text:
# BA-TH/404-00Napoli-DSF 2000/37 Charming penguin contributions to 𝐵→𝐾𝜋

## I Introduction

Two-body charmless $`B`$ decays are studied as a mean to detect direct CP-violation and to determine the CKM mixing parameters in the Standard Model . In these processes the short-distance contributions can be computed by using the factorization approximation for the local operators in the effective non-leptonic Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as argued by Bjorken on the basis of color-transparency  and recently justified in . However non-leading $`𝒪(1/m_b)`$ effects which appears in the penguin matrix elements may be numerically important. In some cases where experimental data are available this approach does meet difficulties (for a discussion see e.g. ). An example is offered by the decay $`BK\pi `$. The branching ratios for these processes have been measured by the CLEO collaboration :

$`(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(18.2_{4.0}^{+4.6}\pm 1.6)\times 10^6,`$ (1)
$`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(17.2_{2.4}^{+2.5}\pm 1.2)\times 10^6,`$ (2)
and, more recently, by the BaBar  and Belle  collaborations. BaBar gives a value of $`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=(12.5_{2.41.7}^{+3.0+1.3})\times 10^6`$. Belle gives***After having completed this work new data from the BaBar  and Belle  Collaborations have been published: BaBar gives $`(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=(18.2_{3.02.0}^{+3.3+1.6})\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=(16.7\pm 1.6_{1.7}^{+1.2})\times 10^6`$. Belle gives $`(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=(1.31_{0.46}^{+0.55}\pm 0.26)\times 10^5`$ and $`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=(1.87_{0.30}^{+0.33}\pm 0.16)\times 10^5`$. Within the errors they are compatible with previously released data. $`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=(17.4_{4.6}^{+5.1}\pm 3.4)\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=(16.6_{7.82.4}^{+9.8+2.2})\times 10^6`$. If one now evaluates the amplitudes for these decays by including only tree and penguin operators, without taking into account the charm quark loop, the factorization approximation produces branching ratios too small as compared to the data .

To get a better agreement one is forced to include the so-called charming penguin operators, i.e. those operators which, being proportional to the large CKM factor $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}`$ and the large Wilson coefficient $`c_21`$, are not suppressed like the tree and penguin contributions. Two approaches can be followed to include these effects. One may define effective Wilson coefficients by considering the effect of a charm quark loop treated perturbatively ; in this way also an absorptive part of the non-leptonic decay amplitude is generated. This approach, used together with the factorization approximation, seems to produce decay rates in agreement with data, at least qualitatively, as shown in some previous papers . In these works the inclusion of the charm quark loop increases the effective Wilson coefficients of the strong penguin operators by about $`30\%`$, thereby producing $`BK\pi `$ decay rates closer to the data. More recently charm quark effects computed by this method have been included in works dealing with the validity of the factorization .

A different approach can however be followed. It assumes that the charm quark contributions are basically long-distance effects that can be taken into account by including rescattering processes such as, e.g. $`BDD_sK\pi `$. These contributions, first discussed to our knowledge in , have been more recently stressed by , where they are called charming penguin terms, a nomenclature we shall adopt here.

The aim of this paper is to present an evaluation of the charming penguins in the $`BK\pi `$ decays going beyond the parametrizations of . As a matter of fact, instead of considering only $`D,D_s`$ intermediate states, we will also consider charmed vector mesons The transition $`BX_c`$ is saturated by $`X_c=D+D^{}`$ at zero recoil . Though we are not in this limit, the approximation can be used as a guideline.. Furthermore, by using phenomenological information from semileptonic decays and Chiral Effective Lagrangean, we shall estimate both the real and the imaginary part of the charming penguins. This result, being an improved determination of the strong phase, might be of some utility in connections with strategies to determine the angle $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle from future more precise data.

The long-distance absorptive part is essentially due to the rescattering effects of the processes $`D^{()}D_s^{()}K\pi `$. The situation is similar to the $`B_s\gamma \gamma `$ decay for which the absorptive part obtained in  is comparable to the short-distance contribution. As noted above, the dispersive part of the charming penguins, in the present approximation, was computed previously in  for a number of charmless $`B`$ decays to two pseudo-scalar mesons as well as one pseudo-scalar and one vector meson in the final states. In this paper we present a new calculation of the long-distance contribution using the same Cottingham formula , and more recent information on the semileptonic decay form factors.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section we discuss the separation between the short-distance and the long-distance contributions. In section 3, the absorptive part is shown in terms of the $`BD^{()}D_s^{()}`$ and $`D^{()}D_s^{()}K\pi `$ amplitudes obtained by the short-distance non-leptonic Hamiltonian and the $`BD^{()}`$ and $`D^{()}K\pi `$ semileptonic decay form factors. Section 4 is devoted to the calculation of the dispersive part (the real part) of the $`BK\pi `$ amplitudes. Finally in section 5 we compare our results to the data and draw our conclusions.

## II Short-Distance and Long-distance non-leptonic weak matrix elements

The non-leptonic $`BK\pi `$ decay amplitude is obtained by considering the matrix element

$$A_{K\pi }=<K(p_K)\pi (p_\pi )|i_{\mathrm{eff}}|B(p_B)>.$$
(3)
The effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic $`B`$ decays is the sum of 4-quark tree-level and penguin operators and is given by

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[V_{ub}^{}V_{us}(c_1O_1^u+c_2O_2^u)+V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}(c_1O_1^c+c_2O_2^c)V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left(\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}c_iO_i+c_gO_g\right)\right]$$
(4)
where $`c_i`$ are the Wilson coefficients evaluated at the normalization scale $`\mu =m_b`$  and next-to-leading QCD radiative corrections are included. $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are the usual tree-level operators, $`O_i`$ ($`i=3,\mathrm{},10`$) are the penguin operators and $`O_g`$ is the chromomagnetic gluon operator. The $`c_i`$ in eq. (4) are as follows : $`c_2=1.105,c_1=0.228,c_3=0.013,c_4=0.029,c_5=0.009,c_6=0.033,c_7/\alpha =0.005,c_8/\alpha =0.060,c_9/\alpha =1.283,c_{10}/\alpha =0.266`$.

In the calculation of the $`BK\pi `$ decay amplitude $`A_{K\pi }`$ we can separate the short-distance and the long-distance contributions:

$$A_{K\pi }=A_{SD}+A_{LD}.$$
(5)
The short-distance part of the amplitude $`A_{SD}`$ arises from the operators in (4) that give non vanishing contributions in the factorization approximation, i.e. $`O_i^u`$ ($`i=1,2`$) and $`O_i`$ ($`i=3,\mathrm{},10`$). In this approximation it is given by:

$`A_{SD}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_KF_0^{B\pi }(m_K^2)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)\times `$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left[a_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{10}+\left(a_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_8\right){\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^2}{(m_bm_d)(m_d+m_s)}}\right],`$ (7)
$`A_{SD}(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_KF_0^{B\pi }(m_K^2)(m_B^2m_\pi ^2)\times `$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left[V_{ub}^{}V_{us}a_2V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}\left(a_4+a_{10}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^2(a_6+a_8)}{(m_bm_u)(m_u+m_s)}}\right)\right],`$ (9)
where $`a_i=c_i+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{i+1}}{3}}`$ (i=odd) and $`a_i=c_i+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{i1}}{3}}`$ (i=even).

Numerically, for $`|V_{ub}|=0.0038,V_{us}=0.22,V_{tb}1,V_{ts}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.040}`$ and $`\gamma `$ = $`arg\left(V_{ub}\right)=`$ $`54.8^o`$ and $`F_0^{B\pi }(m_K^2)=0.37`$, we get

$`A_{SD}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`2.43\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$ (10)
$`A_{SD}(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1.86i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.95}\right)\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (11)
As discussed in the introduction by this contribution alone we would obtain branching ratios roughly one order of magnitude smaller than the experimental findings. Therefore one has to relax some of the hypotheses. The possibility we explore here is to consider non-factorizable contributions. In this case also the operators $`O_i^c`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are effective; these terms will be treated as long-distance contributions, i.e. we will go beyond vacuum saturation and consider intermediate low energy hadronic states in the product of the weak currents in the operators of (4). Also other operators in (4) have long-distance contributions, but clearly $`A_{LD}`$ is dominated by $`O_2^c`$ due to the enhancement of the CKM factor $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}`$ and the Wilson coefficient $`a_2`$. Therefore we can write:

$`A_{LD}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{LD}(B^+K^0\pi ^+)=A_{LD}(B^0K^+\pi ^{})=`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}a_2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\theta (q^2+\mu ^2)T(q,p_B,p_K,p_\pi )}`$ (13)
where $`\mu `$ is a cut-off separating long-distance and short-distance contributions, while the amplitude $`T(q,p_B,p_K,p_\pi )=g^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }`$ is obtained by:

$$T_{\mu \nu }=id^4x\mathrm{exp}(iqx)<K(p_K)\pi (p_\pi )|\mathrm{T}(J_\mu (x)J_\nu (0))|B(p_B)>,$$
(14)
with $`J_\mu =\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c`$ and $`J_\nu =\overline{c}\gamma _\nu (1\gamma _5)s`$. $`A_{LD}`$ has the same value for the two channels $`B^+K^0\pi ^+,B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. We will saturate the $`T`$product of the two currents by inserting $`D,D^{}`$ intermediate states, see fig. 1.

To compute the diagram of fig. 1 one has to model the $`BD^{()}`$ and the $`D^{()}K\pi `$ weak transitions; this will be done following the Chiral Effective Lagrangean approach of . We list here the effective vertices and currents of this theory.

