be well discriminated from the SM (solid) and its hadronic uncertainties (shaded area); the upper curves contain resonant $`c\overline{c}`$ background via $`BK^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^iK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, lower ones are pure short-distance contributions ccbar . Note that the dashed curve saturates the experimental bound in this channel. Similar findings are valid for $`BK\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays, which however show less sensitivity to $`C_7^{eff}`$ as the photon pole at $`s=0`$ is absent. In either case $`C_7^{eff}>0`$ (opposite-to-SM sign) enhances the rates through constructive interference of $`C_7^{eff}`$ with $`C_9`$.

### Forward-Backward Asymmetry

The Forward-Backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays results from V/A interference in the lepton pair $`A(s)C_{10}(C_7^{eff}+\beta (s)Re(C_9^{eff}))`$, shown in Fig. 2 ABHH99 ; see GGG  for a discussion of the sign of $`A`$, which is opposite to the Forward-Backward asymmetry $`\overline{A}`$ of the CP conjugate channel in the CP conserving limit. In the SM ($`C_7^{eff}<0`$, solid curve), $`A`$ has a zero around $`s_03\text{GeV}^2`$, which would disappear if $`C_7^{eff}`$ would have the opposite sign (long-short-dashed curve). The existence of a zero in the Forward-Backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays below the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ resonance is an important test of the SM and is independent of hadronic matrix elements ABHH99 . Positive $`C_7^{eff}`$ occurs generically in supersymmetric theories susy , but only for large $`tan\beta `$ in relaxed and/or minimal SUGRA goto98 .

Further, the position of the zero $`s_0`$ has very small hadronic uncertainties burdman . In the limit where the final hadron has large energy, i.e., small dilepton mass, the Large Energy Effective Theory LEET  is applicable and here all form factors cancel out in the ratios which determines $`s_0`$ ABHH99 .

A recently proposed observable, the Forward-Backward CP asymmetry $`FB_{CP}`$ in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays probes the phase of $`C_{10}`$ or of the $`sZb`$ vertex GGG , respectively. Defined as $`FB_{CP}(A+\overline{A})/(A\overline{A})=ImC_{10}/ReC_{10}ImC_9^{eff}/ReC_9^{eff}(1+\mathrm{})`$, its magnitude scales with $`ImC_9^{eff}=ImY`$, where $`Y(s)`$ contains contributions from resonant and non-resonant $`c\overline{c}`$ states ccbar ; $`ImY=0`$ below threshold, so it is sizeable only in the high dilepton mass region. Integration over $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }^{}^2<s(m_Bm_K)^2`$ yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }FB_{CP}=(3\pm 1)\%ImC_{10}/ReC_{10}`$, which can be large in the case of $`𝒪(1)`$ phases. Hadronic uncertainties are not small, but the SM background is below $`10^3`$ and any effect above this would be due to a non-SM source of CP violation GGG .

## Radiative rare $`B`$-decays

The SM branching ratio in $`BX_s\gamma `$ decays is known at NLO with 10 % accuracy $`(BX_s\gamma )=(3.32\pm _{0.11}^{0.00}\pm _{0.08}^{0.00}\pm _{0.25}^{0.26})10^4`$ greubborzumati . This is in good agreement with data from LEP $`(BX_s\gamma )=(3.11\pm 0.80\pm 0.72)10^4`$ lepbsg , and CLEO, $`(BX_s\gamma )=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)10^4`$ cleobsg .

A promising observable in $`bs\gamma `$ decays where dramatic signals of possible physics beyond the SM could show up is the CP asymmetry in the rate $`a_{CP}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_{\overline{s}}\gamma ))/(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_{\overline{s}}\gamma ))`$ bsgCPXs . It is very tiny in the SM since $`a_{CP}\alpha _s(m_b)\eta \lambda ^2`$, $`\eta ,\lambda `$ are Wolfenstein parameters, thus $`a_{CP}1\%`$ bsgCPXs . However, large effects of (10-50) % are possible in scenarios with an enhanced chromo-magnetic dipole operator $`C_8`$ in the $`bs\text{g}`$ vertex. CP asymmetry in exclusive $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays has a less clean prediction due to strong phases, however, in the SM, $`a_{CP}^{BK^{}\gamma }𝒪(1\%)`$ holds bsgCPKst . Any significant deviation from this would signal new physics. In both inclusive $`0.09<a_{CP}^{BX_s\gamma }<0.42`$ cleobsg  and exclusive cases $`a_{CP}^{BK^{}\gamma }=(8\pm 13\pm 3)\%`$ cleo99excl , the measurements are not conclusive yet.

