text:
# Moduli of continuity and average decay of Fourier transforms: two-sided estimates

## 1. Introduction and statement of the main results

A result of this paper (Corollary 1.5 below) is applied in the proof of the violation of the so-called entropic area law for a critical system of free fermions, see \[4, (6) et seq.\], \[4, Section on Fractal Boundaries\] and \[5, Lemma 2.10\]. Corollary 1.5 follows from more general results of this paper (Theorems 1.1, 1.4) which are of independent interest.

It is well-known that the behavior of a modulus of continuity $`\omega [f](h)`$ of a function $`f`$ for $`|h|`$ small is related to the behavior of the Fourier transform $`\widehat{f}(\xi )`$ of $`f`$ for $`|\xi |`$ large (precise definitions are given in (1.3) et seq. below), see e.g. \[10, Proposition 5.3.4\], \[12, Theorem 85\]. The main object of our study are inequalities between general averaged moduli of continuity (m.c.) of $`L^p`$ functions (defined in (1.3) below) and tails of their Fourier transforms (F.t.). In  several results relevant for our purposes were obtained. Theorem 1.1 below gives a lower estimate for a general $`L^p`$ m.c., $`1p2`$, in terms of the modified tail integral of the F.t. improving one of the results in  (as in , we distinguish between the true and the modified F.t. tail integral, as defined in (1.5) and (1.6) below). Corollary 1.2 gives a two-sided estimate for the m.c. in terms of the modified tail integral of the F.t. in the case $`p=2`$. In applications it might be desirable to use the true F.t. tail instead of the modified tail that arises naturally in the mentioned inequalities. Theorem 1.4 gives the best possible power-scale description of the relationship between the true and the modified F.t. tails (see Remark 2.3).

Before stating our results we need to introduce some notation and recall two results in . Let $`d`$ and denote by $`_{p,^d}`$ the standard norm in $`L^p(^d)`$, $`1p\mathrm{}`$. The Fourier transform $`\widehat{f}(\xi ):=_^de^{i\xi x}f(x)𝑑x`$, $`\xi ^d`$, of a function $`fL^p(^d)`$ for $`1p2`$ is defined in the standard way (see e.g. \[8, Section IV.3\]). In the case $`2<p\mathrm{}`$ we consider only the functions $`fL^p(^d)`$ whose transforms belong to $`L^p^{}(^d)`$, $`p^{}:=p/(p1)`$. Introduce the difference operator of order $`m`$ acting on functions with domain $`^d`$ by \[11, Section 3.3\]

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf(x):=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}(1)^{mk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)f(x+ky),x,y^d,$$

where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)`$ denotes the binomial coefficient. Note that the Fourier transform of (1.1) in $`x`$ equals $`\left(_{k=0}^m(1)^{mk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)e^{iky\xi }\right)\widehat{f}(\xi )=(e^{iy\xi }1)^m\widehat{f}(\xi ),`$ and hence the functions

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf(x),(2i\mathrm{sin}(y\xi /2))^me^{imy\xi /2}\widehat{f}(\xi )$$

form a Fourier pair for $`m`$. Now we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf(x)`$ for any $`m>0`$, $`m`$, as the inverse Fourier transform of the second function in (1.2). Let $`𝕊^{d1}`$ denote the unit sphere in $`^d`$ and let $`dS`$ denote the standard measure on $`𝕊^{d1}`$. (All the results below with obvious modifications hold if one replaces the standard measure on $`𝕊^{d1}`$, with a measure $`G`$ invariant under orthogonal transformations and supported in the unit ball in $`^d`$ as in .) For $`1p\mathrm{}`$ set

$$\delta _{p,m}[f](y):=\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf_{p,^d},y^d,$$

and define a general averaged (integral) m.c. of $`f`$ as follows. For any $`h>0`$ in the case $`1q<\mathrm{}`$ set

(1.3)
$$\omega _{p,m,q}[f](h):=\delta _{p,m}[f](hy)_{q,𝕊^{d1}}=\left(_{𝕊^{d1}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{hy}^mf_{p,^d}^q𝑑S_y\right)^{1/q}$$

(where in the case $`d=1`$ the integral should be interpreted as a sum over $`y\mathrm{SS}^0=\{\pm 1\}`$), and in the case $`q=\mathrm{}`$ set

$$\omega _{p,m,\mathrm{}}[f](h):=\underset{|y|h}{sup}\delta _{p,m}[f](y)=\underset{|y|h}{sup}\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf_{p,^d}.$$

The Hölder inequality implies that for any $`1q_1q_2\mathrm{}`$ there exists $`c=c(p,q_1,q_2,d)<\mathrm{}`$ so that

(1.4)
$$\omega _{p,m,q_1}[f](h)c\omega _{p,m,q_2}[f](h),h>0.$$

Define the tail integral of the F.t. for $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$ and for $`p^{}=\mathrm{}`$, respectively, by

(1.5)
$$\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t):=\left(_{|\xi |t}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi \right)^{1/p^{}},\psi _{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{f}](t):=\underset{|\xi |t}{sup}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|,t>0.$$

Motivated by the results in , we wish to compare the m.c. $`\omega _{p,m,q}[f](1/t)`$ and the F.t. tail $`\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)`$, as $`t\mathrm{}`$. It will be clear from our Theorem 1.1 below that the natural choice of $`q`$ for the purpose of such a comparison is $`q=p^{}`$ (see also the discussion preceding Theorem 1.3). Note next that it is possible that $`\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ is rapidly decreasing, or simply zero, for large $`t`$ (take e.g., $`\widehat{f}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$), whereas the modulus of continuity related to the $`m`$th finite difference of $`f`$ vanishes generally speaking at the rate $`1/t^m`$ only. This motivated the author in  to introduce the following modified F.t. tails: For $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$

(1.6) $`\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t):`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle _^d}min(1,(|\xi |/t)^{mp^{}})|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi \right)^{1/p^{}}`$
$`=\left(t^{mp^{}}{\displaystyle _{|\xi |t}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi +(\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t))^p^{}\right)^{1/p^{}},t>0,`$
and for $`p^{}=\mathrm{}`$

$$\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[\widehat{f}](t):=\underset{\xi ^d}{sup}\left(min(1,(|\xi |/t)^m)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|\right),t>0.$$

It might not be immediately obvious why these tails are useful, we give the reason for that in Theorem 1.3 below. Note that for any $`1p^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ is nonincreasing as $`t`$ grows, because so is the function $`min(1,r/t)`$ for any fixed $`r>0`$. Note also that in the case $`\widehat{f}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`\widehat{f}0`$, there exist $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1=\stackrel{~}{c}_1(\widehat{f})>0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_2=\stackrel{~}{c}_2(\widehat{f})>0`$ such that

(1.7)
$$\stackrel{~}{c}_1t^m\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)\stackrel{~}{c}_2t^m,t\mathrm{},$$

because $`\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)=0`$ for large $`t`$.

We are ready to state the two results from  mentioned above. First \[2, p. 512\], for any $`d`$ in the case $`2p\mathrm{}`$, there exists $`c_3=c_3(p,d,m)`$ such that for for all functions in the set $`\{f:fL^p(^d)\text{ and }\widehat{f}L^p^{}(^d)\}`$,

(1.8)
$$\omega _{p,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t)c_3\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t),t>0.$$

Note that in the case $`p=2`$, (1.8) holds for all $`fL^2(^d)`$. (The mentioned formula in  involves in fact $`\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](2t)`$. The formula (1.8) is then true since $`\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ is nonincreasing, and (1.8) suffices for our purposes.) Secondly \[2, (9)\], for any $`d`$ in the case $`1p2`$, for any $`a>1`$ there exists $`c_4=c_4(p,q,d,m,a)`$ such that for any $`1q\mathrm{}`$ and for all $`fL^p(^d)`$

(1.9)
$$\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)c_4\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a^m\omega _{p,m,q}[f](1/(a^kt)),t>0.$$

It would be preferable to have instead of (1.9) a formula which does not involve an infinite sum, i.e., of the type (1.8). It turns out that such a result holds for $`d2`$ and if $`q`$ is large enough, at least $`q=p^{}`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For any $`d2`$ and $`1p2`$ there exists $`c=c(p,d,m)`$ such that for all $`fL^p(^d)`$

(1.10)
$$\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)c\omega _{p,m,p^{}}[f](1/t),t>0.$$

It is explained in Remark 2.2 below why (1.10) (and even its analog with $`\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ in the left-hand side, cf. (1.15) below) fails for $`d=1`$. In view of (1.4), one can replace $`p^{}`$ in the right-hand side in (1.10) with any $`qp^{}`$ (and a different $`c`$). It would be interesting to know if one could replace $`p^{}`$ in the right-hand side of (1.10) with $`1q<p^{}`$. Note also that for $`qp^{}`$, our Theorem 1.1 implies readily all the statements of \[2, Theorem 2\], and is slightly more general since no comparison function $`s`$ as in  is required.

