text:
# The analysis of 𝐵_𝑑→(𝜂,𝜂')ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ decays in the standard model

## 1 Introduction

The decays of B-meson are very promising for investigating the Standard Model (SM) and searching for the new physics beyond it. Among these B-decays, the rare semileptonic ones have attracted much attention for a long time, since they offer the most direct methods to determine the weak mixing angles and Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements. These decays can also be very useful to test the various new physics scenarios like the two Higgs doublet models (2HDM), minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). etc.

From the experimental side, there is an impressive effort to search for B-decays, in B-factories such as Belle, BaBar, LHC-B. For example, CLEO Collaboration reports for the branching ratios $`(BRs)`$ of the $`B^0\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ and $`B^0\rho ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu `$ decays  as

$`BR(B^0\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`(1.8\pm 0.4\pm 0.3\pm 0.2)\times 10^4`$
$`BR(B^0\rho ^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`(2.57\pm 0.29_{0.46}^{+0.33}\pm 0.41)\times 10^4.`$ (1)
From these results, the value of the CKM matrix element $`|V_{ub}|=3.25\pm 0.14_{0.29}^{+0.21}\pm 0.55`$ has been determined . Recently, the BR of the inclusive $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay has been also reported by Belle Collaboration ;

$`BR(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(6.1\pm 1.4_{1.1}^{+1.4})\times 10^6,`$ (2)
which is very close to the value predicted by the SM .

In this paper, we investigate the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decay modes within the SM. It is well known that the inclusive rare decays are more difficult to measure, although they are theoretically cleaner than the exclusive ones. This motivates the study of exclusive decays, but their theoretical investigation requires the additional knowledge of decay form factors, i.e. the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian between initial B and the final meson states. The nonperturbative sector of QCD is used in order to determine these form factors. Two of the form factors, $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$, necessary for $`B_d\eta \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decay have been calculated very recently, in the framework of light-cone QCD sum rules . However, we do not have a precise calculation on the remaining form factor, $`f_T`$ for $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decay yet. Therefore, in this work, we choose to deduce the form factors of $`B_d\eta ^{()}`$ transition from the form factors of $`B\pi `$ using the $`SU(3)_F`$ symmetry. The form factors of $`B\pi `$ have been calculated in the light-cone constituent quark model (LCQM)  and also in the QCD sum rules method (QCDSR) ; and in this paper, we will give our numerical results using both of these approaches. Let us mension that the $`BK`$ hadronic matrix elements computed in LCQM and QCDSR have been used to evaluate the semileptonic rate of the $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay mode . Compared to the recently measured value of $`BR(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(0.75_{0.21}^{+0.25}\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$ by Belle Collaboration  and also BaBar Collaboration , we see that QCDSR predicts a better result.

In this work, we also calculate the CP asymmetry in the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decay, which is induced by the $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$transition at the quark level. For $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition, the matrix element contains the terms that receive contributions from $`t\overline{t}`$, $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`u\overline{u}`$ loops, which are proportional to the combination of $`\xi _t=V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$, $`\xi _c=V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}`$ and $`\xi _u=V_{ub}V_{us}^{}`$, respectively. Smallness of $`\xi _u`$ in comparison with $`\xi _c`$ and $`\xi _t`$, together with the unitarity of the CKM matrix elements, bring about the consequence that matrix element for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay involves only one independent CKM factor $`\xi _t`$, so that the CP violation in this channel is suppressed in the SM . However, for $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, all the CKM factors $`\eta _t=V_{tb}V_{td}^{}`$, $`\eta _c=V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}`$ and $`\eta _u=V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}`$ are at the same order in the SM so that they can induce a CP violating asymmetry between the decay rates of the reactions $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{d}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ . So, $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay seems to be suitable for establishing CP violation in B mesons. On the other hand, it should be noted that the detection of the $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay will probably be more difficult in the presence of a much stronger decay $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and this would make the corresponding exclusive decay channels more preferable in search of CP violation. In this context, the exclusive $`B_d(\pi ,\rho )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and $`B_d\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays have been extensively studied in the SM  and beyond -.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, first the effective Hamiltonian is presented and the form factors are defined. Then, the basic formulas of the differential branching ratio dBR/ds, branching ratio $`BR`$ and the CP violating asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ for $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decays are introduced. Section 3 is devoted to the numerical analysis and discussion.

## 2 Effective Hamiltonian and Form Factors

The leading order QCD corrected effective Hamiltonian, which is induced by the corresponding quark level process $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, is given by -:

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}`$ $`C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )\lambda _u\{C_1(\mu )[O_1^u(\mu )O_1(\mu )]`$ (3)
$`+C_2(\mu )[O_2^u(\mu )O_2(\mu )]\}\}`$
where

$`\lambda _u={\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^{}}},`$ (4)
using the unitarity of the CKM matrix i.e. $`V_{tb}V_{td}^{}+V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}=V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}`$. The explicit forms of the operators $`O_i`$ can be found in refs. . In Eq.(3), $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients calculated at a renormalization point $`\mu `$ and their evolution from the higher scale $`\mu =m_W`$ down to the low-energy scale $`\mu =m_b`$ is described by the renormalization group equation. For $`C_7^{eff}(\mu )`$ this calculation is performed in refs. upto next to leading order. The value of $`C_{10}(m_b)`$ to the leading logarithmic approximation can be found e.g. in . The terms that are the source of the CP violation are given by the following, which have a perturbative part and a part coming from long distance (LD) effects due to conversion of the real $`\overline{c}c`$ into lepton pair $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$:

$`C_9^{eff}(\mu )=C_9^{pert}(\mu )+Y_{reson}(s),`$ (5)
where

$`C_9^{pert}(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`C_9+h(u,s)[3C_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )+3C_3(\mu )+C_4(\mu )+3C_5(\mu )+C_6(\mu )`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _u(3C_1+C_2)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h(1,s)(4C_3(\mu )+4C_4(\mu )+3C_5(\mu )+C_6(\mu ))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h(0,s)\left[C_3(\mu )+3C_4(\mu )+\lambda _u(6C_1(\mu )+2C_2(\mu ))\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left(3C_3(\mu )+C_4(\mu )+3C_5(\mu )+C_6(\mu )\right),`$
and

$`Y_{reson}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\alpha _{em}^2}}\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{V_i=\psi _i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(V_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})m_{V_i}}{m_B^2sm_{V_i}+im_{V_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V_i}}}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`[(3C_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )+3C_3(\mu )+C_4(\mu )+3C_5(\mu )+C_6(\mu ))`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _u(3C_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu ))].`$
In Eq.(2), $`s=q^2/m_B^2`$ where $`q`$ is the momentum transfer, $`u=\frac{m_c}{m_b}`$ and the functions $`h(u,s)`$ arise from one loop contributions of the four-quark operators $`O_1O_6`$ and are given by

$`h(u,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}u+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}y`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(2+y)|1y|^{1/2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\sqrt{1y}+1}{\sqrt{1y}1}\right|i\pi \right),\hfill & \text{for }y\frac{4u^2}{s}<1\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{1}{\sqrt{y1}},\hfill & \text{for }y\frac{4u^2}{s}>1,\hfill \end{array}`$
$`h(0,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\mathrm{ln}s+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}i\pi .`$ (11)
The phenomenological parameter $`\kappa `$ in Eq. (7) is taken as $`2.3`$ (see e.g., ).

Neglecting the mass of the $`d`$ quark, the effective short distance Hamiltonian for the $`bd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay in Eq.(3) leads to the QCD corrected matrix element:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\{C_9^{eff}(m_b)\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}+C_{10}(m_b)\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`2C_7^{eff}(m_b){\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{q^2}}\overline{d}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}\}.`$
Next we proceed to calculate the $`BR`$s of the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decays. The necessary matrix elements to do this are $`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$, $`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_\nu (1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$ and $`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}(1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$. The first two of these matrix elements can be written in terms of the form factors in the following way

$`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$ $`=`$ $`f^+(q^2)(p_B+p_{\eta ^{()}})_\mu +f^{}(q^2)q_\mu ,`$ (13)
$`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$ $`=`$ $`[(p_B+p_{\eta ^{()}})_\mu q^2q_\mu (m_B^2m_{\eta ^{()}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})]f_v(q^2),`$ (14)
where $`p_B`$ and $`p_{\eta ^{()}}`$ denote the four momentum vectors of $`B`$ and $`\eta ^{()}`$-mesons, respectively. $`f_v(q^2)`$ is sometimes written as $`f_v(q^2)=f_T/(m_B+m_{\eta ^{()}}^2)`$.