* Strong coupling among two heavy and one light meson:

$$_{HH\pi }=\frac{ig}{2}Tr\overline{H}_aH_b\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\left(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi \xi _\mu \xi ^{}\right)_{ba},$$
(15)
where

$$H_a=\frac{1+\overline{)}v}{2}\left(P_{a\mu }^{}\gamma ^\mu P_a\gamma _5\right),\overline{H}_a=\gamma ^0H_a^{}\gamma ^0,$$
(16)
and

$$\xi =exp\left\{i\frac{}{f}\right\}.$$
(17)
Here $`v`$ is the heavy meson velocity, $`P_a,P_{a\mu }^{}`$ are the annihilation operators of heavy pseudo-scalar and vector mesons made up by a heavy quark and a light antiquark of flavour $`a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$ for $`u,d,s`$); $``$ is the usual $`3\times 3`$ matrix comprising the octet of pseudo–Goldstone bosons; $`f`$ is the pseudo–Goldstone bosons decay constant ($`ff_\pi 130`$ MeV).
* Strong coupling among two heavy and two light mesons:

$$_{HH\pi \pi }=\frac{i}{2}Tr\overline{H}_aH_bv^\mu \left(\xi ^{}_\mu \xi +\xi _\mu \xi ^{}\right)_{ba}.$$
(18)
* Weak coupling of a heavy meson to pseudo–Goldstone bosons by a $`\overline{q}_a\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)Q`$ current:

$$L_{\mu a}=\frac{i\alpha }{2}Tr\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)H_b\xi _{ba}^{}.$$
(19)
$`\alpha `$ is related to the heavy meson leptonic decay constant by the formula $`\alpha =`$ $`f_H\sqrt{m_H}`$, valid in the infinite quark mass limit. Eq.(19) generates, for example, weak couplings of $`D,D^{}`$ to hadronic final states with $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ pseudo–Goldstone bosons.
* The weak matrix elements $`<(D,D^{})|J^\mu |B>`$ are parameterized as in , i.e. in the infinite heavy quark limit and introducing the Isgur–Wise function for which we use the simple expression

$$\xi _{IW}(vv^{})=\xi _{IW}(\omega )=\left(\frac{2}{1+\omega }\right)^2,$$
(20)
where $`v,v^{}`$ are heavy meson velocities.
* The weak matrix elements $`<K\pi |J^\mu |D>`$ and $`<K\pi |J^\mu |D^{}>`$ can be computed by the rules given above, i.e. using the model of . It amounts to consider polar diagrams as well as direct production of light mesons in the framework of the Chiral Effective Lagrangean We do not include graphs where the pion is emitted at the first vertex; either they are already taken into account by the contributions discussed so far, and one must omit them to avoid double counting, or they are negligibly small, according to the estimates in .. This corresponds to the evaluation of the diagrams in fig. 2.

Strictly speaking, the evaluation of these diagrams by the Chiral Effective Lagrangean is valid only for soft light pseudo-scalar mesons. Therefore, in order to use it in the present context, we have to account for the high momenta of the outgoing light mesons. To this aim we introduce two modifications: i) we keep the full propagator in the pole contributions instead of the expressions in the soft pion limit (a similar use of the full $`D^{}`$ propagator to go beyond the soft pion result has also been given in ) ; ii) we introduce a form factor in the strong coupling constant of light and heavy mesons (a similar approach is used in semileptonic decays ). Let us consider the $`D^{}D\pi `$ coupling that can be written in general as follows:

$$D(p^{})\pi (p_\pi )|D^{}(p,ϵ)=G_{D^{}D\pi }(ϵp_\pi ).$$
(21)
From (15) we have

$$G_{D^{}D\pi }=\frac{2m_Dg}{f_\pi },$$
(22)
where $`g`$ is independent of the heavy flavor and is predicted to have the value (see  and references therein):

$$g0.40.$$
(23)
We shall neglect $`1/m_Q`$ effects in this case and shall adopt this value. There is, however, an important point to be discussed here. The expression (21) is derived from the low momentum Chiral Effective Lagrangean (15). The neglect of higher pseudo-Goldstone boson derivatives is however not justified in our case, as the pion and kaon have momenta of the order of $`m_B/2`$. To include this effect we modify (22) as follows:

$$G_{D^{}D\pi }=\frac{2m_Dg}{f_\pi }F(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |),$$
(24)
where $`F(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)`$ is a form factor normalized as $`F(0)=1`$. This form factor can be evaluated by using the constituent quark model. For this purpose, let us introduce the heavy meson wavefunction in the momentum space: $`\psi _D(k)`$, where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|=|\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2|/2`$ is one half of the relative momentum of the two component quarks (whose momenta are respectively $`\stackrel{}{q}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}_2`$). The coupling constant $`g`$ in the soft pion limit is proportional to the overlap of the $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$ wave functions:

$$gd^3k\psi _D^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\psi _D^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)f(k)$$
(25)
where $`f(k)`$ is some smooth function whose precise shape depends on the particular model one employs§§§For a particular calculation using this approach see ., but it is irrelevant for our purposes. We therefore get, if the pion momentum is $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pi `$

$$F(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)=\frac{{\displaystyle d^3k\psi _D^{}\left(\left|\stackrel{}{k}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_\pi }{2}\right|\right)\psi _D^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)f(k)}}{{\displaystyle d^3k\psi _D^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\psi _D^{}(|\stackrel{}{k}|)f(k)}},$$
(26)
where the denominator has been introduced to normalize correctly the form factor. We employ for the wave function the expressionThis expression is sufficiently general; it also corresponds to fits of the wave function in particular constituent quark models, see e.g. .:

$$\psi _D^{}(k)=\psi _D^{}^{}(k)e^{\frac{\alpha k}{2}}$$
(27)
which corresponds to an average quark momentum

$$<k>=\frac{3}{\alpha }$$
(28)
inside the meson and we assume a constant value for the smooth function $`f(k)`$. We plot in fig. 3 the value of the form factor as a function of the pion three-momentum for two values of $`\alpha `$, corresponding, respectively to $`<k>=400\mathrm{MeV}`$ (upper curve) and $`<k>=300\mathrm{MeV}`$ (lower curve).

For $`|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |m_B/2`$ we get therefore

$$F(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)=0.065\pm 0.035,$$
(29)
where the central value corresponds to $`<k>=350`$ MeV and the higher (lower) to $`<k>=400`$ ($`<k>=300`$) MeV.

It should be observed that also the Lagrangean $`_{HH\pi \pi }`$ and the weak current $`L^\mu `$ have corrections from terms containing higher order derivatives. However these terms do not contribute to the imaginary part of $`A_{LD}`$; on the other hand hard pion and kaon effects in the calculation of to the real part can be taken into account by an appropriate cut-off of the Cottingham formula. We will discuss the problem in section 4.

## III Imaginary part of the long-distance contribution

It can be easily seen that only diagrams 2c and 2d contribute to the discontinuity of $`A_{LD}`$. The diagrams 2a and 2b have no discontinuity, whereas the diagram 2e vanishes in the chiral limit and we neglect it altogether. As to the diagram 2f, both its imaginary and its real part vanish, as it can be easily checked.

We use the following kinematics:

$$p^\mu =m_Bv^\mu =(m_B,\stackrel{}{0}),p_{D^{()}}^\mu =m_Dv^\mu ,q=pp_{D^{()}}.$$
(30)
The discontinuity of the diagrams of figs. (2b, 2c) gives

$`\mathrm{Disc}A_{LD}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\mathrm{Im}A_{LD}=(2\pi i)^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}\delta _+(q^2m_{D_s}^2)\delta _+(p_{D^{()}}^2m_D^2)\times `$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`A(BD_s^{()}D^{()})A(D_s^{()}D^{()}K\pi )=`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D}{16\pi ^2m_B}}\sqrt{\omega ^21}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{n}A(BD_s^{()}D^{()})A(D_s^{()}D^{()}K\pi )},`$ (35)
where $`\omega ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2+m_D^2m_{D_s}^2}{2m_Dm_B}}`$ and the angular integration is over the directions of the vector $`\stackrel{}{v}^{}=\stackrel{}{n}\sqrt{\omega ^{}_{}{}^{}21}`$. Our results are as follows:

$`A(BD_sD)`$ $`=`$ $`K(m_Bm_D)(1+\omega ^{}),`$ (36)
$`A(BD_s^{}(\eta ,q)D^{}(ϵ,v^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`Km_{D_s}\eta ^\mu ϵ^\alpha \left(iϵ_{\alpha \lambda \mu \sigma }v^\lambda v^\sigma g_{\mu \alpha }(1+\omega ^{})+v_\alpha v_\mu ^{}\right),`$ (38)
where $`K={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}a_2\sqrt{m_Bm_D}f_{D_s}\xi _{IW}(\omega ^{}).`$ On the other hand we have

$`A(D_sDK\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2gm_DF(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)\right)^2}{f_\pi f_K}}\times `$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\pi p_K+p_\pi (qp_K)(p_Kqm_K^2)/m_D^{}^2}{(m_Dv^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^{}^2}},`$
$`A(D_s^{}(\eta ,q)D^{}(ϵ,v^{})K\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2gF(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)\right)^2\sqrt{m_{D_s^{}}m_D^{}}}{f_\pi f_K}}ϵ_\lambda \eta _\sigma \times `$ (45)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D^{}p_\pi ^\lambda p_K^\sigma }{(m_D^{}v^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G^{\sigma \lambda }(p_\pi ,p_K,v^{})}{(m_D^{}v^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^{}^2}}\right),`$
where

$`G^{\sigma \lambda }(p_\pi ,p_K,v^{})=`$ $``$ $`(v^{}q)\left(g^{\sigma \lambda }(p_Kp_\pi )p_\pi ^\sigma p_K^\lambda \right)(qp_\pi )\left(v^\sigma p_K^\lambda g^{\sigma \lambda }(v^{}p_K)\right)`$ (46)
$``$ $`q^\lambda \left(p_\pi ^\sigma (p_Kv^{})v^\sigma (p_Kp_\pi )\right).`$ (48)
We have not written down other amplitudes with no contribution to the discontinuity. Our numerical results obtained for the central value in Eq. (29) are reported in table 1.

## IV Real part of the long-distance contribution

The real part of the diagrams 2c and 2d could be computed by a dispersion relation, from their imaginary parts; however this procedure suffers from the uncertainty related to possible subtractions. A way to include them is to follow a Feynman diagram approach, using the Effective Lagrangean discussed in section 2. This basically amounts to including the real parts of figs. 2a and 2b and also the other diagrams of fig. 2 which, as we have seen, do not contribute to the imaginary part.

