text:
# Rare 𝐵→𝐾^∗𝜈𝜈̄ decay beyond standard model

## 1 Introduction

Started operating, two $`B`$–factories BaBar and Belle  open an excited era for studying $`B`$ meson physics and its rare decays. The main physics program of these factories constitutes a detailed study of CP violation in $`B_d`$ meson and precise measurement of rare flavor–changing neutral current (FCNC) processes. The rare decays of $`B`$ mesons take place via FCNC and appear in Standard Model (SM) at loop level. For this reason there appears a real possibility for checking the gauge structure of SM at loop level. On the other side rare decays are very sensitive to the new physics beyond SM and their study is hoped to shed light on the existence of new particles before they are produced at colliders.

As has already been mentioned, one main goal of the $`B`$ physics program is to find inconsistencies within the SM, in particular to find indications for new physics in the flavor and CP violating sectors . In general, new physics effects manifest themselves in rare $`B`$ meson decays either through new contributions to the Wilson coefficients that exist in the SM or by introducing new structures in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in the SM (see ). Moreover, one can add new CP–violating phases and modify the flavor changing neutral current.

Currently the main interest is focused on the rare $`B`$ meson decays, for which SM predicts ”large” branching ratios. The rare $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay is such a decay that plays a special role, both from experimental and theoretical point of view.

At quark level the FCNC $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay is described in framework of the SM by the effective Hamiltonian

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{2\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}X(x)\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)s\overline{\nu }\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu ,`$ (1)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure coupling constant, $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle, $`V_{ij}`$ is the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and

$`X(x)=X_0(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}X_1(x),`$ (2)
where

$`X_0={\displaystyle \frac{x}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x+2}{x1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3(x2)}{(x1)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x\right],`$ (3)
and $`x=m_t^2/m_W^2`$. Explicit form of $`X_0(x)`$ and $`X_1(x)`$ can be found in  and , respectively. Note that $`X_1(x)`$ gives about 3% contribution to the $`X_0(x)`$ term. The main attractive property of (1) is that the $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay is governed only by a single operator and is free of long distance effects related the presence of four quark operators in the effective Hamiltonian (see for example ). It is well known that the situation for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is more problematic, since this decay is described by several Wilson coefficients, each bringing along its own uncertainty, and also in this decay the long distance effects are essential and should be considered. In spite of all these theoretical advantages, it might be very difficult to measure the inclusive mode $`BX_s\nu \overline{\nu }`$, because it requires to construct all $`X_s`$. Therefore it might be much easier to measure the exclusive mode $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ experimentally. which has ”large” branching ratio in SM, about $`10^5`$ .

In this paper we study the $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay for a general model independent form of effective Hamiltonian. $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay has been extensively investigated in framework of the SM and its various minimal extensions . Note that this mode was studied in  in a similar way to our analysis, but in that work scalar and tensor type interactions were introduced via violation of the lepton number since neutrino was assumed to be massless. But Super Kamiokande  results indicated that neutrino has mass. Therefore neutrino has the right components and we can introduce scalar and tensor interactions without any lepton number violation. Another novel property of the present work is the appearence of new structures, e.g., terms that are proportional to $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$ (see Eq. (4) below), which are absent in .

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we give the most general, model independent form of effective Hamiltonian. We then parametrize the long distance effects by appropriate form factors and calculate the differential decay width. Section 3 is devoted to the numerical analysis and concluding remarks.

## 2 Differential decay width

The exclusive $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay at quark level is described by $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ transition. The decay amplitude for the $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay in a general model independent form can be written as (for general form of matrix element for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, see also )

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\{C_{LL}^{tot}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{LR}^{tot}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_{RL}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RR}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRLR}\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1+\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RLLR}\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1+\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRRL}\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RLRL}\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_T\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\nu +iC_{TE}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\nu \}.`$
Two of the four vector interactions containing $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ already exist in the SM in combinations $`(C_9C_{10})`$ and $`(C_9+C_{10})`$ for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, while in the present work for the $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ transition we have $`C_9=C_{10}`$. Therefore writing

$`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`2X+C_{LL},`$
$`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{LR},`$
one concludes that $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ describes the sum of the contributions from the SM and the new physics. The remaining coefficients $`C_{LRLR},C_{LRRL},C_{RLLR},C_{RLRL}`$ and $`C_T,C_{TE}`$ describe the scalar and tensor interactions, respectively, which are absent in the SM. The decay amplitude (4) has a rather general form as it includes nine additional operators not found in the SM.

The decay amplitude of the semileptonic $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay can be obtained after evaluating matrix elements of the quark operators in Eq. (4) between the initial $`|B(p_B)`$ and final $`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )|`$ states. It follows from Eq. (4) that we need the following matrix elements

$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B,`$
$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B,`$
$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B.`$
These matrix elements can be written in terms of the form factors in the following way:

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}\pm i\epsilon _\mu ^{}(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)`$
$`i(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q){\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}iq_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{q^2}}(\epsilon ^{}q)\left[A_3(q^2)A_0(q^2)\right],`$
$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`iϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\{2T_1(q^2)\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(p_B+p_K^{})^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)[T_1(q^2)T_2(q^2)]\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}[T_1(q^2)T_2(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3(q^2)](\epsilon ^{}q)p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma \}.`$
where $`\epsilon `$ is the polarization vector of $`K^{}`$ meson and $`q=p_Bp_K^{}`$ is the momentum transfer. To ensure finiteness of (2) at $`q^2=0`$, it is usually assumed that $`A_3(q^2=0)=A_0(q^2=0)`$ and $`T_1(q^2=0)=T_2(q^2=0)`$. The matrix element $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B`$ can be calculated by contracting both sides of Eq. (2) with $`q^\mu `$ and using equation of motion. Neglecting the mass of the strange quark we get

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}\left[2im_K^{}(\epsilon ^{}q)A_0(q^2)\right].`$ (7)
In deriving Eq. (7) we have used the following relation between the form factors $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ (see )

$`A_3(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_K^{}}}\left[(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)(m_Bm_K^{})A_2(q^2)\right].`$
Taking into account Eqs. (47), the matrix element of the $`BK^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ decay can be written as

$`(BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu })={\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ (8)
$`\times \{\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu [2Aϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma iB_1\epsilon _\mu ^{}+iB_2(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu +iB_3(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu ]`$
$`+\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu \left[2Cϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma iD_1\epsilon _\mu ^{}+iD_2(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu +iD_3(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu \right]`$
$`+\overline{\nu }(1\gamma _5)\nu \left[iB_4(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]+\overline{\nu }(1+\gamma _5)\nu \left[iB_5(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]`$
$`+4\overline{\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\nu \left(iC_Tϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\right)\left[2T_1\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(p_B+p_K^{})^\sigma +B_6\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma B_7(\epsilon ^{}q)p_{K^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma \right]`$
$`+16C_{TE}\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\nu [2T_1\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(p_B+p_K^{})^\nu +B_6\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q^\nu B_7(\epsilon ^{}q)p_{K^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q^\nu \},`$
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{V}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL})(m_B+m_K^{})A_1,`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL})m_K^{}{\displaystyle \frac{A_3A_0}{q^2}},`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`A(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{LR}^{tot},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`B_1(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{LR}^{tot},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_2(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{LR}^{tot},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`B_3(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{LR}^{tot},C_{RL}C_{RR}),`$
$`B_4`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LRRL}C_{RLRL}){\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0,`$
$`B_5`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LRLR}C_{RLLR}){\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0,`$
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_B^2m_K^{}^2){\displaystyle \frac{T_1T_2}{q^2}},`$
$`B_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}\left(T_1T_2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3\right).`$
Note that in further calculations we set neutrino mass to zero.

From the matrix element (8) it is straightforward to derive the missing mass–squared spectrum corresponding to the longitudinally and transversally polarized $`K^{}`$ meson. In the case of longitudinally polarized $`K^{}`$ meson, we get for the missing mass–squared spectrum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{dq^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\nu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right]^2\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{256m_B^2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3m_K^{}^2}}`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{4\right|2B_1h+B_2\lambda |^2+4|2D_1h+D_2\lambda |^2+6\left(\right|B_4|^2+\left|B_5|^2\right)\lambda q^2`$
$`+`$ $`16|4B_6hB_7\lambda |^2\left(4\right|C_{TE}|^2+\left|C_T|^2\right)q^2\times \left[16\right|T_1|^2(m_B^2+3m_K^{}^2q^2)^2`$
$``$ $`16\text{Re}(B_6T_1^{})[\lambda +4m_K^{}^2(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)]+8\text{Re}(B_7T_1^{})(\lambda +3m_K^{}^2q^2)]\}.`$
For the transversally polarized $`K^{}`$ meson, the differential decay width takes the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{dq^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\nu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\right]^2\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\sqrt{\lambda }q^2\left(\right|A\pm B_1|^2+|C\pm D_1|^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2048}{3}}\sqrt{\lambda }\text{Re}(C_TC_{TE}^{})\left[4(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)\left|T_1\right|^2+2\text{Re}(B_6T_1^{})q^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{256}{3}}\left(4\right|C_{TE}|^2+\left|C_T|^2\right)\left(\right|B_6|^2q^4+4[\lambda +(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)]|T_1|^2`$
$``$ $`4(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)\text{Re}(B_6T_1^{})q^2)\}`$
In Eqs. (9) and (10) $`N_\nu =3`$ is the number of light neutrinos,

$`\lambda (m_B^2,m_K^{}^2,q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_B^4+m_K^{}^4+q^42m_B^2q^22m_K^{}^2q^22m_B^2m_K^{}^2,`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2q^2).`$
It should be noted that in experiments due to the non–detectibility of the neutrinos, it is impossible to discriminate the transverse polarization $`+1`$ from $`1`$. For this reason these two polarization states must be added, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}{dq^2}}(BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu })={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{dq^2}}(BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu })+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{dq^2}}(BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }).`$ (11)
From Eqs. (9) and (10) we observe that scalar interaction gives contribution to the differential decay width $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/dq^2`$ when $`K^{}`$ is longitudinally polarized and does not contribute to $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm /dq^2`$ when it transversally polarized. This result can be explained in the following way. When $`B`$ meson is at rest, $`K^{}`$ meson and neutrino pair must be in flight along opposite directions. When $`K^{}`$ meson is transversally polarized the total helicity of the neutrino pair must be $`\pm 1`$, since the initial $`B`$ meson spin is equal to zero. But from the neutrino antineutrino pair, which are in flight along the same direction, one can organize a total helicity of $`\pm 1`$ by flipping one of the neutrino’s helicity. But this spin flip can be achieved by inserting mass of neutrino. However, as has already been mentioned previously, we neglect the neutrino mass in our calculations and for this reason in the expression for the differential decay width when $`K^{}`$ meson is transversally polarized, the terms describing the scalar interaction disappear.