## Summary

Theoretically clear signatures of possible new physics can be experimentally isolated in $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays in the near future via the observables ($`A(s_0),FB_{CP},a_{CP}`$). It is exciting to see whether the SM passes this next round of FCNC tests.


text:
# Non-Relativistic Effective Field Theory for Perturbative Heavy Quark–Antiquark Systems**footnote * This write-up was updated for some relevant publications that have appeared after the time of the conference.

## 1 Introduction

The study of non-relativistic two-body systems consisting of a heavy quark–antiquark ($`Q\overline{Q}`$) pair has a long tradition since the discovery of the $`J/\psi `$ and the work of Appelquist and Politzer $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which had shown that, owing to asymptotic freedom, non-relativistic quantum mechanics should apply to heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems. Thus, heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems share many features of the positronium and are an ideal tool for studying the interplay of perturbative and non-perturbative physics. It is clear that non-perturbative effects become suppressed more efficiently for increasing heavy quark mass. To get a more quantitative feeling about this, it is helpful to consider the scales that are relevant to the dynamics of a positronium-like $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair with relative velocity $`v1`$, neglecting for now the influence of non-perturbative effects. There are three: the mass, $`m_Q`$ (relevant to processes with high virtuality such as annihilation), $`m_Qv`$ (which sets the size of the system and the relative momentum), and $`m_Qv^2`$ (which is of order of the binding energy). To assess the importance of non-perturbative effects, one can compare these scales with the typical hadronic scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The tools needed to describe the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair depend on the relation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ to the three scales just mentioned.

In this talk I consider heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems where $`m_Qm_Qvm_Qv^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and I call such systems “perturbative”$`^\mathrm{?}`$. In fact, only a top–antitop ($`t\overline{t}`$) pair can clearly satisfy this condition, and it satisfies it even for arbitrarily small velocities because of the large top decay rate. (I will come back to this point in Sec. 6.) For a bottom–antibottom ($`b\overline{b}`$) pair, the condition is, if at all, only valid for the bottomonium ground state, whereas for a charm–anticharm pair it can certainly never be satisfied. For $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs, on the other hand, one can construct quantities, such as moments of the total cross section of hadrons containing a bottom and and antibottom quark in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation where the condition is fairly well satisfied. Perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems are the ones that are best understood. They allow for a rather precise quantitative description from first principles QCD, i.e. without a sizeable model-dependence. This makes perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems in principle an ideal tool to determine QCD parameters such as the heavy quark mass $`m_Q`$ and the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$.

In this talk I review the recent achievements in the description of perturbative non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems using the concept of effective field theories. These developments have allowed a systematic determination of corrections of order $`v^2`$ with respect to the non-relativistic limit for heavy quark production (or annihilation) in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and opened up the access to the determination of even higher order corrections. In Sec. 2 I will briefly motivate why the concept of effective field theories is so helpful, and in fact necessary to understand perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems quantitatively, and in Sec. 3 I discuss basics of the construction of an effective theory for non-relativistic perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems ignoring non-perturbative effects altogether. In Sec. 4 the calculation of the total $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation close to threshold at NNLO is sketched, while in Sec. 5 the need to introduce heavy quark mass definitions that are adapted to the non-relativistic framework is explained. Section 6 contains the application of the NNLO cross section to the top mass determination at a future lepton pair collider. In Sec. 7 I briefly mention further applications and give the conclusions.