To find $`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}(1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>`$, we multiply both sides of Eq. (13) with $`q_\mu `$ and then use the equation of motion. Neglecting the mass of the $`d`$-quark, we get

$`<\eta ^{()}(p_{\eta ^{()}})|\overline{d}(1+\gamma _5)b|B(p_B)>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}[f^+(q^2)(m_B^2m_{\eta ^{()}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+f^{}(q^2)q^2].`$ (15)
As pointed out in sec.1, although the form factors $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$ for $`B\eta `$ decay have been calculated in the framework of the light-cone QCD sum rules in , we do not have a precise calculation of the other form factor $`f_v`$ in the literature yet. However, the form factors of $`B_d\eta ^{()}`$ transition can be related to those of $`B\pi `$ through the $`SU(3)_F`$ symmetry . In addition, the authors of  emphasize that, their results coincide with the ones that are calculated using the $`SU(3)_F`$ symmetry. Therefore, we choose to deduce the form factors necessary in this work from the $`B\pi `$ transition using the $`SU(3)_F`$ symmetry. For $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing, we adopt the following scheme ,

$`|\eta >`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi |\eta _q>\mathrm{sin}\varphi |\eta _s>,`$
$`|\eta ^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi |\eta _q>+\mathrm{cos}\varphi |\eta _s>,`$ (16)
where $`|\eta _q>=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|\eta _s>=s\overline{s}`$, and $`\varphi =39.3`$ is the fitted mixing angle . Hence, the relation between the form factors are written as follows:

$`F^{B_d\eta }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi F^{B\pi }(q^2),`$
$`F^{B_d\eta ^{}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi F^{B\pi }(q^2).`$ (17)
For $`B\pi `$, we use the results calculated in two different frameworks: In the LCQM, the form factors are parametrized in the following pole forms

$`f^+(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.29}{\left(1\frac{q^2}{6.71^2}\right)^{2.35}}},f^{}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{0.26}{\left(1\frac{q^2}{6.553^2}\right)^{2.30}}},`$
$`f_v(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.05}{\left(1\frac{q^2}{6.68}\right)^{2.31}}}.`$ (18)
However in the QCDSR approach, they are given by

$`f^+(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.305}{\left(11.29\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}+0.206(\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2\right)}},f_0(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{0.305}{\left(10.266\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}0.752(\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2\right)}},`$
$`f_T(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.296}{\left(11.28\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}+0.193(\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2\right)}},`$ (19)
from which $`f^{}`$ can be calculated through the relation:

$`f^{}=(m_B^2m_{\eta ^{()}}^2)(f_0f^+)/q^2.`$ (20)
Using the above matrix elements, we find the amplitudes governing the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decays as follows:

$`^{\eta ^{()}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\left\{[2Ap_{\eta ^{()}}^\mu +Bq^\mu ]\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{}+[2Gp_{\eta ^{()}}^\mu +Dq^\mu ]\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}\right\},`$
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}f^+2m_BC_7^{eff}f_v,`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}(f^++f^{})+2C_7^{eff}{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{q^2}}f_v(m_B^2m_{\eta ^{()}}^2q^2),`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}f^+,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}(f^++f^{}).`$ (22)
Using Eq.(2) and performing summation over final lepton polarization, we get for the double differential decay rates:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{B\eta ^{()}}}{dsdz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2}{2^{11}\pi ^5}}|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}|^2m_B^3\sqrt{\lambda }v\{m_B^2\lambda (1z^2v^2)|A|^2`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`(m_B^2\lambda (1z^2v^2)+16rm_{\mathrm{}}^2)|G|^2+4sm_{\mathrm{}}^2|D|^2`$
$`+`$ $`4m_{\mathrm{}}^2(1rs)Re[GD^{}]\},`$
Here $`s=q^2/m_B^2`$, $`r=m_{\eta ^{()}}^2/m_B^2`$, $`v=\sqrt{1\frac{4t^2}{s}}`$, $`t=m_{\mathrm{}}^2/m_B^2`$, $`\lambda =r^2+(s1)^22r(s+1)`$, and $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the three-momentum of the $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ lepton and that of the B-meson in the center of mass frame of the dileptons $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. After integrating over the angle variable we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{B\eta ^{()}}}{ds}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2}{2^{10}\pi ^5}}|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}|^2m_B^3\sqrt{\lambda }v\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (24)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m_B^2\lambda (3v^2)(|A|^2+|G|^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{3s}}(12rs+\lambda )|G|^2`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`4m_{\mathrm{}}^2s|D|^2+4m_{\mathrm{}}^2(1rs)Re[GD^{}].`$
We now consider the CP violating asymmetry, $`A_{CP}`$, between the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$and $`\overline{B}_d\overline{\eta }^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, which is defined as follows:

$`A_{CP}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d\overline{\eta }^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d\overline{\eta }^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}}.`$ (26)
Using this definition we calculate the $`A_{CP}`$ as:

$`A_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{H(s)𝑑s}{(\mathrm{\Delta }H(s))𝑑s}},`$ (27)
where

$`H(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f_+m_B^2(3\upsilon ^2)\lambda Im\lambda _u\left(Im\xi _2C_7^{eff}f_T{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{m_B+m_{\eta ^{()}}}}f_+(Im\xi _1^{}\xi _2)\right).`$ (28)
In calculating this expression, we use the following parametrizations:

$`C_9^{eff}\xi _1+\lambda _u\xi _2,`$ (29)
$`\lambda _u={\displaystyle \frac{\rho (1\rho )\eta ^2i\eta }{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}}+O(\lambda ^2).`$ (30)
## 3 Numerical Results and Discussion

In this section we present the numerical results of our calculations related to $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$$`(\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau )`$ decays, for four different sets of parameter choice of the form factors and the updated fits of the Wolfenstein parameters , which are summarized in Table 1. The total $`BR`$s are collected in Table 2. We have also evaluated the average values of CP asymmetry $`<A_{CP}>`$ in $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decays for the above sets of parameters, and our results are displayed in Table 3. In both tables, the values in the paranthesis are the corresponding quantities calculated without including the long distance effects. We observe that the results of $`<A_{CP}>`$ is very sensitive to the choice of four different sets of parameters for $`\tau `$ channel, while they are very close to each other for $`\mu `$ channel.

The input parameters and the initial values of the Wilson coefficients we used in our numerical analysis are as follows:

$`m_B=5.28GeV,m_b=4.8GeV,m_c=1.4GeV,m_\tau =1.78GeV,`$
$`m_\mu =0.105GeV,\left|V_{tb}V_{td}^{}\right|=0.01,m_\eta =0.547GeV,m_\eta ^{}=0.958GeV,`$
$`C_1=0.245,C_2=1.107,C_3=0.011,C_4=0.026,C_5=0.007,`$
$`C_6=0.0314,C_7^{eff}=0.315,C_9=4.220,C_{10}=4.619.`$ (31)
There are five possible resonances in the $`c\overline{c}`$ system that can contribute to the decay under consideration and to calculate their contributions, we need to divide the integration region for $`s`$ into three parts for $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$ so that we have $`4m_{\mathrm{}}^2/m_B^2s(m_{\psi _1}0.02)^2/m_B^2`$ and $`(m_{\psi _1}+0.02)^2/m_B^2s(m_{\psi _2}0.02)^2/m_B^2`$ and $`(m_{\psi _2}+0.02)^2/m_B^2s(m_Bm_{\eta ^{()}})^2/m_B^2`$, while for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$ it takes the form given by $`4m_\tau ^2/m_B^2s(m_{\psi _2}0.02)^2/m_B^2`$ and $`(m_{\psi _2}+0.02)^2/m_B^2s(m_Bm_{\eta ^{()}})^2/m_B^2`$ . Here, $`m_{\psi _1}`$ and $`m_{\psi _2}`$ are the masses of the first and the second resonances, respectively.

In Fig. (1) and Fig. (2), we present the dependence of the $`BR`$ on the invariant mass of dileptons, $`s`$, for the $`B_d\eta \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$and $`B_d\eta \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$decays, respectively. We plot these graphs for the parameter set-1 and set-3 in Table 1, represented by the dashed and the solid curves, respectively. The sharp peaks in the figures are due to the long distance contributions. As can be seen from these graphs, $`BR`$ stands more for the parameter set-3. The same analysis above is made for $`B_d\eta ^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`B_d\eta ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays in Fig. (3) and Fig. (4), respectively.

Figs. (5) and (6) are devoted to the $`A_{CP}(s)`$ as a function of $`s`$ for $`B_d\eta \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`B_d\eta \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decays, respectively. In these figures, the small dashed (dotted dashed) and the solid (dashed) curves represent the $`A_{CP}(s)`$ for the parameter set-1 and set-3 with (without) long distance contributions. The dependence of $`A_{CP}`$ on $`s`$ for the $`\eta ^{}`$ channel is plotted in Fig. (7) and Fig. (8), for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{}=\mu `$, respectively. We see from these figures that for $`\mathrm{}=\mu `$, $`A_{CP}(s)`$ is not very sensitive to the choice of the parameters set-1 or set-3, reaching up to $`28\%`$ for the larger values of $`s`$ for both the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ channels. However for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$ case, $`A_{CP}(s)`$ gets slightly larger contribution from set-3 than set-1, but reaches at most $`25\%`$ in the small-$`s`$ region. We note that $`A_{CP}(s)`$ is positive for all values of $`s`$, except in some resonance regions. We also observe from table 3 that including the long-distance effects in calculating $`<A_{CP}>`$ changes the results only by $`210\%`$ for $`\mathrm{}=\mu `$ mode, but for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$, it becomes very sizable, $`30150\%`$, depending on the sets of parameters used for $`(\rho ;\eta )`$.