## 3 Numerical analysis

In this section we will study the sensitivity of the branching ratio and missing mass–squared spectrum to the new Wilson coefficients.

In performing numerical calculations, as can easily be seen from Eqs. (9) and (10), first of all, we need the expressions for the form factors. For the values of the form factors, we have used the results of  (see also  and ), where the radiative corrections to the leading twist contribution and $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects are also taken into account. It is shown in  that the $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors can be represented in terms of three parameters as

$`F(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F(0)}{1a_F{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2}}+b_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2}}\right)^2}},`$
where, the values of parameters $`F(0)`$, $`a_F`$ and $`b_F`$ for the $`BK^{}`$ decay are listed in Table 1.

In Figs. (1) and (2) we present the dependence of the branching ratios on the new Wilson coefficients, when $`K^{}`$ polarized transversally and longitudinally, respectively. From both figures we see that when $`C_{LL}`$ lies in the region from $`4`$ to $`0`$ (in numerical calculations all new Wilson coefficients vary in the range from $`4`$ to $`+4`$), branching ratios are lower than the SM prediction. Moreover, when $`C_{LL}`$ increases from $`0`$ up to $`+4`$, branching ratios become larger than the SM result and for increasing values of $`C_{LL}`$ the departure from SM becomes substantial. This behavior can be explained by the fact that in the range from $`4`$ to $`0`$ the new Wilson coefficient $`C_{LL}`$ gives destructive and in the second half of the range from $`0`$ to $`+4`$ it gives constructive interference to the SM result. For the Wilson coefficients $`C_{RR}`$ and $`C_{LR}`$, we observe the following dependence of the branching ratios. Up to the zero value of the Wilson coefficients the branching ratios decrease and at $`C_{LR}=C_{RR}=0`$ they coincide with the SM prediction. Furthermore, with increasing $`C_{RR}`$, $`C_{LR}`$ both $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ increase. Qualitatively, this behavior could be explained as follows. When all Wilson coefficients, except $`C_{RR}`$ (or $`C_{LR}`$), are zero, $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ are proportional to $`\left|C_{RR}\right|^2`$ (or $`\left|C_{LR}\right|^2`$). Therefore as $`C_{RR}`$ (or $`C_{LR}`$) increases in the region from $`4`$ to $`0`$, $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ decrease and when $`C_{RR}`$ (or $`C_{LR}`$) increase from $`0`$ to $`+4`$ the above–mentioned grow larger. Obviously the dependence of $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ on $`C_{RR}`$ (or $`C_{LR}`$) must be symmetric, and this expectation is confirmed by the numerical calculations. In the case of the dependence of branching ratios on the Wilson coefficient $`C_{RL}`$, we observe that $`_L`$ decreases with changing values of $`C_{RL}`$ in the range from $`4`$ to $`+4`$. We can argue about this dependence as follows. For this Wilson coefficient $`_L`$ is proportional to $`\left|2XC_{RL}\right|^2`$, and hence $`_L`$ decreases for increasing values of $`C_{RL}`$, as expected. However the situation is different for the $`_T`$, as can easily be seen from the figure, it decreases when $`C_{RL}`$ increases from $`4`$ to $`0`$ and then increases in the positive half of the range.

As has already been noted, $`_T`$ is independent of the scalar type interaction while $`_L`$ is dependent. From Fig. (2) we observe that for all scalar type interaction coefficients the branching ratio $`_L`$ shows a similar behavior, i.e., it decreases in the first half of the range of variation of the scalar interaction coefficients and increases for the positive part of the range from $`0`$ to $`+4`$. In contrary to the previous cases, as Figs. (1) and (2) depict, $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ show quite a strong dependence on the tensor type interaction coefficients $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$. As can easily be seen from Eqs. (9) and (10), $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ depend as moduli square on $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$ and therefore this dependence must be symmetric. If we assume that the departure from SM prediction is expected to be small, it will put very strong restriction to the tensor type interactions.

We also analyze the missing mass–squared spectrum on new Wilson coefficients. All qualitative arguments which we have put forward in discussing the dependence of branching ratios on new Wilson coefficients work their way similarly and remains in power in the case of missing mass–squared spectrum as well. As an example in Fig. (3) we present the dependence of missing mass–squared spectrum at four different values of $`C_{LL}`$, namely $`2,1,0,+1,+2`$.

Finally a few words about the dependence of the another experimentally measurable quantity, namely $`_L/_T`$, on the new Wilson coefficients are in order. Our numerical analysis shows that this ratio is practically independent of the new Wilson coefficients and are very close to the SM prediction. Therefore study of this ratio can not serve as an effective tool in search of new physics beyond SM.

In conclusion, using the most general, model independent form of the effective Hamiltonian we have studied the sensitivity of the branching ratios $`_L`$ and $`_T`$ to the new Wilson coefficients. The main result of this study is that the branching ratios and the missing mass–squared spectrum are very useful in looking new physics beyond SM.

## Figure captions

Fig. (1) The dependence of the branching ratio of the $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients, when $`K^{}`$ polarized transversally. The line indicated by $`C_{XXXX}`$ denotes any one of the four scalar interaction coefficients, namely, $`C_{LRRL},C_{RLLR},C_{LRLR}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$.
Fig. (2) The same as in Fig. (1), but when $`K^{}`$ polarized longitudinally.
Fig. (3) The dependence of missing mass–squared spectrum at four different values of $`C_{LL}`$, namely $`2,1,0,+1,+2`$. The first four lines represent the case when $`K^{}`$ polarized longitudinally, and the remaining four lines represent the case when $`K^{}`$ polarized transversally.


format: text

text:
# Tanaka-Tagoshi Parametrization of post-1PN Spin-Free Gravitational Wave Chirps: Equispaced and Cardinal Interpolated Lattices For First Generation Interferometric Antennas

## I Introduction

Gravitational waves emitted by coalescing compact binaries in their adiabatic inspiral phase have been accurately modeled chirps  and are preferred candidates for the direct detection of gravitational radiation of cosmic origin, by the first generation of broadband laser interferometric antennas, including TAMA300 TAMA , GEO600 GEO , the LIGOs LIGO  and VIRGO VIRGO .

The best strategy for detecting signals of known form in colored gaussian stationary noise consists in correlating the detector output (data) with a discrete family (lattice) of expected waveforms (templates), and using the largest correlation as a detection statistic (maximum likelihood Helstrom ). The above correlation is the (weighted) scalar product:

$$a,g2[_{f_i}^{f_s}a(f)g^{}(f)\frac{df}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}+C.C.],$$
(1)
where $`(f_i,f_s)`$ is the antenna spectral window, $`a(f)=h(f)+n(f)`$ are the (noise-corrupted, spectral) data, $`h(f)`$ is a (possibly null) signal and $`n(f)`$ a realization of the antenna noise, $`g(f)`$ is a template, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(f)`$ is the (one-sided) antenna noise power spectral density and C.C. denotes the complex conjugate. The detection statistic has to be compared to a threshold, which depends on the allowed false alarm probability. At any fixed false-alarm probability, the largest probability of detection is obtained iff a template is exactly matched to the signal. The matching between $`h`$ and $`g`$ is measured by their overlap,

$$𝒪(h,g)=\frac{h,g}{hg}1,$$
(2)
where the norm $`u=u,u^{1/2}`$. The template lattice should be designed in such a way that for any admissible signal, one can always find at least one template in the lattice such that lost\_ev  the overlap is never less than a prescribed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In the straightforward restricted restrict  post-newtonian stationary-phase approximation stat\_phas  the spectral form of a null-eccentricity binary inspiral signal is:

$$h(f)=Af^{7/6}\mathrm{exp}\left\{j\left[2\pi fT_c\varphi _c+\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f,\stackrel{}{\xi })\pi /4\right]\right\},$$
(3)
where $`A`$ is a (real, unknown) constant, depending on the source position, $`T_c`$ is the fiducial coalescency time fid\_Tc , $`\varphi _c`$ is the phase at $`t=T_c`$, and Blanchet :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f,\stackrel{}{\xi })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2\nu +1}{}}\zeta _i(f)\theta ^i(\stackrel{}{\xi }),$$
(4)
where $`\nu `$ is the PN order, and $`\stackrel{}{\xi }`$ represents the remaining (intrinsic) source parameters. The functions $`\zeta _i`$ and $`\theta ^i`$ are presently known up to 2.5PN order 3PN\_stall  and are collected in Table-I notation  in terms of the intrinsic parameters $`m`$ (total mass of the binary), $`\eta =\mu /m`$ ($`\mu `$ being the reduced mass), $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma `$ (spin-orbit and spin-spin terms, respectively Apo96 ).

Maximizing explicitly the overlap over the (irrelevant, extrinsic) parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$, one can write the template-lattice design prescription as:

$$h𝒮,g:M(h,g)\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{sup}\frac{\left|{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}f^{7/3}\mathrm{exp}\left\{j\left[2\pi f\mathrm{\Delta }T_c+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f,\stackrel{}{\xi }_h,\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)\right]\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}\right|}{{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}f^{7/3}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(5)
where the partially maximised overlap $`M(f,g)`$ is called the match, $`𝒮`$ and $``$ are the signal-space and template-lattice, respectively, and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f;\stackrel{}{\xi }_h,\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f,\stackrel{}{\xi }_h)\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f,\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2\nu +1}{}}\zeta _i(f)\left[\theta ^i(\stackrel{}{\xi }_h)\theta ^i(\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)\right].$$
(6)
Whenever the match is only a function of the signal/template parameter differences, the template lattice is uniform, i.e., the lattice spacing is constant throughout the template parameter space, and depends uniquely on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ OweSat . This is obviously the case iff the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}`$ depends, in turn, on the signal/template parameter differences only.