In the case $`p=2`$ the following is an immediate consequence of (1.8), (1.10) and (1.4).

###### Corollary 1.2.

For $`d2`$ and $`p=2`$ there exist $`c_1,c_2>0`$ that depend on $`d`$ and $`m>0`$ only, such that for all $`fL^2(^d)`$ and $`t>0`$

(1.11) $`c_1\omega _{2,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t)\psi _{2,m}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ $`c_2\omega _{2,m,2}[f](1/t)`$
$`c_2c(2,2,\mathrm{},d)\omega _{2,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t).`$
The estimates (1.8), (1.10), (1.11) show that that the modified F.t. tail $`\psi _{p^{},m}`$ is more appropriate than the true F.t. tail $`\psi _p^{}`$ to be compared with the m.c. $`\omega _{p,m,p^{}}`$. The upper estimate in (1.11) is a Jackson-type inequality, see e.g. \[8, Section I.8\].

It follows from (1.11) that for $`p=2`$ an inequality in the direction opposite to (1.4) holds: In the case $`d2`$ for all $`fL^2(^d)`$

(1.12)
$$\omega _{2,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t)\stackrel{~}{c}(2,\mathrm{},2)\omega _{2,m,2}[f](1/t),t>0,$$

and so for any $`m>0`$ all the moduli $`\omega _{2,m,q}`$, $`2q\mathrm{}`$, are equivalent. It would be interesting to find a direct proof of (1.12).

We now explain why in the case $`d2`$ and $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$ the modified F.t. $`\psi _{p^{},m}`$ defined in (1.6) is a natural quantity to consider. For $`d2`$ and any $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$ define

(1.13)
$$G_\alpha (|w|):=2^\alpha _{𝕊^{d1}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}(yw)\right)^\alpha 𝑑S_y,w^d.$$

Recalling that the functions in (1.2) form a Fourier pair and using the Hausdorff–Young inequality (see the proof of Theorem 1.1 below and the proof of (1.8) in ) we can compare for $`y𝕊^{d1}`$ fixed and $`t>0`$, the $`L^p`$ norm of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y^mf`$, $`\delta _{p,m}[f](y)`$, and the $`L^p^{}`$ norm of the function $`(2i\mathrm{sin}(y\xi /(2t)))^me^{imy\xi /2}\widehat{f}(\xi )`$ (in the case $`p>2`$ we assume in addition as before that $`\widehat{f}L^p^{}(^d))`$. Raising both quantities to the power $`q=p^{}`$ (this explains why the choice $`q=p^{}`$ is natural) we can compare the quantities $`(\omega _{p,m,p^{}}[f](t))^p^{}`$ and

$$_^d2^{mp^{}/2}\left(_{𝕊^{d1}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{y\xi }{t}\right)^{mp^{}/2}𝑑S_y\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi .$$

With this in mind, for $`d2`$ and any $`\widehat{f}L^p^{}(^d)`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, we introduce the Bessel tail of the Fourier transform

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t):=\left(_^dG_{mp^{}/2}\left(|\xi |/t\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi \right)^{1/p^{}}$$

and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{},m}[\widehat{f}](t):=\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)`$. From the above discussion, $`\omega _{p,m,p^{}}[f](t)`$ can be compared with the Bessel tail $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)`$ as in (1.8), (1.10). The relevance of the modified F.t. $`\psi _{p^{},m}`$ is now apparent from the following

###### Theorem 1.3.

For any $`d2`$ and any $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$, there exist $`C_1,C_2>0`$ that depend only on $`d`$ and $`\alpha `$ so that

(1.14)
$$C_1(min(1,v))^{2\alpha }G_\alpha (v)C_2(min(1,v))^{2\alpha },v0,$$

and hence for some $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1,\stackrel{~}{C}_2>0`$ that depend on $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, $`m>0`$, $`d`$ only,

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)\stackrel{~}{C}_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)$$

for all $`\widehat{f}L^p^{}(^d)`$ and all $`t>0`$.

The relation (1.14) is illustrated for $`\alpha =1`$, $`C_1=\pi /3`$, $`C_2=6\pi `$ in Fig. 1 (note that $`G_1(v)=4\pi (1\frac{\mathrm{sin}v}{v})`$).

We now describe the relationship between the true and the modified F.t. tails, $`\psi _p^{}`$ and $`\psi _{p^{},m}`$, respectively. From (1.6) it is clear that for any $`1p^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`m>0`$, and $`\widehat{f}L^p^{}(^d)`$

(1.15)
$$\psi _p^{}[\widehat{f}](t)\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t),t>0.$$

The following statement gives a converse to (1.15) that is optimal on the power scale (see Remark 2.3 below).

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`d`$, $`m>0`$, $`\alpha >0`$, $`1p^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`gL^p^{}(^d)`$. All the constants below depend on $`g`$ and are strictly positive and finite.

1. Let $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$.

(i) If $`\psi _p^{}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, then as $`t\mathrm{}`$,

$$\psi _{p^{},m}[g](t)b_2(g)\{\begin{array}{cc}t^\alpha ,\hfill & 0<\alpha <m\hfill \\ t^\alpha (\mathrm{log}t)^{1/p^{}},\hfill & \alpha =m\hfill \\ t^m,\hfill & \alpha >m.\hfill \end{array}$$

(ii) If $`c_1(g)t^\alpha \psi _{p^{},m}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, then as $`t\mathrm{}`$,

$$\psi _p^{}[g](t)b_1(g)\{\begin{array}{cc}t^\alpha ,\hfill & 0<\alpha <m\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \alpha m.\hfill \end{array}$$

2. Let $`p^{}=\mathrm{}`$.

(i) If $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, then as $`t\mathrm{}`$,

$$\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)b_2(g)\{\begin{array}{cc}t^\alpha ,\hfill & 0<\alpha <m\hfill \\ t^m,\hfill & \alpha m.\hfill \end{array}$$

(ii) If $`c_1(g)t^\alpha \psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, then as $`t\mathrm{}`$,

$$\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)b_1(g)\{\begin{array}{cc}t^\alpha ,\hfill & 0<\alpha <m\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \alpha m.\hfill \end{array}$$

We state finally a result that was applied in a study of the scaling of entanglement entropy for a certain physical system in .

###### Corollary 1.5.

Let $`d`$. Assume that $`fL^2(^d)`$. Then for some $`c_1=c_1(f)>0`$, $`c_2=c_2(f)>0`$ and some $`\gamma =\gamma (f)(0,2)`$, $`f`$ satisfies

(1.16)
$$c_1ϵ^\gamma _{𝕊^{d1}}f(+ϵy)f()_{2,^d}^2dS_yc_2ϵ^\gamma ,0ϵ1,$$

if and only if there exist $`b_1=b_1(f)>0`$, $`b_2=b_2(f)>0`$ such that

(1.17)
$$b_1t^\gamma _{|\xi |t}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi b_2t^\gamma ,t1.$$

Note that Corollary 1.5 is true in all dimensions: In the proof of Corollary 1.5 below, we consider the cases $`d2`$ and $`d=1`$ separately. In the former case we employ the general results stated above. In the case $`d=1`$ we give a direct proof using in particular the ideas in the proofs of \[1, Lemma 2.10, Lemma 4.2\]. The main reason why, in the case $`d=1`$, Corollary 1.5 is true despite the fact that Theorem 1.1 fails, is because of the explicit (power-type) form of the estimates in Corollary 1.5.

The equivalence of the upper estimates in (1.16) and in (1.17) is well-known: it follows follows e.g. from \[9, Lemma 3.3.1\], and also from the results obtained in . Note that \[9, Lemma 3.3.1\] deals with a Besov space $`B_{2,\mathrm{}}^s(^d)`$, $`s>0`$, $`s`$ (the case $`s=\gamma /2(0,1)`$ is relevant for the upper estimates in Corollary 1.5). In , (1.17) is derived in the case $`\gamma =1`$ from a more restrictive pointwise condition

(1.18)
$$c_1|y|^\gamma (\delta _{2,1}[f](y))^2c_2|y|^\gamma ,|y|1,$$

which in general can not be reversed because $`\delta _{2,1}[f](y)`$ can have singular directions.

A simple example of a function that satisfies (1.16) with $`\gamma =1`$ is the characteristic function of a compact set with $`C^1`$ boundary. For any $`0<\gamma <1`$ there exsits a compact set whose characteristic function satisfies (1.16), see \[5, Lemma 2.9\].

It turns out that Corollary 1.5 fails for $`\gamma =2`$, see Remark 2.4. Note that for $`\gamma >2`$ the condition (1.16) is not satisfied for any $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`f0`$, because it involves the finite difference of order $`1`$.