In conclusion, we have analyzed the $`B_d\eta ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$decays within the SM. We have found that, these decay modes have a significant $`A_{CP}`$, especially for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$. Since calculated $`BR`$s of these decay modes are within the reach of forthcoming B-factories such as LHC-B, where approximately $`6\times 10^{11}`$ $`B_d`$ mesons are expected to be produced per year, we may hope that it can be measured in near future.


format: text

text:
# The Status of Core-collapse Supernova Simulations

## 1 What are supernovae?

The term “supernova” dates from the early 1930s, but the concept was around in the 1920s. With the realization that the spiral nebulae are separate galaxies comparable to our Milky Way, it was recognized that the “novae” or “new stars” seen in these nebulae would have to be much more luminous than typical novae occuring in our galaxy. The phrases “giant novae”, novae of “impossibly great absolute magnitudes”, “exceptional novae”, and the German term “Hauptnovae” or “chief novae” were used during the 1920s. In a review article Zwicky explained that it was deduced that “supernovae” were about a thousand times as luminous as “common novae”, and claimed that “Baade and I first introduced the term ’supernovae’ in seminars and in a lecture course on astrophysics at the California Institute of Technology in 1931.”

Supernovae are classified by astronomers into two broad classes based on their spectra. These classes are “Type I”, which have no hydrogen features, and “Type II”, which have obvious hydrogen features. These types have further subcategories, depending on the presence or absence of silicon and helium features in Type I, and the presence or absence of narrow hydrogen features in the case of Type II. In particular, supernovae of Type Ia exhibit strong silicon lines, those of Type Ib have helium lines, and those of Type Ic do not have either of these. Astronomers have also identified a number of distinct characteristics in supernova light curves (total luminosity as a function of time).

There are two basic physical mechanisms for supernovae, but these do not line up cleanly with the observational categories of Type I and Type II. Type Ia supernovae are caused by accretion of matter from a companion star onto a white dwarf, which induces a thermonuclear runaway that consumes the entire white dwarf. Supernovae of Type Ib, Ic, and II are produced by a totally different mechanism: the catastropic collapse of the core of a massive star. The observational distinctions of presence or absence of hydrogen or helium turn out to be unrelated to the mechanism; they depend on whether the outer hydrogen and helium layers of the star, which have nothing to do with the collapsing core, have been lost to winds or accretion onto a companion during stellar evolution. Of the two physical mechanisms, core-collapse supernovae are the focus of the present discussion.

For most of their existence stars burn hydrogen into helium. In massive stars, temperatures and densities become sufficiently high to burn to carbon, oxygen, neon, magnesium, and silicon and iron group elements. The iron group nuclei are the most tightly bound, and here burning in the core ceases. The iron core—supported by electron degeneracy pressure—eventually becomes unstable. Its inner portion undergoes homologous collapse (velocity proportional to radius), and the outer portion collapses supersonically. Electron capture on nuclei is one instability leading to collapse, and this process continues throughout collapse, releasing free-streaming neutrinos until densities and temperatures become so high that even neutrinos are trapped. Collapse is halted when the matter reaches nuclear density; at this point a shock wave forms at the boundary between the homologous and supersonically collapsing regions. The shock begins to move out, and after the shock passes some distance beyond the surface of the newly born neutron star, it stalls as energy is lost to neutrino emission and dissociation of infalling heavy nuclei falling through the shock.

The nascent neutron star is a hot thermal bath of dense nuclear matter, electron/positron pairs, photons, and neutrinos, containing most of the gravitational potential energy released during core collapse. Neutrinos, having the weakest interactions, are the most efficient means of cooling; they diffuse outward on a time scale of seconds towards a semi-transparent region near the surface of the neutron star, and eventually escape with about 99% of the released gravitational energy.

In the reigning paradigm—the neutrino-driven explosion mechanism—the supernova explosion is launched as a result of neutrino heating of the material behind the stalled shock, resulting in the revival of the shock and its propulsion through the outer layers of the star. This process may be aided by convection in two regions. First, loss of electron neutrinos from the outer layers of the neutron star causes composition gradients that drive convection, which boosts neutrino luminosities by bringing hotter material to the surface. Second, heating decreases away from the neutron star surface, giving rise to a negative entropy gradient. The resulting convection increases the efficiency of neutrino heating by delivering heated material to the region just behind the shock.

As the neutrinos are transported from inside the neutron star, they go from a nearly isotropic diffusive regime to a strongly forward-peaked free-streaming region. Modeling this process accurately requires tracking both the energy and angle dependence of the neutrino distribution functions.

## 2 Survey of core-collapse simulations

Supernovae have a rich phenomenology—observations of many types that modelers would like to reproduce and explain. Chief among these is the explosion itself, which is not produced robustly and convincingly in simulations. As mentioned previously, 99% of the gravitational potential energy released during collapse escapes as neutrinos; in comparison, the kinetic energy of expelled matter accounts for about 1%, and the optical display is just a fraction of this. Energetically, supernovae are essentially neutrino events; the explosion is just a minor sideshow, the optical display a trivial detail. That the explosion is such a minor part of the system is what makes it so challenging to model convincingly. But the optical data are what we perceive with our unaided inborn detectors—our eyes—and in our anthropic chauvinism, explaining the explosion seems most interesting.

While the explosion is of obvious interest, neutrino signatures are also of great importance. The handful of neutrinos detected from supernova SN1987A confirmed theoretical predictions of neutrinos releasing the gravitational energy on a time scale of seconds. This was a remarkable success of supernova theory and modeling. The neutrinos are also important because their detection allows limits to be placed on dark matter candidates, such as axions and sterile neutrinos.

There are many other interesting observables, including pulsar spins, kick velocities, and magnetic fields; gravitational waves; element abundances; and all kinds of measurements across the electromagnetic spectrum. Core-collapse simulations—the subject of the present discussion—typically address the explosion mechanism, neutrino signatures, remnant pulsar properties, and gravitational waves. Another class of simulation—not discussed here—assumes a successful explosion and studies the interaction of the shock with the surrounding layers of the star (and beyond) in order to study things like nucleosynthesis and measurements across the electromagnetic spectrum.

From the description of the core-collapse supernova process in the previous section, several key aspects of physics that a simulation must address can be identified:

Neutrino transport/interactions: Because neutrinos dominate the system, their treatment is very important, including the number of spatial dimensions treated; dependence on both energy and angle in order to properly model the transition from isotropic diffusion to forward-peaked free streaming; relativistic effects; and comprehensiveness of interactions.

Hydrodynamics/gravitation: Convection—both inside and outside the nascent neutron star—can play an important role, so allowance for flows in multiple spatial dimensions is important in the hydrodynamics. The newly born neutron is sufficiently compact that a general relativistic description should ultimately be included.

Equation of state/composition: Determination of realistic equations of state of dense nuclear matter at finite temperature involves cutting-edge nuclear physics, as does the determination of neutrino interaction rates with the variety of nuclear species encountered in the supernova environment.

Diagnostics: Very important to making convincing explosions is fastidious accounting of total lepton number and energy. Because the explosion energy is only 1% of the basic energy scale in the problem, a determination of the explosion energy accurate to 10% requires that total energy be conserved at a level of about one part in $`10^8`$ per time step (allowing for systematic error accrual over $`10^5`$ time steps).

Simulations of collapse and bounce have been performed by many groups. In briefly describing this work, I list (in alphabetical order) the institutions that represent the “centers of gravity” of many of these groups:

Livermore National Laboratory: The neutrino transport in these simulations was energy-dependent, included some relativistic effects, and had a decent set of neutrino interactions; however, the transport was spatially one-dimensional (spherically symmetric). The hydrodynamics and gravitation, while relativistic, were also spherically symmetric. Multidimensional effects were mocked up with a mixing-length approach, and without this explosions were not seen in these models. Inclusion of several nuclear species in a burning network was a high point of these simulations. Explosions were seen in these models, but there was no published accounting of lepton number and energy conservation.

Los Alamos National Laboratory: Many groups published spatially two-dimensional simulations in the early 1990s, and a group centered at Los Alamos was one of the first. Descended from those efforts was a recent simulation in three spatial dimensions by Fryer and Warren. The high point of these simulations was their three-dimensional hydrodynamics, and some relativistic effects were included in both the neutrino transport and gravitation. An important liability, however, was the crude treatment of neutrino transport, in which dependence on both energy and angle were integrated out, and some important interactions were left out. Explosions were seen in these models, but there was no published accounting of lepton number and energy conservation.

Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics: This group also performed simulations with two-dimensional hydrodynamics in the mid 1990s. Separate simulations were performed for the nascent neutron star and the region above the neutron star. In the latter simulations the neutrino luminosities were parametrized, and explosions were seen if these luminosities were set high enough. While some relativistic effects were included in both the hydrodynamics and neutrino fields, these were parametrized models with no serious neutrino transport. There was no detailed accounting of lepton number and energy conservation.

In more recent work the Max Planck group has published studies in spherical symmetry, but with sophisticated neutrino transport. The neutrino transport is dependent on both energy and angle, and includes some relativistic effects. This group has also considered a full range of neutrino interactions. Important limitations of results published to date were the restriction to spherical symmetry and Newtonian hydrodynamics, but initial results on multidimensional models with sophisticated neutrino transport and approximate relativity have recently been reported. While some attention to the accounting of lepton number and energy was reported in connection with test problems, it was not reported in detail in connection with full simulations. No explosions were seen in simulations with the most comprehensive treatments of neutrino transport.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Like the group at Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, this group published separate studies of the nascent neutron star and the neutrino-heated region with two-dimensional hydrodynamics. The neutrino transport included some relativistic effects, retained the energy dependence of the neutrino distributions, and took some care regarding the conservation of energy and lepton number. However, these neutrino distributions were taken from a spherically symmetric simulation and imposed onto the two-dimensional hydrodynamics. In addition, the hydrodynamics was nonrelativistic. Unlike other multidimensional models published in the 1990s, no explosions were seen in these simulations.