Uniformity is a key property for efficient implementation of the lattice. In a uniform lattice, templates corresponding to adjacent nodes differ only by a fixed phase factor, which makes the template family construction computationally inexpensive. Furthermore, in view of the quasi band-limited nature of the match as a function of the signal/template parameter differences, cardinal interpolation among the correlators can be used as shown in card0 , card1  to substantially reduce the number of templates required for a prescribed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The 1D newtonian ($`\nu =0`$) and 2D first-order post-newtonian ($`\nu =1`$) waveforms can be easily parametrized so as to make the phase-difference (6) a function of the signal/template parameter differences only how . On the other hand, according to present understanding, in order to keep $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.97`$ when working with true data, $`2PN`$ (or higher) templates will be needed, although spin-free ones should be adequate which\_tmp .

In the following we shall refer to 2PN templates. These are the best available ones for the purpose of detection/estimation. Indeed, as shown in DamIyeSat , 2.5PN templates yield generally poorer overlaps (and larger biases) with (exact) numerically generated waveforms as compared to 2PN, as an effect of the peculiar (oscillating) behaviour of PN-approximant sequences.

Unfortunately, at PN orders $`\nu >1`$, as shown in Sect. II, it is strictly impossible to parametrize the spin-free waveforms so as to make the phase-difference (6) a function of the signal/template parameter differences only. As a result, the choice of template placement and spacing becomes, in principle, rather unwieldy, and the cardinal interpolation techniques discussed in card0 , card1  cannot be applied in any straightforward fashion.

Recently, Tanaka and Tagoshi TaTa  suggested a clever way to circumvent this difficulty, using a simple and elegant geometric argument. The scope of this paper is to illustrate the effectiveness of the Tanaka-Tagoshi construction for all first generation interferometers (TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO) under a given minimal match constraint (see Section III). In the following we use geometrized units ($`G=c=1`$) throughout.

## II The Intrinsic Curvature of The Spin-Free Parameter Space Manifold

The Tanaka-Tagoshi construction is best understood in the geometric language first introduced in Owe96 . The match between $`h`$ and $`g`$ can be accordingly written parabolic :

$$M(h,g)=1G_{rs}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^r\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^s+\mathrm{},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^i=\theta ^i(\stackrel{}{\xi }_h)\theta ^i(\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)`$, and the ($`2\nu +1`$)-dimensional metric $`G_{rs}`$ is defined in Appendix A.

Let $`m_{min}m_1m_2m_{max}`$ the spin-free waveform parameter space, $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ being the companion masses invar . In the $`(2\nu +1)`$-dimensional PN space $`\theta ^i`$ the parameter space is mapped into a three-vertex 2D manifold $`𝒫`$. Exploiting the dependence of $`\theta ^i`$ on $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ one can rewrite (7) as:

$$M(h,g)=1ds^2,ds^2=g_{pq}\mathrm{\Delta }m^q\mathrm{\Delta }m^p,$$
(8)
where

$$g_{pq}=G_{rs}\frac{\theta ^r}{m_p}\frac{\theta ^s}{m_q},$$
(9)
is a 2D Finsler metric Spivak  on $`𝒫`$.

In order to find a chirp waveform parametrization which makes the match a function of the source-template parameter differences only, one should be able to find a coordinate transformation $`(m_1,m_2)(x_1,x_2)`$ such that:

$$M(h,g)=1\delta _{pq}\mathrm{\Delta }x^p\mathrm{\Delta }x^q,$$
(10)
where $`\delta _{pq}`$ is the 2D euclidean metric. As anticipated, the required coordinate transformation does not exist, in general. This is due to the fact that the post-1PN manifold $`𝒫`$ is not globally flat, as can be seen synthetically from its Gaussian curvature $`K`$ GaussK . The gaussian curvature of $`𝒫`$ as a function of $`m_1,m_2`$ in $`0.2M_{}m_{1,2}10M_{}`$. is shown in Fig. 1, for the special case of LIGO-I at 2PN order. The absolute curvature is maximum for $`m_1=m_2`$. This property turns out to be common to all first-generation antennas, whose relevant parameters have been collected in Table-II. In Fig. 2 the curvature of $`𝒫`$ is displayed as a function of $`m_1=m_2`$ (worst case) for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO at 2PN order.

## III The Tanaka-Tagoshi Coordinates

Even though $`𝒫`$ is not flat, following Tanaka and Tagoshi it is still possible to place the templates on a flat manifold chosen close to $`𝒫`$ in a suitable sense. The Tanaka-Tagoshi construction can be simply phrased as follows: i) introduce a linear coordinate transformation $`\stackrel{}{\theta }\stackrel{}{x}`$ such that all three vertices of the manifold $`𝒫`$ are brought onto the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane of the (orthogonal) coordinate system $`x_i`$ (see Appendix-B for details), and then ii) take the resulting three-vertex flat 2D simplex $`𝒯`$ in the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane as the signal/template parameter space.

The flat simplexes $`𝒯`$ corresponding to $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO at 2PN order. Their measures (areas) are collected in Table-III.

Enforcing a minimal-match constraint, in the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane yields the uniform square-mesh lattice sidelength

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[2(1\mathrm{\Gamma })\right]^{1/2}.$$
(11)
The simplex areas divided by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (area spanned by each template at a given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) provide close estimates of the corresponding total number of templates required, also listed in Table-III for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$, for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO at 2PN order.

### III.1 The Minimal Match Error

Pictorial representations of the departure of $`𝒫`$ from $`𝒯`$ are shown Fig. 4, where the simplex $`𝒯`$ corresponding to $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$ is displayed together with its (euclidean) distance $`\delta =(x_3^2+x_4^2+x_5^2)^{1/2}`$ from $`𝒫`$ as a function of $`x_1,x_2`$, for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO at 2PN order. The obvious question is to what extent does the shown difference spoil the minimal-match condition enforced in $`𝒯`$, due to the fact that the true waveform space is $`𝒫`$.

Let $`h`$ a ($`\nu `$PN) chirp signal, and let $`H(x_1^{(h)},x_2^{(h)},\mathrm{},x_{2\nu +1}^{(h)})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x_1^{(h)},x_2^{(h)},0,\mathrm{},0)`$ the corresponding points in $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒯`$. By construction, $`h`$ in the admissible spin-free source parameter range $`m_{min}m_1m_2m_{max}`$, there will be at least one lattice node $`\stackrel{~}{G}(x_1^{(g)},x_2^{(g)},0,\mathrm{},0)𝒯`$ such that:

$$M(\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{g})=1\delta _{pq}(x_p^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}x_p^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})(x_q^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}x_q^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})=\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are the waveforms corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, respectively. On the other hand, from (7), (9)

$$M(h,g)=1\gamma _{pq}(x_p^{(h)}x_p^{(g)})(x_q^{(h)}x_q^{(g)})=1\gamma _{pq}(x_p^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}x_p^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})(x_q^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}x_q^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})$$
(13)
where $`p,q=1,2`$, and detail :

$$\gamma _{pq}=G_{rs}\frac{\theta ^r}{x^p}\frac{\theta ^s}{x^q}$$
(14)
where $`r,s=1,2,\mathrm{},2\nu +1`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}`$ the (unit) rotation which diagonalizes the matrix $`\gamma _{pq}\delta _{pq}`$. Then:

$$\left|M(h,g)M(\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{g})\right|=\left|\eta _1(y_1^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}y_1^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})^2+\eta _2(y_2^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}y_2^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})^2\right|$$

$$\mathrm{max}(|\eta _1|,|\eta _2|)\left[(y_1^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}y_1^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})^2+(y_2^{(\stackrel{~}{h})}y_2^{(\stackrel{~}{g})})^2\right]=\mathrm{max}(|\eta _1|,|\eta _2|)(1\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(15)
where $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`\gamma _{pq}\delta _{pq}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-independent quantity:

$$\eta =\frac{\left|M(h,g)M(\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{g})\right|}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{max}(|\eta _1|,|\eta _2|)$$
(16)
is a measure of the match degradation due to using a flattened parameter space, and is displayed in Fig. 5 as a function of $`m_1,m_2`$ in $`0.2M_{}m_{1,2}10M_{}`$, for the special case of LIGO-I at 2PN order. The maximum value is attained for $`m_1=m_2`$. This property is common to all first-generation antennas quoted in Table-I. In Fig. 6 the quantity $`\eta `$ is displayed as a function of $`m_1=m_2`$ (worst case) for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO at 2PN order.

It is seen that the minimal-match condition enforced using $`𝒯`$ as the waveform/template parameter space is not spoiled significantly when the signal (and the template) belongs to $`𝒫`$.

The above argument might perhaps be loosey at low values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as e.g. typically required for the initial steps of hierarchical search procedures Mohanty , where the quadratic approximation (7) might be no longer accurate enough parabolic . In order to evaluate the (maximum) minimal-match error under these broader conditions, we generated $`10^4`$ random pairs $`(m_1,m_2)`$, uniformly distributed in the allowed source parameter range $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$. For each of the above, we drew a closed-curve $`𝒞𝒯`$ centered around the corresponding point $`\stackrel{~}{F}𝒯`$, whose points $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ correspond to (all) templates $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ for which $`M(\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{g})=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and computed

$$ϵ=\underset{\stackrel{~}{G}𝒞}{sup}\frac{\left|M(h,g)M(\stackrel{~}{h},\stackrel{~}{g})\right|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\underset{\stackrel{~}{G}𝒞}{sup}\left[1\frac{M(h,g)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right].$$
(17)
The cumulative distributions of $`ϵ`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.7,0.8,0.9`$, for the special case of LIGO-I at 2PN order, are shown in Fig. 7. Not unexpectedly, the Tanaka-Tagoshi coordinates are seen to work also at relatively low values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### III.2 Cardinal Interpolation Beyond 1PN

In the obtained uniform lattice, the application of the cardinal interpolation technique introduced in card0  is straightforward. For 1PN templates this latter yields a fourfold reduction in the template density and total number at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=.97`$, as shown in card1 . A main motivation of this study has been to check whether a comparable reduction in the number of templates could be obtained using Tanaka-Tagoshi parametrized post-1PN templates. Numerical simulations show that this is indeed the case: the 2PN template density reduction as a function of the minimal match $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is shown in Fig. 8.