## 2 Why do we need an Effective Theory?

The lowest order description of the perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in the non-relativistic expansion is provided by the well-known Schrödinger equation

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}^2}{m_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{|𝒓|}}E\right)G(𝒓,𝒓^{},E)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝒓𝒓^{}).`$ (1)
Because all relevant scales are larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the coupling is weak and the potential can be calculated perturbatively (similar to QED). Equation (1) provides a resummation of the most singular terms $`(\alpha _s/v)^n`$ in the elastic $`Q\overline{Q}Q\overline{Q}`$ scattering amplitude for $`v0`$ in full QCD. There is nothing more we have to do in the non-relativistic limit. However, a problem arises when we try to calculate relativistic corrections. As an example, let us consider the Darwin term $`\delta H_D=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s\pi }{m_Q^2}\delta ^{(3})(𝒓)`$. The first order corrections to the energy levels can be determined trivially as $`\delta E_n=n|H_D|n|\psi _n(0)|^2`$, using Rayleigh–Schrödinger time-independent perturbation theory, where $`n`$ stands for the appropriate set of quantum numbers. For the description of production and decay rates, however, we also need the corrections to the wave function at the origin. Formally the answer reads

$$\delta \psi _n(0)=\mathrm{𝟎}|\underset{in}{}\frac{|ii|}{E_nE_i}H_D|n\underset{EE_n}{lim}\left[G(0,0,E)\frac{|\psi _n(0)|^2}{E_nE}\right]\psi _n(0).$$
(2)
Interestingly the expression is UV-divergent because $`G(0,r,E)`$ contains terms proportional to $`1/r`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}r`$ for $`r0`$. (The power divergence can already be found in the free Green function $`G_{\mathrm{free}}(0,r,E)=\frac{m_Q}{4\pi r}e^{ipr}`$, $`p=\sqrt{Em_Q}`$.) The same divergence also exists in the energy levels, but in the next order of perturbation theory.

Obviously, the UV-divergence reflects the fact that the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation is only an approximation, which is valid for small momenta of order $`m_Qv`$ and smaller. This means that the summation over the intermediate states with very large energies of order $`m_Q`$ and larger is incorrect. The traditional approach to avoid this problem has been promoted by Bethe and Salpeter $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and simply avoids the non-relativistic approximation completely. This is achieved by formulating the problem in terms of fully relativistic functional equations of Green functions. The Bethe–Salpeter approach, however, has two disadvantages: first, the corresponding equations are quite difficult to solve (because it is up to the person who solves them to find out what exactly has to be calculated at a specific order in the non-relativistic expansion) and, second, there is no systematic way to separate perturbative and non-perturbative effects.

## 3 The Effective Field Theory Approach

The effective field theory (EFT) approach avoids this dilemma. The EFT approach for non-relativistic perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs had already been initiated some time ago by Caswell and Lepage $`^\mathrm{?}`$, but only recently has it been fully elaborated. To construct the EFT one has to separate those physical degrees of freedom (d.o.f.’s) that can become on-shell for the non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair from those that can only be off-shell. This separation is, of course, not unambiguous. So, the separation between what we count as on-shell and off-shell is dependent on our choice of the regularization scheme. The idea is to integrate out the off-shell d.o.f.’s, in much the same way as particles with masses that are much larger then the available energies can be integrated out in a given process. In order to describe production and annihilation processes, it is also necessary to carry out the same program for external currents. Once the EFT Lagrangian is obtained one can derive equations of motion for Green functions involving the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair. Here, the UV-divergence mentioned before does not arise from the fact that the EFT is defined within a regularization scheme. The resulting dependences on the regularization parameter are cancelled once the Wilson coefficients of interactions and the external currents in the EFT (which contain the contributions from the off-shell d.o.f.’s) are taken into account.