Theorems 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and Corollary 1.5 are proved in Section 2.

## 2. Proofs and concluding remarks

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

First consider the case $`p=1`$, $`p^{}=\mathrm{}`$ (in this case the proof below goes through for all $`d`$). We have to prove that for some $`c=c(p,d,m)`$, $`\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[\widehat{f}](t)c\omega _{1,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t)`$, $`t>0`$. Recall that $`\widehat{f}_{\mathrm{},^d}f_{1,^d}`$. Since the functions (1.2) form a Fourier pair we have

(2.1) $`\omega _{1,m,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t)`$ $`=\underset{|y|1/t}{sup}\delta _{1,m}(y)\underset{|y|1/t}{sup}\underset{\xi ^d}{sup}\left(|2i\mathrm{sin}(y\xi /2)|^m|\widehat{f}(\xi )|\right)`$
$`=2^m\underset{\xi ^d}{sup}\left(|\widehat{f}(\xi )|\underset{|z|1}{sup}\left|\mathrm{sin}(z\xi /(2t))\right|^m\right).`$
It is an easy exercise to prove that for any $`\xi ^d`$

$`\underset{|z|1}{sup}\left|\mathrm{sin}(z\xi /(2t))\right|`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & |\xi ||t\pi |\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}(|\xi |/(2t)),\hfill & |\xi |<|t\pi |\hfill \end{array}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}min(1,|\xi |/t).`$
This together with (2.1) and (1.6) proves the result.

Consider now the case $`d2`$, $`1<p2`$, $`p^{}<\mathrm{}`$. By the Hausdorff–Young inequality $`\widehat{f}_{p^{},^d}(2\pi )^{d/p^{}}f_{p,^d}`$, $`1<p2`$, and using the fact that (1.2) is a Fourier pair we get as in \[2, (4.7)\]

(2.2) $`(\delta _{p,m}[f](y/t))^p^{}`$ $`(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _^d}\left|2i\mathrm{sin}(y\xi /(2t))\right|^{mp^{}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi `$
$`=(2\pi )^d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{mp^{}/2}{\displaystyle _^d}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{y\xi }{t}}\right)^{mp^{}/2}𝑑\xi .`$
Integrating over $`y`$ and recalling (1.13) we obtain

(2.3) $`(\omega _{p,m,p^{}}[f](1/t))^p^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝕊^{d1}}}(\delta _{p,m}[f](y/t))^p^{}𝑑S_y`$
$`(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _^d}G_{mp^{}/2}(|\xi |/t)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi .`$
Now we need the following elementary result, the proof is given after the end of the present proof.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`d2`$ and fix any $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$. The function $`G_\alpha (v)`$, $`v0`$, defined in (1.13) satisfies the following: For any $`v_0>0`$ there exist $`C_\alpha (v_0),c_\alpha (v_0)>0`$ such that

(2.4)
$$G_\alpha (v)C_\alpha (v_0)>0,vv_0$$

and

(2.5)
$$G_\alpha (v)c_\alpha (v_0)v^{2\alpha },0vv_0.$$

Now we write the integral in (2.3) as a sum of $`_{|\xi |t}`$ and $`_{|\xi |t}`$, apply Lemma 2.1 with $`\alpha =mp^{}/2`$, $`v_0=1`$, and set $`c_1(p,d,m):=c(m,d)min(c_\alpha (1),C_\alpha (1))`$ to obtain

(2.6) $`(\omega _{p,m,p^{}}[f](1/t))^p^{}`$ $`c_1(p,d,m)\left({\displaystyle _{|\xi |t}}(|\xi |/t)^{mp^{}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle _{|\xi |t}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi \right)`$
$`=c_1(p,d,m)(\psi _{p^{},m}[\widehat{f}](t))^p^{}`$
which finishes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

###### Remark 2.2.

We show now that (1.10) is not true in the case $`d=1`$ and $`p=2`$. More precisely, we show that for $`d=1`$ there is no $`c(0,+\mathrm{})`$ so that for all $`fL^2()`$

(2.7)
$$\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t)c\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t),t>0.$$

By (1.2) with $`m=1`$ using the Parseval formula we find

(2.8)
$$(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t))^2=\frac{4}{\pi }_{}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\xi }{2t}\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi .$$

For $`\xi `$, $`t,\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$, introduce the notation

$$H(\xi ,t,\stackrel{~}{c})=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\xi }{2t}\right)\stackrel{~}{c}sgn\left[\left(\frac{|\xi |}{t}1\right)_+\right]$$

where $`sgna=1,0,1`$ for $`a>0`$, $`a=0`$, $`a<0`$, respectively, and $`(a)_+=\mathrm{max}(0,a)`$. If (2.7) were true for some $`c(0,+\mathrm{})`$ then there would exist $`\stackrel{~}{c}(0,+\mathrm{})`$ such that

$$_{}H(\xi ,t,\stackrel{~}{c})|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi 0\text{for all }fL^2(),t>0.$$

But

$`\{|\widehat{f}|^2:fL^2()\}`$ $`=\{|f|^2:fL^2()\}`$
$`=\{g:gL^1()\text{ and }g0\text{ almost everywhere (a.e.)}\}.`$
We have arrived at a contradiction: If

$$_{}H(\xi ,t,\stackrel{~}{c})g(\xi )𝑑\xi 0\text{for all }gL^1(),g0\text{ a.e., }t>0,$$

then we must have $`H(\xi ,t,\stackrel{~}{c})0`$ for a.e. $`\xi `$ and all $`t>0`$, which is clearly false for any choice of $`\stackrel{~}{c}>0`$. This proves the result.

We note that the basic reason for the inapplicability of Theorem 1.1 to the case $`d=1`$ is that for any $`v_0>0`$ it is not possible to insert a constant function between the graph of $`\mathrm{sin}^2v`$ and the real axis on the interval $`[v_0,+\mathrm{})`$, cf. Fig. 1. (In the case $`d=1`$, $`\mathrm{SS}^0=\{\pm 1\}`$ and so the function $`G_\alpha `$ in (1.13) would be given by $`2^{2\alpha +1}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2(w/2)\right)^\alpha `$, $`w`$, and there is no helpful averaging over $`\mathrm{SS}^{d1}`$.)

###### Proof of Lemma 2.1.

Recall that $`d2`$. If $`d3`$ then integrating over the $`d2`$ angles in (1.13) as in \[3, (II.3.4.2)\] we obtain for $`v0`$

(2.9)
$$G_\alpha (v)=|\mathrm{SS}^{d2}|_0^\pi (1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))^\alpha \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta .$$

If $`d=2`$ then (2.9) and the subsequent formlulae hold true with the convention $`|\mathrm{SS}^0|=2`$.

We show first there is $`M_\alpha >0`$ such that $`G_\alpha (v)M_\alpha >0`$ for sufficiently large $`v`$. Indeed, in the case $`\alpha 1`$ by the Hölder inequality there is $`\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha >0`$ so that

(2.10) $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }((1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^{(d2)/\alpha }\theta )^\alpha d\theta `$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha \left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))\mathrm{sin}^{(d2)/\alpha }\theta d\theta \right)^\alpha `$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}_\alpha \left({\displaystyle _0^\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))\mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta \right)^\alpha `$
where the second inequality follows from

(2.11)
$$w^\beta w,0<\beta 1,0w1$$

with $`w=\mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta `$ and $`\beta =1/\alpha `$. In the case $`0<\alpha <1`$, in view of (2.11) with $`w=(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))/2`$ and $`\beta =\alpha `$ we obtain

(2.12) $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))^\alpha \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta `$ $`=2^\alpha {\displaystyle _0^\pi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{2}}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta `$
$`2^{\alpha 1}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))\mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta .`$
Note that

(2.13) $`|\mathrm{SS}^{d2}|{\displaystyle _0^\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}(v\mathrm{cos}\theta ))\mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta `$ $`={\displaystyle _{𝕊^{d1}}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\left((v,0,\mathrm{},0)y\right)\right)𝑑S_y`$
$`=|𝕊^{d1}|\left(12^s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)v^sJ_s(v)\right)`$
where $`s=(d2)/2`$, $`J_s`$ is the Bessel function, and we have used \[3, (II.3.4.2)\] and \[7, (8.411.4)\]. By \[7, (8.451)\], $`v^sJ_s(v)=O(v^{s1/2})0`$, as $`v\mathrm{}`$ for $`d2`$. Hence the right-hand side of (2.13), and also of (2.10) and (2.12), tends to a strictly positive limit, as $`v\mathrm{}`$. Therefore for any fixed $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$, there exist $`M_\alpha >0`$ and $`v_1(\alpha )`$ so that $`G_\alpha (v)M_\alpha >0`$ for $`vv_1(\alpha )`$.