### III.3 Computation of Templates

In the following we shall denote the (linear) direct ($`\stackrel{}{\theta }\stackrel{}{x}`$) and inverse ($`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\theta }`$) Tagoshi-Tanaka transformation operators as $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{ij}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$, respectively.

The template corresponding to the node $`(x_{1,k},x_{2,k})`$ of the (uniform) lattice in the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane should be computed, in principle, by solving (e.g., numerically) the system:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Xi }_{1i}\theta ^i(m_{1k},m_{2k})=x_{1,k}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_{2i}\theta ^i(m_{1k},m_{2k})=x_{2,k},\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
to obtain the corresponding values $`m_{1k},m_{2k}`$ of $`m_1,m_2`$, whereby all the $`\theta ^i`$ functions and hence the (exact) template phase (4) can be computed. The above exact (and computationally expensive) procedure for computing the template phases needs not to be applied for all lattice nodes. Indeed, as noted in TaTa , the change in the $`\theta ^i`$ between the templates at $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`(x_1+\delta x_1,x_2+\delta x_2)`$ is well approximated by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^i\mathrm{\Theta }^{i1}\delta x_1+\mathrm{\Theta }^{i2}\delta x_2$$
(19)
as a consequence of the fact that $`x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_{2\nu +1}`$ are almost constant throughout relatively large portions of the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane. As a result, the phase difference between neighbouring templates can be taken as uniform throughout extended regions of the $`(x_1,x_2)`$ plane, which makes the template set construction relatively cheap. One can accordingly compute the exact template phases using Eq. (18) for a set of sparse lattice nodes. The phase of templates belonging to neighbourhoods of these sparse nodes can be obtained using Eq. (19). The size of the above neighbourhoods (i.e., equivalently, the distance between the sparse nodes) should be chosen so as not to spoil the prescribed minimal match condition trial .

A possible natural strategy is to place the exact templates nearby the median-lines of $`𝒯`$, starting from their common crossing point medians . We checked by numerical simulation that a few (e.g., $`50`$ for LIGO-I at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$) exactly computed sparse templates are sufficient to compute all the remaining ones via (19), without spoiling the minimal match condition throughout the whole waveform parameter range.

## IV Conclusions

It has been shown that the Tanaka-Tagoshi coordinates are effective to set up a uniform lattice of 2PN (and possibly higher) spin-free binary-inspiral templates under a given minimal match constraint, for all 1st generation interferometric antennas. This allows to extend readily the minimum redundant cardinal interpolation techniques of the correlator bank introduced by the Authors to the highest available order PN templates, yielding a computational gain comparable to the 1PN case.

Several possible variations of the Tanaka-Tagoshi method can be envisaged. For instance, a 2D simplex is used here to approximate the parameter manifold. Using a 2D complex could possibly improve the accuracy. Further, the 2D simplex is obtained by point-collocation, i.e. by enforcing contact between the vertices of the simplex $`𝒯`$ and those of the manifold $`𝒫`$. Other approximation philosophies could be used, including e.g., least mean squares, etc.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been sponsored in part by the EC through a senior visiting scientist grant to I.M. Pinto at NAO, Tokyo, JP. I.M. Pinto wishes to thank the TAMA staff at NAO, and in particular prof. Fujimoto Masa-Katsu and prof. Kawamura Seiji for gracious hospitality and stimulating discussions. The authors also thank prof. B.S. Sathyaprakash for interesting highlights, and prof.s Tagoshi Hideyuki and Tanaka Takahiro for helpful comments.

## Appendix A - The PN Waveform Parameter Manifold

In this Appendix we rephrase the well known construction of a metric in the binary-inspiral waveform parameter-space, first introduced by Owen Owe96  and adopted by Tanaka and Tagoshi TaTa , using a slightly different notation. Define:

$$u(h,g)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}f^{7/3}\mathrm{exp}\left\{j\left[2\pi f\mathrm{\Delta }T_c\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _c+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\nu )}(f;\stackrel{}{\xi }_h,\stackrel{}{\xi }_g)\right]\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}}{{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}f^{7/3}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}},$$
$`(A1)`$
and let:

$$v(f)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}𝑑f{\displaystyle \frac{f^{7/3}}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}v(f)}{{\displaystyle _{f_i}^{f_s}}𝑑f{\displaystyle \frac{f^{7/3}}{\mathrm{\Pi }(f)}}}.$$
$`(A2)`$
It is readily proved that:

$$u(h,g)=1+j\zeta _n\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^n\frac{1}{2}\zeta _m\zeta _n\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^m\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^n+\mathrm{},$$
$`(A3)`$
where $`m,n=0,1,\mathrm{},2\nu +1`$, and

$$\zeta _0=2\pi (f/f_0),\theta _0=f_0T_c.$$
$`(A4)`$
From equations $`(A1)(A4)`$ one gets:

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _c}{\mathrm{max}}h,g=\left|u(h,g)\right|=1G_{mn}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^m\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^n,$$
$`(A5)`$
where $`m,n=0,1,\mathrm{},2\nu +1`$ and

$$G_{mn}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta _m\zeta _n\zeta _m\zeta _n\right).$$
$`(A6)`$
Equations $`(A5)`$ and $`(A6)`$ allow to express the match as follows:

$$M(h,g)=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _c}{\mathrm{max}}h,g=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{\mathrm{max}}\left|u(h,g)\right|=1G_{pq}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^p\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^q,$$
$`(A7)`$
where now $`p,q=1,2,\mathrm{},2\nu +1`$ and project

$$G_{pq}=G_{pq}^{}\frac{G_{p0}^{}G_{q0}^{}}{G_{00}^{}}.$$
$`(A8)`$
## Appendix B - Constructing the Tanaka-Tagoshi Coordinates

Let $`m_{min}m_1m_2m_{max}`$ the allowed mass range, and let $`\stackrel{}{p}_i,i=1,2,3`$ the vertices of the parameter space manifold $`𝒫`$ corresponding to ($`m_1=m_2=m_{min}`$), ($`m_1=m_{min},m_2=m_{max}`$) and ($`m_1=m_2=m_{max}`$), respectively, in the ($`2\nu +1`$)-dimensional PN parameter space with metric $`G_{pq}`$. The Tanaka-Tagoshi coordinates are obtained as follows. One first performs a (linear) coordinate transformation

$$\stackrel{}{\theta }=𝚲^{1/2}𝐏\stackrel{}{\theta }$$
$`(B1)`$
to make the new coordinates orthogonal. The required transformation is obtained from the Jordan decomposition of $`𝐆`$,

$$𝐆=𝐏^T𝚲𝐏,$$
$`(B2)`$
i.e., in component notation:

$$G_{pq}=P_p^{(m)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}P_q^{(n)},$$
$`(B3)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}=\lambda ^{(n)}\delta _{mn}`$, $`\lambda ^{(n)}`$ being the eigenvalues and $`P_q^{(n)}`$ the eigenvectors of $`𝐆`$.

Next, one seeks a rotation $`\stackrel{}{x}=𝐐\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ which bears (modulo a trivial translation) all vertices $`\stackrel{}{p}_i,i=1,2,3`$ of the manifold $`𝒫`$ onto the coordinate plane $`(x^1,x^2)`$. The problem is thus reduced to that of finding an orthogonal matrix $`𝐐`$ such that:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}𝐐(\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_1)=\alpha _{11}\widehat{x}_1\hfill \\ 𝐐(\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_1)=\alpha _{21}\widehat{x}_1+\alpha _{22}\widehat{x}_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(B4)`$
where $`\alpha _{11},\alpha _{21},\alpha _{22}`$ are suitable real numbers, and $`\widehat{x}_i`$ denote the (new, unit) basis vectors. The system $`(B4)`$ does not have an unique solution for $`𝐐`$. However a possible solution is readily obtained as follows. Let $`𝐙`$ the matrix constructed out of the (column) vectors:

$$\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_1,\widehat{\theta }_3,\mathrm{},\widehat{\theta }_{2\nu +1}$$
$`(B5)`$
It is readily shown that $`𝐙`$ is non-singular. The straightforward (unique) QR decomposition of $`𝐙`$, viz. QR  :

$$𝐙=𝐐^T𝐑,$$
$`(B6)`$
where $`𝐑`$ is a lower triangular matrix, is obviously a solution of:

$$\mathrm{𝐐𝐙}=𝐑.$$
$`(B7)`$
It is seen that the solution of eq. $`(B7)`$ is also a solution of $`(B4)`$, and hence the sought $`𝐐`$ in $`(B4)`$ is the same as $`𝐐`$ in $`(B6)`$.

| PN order | $`i`$ | $`\zeta _i(f)`$ | $`\theta ^i`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)^{5/3}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\eta }}\left(\pi mf_0\right)^{5/3}`$ |
| $`0.5`$ | $`2`$ | $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)^{4/3}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}0`$ |
| $`1`$ | $`3`$ | $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)^1`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{96\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{743}{336}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}\eta \right)\left(\pi mf_0\right)^1`$ |
| $`1.5`$ | $`4`$ | $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)^{2/3}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\beta 4\pi \right)\left(\pi mf_0\right)^{2/3}`$ |
| $`2`$ | $`5`$ | $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)^{1/3}`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{64\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3058673}{1016064}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5429}{1008}}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{617}{144}}\eta ^2\sigma \right)\left(\pi mf_0\right)^{1/3}`$ |
| $`2.5`$ | $`6`$ | $`\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_0}}\right)`$ | $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{128\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{38645}{252}}+5\eta \right)`$ |