For the case of the non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair this program is non-trivial because we have to distinguish between on- and off-shell components of the single heavy quark d.o.f. in full QCD. The same it true for the gluon We assume that all light quarks are massless, and we count them as gluons.  d.o.f. in full QCD. A very useful way to identify the relevant d.o.f.’s for the non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system is to identify the momentum regimes needed to set up an asymptotic expansion of Feynman diagrams (in full QCD) that describe elastic $`Q\overline{Q}Q\overline{Q}`$ scattering or $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production and annihilation for centre-of-mass energies very close to $`2m_Q`$. It is obvious that, in general, one cannot naively carry out the expansion before integration, because the resulting terms might not lead to finite results. As a simple mathematical example we might consider that we want to determine the expansion of the parameter integral $`f(a)=_0^1\mathrm{arctan}(1x)/(x^2+a^2)𝑑x`$ for $`a0`$. Naive expansion before integration will lead to divergent expressions. Here we have to distinguish between the regions where $`xa`$ and $`x1`$. We might introduce a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that separates the regions such that $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, but we could also use an analytic regularization scheme. In the region $`xa`$ we can now conveniently expand the $`\mathrm{arctan}`$ for small $`x`$, and for $`x1`$ we can expand the whole integral in $`a`$. The integrations can now be done rather easily. Adding both contributions and expanding properly in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`a`$, the cutoff dependence cancels and leaves us with the correct expansion in $`a`$.

The corresponding momentum regions relevant to a non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair are more involved, because there are three widely separated scales one has to take into account: $`m_Q`$, $`m_Qv`$ and $`m_Qv^2`$. The regions were first fully identified by Beneke and Smirnov $`^\mathrm{?}`$: $`(k^0,𝒌)(m_Q,m_Q)`$ (“hard”), $`(k^0,𝒌)(m_Qv,m_Qv)`$ (“soft”), $`(k^0,𝒌)(m_Qv^2,m_Qv)`$ (“potential”) and $`(k^0,𝒌)(m_Qv^2,m_Qv^2)`$ (“ultrasoft”). The energy and momentum components can scale differently with $`v`$ because the choice of a c.m. system for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair breaks Lorentz invariance. All these regions can be populated by quark and gluonic d.o.f.’s. For the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system, where the available energy is of order $`m_Qv^2`$, only quarks in the potential regime have a chance to be on-shell. For gluons this can only happen in the ultrasoft regime. In order to get to the EFT we have to integrate out all the other d.o.f.’s. There have been different attempts and philosophies to achieve this. Pineda and Soto $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have proposed a two-step procedure, where first the d.o.f.’s in the hard regime are integrated out at the scale $`m_Q`$, leading to “non-relativistic QCD” (NRQCD), the theory formulated in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In a second step, the other off-shell d.o.f.’s are integrated out at a scale of order $`m_Qv`$, leading to “potential NRQCD” (pNRQCD). This two-step procedure has the feature that it contains two separate matching scales. Manohar and collaborators $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ propose a single-step procedure where the off-shell d.o.f.’s are integrated out at the scale $`m_Q`$, except for soft gluons. The resulting EFT is called “velocity NRQCD” (vNRQCD). The crucial issue of vNRQCD is that it is regulated by a regularization velocity $`\nu `$ in dimensional regularization. This regularization allows the scaling of the boundaries of the different momentum regions with $`v`$ at the same time. A common feature of both EFTs is that their Lagrangians contain four-quark $`(Q\overline{Q})(Q\overline{Q})`$ interactions that depend non-locally on the quark three momenta, but locally on the quark energies. These interactions represent a generalization of what is called “potential” in the Schrödinger equation (1). We note that, in the EFT for perturbative $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs, these potentials are purely short-distance objects that can be calculated perturbatively and do, in contrast to potential models, not contain any confining contributions.

Setting aside the problem of properly resumming logarithms of the velocity $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (which is acceptable because the corresponding logarithms are not dominant numerically for the practical applications involving $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs) both formulations of the EFT agree on how to calculate the relativistic corrections to $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production. From now on, I will therefore only talk about “the EFT for perturbative non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs”. Based on the velocity scaling of the different momentum regimes, it is possible to unambiguously determine to which power in $`v`$ an individual interaction in the Lagrangian of the EFT scales. This “power counting” allows an unambiguous identification of the interactions (and the contributions in their Wilson coefficients) that have to be taken into account to describe a process involving the non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair at a certain order in $`v`$ (i.e. in the non-relativistic expansion). One well-known fact that can be derived from formal power counting is that the Coulomb interaction scales with the same power in $`v`$ as the kinetic energy, i.e. the Coulomb interaction cannot be treated as a perturbation. As a particularly important application of the power counting, one can also show that the interaction of the quark with ultrasoft gluons is suppressed by $`v^3`$ with respect to the non-relativistic limit described in the Schrödinger equation (1). This means that up to NNLO The non-relativistic limit described in the Schrödinger equation (1) is usually called “leading-order” (LO); corrections of order $`v^n`$ with respect to the non-relativistic limit are called NnLO.  we can simply neglect the effects of ultrasoft gluons—a great simplification because ultrasoft gluons cause Lamb-shift-type retardation corrections that are quite difficult to calculate. For $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production they have never been fully calculated to date; only partial results exist so far $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Another important issue is that the EFT gives an exact definition for the energy $`E`$ in Eq. (1), which is particularly important for the determination of heavy quark masses from experimental data.