But $`G_\alpha (v)`$ does not have zeros other than $`v=0`$. Since $`G_\alpha `$ is continuous, it is for any $`v_0>0`$ bounded away from zero on the compact $`[v_0,v_1(\alpha )]`$. This proves (2.4).

Let us now prove (2.5) for $`v_0>0`$ small enough. We can rewrite (2.9) as

(2.14)
$$G_\alpha (v)=2^\alpha |\mathrm{SS}^{d2}|_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}^{2\alpha }(v\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta .$$

Using the elementary estimate

(2.15)
$$\mathrm{sin}x\frac{2}{\pi }x,0x\frac{\pi }{2},$$

we conclude that

$$G_\alpha (v)v^{2\alpha }c(\alpha ,d)_0^\pi \mathrm{cos}^{2\alpha }\theta \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta ,0v\frac{\pi }{2},$$

which proves (2.5) for any $`0<v_0\pi /2`$. But now if we take any $`v_0>\pi /2`$ then using (2.5) for $`0v\pi /2`$ and the fact that $`G_\alpha (v)`$ is bounded away from zero for $`\pi /2vv_0`$ by (2.4) we can always find $`c_\alpha (v_0)>0`$ small enough so that (2.5) holds for $`0vv_0`$. The proof of Lemma 2.1 is complete. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

Recall that $`d2`$. The lower estimate in (1.14) follows immediately from Lemma 2.1 with $`v_0=1`$. As for the upper estimate, we note first that by the definition (1.13), the function $`G_\alpha (v)`$ is bounded above for $`v1`$. Next, using the estimate $`\mathrm{sin}xx`$, $`0x1`$, in place of (2.15), we derive from (2.14) the upper estimate

$$G_\alpha (v)v^{2\alpha }\stackrel{~}{c}(\alpha ,d)_0^\pi \mathrm{cos}^{2\alpha }\theta \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta ,0v1.$$

This proves the upper estimate in (1.14). The proof of Theorem 1.3 is complete. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.4.

Recall that $`d`$, $`0<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$, $`m>0`$.

1. Consider first the case $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$.

(i) Assume $`\psi _p^{}[g](t)c_1(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t1`$. By (1.6)

(2.16)
$$(\psi _{p^{},m}[g](t))^p^{}=t^{mp^{}}_{|\xi |t}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi +(\psi _p^{}[g](t))^p^{}.$$

Then the following gives the result for the case 1(i), all values of $`\alpha `$:

$`t^{mp^{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{|\xi |t}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi `$
$`t^{mp^{}}\left({\displaystyle _{|\xi |1}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2t]}{}}}{\displaystyle _{2^k|\xi |2^{k+1}}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi \right)`$
$`t^{mp^{}}\left(const(g)+c_1(g){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2t]}{}}}\left(2^{(m\alpha )p^{}}\right)^k\right)`$
where $`[]`$ denotes the integer part of a real number. It is explained in Remark 2.3 below why the order in $`t`$ cannot be improved in the case 1(i) and in all other cases.

(ii) Assume $`c_1(g)t^\alpha \psi _{p^{},m}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t1`$ ($`p^{}<\mathrm{}`$). The example $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`g0`$, shows that in the case $`\alpha m`$ we can only claim the trivial bound $`\psi _p^{}[g](t)0`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$. Let now $`0<\alpha <m`$. We use the idea in the proof of \[1, Lemma 4.2\]. Let $`0<B1`$ be a number to be chosen later. By the definition (2.16)

(2.17)
$$(\psi _{p^{},m}[g](t))^p^{}=\left(_{|\xi |Bt}+_{|\xi |Bt}\right)min^{mp^{}}(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi .$$

We have

$`{\displaystyle _{|\xi |Bt}}`$ $`min^{mp^{}}(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi =t^{mp^{}}{\displaystyle _{|\xi |Bt}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi `$
$`t^{mp^{}}\left({\displaystyle _{|\xi |B}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2t]+1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{2^{l1}B|\xi |2^lB}}|\xi |^{mp^{}}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi \right)`$
$`t^{mp^{}}\left(g_{p^{},^d}^p^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2t]+1}{}}}(2^lB)^{mp^{}}c_2^p^{}(g)(2^{l1}B)^{\alpha p^{}}\right)`$
$`t^{mp^{}}const(g)t^{(m\alpha )p^{}}B^{(m\alpha )p^{}},t\mathrm{}.`$
Therefore choosing $`0<B1`$ small enough (recall that $`m\alpha >0`$) we obtain that

(2.18)
$$_{|\xi |Bt}min^{mp^{}}(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi \frac{c_1^p^{}(g)}{2}t^{\alpha p^{}},t\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`\psi _{m,p^{}}[g](t)c_1^p^{}(g)t^{\alpha p^{}}`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, (2.18) together with (2.17) gives

$$_{|\xi |Bt}min^{mp^{}}(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi \frac{c_1^p^{}(g)}{2}t^{\alpha p^{}},t\mathrm{}.$$

Setting $`s=Bt`$ we obtain

(2.19)
$$_{|\xi |s}min^{mp^{}}(1,B|\xi |/s)|g(\xi )|^p^{}d\xi c_1(g)B^{\alpha p^{}}s^{\alpha p^{}},s\mathrm{}.$$

Noting that $`1min(1,B|\xi |/s)`$ we conclude from (2.19) that

$$\psi _p^{}^p^{}[g](t)=_{|\xi |s}|g(\xi )|^p^{}𝑑\xi c_1(g)B^{\alpha p^{}}s^\alpha ,s\mathrm{}.$$

2. The case $`p^{}=\mathrm{}`$.

(i) Assume $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)c_1(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t1`$. Note that

(2.20)
$$\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)=\mathrm{max}(t^m\underset{|\xi |t}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|,\underset{|\xi |t}{sup}|g(\xi )|).$$

Clearly

(2.21)
$$|g(\xi )|\underset{|\eta ||\xi |}{sup}|g(\eta )|c_1(g)|\xi |^\alpha ,|\xi |1.$$

Therefore

$`\underset{|\xi |t}{sup}|\xi |^m`$ $`|g(\xi )|=\mathrm{max}(\underset{|\xi |1}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|,\underset{1|\xi |t}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|)`$
$`\mathrm{max}(c(g),c_1(g)\underset{1|\xi |t}{sup}|\xi |^{m\alpha })=\{\begin{array}{cc}C(g),\hfill & 0<\alpha <m\hfill \\ C_1(g)t^{m\alpha },\hfill & \alpha m.\hfill \end{array}`$
This together with (2.20) proves the case 2(i).

(ii) Let $`c_1(g)t^\alpha \psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)c_2(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$. Again if $`\alpha m`$ then the example of $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`g0`$, shows that generally speaking only the trivial bound $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)0`$ holds for large $`t`$. Let now $`0<\alpha <m`$. Let $`0<B1`$ be a number to be chosen later. We have

$`\psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)`$ $`=\underset{\xi ^d}{sup}min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|`$
$`=\mathrm{max}(\underset{|\xi |Bt}{sup}min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|,\underset{|\xi |Bt}{sup}min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|).`$
Now

$`\underset{|\xi |Bt}{sup}`$ $`min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|=t^m\underset{|\xi |Bt}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|`$
$`t^m\mathrm{max}(\underset{0|\xi |B}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|,\underset{l=1,\mathrm{},[\mathrm{log}_2t]+1}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{2^{l1}B|\xi |2^lB}{sup}|\xi |^m|g(\xi )|)`$
$`t^m\mathrm{max}(B^mg_{\mathrm{},^d},\underset{l=1,\mathrm{},[\mathrm{log}_2t]+1}{\mathrm{max}}2^{lm}B^mc_2(g)(2^{l1}B)^\alpha )`$
$`const(g)B^{m\alpha }t^\alpha ,t\mathrm{}.`$
Choosing $`B`$ small enough (note that $`m\alpha >0`$) we obtain

$$c_1(g)t^\alpha \psi _{\mathrm{},m}[g](t)\mathrm{max}(\frac{c_1(g)}{2}t^\alpha ,\underset{|\xi |Bt}{sup}min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|),t\mathrm{},$$

which implies that $`sup_{|\xi |Bt}min^m(1,|\xi |/t)|g(\xi )|c_1(g)t^\alpha `$. Replacing $`s=Bt`$ we obtain

(2.22)
$$\underset{|\xi |s}{sup}min^m(1,B|\xi |/s)|g(\xi )|c_1(g)B^\alpha s^\alpha ,s\mathrm{}.$$

Noting that $`1min(1,B|\xi |/s)`$ we conclude from (2.22) that

$$\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)=\underset{|\xi |s}{sup}|g(\xi )|c_1(g)B^\alpha s^\alpha ,s\mathrm{}.$$