Table I - Relevant to equation (4)

| Antenna | $`\mathrm{\Pi }(f)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0[Hz^1]`$ | $`f_0[Hz]`$ | $`f_i[Hz]`$ | $`f_s[Hz]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TAMA300 | $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{32}\left\{\left(\frac{f_0}{f}\right)^5+13\left(\frac{f_0}{f}\right)+9\left[1+\left(\frac{f}{f_0}\right)^2\right]\right\}`$ | $`2.410^{44}`$ | $`400`$ | $`75`$ | $`3400`$ |
| GEO600 | $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{5}\left[4\left(\frac{f_0}{f}\right)^{3/2}2+3\left(\frac{f}{f_0}\right)^2\right]`$ | $`6.610^{45}`$ | $`210`$ | $`40`$ | $`1450`$ |
| LIGO-I | $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{3}\left[\left(\frac{f_0}{f}\right)^4+2\left(\frac{f}{f_0}\right)^2\right]`$ | $`4.410^{46}`$ | $`175`$ | $`40`$ | $`1300`$ |
| VIRGO | $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0}{4}\left[290\left(\frac{f_i}{f}\right)^5+2\left(\frac{f_0}{f}\right)+1+\left(\frac{f}{f_0}\right)^2\right]`$ | $`1.110^{45}`$ | $`475`$ | $`16`$ | $`2750`$ |

Table - II - Spectral windows and noise power spectral densities

of first generation interferometric GW antennas OweSat .

| Antenna | Simplex Area $`[sec^2]`$ | No. of Templates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.97`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| TAMA300 | $`5987`$ | $`9.98\times 10^4`$ |
| GEO600 | $`38931`$ | $`6.49\times 10^5`$ |
| LIGO-I | $`16842`$ | $`2.81\times 10^5`$ |
| VIRGO | $`546689`$ | $`9.11\times 10^6`$ |

Table III - 2PN flat simplex areas and number of templates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=.97`$,

for $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$.

CAPTIONS TO THE FIGURES

Fig. 1 - The gaussian curvature $`K`$ of $`𝒫`$ vs. $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ for LIGO-I.

Fig. 2 - The gaussian curvature $`K`$ of $`𝒫`$ vs. $`m_1=m_2`$ (worst case) for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO.

Fig. 3 - The flat simplexes $`𝒯`$ corresponding to $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$ for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO.

Fig. 4 - The euclidean distance $`\delta =(x_3^2+x_4^2+x_5^2)^{1/2}`$ between the manifolds $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒯`$ as a function of $`x_1,x_2`$ for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO.

Fig. 5 - The quantity $`\eta `$, eq. (16), vs. $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ for LIGO-I.

Fig. 6 - The quantity $`\eta `$, eq. (16), vs. $`m_1=m_2`$ (worst case) for TAMA300, GEO600, LIGO-I and VIRGO.

Fig. 7 - Cumulative distribution of $`ϵ`$, eq. (17), for LIGO-I at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.7,0.8,0.9`$. $`10^4`$ trial sources in $`0.2M_{}m_1m_210M_{}`$.

Fig. 8 - Template density reduction vs. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ after cardinal interpolation (2PN order templates, LIGO-I).


text:
# Growth of solutions for QG and 2D Euler equations

## 1 Abstract

We study the rate of growth of sharp fronts of the Quasi-geostrophic equation and 2D incompressible Euler equations.. The development of sharp fronts are due to a mechanism that piles up level sets very fast. Under a semi-uniform collapse, we obtain a lower bound on the minimum distance between the level sets.

## 2 Introduction

The work of Constantin-Majda-Tabak  developed an analogy between the Quasi-geostrophic and 3D Euler equations. Constantin, Majda and Tabak proposed a candidate for a singularity for the Quasi-geostrophic equation. Their numerics showed evidence of a blow-up for a particular initial data, where the level sets of the temperature contain a hyperbolic saddle. The arms of the saddle tend to close in finite time, producing a a sharp front. Numerics studies done later by Ohikitani-Yamada  and Constantin-Nie-Schorgofer , with the same initial data, suggested that instead of a singularity the derivatives of the temperature where increasing as double exponential in time.

The study of collapse on a curve was first studied in  for the Quasi-geostrophic equation where they considered a simplified ansatz for classical frontogenesis with trivial topology. At the time of collapse, the scalar $`\theta `$ is discontinues across the curve $`x_2=f(x_1)`$ with different limiting values for the temperature on each side of the front. They show that under this topology the directional field remains smooth up to the collapse, which contradicts the following theorem proven in :

If locally the direction field remains smooth as t
approaches $`T_{}`$, then no finite singularity is possible
as t approaches $`T_{}`$.
The simplified ansatz with trivial topology studied in  does not describe a hyperbolic saddle.

Under the definition of a simple hyperbolic saddle, in , it was shown that the angle of the saddle can not decrease faster than a double exponential in time.

The criterion obtained in  for a sharp front formation for a general two dimensional incompressible flow is :

A necessary condition to have a sharp front at time T is
$`{\displaystyle _0^T}|u|_L^{\mathrm{}}(s)𝑑s=\mathrm{}`$
For the Quasi-geostrophic equation it is not known if the quantity $`_0^T|u|_L^{\mathrm{}}(s)𝑑s`$ diverges or not. And the criterion does not say how fast the arms of a saddle can close.

In this paper we do not assume anything on the velocity field, and we show that under a semi-uniform collapse the distance between two level curves cannot decrease faster than a double exponential in time. The semi-uniform collapse assumption greatly weakens the assumptions made in  for an ansatz for classical frontogenesis, and the simple hyperbolic saddle in .

In the case of 2D incompressible Euler equation we are interested in the large time behavior of solutions.

The two equations we discus in this paper, have in common the property that a scalar function is convected by the flow, which implies that the level curves are transported by the flow. The possible singular scenario is due to level curves approaching each other very fast which will lead to a fast growth on the gradient of the scalar function. Below we study the semi-uniform collapse of two level sets on a curve. By semi-uniform collapse we mean that the distance of the two curves in any point are comparable.

The equations we study are as follows:

The Quasi-geostrophic (QG) Equation

Here the unknowns are a scalar $`\theta (x,t)`$ and a velocity field $`u(x,t)=(u_1(x,t),u_2(x,t))R^2`$, defined for $`t[0,T^{})`$ with $`T^{}\mathrm{}`$, and for $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=R^2`$ or $`R^2/Z^2`$. The equations for $`\theta `$, u are as follows

$`\left(_t+u_x\right)\theta =0`$ (1)
$`u=_x^{}\psi and\psi =(\mathrm{}_x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta ,`$
where $`_x^{}f=(\frac{f}{x_2},\frac{f}{x_1})`$ for scalar functions f. The initial condition is $`\theta (x,0)=\theta _0(x)`$ for a smooth initial datum $`\theta _0`$.

The Two-Dimensional Euler Equation

The unknown is an incompressible velocity field u(x,t) as above with vorticity denoted by $`\omega `$. The 2D Euler equation may be written in the form

$`\left(_t+u_x\right)\omega =0`$ (2)
$`u=_x^{}\psi and\psi =(\mathrm{}_x)^1\omega ,`$
with u(x,0) equal to a given smooth divergence free $`u_0(x)`$.

## 3 Results

Asssume that q = q(x,t) is a solution to (1) or (2), and that a level curve of q can be parameterized by

$`x_2=\varphi _\rho (x_1,t)forx_1[a,b]`$ (3)
with $`\varphi _\rho C^1([a,b][0,T^{}))`$, in the sense that

$`q(x_1,\varphi _\rho (x_1,t),t)=G(\rho )forx_1[a,b],`$ (4)
and for certain $`\rho `$ to be specified below.

The stream function $`\psi `$ satisfies

$`^{}\psi =u.`$ (5)
From (3) and (4), we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{x_1}}=0`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{t}}=0`$ (7)
By (1), (2), (5), (6) and (7) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q}{t}}{\frac{q}{x_2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{<\frac{\psi }{x_2},\frac{\psi }{x_1}><\frac{q}{x_1},\frac{q}{x_2}>}{\frac{q}{x_2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}><{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{q}{x_1}}{\frac{q}{x_2}}},1>`$
$`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}><{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{x_1}},1>`$
Next

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}\left(\psi (x_1,\varphi _\rho (x_1,t),t)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{x_1}}`$
$`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}><{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{x_1}},1>`$
Therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _\rho }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}\left(\psi (x_1,\varphi _\rho (x_1,t),t)\right)`$ (8)
With this formula we can write a explicit equation for the change of time of the area between two fixed points a, b and two level curves $`(\varphi _{\rho _1},\varphi _{\rho _2})`$;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle _a^b}[\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)]𝑑x_1\right)`$
$`=\psi (b,\varphi _{\rho _2}(b,t),t)\psi (a,\varphi _{\rho _2}(a,t),t)`$
$`+\psi (a,\varphi _{\rho _1}(a,t),t)\psi (b,\varphi _{\rho _1}(b,t),t)`$ (9)
Assume that two level curves $`\varphi _{\rho _1}`$ and $`\varphi _{\rho _2}`$ collapse when t tends to $`T^{}`$ uniformly in $`ax_1b`$ i.e.

$$\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)\frac{1}{ba}_a^b[\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)]𝑑x_1$$

In other words; the distance between two level sets are comparable for $`ax_1b`$.

Let

$$\delta (x_1,t)=|\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)|$$

be the thickness of the front.

We define semi-uniform collapse on a curve if (3) and (4) holds and there exists a constant $`c`$, independent of t, such that

$$min\delta (x_1,t)cmax\delta (x_1,t)$$

for $`ax_1b`$, and for all $`t[0,T^{})`$.

We call the length b-a of the interval \[a,b\] the length of the front.