## 4 The Cross Section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q})`$ Close to Threshold at NNLO

To determine the total $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation in the non-relativistic region at NNLO in the EFT, we start from the corresponding expressions in full QCD ($`R\sigma (e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q})/\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$):§§§ For simplicity we consider only the photon-mediated cross section.

$`R(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e_Q^2}{q^2}}\text{Im}\left[i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iq.x}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|Tj_\mu (x)j^\mu (0)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\right]`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e_Q^2}{q^2}}\text{Im}\left[i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|T\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (q)\stackrel{~}{j}^\mu (q)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\right],`$
where $`e_Q`$ is the heavy-quark electric charge and $`\sqrt{q^2}`$ the c.m. energy; $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu (\pm q)`$ are the electromagnetic currents that produce and annihilate the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair with c.m. energy $`\sqrt{q^2}`$. In the EFT these (external) currents are replaced by a sum of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ EFT currents with increasing dimension. For NNLO we need currents up to dimension $`8`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{j}_i(q)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\chi }\right)(q){\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{6m_Q^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}\sigma _i(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{𝑫})^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }\right)(q)+\mathrm{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{j}_i(q)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{\psi }\right)(q){\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{6m_Q^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\sigma _i(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{𝑫})^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }\right)(q)+\mathrm{},`$ (4)
where the Pauli spinors $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ describe the heavy quark and antiquark fields in the EFT, respectively. The constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are Wilson coefficients that contain a perturbative series in $`\alpha _s`$ originating from integrating out the off-shell d.o.f.’s. At NNLO $`c_1`$ has to be calculated at order $`\alpha _s^2`$ (Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$) and contains only contributions from hard d.o.f.’s. For $`c_2`$ the Born expression is sufficient. The dependence of $`c_1`$ on the regularization parameter is not written out. We note that only the spatial components of the currents contribute at the NNLO level. Using the expansions (4) we arrive at the following expression for the cross section at NNLO

$`R_{\text{NNLO}}^{\text{thr}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi e_Q^2}{m_Q^2}}C_1\text{Im}\left[𝒜_1(q^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e_Q^2}{3m_Q^4}}C_2\text{Im}\left[𝒜_2(q^2)\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
where

$`𝒜_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\chi })(q)(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\psi })(q)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (6)
$`𝒜_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\chi })(q)(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{𝑫})^2\stackrel{~}{\psi })(q)+\text{h.c.}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (7)
are EFT current–current correlators and $`m_Q`$ is the heavy quark pole mass. Using the EFT equations of motion for the heavy quark fields $`𝒜_2`$ can be related directly to $`𝒜_1`$:

$$𝒜_2=m_QE𝒜_1.$$
(8)
The current–current correlators are also regularization-parameter-dependent and, in fact cancel the regularization-parameter dependence of $`C_{1/2}`$. $`𝒜_1`$ could be calculated from Feynman diagrams in the EFT. However, even in LO we would have to resum an infinite number of them (and we would have to carry out this resummation at NNLO). It is more convenient to consider the four-point function ($`p(\sqrt{q^2},\mathrm{𝟎}`$))

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(k,k^{},q^2)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\left|\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}+k)\stackrel{~}{\chi }({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}k)\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}+k^{})\stackrel{~}{\psi }({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}k^{})\right)\right|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
(9)
that describes off-shell elastic scattering of a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair in the EFT with c.m. energy $`\sqrt{q^2}`$. Integrating $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ we arrive at $`𝒜_1(q^2)`$ (up to a trivial factor). Upon integration over $`k_0`$ and $`k_0^{}`$ the equation of motion of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ at NNLO is just the Schrödinger equation (1) modified by NNLO corrections.:

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌^2}{M_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌^4}{4M_t^3}}(\sqrt{q^2}2m_Q2\delta m_Q))]\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒌,𝒌^{};q^2)`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒑}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝒌,𝒑)\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒑,𝒌^{};q^2)}=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝒌𝒌^{}).`$
All terms displayed in Eq. (10) are of order $`v^2\alpha _s^2`$ (LO) and higher. The potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ contains the Coulomb potential shown in Eq. (1), its one- and two-loop corrections $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the order $`\alpha _s/m_Q^2`$ Breit–Fermi potential known from positronium, and an order $`\alpha _s^2/m_Q`$ non-Abelian potential. This equation can be solved either perturbatively, starting from the known LO Coulomb solution, or exactly, using numerical methods. It is important that this calculation is carried out in exactly the same regularization scheme as was used to determine the constants $`C_{1/2}`$. As mentioned before, we obtain $`𝒜_1(q^2)`$ by integrating $`\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒌,𝒌^{};q^2)`$ over $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒌^{\mathbf{}}`$. From the EFT we can also uniquely determine the exact definition of what is $`E`$ in Eq. (1): in the pole mass scheme we find $`\delta m_Q=0`$ in Eq. (10).

## 5 The Heavy Quark Mass

The pole mass definition seems to be the natural choice to formulate the non-relativistic effective theory that describes the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ dynamics close to threshold. After all, the heavy quark pole mass is gauge-invariant and IR-finite $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Moreover, in the pole mass scheme the equation of motion for the non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair has the simple form of Eq. (1) (and also of (10) for $`\delta m_Q=0`$), which is well known from the non-relativistic problems in QED. Intuition also seems to favour the pole mass definition, because close to threshold the heavy quarks only have a very small virtuality of order $`m_Q^2v^2`$, i.e. they are very close to the mass shell. However, it is known that the use of the pole mass can lead to (artificially) large high order corrections, because of its strong sensitivity to small momenta $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Quantitatively, the pole mass is ambiguous to an amount of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Thus the use of the pole mass is unfavourable if we intend to use the calculation for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ cross section at NNLO for a precise determination of the heavy quark mass. \[At this point I emphasize that the notion of the “heavy quark mass” is not a physical one, because we can only define quark masses as parameters in the QCD Lagrangian, not as physical quantities.\] In fact, the first theoretical calculations of the NNLO cross section for $`t\overline{t}`$ production close to threshold $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ were carried out in the pole mass scheme; they seemed to indicate a rather large instability of the location where the $`t\overline{t}`$ cross section at threshold rises, because this rise did not seem to converge when comparing LO, NLO and NNLO calculations. (See Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for a synopsis of all calculations that have been done for the total $`t\overline{t}`$ cross section at NNLO.) The situation was similar for the first determinations of the bottom quark mass from moments of the total $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section at NNLO, where the uncertainties were quite large $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ if the pole mass was employed and the latter were estimated conservatively.

The bottom line is that we should use a heavy quark mass definition that has an infrared sensitivity much smaller than the pole definition. In principle, the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass definition might be an ideal candidate because its definition does not depend on infrared physics. However, using the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass would mean that $`\delta m_Q=m_Q^{\mathrm{pole}}\overline{m}_Q`$ is of order $`\alpha _s`$ and parametrically larger than any other term in the Schrödinger equation (10). This means that the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass formally breaks the non-relativistic power counting. In order to find an adequate “threshold mass” definition, it helps to have a closer look at Eq. (10). Technically, the instability observed in the pole mass scheme originates from the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. It can be shown that the potential causes large corrections from momenta smaller than $`m_Q\alpha _s`$ at large orders of perturbation theory. This can be visualized by considering the small momentum contribution to the heavy quark potential in configuration space representation for distances of the order of the inverse Bohr radius $`1/m_Q\alpha _s`$:

$`\left[V(r1/M_t\alpha _s)\right]^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{|𝒒|<\mu M_t\alpha _s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒒}{(2\pi )^3}}\stackrel{~}{V}_c(𝒒)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝒓)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{|𝒒|<\mu M_t\alpha _s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝒒}{(2\pi )^3}}\stackrel{~}{V}_c(𝒒)+\mathrm{},`$ (12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_c`$ is the Coulomb potential in momentum space representation. At large orders of perturbation theory the RHS of Eq. (12) grows asymptotically like $`\mu \alpha _s^nn!`$ (Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$), where $`\mu `$ is the scale of $`\alpha _s`$. On the other hand, it can be shown that the total static energy $`2m_Q^{\mathrm{pole}}+V_c(r)`$ does not contain these large corrections $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Therefore, an adequate mass definition can be found by reabsorbing the $`r`$-independent small-momentum contribution of the Coulomb potential into the heavy quark mass. This procedure is not unique. Several different mass definitions have been suggested in the literature $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ that fulfil this task. Let me mention only the 1S mass $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in some detail. The 1S mass is defined as one half of the mass of the perturbative contribution of a fictitious $`n=1`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound state, assuming that the quarks are stable:

$`m_Q^{1\mathrm{S}}m_Q^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}||1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\alpha _s^2m_Q+\mathrm{},`$ (13)
where $``$ is the non-relativistic perturbative Hamiltonian. The NNLO expression for the RHS of Eq. (13), which is not displayed here, was first calculated in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The 1S mass is less sensitive to infrared momenta than the pole mass (its ambiguity is only of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_Q`$) and, at the same time, does not break the non-relativistic power counting.

In order to relate the 1S mass to the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass, some care has to be taken, because it is not a priori clear how to combine the corresponding perturbative series. The guiding principle is the proper cancellation of the asymptotically large perturbative corrections contained in the perturbative relations of the 1S and the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ masses to the pole mass in each order of perturbation theory. It can be shown that the cancellation happens properly if a modified perturbative expansion, called the “upsilon expansion” $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is used. In the upsilon expansion one has to consider terms of order $`\alpha _s^n`$ in Eq. (13) as of order $`\alpha _s^{n1}`$. Technically this unusual prescription comes from the fact that the coefficient of the order $`\alpha _s^n`$ term in Eq. (13) contains the contribution $`_{i=0}^{n2}\mathrm{ln}(1/\alpha _s)/i!`$, which leads asymptotically to an additional factor $`1/\alpha _s`$. The upsilon expansion should be applied whenever the 1S mass is used outside the framework of the non-relativistic problems. As an example, it has been applied for the description of inclusive semileptonic B decays $`^\mathrm{?}`$, where it leads to a very well behaved perturbative expansion.

## 6 Top-Antitop Production Close to Threshold

Top–antitop pair production at future lepton pair colliders is one of the most important applications of the EFT for non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs discussed in this talk. The $`t\overline{t}`$ production close to threshold will provide a rich phenomenological environment where the top quark can be studied in quite a unique manner. Assuming the upcoming Linear Collider or a muon collider will spend around a $`100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the top–antitop threshold, the top mass can be determined from the $`t\overline{t}`$ line shape with experimental uncertainties below 50 MeV. The fact that the $`t\overline{t}`$ pair is produced in a colour singlet state is crucial to make this possible. Even the top quark width might be extracted from the line shape with an uncertainty of around 20%, assuming that the theoretical uncertainties are small. Assuming that the Higgs mass is around 100 GeV also a fairly good determination of the top Yukawa coupling could be achieved. In addition, from studies of distributions one might get measurements of anomalous top couplings and further measurements of the top width. What makes the $`t\overline{t}`$ system so interesting theoretically is the fact that its total width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t1.5`$ GeV) is much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Thus, the top quark decays before it hadronizes, and the effects of non-perturbative effects should be small. One can show that the effective velocity of the top quarks close to threshold reads $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}=|\sqrt{(E+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)/m_Q}|`$ rather than $`\sqrt{E/m_Q}`$. This means that the hierarchy $`m_tm_tv_{\mathrm{eff}}m_tv_{\mathrm{eff}}^2>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ holds even for c.m. energies that are extremely close to the threshold and that non-perturbative effects should only represent relatively small corrections.