To compute $`ReA_{LD}`$ we first observe that we can change the integration variable in (13) from $`q=p_Bp_{D^{()}}`$ to the momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ defined by the formula

$$q=p_Bp_{D^{()}}(m_Bm_{D^{()}})v\mathrm{}.$$
(49)
We note that, by this definition, $`\mathrm{}`$ measures the virtuality of the intermediate state while the velocities of the two hadrons coincide; one can always make this choice using the reparametrization invariance of the Heavy Quark Effective Theory . The cut-off $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to the momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ can be evaluated, within our model, as follows. For an on-shell meson with momentum $`p_D=m_Dv`$, the two constituent quarks have momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_c=\stackrel{}{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_q=\stackrel{}{k}`$ in the meson rest frame. Adding $`\mathrm{}^\mu `$ shifts $`\stackrel{}{p}_c=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$; therefore the argument of the wave function appearing in the calculation of the Isgur-Wise function, instead of $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$, is $`|\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}/2|`$. This corresponds to introducing in the amplitude the form factor $`F(|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|)`$, with $`F`$ given in fig. 3. Moreover, we have to implement the condition that the residual momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ of the heavy quark does not exceed the chiral symmetry breaking scale, i.e. a mass scale around $`1`$ GeV. Since we assume $`<k>=350`$ MeV, this gives the condition $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|0.65`$ GeV. The smooth form factor $`F(|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|)(|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|0.65\mathrm{GeV})`$ can be substituted by a sharp form factor $`\theta (\mu _{\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|)`$, and $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ can be fixed by imposing $`{\displaystyle _0^{0.65\mathrm{GeV}}}F(x)𝑑x={\displaystyle _0^\mu _{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x`$. This procedure gives

$$\mu _{\mathrm{}}0.6\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(50)
On the other hand $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is of the order $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/(2m_c)`$ and is therefore negligible in the large heavy quark mass limit. Therefore we conclude that a cut-off $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|`$ as given in (50) reflects in a cut-off $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}^2`$ on $`\mathrm{}^2`$. In passing, we observe that higher derivative corrections to the Lagrangean $`_{HH\pi }+_{HH\pi \pi }`$ and the weak current $`L^\mu `$ produce negligible effects due to this cut-off procedure.

Having fixed the cut-off we now compute the $`\mathrm{}`$ integration by performing a Wick rotation: $`\mathrm{}^0i\mathrm{}^0`$ and changing integration variable from $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}|`$ to $`L^2=((i\mathrm{}^0)^2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}^2)`$. We get therefore a Cottingham formula  as follows:

$$\mathrm{Re}A_{LD}=\frac{i}{2(2\pi )^3}\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}a_2_0^{\mu _{\mathrm{}}^2}𝑑L^2_{\sqrt{L^2}}^{+\sqrt{L^2}}𝑑l_0\sqrt{L^2l_0^2}_1^1d\mathrm{cos}(\theta )i\left\{\frac{j_D^\mu h_{D\mu }}{p_D^2m_D^2}+\frac{_{pol}j_D^{}^\mu h_{D^{}\mu }}{p_D^{}^2m_D^{}^2}\right\}.$$
(51)
Here $`j_{D^{()}}^\mu =<D^{()}|\overline{b}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c|B>`$, $`h_{D^{()}}^\mu =<K\pi |\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)s|D^{()}>`$. Both $`j_{D^{()}}^\mu `$ and $`h_D^\mu `$ can be found in As we have already said, we correct the heavy meson propagator to include the hard pion momenta.. The various contributions to the $`h_D^{}^\mu `$, corresponding to the different graphs in fig. 2, are as follows:

$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}a)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}m_D^{}}{2f_\pi f_K}}\epsilon _\mu ,`$ (52)
$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}b)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{g}f_D^{}m_D^{}}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon p_\pi )}{(p_D^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^2}}(p_D^{}p_\pi )_\mu +`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{g}f_D^{}m_D^{}}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p_D^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^{}^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon ^\alpha p_\pi ^\beta p_D^{}^\gamma ,`$
$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}c)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2f_D^{}m_D^{}^3}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon p_\pi )}{[(p_D^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^2][(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)^2m_{D_s^{}}^2]}}`$ (56)
$`\left[(p_K)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(p_D^{}p_K)(p_\pi p_K)}{m_{D_s^{}}^2}}(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)_\mu \right],`$
$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}d)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2f_D^{}m_D^{}}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[(p_D^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^{}^2][(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)^2m_{D_s^{}}^2]}}`$ (60)
$`\{[(p_D^{}p_\pi )(\epsilon p_K)+(p_\pi p_K)(\epsilon p_\pi )](p_D^{})_\mu +`$
$`\left[(p_D^{}p_\pi p_D^{}^2)(\epsilon p_K)(p_D^{}p_K)(\epsilon p_\pi )\right](p_\pi )_\mu +`$
$`[(p_D^{}^2p_D^{}p_\pi )(p_\pi p_K)(p_D^{}p_K)(p_D^{}p_\pi )]\epsilon _\mu \},`$
$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}e)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}m_D^{}}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_D^{}(p_\pi p_K)}{(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)^2m_{D_s^{}}^2}}\left[\epsilon _\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (p_\pi +p_K)}{m_D^2}}(pp_\pi p_K)_\mu \right],`$ (61)
$`h_{D^{}\mu }^{(\text{2}f)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{g}^2f_D^{}m_D^{}}{f_\pi f_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_\pi ^\alpha p_D^{}^\beta p_K^\gamma \epsilon ^\delta }{[(p_D^{}p_\pi )^2m_D^{}^2][(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)^2m_{D_s^{}}^2]}}`$ (63)
$`(p_D^{}p_\pi p_K)_\mu ,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}=gF(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)`$. The results for $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=0.5÷0.7`$ GeV are reported in table II.

All the terms in the previous equations containing the factor $`g`$ are corrected by the form factor $`F(|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |)`$; the terms $`h^{(2a)}`$ and $`h^{(2e)}`$ should also contain their own multiplicative form factors $`F_a`$ and $`F_e`$ (this holds both for $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ intermediate states). We have not written down them explicitly for the following reasons. $`F_e`$ would multiply a term which vanishes in the chiral limit and does not affect the final result. On the other hand $`F_a(q^2)`$ would represent a correction for hard pion and kaon momenta. In the region of high $`q^2`$, i.e. $`q^2[m_D^2,(m_Bm_D)^2]`$, $`F_a(q^2)`$ is smooth and can be put equal to 1, i.e. to the value corresponding to the soft pion and kaon limit. This result can be inferred from the analogous behaviour of the form factor $`F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)`$ describing the coupling of a heavy and one light meson. In the high $`q^2`$ region the contribution of the low lying pole $`B(0^+)`$ to this form factor vanishes in the chiral limit and the form factor is dominated by the direct coupling displayed in Fig. 2a, giving, as a result, the simple formula $`f_B/f_\pi `$. Several numerical analyses confirm a smooth behaviour of $`F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)`$. For example in the quark model of  $`F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)`$ increases by $`40\%`$ in the range $`1526`$ GeV2; this behaviour can be fitted by a formula

$$F_0^{B\pi }(q^2)\left(1\frac{q^2}{(m_B+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2)}\right)^1,$$
(64)
with $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }2.5`$ GeV. In other models a smoother or similar behaviour is found, see the discussion in .

For $`D`$ decay this formula would hold with $`m_Bm_D`$:

$$F_0^{D\pi }(q^2)\left(1\frac{q^2}{(m_D+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2)}\right)^1.$$
(65)
However, it would be a too strong assumption to assume that $`F_a(q^2)`$ is given by this formula; therefore we put $`F_a=1`$ in the sequel and we shall enlarge the theoretical uncertainty by an extra amount that we estimate $`\pm 50\%`$.

Let us finally observe that, while the numerical value of $`F_a`$ does not vary significantly in the range $`q^2[m_D^2,(m_Bm_D)^2]`$, its value for $`q^2=(m_Bm_D)^2`$ is formally suppressed by one power of $`(1/m_b)`$ as compared to $`F_a(m_D^2)`$, assuming a qualitative behaviour analogous to $`F_0^{D\pi }(q^2)`$.

## V Conclusions

Our numerical results show that the long-distance charming penguin contributions to the decays $`BK\pi `$ are significant. These results agree qualitatively with a phenomenological analysis of these contributions given in . In particular, we found that the absorptive part due to the $`D,D_s`$ states is somewhat bigger than that from the $`D^{},D_s^{}`$ states, but of the same sign. The real part due to the $`D^{},D_s^{}`$ states is however $`34`$ times bigger and opposite in sign to the contributions from the $`D,D_s`$ states. As shown in table 1 and table 2, the total contribution for the real part and absorptive part are of the same order of magnitude, at the $`10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$ level. The results for the branching ratios are as follows:

$`(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(2.4_{1.9}^{+2.7})\times 10^5`$ (66)
$`(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.5_{1.3}^{+1.8})\times 10^5.`$ (67)
The central values in this equation correspond to the central values of the parameters $`g`$, $`<k>`$ (i.e. $`F|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi |`$) and $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$. The theoretical uncertainties in the branching ratios are obtained by varying the parameters in the ranges $`g=0.40\pm 0.08`$, $`<k>=(350\pm 50)`$ GeV and $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=(0.6\pm 0.1)`$ GeV. An extra theoretical uncertainty of $`50\%`$ has been added in quadrature to $`ReA_{LD}`$. The results in (67) agree with the experimental values in eq. (2).

The existence of two different contributions with different strong and weak phases produces a direct CP violation in the decay $`BK^\pm \pi ^{}`$. As a matter of fact, we find for

$$𝒜=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0K^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0K^{}\pi ^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0K^+\pi ^{})}$$
(68)
the value $`𝒜=+0.21`$ (for $`\gamma =54.8^0`$), which is compatible with the recent results from CLEO . On the other hand the present model produces no CP asymmetries for charged $`B`$ decays into $`K\pi `$.

Let us finally discuss the problem of the scaling of our results with $`m_b`$. Assuming, as in , that $`F_0^{B\pi }(0)`$ scales as $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{m_b}}\right)^{3/2}`$, $`A_{SD}`$ scales as $`m_b^{1/2}`$. On the other hand the charming penguin contribution $`A_{LD}`$ is non leading due to the various form factors which vanish for $`m_b,m_c\mathrm{}`$. Therefore the following conclusion can be drawn. The charming penguin contributions violate naive factorization and are of leading order in $`\alpha _s`$, as they arise from non perturbative calculations; nevertheless they do not contradict the results of  since they are suppressed in the infinite heavy quark mass limits. In spite of that, as $`m_b,m_c`$ in reality are finite, the charming penguin numerical contribution to the branching ratios in $`BK\pi `$ decays is significant, basically due to the enhancement of the CKM matrix elements.