Now we can state the following theorem

###### Theorem 1.

For a QG solution with a semi-uniform front, the thickness $`\delta (t)`$ satisfies

$`\delta (t)>e^{e^{At+B}}forallt[0,T^{}).`$
Here, the constants A and B may be taken to depend only on the length of the front, the semi-uniformity constant, the initial thickness $`\delta (0)`$, and the norm of the initial datum $`\theta _0(x)`$ in $`L^1L^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof: From (9) we have

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A(t)|<{\displaystyle \frac{C}{ba}}sup_{ax_1b}|\psi (x_1,\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t),t)\psi (x_1,\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t),t)|`$ (10)
where

$`A(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ba}}{\displaystyle _a^b}[\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)]dx_1,`$
and C is determined by the semi-uniformity constant c.

The estimate of the difference of the value of the stream function at two different points that are close to each other is obtained by writing the stream function as follows;

$`\psi (x,t)={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x+y,t)}{|y|}}𝑑y,`$
and this is because $`\psi =(\mathrm{}_x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta `$.

Therefore

$`\psi (z_1,t)\psi (z_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\theta (y)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|yz_1|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|yz_2|}})𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{|yz_1|2\tau }}+{\displaystyle _{2\tau <|yz_2|k}}+{\displaystyle _{k<|yz_1|}}`$
$``$ $`I_1+I_2+I_3.`$
where $`\tau =|z_1z_2|`$.

Furthermore

$`|I_1|`$ $``$ $`\theta _L^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{|yz_1|2\tau }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|yz_1|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|yz_2|}})𝑑y`$
$``$ $`C\tau `$
We define s to be a point in the line between $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, then $`|yz_1|2|ys|`$ and $`I_2`$ can be estimated by

$`|I_2|`$ $``$ $`C\tau {\displaystyle _{2\tau <|yz_1|k}}max_s|({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|ys|}})|𝑑y`$
$``$ $`C\tau {\displaystyle _{2\tau <|yz_1|k}}max_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|ys|^2}}𝑑y`$
$``$ $`C\tau |\mathrm{log}\tau |`$
We use the conservation of energy to estimate $`I_3`$ by

$`|I_3|C\tau `$
Finally, by choosing $`\tau =|z_1z_2|`$ we obtain

$`|\psi (z_1,t)\psi (z_2,t)|M|z_1z_2||log|z_1z_2||`$ (11)
where M is a constant that depend on the initial data $`\theta _0`$. (See details in .)

Then we have

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A(t)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{ba}}sup_{ax_1b}|\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)||log|\varphi _{\rho _2}(x_1,t)\varphi _{\rho _1}(x_1,t)||`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{CM}{(ba)}}|A(t)||logA(t)|`$
and therefore

$`A(t)>>A(0)e^{e^{\frac{CM}{(ba)}t}}`$
###### Theorem 2.

For a 2D Euler solution with a semi-uniform front, the thickness $`\delta (t)`$ satisfies

$`\delta (t)>e^{[At+B]}forallt[0,T^{}).`$
Here, the constants A and B may be taken to depend only on the length of the front, the semi-uniformity constant, the initial thickness $`\delta (0)`$, and the norm of the initial vorticity in $`L^1L^{\mathrm{}}`$.

The proof theorem 2 is similar to theorem 1 with the difference that instead of the estimate (11), we have

$`|\psi (z_1,t)\psi (z_2,t)|M|z_1z_2|`$
where M is a constant that depend on the initial data $`u_0`$. (See details in .)

Similar estimates can be obtain for 2D ideal Magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) Equation, with the extra assumption that $`_0^T^{}|u|_L^{\mathrm{}}(s)𝑑s`$ is bounded up to the time of the blow-up. This estimates are consequence of applying the Mean value theorem in (10). Nevertheless in the case of MHD these estimates improve the results obtain in .

###### Acknowledgments 1.

This work was initially supported by the American Institute of Mathematics.


text:
# Charmed baryons in bootstrap quark model

## 1 Introduction

After detection of the $`J/\psi `$-particles, the study of heavy quark properties has become one of leading directions in particle physics . Some features of $`J/\psi `$-meson and other states of charmonium stimulated the development of theory of strong interactions (QCD). The further progress is connected with detection of the bottomonium (family Y) and B-mesons (particles containing fifth b-quark). At present number of experimental and theoretical work is carried out, on the basis of which the uniform conception about dynamics of bound states of heavy quarks were obtained. The most reasonable and adequate approaches are the method of dispersion sum rules in QCD \[1-5\] and non-relativistic potential model \[ 6-12 \], in the framework of which the quantitative description practically of all known properties of quarkonium $`(Q\overline{Q})`$ was received.

Doubtless advantages of potential approach to description of heavy mesons are their simplicity and presentation. It permits to calculate ( in the framework of accepted model of potential ) position of levels, width of radiation transitions between levels and width of annihilation decays. Thus, one can find actually the behaviour of system in enough wide interval of distances, that is important for understanding of dynamics of quark interactions. The serious difficulty of potential approach is that it is impossible completely to be justified in the framework of QCD.

The method of sum rules of QCD , based on complex non-perturbative structure of QCD vacuum was successfully used for the study of charmonium. To realize the spectrum of quarkonium, it is necessary to know the quark masses and the nature of the connecting forces. According to the method of sum rules of QCD, quarks exist in the complex medium – non-perturbative vacuum, which densely populated by long-wave fluctuations of gluon field. These non-perturbative fluctuations determine the effective quark attraction. The sum rules of QCD permit to calculate the effect of long-wave gluon fluctuations and to make exact predictions for lowest levels with a different quantum numbers in terms of fundamental parameters. The most considerable difficulty of application of the sum rules method to the charmonium is account of the relativistic corrections. It is necessary to take into account with purely relativistic effects ( described by Breit-Fermi hamiltonian) radiative corrections of higher orders. Such calculation is so far away.

The problem of the charmed baryons is investigated considerably less. The sum rules of QCD were applied for the first time to the charmed baryons in the paper . However consideration was carried out within the limits of infinite mass of c-quark and also the contribution of the gluon condensate was not taken into account in this case. The subsequent calculations have allowed to calculate the masses of the S-waves charmed baryons with one c-quark .The potential quark models enable to calculate the mass spectrum of the charmed baryons of multiplets $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$ \[16-26\]. The most considerable difficulty of application of these methods is account of relativistic corrections at consideration of system of heavy and light quarks.

The present paper is devoted to calculation of mass spectrum of charmed baryons in the framework of the bootstrap quark model. The relativistic Faddeev equations are constructed in the form of the dispersion relations over the two-body subenergy. The approximate solution of integral three-quark equations are obtained by taking into account two-particle and triangle singularities, all the weaker ones being neglected. The mass values of charmed low-lying multiplets $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$ are calculated.

In section 2 the relativistic three-particle equations, which describe the interaction of light and heavy quarks in the charmed baryons are obtained. Section 3 is devoted to discussion of calculation results of the low-lying charmed baryons mass spectrum. In Conclusion we discuss the status of the considered model.

In Appendix A the three-particle integral equations for the charmed baryons of multiplets $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$ are given. In Appendix B we present the approximate algebraic equations for the charmed baryons, accounting only the contribution of two-particle and triangle singularities in the scattering amplitude.

## 2  Three-particle quark amplitudes of the S-wave charmed baryons

In the papers  relativistic integral three-particle Faddeev equations was constructed in the form of the dispersion relations over the two-body subenergy. Using the method of extraction of the main singularities of amplitude the mass spectrum of S-wave baryons, including u, d, s-quarks is calculated. In present paper this method is applied for study of the mass spectrum of baryons, including c-quarks.

For the clarity we derive the relativistic Faddeev equations for the particle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+(J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+)`$. We construct the amplitudes of three-quark interaction, which include two-particle interactions with the quantum numbers of diquarks $`J^P=0^+,1^+`$.

Let us consider the baryon current which create three quarks (Fig.1 a). Subsequent two-quark interactions lead to the diagrams, shown in Fig.1 b-f. These diagrams might be divided into three groups so in each group the same pair of particles undergoes the last interaction (Fig.2). Consideration of diagram in Fig.1 allows to obtain the equation for three-particle amplitudes $`A_J(s,s_{ik})`$, ($`J^P=0^+,1^+`$) in the graphic form (Fig.3). Here the invariants $`s_{ik}=(p_i+p_k)^2`$, $`s=(p_i+p_j+p_k)^2`$ for the quarks with momenta $`p_i,p_j,p_k`$ are given.

In order to present the amplitude $`A_J(s,s_{ik})`$ in the form of the dispersion relation explicitly, it is necessary to define the amplitude of two-quark interaction $`a_J(s_{ik})`$. We use the results of bootstrap quark model  and write down the diquark amplitude $`a_J(s_{ik})`$ in the following way:

$$a_J(s_{ik})=\frac{G_J^2(s_{ik})}{1B_J(s_{ik})},$$
(1)
$$B_J(s_{ik})=_{(m_i+m_k)^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_{ik}^{}}{\pi }\frac{\rho _J(s_{ik}^{})G_J^2(s_{ik}^{})}{s_{ik}^{}s_{ik}}$$
(2)
$$\rho _J(s_{ik})=\frac{(m_i+m_k)^2}{4\pi }[\gamma (J^P)\frac{s_{ik}}{(m_i+m_k)^2}+\beta (J^P)+\frac{\delta (J^P)}{s_{ik}}]\times $$

$$\times \frac{\sqrt{(s_{ik}(m_i+m_k)^2)(s_{ik}(m_im_k)^2)}}{s_{ik}}$$
(3)
Here $`G_J`$ is the vertex function of diquark, $`B_J(s_{ik})`$ is the Chew-Mandelstam function , $`\rho _J(s_{ik})`$ is the phase space of diquark (see Table 1).