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.4. ∎

###### Remark 2.3.

Let us explain why the estimates in Theorem 1.4 have the best possible order in $`t`$. In view of (1.15), the estimates 1(i) and 2(i) for $`0<\alpha <m`$ can not be improved. The example of $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`g0`$, in view of the lower estimate in (1.7) shows that estimates 1(i) for $`\alpha >m`$ and 1(ii), 2(i), 2(ii) for $`\alpha m`$ can not be improved. The example of $`gL^p^{}(^d)`$, $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$, such that $`g(\xi )=|\xi |^{(d/p^{})\alpha }`$ for $`|\xi |1`$ and $`g`$ smooth for $`|\xi |<1`$ shows that the estimate 1(ii) for $`0<\alpha <m`$ can not be improved (note that the mentioned $`g`$ satisfies $`\psi _{p^{},m}[g](t)]c_1(g)t^\alpha `$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, and also $`\psi _p^{}[g](t)=\left(|𝕊^{d1}|/(\alpha p^{})\right)^{1/p^{}}t^\alpha `$, $`t1`$). Choosing $`gL^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$ such that $`g(\xi )=|\xi |^\alpha `$ for $`|\xi |1`$ and $`g`$ smooth for $`|\xi |<1`$ shows that the estimate 2(ii) for $`0<\alpha <m`$ can not be improved (for this $`g`$ we have $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}[g](t)=t^\alpha `$, $`t1`$). Finally, the example $`gL^p^{}(^d)`$, $`1p^{}<\mathrm{}`$, such that $`g(\xi )=|\xi |^{(d/p^{})m}`$, $`|\xi |1`$, and $`g`$ smooth for $`|\xi |<1`$ shows that 1(i) for $`\alpha =m`$ can not be improved. Indeed for this $`g`$, $`\psi _p^{}[g](t)=\left(|𝕊^{d1}|/(mp^{})\right)^{1/p^{}}t^m`$, $`t1`$, but $`\psi _{p^{},m}[g](t)|𝕊^{d1}|^{1/p^{}}t^m(\mathrm{log}t)^{1/p^{}}`$, $`t1`$.

###### Proof of Corollary 1.5.

The case $`d2`$The result follows readily from Corollary 1.2 combined with Theorem 1.4 for $`p=p^{}=2`$, $`\alpha =\gamma /2`$, $`m=1`$, $`g=\widehat{f}`$ with $`ϵ=1/t`$. Note that the quantitity in the middle in (1.16) is $`(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](ϵ))^2`$. The integral in (1.17) is the true tail integral of the F.t. of $`f`$, $`\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t)`$. By Corollary 1.2, the exist $`C_1,C_2>0`$ that depend on $`d`$ only so that for all $`fL^2(^d)`$

(2.23)
$$C_1\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t)\psi _{2,1}[\widehat{f}](t)C_2\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t),t>0.$$

Set $`\alpha =\gamma /2`$. Note that since $`0<\gamma <2`$ we have $`0<\alpha =\gamma /2<m=1`$, and the reult follows from Theorem 1.4, cases 1 (i) and (ii), applied to the comparison function $`t^\alpha =t^{\gamma /2}`$, $`t1`$.

The case $`d=1`$We prove first that (1.16) implies (1.17). This follows from a straightforward modification of the proof of \[1, Lemma 4.2\]. We prefer to give the details for the convenience of the reader. Below, $`c`$ will denote a positive constant whose precise value may change from equation to equation and may depend on $`f`$ but which is independent of $`ϵ`$ and $`t`$. By (2.8)

$`(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](ϵ))^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\xi }{2}}\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi c{\displaystyle _{\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |2\pi /(2ϵ)}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi .`$
Setting $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=2ϵ/\pi `$ and denoting $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ by $`ϵ`$ again, we find from the upper inequality in (1.16)

$`c_2(\pi ϵ/2)^\gamma \omega _{2,1,2}[f](\pi ϵ/2)c{\displaystyle _{1/ϵ|\xi |2/ϵ}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
which after setting $`t=1/ϵ`$ implies

(2.24)
$$_{t|\xi |2t}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi ct^\gamma ,t1.$$

Using the latter estimate and representing

$$_{|\xi |t}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi =\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{2^jt|\xi |2^{j+1}t}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi ,$$

we prove the upper inequality in (1.17). In order to prove the lower inquality in (1.17), we note first that (2.24) implies

(2.25)
$$_{|\xi |r}|\xi |^2|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi c_3r^{2\gamma },r1.$$

Indeed using the upper inequality in (1.17) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{|\xi |r}}|\xi |^2|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$ $`{\displaystyle _{|\xi |1}}|\xi |^2|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2r]+1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{2^j|\xi |2^{j+1}}}|\xi |^2|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
$`const+c{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{[\mathrm{log}_2r]+1}{}}}(2^{j+1})^2b_2(2^j)^\gamma `$
$`c^{}r^{2\gamma }`$
(recall that $`\gamma <2`$). Next, let $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$ be two numbers to be chosen later. From the lower inequality in (1.16) and (2.8) using $`|\mathrm{sin}x|x`$ and $`|\mathrm{sin}x|1`$ for $`x0`$, we obtain

$`c_1ϵ^\gamma `$ $`(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](ϵ))^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\xi }{2}}\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
$`c\left(ϵ^2{\displaystyle _{|\xi |\alpha /ϵ}}|\xi |^2|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle _{\alpha /ϵ|\xi |\beta /ϵ}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi +{\displaystyle _{|\xi |\beta /ϵ}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi \right).`$
Using (2.25) and the upper inequality in (1.17) we find

$$_{\alpha /ϵ|\xi |\beta /ϵ}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi c_1c^1ϵ^\gamma \beta ^\gamma b_2ϵ^\gamma \alpha ^\gamma c_3ϵ^\gamma $$

which after choosing $`\alpha >0`$ small enough and $`\beta >0`$ large enough gives

$$_{|\xi |\alpha /ϵ}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi _{\alpha /ϵ|\xi |\beta /ϵ}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi cϵ^\gamma ,0<ϵ1.$$

Setting $`t=\alpha /ϵ`$ we prove the lower inequality in (1.17).

We now derive (1.16) from (1.17). Using the upper inequality in (1.17) and employing (1.15) and Theorem 1.4 (recall that in our case $`p=p^{}=2`$, $`m=1`$, $`\alpha =\gamma /2(0,1)`$)

$$(\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t))^2(\psi _{2,1}[\widehat{f}](t))^2ct^\gamma .$$

Combining this with (1.8) (that holds for $`d=1`$) and using (1.4) we obtain

$$(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t))^2c(\omega _{2,1,\mathrm{}}[f](1/t))^2c^{}(\psi _{2,1}[\widehat{f}](t))^2c^{\prime \prime }t^\gamma $$

which proves the upper estimate in (1.16). It remains to prove the lower estimate in (1.16). Note that the two-sided estimate (1.17) implies that for $`A>1`$ large enough

$$\left(_{|\xi |t}_{|\xi |At}\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2d\xi =_{t|\xi |At}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi ct^\gamma $$

or after setting $`ϵ=\pi /(2t)`$

(2.26)
$$_{\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |A\pi /(2ϵ)}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi cϵ^\gamma ,0<ϵ1.$$

On the other hand again using (2.8)

$`(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](ϵ))^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\xi }{2}}\right)|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi c{\displaystyle _{\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |3\pi /(2ϵ)}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
and replacing $`ϵ`$ with $`ϵ/3^j`$, $`j`$, we find

$$(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](3^jϵ))^2c_{3^j\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |3^{j+1}\pi /(2ϵ)}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi ,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

Choosing $`N=[\mathrm{log}_3A]`$ we then obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](3^jϵ))^2`$ $`c{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _{3^j\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |3^{j+1}\pi /(2ϵ)}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
$`c{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /(2ϵ)|\xi |A\pi /(2ϵ)}}|\widehat{f}(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi `$
$`c^{}ϵ^\gamma ,0<ϵ1,`$
where we have used (2.26). Therefore

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; inf}ϵ^\gamma \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](3^jϵ)\right)^2c>0$$

and hence as $`N`$ is fixed, there exists at least one $`J\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{c}:=\underset{ϵ0}{lim\; inf}ϵ^\gamma \left(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](3^Jϵ)\right)^2>0.$$

Then

$$\left(\omega _{2,1,2}[f](3^Jϵ)\right)^2\stackrel{~}{c}ϵ^\gamma ,0<ϵ1,$$

and denoting $`3^Jϵ`$ by $`ϵ`$ we finish the proof of the lower inequality in (1.16). ∎

We note finally that the proof of Corollary 1.5 for $`d=1`$ can be modified to give an alternative proof of Corollary 1.5 also for all $`d2`$ from scratch (in this connection, see an explanation of an argument from  given in the proof of \[6, Lemma 3.4.1\]).