In conclusion, we believe that the charmed resonance contributions we found seem to be capable of producing the charming-penguin terms suggested in  within theoretical errors. This method could then be applied also to other two-body nonleptonic $`B`$ decay channels, such as the $`B\pi \pi `$ and the $`BK\eta ^{}`$. We only mention here a result for the charming-penguin contribution in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. This contribution can be obtained from the results we obtained for $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ using $`SU(3)`$ symmetry for the weak current matrix elements $`<K^+\pi ^{}|(\overline{c}s)_L|D_s>`$ and $`<\pi ^{}\pi ^+|(\overline{c}d)_L|D^{}>`$. Thus, in the $`SU(3)`$ limit(by ignoring the $`K\pi `$ mass difference)

$$A_{\mathrm{LD}}(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(V_{cd}/V_{cs})(f_K/f_\pi )\times A_{\mathrm{LD}}(B^0K^+\pi ^{}).$$
(69)
Since the $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay is dominated by the tree-level operators, this charming-penguin contribution behaves like the penguin terms and reduces the $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay rate by a small amount. The details of this work will be given elsewhere together with the results for $`BK\eta ^{}`$.

Acknowledgements We thank F. Ferroni for useful correspondence on the BaBar data.


format: text

text:
# Particle Identification by Multifractal Parameters in 𝛾-Astronomy with the HEGRA-Čerenkov-Telescopes

## 1 Introduction

Over the last decade, imaging air Čerenkov-telescopes have emerged as the most powerful tools for $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy in the TeV energy range. The imaging of air showers allows a separation of $`\gamma `$-ray induced air showers and hadron-induced air showers, and therefore a strong reduction of the cosmic-ray background (). The performance of such instruments can be boosted further by combining several Čerenkov-telescopes to form a stereoscopic system, providing several simultaneous views of an air shower. For example, the HEGRA system of Čerenkov-telescopes () achieves an angular resolution of $`0.1^{}`$ for individual photons, and an energy resolution of better than 20%.

In the traditional approach, the distribution of the Čerenkov light in the camera is characterized by an ellipse, whose semi-axes are derived by the calculation of the second moments of the amplitude distribution after a suitable procedure to clean the image of singular high amplitudes at a large distance from the actual projection of the shower (). The width of this ellipse very efficiently distinguishes between electromagnetic and hadronic showers. To remove the dependence of the image width on zenith angle, total amplitude and distance of the shower core to the telescope, one can use the scaled width () where the width parameter is divided by the Monte-Carlo expectation value for $`\gamma `$-rays. For a system of Čerenkov-telescopes, the scaled width is averaged over all triggered telescopes. The resulting mean scaled width of the image ellipses peaks at a value of 1.0 for $`\gamma `$-originated showers and shows excellent performance with respect to separating $`\gamma `$-rays from the hadronic background (). Thus, cuts on mean scaled width enhance the significance of a $`\gamma `$-signal strongly.

In an alternative approach, one may visualize the cascading process in which a shower develops as a series of self-similar processes and hence one expects that the distribution of Čerenkov light exhibits self-similar structures, as was pointed out in . The possibility exists that in a shower of reasonable size the superposition of the Čerenkov light from all sub-showers results in a smooth image in which the these structure has been averaged out, especially when taking account of the fact that the Čerenkov light is subjected to scattering processes. Therefore, the Čerenkov light distribution recorded by the camera does not necessarily have to have fractal properties.

Multifractal analysis aims at describing this self-similarity quantitatively. The scope of the article is to give a brief introduction to multifractal and wavelet analysis (section 2), to describe how these methods were applied to the images recorded by the HEGRA-cameras, and to investigate their properties in determining the nature of the primary particle by comparing their performance on a Mkn 501 data sample with the approach by Hillas (section 3). An attempt was made to combine both Hillas parameters and multifractal parameters using neural networks (section 4).

## 2 Multifractal Analysis

### 2.1 Multifractals

The quantities derived in multifractal analysis describe the behaviour of patterns with respect to scale transformations. We assume that the pattern – i.e., the Čerenkov image – is described as a density $`A(\stackrel{}{x})`$ defined on a two-dimensional grid, corresponding to the amplitudes measured in the photomultiplier pixels of a camera. In a first step, the distribution is normalized such that $`_{\{\stackrel{}{x}\}}A(\stackrel{}{x})=1`$. Starting point of the analysis is the calculation of a multifractal moment $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$ of order $`q`$, defined on a length scale $`\mathrm{}`$ ()

Zq()={x}p(x,)qwithp(x,)=x

box of size
centered at x
A(x).Z_{q}(\ell)=\sum_{\left\{\vec{x}\right\}}p(\vec{x},\ell)^{q}\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad p(\vec{x},\ell)=\sum_{\vec{x}\prime\mbox{ }\in\mbox{ }\parbox{62.59596pt}{{\mbox{\scriptsize box of size $\ell$}\\
\mbox{\scriptsize centered at $\vec{x}$}}}}A(\vec{x}\prime). (1)
Here, the image is divided up into a set of boxes of characteristic scale $`\mathrm{}`$; the non-overlapping boxes have identical shapes and cover the image completely. The amplitudes $`A(\stackrel{}{x})`$ within a box of size $`\mathrm{}`$ at a lattice site $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ are summed up, yielding $`p(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{})`$. These so-called box-amplitudes are exponentiated with a number $`q`$, that assumes integer values, and successively the summation over a set boxes is formed.

With varying lengthscale $`\mathrm{}`$ one expects for a genuine fractal distribution a behaviour like

$$Z_q(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\tau (q)}\text{,}$$
(2)
from which the first multifractal parameter, the mass exponent $`\tau (q)`$, may be derived as the slope of the line through the points $`(Z_q(\mathrm{})|\mathrm{})`$ in a double-logarithmic plot. The order $`q`$ of the moment defines how structures that are less bright and prominent contribute to the value of $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$. The singularity exponent $`\alpha (q)`$, defined as

$$\alpha (q)=\frac{d}{dq}\tau (q)\text{,}$$
(3)
describes how $`\tau (q)`$ changes with changing order $`q`$.

### 2.2 Wavelets

Wavelet analysis is closely related to multifractal analysis: it describes the scaling property of differences in amplitude in adjacent boxes rather than the amplitudes themselves, i.e. the derivative of the amplitude distribution on different baselines. Alternatively one may think of wavelet analysis as a Fourier expansion with a discrete set of basis functions that are generated by scaling from a so-called mother wavelet ().

In analogy with multifractal analysis (), one defines a wavelet moment whose behaviour under scale transformation is determined by an exponent $`\beta `$. For a one-dimensional density, the wavelet moment is given by

$$W_q(\mathrm{})=\underset{\left\{\stackrel{}{x}\right\}}{}\left|p(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{})p(\stackrel{}{x}+\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{e}_x,\mathrm{})\right|^qW_q(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\beta (q)}\text{.}$$
(4)
The relevant quantity for the derivation of a wavelet moment is the differene in integrated amplitudes between one box of linear extend $`\mathrm{}`$ and the neighboring box in the direction indicated by the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{e}_x`$. This corresponds to the convolution of the amplitude distribution with a wavelet (in this case the simplest so-called Haar wavelet), anlyzing the distribution with at spatial resolution $`\mathrm{}`$. The sign of the wavelet function is indicated pictorially by $`(+)`$.

In order to characterize a two-dimensional distribution on a scale $`\mathrm{}`$ by its wavelet moments, a set of three base wavelets $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{++}{}\right)`$, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+}{+}\right)`$, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+}{+}\right)`$ is required (), each yielding a wavelet moment and a corresponding exponent.

### 2.3 Application to the Shower Images

The HEGRA-Čerenkov-telescopes () are equipped with cameras () consisting of 271 pixels of $`0.25^{}`$ diameter arranged on a hexagonal lattice. The telescopes are triggered by a coincidence of two pixels with at least 6 to 8 photoelectrons each. Images contain about 100 photoelectrons per TeV of $`\gamma `$-ray energy. Therefore, images near the trigger threshold (0.5 TeV) contain about 50 photoelectrons, typical images about 100 photoelectrons, and the largest gamma-ray images about 2000-3000 photoelectrons. Night-sky background light as well as electronics noise and ADC quantization cause a typical noise of 1 photoelectron rms in each pixel. For the normal Hillas-type analysis, only pixels with signals of at least than 6 photoelectrons are used, or pixels with at least 3 photoelectrons provided that they are adjacent to a pixel with at least 6 photoelectrons.

The hexagonal lattice of the cameras complicates the fractal analysis slightly. Unlike in the case of a square lattice (), it is not advisable to form “boxes” of 1, $`4=2\times 2`$, $`9=3\times 3`$, … pixels, since the resulting “boxes” have a preferred axis. Instead, hexagonal cells consisting of 1, 7, 19 and 37 pixels were defined; the size of one cell is described by the extent of the hexagon along one side, thus $`\mathrm{}`$ assumes values of $`\mathrm{}=\text{1, 2, 3 and 4}`$, as it is shown in Figure 1.

Another complication arises from the noise contributions. There is a finite probability to have a very small signal in a pixel, which would make moments with negative index $`q`$ diverge. Since the amplitude distribution is more or less continuous - the peaks corresponding to 0, 1, 2, … photoelectrons are not resolved individually - such pixels could only be removed by a more or less arbitrary cut. Instead, it was decided to limit the analysis to positive values of $`q`$, in the range from 2 to 8. The values $`q=0`$ and $`q=1`$ yield trivial results; $`q=0`$ simply counts the numbers of cells and the moment for $`q=1`$ simply reflects the normalization of the amplitudes.

## 3 Results

The analysis methods described above were applied to a subset of the data resulting from the observation of the active galaxy Mkn 501 in a high state of activity in the course of the year 1997 (, ). The data were taken at zenith angles between $`10^{}`$ and $`26^{}`$. During these observations, the source was displaced by $`0.5^{}`$ in declination with respect to the optical axis of the telescopes; a region displaced by the same amount in the opposite region served to evaluate backgrounds under the signal. The sign of the displacement varied between 20-minute runs, in order minimize systematic effects. The distance of $`1^{}`$ between the signal region and the background region is large enough that events reconstructed stereoscopically can be assigned unambiguosly.

After a preselection keeping only events with shower axes within $`0.5^{}`$ from the source or from the center of the background region, the data set contained approximately 29.000 events originating from the region centered on the source position opposed to 25.000 hadronic background events. Images showing a total amplitude of more than 40 photoelectrons were included in the analysis.

### 3.1 Distributions

Figure 2 shows the distributions of the multifractal parameters $`\tau _2`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ for $`\gamma `$-rays as well as for cosmic rays. The distribution is very well described by a Gaussian function. The multifractal parameter $`\tau `$ indicates how fast the number of cells of pixels that carry a significant amount of the total amplitude increases, if the size of the cell is decreased. Images originating from a $`\gamma `$-ray yield smaller values for $`\tau `$, because these images are well contained in a narrow region of the camera in contrast to the fuzzy images produced by hadronic showers. For these hadronic images, one observes a fast increase in the number of cells with decreasing cell size, and therefore the $`\tau `$-distribution peaks at larger values.