In the case in question the interacting quarks do not produce the bound state, then the integration in the dispersion integrals (4)-(6) is carried out from $`(m_1+m_2)^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. To write the system of equations (4)-(6) (Fig.3), it is necessary to account the spin-flavour part of the charmed baryon $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$ wave function: $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{udc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{udc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{udc\}`$. As a result we receive the system of integral equations :

$$A_1(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1(s_{12})L_1(s_{12})+K_1(s_{12})[\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$
(4)
$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})$$

$$\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$
(5)
$$A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(c)}(s_{23})L_0^{(c)}(s_{23})+K_0^{(c)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})]$$
(6)
In eq.(4)-(6) we introduce functions

$$L_J(s_{ik})=\frac{G_J(s_{ik})}{1B_J(s_{ik})}$$
(7)
and integral operators

$$K_J(s_{ik})=L_J(s_{ik})_{(m_i+m_k)^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_{ik}^{}}{\pi }\frac{\rho _J(s_{ik}^{})G_J(s_{ik}^{})}{s_{ik}^{}s_{ik}}_1^1\frac{dz}{2}$$
(8)
Here $`b_J\left(s_{ik}\right)=_{\left(m_i+m_k\right)^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_{ik}^{}}{\pi }\frac{\rho _J\left(s_{ik}^{}\right)G_J\left(s_{ik}^{}\right)}{s_{ik}^{}s_{ik}}`$  is truncated Chew-Mandelstam function, z is cosine of the angle between the relative momentum of the particles 1 and 2 in the intermediate state and that of the particle 3 in the final state, which is taken in the c.m. of the particles 1 and 2. The coefficient $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ corresponds to the vertex of three-quark creation (later its value is not used ). The index ”c” shows the presence of one (c) or two (cc) charmed quarks in diquark.

Invariants $`s_{13}^{}`$ and $`s_{12}^{}`$ for various quarks are connected by the relation :

$$s_{13}^{}=m_1^2+m_3^2\frac{(s_{12}^{}+m_3^2s)(s_{12}^{}+m_1^2m_2^2)}{2s_{12}^{}}\pm $$

$$\pm \frac{z}{2s_{12}^{}}[(s_{12}^{}(m_1+m_2)^2)(s_{12}^{}(m_1m_2)^2)]^{1/2}\times $$
(9)
$$\times [(s_{12}^{}(\sqrt{s}+m_3)^2)(s_{12}^{}(\sqrt{s}m_3)^2)]^{1/2}$$

The system of integral equations for other charmed baryons of the multiplets $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$ are given in Appendix A.

We extract the diquark singularity of the amplitude $`A_J(s,s_{ik})`$:

$$A_J(s,s_{ik})=\frac{\alpha _J(s,s_{ik})b_J(s_{ik})G_J(s_{ik})}{1B_J(s_{ik})}$$
(10)
Then, for example, first equation of system (4)-(6) is possible to be rewritten for the amplitude $`\alpha _1(s,s_{12})`$ in the form:

$$\alpha _1(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{1}{b_1(s_{12})}_{(m_1+m_2)^2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(1,2)}\frac{ds_{12}^{}}{\pi }\frac{\rho _1(s_{12}^{})G_1(s_{12}^{})}{s_{12}^{}s_{12}}\times $$

$$\times _1^1\frac{dz}{2}(\frac{G_1^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})b_1^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})}{1B_1^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{G_0^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})B_0^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})}{1B_0^{(c)}(s_{13}^{})}\frac{3}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{}))$$
(11)
The formula for $`s_{23}^{}`$ is similar to (7) with $`z`$ replaced by $`z`$. Therefore in (4) it is possible to replace $`[A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]`$ by $`2A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})`$. In equation (11) we introduce the cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_J(i,k)`$ at large value of $`s_{12}^{}`$. We choose the ”hard” cutting, but we can use also the ”soft” cutting, for instance $`G_1(s_{12})=G_1exp((s_{12}4m^2)^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2)`$, and do not change essentially the calculated mass spectrum. Similarly two other equations of system (5), (6) for reduced amplitudes $`\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})`$, $`\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_{23})`$ are obtained (Appendix B).

The construction of the approximate solution of the system of equations (4) - (6) is based on the extraction of the leading singularities which are close to the region $`s_{ik}=(m_i+m_k)^2`$. Amplitudes with different number of rescattering (Fig.1) have the following structure of singularities. The main singularities in $`s_{ik}`$ arise from pair rescattering of the particles $`i`$ and $`k`$. First of all there are threshold square root singularities. Also possible a pole singularities which correspond to the bound states. Figs.1b,c have only such two-particle singularities. The diagrams in Fig.1d,e apart from two-particle singularities have their own specific triangle singularities. The diagram in Fig.1f describes still more three-particle singularities. Apart from the two-particle and triangle singularities it has its own singularity. It is weaker than singularities of the diagrams Fig.1b-e.

Such classification allows us to search the approximate solution of equations (4) - (6) by taking into account some definite number of leading singularities and neglecting all the weaker ones. We consider the approximation, which corresponds to the single interaction of all three particles (two-particle and triangle singularities).

The contours of integration in complex plane of variable $`s_{13}^{}`$ are given in Fig.4. At $`(m_1+m_2)^2s_{12}^{}(\sqrt{s}+m_3)^2`$ the integration performed over the contour 1, and at $`(\sqrt{s}+m_3)^2s_{12}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_J(1,2)`$ over the contour 2.

The function $`\alpha _J(s,s_{12})`$ is a smooth function of $`s_{12}`$ as compared with the singular part of the amplitude, hence it can be expanded in a series in the singularity point and only the first term of this series should be employed further. It is convenient to take the middle point of Dalitz-plot region which corresponds to $`z=0`$. Then one determines the function $`\alpha _J(s,s_{12})`$ and truncated Chew-Mandelstam function $`b_J(s_{12})`$ at the point $`s_{12}=s_0=(s+m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2)/(m_{12}^2+m_{13}^2+m_{23}^2)`$, where $`m_{ik}=\frac{1}{2}(m_i+m_k),i=1,2,3`$. Such a choice of point $`s_0`$ allows us to replace the system of integral equations (4)-(6) by the algebraic system of equations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$:

$$\alpha _1(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{1}{2}I_{1,1}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1(s_0)}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)+\frac{3}{2}I_{1,0}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1(s_0)}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$
(12)
$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}\alpha _1(s,s_0)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)+\frac{3}{2}I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$
(13)
$$\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}\alpha _1(s,s_0)+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)+\frac{1}{2}I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$
(14)
Here

$$I_{J_1,J_2}(s,s_0)=_{(m_i+m_k)^2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_J(i,k)}\frac{ds_{ik}^{}}{\pi }\frac{\rho _{J_1}(s_{ik}^{})}{s_{ik}^{}s_0}G_{J_1}_1^1\frac{dz}{2}\frac{G_{J_2}}{1B_{J_2}(s_{ij}^{})}$$
(15)
In our approximation vertex functions $`G_J(s_{ik})`$ are the constants.

The function $`I_{J_1,J_2}`$ takes into account singularities which corresponds to the simultaneous vanishing of all propagators in the triangle diagrams like those in Fig.1d,e. The solution of the system of equations (12) - (14) permits to determine the pole in $`s`$ (zero of determinant) which corresponds to the bound state of the three quarks.

Similarly to the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$–baryon it is possible to obtain the rescattering amplitudes for all S-wave charmed baryons with $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$ including u, d, s, c-quarks, which satisfy the systems of integral equations (Appendix A). If we consider the approximation, which corresponds to taking into account two-particle and triangle singularities, and define all the functions of the subenergy variables in the middle point of the physical region of Dalitz-plot $`s_0`$ then the problem reduces to one of solving simple algebraic system equations (Appendix B).

In the calculation in question the quark masses $`m_u=m_d=m,m_s,m_c`$ are not fixed. We fix such quark mass values, which allows us to calculate the masses of charmed baryons using the vertex constants and the cut-off parameters:

$$g_J^{(ik)}=\frac{m_i+m_k}{2\pi }G_J^{(ik)},\lambda _J^{(ik)}=\frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }_J(i,k)}{(m_i+m_k)^2},s_0=\frac{4s_{ik}}{(m_i+m_k)^2},$$
(16)
where $`J=0,1`$; $`m_i`$ and $`m_k`$ are quark masses in the intermediate state of the corresponding quark loop.

## 3 Calculation results

The masses of S-wave charmed baryons $`(J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+)`$ including light u, d, s and heavy c-quarks are obtained. Two dimensionless cut-off parameters $`\lambda _q=10.7`$ and $`\lambda _c=6.5`$ are chosen for light quarks and c-quark respectively . For the diquarks, which include one light and one heavy quark, the cut-off parameter is equal $`\lambda _{qc}=\frac{1}{4}(\sqrt{\lambda _c}+\sqrt{\lambda _q})^2`$. For light quarks the calculated values of vertex constants $`g_1=0.56`$ and $`g_0=0.70`$ have coincided with ones, obtained earlier in the bootstrap quark model for light mesons and baryons \[27-29\]. This coincidence is related with the main contribution of one-gluon exchange in the vertex functions and is determined by the rules of $`1/N_c`$-expansion . For diquarks containing c-quark one common constant $`g_c=0.857`$ is obtained. The model parameters are determined by experimental values of masses $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,\mathrm{\Sigma }_c,\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(A)},\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{}`$ . The quark masses $`m_u=m_d=m=`$0.495 GeV, $`m_s=`$0.77 GeV and $`m_c=`$1.655 GeV determine the region, in which it is possible to calculate the mass spectrum of all S-wave charmed baryons.

The results of calculations are shown in Table 2. In the parentheses are mentioned the experimental data . In the calculations we assume the absence of the mixing of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(A)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(S)}`$ baryons, that is in agree with result of the paper . The fact is interesting, that the behaviour of Chew-Mandelstam functions which determine the dynamics of quark interactions for particles $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(S)}`$, is considerably different from one for other S-wave charmed baryons. This state is excited  and at considered values of parameters do not arise a bound state. In order to obtain the bound excited state we introduce the quark mass shifts, which take into account the confinement potential effectively .

The change of quark mass values $`m_u^{}=`$0.41 GeV, $`m_s^{}=`$0.985 GeV, $`m_c^{}=`$1.4 GeV lead to the change of behaviour of Chew-Mandelstam functions and allows to receive the bound state for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(S)}`$-baryon.