###### Remark 2.4.

After the above general discussion it is not difficult to understand why Corollary 1.5 fails for $`\gamma =2`$. Recall that in (2.23), $`p=p^{}=2`$ and $`m=1`$. Let $`\widehat{f}L^2(^d)`$ be defined by $`\widehat{f}(\xi ):=|\xi |^{(d/2)1}`$ for $`|\xi |1`$ and smooth for $`|\xi |<1`$. Let $`fL^2(^d)`$ be the inverse F.t. of this $`\widehat{f}`$. It is easy to check that for some $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2>0`$ that depend on $`\widehat{f}`$

(2.27)
$$\stackrel{~}{b}_1t^1(\mathrm{log}t)^{1/2}\psi _{2,1}[\widehat{f}](t)\stackrel{~}{b}_2t^1(\mathrm{log}t)^{1/2},t2$$

whereas for certain $`\stackrel{~}{c}_1,\stackrel{~}{c}_2>0`$ that depend on $`\widehat{f}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_1t^1\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t)\stackrel{~}{c}_2t^1,t2.$$

Note that by (2.23) and (2.27) for $`c_1,c_2>0`$ that depend on $`f`$

$$c_1t^1(\mathrm{log}t)^{1/2}\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t)c_2t^1(\mathrm{log}t)^{1/2},t2.$$

This shows that Corollary 1.5 fails for $`\gamma =2`$. It is only true in the case $`\gamma =2`$ that the upper estimate in (1.16) implies the upper estimate in (1.17) (simply because for any $`fL^2(^d)`$ and all $`t>0`$, $`\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t)\psi _{2,1}[\widehat{f}](t)c(2,d,1)\omega _{2,1,2}[f](1/t)`$ in view of (1.15) and (1.10)). The fact that the lower estimate in (1.17) need not hold is shown by considering the example of $`\widehat{f}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, $`\widehat{f}0`$ (for which $`\psi _2[\widehat{f}](t)=0`$ identically for large $`t`$). Finally, the first example of this remark shows the upper estimate in (1.16) for $`\gamma =2`$ need not follow even from a two-sided estimate in (1.17).


format: text

text:
# 𝐵→𝐾𝐾 decays with the soft-gluon corrections

## I INTRODUCTION

Recently, A. Khodjamirian s1  has presented an approach to calculate the hadronic matrix elements of nonleptonic B meson decays within the framework of the light-cone sum rules, where the nonfactorizable soft contributions can be effectively dealt with. As we know, QCD factorization approach s2  provided that the hadronic matrix elements for $`B\pi \pi ,K\pi `$ decays can be expanded in the powers of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}`$ and exhibited a considerablly strong predicative potential. However, this approach can’t calculate $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}`$ corrections quantitatively, such as the nonfactorizable contributions from the soft-gluon exchanges. Thus it is interesting to evaluate the corrections from the soft-gluon exchanges by using light-cone QCD sum rules.

In the previous paper s3 , the role of the soft-gluon exchanges in $`B\pi \pi `$ has been studied by using the light-cone QCD sum rules. Compared to the Ref. s1 , the calculations are carried out not only for the tree operators but also for the penguin ones. Ref.s3  showed that the $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}`$ corrections from the soft-gluon exchanges are not always negligible in the process $`B\pi \pi `$ and the nonfactorizable soft contributions are almost as important as the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ correction parts, and in some cases even have the same order effects as that of the factorization amplitude. Therefore it is worthwhile to evaluate the nonfactorizable soft-gluon contributions in the process $`BKK`$.

## II CORRELATOR AND SUM RULES

Similar to the case of $`B\pi \pi `$, we can calculate the contributions from the soft-gluon exchanges in $`BKK`$ including the tree and penguin operators. We begin with the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ which is responsible for the $`BKK`$ decays s4 :

$`_{eff}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}(c_1(\mu )O_1(\mu )+c_2(\mu )O_2(\mu ))`$ (1)
$`V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}}c_iO_i]+h_.c_.`$
where $`O_{1,2}`$ are the tree operators and $`O_3O_{10}`$ denote the penguin ones. By applying the Fierz transformation, the operators which is related to the soft corrections to $`BKK`$ can be clearly presented in effective weak Hamiltonian:

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}(c_1(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2(\mu )}{3}})O_1(\mu )+2c_2(\mu )\stackrel{~}{O}_1(\mu )+\mathrm{}],`$ (2)
where

$`O_1=(\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu u)(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu b),`$ (3)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{O}_1=(\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^a}{2}}u)(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^a}{2}}b),`$ (4)
the penguin operators are denoted by ellipses. In the above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)`$, $`Tr(\lambda ^a\lambda ^b)=2\delta ^{ab}`$. To the operator $`O_1`$, we employ the results of QCD factorization approach directly to the contributions from the factorizaton and $`\alpha _s`$ corrections since the result of LCSR is consistent with the prediction of the QCD factorization approach.

In order to calculate the nonfactorizable matrix elements induced by the operator $`\stackrel{~}{O}_1`$, we choose a proper vaccum-kaon correlation function:

$$F_\alpha ^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}(p,q,k)=d^4xe^{i(pq)x}d^4ye^{i(pk)}0|T\{j_{\alpha 5}^{(K)}(y)\stackrel{~}{O}_1(0)j_5^{(B)}(x)\}|K^{}(q),$$
(5)
where $`j_{\alpha 5}^{(K)}=\overline{u}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5s`$ and $`j_5^{(B)}=m_b\overline{b}i\gamma _5d`$ are the quark currents interpolating $`K`$ and $`B`$ mesons, respectively. The decomposition of the correlation function Eq.(5) in terms of independent momenta is straightforward and contains four invariant amplitudes:

$$F_\alpha ^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}=(pk)_\alpha F^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}+q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{F_1}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}+k_\alpha \stackrel{~}{F_2}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}+ϵ_{\alpha \beta \lambda \rho }q^\beta p^\lambda k^\rho \stackrel{~}{F_3}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}.$$
(6)
In what follows only the amplitude $`F^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}`$ is relevant. To obtain $`F^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}`$, we calculate the correlation function by expanding the T-product of three operators, two currents and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_1`$, near the light-cone $`x^2y^2(xy)^20`$. To stay away from hadronic thresholds in both channels of $`K`$ and $`B`$ currents, we choose the following kinematical region in Eq.(5):

$$q^2=p^2=k^2=0\text{and}|(pk)^2||(pq)^2||P^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(7)
where $`Ppkq`$.

Following the standard procedure for QCD sum rule calculation, we can obtain:

$`A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}(BKK)=`$ $`K(p),K(q)|\stackrel{~}{O}_1|B(pq)`$ (8)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi ^2f_Kf_Bm_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0^K}}𝑑se^{\frac{s}{M^2}}{\displaystyle _{m_b^2}^{\overline{R}(s,m_b^2,m_B^2,s_0^B)}}𝑑s^{}`$
$`e^{\frac{m_B^2s^{}}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}Im_s^{}Im_sF_{QCD}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}(s,s^{},m_B^2),`$
where $`s_0^K`$ and $`s_0^B`$ are effective threshold parameters. A straightforward calculation gives the following results for the twist-3 and twist-4 contributions:

$$F_{QCD}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}=F_{tw3}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}+F_{tw4}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)},$$
(9)
with

$`F_{tw3}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bf_{3K}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v{\displaystyle D\alpha _i}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{3K}(\alpha _i)}{(m_b^2(pq)^2(1\alpha _1))(P^2v\alpha _3(pk)^2(1v\alpha _3))}}`$
$`\times [(2v)(qk)+2(1v)q(pk)](q(pk)),`$
and

$`F_{tw4}^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2f_K}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v{\displaystyle D\alpha _i\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(\alpha _i)\frac{1}{m_b^2(pq+q\alpha _1)^2}\frac{(4v6)(pk)q}{(pkqv\alpha _3)^2}}`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2f_K}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _3\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\alpha _1,\alpha _3)\frac{1}{[m_b^2(pq+q\alpha _1)^2]^2}\frac{(2pq2vqk)(pk)q}{(pkqv\alpha _3)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2f_K}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha _3\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\alpha _3)\frac{1}{[m_b^2(pq\alpha _3)^2]^2}\frac{(2pq2vqk)(pk)q}{(pkqv\alpha _3)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2f_K}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v2v^2{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha _3\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\alpha _3)\frac{1}{pq[m_b^2(pq\alpha _3)^2]}\frac{[(pk)q]^3}{(pkqv\alpha _3)^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2f_K}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑v(2v2)v{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha _3\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\alpha _3)\frac{1}{m_b^2(pq\alpha _3)^2}\frac{[(pk)q]^2}{(pkqv\alpha _3)^4}},`$
where the definitions of $`\phi _{3K}(\alpha _i)`$, $`\phi _{}(\alpha _i)`$ and $`\phi _{}(\alpha _i)`$ can be found in Ref.s5 .