The parameter $`\alpha `$ indicates how fast $`\tau `$ changes with increasing order $`q`$. Considering the images of a hadronic shower, they are spread out over a large region of the camera and thus the different cells of pixels carry only small amplitudes, i.e. numbers close to zero in contrast to a $`\gamma `$-induced shower, which generates amplitudes that are relatively large in the various cells of pixels. With increasing q the moments $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$ decrease rapidly in the case of images produced by hadrons, resulting in a fast increase in the slope $`\tau (q)`$ with growing order $`q`$.

The distribution of the wavelet parameter $`\beta _2`$ is shown in Figure 3. Images of hadronic origin show larger fluctuations on the short length scales compared to an image produced by $`\gamma `$-rays, that may in fact be described by a smooth gaussian distribution. This results in an increase of the wavelet moments $`W_q(\mathrm{})`$ with decreasing length scale. Therefore, the parameter $`\beta `$ assumes larger values for hadronic events compared to $`\gamma `$-rays.

### 3.2 Separation Properties Compared with the Hillas-Parameters

In order to describe the effectiveness of the different parameters with respect to distinguishing between $`\gamma `$-rays and the hadronic background, cuts on these parameters were applied. From that, efficiencies $`\kappa `$ and $`Q`$-values were derived: $`\kappa _\gamma =N_\gamma ^{\text{(cut)}}/N_\gamma `$, $`\kappa _{\text{Hadron}}=N_{\text{Hadron}}^{\text{(cut)}}/N_{\text{Hadron}}`$ and $`Q=\kappa _\gamma /\sqrt{\kappa _{\text{Hadron}}}`$. The number $`N_\gamma `$ was determined by statistically subtracting the numbers of the events in the source region and in the background region. The $`Q`$-value describes by how much the significance of a weak signal, calculated as in , is enhanced by the cuts. The analysis was first applied to all telescopes individually.

Table 1 lists mean values and standard deviations of the distribution for conventional and multifractal image parameters for the $`\gamma `$-rays as well as for the hadron-distributions, the $`\gamma `$-efficiencies $`\kappa _\gamma `$, hadron-efficiencies $`\kappa _{\text{Hadron}}`$ and $`Q`$-values for a cut that yields the largest $`Q`$-value in descending order with respect to the $`Q`$-value they archieve. As already evident from Figure 2, multifractal parameters can be employed to enhance the significance of $`\gamma `$-ray signals, but seem not to be competitive with the conventional parameter scaled width.

### 3.3 Dependence on $`q`$

An interesting point is the dependence of the parameters on the index $`q`$, especially how the separation performance of the parameters is influenced by different weighting exponents. Figure 4 illustrates how the parameters $`\tau `$ and $`\alpha `$ change with $`q`$. Depicted are the mean values for the $`\gamma `$-ray and hadron distributions a well as their widths resulting from a Gaussian fit.

The parameters show the expected dependence on $`q`$. However, their separation performance is virtually unaffected by a particular choice of $`q`$ – in all cases, the separation between $`\gamma `$-rays and hadrons corresponds roughly to the width of the distributions. The reason is that parameters of different order $`q`$ turn out to be strongly correlated.

Furthermore, the values of the multifractal parameters are affected by the position of the shower image relative to the pixel cells, clearly an effect of the relatively large cells. The value of the moment $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$ depends on the position of the image relative cells of pixels especially for the largest cell. Also the points in the double-logarithmic plot of $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$ against $`\mathrm{}`$ do not lie on a line as expected from equation 2, but rather on a concave curve. For that reason the slope $`\tau `$ of a line through these points gets steeper if one includes only the moments $`Z_q(\mathrm{})`$ on the short length scales.

### 3.4 Correlations

An interesting question is to which extent the multifractal parameters and the Hillas parameters are correlated. If multifractal parameters are genuinely sensitive to fluctations within the image, a weak correlation would be expected. If, on the other hand, the multifractal parameters merely provide a different parametrization of the global shape of the image, one would expect strong correlations.

In Figure 5 the correlation between the multifractal parameter $`\tau `$ and the Hillas-parameters scaled width and concentration is depicted for the hadronic background. The mean value and the standard deviation of the Hillas parameter is plotted as a function of the value of a multifractal parameter.

Clearly, the parameters are not independent of each other. The correlation of the multifractal parameter $`\tau `$ with scaled width directly follows from the arguments outlined in section 3.1. Furthermore, the correlation of $`\tau `$ with concentration shows an accumulation of $`\gamma `$-candidates at small values for $`\tau `$ and large values for concentration, whereas hadron-candidates amass at large values for $`\tau `$ and small values for concentration.

### 3.5 Averaging over Multiple Telescopes

In the conventional analysis using the (scaled) Hillas parameters, separation properties are enhanced by averaging over the images taken from the same shower by the different telescopes. The same is true for the multifractal parameters. Averaging values of the multifractal parameters $`\tau `$ or $`\alpha `$ over all telescopes that have been triggered by a given event results in a significant improvement of its separation properties, as can be seen in Table 2. Still, however, are the multifractal parameters inferior in their performance.

## 4 Neural Networks

In order to investigate how the $`\gamma `$/hadron-separation may be improved in spite of the close correlation of the parameters, a neural network was employed. A detailed introduction to the functionality and theory of neural nets may be found in . The analysis was applied to data from individual telescopes. Neural networks of the type ‘feed-forward perceptron’ having

1. the Hillas-parameters width, length, concentration and $`\mathrm{log}(\text{size})`$;
2. multifractal and wavelet parameter $`\tau _2`$, $`\tau _4`$, $`\tau _8`$, $`\beta _2`$, $`\beta _4`$, $`\beta _8`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(\text{size})`$;
3. all of the above parameters

as input values were implemented and their classification performance was examined. The adjustment of the net’s weights and thresholds was done using a data sample consisting of 1200 events with a reconstructed shower direction within a circle of $`0.2^{}`$ around the source-position as $`\gamma `$-rays and 1200 events of background data as hadrons. The events were requested to have an image-size of at least 40 photoelectrons. The network was adjusted in such a way that it produced an output value of $`z=0`$ for the $`\gamma `$-candidates and $`z=1`$ for the hadron-candidates, respectively.

The neural nets were implemented using the JetNet-programme (), that provides a number of interesting features for optimizing the adjusting process such as adding momentum or introducing artificial noise, in order to prevent the system from being trapped in a local minimum. The topology of the network was chosen in such a way that the networks consisted of three layers in all three cases, but the number of nodes within a layer was altered until the net yielded the best result on the training data.

Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of the output $`z`$ of the neural network, clearly showing an excess of events with low values for $`z`$ corresponding to $`\gamma `$-rays.

The network based on Hillas-parameters was able to reach the performance of the parameter scaled width, that attains a $`Q`$-value of $`1.82\pm 0.12`$. The network using all available parameters slightly surpasses the performance of the network that relied on Hillas-parameters. The network based on multifractal and wavelet parameters falls behind, as can be seen from Table 3.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

Image analysis techniques based on multifractals and wavelets were applied to images recorded by the HEGRA-Čerenkov-telescopes. A $`\gamma `$/hadron-separation by cuts on these parameters is feasible, yielding a performance similar to the Hillas-parameter concentration, but falling behind that of the parameter scaled width. Combining Hillas parameters and multifractal parameters using a neural network, a slight improvement in performance could be achieved compared to the Hillas parameters alone. The gain is, however, limited by the strong correlation between the Hillas parameters and the multifractal parameters.

A general – and not too surprising – conclusion is certainly that the pixel size of the HEGRA cameras is much too coarse to effectively characterize the fractal nature of showers images; rather than exploring the fine structure of the image, the multifractal parameters determine its overall shape, explaining the good correlation with the Hillas parameter concentration.

Our overall assessment concerning the use of multifractal parameters to identifiy the primary particle of an air shower is less optimistic than the view given in (), in which the analysis method is applied to Monte-Carlo data from a simulation of the TACTIC-experiment. While the pixel size of HEGRA ($`0.25^{}`$) and TACTIC ($`0.31^{}`$) are similar, some basic differences between the two analysis should be emphasized:

* The square-grid pixel arrangement of TACTIC simplifies the subdivision into pixel cells.
* The analysis of  is applied to images containing at least 1800 photoelectrons, whereas the HEGRA analysis was applied to images with as little as 40 photoelectrons. For such small numbers of photoelectrons, fluctuations in the image are dominated by photoelectron statistics, rather than the shower substructures. For gamma-hadron separation, algorithms which work only for very large images are of limited interest. The situation differs if one applies the technique to separate primary nuclei, which is the main emphasis of .
* The analysis of  also included multifractal moments for negative exponents $`q`$. This was possible since in the simulation Poisson-distributed background photoelectrons were added and there is a clear distinction between 0 and 1 photoelectron in a pixel. In HEGRA, with a Gaussian noise of about 1 photoelectron rms, an ad-hoc cut would have to be used to exclude low amplitudes; to avoid this, only positive values of $`q`$ were allowed.

In order to really judge if one can detected the fractal structure of air showers in their Čerenkov images, one should probably employ a simulation with very fine pixels – such that the first set of length scales is well contained within the image – and a photoelectron yield such that Poisson fluctuations are small compared to the shower fluctuations. The first condition implies a pixel size around $`0.002^{}`$ to $`0.01^{}`$, the second an image size of 10000 to 100000 photoelectrons.

## Acknowledgements

The support of the HEGRA experiment by the German Ministry for Research and Technology BMBF and by the Spanish Research Council CYCIT is acknowledged. We are grateful to the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias for the use of the site and for providing excellent working conditions. We thank the other members of the HEGRA CT group, who participated in the construction, installation, and operation of the telescopes. We gratefully acknowledge the technical support staff of Heidelberg, Kiel, Munich, and Yerevan.


text:
# The Radio Galaxy Populations of Nearby Northern Abell Clusters

## 1 Introduction

One of the major areas of research in extragalactic astronomy today is that of the effect of environment on the evolution of galaxies. The uniqueness of the cluster environment has been a major driver in such studies. Within a reasonable field size, clusters provide enough galaxies to draw statistically-significant conclusions over a broad range in local galaxy density. In addition, the diffuse intracluster medium (ICM) of clusters provides another influence on the evolution of member galaxies, as seen in the HI deficiency of cluster spirals and their often disturbed HI morphologies (Haynes et al., 1984).