More recently the Oak Ridge group has produced simulations in spherical symmetry but with sophisticated neutrino transport. These recent simulations had some notable high points. They included realistic neutrino transport, tracking both the energy and angle dependence of the neutrinos. Unlike other core-collapse simulations, they were fully relativistic in both the transport—including redshifts and trajectory bending—and in the hydrodynamics/gravitation. The price that has been paid for these advances is that the models were spherically symmetric, and therefore unrealistic in that respect. Another high point of these simulations was the careful attention paid to energy and lepton number conservation. Great effort went into assuring that the finite difference representations of the partial differential equations were consistent with number and energy conservation. This is a standard all simulations eventually must meet in order to be truly credible with respect to conclusions about the explosion mechanism. In this case the simulations provided convincing evidence that explosions simply do not occur in spherical symmetry (at least with standard neutrino physics). This is indicated in Figure 1, which shows the initial outward motion of the shock and its subsequent stagnation and infall.

University of Arizona: This group also performed simulations with multidimensional hydrodynamics in the mid 1990s. The neutrino transport was integrated over both energy and angles, impairing the realism of the models. They were also nonrelativistic. While these were exploding models, there was no detailed accounting of energy and lepton number conservation.111Very recently this group reported simulations with Newtonian hydrodynamics and sophisticated neutrino transport in spherical symmetry; no explosions were seen.

## 3 The TeraScale Supernova Initiative

The overview of core-collapse supernova simulations presented in the last section demonstrates a fundamental trade-off required by the computing power available during the past decade: A sadistic choice between multidimensional hydrodynamics and spatially multidimensional, energy- and angle-dependent neutrino transport, two non-negotiable aspects of realism. As the new millenium begins, computing power has advanced to the point that neither of these crucial pieces of physics need be sacrificed, as initial results from the group at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics indicates. Another program designed to take core-collapse supernova modeling to the next level is the TeraScale Supernova Initiative.

The TeraScale Supernova Initiative222http://www.phy.ornl.gov/tsi (TSI) is a large collaboration funded by the U.S. Department of Energy for several years with the mission to explain the supernova phenomena most closely associated with core collapse: the successful launch of the shock (i.e. understand the explosion mechanism); neutrino signatures; pulsar spins, kick velocities, and magnetic fields; gravitational waves; and heavy element ($`r`$process) abundances.

This initiative—which grows out of past efforts of the supernova modeling group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory—has a diverse and experienced investigator team, including some 40 investigators from 12 institutions.333Inclusion of collaborators who are not members of TSI brings the total number of people involved to 99, from 28 institutions. These investigators include people whose life-long work has been in the areas needed in supernova science, including radiation transport, magneto-hydrodynamics, nuclear and weak interaction physics, and needed aspects of computer science.

TSI also has the support of the U.S. Department of Energy’s computational infrastructure. This includes high priority on the DOE’s terascale machines—which feature several $`10^{12}`$ bytes of memory and floating point operations per second—and access to the expertise of teams specializing in various aspects of high-performance computing, including advanced solver algorithms, computational meshes, performance on parallel architectures, data management and visualization, and software reusability and interoperability.

Some recent science from TSI involves pure hydrodynamics simulations (no neutrino transport). A standing accretion shock is an analytic solution in spherical symmetry. Its parameters are matched to the density profile in a realistic simulation when the shock stalls, and this is used as an initial condition for two- and three-dimensional simulations. It turns out that the standing accretion shock is unstable in two and three dimensions to the lowest order modes; the average shock radius and turbulent energy increase steadily with time at the expense of thermal and gravitational energy of the gas.444Movies available at http://www.phy.ornl.gov/tsi/pages/simulations.html. The mechanism of instability is nonlinear feedback between aspherical pressure waves rising from small radii and regions characterized by transverse flow velocities—generated by asphericities in the shock—that advect inwards. This must be studied in more detail in simulations involving neutrino transport and realistic equations of state, but this hydrodynamic instability may play an important role in the supernova mechanism and provide an explanation for aspect ratios $`2`$ inferred from spectropolarimetry data.

## 4 Summary and Implications for Dark Matter

While many simulations have been performed over the years, it cannot yet be claimed that the supernova explosion mechanism is understood. Models with energy- and angle-dependent neutrino transport have been studied in spherical symmetry, and explosions have not been seen. Many (though not all) models with multidimensional hydrodynamics do exhibit explosions, but these have employed neutrino transport that is too crude to make firm conclusions about the explosion mechanism. Computing power has advanced to the point that models with both sophisticated neutrino transport and multidimensional hydrodynamics are within reach; the TeraScale Supernova Initiative (TSI) is one effort underway to perform such simulations.

Finally, in conclusion, a word on the subject of the conference: dark matter. The nascent neutron star is a hot (temperature of order 50 MeV) and dense (baryon mass density of order $`10^{14}`$ g cm-3) environment. Should hypothetical particles like the axion (a cold dark matter candidate) or a keV-mass sterile neutrino (a warm dark matter candidate) exist, they could be produced in the extreme conditions present in the newly born neutron star. However, copious production and emission of such weakly coupled particles would cause the neutron star to cool more quickly than it would if neutrinos were fastest means of cooling. The handful of neutrinos detected from supernova SN1987A confirms the basic theoretical understanding of stellar core collapse, with associated trapping of neutrinos and their subsequent emission on a time scale of several seconds; this allows limits to be placed on the coupling strength of hypothetical dark matter particles like the axion and sterile neutrino. Presently, these limits are of necessity rather conservative, due to a lack of detailed understanding of the explosion mechanism and subsequent uncertainties about precise conditions in the nascent neutron star. A new generation of simulations—such as those being pursued by TSI—promises to reveal the explosion mechanism and paint a detailed and realistic picture of the physical conditions in the hot and dense neutron star, providing a basis for strengthened limits on the properties of dark matter candidate particles.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) HENP Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing Program; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the DoE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725; the Joint Institute for Heavy Ion Research; and a DoE PECASE grant.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

A fundamental law in quantum physics is the no-cloning theorem , which tells us that it is impossible to copy an unknown quantum state perfectly. This feature is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schrödinger equation.

From a physical point of view, it should better not be allowed to copy an unknown quantum state perfectly, because otherwise a conflict with other well-established laws of physics would arise: first, perfect quantum cloning would allow to use an entangled EPR-state that is shared between two remote parties to send information across the distance of the parties, where the speed of the signalling would only depend on the speed of the cloning machine and a subsequent measurement, thus allowing superluminal signalling. Second, perfect cloning would allow to produce infinitely many identical copies of a given spin state, half of which could be measured e.g. in the $`x`$-basis, half of them in the $`y`$-basis, therefore allowing to measure the expectation value of non-commuting observables simultaneously.

Since the beginning of the development of the field of quantum information the no-cloning theorem has also been viewed as one of the most fundamental differences between classical and quantum information theory. The impossibility of perfectly cloning an unknown quantum state has far-reaching consequences: for instance, it disables a spy from copying a quantum signal and resending the original, and is thus the reason for the security of quantum cryptography. At the same time, however, it also disables us from making a “quantum back-up”, i.e. to keep a copy of an unknown quantum state for the purpose of error correction.

The no-cloning theorem only tells us that it is impossible make a perfect copy of an unknown quantum state. In the recent years, much work has been done in order to explore the limits for approximate cloning transformations . This is often loosely referred to as quantum cloning. Experimental realisations of quantum cloning have been suggested in quantum optics  and cavity QED , and experiments have been performed in quantum optics  and nuclear magnetic resonance experiments .

Here, we want to investigate an aspect of quantum cloning that has not received any attention so far, namely we want to study the entanglement properties of the output state of a cloning device. The motivation for this study is two-fold: first, we wish to understand some fundamental properties of quantum cloning, by shedding light on a certain limit of quantum cloning – the case of producing infinitely many clones. It was shown that the optimal fidelity of this case corresponds to the optimal state estimation process , i.e. a cloner with infinitely many copies could be implemented by optimally estimating the input and then producing a product state of infinitely many copies by using this knowledge. In this sense this case is referred to as “classical limit”, see also . Here we want to ask the question: is it justified to call the case of infinitely many copies the classical limit, when judging by the entanglement structure of the output state?

Second, we want to investigate the multipartite entanglement properties of the cloning output. One arrives at the shape of this specific entangled state by maximising a scalar quantity, namely the fidelity, i.e. the overlap $`F=\psi |\varrho _{out}|\psi `$, where $`|\psi `$ is the input state and $`\varrho _{out}`$ the one-particle reduced density operator of the output. Does the cloning output have some significance in nature, i.e. does it resemble a state that appears naturally, e.g. in the ground state of some quantum statistical system? This question is motivated by recent studies of multiparticle entanglement in this direction .