In considered calculation the masses of charmed baryons, containing two s-quarks, are overestimated in comparison with the papers \[14-18\]. It happens according to the choice of the large value of s-quark mass, which allows to obtain the correct splitting of states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{(A)}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In the present paper the suggested method of the approximate solution of the relativistic three-particle equations allows us to calculate the mass spectrum of S-wave charmed baryons.

The fact, that the forces of interaction for light quarks in charmed baryons $`g_1`$ and $`g_0`$ is actually such, as well as for diquarks in the bootstrap quark model for the usual baryons. Because of the rules of $`1/N_c`$-expansion the diquark forces are determined by one-gluon exchange.

In the framework of suggested method it is possible to calculate the electrical formfactors and charge radii of charmed baryons, because we found the three-quark amplitudes $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank A.A.Andrianov, V.A.Franke, Yu.V.Novozhilov for useful discussions.

Table 1.

Coefficient of Chew-Mandelstam functions.

| $`J^P`$ | $`\gamma \left(J\right)`$ | $`\beta \left(J\right)`$ | $`\delta \left(J\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0^+`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left(m_im_k\right)^2}{\left(m_i+m_k\right)^2}`$ | 0 |
| $`1^+`$ | $`\frac{1}{3}`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{8m_im_k}{\left(m_i+m_k\right)^2}1\right)`$ | $`\frac{1}{6}\left(m_im_k\right)^2`$ |

Table 2.

Masses of charmed baryons of the multiplets $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,\frac{3}{2}^+`$.

| Quark | $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ | M(GeV) | $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$ | M(GeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| contents |  |  |  |  |
| udc | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ | 2.284(2.285) | —— | —— |
| uuc,udc,ddc | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$ | 2.458(2.455) | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$ | 2.516(2.519) |
| usc,dsc | $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(A)}`$ | 2.467(2.467) | $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0}`$ | 2.725(2.645) |
| usc,dsc | $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(S)}`$ | 2.565(2.562) | —— | —— |
| ssc | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ | 2.806(2.704) | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ | 3.108 |
| ccu,ccd | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccq}^{++,+}`$ | 3.527 | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{++,+}`$ | 3.597 |
| ccs | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccs}^+`$ | 3.598 | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s^+`$ | 3.700 |
| ccc | —— | —— | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++}`$ | 4.792 |

The parameters of model: $`\lambda _q=10.7`$ and $`\lambda _c=6.5`$ are the cut-off parameter for light quarks and c-quark respectively, $`g_0=0.70`$ and $`g_1=0.56`$ are the vertex constant for light diquarks with $`J^P=0^+,1^+`$, $`g_c=0.857`$ for heavy diquarks. Quark masses $`m=`$0.495 GeV, $`m_s=`$0.77 GeV, $`m_c=`$1.655 GeV. The experimental values of the baryon masses are given in parentheses .

## Appendix A Three-quark integral equations for the S-wave baryon amplitudes

Multiplet $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$.

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}=|\{q\mathrm{`}qc\}`$, where $`q=u,d`$.

$$A_1(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1(s_{12})L_1(s_{12})+K_1(s_{12})[A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.1)

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[A_1(s,s_{12}^{})+A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

2. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{}=|\{qsc\}`$, where $`q=u,d`$.

$$A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(s)}(s_{12})L_1^{(s)}(s_{12})+K_1^{(s)}(s_{12})[A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.2)

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})L_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})+K_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})[A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$-baryon $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0=|\{css\}`$. The equations are analogous to (A.1) with replacement $`AA^{(ss)},A^{(c)}A^{(sc)}`$.

4. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++,+}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++,+}=|\{qcc\},q=u,d`$. The equations are analogous to (A.1) with replacement $`AA^{(cc)}`$.

5. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s^+`$-baryon: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_s^+=|\{scc\}`$. The equations are analogous to (A.1) with replacement $`AA^{(cc)},A^{(c)}A^{(sc)}`$.

6. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++}`$-baryon: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++}=|\{ccc\}`$.

$$A_1^{(cc)}(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(cc)}(s_{12})L_1^{(cc)}(s_{12})+K_1^{(cc)}(s_{12})[A_1^{(cc)}(s,s_{13}^{})+A_1^{(cc)}(s,s_{23}^{})](\mathrm{A}.3)$$

Multiplet $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$.

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{udc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{udc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{udc\}`$. The spin-flavour parts of the wave functions for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$\- baryons are derived with replacement $`(ud)(uu)`$ and $`(ud)(dd)`$ respectively.

$$A_1(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1(s_{12})L_1(s_{12})+K_1(s_{12})[\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.4)

$$A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(c)}(s_{23})L_0^{(c)}(s_{23})+K_0^{(c)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})]$$

2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$-baryon: $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\{udc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\{udc\}`$

$$A_0(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0(s_{12})L_0(s_{12})+K_0(s_{12})[\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_0(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.5)

$$A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(c)}(s_{23})L_0^{(c)}(s_{23})+K_0^{(c)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_0(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

3. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(A)}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+(A)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\{csu\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\{csu\}`$ The spin-flavour part of the wave function for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{0(A)}`$-baryon are derived with replacement $`(su)(sd)`$.

$$A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(s)}(s_{12})L_0^{(s)}(s_{12})+K_0^{(s)}(s_{12})[\frac{3}{8}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{13}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{8}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(c)}(s_{13})L_0^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_0^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.6)

$$A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})L_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})+K_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

$$A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})L_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})+K_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_0^{(s)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

4. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(S)}`$-baryons:$`|\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+(S)}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{usc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{usc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}|\{usc\}`$. The spin-flavour part of the wave function for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{0(S)}`$-baryon are derived with replacement $`(us)(ds)`$.

$$A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(s)}(s_{12})L_1^{(s)}(s_{12})+K_1^{(s)}(s_{12})[\frac{1}{8}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{13}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{3}{8}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{8}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{8}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(c)}(s_{13})L_1^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_1^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{23}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

$$A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(c)}(s_{13})L_0^{(c)}(s_{13})+K_0^{(c)}(s_{13})[\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23}^{})]$$

(A.7)

$$A_1^{(sc)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})L_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})+K_1^{(sc)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{13}^{})\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{3}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

$$A_0^{(sc)}(s,s_{23})=\widehat{\alpha }b_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})L_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})+K_0^{(sc)}(s_{23})[\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{12}^{})+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}A_1^{(s)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_1^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})+\frac{1}{4}A_0^{(c)}(s,s_{13}^{})]$$

5. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$-baryon: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{ssc\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|\{ssc\}`$. The equations are analogous to (A.4) with replacement $`AA^{(ss)},A^{(c)}A^{(sc)}`$.

6. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccq}^{++,+}`$-baryons: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccq}^{++}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{ccu\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|\{ccu\}`$. The spin-flavour part of the wave function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccq}^+`$-particle are derived with replacement $`ud`$. The system of integral equations is analogous to (A.4) with replacement $`AA^{(cc)}`$.

7. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccs}^+`$-baryon: $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccs}^+=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|\{ccs\}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}|\{ccs\}`$. The system of integral equations is analogous to (A.4) with replacement $`AA^{(cc)},A^{(c)}A^{(sc)}`$.

## Appendix B The systems of approximate algebraic equations for multiplets of charmed baryons $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+,J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$

Multiplet $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$.

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$-baryons:

$$\alpha _1(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+2\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1(s_0)}$$

(B.1)

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$

2. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0}`$-baryons:

$$\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}+\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)$$

(B.2)

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}+\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$-baryon: The equations are analogous to (A.8) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(ss)},\alpha ^{(c)}\alpha ^{(sc)},b^{(c)}b^{(sc)},bb^{(ss)}`$.

4. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++,+}`$-baryons: The equations are analogous to (A.8) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(cc)},bb^{(cc)}`$.

5. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s^+`$-baryon: The equations are analogous to (A.8) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(cc)},\alpha ^{(c)}\alpha ^{(sc)},bb^{(cc)},b^{(c)}b^{(sc)}`$.

6. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{++}`$-baryon:

$$\alpha _1^{(cc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(cc)}(s,s_0)2I_{1,1}^{(cc)}(s,s_0)(\mathrm{B}.3)$$

Multiplet $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$.

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++,+,0}`$-baryons:

$$\alpha _1(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1(s_0)}+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$

(B.4)

$$\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$

2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$-baryon:

$$\alpha _0(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0(s_0)}+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

(B.5)

$$\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)$$

3. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(A)}`$-baryons:

$$\alpha _0^{(s)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{3}{4}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{3}{4}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

(B.6)

$$\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _0^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

4. $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^{+,0(S)}`$-baryons:

$$\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}+\frac{3}{4}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}+\frac{3}{4}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(s)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(c)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}$$

(B.7)

$$\alpha _1^{(sc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}+\frac{3}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{1,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_1^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

$$\alpha _0^{(sc)}(s,s_0)=\widehat{\alpha }+\alpha _1^{(s)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(s)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}+$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _1^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,1}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_1^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0^{(c)}(s,s_0)I_{0,0}^{(sc)}(s,s_0)\frac{b_0^{(c)}(s_0)}{b_0^{(sc)}(s_0)}$$

5. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$-baryon: The equations are analogous to (B.4) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(ss)},\alpha ^{(c)}\alpha ^{(sc)},b^{(c)}b^{(sc)},bb^{(ss)}`$.

6. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccq}^{++,+}`$-baryons: The equations are analogous to (B.4) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(cc)},bb^{(cc)}`$.

7. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ccs}^+`$-baryon: The equations are analogous to (B.4) with replacement $`\alpha \alpha ^{(cc)},\alpha ^{(c)}\alpha ^{(sc)},bb^{(cc)},b^{(c)}b^{(sc)}`$.

Fig.1. Diagrams which correspond to: a – production of three quarks, b–e – subsequent pair interaction.

Fig.2. Combination of diagrams in accordance with the last interaction of the particles.

Fig.3. Graphic representation of the equation for the amplitude $`A_1(s,s_{12})`$ (formulae (4)-(6)).

Fig.4. The contours of integration 1,2 in the complex plane $`s_{13}`$ for the function $`I_{J_1,J_2}(s,s_0)`$.