Naturally, evolutionary studies have also examined the differences between clusters at moderate redshift with those seen nearby. Butcher & Oemler (1978) noted that the fraction of blue galaxies in clusters increases as one moves to higher redshifts. Presumably, this increase in blue fraction is the result of more active episodes of star formation in galaxy clusters at earlier epochs. While blue colors provide only a rough diagnostic of star formation, more accepted star formation indicators have been applied to clusters at low redshift. Kennicutt et al. (1984) investigated the H$`\alpha `$ properties of several nearby clusters (Cancer, Coma, A1367, and the Virgo cluster H$`\alpha `$ data from Kennicutt & Kent, 1983). They tentatively concluded that the star formation rates (SFR) derived from H$`\alpha `$ were slightly lower in clusters than field galaxies. The uncertainty in this conclusion was due to the strong dependence of H$`\alpha `$ emission on Hubble type and the difficulty in assigning such classifications to the cluster galaxies. Furthermore, they identified several galaxies whose interesting properties were rarely seen outside of the cluster environment. These were generally faint, irregular galaxies with very strong H$`\alpha `$ emission and radio emission. They also noted that spiral galaxies in the core of Virgo seemed to have lower star formation rates.

Radio emission also happens to be an excellent probe of star formation. It is believed that as massive stars die in supernovae, they eject cosmic ray electrons which then spiral in the host galaxy’s magnetic fields and emit synchrotron radiation (see review in Condon, 1992). The lifetimes of such relativistic electrons are of the order $`10^8`$ years, and since they result from massive stars with short lifetimes themselves the radio emission is an indicator of nearly present star formation.111Note that optical indicators of SFR, in particular H$`\alpha `$, have timescales around $`10^7`$ years. However, the remarkable correlation of radio emission and H$`\alpha `$ emission seen for star-forming galaxies suggests that the overall duration of episodes of star formation makes this distinction minor. Furthermore, the radio power seems to be directly related to the SFR. The radio luminosity function (RLF) at 1.4GHz represents a smooth continuum running from normal quiescent galaxies, to galaxies undergoing increasing levels of star formation, to relatively radio-weak AGN (e.g., Seyferts), and on to the rare yet extremely radio-powerful AGN (the classic Fanaroff-Riley I and II sources; Fanaroff & Riley, 1974). The overall shape of the RLF closely resembles that of the more familiar optical luminosity function, and in each case the Milky Way lies very close to the knee in the LF.

In addition to the influence on star formation, numerous studies have investigated the effect of the cluster environment on active galactic nuclei (AGN), notably the powerful radio galaxies. The radio emission from these galaxies often extends well beyond their optical boundaries, out to hundreds of kiloparsecs. One might expect the ICM in clusters to confine the radio plasma from these galaxies, thereby affecting the total power of cluster radio galaxies. However, the RLF has not been shown to differ in clusters vs. the field (Fanti, 1984; Ledlow & Owen, 1996), nor does the probability for a galaxy to emit radio depend on cluster galaxy density (Zhao et al., 1989; Ledlow & Owen, 1995a).

Consequently, a comprehensive catalog of nearby cluster radio galaxies is a useful tool in the study of the effect of the cluster environment on galaxy evolution. A large, comprehensive database will allow for more statistically robust studies of the above questions, plus detailed investigations of galaxy evolution in a range of cluster environments.

In order to detect the more normal star-forming galaxies as well as the more radio-powerful AGN, sensitive radio maps are required. In the past, such sensitivity could be achieved reasonably easily for nearby clusters but the beam size of the radio observations restricted such studies to only the cores of such clusters. Technological advances have solved these problems. Lower noise radio receivers have reduced the time requirements for all-sky surveys at good sensitivity, and computing power has followed suit and made reduction of such a large volume of data feasible. Furthermore, procedures for creating near-uniform sensitivity mosaics of the radio data which accurately account for the problems inherent to wide-field radio imaging have been developed. One result of these advances is the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS: Condon et al., 1998), which covers the entire sky north of $`\delta =40`$ at a frequency of 1.4 GHz. Performed with the VLA in D-array, it has a resolution of about 45$`\mathrm{}`$ and is sensitive enough to detect sources down to $`S`$ 2.5 mJy.

Within this paper, we use the NVSS to identify the radio galaxies in a sample of nearby clusters. The all-sky nature of the NVSS allows us to catalog radio galaxies out to great distances from the more well-studied cores of clusters. Adopting $`H_o=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_o=0.1`$, we identify NVSS radio galaxies out to 3 Mpc from the cores of nearby clusters. This corresponds to approximately four orders of magnitude in galaxy density, thereby probing regions from the densest centers of clusters to those consistent with the average density of the field. The excellent sensitivity of the NVSS ensures that the identified galaxies include normal star-forming galaxies as well as powerful AGN. For example, at $`z=0.015`$ (about the nearest cluster in our sample) the flux limit of the NVSS corresponds to about $`1\times 10^{21}`$ W Hz-1, which means we detect objects with SFR$`0.5`$M yr-1 (see Carilli et al., 2001, for the equation relating radio luminosity to SFR). Even at our redshift cutoff the NVSS detects galaxies with SFR$`3`$M yr-1. The beam size of the NVSS is comparable to that of a spiral galaxy disk for the redshifts investigated, insuring that even diffuse radio emission spread over the disks of normal star-forming galaxies is detected.

In addition to the radio fluxes, we report both new and old data that are useful in investigating the effect of the cluster environment. We have compiled far infrared (FIR) data for all the radio galaxies, utilizing the IRAS Faint Source and Point Source Catalogs (FSC and PSC, respectively). In the event such data are not available, we have used IPAC’s xscanpi software to estimate fluxes from cross scans of the IRAS satellite. Perhaps most importantly, we report velocities for all but two of the identified radio galaxies, with many of these velocities arising from new observations. These data differentiate the true cluster radio objects from those merely seen in projection on the cluster.

The paper is organized as follows. In section two, we present the cluster sample and summarize the procedure we have used to identify the candidate radio galaxies in each cluster. The compilation of public data, including velocities and FIR fluxes, is also discussed in this section. In section three, we discuss the spectral observations we have made for many of the candidate radio galaxies. This includes a summary of where, when, and how the data were collected, and our reduction and analysis procedures. Section four presents the results, in the form of complete tables for both the confirmed cluster radio galaxies and those radio galaxies deemed foreground or background objects. In section five we conclude with some simple conclusions and an overview of potential uses for the data.

## 2 Sample Identification

### 2.1 Cluster Sample

The galaxy clusters analyzed are taken from the catalog of Abell et al. (1989) (ACO). This revision of Abell’s original catalog (Abell, 1958) contains 4073 potential clusters of galaxies, as determined from inspection of the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS I) plates and the Southern Sky Survey. We have imposed a systemic recessional velocity cutoff of 10,000 km s-1 ($`z=0.033`$), as beyond this redshift the sensitivity of the NVSS would no longer allow us to detect galaxies with massive SFRs below about 2 M yr-1. In addition, we have accepted only clusters with positive declinations although the NVSS coverage extends down to $`\delta 40`$. While there are a large number of clusters meeting these criteria, many possess fairly faint magnitudes for their tenth-brightest member despite supposedly low systemic redshifts, making them somewhat uncertain. Furthermore, the areal coverage required to survey radial extents of 3 Mpc becomes prohibitively large at low redshift. As a result, we have settled on the 18 ACO clusters presented in Table 1.

The sample spans a range of cluster environments. Half of the members are poor clusters of richness class 0 (see Abell, 1958), while the other half are fairly rich systems. In fact, four of the clusters are of richness class 2, which means that they are richer than approximately 95$`\%`$ of all clusters. There are examples of cooling flow clusters (A426 and A2199), clusters with features suggesting recent large-scale interactions such as cluster-group mergers (A400, A1656, and A2634), and a number of clusters which together make up superclusters.

### 2.2 Generating Optical Galaxy Lists

The optical identifications are based on the Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS II: Reid et al., 1991). The overwhelming success of the POSS I coupled with advances in photographic emulsion led to the initiation of this study, which offers both improved resolution and deeper limiting magnitudes than the original survey (1$`\mathrm{}pixel^1`$ vs. 1.7$`\mathrm{}pixel^1`$, and $`R_c(lim)21`$ vs. $`R_c(lim)20`$, respectively). We have used the IIIa-F images ($`\lambda _{eff}6500\text{Å}`$, bandwidth $`1000\text{Å}`$) in their digitized form222The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained with the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions. for our optical identifications, positions, and approximate R-band magnitudes.

For each cluster, we adopt a center position and system redshift (see Table 1). Then, a grid of overlapping square maps sufficient to cover the entire cluster out to 3 Mpc in radial distance from the assigned center are obtained. Each image then has a coordinate system applied using the plate solutions found in the headers of the FITS images, and the resulting coordinates are generally accurate to about 1$`\mathrm{}`$ (Deutsch, 1999). SAD (“Search And Destroy”), a task within NRAO’s Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS), is then used to identify all objects significantly above the noise level on POSS II images. As stars may be represented by (often saturated) point source profiles and galaxies are fainter, more extended objects, we make a strong first cut at galaxy/star segregation using the source fluxes and widths reported by SAD. SAD also reports the centers of the identified objects, as determined by the best-fitting Gaussian to the real data.

We then calculate the equivalent R-band magnitudes for the identified galaxies. All our magnitudes are calculated for the Gunn-Oke aperture (Gunn & Oke, 1975), which corresponds to a linear aperture radius of 13.1 kpc (for $`H_o=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1) at the systemic redshift of the cluster. To establish the magnitude zero point, we have bootstrapped the POSS II images to the photometry reported in Ledlow & Owen (1995b). This study reported photometric results for the powerful radio galaxies in ACO clusters, and as a result there is usually a galaxy or two in each of our clusters that has a published magnitude from which to work. In the event that there is no galaxy in common between the Ledlow & Owen photometry and our clusters, we have adopted a magnitude zero point of 30.10, about the global average for the common galaxies in the entire sample. The adopted magnitude zero point for each cluster may also be found in Table 1. Once these parameters are established, the aperture photometry is preformed automatically using the PHOT task in IRAF. The local background for each galaxy is calculated using a large annulus centered on the galaxy. The subsequent magnitudes are generally accurate to within 0.5 magnitudes, with this error representing roughly equal contributions from uncertainty in the magnitude zero point and photometric measurement.

To remove probable background objects and reduce the galaxy list to those most likely to be associated with each cluster, we discard the fainter objects. Our cutoff magnitude is $`m^{}+2`$, where we have assumed that $`M_R^{}=22`$ (Owen & Laing, 1989) and the attendant $`m^{}`$ is calculated based on the systemic velocity of each cluster. In addition, we allow for Galactic extinction in the direction of the cluster (see Table 1).

### 2.3 Identification of Radio Galaxies

For any given radio source, there is a definable probability that it will randomly be associated with an optical galaxy. This probability is a function of radial separation, such that perfect positional coincidence has a very high probability of representing true association whereas larger separations are more likely to be the result of common chance. The probability that a radio source is randomly associated with an optical counterpart within separation $`r`$ is

$$P(<r)=1\mathrm{exp}(\rho \pi r^2)$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of background objects (i.e., the average density of optical galaxies about the radio objects).

In creating our list of radio galaxies, we have imposed a probability of $`0.5\%`$, or statistically, we expect that fewer than 1 out of every 200 identified radio galaxies is the result of chance superposition. To determine $`\rho `$ we take the NVSS catalog list of radio sources in the area surveyed for each cluster and calculate the average density of objects from our optical galaxy list about each radio source. Given these parameters we solve Equation 1 for the search radius to use in each cluster. As this is done for each cluster, the search radius from cluster to cluster is a variable but is generally in the range of 15$`\mathrm{}`$ to 35$`\mathrm{}`$. Then, if the nearest optical galaxy for a given radio source is within this radius we associate the pair as a radio galaxy.

While many studies simply use a fixed radio and optical separation to identify radio galaxies, we feel the probabilistic approach is better suited to this study. First, since the clusters are at different redshifts a fixed angular separation results in a more restrictive acceptance criterion for nearby galaxies. Optically, the nearer galaxies in the sample can easily span two arcminutes, whereas the farthest galaxies are well under an arcminute in extent. Relative errors in the galaxy center positions are therefore more likely to be larger for nearby galaxies, so a larger search radius is desirable. More importantly, our procedure consistently handles variations from field to field. For example, any errors in astrometric registration are accounted for in finding the search radius for that specific field.

After these automated routines are completed, the entire field for each cluster is inspected by eye. NVSS images are obtained, and overlays of NVSS contours on the POSS II images are created and inspected. This step is time consuming but serves a number of important functions. First, the galaxy/star identification algorithm is not perfect and a number of apparent close binary stars are labelled galaxies. These objects may be easily identifed and removed from the optical galaxy list during visual inspection. Second, any galaxy that was missed for some reason by the automated procedures may be added in by hand. This type of error rarely occurred except in the cases of very large galaxies. Once these corrections have been made, the updated optical list and the NVSS Catalog list are again correlated with one another to determine the semi-final list of radio galaxies for each cluster. In this step, the search radius is recalculated to reflect the updates in the list of optical galaxies.

The final purpose of the visual inspection is the identification of powerful, extended radio sources. Since the NVSS Catalog was generated by an automated procedure which fit peaks in radio emission, extended sources are frequently fit by multiple sources with smaller fluxes. There are two net effects of this on our radio galaxy identification procedure. First, the fluxes for some of our radio galaxies will be under-represented by their fluxes in the NVSS Catalog should the radio source be resolved into multiple components. For these, we have used the actual NVSS images to measure the net flux associated with the radio galaxy. Second, for some sources the fitted peak in the NVSS Catalog lies outside our adopted search radius (for example, see 3C465 in A2634). As these powerful radio galaxies are an important portion of our radio galaxy catalog, it is vital that they be identified. Table 2 lists all of the identified candidates for such inclusions along with the separations between our optical positions and the nearest NVSS Catalog radio position, their net fluxes as measured off the NVSS images, and their common name where applicable. Overlays of the NVSS contours on the POSS II images for candidate extended radio sources are presented in Figure The Radio Galaxy Populations of Nearby Northern Abell Clusters.

As the resolution of the NVSS is about 45$`\mathrm{}`$, we have used Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty Centimeters (FIRST, Becker et al., 1995) to investigate the extended sources whenever such images were available. FIRST is also being undertaken with the VLA, using the same pointing grid and mosaic strategy as the NVSS but in the longer baseline B-array. As such, it provides a resolution of about 5$`\mathrm{}`$ with 5$`\sigma `$ detections near 1 mJy. The smaller beam size makes it less sensitive to diffuse, extended sources yet it is useful in demonstrating that some of our apparent extended NVSS radio galaxies are chance projections of more compact objects at higher redshift. Figure The Radio Galaxy Populations of Nearby Northern Abell Clusters presents the FIRST images for the candidate extended sources, and Table 2 indicates whether such sources were accepted in the final list of radio galaxies.

This procedure was applied to all the clusters, with one minor exception. The NVSS radio image of A426, the Perseus cluster, is dominated by the extremely powerful radio galaxy NGC1275, which is also known as Perseus A or 3C84. Since the core of this source is unresolved and at a radio power of nearly 25 Jy, there are significant artifacts in the central region of this cluster. Therefore, we have used the radio galaxy identifications of Sijbring (1993) within 0.5$`h_{75}^1`$Mpc of Perseus A. The radio galaxies chosen in this way were required to be consistent with the rest of this study, in that we accepted only the Sijbring radio galaxies with fluxes which should render them detected by the NVSS.

## 3 Characterization of Radio Galaxies

### 3.1 Infrared Data

A useful characterization of galaxies with radio emission is provided by their far infrared (FIR) emission. For normal star-forming galaxies as well as those actively involved in starbursts, the radio and FIR fluxes are strongly correlated (see review in Condon, 1992). While the two types of emission are different (non-thermal for the radio and thermal for the FIR), the root cause in each case is massive stars. In the radio, as these massive stars die in supernovae they accelerate electrons which spiral in the galaxy’s magnetic fields and emit synchrotron radiation. During their brief lifetimes, the massive stars are the primary heaters of dust in HII regions. As a result, galaxies which are presently forming massive stars follow the FIR-radio correlation.

A useful measure of the FIR-radio correlation is the statistic $`q`$, defined by Helou et al. (1985) as

$$q\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{FIR}{3.75\times 10^{12}Wm^2}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{S_{1.4GHz}}{Wm^2Hz^1}\right)$$
(2)
where FIR is defined as

$$\left(\frac{FIR}{Wm^2}\right)1.26\times 10^{14}\left(\frac{2.58S_{60\mu m}+S_{100\mu m}}{Jy}\right).$$
(3)
The numerical terms in the FIR expression are used to convert the IRAS flux densities into a representation of total flux between about 40$`\mu `$m and 120$`\mu `$m. Thus, $`q`$ is a logarithmic measure of the FIR/radio flux density ratio. For a wide variety of star-forming galaxies (including E’s and S0’s with active star formation), the distribution of $`q`$ is very narrow. The median value is about 2.3, with a standard deviation of around 0.2. Consequently, $`q`$ may be used to characterize radio galaxies as either star-forming or AGN. In AGN, there is effectively an excess of radio emission relative to FIR emission leading to low values of $`q`$.

We have used the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)333The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. to collect IRAS data on all galaxies in the sample. NED contains the information from the IRAS Point Source and Faint Source Catalogs (PSC and FSC, respectively), so galaxies with such FIR fluxes will be so marked. However, lack of a NED IRAS entry does not necessarily imply that the galaxy in question was not detected by IRAS. Some galaxies with detected IR emission were left out of the catalogs on account of their proximity to other IR sources.

For all galaxies lacking NED FIR entries, we have used IPAC’s xscanpi software to estimate the 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m fluxes. xscanpi performs coaddition of all IRAS scans across a given position and returns information such as peak flux, integrated flux, and rms noise. It is thereby useful in determining fluxes for confused or faint sources, and for determining upper limits to FIR fluxes. The data are presented for four different averaging schemes, corresponding to weighted mean, straight mean, median, and noise-weighted mean. We have adopted the median results as they are purported to be “the most consistently ‘good’ estimator… chiefly because of the non-Gaussian nature of noise in the IRAS data.”444http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/ipac/iras/scanpi\_interp.html The flux estimates we adopt correspond to a spatial bandpass equivalent to that of the IRAS resolution at each 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m.

In addition to the radio galaxies lacking NED FIR entries, around 10$`\%`$ of the radio galaxies are IRAS Point Source Catalog (PSC) objects with 60$`\mu `$m detections and 100$`\mu `$m upper limits (90$`\%`$ confidence). We have also used xscanpi to re-evaluate the 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m flux densities of these galaxies, as the cross scan addition reduces the noise and can provide firmer 100$`\mu `$m flux densities. Figure The Radio Galaxy Populations of Nearby Northern Abell Clusters depicts the $`q`$ values determined from the PSC catalog compared with their corresponding cross scan addition results. As expected, the $`q`$ values show a near one-to-one correspondance but with the PSC-derived upper limit values producing slightly higher $`q`$. In general, the addscan fluxes for sources detected at both 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m are consistent with the PSC fluxes to within a few percent (Saunders et al., 2000). The addscan fluxes are on average slightly higher because the scan addition counts interacting systems as single sources whereas they may be separated into distinct components in the PSC.

Using these values for the 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m fluxes in conjunction with the NVSS radio data, we calculated $`q`$ values for all of the identified radio galaxies. It should be noted that these $`q`$ values frequently represent upper limits on account of uncertainty in the IR fluxes. Nevertheless, they may be used in conjunction with the absolute radio powers of the sources to obtain a good idea of the nature of the radio source, star-forming galaxy or AGN. Figure 3 demonstrates this in the form of a histogram of $`q`$ values for the confirmed cluster members (see next section). It can easily be seen that the distribution of $`q`$ values peaks at 2.3, and consequently that the radio emission for the majority of the identified galaxies originates from star formation. This statement is valid in the statistical sense, in that the FIR and radio emission of AGN are also correlated but exhibit a greater scatter in their $`q`$ values. Thus, while most AGN have $`q2`$ their distribution includes some galaxies with $`q`$ values representative of normal star-forming galaxies. Conversely, some star-forming galaxies in clusters are radio overluminous (i.e., lower $`q`$). These topics are addressed in Miller & Owen (2001).

### 3.2 Velocity Data

In order to confirm or refute the cluster membership of the identified radio galaxies, velocity measurements are necessary. We have relied upon the published velocity dispersions of Struble & Rood (1999) to assess cluster membership. These velocity dispersions were calculated using all publicly-available redshift measurements as of December 1998, and are listed along with the other adopted cluster parameters in Table 1. Galaxies whose velocities differ from the adopted cluster systemic velocity by less than three times the adopted velocity dispersion were considered to be cluster members. Those failing this criterion were designated non-cluster members, and are assumed to be either foreground or background objects.

In searching NED for IR data on the galaxies, we have also noted the redshifts whenever such data were available. However, due to the large angular extent of our study velocity data were not available for many radio galaxies. In addition, many of the radio galaxies were deemed interesting for specific science questions that required optical spectra. Consequently, we have obtained long-slit optical spectra for many of the galaxies within the sample.

#### 3.2.1 Optical Spectroscopy Observations

The spectra were obtained during the course of several observing runs at Apache Point Observatory (APO) and Kitt Peak National Observatory (KPNO). The APO observations were made using the ARC 3.5-meter telescope with the Double Imaging Spectrograph (DIS), while the KPNO observations were made using the 2.1-meter telescope with the GoldCamera Spectrograph (GCAM). In addition to the objective of determining accurate radial velocities, we also desired high signal-to-noise spectra for line ratio diagnostics and other analyses. Consequently, we employed moderate resolution gratings which provided wavelength coverage of the entire optical window and at a resolution sufficient to resolve line complexes such as H$`\alpha `$ and \[NII\]. Dates and relevant parameters of the observations are provided in Table 3.

Thanks to the large range in right ascension of the sample, we were always able to observe the target radio galaxies at low airmass. As a result of this and to increase our efficiency in collecting the spectra, we performed no slit rotations. In each observation, we simply aligned the slit with the nucleus of the target galaxy. Once the target was so acquired, the duration of the exposure was usually fifteen minutes. In some instances, we reduced the exposure time for particularly bright galaxies or lengthened the exposure times when there was suspected cirrus.

#### 3.2.2 Spectroscopic Data Reduction and Velocity Measurement

The data were reduced in the usual manner using IRAF. The two-dimensional spectra were overscan subtracted, bias subtracted, and flat fielded using stacked frames of calibration quartz lamps, with twilight frames being used to correct for the illumination pattern of the slit. The wavelength scales were derived using observations of HeNeAr lamps. To account for telescope flexure and temperature changes throughout the nights, at least one set of calibration lamps was taken at each cluster. The long slits provided plenty of area to perform accurate sky subtraction.

Velocity measurement followed one of two paths. Since many of the galaxies are star forming, they possessed a number of emission lines. Whenever present, we measured the velocities using these lines. Line locations were determined using Gaussian fits, with each detected emission line receiving equal weight in the determination of the galaxy’s recessional velocity and associated uncertainty. The detected lines are listed along with the resultant redshifts in Table 4. Repeated observations of velocity standard stars on each evening of the run showed agreement within about 20 km s-1.

For many of the galaxies, emission lines were not present or were too noisy to be definitive in velocity measurement. Additionally, we required more than one emission line (or complex, such as H$`\alpha `$–\[NII\]) to report an emission line velocity. In these cases, we have used the IRAF task FXCOR. This task utilizes a fourier cross correlation procedure (Tonry & Davis, 1979) to match a template absorption line spectrum with known heliocentric velocity to the target spectrum. We used the radial velocity standard stars HD132737 and HD090861, obtained during the first and second KPNO observing runs respectively, as our template spectra. We required a fit which produced $`R`$ greater than five (see Tonry & Davis, 1979), though in nearly all cases the correlation was much better than this and typically $`R`$ was around twenty. The resulting heliocentric redshifts and associated errors are presented in Table 4. Measurements determined via this cross correlation technique are those for which either no emission lines or emission lines in parentheses are listed in Table 4.

## 4 Results

The total number of radio galaxies identified by the procedures outlined above was 467. Of these, 329 were deemed cluster members by their measured velocities, including three galaxies for which no accurate velocity measurement was obtained. These radio galaxies are listed by cluster in ascending order of right ascension in Table 5. In addition to the optical positions of the radio galaxies, a number of valuable parameters are provided. These include the redshift, R-band magnitude, radio and infrared flux densities (from the NVSS and IRAS, respectively), and $`q`$ value. Table 6 presents the same information for the non-cluster radio galaxies.

A few things should be noted about the values presented in Tables 5 & 6. The coordinates for the radio galaxies (columns 2 and 3) correspond to the optical centers of the host galaxies, as measured from the POSS II images. These measured positions correspond to the peak of the best-fit Guassian to the galaxies, and as noted the astrometric solutions for the images are generally only good to within about 1.5$`\mathrm{}`$(Deutsch, 1999). For those galaxies for which we have not obtained an optical spectrum, the listed redshifts were obtained from NED. The reader is directed to this resource for specific references for these values as well as their attendant errors. As noted in Section 2, the apparent magnitudes presented in column 5 should be accurate to within 0.5 magnitudes. As they are calculated using the Gunn-Oke aperture, they fall short of the full galaxy magnitude for the larger galaxies. Some of the FIR fluxes reported in columns 7 and 8 should be taken with caution. Our reliance on the median averaging in xscanpi combined with the flux estimator assuming a fixed signal range means we sometimes get detected fluxes for sources which are in actuality only nearby a true source. These sources can usually be identified as those within a few arcminutes of one another, and their $`q`$ values should be viewed in this light. Lastly, there are no IRAS scans in the direction of A1267 and hence there are no reported FIR flux densities or $`q`$ values for this cluster.

Simple conclusions may be drawn from Table 5. As would be expected, the four clusters possessing the most radio galaxies are the richness class 2 clusters. A426 (Perseus) has 43 confirmed radio galaxies, making it the richest system in the sample. However, the proximity of A426 coupled with the flux-limited radio data contribute strongly to this result. Applying a uniform radio luminosity cut-off makes A1656 (Coma) as rich as A426 in radio galaxies. Several of the richness class 0 clusters have very few radio galaxies and likely represent chance superpositions of unrelated systems. For example, 10 out of 17 identified radio galaxies in the field of A1267 turned out to be background objects. The distributions of the radio galaxies in individual clusters also appear to reflect larger scale structures, often aligning with nearby clusters or including distinct sub-clumps within the clusters.

A number of interesting things about the non-cluster radio galaxies can be seen from Table 6. These galaxies are frequently clumped in velocity space, indicating the presence of background clusters which may or may not be associated with Abell clusters. In some instances, it seems likely that cluster identified by Abell strictly on the basis of magnitudes represents the superposition of potentially unrelated systems. For example, A2162 contains only four radio galaxies consistent with the cluster at $`z0.03`$, whereas an additional six radio galaxies are at $`z0.05`$ (sometimes referred to as A2162N). In other cases, our identification procedure has resulted in the inclusion of background Abell clusters - such as A1213, concentrated in two clumps located in the northeast and southeast of A1185. While such systems may trace larger-scale structures, it appears that the majority of the galaxies labelled non-cluster are background radio galaxies. Only 18 of the 138 non-cluster radio galaxies lie between three and five times the velocity dispersion of their projected cluster, with most of the remaining 120 at much greater velocities.

As might be expected, many of these background radio sources are also detected in surveys at other frequencies such as the 87GB Catalog (Gregory & Condon, 1991). As the galaxies apparently associated with these radio sources formally met our selection criteria, we obtained optical spectra for them and confirmed that they are, in fact, powerful radio galaxies at higher redshift. Included among these are several galaxies which lay just outside our 3$`h_{75}^1`$Mpc search radius and are consequently left out of Table 6, but may be found in the spectroscopy results of Table 3. For example, the source 113049+252436 was found to be at a redshift of 0.1444 and consequently have a radio power of $`10^{24.5}`$ W Hz-1.

We also note a few cases where powerful known radio galaxies lie just outside the 3$`h_{75}^1`$Mpc limit of our sample but at redshifts consistent with cluster membership. 3C76.1 is at a projected separation of $`3.3h_{75}^1`$Mpc from the center of A397 and at the same redshift as the cluster. B2 1108+27 also seems to be associated with A1185, lying $`3.5h_{75}^1`$Mpc from that cluster’s core and at essentially the same redshift. Lastly, we find that UGC02755 appears to be associated with a powerful radio source. This galaxy is barely excluded from our sample, as it is 3.01$`h_{75}^1`$Mpc from the center of A426. The presence of powerful radio galaxies such as these at significant distances from the centers of these Abell clusters is strongly suggestive of the importance of large-scale structure in the formation and evolution of radio galaxies.

In addition to the summary information presented in Table 5, we have computed absolute quantities for the cluster radio galaxies. In these calculations we have assumed that all of the galaxies within a cluster lie at the same distance, which was determined from the cluster systemic velocity adopted in Table 1. Hence, we assume that the galaxies are bound cluster members and that the redshift range within each cluster is simply the result of peculiar velocities. Table 7 presents the absolute R-band magnitude, 1.4 GHz radio power, and FIR luminosity (derived based on Equation 3) for each cluster radio galaxy.

The utility of the absolute quantities is perhaps greatest for investigation of the SFRs of the cluster galaxies. Typically, the 1.4 GHz radio luminosity is converted to a SFR using the relationship found in Condon (1992). This relationship is derived empirically using the radio luminosity and supernova rate of the Milky Way, and uncertainty in such quantities translates to uncertainty in derived SFRs. In comparison to other wavelength estimators of SFR, the radio determination likely produces higher SFRs (e.g., Haarsma et al., 2000, find the radio SFR to be several times greater than extinction-corrected optical SFRs). An alternate derivation of the relationship between radio luminosity and SFR which yields values more in line with optical results is presented in Carilli et al. (2001). In the current paper, we have adopted this relationship. Using the flux limit of the NVSS for the range in redshift covered in this catalog, galaxies with SFR$`0.52.7`$M yr-1 are detected.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented a comprehensive catalog of the radio galaxies in nearby Northern Abell clusters. This catalog is complete down to relatively low radio powers, and our collection and compilation of velocity data ensures that the true cluster members are separated from those radio galaxies viewed in projection. In conjunction with these data, we report FIR fluxes and corresponding values of $`q`$, a parametrization of the FIR-radio correlation. Using the cluster velocities, we have compiled a list of the absolute magnitudes, radio powers, and FIR luminosities of the confirmed cluster radio galaxies.

This paper is the result of many nights of spectroscopic observations. We would like to thank the instrument specialists and telescope operators who were tremendously helpful in making sure these evenings went smoothly - Jim De Veny, Hal Halbedel, Heidi Schweiker, Doug Williams, Eugene McDougall, Karen Loomis, Camron Hastings, and Russet McMillan. N.A.M. would like to thank the NRAO pre-doctoral program for support of this research.