By taking the duality approximation and applying Borel transformation, we get the following sum rule:

$`A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}`$ $`(BKK)`$ (12)
$`=im_B^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2f_K}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0^K}}dse^{\frac{s}{M^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{2f_Bm_B^4}}{\displaystyle _{u_0^B}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}e^{\frac{m_B^2}{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{m_b^2}{uM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{m_bf_{3K}}{u}}{\displaystyle _0^u}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}\phi _{3K}(1u,uv,v)+f_K{\displaystyle _0^u}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}[3\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(1u,uv,v)`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{uM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(1u,v)}{u}}]+f_K({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{uM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_2(u)}{u^2}}]),`$
where the light-cone wave functions are introduced as the following:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(w,v)}{v}}=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(w,1wv,v)+\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(w,1wv,v)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_2(v)}{v}}=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(1v,v),`$ (13)
For the kaon distribution amplitudes in Eq.(12), we employ their asymptotic forms which were given by Ref.:

$`\phi _{3K}(\alpha _i)=360\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3^2,\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(\alpha _i)=10\delta ^2\alpha _3^2(1\alpha _3),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}(\alpha _i)=40\delta ^2\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3.`$ (14)
## III DECAY AMPLITUDES WITH THE SOFT-GLUON CORRECTIONS

The hadronic matrix elements of the penguin operator can be obtained from the same procedure. In fact, they can be represented by the tree diagram operator’s exactly. So the calculations are simplified relatively. Here, to compare with the calculated results, we write down the $`BKK`$ decay amplitudes for all decay channels in terms of the sum of three parts: the factorization part $`M_f`$, the $`\alpha _s`$ correction term $`M_{\alpha _s}`$ and the soft-gluon contribution $`M_{nf}`$:

$`M_{f+\alpha _s}(\overline{B}_s^0K^0\overline{K}^0)=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_KF_0^{BK}(0)(m_B^2m_K^2)`$ (15)
$`\times \{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+(a_82a_6)R_1]\},`$
$$M_{nf}(\overline{B}_s^0K^0\overline{K}^0)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}[V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(2c_3c_9)]A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)},$$
(16)
with $`R_1=\frac{m_K^2}{(m_s+m_d)(m_dm_b)}`$.

$`M_{f+\alpha _s}(\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{})=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_KF_0^{BK}(0)(m_B^2m_K^2)\{V_{ub}V_{us}^{}a_1`$ (17)
$`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[a_42(a_6+a_8)R_2+a_{10}]\}`$
$$M_{nf}(\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{})=\sqrt{2}G_FV_{ub}V_{us}^{}c_2A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}\sqrt{2}G_FV_{tb}V_{ts}^{}(c_3+c_9)A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)},$$
(18)
with $`R_2=\frac{m_K^2}{(m_um_b)(m_s+m_u)}`$.

$`M_{f+\alpha _s}(B^{}K^{}K^0)=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_KF_0^{BK}(0)(m_B^2m_K^2)`$ (19)
$`\times \{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+(2a_6+a_8)R_3]\},`$
$`M_{nf}(B^{}K^{}K^0)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{tb}V_{td}^{}(2c_3c_9)]A^{(\stackrel{~}{O}_1)}.`$ (20)
with $`R_3=\frac{m_K^2}{(m_sm_b)(m_s+m_u)}`$. In order to do the numerical calculation, we take s1  $`f_K=160MeV,s_0^K=1.62GeV^2`$ and $`M^2=0.51.2GeV^2`$ for the parameters of the kaon channel. For the B meson, we put $`f_B=180MeV`$, $`m_b=4.7GeV`$, $`s_0^B=35GeV^2`$, $`\mu _b=\sqrt{m_B^2m_b^2}2.4GeV`$, $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=812GeV^2`$, $`f_{3K}(\mu _b)=0.0035GeV^2`$, $`\delta ^2(\mu _b)=0.17GeV^2`$, $`f_{BK}^+=0.32`$ s6 , and $`f_{B_sK}^+=0.27`$ s7 . The values of Wilson coefficients $`c_i`$, coefficients $`a_i`$, and scale parameter $`\mu =\frac{m_b}{2}`$ are taken from Ref. s8 .

Focusing on a numerical comparison of $`M_f`$, $`M_{\alpha _s}`$ and $`M_{nf}`$, we write down the numerical results for the decay amplitudes $`M=M^T+M^P`$ by defining the tree amplitudes $`M^T=M_f^T+M_{\alpha _s}^T+M_{nf}^T`$ and the penguin amplitudes $`M^P=M_f^P+M_{\alpha _s}^P+M_{nf}^P`$:

$`M(\overline{B}_s^0K^0\overline{K}^0)=M^P(\overline{B}_s^0K^0\overline{K}^0)`$
$`=`$ $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{[8.34568\times 10^7i]+[2.96515\times 10^71.39319\times 10^7i]+[1.08188\times 10^8i]\},`$
$`M(\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{})=M^T(\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{})+M^P(\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{})`$
$`=`$ $`V_{ub}V_{us}^{}\{[1.02213\times 10^5i]+[3.24748\times 10^7+3.77232\times 10^7i]+[1.22115\times 10^7i]\}`$
$`+`$ $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\{[8.4483\times 10^7i]+[2.97568\times 10^71.56528\times 10^7i]+[4.44113\times 10^9i]\},`$
$`M(B^{}K^0K^{})=M^P(B^{}K^0K^{})`$
$`=`$ $`V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\{[1.02012\times 10^6i]+[3.59909\times 10^71.68011\times 10^7i]+[1.08188\times 10^8i]\}.`$
For comparison, we plot the branching ratios (Br) for these decay modes as a function of $`\gamma `$ in Fig.1-Fig.3. Eqs.(21)-(23) show that the soft-gluon contributions to the decay amplitudes are much smaller than the factorization parts in $`BKK`$ decays. The contributions depend on different decay modes. In the case of $`\overline{B_s}^0K^0\overline{K}^0`$, there are only penguin diagram contributions and they come mainly from the factorization and $`\alpha _s`$ correction parts; soft-gluon contribution is suppressed by the order of $`10^1`$ with respect to the former. The soft-gluon effects make the branching ratio smaller and the results are shown in Fig.1. The dashed and solid curves correspond to the values obtained from $`M_f+M_{\alpha _s}`$ and $`M_f+M_{\alpha _s}+M_{nf}`$, respectively. In the case of $`\overline{B_s}^0K^+K^{}`$, the soft contribution has the same order as the $`\alpha _s`$ correction parts in the tree amplitudes. In the penguin amplitudes, it has the amplitude of order $`10^9`$, which is smaller than those of factorization and $`\alpha _s`$ correction parts (of order $`10^7`$). It is shown from Fig.2 that the total branching ratio is suppressed by soft-gluon effects. In the case of $`B^{}K^0K^{}`$, the soft-gluon amplitude is of order $`10^8`$, which is obviously lower than that of the factorization (of order $`10^6`$) and $`\alpha _s`$ correction (of order $`10^7`$). Fig.3 show that the total branching ratio is decreased by soft-gluon effects, too.

## IV SUMMARY

In this paper, we have analyzed the $`BKK`$ decays with the soft-gluon corrections by the QCD light-cone sum rules. The soft contributions depend on decay modes, and in most situations they have the amplitudes which are suppressed by the order of $`10^1`$ or $`10^2`$ of factorization and $`\alpha _s`$ correction amplitudes. Only in the case of $`\overline{B}_s^0K^+K^{}`$, they have the same order amplitude with $`\alpha _s`$ correction parts which is smaller than the factorization amplitude. Our results show that the soft-gluon effects on $`BKK`$ are small and they always suppress the branching ratio values with 2-3 $`\%`$ corrections .


text:
# Shape coexistence in 𝑁=14 isotones: 19B, 24Ne and 28Si

## I Introduction

Shape coexistence phenomena have been suggested in many $`sd`$-shell nuclei . One of the famous shape coexistence has been known in 28Si, in which the structure of the ground band is oblate, and an excited band starting from a $`0_3^+`$ state at 6.691 MeV is considered to be a prolately deformed band. On the other hand, resonances in the 12C+16O(C-O) excitation functions have been experimentally observed in the elastic, inelastic, other exit channels and fusion cross sections . These molecular resonances lie in the excitation energy region $``$ 30-50 MeV in 28Si. Another group of levels in the excitation energy region from 18 to 30 MeV observed in $`\alpha `$ transfer reactions  indicates an $`\alpha `$-cluster structure of 28Si.