In view of this prospect, it is obvious that a careful analysis and assessment of theoretical uncertainties in the prediction of the total cross section is mandatory, in order to determine whether the theoretical precision can meet the experimental one. Within the last two and a half years, considerable progress has been achieved in the calculation of NNLO corrections to the $`t\overline{t}`$ production process within the framework of the EFT for non-relativistic $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs. For the total cross section the complete set of NNLO QCD corrections have been calculated $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. So far, for the total cross section the complete electroweak effects have only been implemented at NLO. The implementation up to NLO is quite easy: the only thing to do is to replace $`(\sqrt{q^2}2m_Q2\delta m_Q)`$ by $`(\sqrt{q^2}2m_Q2\delta m_Q)+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ in Eq. (10). The width has to be counted as of order $`\alpha _s^2v_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ and cannot be treated as a perturbation.

In the left picture of Fig. 1 the result for the total $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section is shown for $`m_t^{1S}=175`$ GeV, where dotted, dashed and solid curves represent LO, NLO and NNLO results, respectively. As a comparison, the corresponding results are shown in the pole mass scheme in the right picture of Fig. 1. It is conspicuous that the normalization uncertainties are rather large, at the level of 20%. However, realistic simulation studies $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have shown that these uncertainties do not severely affect the determination of a threshold mass such as the 1S mass. A top mass determination with combined theoretical and experimental uncertainties of order or smaller than 200 MeV seems realistic.

## 7 Other Applications and Conclusions

There are a number of other applications of the EFT, which I will only discuss briefly. As mentioned in the introduction, moments of the total $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation can be used to determine the bottom quark mass. These moments are defined as

$$P_n\frac{dq^2}{(q)^{2(n+1)}}\frac{\sigma _{e^+e^{}b\overline{b}+X}(q^2)}{\sigma _{e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}}(q^2)}.$$
(14)
It can be shown that the effective velocity of the bottom quarks in the $`n`$-th moments is $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/\sqrt{n}`$, which means that $`m_b>m_bv_{\mathrm{eff}}>m_bv_{\mathrm{eff}}^2>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ holds as long as $`n`$ is not chosen larger than about 10. Determinations of the bottom quark mass based on threshold mass definitions have been carried out in Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The results are perfectly consistent and yield a value for the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ bottom mass $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ of $`4.2`$ GeV, with an uncertainty of $`60`$$`80`$ MeV.

It is clear that the non-relativistic EFT for heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pairs can also be applied to two-body systems where the binding is caused by the electromagnetic forces. Apart from classic systems such as hydrogen, positronium or muonium, where the use of effective field theoretical methods has become increasingly popular within the last two years, hadronic atoms are a quite interesting field of application. Among the most interesting of these systems are the bound state of two charged pions ($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), called pionium, or muonic or kaonic hydrogen. A number of experiments such as DIRAC at CERN or DEAR at DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE are already running or are under way, with the aim of measuring parameters of the chiral Lagrangian with unprecedented precision in order to provide tests of our understanding of chiral symmetry breaking.

To conclude, one can say that the advent of EFT methods has revived the interest of many theorists in non-relativistic two-body systems. The strength of the EFT approach is that it represents a “theory” and not just a “method”. It explicitly uses the concepts of separation of scales, factorization and renormalization, and it simplifies systematic calculations through a set of power counting rules that can be applied before any calculation is actually started. This has made non-relativistic heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ systems accessible to a wider public. Today it is clear how to calculate NNNLO corrections to the total $`Q\overline{Q}`$ cross section. This is a tremendous technical project, but it is clear conceptually. The calculation of these corrections might be important in obtaining a more realistic estimate of theoretical uncertainties in the non-relativistic expansion for $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ systems. An important conceptual development, which still has to be achieved, is the proper implementation of the instability of a heavy quark such as the top into the EFT framework. To study instability, the non-relativistic framework seems to be a much better setting than the full theory, because the non-relativistic EFT provides a natural separation of on- and off-shell heavy quark d.o.f.’s.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Herbert Fried, Bernd Müller and Yves Gabellini for the organization of this nice and informative conference. This work is supported in part by the EU Fourth Framework Program “Training and Mobility of Researchers”, Network “Quantum Chromodynamics and Deep Structure of Elementary Particles”, contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG12-MIHT).

## References