## II Entanglement properties of the $`12`$ cloning state

Let us commence by looking into the most simple case, namely the output of a universal cloner that takes any pure state of one qubit as input and produces two identical copies with optimal fidelity 5/6. In the next section we will then look at general universal cloning transformations. Throughout this paper we will only consider two-dimensional states and symmetric universal cloning transformations, i.e. transformations for which the fidelity of all output copies is equal and their quality does not depend on the form of the input state. For these universal transformations we can study without loss of generality the entanglement structure of the cloning output for an input that is the basis state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. This is given by

$$𝒰|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|a=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(1)
where the first qubit is the original, the second is the clone and the third is an auxiliary system, usually called ancilla. Clearly, the total state is entangled. How is the entanglement distributed over the state, i.e. how much are the two clones or a clone and an ancilla entangled with each other? The reduced density matrices $`\varrho _{cc}`$ for two clones and $`\varrho _{ca}`$ for one clone and one ancilla are given by

$$\varrho _{cc}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{6}& \frac{1}{6}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{6}& \frac{1}{6}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);\varrho _{ca}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}\\ 0& \frac{1}{6}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{3}& 0& 0& \frac{1}{6}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Thanks to the analytical formula for the concurrence by Wootters  it is easy to calculate the entanglement of formation for these bipartite density matrices. As shown in , a density matrix of the shape

$$\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b& c& 0\\ 0& c^{}& d& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
in the basis $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}\}`$ has the concurrence

$$C(\sigma )=2max(|c|\sqrt{ae},0).$$
(4)
The entanglement of formation $`E_F`$ can then be expressed as a function of $`C`$, namely

$$E_F=\frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}\mathrm{log}_2\frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}\frac{1\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}\mathrm{log}_2\frac{1\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}.$$
(5)
In the case of the cloning output from equation (2) this leads to $`C_{12}=1/3`$ for the two clones and $`C_{23}=2/3`$ for clone and ancilla. Using the relation (5) between the concurrence and the entanglement of formation we arrive at $`E_{F,12}0.1873`$ for the state of the two clones and $`E_{F,23}0.55`$ for the state of one clone and the ancilla. Note that the entanglement between clone and ancilla is higher than between the two clones.

Let us also study the entanglement properties of the total pure state (1). It is obviously genuinely three-party entangled, but there exist two different inequivalent classes of three-party entangled states , namely the W- and the GHZ-class – to which one does it belong? Let us remind the reader that states of the form

$$|GHZ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}000}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}111})$$
(6)
are called GHZ states (these states can be detected by the Mermin inequality ), and states of the form

$$|W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}001}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}010}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100})$$
(7)
are called W states . For pure states of three qubits there is a simple criterion to establish whether an entangled state belongs to the GHZ class or to the W class, namely the 3-tangle . It is straightforward to verify that the 3-tangle is zero for the state (1), and therefore we can conclude that the total cloning output is in the W-class. We want to point out that this is very reasonable: the 1-particle reduced density matrices for GHZ-states are maximally mixed, and therefore could not represent high fidelity copies.

Finally, we point out that the state (1) happens to have the property that the three tangles add up to 1, i.e. $`C_{12}^2+C_{13}^2+C_{23}^2=1`$. This value lies the interval for this sum that is allowed by the sum rules of . Remember that for a GHZ state the tangles add up to zero, because the bipartite reduced density matrices are separable, and they add up to 4/3 for the W state.

## III Bipartite entanglement in the output of a universal cloner

Let us now generalise the above ideas to an $`NM`$-cloner for qubits, i.e. a cloner that takes $`N`$ inputs and produces $`M`$ outputs. What is our expectation for this case? How will the bipartite entanglement scale with the number $`M`$ of outputs? The case $`M\mathrm{}`$ is often referred to as classical limit, and it has indeed been shown in  that the fidelity for producing infinitely many copies can be also reached by making an optimal state estimation on the input and then producing $`M`$ identical uncorrelated states that correspond to the guessed state.

The optimal cloning transformation is given by

$$U_{N,M}|N\psi |(NM)s|R=\underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}\alpha _j(N,M)|(Mj)\psi ,j\psi ^{}|R_j(\psi ),$$
(8)
where $`|N\psi `$ is the state of $`N`$ qubits all in state $`|\psi `$, $`|s`$ and $`|R`$ are arbitrary input states of the $`MN`$ copies and the state of the ancilla respectively, $`|k\psi ,j\psi ^{}`$ is the normalised symmetric state of $`k+j`$ qubits (with $`k`$ qubits in state $`|\psi `$ and $`j`$ qubits in the orthogonal state $`|\psi ^{}`$), and

$$\alpha _j(N,M)=\sqrt{\frac{N+1}{M+1}}\sqrt{\frac{(MN)!(Mj)!}{(MNj)!M!}}.$$
(9)
The output states of the ancilla are composed of $`M1`$ qubits and are given by

$$|R_j(\psi )=|(M1j)\psi ^{},j(\psi ^{})^{},$$
(10)
where $`\psi ^{}`$ denotes the complex conjugation of the wavefunction $`\psi `$.

This transformation is symmetric in the space of the clones, and therefore leads to the same fidelity for all clones. The symmetry of this transformation also means that the reduced density matrix for two clones will be of the form (3), with the further simplification of $`b=c=d`$. Note that any two clones will have the same reduced density matrix.

From (8) one calculates the elements of the reduced bipartite density matrix, with the notation as in (3):

$`a(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _j^2(N,M){\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)(Mj1)}{M(M1)}},`$ (11)
$`c(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _j^2(N,M){\displaystyle \frac{j(Mj)}{M(M1)}},`$ (12)
$`e(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _j^2(N,M){\displaystyle \frac{j(j1)}{M(M1)}}.`$ (13)
What do these coefficients tell us? Let us first study in detail the simple case of $`N=1`$, extending the results of the previous section to an arbitrary number of output copies. For $`N=1`$ the above coefficients take the form

$`a(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{3M+2}{6M}},c(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},e(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{M2}{6M}}.`$ (14)
As we can see, the concurrence surprisingly vanishes for $`M3`$. In the case of universal cloning with $`N=2`$ we have a similar behaviour: the coefficients take the form

$`a(2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{3M^22}{5M(M1)}},c(2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{3M^25M2}{20M(M1)}},e(2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{M^25M+6}{10M(M1)}}.`$ (15)
As we can easily verify, the concurrence vanishes for $`M4`$.

For a generic value of $`N`$ it is not straightforward to discuss the form of the coefficients (13). However, we can analyse the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. Each of the coefficients consists of a finite sum, let us call the terms in the sum $`a_j,c_j`$ and $`e_j`$. How does $`\sqrt{ae}`$ compare with $`c`$? For large $`M`$ we find that $`\sqrt{a_je_j}c_j`$, and therefore we find for the concurrence

$$C=2max(0\sqrt{\underset{ij}{}a_ie_j},0)=0.$$
(16)
This means that our intuition about any two clones being in a separable state for $`M\mathrm{}`$ is confirmed. However, we also realise that in this limiting case $`\sqrt{ae}`$ is much larger than $`c`$. Maybe the concurrence already vanishes for a finite $`M`$, and if so, for which? We have seen that for $`N=1`$ the concurrence vanishes already for $`M=3`$, and for $`N=2`$ it vanishes for $`M=4`$. So, does this hold in general, i.e. is there no entanglement for the $`NN+2`$-cloner? Well, first of all we can easily see that in the $`NN+1`$ case there is always entanglement, because $`e(N,N+1)=0`$ and $`c(N,N+1)0`$. Moreover, the explicit calculation of the $`NN+2`$ case gives the following results

$`a(M2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{M^45M^2+8}{M^2(M^21)}},c(M2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{2(M^23)}{M^2(M^21)}},e(M2,M)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2(M^21)}}.`$ (17)
As we can see, the corresponding concurrence is always zero for $`M3`$, and it is therefore reasonable to expect that entanglement really vanishes when the number of output copies exceeds the number of inputs by at least two.

One can also study the entanglement between a clone and the ancilla. Here we use the form of the ancilla as given in equation (10). The density matrix of an output copy and an ancilla qubit can be also written in the form (3), where now the basis is $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11},|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\}`$:

$`a(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`f(N,M){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}j(Mj){\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)!}{(MNj)!}},`$ (18)
$`b(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`f(N,M){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}(Mj)(Mj1){\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)!}{(MNj)!}},`$ (19)
$`c(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`f(N,M){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN1}{}}}(j+1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Mj1}{MNj}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)!}{(MNj1)!}},`$ (20)
$`d(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`f(N,M){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}j^2{\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)!}{(MNj)!}},`$ (21)
$`e(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`f(N,M){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{MN}{}}}j(Mj1){\displaystyle \frac{(Mj)!}{(MNj)!}}.`$ (22)
where $`f(N,M)=\frac{N+1}{M(M^21)}\frac{(MN)!}{M!}`$. Again, for generic $`N`$ we can only study the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, using a similar argument as for the entanglement between the clones: we label the $`j`$th term in the sum for the coefficient $`a`$ in equation (22) $`a_j`$, and accordingly for coefficients $`c`$ and $`e`$. Then for infinitely large $`M`$ we find that $`c_j^2a_je_j`$, and therefore the concurrence vanishes.

The form of the coefficients in this case is more complicated than before. As an illustration, we report the analytic results for the case $`N=1`$, where the above coefficients take the simpler form

$`a(1,M)`$ $`=`$ $`d(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}},b(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{3M+2}{6M}},`$ (23)
$`c(1,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M+2}{6M}},e(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{M2}{6M}}.`$ (24)
The concurrence in this case is given by

$`C(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M+2}{M}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M2}{M}}}\right).`$ (25)
As we can see, $`C(1,M)`$ is always different from zero for any value of $`M`$ and vanishes in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. The behaviour of $`C(1,M)`$ is plotted in Fig. 1. This result is a bit surprising: while correlations of quantum nature vanish very quickly with increasing $`M`$ for two output copies, they survive for all finite values of $`M`$ for states of one output clone and one ancilla.

Let us interpret and summarise our results. The global output state of a universal symmetric quantum cloner is an entangled state. However, the clones in general do not carry any bipartite entanglement, unless we consider a very low number of copies: we have found that the entanglement does $`\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}`$ gradually decrease with the number of copies, but vanishes already for $`M=3`$, if one input is given, and for $`M=4`$, if two inputs are given. Therefore, judging only by the bipartite entanglement properties, one cannot conclude that the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the “classical” limit, as the quantum part of the bipartite correlations already vanishes for a very low number of outputs. We also found that the cloning states do not resemble the ground states of quantum statistical systems, which are typically either separable states or bear bipartite entanglement, whereas here a generic state is entangled, but without bipartite entanglement between the clones.

In order to characterise the entanglement structure of the global cloning state fully, one would need to study the entanglement properties of subsystems of any size. In the following section we consider the case of a tripartite subsystem.

## IV Tripartite entanglement in the output of a universal cloner

In section III we have shown that the total output of a $`12`$ cloner, that is a pure state of two clones and the ancilla, corresponds to a W-state. If there is no bi-partite entanglement for the clones in a $`13`$ cloner, maybe there is tripartite entanglement? Unfortunately, the problem of characterising the entanglement properties is not solved for general mixed states of three qubits. However, we will show some partial results for the cloning states.

Let us study the reduced density matrix $`\varrho _{123}(N,M)`$ for three clones in general, i.e. as a function of the number $`N`$ of inputs and number $`M`$ of outputs. From equation (8) we find

$`\varrho _{123}(N,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{min[MN,M3]}{}}}\alpha _j^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M3}{j}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{j}\right)}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}000}000|+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{min[MN,M2]}{}}}\alpha _j^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M3}{j1}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{j}\right)}}3P_{W_{100}}+`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{min[MN,M1]}{}}}\alpha _j^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M3}{j2}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{j}\right)}}3P_{W_{110}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{MN}{}}}\alpha _j^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M3}{j3}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{j}\right)}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}111}111|,`$
where $`\alpha _j`$ depends on $`N`$ and $`M`$ and was defined in equation (9), and $`P_{W_{100}}`$ denotes the projector onto the pure W state where one of the three qubits is in the state 1. In general, it is not known for which coefficients a mixture of this type is entangled. Therefore, let us restrict to two special cases.

The reduced density matrix for the three clones in the $`13`$ cloner is found to be

$$\varrho _{123}(1,3)=\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}000}000|+\frac{1}{3}P_{W_{100}}+\frac{1}{6}P_{W_{110}}.$$
(28)
This is a mixture of two different W-states and a product state. Therefore, according to the classification of  it is at most in the W class, i.e. not in the GHZ class.

When one wants to detect the entanglement properties of multipartite states, the Mermin inequalities immediately  come to ones mind. However, in their original form they are violated by the GHZ states, but satisfied by the W states: these two inequivalent classes of states show different forms of the violation of local realism. A generalisation of the Mermin inequality which is also violated for W states was introduced in . However, testing this generalised Mermin inequality for the state from equation (28) does not show a violation.

Let us also study the case of the $`23`$ cloner, where the reduced density matrix for the three clones is given by

$$\varrho _{123}(2,3)=\frac{3}{4}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}000}000|+\frac{1}{4}P_{W_{100}},$$
(29)
which is a mixture of only one W state and a product state. Again, it is at most in the W-class, i.e. not in the GHZ class. And again, the generalised Mermin inequality from  is not violated by this state.

As we did not find a violation of a Mermin inequality, the three-qubit states given above could be in principle separable, bi-separable or in the W-class. However, we can also study the partial transpose with respect to Alice of a state of the general form

$$\varrho _{123}(N,M)=p_0|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}000}000|+p_1P_{W_{100}}+p_2P_{W_{110}}+p_3|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}111}111|,$$
(30)
with $`p_i>0`$ and $`_ip_i=1`$. Notice that due to symmetry all three partial transposes with respect to one subsystem have the same structure. In general, the partial transpose turns out to be non-positive iff either $`p_1^2>3p_0p_2`$ or $`p_2^2>3p_1p_3`$. This means that for either $`p_0=0`$ or $`p_3=0`$ the partial transpose is non-positive, independently of the other probabilities. Therefore the cloning states given in equations (28) and (29) cannot be separable . Indeed, although there is no bipartite entanglement in the $`13`$-cloner, we have found that there is tripartite entanglement. We also see immediatley from equation (27) that for the $`NN+1`$ cloner the partial transpose is always non-positive, as the last two terms in the equation vanish. Furthermore, for the $`NN+2`$ cloner the last term in equation (27) vanishes, and thus there is always tripartite entanglement for this case, contrary to the bipartite case.

Let us finally study tripartite entanglement for the general case of one input, i.e. the $`1M`$-cloner, especially in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding weights $`p_i`$, which were defined in equation (30), are given by

$`p_0(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{4M+3}{10M}},p_1(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{3M+1}{10M}},p_2(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{2M1}{10M}},p_3(1,M)={\displaystyle \frac{M3}{10M}}.`$ (31)
For $`M\mathrm{}`$ one finds immediately that the partial transposes are positive, and thus there is no free tripartite entanglement for infinitely many copies. In fact, for $`M>4`$ the partial tranposes are positive, and thus tripartite entanglement vanishes already for small numbers of output copies, analogously to the bipartite case.

## V Conclusions

In summary, we have studied the entanglement structure at the output of an approximate cloning device. Regarding bipartite entanglement between two cloning outputs, we have found the surprising result that it vanishes for the $`NN+2`$ cloner. Thus, bipartite entanglement does not only disappear for the “classical” limit of infinitely many copies, but already when the number of outputs exceeds the number of inputs by two. Using one input, we showed that the entanglement between clone and ancilla, however, only vanishes in the limit of infinitely many copies. We also proved on the other hand that tripartite entanglement is always present for the $`NN+2`$ cloner. This entanglement generically seems to be of the W type, rather than of the GHZ type. We hope that these results will be useful for the further understanding of multipartite entanglement.

This work was supported in part by the European Union projects EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053) and ATESIT (contract IST-2000-29681). DB acknowledges support from the ESF Programme QIT and DFG-Schwerpunkt QIV.


text:
# Deformed Legendre Polynomial and Its Application This project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 19771077 and LWTZ 1298.

## 1 Introduction

Parastatistics was introduced by Green as an exotic possibility extending the Bose and Fermi statistics  and for the long period of time the interest to it was rather academic. Nowadays it finds some applications in the physics of the quantum Hall effect  and (probably) it is relevant to high temperature superconductivity . The paraquantization, carried out at the level of the algebra of creation and annihilation operators, involves trilinear(or double) commutation relations in place of the bilinear relations that characterize Bose and Fermi statistics. Recently, the trilinear commutation relations of single paraparticle systems was rewritten as bilinear commutation relations by virtue of the so called R-deformed Heisenberg algebra . For instance, the trilinear commutation relations

$$[a,\{a^{},a\}]=2a,[a,\{a^{},a^{}\}]=4a^{},[a,\{a,a\}]=0,$$
(1)
where $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are parabose creation and annihilation operators respectively, can be replaced by

$$[a,a^{}]=1+(p1)R,\{R,a\}=\{R,a^{}\}=0,R^2=1,$$
(2)
where $`R`$ is a reflection operator and $`p`$ is the paraquantization order $`(p=1,2,3,\mathrm{})`$. Obviously, the bilinear commutation relations (2) may be treated as some kind of deformation of the ordinary Bose commutator with deformation parameter $`p`$.

¿From the experience of studying q-deformed oscillators , we know that it will be very useful if one introduces corresponding deformed calculus to analyse this parabose system. This was done recently and based on the new deformed calculus, the parabosonic coordinate representation was developed . Since special functions play important roles in mathematical physics, it is reasonable to imagine that some deformation of the ordinary special functions based on the new deformed calculus will also play similar roles in studying the parabose systems. In this paper, we introduce a new kind of deformation for the ordinary Legendre polynomials and demonstrate its properties. As an example of applications of these deformed Legendre polynomials, we discuss excitations on a parabose squeezed vacuum state and calculate norm of the excitation states.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, for the sake of self-contained of the present paper, we briefly mention the basic idea of the new kind of deformed calculus. The deformed Legendre polynomials and relevant differential expressions are introduced in section 3. Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to demonstration of orthonormality of the deformed Legendre polynomials and their recursion relations respectively. In section 6, we show that the deformed Legendre polynomials can be used to normalize the excitation states on a squeezed vacuum state for single parabose mode. There are also some discussions and remarks in the last section.

## 2 Deformed calculus related to parabosonic coordinate representation

It is well-known that parabose algebra is characterized by the double commutation relations (1). If one demands that the usual relations

$$a=\frac{x+iP}{\sqrt{2}},a^{}=\frac{xiP}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(3)
still work for the parabose case, where $`x`$ and $`P`$ stand for the coordinate and momentum operator respectively, it can be proved that the most genaral expression for the momentum operator $`P`$ in the coordinate $`x`$ diagonal representation is of

$$P=i\frac{d}{dx}i\frac{p1}{2x}(1R),$$
(4)
where $`p`$ is the paraquantization order and $`R`$ the reflection operator which has property $`Rf(x)=f(x)`$ in the coordinate representation for any $`x`$ dependent function $`f(x)`$. From (4) a new derivative operator $`D`$ can be defined which acts on function $`f(x)`$ as

$`Df(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}f(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}(1R)f(x)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`df(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}\left(f(x)f(x)\right),`$
where $`df=\frac{d}{dx}f`$. Definition (5) implies that $`D`$ acts on an even function $`f_e(x)=f_e(x)`$ as the ordinary derivative $`Df_e(x)=df_e(x)`$, and $`D`$ acts on an odd function $`f_o(x)=f_o(x)`$ leads to $`Df_o(x)=df_o(x)+\frac{p1}{x}f_o(x)`$. For $`p=1`$ case, $`D`$ reduces to the ordinary derivative operator $`d`$. Since $`P=iD`$, Eq.(5) means that the pair $`(x,D)`$ in realization of parabose algebra for a single degree of freedom plays the same role as $`(x,d)`$ in realization of the ordinary Bose algebra. Like q-deformed calculus in which the q-analogue of the number system was defined by $`[n]_q=\frac{q^n1}{q1}`$ , such that when $`q1`$, $`[n]_qn`$, in the present case, one can introduce a new kind of deformed number system which is defined by

$$[n]=n+\frac{p1}{2}(1()^n).$$
(6)
Obviously, $`[2k]=2k`$, $`[2k+1]=2k+p`$ for any integer $`k`$ and when $`p1`$, $`[n]n`$. So paraquantization order $`p`$ may be referred to as a deformation parameter. In terms of the number system $`[n]`$, basis vectors of Fock space for single mode of parabose oscillators take the usual form

$$|n=\frac{(a^{})^n}{\sqrt{[n]!}}|0,a^{}|n=\sqrt{[n+1]}|n+1,a|n=\sqrt{[n]}|n1,$$
(7)
where $`[n]!=[n][n1]\mathrm{}[1],[0]!1`$, and $`|0`$ is the unique vacuum vector satisfying $`a|0=0,aa^{}|0=p|0`$. Generalization of the ordinary differential relation $`dx^n=nx^{n1}`$ reads

$$Dx^n=[n]x^{n1},$$
(8)
which reveals the effect of the deformed derivative operator $`D`$ on the polynomials of $`x`$. It is worthy of metion that in some special situation the usual Leibnitz rule also works for the deformed operator $`D`$

$$D(fg)=(Df)g+f(Dg),$$
(9)
where either $`f(x)`$ or $`g(x)`$ is an even function of $`x`$.

Of course, inversion of the deformed derivative operator $`D`$ also leads to a new deformed integration which may be formally written as

$`{\displaystyle DxF(x)}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^n\left({\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{p1}{2x}(1R)}\right)^n{\displaystyle 𝑑xF(x)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xF(x)}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{p1}{2x}(1R)𝑑xF(x)}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{p1}{2x}(1R)}\right)^2{\displaystyle 𝑑xF(x)}\mathrm{}.`$ (10)
¿From this expression, it is easily seen that if $`F(x)`$ is an odd function of $`x`$, its deformed integration will reduce to the ordinary integration, that is, $`DxF(x)=𝑑xF(x)`$ for $`F(x)=F(x)`$. Corresponding to Eq. (8), one has

$$Dxx^n=\frac{x^{n+1}}{[n+1]}+c,$$
(11)
where c is an integration constant. Eq.(10) gives a formal definition for the deformed integration in the sence of indefinite integral. For definite integral, we have

$`{\displaystyle _a^b}DxF(x)={\displaystyle _a^b}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}(1R){\displaystyle _a^x}𝑑x\right)^nF(x)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^b}𝑑xF(x){\displaystyle _a^b}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}(1R){\displaystyle _a^x}𝑑xF(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _a^b}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}(1R){\displaystyle _a^x}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2x}}(1R){\displaystyle _a^x}𝑑xF(x)\mathrm{}.`$
If either $`F(x)`$ or $`G(x)`$ is an even function of $`x`$, one has a formula of integration by parts from Eq.(9)

$$_a^bDx\frac{DF}{Dx}G=FG|_a^b_a^bDxF\frac{DG}{Dx}.$$
(13)
## 3 Defprmed Legendre polynomials and their differential expressions

Let us consider solutions of deformed Legendre equation based on the deformed derivative operator $`D`$ defined in the previous section

$$(1x^2)D^2f(x)2xDf(x)+\mu f(x)=0,$$
(14)
or according to Eq.(9), the deformed Legendre equation is equivalent to

$$D\left((1x^2)Df(x)\right)+\mu f(x)=0.$$
(15)
In terms of the ordinary derivative notation, Eq.(14) can be rewriiten as

$$(1x^2)\frac{d^2}{dx^2}f(x)\left(2x(p1)(\frac{1}{x}x)\right)\frac{d}{dx}f(x)\frac{p1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{x^2}\right)f(x)$$

$$+\frac{p1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{x^2}\right)f(x)=\mu f(x),$$
(16)
which will reduce to the usual Legendre equation when $`p1`$. We find out that when the parameter $`\mu `$ takes eigenvalues $`\mu =[n][n+1],n=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, for each given paraquantization order $`p`$, the deformed Legendre equation has bounded solutions (eigenfunctions) within a whole closed interval $`1x1`$ which form a set of orthonormal functions in the interval. In fact, it is not difficult to see that the following polynomials

$$P_n(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{[n/2]^{^{}}}{}}\frac{()^k[2n2k]!}{2^nk!(nk)![n2k]!}x^{n2k},$$
(17)
where $`[k]^{^{}}`$ in the above of summation notation $``$ stands for the largest integer smaller than or equal to $`k`$, are the desired solutions of the deformed Legendre equation for $`\mu =[n][n+1]`$ which will reduce to the usual Legendre polynomials when $`p1`$. One can substitute Eq.(17) into the deformed Legendre equation and check coefficients of all powers of $`x`$ being zero. So the polynomials (17) may be considered as a deformation of the usual Legendre polynomials. The first few polynomials of $`P_n(x)`$ have the following explicit forms

$`P_0(x)=1,P_1(x)=x,P_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([3]x^2[1]),`$
$`P_3(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([5]x^3[3]x),P_4(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}([5][7]x^42[3][5]x^2+[1][3]),`$
$`P_5(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}([7][9]x^52[5][7]x^3+[3][5]x),`$
$`P_6(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}([7][9][11]x^63[5][7][9]x^4+3[3][5][7]x^2[1][3][5]).`$ (18)
Also from Eq.(17) we know that $`P_n(x)=()^nP_n(x)`$, which means that the deformed Legendre polynomial $`P_n(x)`$ has its parity $`()^n`$.

We would like to point out a differential expression for the deformed Legendre polynomials $`P_n(x)`$ to conclude this short section

$$P_n(x)=\frac{1}{2^nn!}D^n(x^21)^n.$$
(19)
which is similar to Rodrigues formula for the ordinary Legendre polynomials and can be proved straightforwardly.

## 4 Orthonormality of $`P_n(x)`$

Firstly we show the orthogonality of the deformed Legendre polynomials

$$_1^1DxP_n(x)P_m(x)=0,(nm).$$
(20)
For $`n+m`$ odd case, Eq.(20) works obviously. In fact, from the parity of $`P_n(x)`$ we have $`P_n(x)P_m(x)=()^{n+m}P_n(x)P_m(x)=P_n(x)P_m(x)`$, which means that the deformed integration in Eq.(20) will reduce to an ordinary integration with an odd integrand $`P_n(x)P_m(x)`$ over an interval of integration $`[1,1]`$, therefore the integration should be zero. For $`n+m`$ even case, $`P_n(x)`$ and $`P_m(x)`$ satisfy the following equations

$$D\left((1x^2)DP_n(x)\right)+\mu _nP_n(x)=0,$$
(21)
$$D\left((1x^2)DP_m(x)\right)+\mu _mP_m(x)=0,$$
(22)
respectively, where $`\mu _n=[n][n+1],\mu _m=[m][m+1]`$. Multiplying Eq.(21) and Eq.(22) by $`P_m(x)`$ and $`P_n(x)`$ respectively, and substracting the resulting equations, then integrating it over $`[1,1]`$, we have

$$_1^1Dx\left(P_m\frac{D}{Dx}\left((1x^2)\frac{D}{Dx}P_n\right)P_n\frac{D}{Dx}\left((1x^2)\frac{D}{Dx}P_m\right)\right)$$

$$+(\mu _n\mu _m)_1^1DxP_nP_m=0.$$
(23)
Since the first integration in Eq.(23) satisfies condition of the deformed integration by parts either for $`n`$ and $`m`$ are all even or all odd, we can write it as

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}Dx{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}\left((1x^2)(P_m{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}P_nP_n{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}P_m)\right)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`(1x^2)(P_m{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}P_nP_n{\displaystyle \frac{D}{Dx}}P_m)|_1^1=0,`$
here we have used a fact that $`P_n(x)`$, $`P_m(x)`$ and their deformed derivatives are all polynomials of $`x`$ and are bounded at $`x=\pm 1`$ for a fixed paraquantization order $`p`$. Noticing that $`\mu _n\mu _m`$, so Eq.(20) is proved.

Then we calculute integration

$$N_n^2=_1^1DxP_n(x)P_m(x).$$
(25)
Substituting Eq.(19) into this integration, we have

$$N_n^2=\frac{1}{2^nn!}_1^1DxP_n(x)\frac{D^n}{Dx^n}(x^21)^n.$$
(26)
Noticing that the integration (26) also satisfies the condition of the deformed integration by parts no matter what non-negative integer $`n`$ is, we get

$$N_n^2=\frac{1}{2^nn!}\left(P_n(x)\frac{D^{n1}}{Dx^{n1}}(x^21)^n|_1^1_1^1Dx\frac{DP_n(x)}{Dx}\frac{D^{n1}}{Dx^{n1}}(x^21)^n\right).$$

It is not difficult to see that for $`mn`$, $`\frac{D^m}{Dx^m}(x^21)^n=0`$ at $`x=\pm 1`$, so

$$N_n^2=\frac{1}{2^nn!}_1^1Dx\frac{DP_n(x)}{Dx}\frac{D^{n1}}{Dx^{n1}}(x^21)^n.$$

Continuing the procedure of integration by parts, at last we arrive at

$$N_n^2=\frac{()^n}{2^nn!}_1^1Dx\frac{D^nP_n(x)}{Dx^n}(x^21)^n=\frac{()^n[2n]!}{2^nn!2^nn!}_1^1Dx(x^21)^n.$$
(27)
Using Eq.(11) we can rewrite the integral in the right-hand side of Eq.(27) as

$$_1^1Dx(x^21)^n=2\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}()^{nk}C_n^k\frac{1}{[2k+1]}=2()^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}()^kC_n^k\frac{1}{2k+p}$$

$$=2()^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_n^k_0^1𝑑xx^{2k+p1}=2()^n_0^1𝑑xx^{p1}(1x^2)^n=\frac{()^n2^{2n+1}(n!)^2}{[2n+1]!},$$

where $`C_n^k=\frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}`$. Substituting this result into Eq.(27) we obtain

$$N_n^2=\frac{2}{[2n+1]},$$
(28)
which is called the norm of $`P_n(x)`$. Combining Eqs.(20)and (28) we have

$$_1^1DxP_n(x)P_m(x)=\frac{2}{[2n+1]}\delta _{n,m}.$$
(29)
Thus we demonstrated the orthonormality of the deformed Legendre polynomials $`P_n(x)`$.

## 5 Recursion relations of $`P_n(x)`$

There are some definite relations between neighbouring deformed Legendre polynomials and their derivatives which are called recursion relations of $`P_n(x)`$. The main recursion relations are the following three:

$$[n+1]P_{n+1}(x)[2n+1]xP_n(x)+[n]P_{n1}(x)=0,$$
(30)
$$DP_{n+1}(x)xDP_n(x)[n+1]P_n(x)=0,$$
(31)
$$xDP_n(x)DP_{n1}(x)[n]P_n(x)=0.$$
(32)
It is straightforward to prove these relations by virtue of the definition (17) and the deformed differential relation (8). For instance, one can substitute (17) into (30) and obtain a polynomial of $`x`$, then calculate coefficient for each power of $`x`$ and find that all of these coefficients will be zero, thus relation (30) is true. Similarly, one can convince oneself that relations (31) and (32) also work. Based on the above three relations, one has more recursion relations for the deformed Legendre polynomials

$$DP_{n+1}(x)DP_{n1}(x)[2n+1]P_n(x)=0,$$
(33)
$$(x^21)DP_n(x)[n]xP_n(x)+[n]P_{n1}(x)=0.$$
(34)
Obviously, these recursion relations will reduce to ones of the usual Legendre polynomials when $`p1`$.

The above recursion relations are very useful for calculating deformed integrations with the deformed Legendre polynomials such as

$$_1^1DxxP_m(x)P_n(x).$$

¿From Eq.(30), one has

$$xP_m(x)=\frac{[m+1]}{[2m+1]}P_{m+1}(x)+\frac{[m]}{[2m+1]}P_{m1}(x),$$

so that

$$_1^1DxxP_m(x)P_n(x)=\frac{[m+1]}{[2m+1]}_1^1DxP_{m+1}(x)P_n(x)$$

$$+\frac{[m]}{[2m+1]}_1^1DxP_{m1}(x)P_n(x).$$

Furthermore, by virtue of the orhtonormality relation (29), one gets

$$_1^1DxxP_m(x)P_n(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2[n]}{[2n1][2n+1]},& m=n1,\\ \frac{2[n+1]}{[2n+1][2n+3]},& m=n+1,\\ 0,& mn\pm 1.\end{array}$$

## 6 Some application and discussion

As an application of the deformed Legendre polynomials $`P_n(x)`$, we want to point out that there exist some states in parabose radiation field whose normalizing factors are related to $`P_n(x)`$. To see this, let us consider excitations on a parabose squeezed vacuum state for a single mode case. Denoting $`|r,0=S(r)|0`$ as the parabose squeezed vacuum state ($`r`$ is a real number), where $`S(r)=(sechr)^{p/2}exp\left(\frac{1}{2}(a^{})^2tanhr\right)`$, we introduce

$$|r,m=(a^{})^m|r,0(m=1,2,3,\mathrm{})$$
(35)
as such kind of excitation states. It is easily to see that the parabose squeezed vacuum state $`|r,0`$ is normalized $`\left(r,0|r,0=1\right)`$ and the parabose squeezed excitation states have not been normalized. In order to normalize these states, we would like to prove by induction

$$r,m|r,m=[m]!(coshr)^mP_m(coshr),$$
(36)
where $`P_m(coshr)`$ is the deformed Legendre polynomial with argument $`x=coshr`$. Firstly, we have

$`a|r,0`$ $`=`$ $`(sechr)^{p/2}ae^{\frac{(a^{})^2}{2}tanhr}|0`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`(sechr)^{p/2}e^{\frac{(a^{})^2}{2}tanhr}(a+a^{}tanhr)|0=a^{}tanhr|r,0.`$
Using the R-deformed commutation relation (2) for paraboson and noticing that $`R|0=|0`$, we find

$$r,1|r,1=r,0|aa^{}|r,0=r,0|\left(1+a^{}a+(p1)R\right)|r,0$$

$$=p+tanh^2rr,1|r,1=[1]!coshrP_1(coshr).$$
(38)
Then supposing Eq.(36) is true for $`nm`$, that is,

$$r,n1|r,n1=[n1]!(coshr)^{n1}P_{n1}(coshr),$$
(39)
we show that Eq.(36) works. In fact, using the following relations

$`[a,(a^{})^n]`$ $`=`$ $`(a^{})^{n1}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}(1()^n)R\right),`$
$`[a^{},a^n]`$ $`=`$ $`a^{n1}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}(1()^n)R\right),`$ (40)
we have

$`r,m|r,m=r,0|a^{m1}aa^{}(a^{})^{m1}|r,0`$
$`=r,0|a^{m1}\left(1+a^{}a+(p1)R\right)(a^{})^{m1}|r,0`$
$`=r,m1|r,m1+(p1)()^{m1}r,m1|r,m1`$
$`+r,0|\left(a^{}a^{m1}+[m1]a^{m2}\right)\left((a^{})^{m1}a+[m1](a^{})^{m2}\right)|r,0`$
$`=tanh^2rr,m|r,m[m1]^2r,m2|r,m2`$
$`+\left(2[m1]+1+(p1)()^{m1}\right)r,m1|r,m1,`$
or

$`r,m|r,m=cosh^2r[m1]^2r,m2|r,m2`$
$`+cosh^2r(2[m1]+1+(p1)()^{m1})r,m1|r,m1..`$ (41)
Substituting (39) into (41), we get

$`r,m|r,m=cosh^mr[m1]![m1]P_{m2}(coshr)`$
$`+cosh^{m+1}r[m1]!(2[m1]+1+(p1)()^{m1})P_{m1}(coshr).`$
Noticing that $`2[m1]+1+(p1)()^{m1}=[2m1]`$ and using the recursion relation (30) for $`P_n(x)`$, we finally arrive at (36). Thus we see that the deformed Legendre polynomials indeed can be used to normalize the excitation states on a squeezed vacuum state for a single parabose mode.

In summary, we introduced a new kind of deformation for the usual Legendre polynomials and discussed their main preperties in this paper. These deformed Legendre polynomials may have some applications in studying parabose systems. For instance, they can be used to describe excitations on a parabose squeezed vacuum state. Comparing with the case of ordinary Legendre polynomials, one will naturally ask a question: is there any genarating function of the deformed Legendre polynomials and what it is? Work for answering these questions is on progress.