The first subject in the present paper is the shape coexistence in $`N=14`$ isotones. It is a challenging problem whether or not shape coexistence is found in unstable $`N=14`$ nuclei. The second subject is systematic study on structures and cluster behaviour of the excited states of in 28Si including the high-lying molecular resonances. There were many theoretical efforts for study on the 28Si structures. For example, the shape coexistence in the low-energy region was studied with mean field approaches and $`7\alpha `$ cluster models , while the molecular resonances were discussed with C-O cluster models. However we have not comprehended features of those rotational bands observed in the wide energy interval. In the present paper, we systematically study the shape coexistence and the molecular resonant features in 28Si. We apply a microscopic method of antisymmetrized molecular dynamics(AMD) .

## II Formulation

An AMD wave function is a Slater determinant of Gaussian wave packets;

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AMD}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{A!}}}𝒜\{\phi _1,\phi _2,\mathrm{},\phi _A\},`$ (1)
$`\phi _i=\varphi _{𝐙_i}\chi _i\tau _i:\varphi _{𝐙_i}(𝐫_j)\mathrm{exp}[\nu (𝐫_j{\displaystyle \frac{𝐙_i}{\sqrt{\nu }}})^2],`$ (2)
where the centers of Gaussians ($`𝐙_i`$) are complex variational parameters. In the present paper, the intrinsic spin and isospin part $`\chi _i\tau _i`$ is fixed to be a up/down proton or neutron. In order to obtain an intrinsic wave function of a level, We vary the parameters $`𝐙_i`$ to minimize the energy expectation value for the parity eigen-state projected from a Slator AMD wave function by using a frictional cooling method.After the energy variation, we perform total angular momentum projection.

For the study of highly excited states, we apply the AMD method with constraint. In the present calculations, we adopt the constraint on total principal quanta $`\widehat{N}=n_x+n_y+n_z`$ of the spherical harmonic oscillator. After the energy variation (variation with the constraint $`\widehat{N}=W`$ after parity projection) , we superpose the spin-parity projected states to diagonalize the Hamiltonian and norm matrixes with respect to the generator coordinate $`W`$.

## III Results

We studied the structures of $`N=14`$ isotones: 28Si, 19B, and 24Ne. The adopted interactions in the present work are the central force of the modified Volkov No.1 with case 3 ($`m=0.62`$), the spin-orbit force of G3RS ($`u_1=u_2=2800`$ MeV) and the Coulomb force. We choose an optimum width parameter ($`\nu `$) for the Gaussians of the single-particle wave functions of each nucleus.

### A Shape coexistence in $`N=14`$ isotones

We study the normal parity states of 28Si, 19B and 24Ne with simple AMD calculations(parity projection before variation and angular momentum projection after variation). The ground band of 28Si is known to be oblate, while the excited rotational band starting from a $`0_3^+`$ state at 6.6914 MeV is considered to be prolate. Many studies with $`7\alpha `$-cluster models failed to describe the large energy interval between the oblate and prolate states. In the present AMD calculations, we obtained two local minima with oblate and prolate deformation. The important point in the AMD results is that we can reproduce the large excitation energy of the prolate state because of the energy gain of the spin-orbit force.

In the calculated results of 19B, we also found two local minima with oblate and prolate deformation of neutron density as seen in Fig.1 for the deformation parameters. The present calculations suggest an oblate ground state and a prolate excited state as well as 28Si, though excited states in 19B have not been experimentally measured yet. In the calculated prolate states with a few MeV excitation, it was found that a cluster structure like 8He+11Li develops. The deformation parameters for proton density are $`\beta _p=0.3`$ in the oblate state, and $`\beta _p=0.4`$ in the prolate state. It means that the proton matter shape in 19B correlates with the deformation of neutron density. Therefore measurement of $`Q`$-moment will be a good probe to know the deformation of 19B. Since the calculated $`Q`$-moments qualitatively depend on the adopted forces, systematic analysis of $`Q`$-moments along B isotopes is rather helpful. In the present calculations, the $`Q`$-moment of the oblate $`3/2^{}`$ state of 19B is almost same as or even less than that of 17B, while that of the prolate $`3/2^{}`$ state of 19B is 20 % larger than 17B.

In 24Ne, two local minima were found, however, the features of deformation are different from those in 28Si and 19B. That is to say, both minima have prolate deformation of neutron density. The smaller prolate deformation is lowest, while deformation is larger in the excited band. Since the lowest state with smaller deformation gains the spin-orbit force, we consider that it has an analogous neutron structure with those in the oblate states in 19B and 28Si. The reason for the small prolate deformation in 24Ne is a trend of the prolately deformed proton structure in Ne isotopes. Another interesting feature of shape in 24Ne is a discrepancy between proton($`\beta _p`$) and neutron($`\beta _n`$) deformation in the ground band: $`\beta _p=0.3`$ and $`\beta _n=0.2`$. The theoretical value of $`B(E2;2_1^+0_1^+)`$ for protons(neutrons) is $`B_p(E2)=37`$ e2fm4 ( $`B_n(E2)=38`$ e2fm4). In spite of the large number of valence neutrons, the strength for neutrons $`B_n(E2)`$ is not so large, which is caused by the small deformation of the neutron density.

### B Structure of 28Si

We studied the structure of the ground, excited and molecular resonant states with AMD calculations with constraint on the principal quanta of the spherical harmonic oscillator $`\widehat{N}=W`$. With a given value $`W`$ and each parity, we performed energy variation and find some local minima, which are based on the coexisting minima in the low-energy region. Concerning the superposition of the obtained states, we chose 23 AMD wave functions as base states in the diagonalization for each parity.

By analyzing the amplitudes of the base states after diagonalization, we can classify many of the excited states into two groups. The first group consists of prolate states, while the second group is a family based on oblate states. In the first group of prolately deformed states with positive parity, we found three rotational $`K^\pi =0^+`$ bands which are regarded as members of C-O molecular bands. The calculated lowest band well corresponds to the observed prolate band starting at 6.69 MeV. The second and third bands are the higher excited bands with molecular excitation in the inter-cluster motion. These are actually dominated by 12C and 16O cluster states. In the extracted inter-cluster wave functions between the $`SU_3`$ limit Cg.s and Og.s clusters, it was found that the lowest band has the minimum number $`n_0=8`$ of nodes in Pauli allowed states, while the relative motion in the second and third bands have 9 and 10 nodes, respectively. In the energy region around the third bands, there exist many experimental levels with the C-O molecular resonant behaviour . In the negative parity states with prolate deformation, we found three-body cluster features consisting of C-$`\alpha `$-C structure. As a result, two rotational bands with $`K^\pi =1^{}`$ consist of the axial asymmetric C-$`\alpha `$-C structure. The three-body(C-$`\alpha `$-C) cluster features have been studied with a model of three structure-less clusters.

In the family of oblate states, the calculated results indicate exotic shapes in the negative parity states belonging to low-lying $`K^\pi =3^{}`$ and $`5^{}`$ bands. For example, a pentagon shape composes the $`K^\pi =5^{}`$ band. The results well correspond to the experimental energy levels and strength of in-band $`E2`$ transitions of the $`K^\pi =3^{},5^{}`$ bands . In the positive parity states, the calculated lowest band has oblate deformation which is consistent with the experimental feature of the ground band. Above the ground band, a band with Mg-$`\alpha `$ cluster structure appears at about 10 MeV excitation energy. The moment of inertia of this band is lower (with a rotational parameter $`\mathrm{}^2/2I130`$ keV) than the second and third C-O molecular bands ($`\mathrm{}^2/2I`$ 99 and 74 keV). This excited band is considered to be a higher band with molecular excitation in the Mg-$`\alpha `$ channel based on the oblate ground band. In other words, an $`\alpha `$ cluster in the ground state comes outward to make a higher nodal relative motion between the $`\alpha `$ and the Mg core. Around the corresponding excitation energy, there is a group of the experimental levels observed in $`\alpha `$ transfer reactions .

## IV Summary

We investigated the structure of $`N=14`$ isotones with the method of antisymmetrized molecular dynamics. Shape coexistence of neutron density was theoretically suggested in the low-energy region of 19B and 24Ne.

We also performed systematic study of the ground, excited states and molecular resonant states in 28Si. Molecular resonant states appear in the C-O channels due to the excitation of the inter-cluster motion. The C-O resonances can be connected with the lowest prolate band. The other resonances in the Mg-$`\alpha `$ channel are obtained at about 10 MeV excitation. They are considered to be the other molecular excited states based on the oblate structure in the ground band. We also found the C-$`\alpha `$-C behaviour in the negative parity bands. In the high-lying states, the molecular states with inter-cluster excitation were found in various kinds of channels, which are based on the coexisting deformed states in the low energy region. It is an interesting future problems to search for molecular states in unstable $`sd`$-shell nuclei.

## Acknowledgments

The computational calculations in this work were supported by the Supercomputer Project of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization(KEK), and Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN).