text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a loopless graph with $`v`$ vertices and $`e`$ edges. The chromatic polynomial $`P(G,q)`$ counts the number of ways of coloring the vertices of $`G`$ with $`q`$ colors subject to the condition that adjacent vertices have different colors . (More generally, one may consider multigraphs $`G`$ with multiple edges; however, it is elementary that the chromatic polynomial for a graph with multiple edges joining two vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ is the same as for the graph with just one edge joining these vertices.) Besides its role in graph theory, this polynomial is of interest in statistical physics as the zero-temperature value of a certain model of cooperative phenomena and phase transitions known as the Potts model (e.g.,  and references therein.). The chromatic polynomial of a graph can be calculated by means of the iterative use of the deletion-contraction theorem or equivalently, the addition-contraction theorem, which explicitly shows that it is a polynomial of maximal degree $`v`$ in $`q`$. It can be written as

$$P(G,q)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{v}{}}(1)^{vr}a_rq^r.$$
(1.1)
Since the chromatic polynomial of a set of graphs is the product of the chromatic polynomials of each individual graph, we shall restrict our attention to a connected graph.

## 2 Basic Properties of $`a_r`$

Since the calculation of $`P(G,q)`$ is, in general, a #P-hard problem ), it is useful to have bounds on the coefficients. The coefficients of a chromatic polynomial can be expressed as the sum of the number of its subgraphs which do not contain any broken circuit .

By an elementary application of the deletion-contraction theorem, it follows that the coefficients $`a_r`$ in eq. (1.1) are positive. Furthermore, the leading terms are

$$a_r=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}\right)\hfill & \text{if }r>vg+1\hfill \\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}\right)k_g\hfill & \text{if }r=vg+1\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
where $`g`$ is the girth of the graph, and $`k_g`$ is the number of circuits of length $`g`$ in the graph. In particular, $`a_v=1`$ and $`a_{v1}=e`$.

In practice, one finds that the $`a_r`$ increase monotonically as $`r`$ decreases from $`v`$, with at most two of these coefficients having the maximal value, and then the $`a_r`$ decrease monotonically for lower values of $`r`$. We can easily show that the magnitude of $`a_j`$ can not just increase monotonically without decreasing as follows,

Proposition 1 The statement that $`a_ra_{r1}1rv`$ is false except for the trivial case $`e=1`$.

Proof This statement is equivalent to

$$a_va_{v1}a_{v2}\mathrm{}a_1.$$
(2.2)
Here we consider the graph with $`e2`$, and therefore, a fortiori, $`P(G,q=1)=0`$. However, eq. (2.2) implies

$`P(G,q=1)`$ $`=`$ $`a_va_{v1}+a_{v2}a_{v3}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{v1}a_1`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`1e+a_{v2}a_{v3}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{v1}a_10.`$ (2.5)
This contradiction disproves the statement except for the trivial case: the tree graph with only two vertices and one edge has $`P(T_2,q)=q(q1)=q^2q`$.

Recall the deletion-contraction theorem -: Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be adjacent vertices in $`G`$, and denote the edge joining them as $`xy`$. Then

$$P(G,q)=P(Gxy,q)P(G/xy,q)$$
(2.6)
where $`Gxy`$ is the graph obtained from $`G`$ by deleting the edge $`xy`$, and $`G/xy`$ is the graph obtained from $`G`$ by deleting the edge $`xy`$ and identifying $`x`$ and $`y`$.

If we also write

$$P(Gxy,q)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{v}{}}(1)^{vr}a_r^{}q^r$$
(2.7)
and

$$P(G/xy,q)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{v1}{}}(1)^{v1r}a_r^{\prime \prime }q^r,$$
(2.8)
then

$$a_r=a_r^{}+a_r^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{for}1rv1.$$
(2.9)
## 3 Upper Bound on $`a_r`$

It was known that the coefficients $`a_r`$’s are bounded above by the corresponding coefficients of the complete graph with the same number of vertices, $`K_v`$ . However, this upper bound is sharp only for complete graphs.

An upper bound on $`a_r`$ was given by Li and Tian  and is

$$a_r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}\right).$$
(3.1)
We improve this bound. Let us use the convention

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }b=0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }b>a\text{ or }b<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
and, for some function $`f(n)`$

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}f(n)=0\mathrm{if}m<0.$$
(3.3)
Therefore, the bound reduced to the exact values in eq. (2.1) when $`rvg+1`$.

Let us derive a basic relation which will be used repeatedly later:

Lemma 1 If $`a>bc0`$, then

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{c}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{c}\right)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{ab}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{an}{c1}\right).$$
(3.4)
Proof We know

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b+1}{c}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{c1}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(b+1)!}{c!(b+1c)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{b!}{(c1)!(bc+1)!}}`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b!}{(c1)!(b+1c)!}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b+1}{c}}1\right]`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b!}{(c1)!(b+1c)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{b+1c}{c}}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b!}{c!(bc)!}}`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{c}}\right),`$ (3.13)
and the result follows if we keep on applying this relation on the positive term generated from $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{c}\right)`$.

Next we prove a lemma that will be used for our bound. To begin, we make a choice of a certain edge $`xy`$ in $`G`$ where we shall apply the deletion-contraction theorem. We then define $`\mathrm{}_g`$ as the number of circuits in $`G`$ of length $`g`$ that contain this edge $`xy`$.

Lemma 2 If the number of circuits of length $`n`$ in a graph $`G`$ is $`k_n`$, where $`k_n0`$, $`gns`$, $`gsv`$, and the number of circuits of length $`n`$ containing the edge $`xy`$ is $`\mathrm{}_n`$, then there are $`v`$ vertices and $`e1`$ edges in graph $`Gxy`$, and the number of circuits of length $`n`$ is $`k_n^{}=k_n\mathrm{}_n`$. For the graph $`G/xy`$, there are $`v1`$ vertices, and the number of edges and the number of circuits of length $`n`$ are (i) $`e1`$ and $`k_n^{\prime \prime }=k_n\mathrm{}_n+\mathrm{}_{n+1}`$ if $`\mathrm{}_3=0`$, or (ii) $`e\mathrm{}_31`$ and $`k_n^{\prime \prime }=k_n\mathrm{}_n+\mathrm{}_{n+1}^{}`$ if $`\mathrm{}_30`$, where $`\mathrm{}_{n+1}^{}`$ is the number of circuits of length $`n+1`$ which do not contain the edge $`xz`$ (or the edge $`yz`$) for any vertex $`z`$.

Proof The number of vertices and edges is clear for $`Gxy`$, and $`G/xy`$ when $`\mathrm{}_3=0`$. If $`\mathrm{}_30`$, the contraction of the edge $`xy`$ will result in $`\mathrm{}_3`$ double edges, and one of these edges can be removed from each pair without affecting the chromatic polynomial. The circuits of length $`n+1`$ in $`G`$ which become the circuits of length $`n`$ in $`G/xy`$ and contain both edges $`xy`$ and $`xz`$ (or $`yz`$) are double-counted. They are the same as the circuits of length $`n`$ in $`G`$ which contain the edge $`yz`$ (or $`xz`$) but not the edge $`xy`$.

Now the upper bound of Li and Tian can be improved with extra negative terms.

Theorem 1 If the girth of a graph $`G`$ is $`g`$, and the number of circuits of length $`g`$ in the graph is $`k_g`$, then

$`a_r\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.14)
(3.15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}_g1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1nm}{vrg}}\right)\delta _{g,3}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g+\mathrm{}_{g+1}^{}\mathrm{}_g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+1n}{vrg}}\right),`$ (3.16)
where, as defined above, $`\mathrm{}_g`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{g+1}^{}`$ are determined by the initial choice of the edge $`xy`$ on which we apply the deletion-contraction theorem.

Proof Consider the special case $`g=3`$ first. By eq. (3.1) and Lemma 2

$`a_r^{}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)3+2}{vr3+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)(k_3\mathrm{}_3)3+2}{vr3+2}}\right)`$ (3.17)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2}{vr1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2k_3+\mathrm{}_3}{vr1}}\right)`$ (3.19)
$`a_r^{\prime \prime }`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_31}{(v1)r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e\mathrm{}_31)3+2}{(v1)r3+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e\mathrm{}_31)(k_3\mathrm{}_3+\mathrm{}_4^{})3+2}{(v1)r3+2}}\right)`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_31}{vr1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_32}{vr2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_3\mathrm{}_4^{}2}{vr2}}\right)`$ (3.22)
then by eq. (2.9) and Lemma 1,

$`a_r`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2}{vr1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2k_3+\mathrm{}_3}{vr1}}\right)`$ (3.25)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_31}{vr1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_32}{vr2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_3\mathrm{}_4^{}2}{vr2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr1}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2n}{vr2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_31}{vr1}}\right)`$ (3.29)
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_31}{vr1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_31}{vr1}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3+\mathrm{}_4^{}\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_32n}{vr3}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_31}{vr1}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2n}{vr2}}\right)`$ (3.33)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_31n}{vr2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3+\mathrm{}_4^{}\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_32n}{vr3}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_31}{vr1}}\right)`$ (3.37)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3\mathrm{}_3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}_31}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e2nm}{vr3}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_3+\mathrm{}_4^{}\mathrm{}_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_32n}{vr3}}\right).`$
Consider $`g>3`$ and choose the edge $`xy`$ so that the girth of $`G/xy`$ is $`g1`$ and the number of circuits of length $`g1`$ is $`\mathrm{}_g`$. By eq. (3.1) and Lemma 2

$`a_r^{}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)g+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)(k_g\mathrm{}_g)g+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.38)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_g+\mathrm{}_gg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.40)
$`a_r^{\prime \prime }`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{(v1)r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)(g1)+2}{(v1)r(g1)+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(e1)\mathrm{}_g(g1)+2}{(v1)r(g1)+2}}\right)`$ (3.41)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.43)
therefore,

$`a_r`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_g+\mathrm{}_gg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.46)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e1}{vr1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1n}{vrg+1}}\right)`$ (3.50)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.54)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1n}{vrg+1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+2n}{vrg+1}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.58)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}_g1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1nm}{vrg}}\right).`$
It is obvious that this bound of $`a_r`$ is reduced to the Li-Tian bound in eq. (3.1) when $`k_g=\mathrm{}_g=1`$, and is optimized if we choose the edge $`xy`$ so that the magnitude of the summation $`S`$, where

$$S=\underset{n=1}{\overset{k_g\mathrm{}_g}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}_g1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1nm}{vrg}\right)$$
(3.59)
is as large as possible. By Lemma 1, we can rewrite the bound as

$`a_r`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e}{vr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+2}{vrg+2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{eg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)`$ (3.64)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_g+\mathrm{}_gg+1}{vrg+2}}\right)\delta _{g,3}[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{e\mathrm{}_gg+1}{vrg+1}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ek_g\mathrm{}_{g+1}^{}g+1}{vrg+1}}\right)].`$
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Prof. R. Shrock for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Search for Heavy Particles Decaying into Electron-Positron Pairs in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions

## Abstract

We present results of searches for technirho ($`\rho _T`$), techniomega ($`\omega _T`$), and $`Z^{}`$ particles, using the decay channels $`\rho _T,\omega _T,Z^{}e^+e^{}`$. The search is based on 124.8 pb-1 of data collected by the DØ detector at the Fermilab Tevatron during 1992–1996. In the absence of a signal, we set 95% C.L. upper limits on the cross sections for the processes $`p\overline{p}\rho _T,\omega _T,Z^{}e^+e^{}`$ as a function of the mass of the decaying particle. For certain model parameters, we exclude the existence of degenerate $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ states with masses below about 200 GeV. We exclude a $`Z^{}`$ with mass below 670 GeV, assuming that it has the same couplings to fermions as the $`Z`$ boson.

Historically, studies of lepton-antilepton pair production — in particular $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ — have been important discovery channels for new particles. The $`J/\psi `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, and $`Z`$ resonances were all found in this way. Many extensions of the standard model predict the existence of particles that decay to lepton-antilepton pairs. Examples are heavy gauge bosons ($`Z^{}`$) and technihadrons ($`\rho _T`$, $`\omega _T`$). The lepton-antilepton signature is a preferred channel for particle searches in strong interactions because of the relatively low backgrounds compared to hadronic decay channels. Electrons and muons permit a relatively straightforward trigger and their momenta can be measured precisely. Thus particles that decay to $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ can be identified as resonances in the dilepton mass spectrum.

In this Letter, we describe a search for resonances in the dielectron mass spectrum in data collected by DØ during 1992–1996 at the Fermilab Tevatron. We first describe the data sample, background sources, acceptance, and efficiency. We then set limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for the production of such resonances and their subsequent decay to $`e^+e^{}`$ as a function of the resonance mass. Finally, we compare this limit to predictions for hypothesized particles.

The DØ detector is a multi-purpose particle detector. It tracks charged particles in tracking detectors located around the interaction region. The energy of particles is measured in uranium/liquid-argon calorimeters that surround the tracking detectors. The calorimeters are housed in three cryostats. In the central calorimeter (CC) we accept electrons with pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<1.1`$ and in the end calorimeters (EC) with $`1.5<|\eta |<2.5`$. Pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle $`\theta `$ relative to the proton beam direction as $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}`$. Electrons are identified as narrow showers in the electromagnetic section of the calorimeters, with a matching track in the drift chambers. The electron energy $`E`$ is measured with a resolution $`\sigma _E`$, given by $`\left(\sigma _E/E\right)^2=\left(15\%/\sqrt{E/\text{GeV}}\right)^2+\left(1\%\right)^2`$. No distinction can be made between electrons and positrons, because the tracking detectors are not in a magnetic field.

The data sample, background predictions, event selection, and electron identification criteria used for this analysis are identical to those described in Ref. . We require at least two electrons  with $`E\mathrm{sin}\theta >25`$ GeV. To maximize the signal efficiency, one electron in the CC fiducial region is not required to have a matching track.

The dielectron invariant mass spectra for events with both electrons in the central region (CC/CC) and with one electron in the central region and the other in the forward region (CC/EC) are shown in Figs. 2 and 2. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 124.8$`\pm `$5.1 pb-1, taken at $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.8 TeV. The superimposed histograms represent the estimated spectrum from standard model processes and instrumental effects. This is dominated by two sources:

* Drell-Yan process (via intermediate $`\gamma ^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$)
* Jets misidentified as electrons. This includes contributions from:

+ Dijet events in which both jets are misidentified as electrons
    + $`W(e\nu )`$+jets events in which one of the jets is misidentified as an electron
    + $`\gamma `$+jets events in which a jet and the photon are misidentified as electrons

Other processes ($`W\gamma `$, $`Z\gamma `$, $`t\overline{t}`$, $`WW`$, and $`\gamma ^{}/Z\tau \tau `$), that can in principle also contribute to dielectron final states, have not been included in this analysis because these are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the two main backgrounds, as shown in Ref. .

The Drell-Yan spectrum is estimated using the pythia Monte Carlo generator . A $`K`$-factor is applied, as a function of dielectron mass, in order to normalize the cross sections from pythia to next-to-leading-order calculations, as described in Ref. . The uncertainty in the $`K`$-factor is 5%.

The efficiencies for identification of electron-positron pairs are:

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`0.814\pm 0.014\text{for CC/CC events};`$ (1)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`0.479\pm 0.010\text{for CC/EC events.}`$ (2)
The acceptance for an $`e^+e^{}`$-resonance signal is about 50%, roughly independent of dielectron mass. The larger the dielectron mass, the larger is the fraction of CC/CC events, and thus the larger the total overall efficiency. This efficiency varies between 30% (at a mass of 140 GeV) and 40% (at a mass of 450 GeV). The apparent width of the resonance (dominated by the detector resolution) increases with the mass of the particle.

In Table I, we compare the observed number of events with standard model expectations. There is no significant excess in cross section, nor do we see any significant accumulation of events at one mass value, as expected for the decay of a narrow resonance. In the absence of a signal, we set an upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of dielectron invariant mass.

We calculate the limit in a way similar to that described in Ref. . We bin the spectra shown in Figs. 2 and 2 in 4 GeV wide bins. In bin $`i`$, we expect to see $`\mu _i`$ events, where

$$\mu _i=f_i\times \sigma \times ϵ\times +b_i^1+b_i^2\times .$$
(3)
Here $`f_i`$ is the signal acceptance for bin $`i`$, $`\sigma `$ is the signal cross section multiplied by the branching fraction into $`e^+e^{}`$, $`ϵ`$ is the signal efficiency, $``$ is the integrated luminosity, $`b_i^1`$ is the expected number of events with misidentified jets in bin $`i`$, and $`b_i^2`$ is the Drell-Yan cross section, corrected for acceptance and efficiency, integrated over bin $`i`$. The acceptance $`f_i`$ depends somewhat on the process under consideration (but not the detailed model parameters), and has been evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations for the specific final states considered below. The only unknown of these parameters is $`\sigma `$. We use Poisson statistics to calculate the probability $`p_i(n_i|\mu _i)`$ to see the $`n_i`$ events observed in the data given the expected value $`\mu _i`$. To account for the uncertainties in the values of the parameters that determine $`\mu _i`$, we average this probability over prior distributions for the parameters. The joint probability for all bins, as a function of $`\sigma `$, is then

$$P(\sigma )=G_{}G_ϵ\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}G_{b_i^1}G_{b_i^2}p_i(n_i|\mu _i)𝑑b_i^2𝑑b_i^1𝑑ϵ𝑑.$$
(4)
The priors $`G`$ are Gaussians with means equal to the most probable parameter values and variances given by the square of the uncertainties. We calculate this probability for the CC/CC data sample ($`P_{CC}(\sigma )`$) and for the CC/EC data sample ($`P_{EC}(\sigma )`$) separately. We determine a Bayesian 95% confidence level upper limit on the product of the signal cross section and branching fraction ($`\sigma _{95}`$) from the definition:

$$\frac{_0^{\sigma _{95}}P_{CC}(\sigma )P_{EC}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma }{_0^{\mathrm{}}P_{CC}(\sigma )P_{EC}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma }=0.95.$$
(5)
This definition does not account for correlations in the uncertainties between the CC/CC and CC/EC samples because their effect on the limit is negligible. The resulting limits are represented by the data points in Figs. 4 and 4 for $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ and in Fig. 5 for $`Z^{}`$.

Topcolor-assisted technicolor models with walking gauge coupling  predict the existence of many technihadron states. The lightest of these technihadrons are the scalar mesons, technipions ($`\pi _T^\pm `$ and $`\pi _T^0`$), and the vector mesons ($`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$). These are bound states of the members of the lightest technifermion doublet, $`U`$ and $`D`$. They are expected to be produced with substantial rates at the Fermilab Tevatron . The vector mesons decay to $`\gamma \pi _T`$, $`W\pi _T`$, or fermion-antifermion pairs. No large isospin-violating technicolor interactions are needed to explain the mass difference between the top and bottom quarks. Therefore, the $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ states can be (and are assumed to be) degenerate in mass. As shown in Ref. , most of the rate to dilepton final states originates from $`\omega _T`$ decays, so that our conclusions for the mass of the $`\omega _T`$ do not depend strongly on this assumption.

The predicted products of cross sections and branching fractions for the processes $`p\overline{p}\rho _T,\omega _T`$, followed by $`\rho _T,\omega _T\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ depend on the masses of $`\rho _T`$ ($`M_\rho `$) and $`\omega _T`$ ($`M_\omega `$) and the mass difference between the vector mesons ($`\rho _T`$, $`\omega _T`$) and the technipions. The latter determines the spectrum of accessible decay channels. In addition, the $`\omega _T`$ production cross section is sensitive to the charges of the technifermions (taken to be $`Q_U=Q_D1=4/3`$), as well as to a mass parameter $`M_T`$ that controls the rate for $`\omega _T\gamma +\pi _T^0`$ . The value of this mass parameter is unknown. Scaling from the QCD decay $`\omega \gamma +\pi ^0`$, Ref.  suggest a value of several hundred GeV. For all other parameters, we use the default values quoted in Table 2 of Ref. .

We use recently updated calculations for the processes $`p\overline{p}\rho _T\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}\omega _T\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and include a $`K`$-factor of 1.3. Previously published searches for technicolor particles  use an older calculation that predicted larger branching fractions for the dilepton decay modes. When comparing limits, this must be taken into account. Two predictions  for the product of cross section and branching fraction for the process $`p\overline{p}(\rho _T\text{or}\omega _T)e^+e^{}`$ are plotted in Fig. 4. The two predictions shown differ in the assumed mass difference between the vector and scalar mesons. For a mass difference smaller than the mass of the $`W`$ boson (e.g., 60 GeV), the decay $`\rho _TW+\pi _T`$ is forbidden and the branching ratio to dielectrons is enhanced compared to the case of a mass difference of 100 GeV, for which the $`W\pi _T`$ mode is allowed. We rule out $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ with masses below 207 GeV, if the mass difference between $`\rho _T`$ and $`\pi _T^\pm `$ is smaller than the $`W`$-boson mass.

The limit depends on the choice of the parameter $`M_T`$, as illustrated in Fig. 4. In this figure, the experimental limit is compared to predictions in which the parameter $`M_T`$, which controls the $`\omega _T`$ decay rate, is varied. For sufficiently large values of $`M_T`$ ($`M_T>`$ 200 GeV) we can rule out the existence of $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ with masses below 203 GeV, even when the competing $`W\pi _T`$ decay mode of the technirho is open.

There is no unique prediction for the couplings of a heavy neutral gauge boson ($`Z^{}`$) to fermions. We assume as a benchmark that the $`Z^{}`$ has the same couplings to fermions as the $`Z`$ boson of the standard model. Thus, the width of the $`Z^{}`$ scales proportional to $`M_Z^{}`$. We determine the product of the cross section and branching ratio using pythia and adjust for the $`K`$-factor .

We set an upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction using the same algorithm as for the technicolor particles. Figure 5 shows the experimental limit together with the theoretical cross section. For the assumed couplings, we exclude the existence of a $`Z^{}`$ boson below a mass of 670 GeV at the 95% confidence level. The previous search by DØ , using a smaller data sample, set a lower limit at 490 GeV. A search by CDF in both the dielectron and dimuon channels  set a lower limit at 690 GeV.

To summarize, based on 124.8 pb-1 of data collected by the DØ detector at the Fermilab Tevatron during 1992–1996, we set new limits on the production of technirho ($`\rho _T`$), techniomega ($`\omega _T`$), and $`Z^{}`$ particles in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions using their decays to $`e^+e^{}`$. The 95% C.L. lower limits on the particle masses are 207 GeV for $`\rho _T`$ and $`\omega _T`$ states, assuming that they have equal mass and that the decay $`\rho _T\pi _T+W`$ is kinematically forbidden, and 670 GeV for $`Z^{}`$ bosons with standard model couplings to fermions.

We thank K. Lane for helpful discussions and S. Mrenna for adding the technicolor model to pythia. We also acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics, where this analysis was initiated.

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating institutions, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), The Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), PPARC (United Kingdom), Ministry of Education (Czech Republic), and the A.P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# Measurement of 𝐶𝑃-Violating Asymmetries in 𝐵⁰ Decays to 𝐶𝑃 Eigenstates The BABAR Collaboration

BABAR-PUB-01/01

SLAC-PUB-8777

hep-ex/0102030

(February 18, 2001)

## Abstract

We present measurements of time-dependent $`CP`$-violating asymmetries in neutral $`B`$ decays to several $`CP`$ eigenstates. The measurement uses a data sample of 23 million $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ decays collected by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric $`B`$ Factory at SLAC. In this sample, we find events where one neutral $`B`$ meson is fully reconstructed in a $`CP`$ eigenstate containing charmonium and the flavor of the other neutral $`B`$ meson is determined from its decay products. The amplitude of the $`CP`$-violating asymmetry, which in the Standard Model is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, is derived from the decay time distributions in such events. The result is $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.34\pm 0.20(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.05(\mathrm{syst})`$.

preprint: BABAR-PUB-01/01preprint: SLAC-PUB-8777

$`CP`$-violating asymmetries in the time distributions for decays of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ mesons provide a direct test of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions BCP . For the neutral $`B`$ decay modes reported here, corrections to $`CP`$-violating effects from strong interactions are absent, in contrast to the $`K_L^0`$ modes in which $`CP`$ violation was discovered KLCP .

Using a data sample of 23 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, we have fully reconstructed a sample $`B_{CP}`$ of neutral $`B`$ mesons decaying to the $`CP`$ eigenstates $`J/\psi K_S^0`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ and $`J/\psi K_L^0`$. We examine each of the events in this sample for evidence that the other neutral $`B`$ meson decayed as a $`B^0`$ or a $`\overline{B}^0`$, designated as a $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ flavor tag. The final $`B_{CP}`$ sample contains about 360 signal events.

When the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays, the $`P`$-wave $`B\overline{B}`$ state evolves coherently until one of the mesons decays. In one of four time-order and flavor configurations, if the tagging meson $`B_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ decays first, and as a $`B^0`$, the other meson must be a $`\overline{B}^0`$ at that same time $`t_{\mathrm{tag}}`$. It then evolves independently, and can decay into a $`CP`$ eigenstate $`B_{CP}`$ at a later time $`t_{CP}`$. The time between the two decays $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{CP}t_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ is a signed quantity made measurable by producing the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ with a boost $`\beta \gamma =0.56`$ along the collision ($`z`$) axis, with nominal energies of 9.0 and 3.1$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the electron and positron beams. The measured distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\beta \gamma c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between the two decay vertices provides a good estimate of the corresponding time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$; the average value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|`$ is $`\beta \gamma c\tau _{B^0}250\mu \mathrm{m}`$.

The decay-time distribution for events with a $`B^0`$ or a $`\overline{B}^0`$ tag can be expressed in terms of a complex parameter $`\lambda `$ that depends on both $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and on the amplitudes describing $`\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^0`$ decay to a common final state $`f`$ lambda . The distribution $`\mathrm{f}_+(\mathrm{f}_{})`$ of the decay rate when the tagging meson is a $`B^0(\overline{B}{}_{}{}^{0})`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{f}_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|/\tau _{B^0}}}{2\tau _{B^0}(1+|\lambda |^2)}}\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1+|\lambda |^2}{2}}`$
$`\pm m\lambda \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t){\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda |^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t)],`$ (1)
where $`\tau _{B^0}`$ is the $`B^0`$ lifetime and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ is the mass difference determined from $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing PDG2000 , and where the lifetime difference between neutral $`B`$ mass eigenstates is assumed to be negligible. The first oscillatory term in Eq. 1 is due to interference between direct decay and decay after mixing. A difference between the $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ distributions or a $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ asymmetry for either tag is evidence for $`CP`$ violation.

If all amplitudes contributing to $`B^0f`$ have the same weak phase, a condition satisfied in the Standard Model for charmonium-containing $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decays, then $`|\lambda |=1`$. For these $`CP`$ eigenstates the Standard Model predicts $`\lambda =\eta _fe^{2i\beta }`$, where $`\eta _f`$ is the $`CP`$ eigenvalue of the state $`f`$ and $`\beta =\mathrm{arg}\left[V_{\mathrm{cd}}V_{\mathrm{cb}}^{}/V_{\mathrm{td}}V_{\mathrm{tb}}^{}\right]`$ is an angle of the Unitarity Triangle of the three-generation Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix CKM . Thus, the time-dependent $`CP`$-violating asymmetry is

$`A_{CP}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{f}_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{f}_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{\mathrm{f}_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\mathrm{f}_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\eta _f\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$
where $`\eta _f=1`$ for $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ and $`+1`$ for $`J/\psi K_L^0`$.

A measurement of $`A_{CP}`$ requires determination of the experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution and the fraction of events in which the tag assignment is incorrect. A mistag fraction $`w`$ reduces the observed asymmetry by a factor $`(12w)`$.

Several samples of fully reconstructed $`B^0`$ mesons are used in this measurement. The $`B_{CP}`$ sample contains candidates reconstructed in the $`CP`$ eigenstates $`J/\psi K_S^0(K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$, $`\psi (2S)K_S^0(K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`J/\psi K_L^0`$. The $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ mesons are reconstructed through their decays to $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$; the $`\psi (2S)`$ is also reconstructed through its decay to $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. A sample of $`B`$ decays $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$ conjugates  used in the determination of the mistag fractions and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution functions consists of the channels $`D^{()}h^+(h^+=\pi ^+,\rho ^+,a_1^+`$) and $`J/\psi K^0(K^0K^+\pi ^{})`$. A control sample of charged $`B`$ mesons decaying to the final states $`J/\psi K^{()+}`$, $`\psi (2S)K^+`$ and $`D^{()0}\pi ^+`$ is used for validation studies.

A description of the BABAR detector can be found in Ref. BABARNIM . Charged particles are detected and their momenta measured by a combination of a silicon vertex tracker (SVT) consisting of five double-sided layers and a central drift chamber (DCH), in a 1.5-T solenoidal field. The average vertex resolution in the $`z`$ direction is 70$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for a fully reconstructed $`B`$ meson. We identify leptons and hadrons with measurements from all detector systems, including the energy loss ($`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$) in the DCH and SVT. Electrons and photons are identified by a CsI electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC). Muons are identified in the instrumented flux return (IFR). A Cherenkov ring imaging detector (DIRC) covering the central region, together with the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ information, provides $`K`$-$`\pi `$ separation of at least three standard deviations for $`B`$ decay products with momentum greater than 250$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ in the laboratory.

We select events with a minimum of three reconstructed charged tracks, each having a laboratory polar angle between 0.41 and 2.54 rad and impact parameter in the plane transverse to the beam less than 1.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ from the beamline. The event must have a total measured energy in the laboratory greater than 4.5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ within the fiducial regions for charged tracks and neutral clusters. To help reject continuum background, the second Fox-Wolfram moment fox  must be less than 0.5.

An electron candidate must have a ratio of calorimeter energy to track momentum, an EMC cluster shape, a DCH $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ and a DIRC Cherenkov angle (if available) consistent with an electron.

A muon candidate must satisfy requirements on the measured and expected number of interaction lengths penetrated, the position match between the extrapolated DCH track and IFR hits, and the average and spread of the number of IFR hits per layer.

A track is identified as a kaon candidate by means of a neural network that uses $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ measurements in the DCH and SVT, and comparison of the observed pattern of detected photons in the DIRC with that expected for kaon and pion hypotheses.

Candidates for $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ must have at least one decay product identified as a lepton (electron or muon) candidate or, if outside the calorimeter acceptance, must have DCH $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ information consistent with the electron hypothesis. Tracks in which the electron has radiated are combined with bremsstrahlung photons, reconstructed as clusters with more than 30$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ lying within 35$`\mathrm{mr}`$ in polar angle and 50$`\mathrm{mr}`$ in azimuth of the projected photon position on the EMC. The second track of a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pair, if within the acceptance of the calorimeter, must be consistent with being a minimum ionizing particle. Two identified electron or muon candidates are required for $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ reconstruction in the higher-background $`\psi (2S)K_S^0`$ and $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ channels.

We require a $`J/\psi `$ candidate to have $`2.95m_{e^+e^{}}3.14\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ or $`3.06m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}3.14\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and a $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ candidate to have $`3.44m_{e^+e^{}}3.74\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ or $`3.64m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}3.74\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Requirements are made on the lepton helicity angle in order to provide further discrimination against background. For the $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, mass-constrained $`J/\psi `$ candidates are combined with pairs of oppositely-charged tracks considered as pions; the resulting mass must be within 15$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the $`\psi (2S)`$ mass PDG2000 .

A $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidate must satisfy $`489<m_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}<507`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The distance between the $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`K_S^0`$ vertices is required to be at least 1$`\mathrm{mm}`$.

Pairs of $`\pi ^0`$ candidates with total energy above 800$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ are considered as $`K_S^0`$ candidates for the $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ mode. We determine the most probable $`K_S^0`$ decay point along the path defined by the initial $`K_S^0`$ momentum vector and the $`J/\psi `$ vertex by maximizing the product of probabilities for the daughter $`\pi ^0`$ mass-constrained fits. Allowing for vertex resolution, we require the displacement from the $`J/\psi `$ vertex to the decay point to be between $`10`$ and $`+40`$$`\mathrm{cm}`$ and the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mass evaluated at this point to be between 470 and 550$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

A $`K_L^0`$ candidate is formed from a cluster not matched to a reconstructed track. For the EMC the cluster must have energy above 200$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, while for the IFR the cluster must have at least two layers. We determine the $`K_L^0`$ energy by combining its direction with the reconstructed $`J/\psi `$ momentum, assuming the decay $`B^0J/\psi K_L^0`$. To reduce photon backgrounds, EMC clusters consistent with a $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay are rejected and the transverse missing momentum of the event projected on the $`K_L^0`$ candidate direction must be consistent with the $`K_L^0`$ momentum. In addition, the center-of-mass $`J/\psi `$ momentum is required to be greater than 1.4$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

$`B_{CP}`$ candidates used in the analysis are selected by requiring that the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the energy of the $`B_{CP}`$ candidate and the beam energy in the center-of-mass frame be less than three standard deviations from zero and that, for $`K_S^0`$ modes, the beam-energy substituted mass $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}=\sqrt{(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cm}})^2(p_B^{\mathrm{cm}})^2}`$ falls in the interval $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The resolution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is about 10$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, except for $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ (3$`\mathrm{MeV}`$) and the $`K_S^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mode (33$`\mathrm{MeV}`$). For the purpose of determining numbers of events, purities and efficiencies, a signal region $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}>5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is used for all modes except $`J/\psi K_L^0`$.

Figure 1 shows the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ distributions for $`B_{CP}`$ candidates containing a $`K_S^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for the candidates containing a $`K_L^0`$. The $`B_{CP}`$ sample is composed of 890 events in the signal region, with an estimated background of 260 events, predominantly in the $`J/\psi K_L^0`$ channel. For that channel, the composition, effective $`\eta _f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributions of the individual background sources are taken either from a Monte Carlo simulation (for $`B`$ decays to $`J/\psi `$) or the $`m_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ sidebands in data.

For flavor tagging, we exploit information from the incompletely reconstructed other $`B`$ decay in the event. The charge of energetic electrons and muons from semileptonic $`B`$ decays, kaons, soft pions from $`D^{}`$ decays, and high momentum charged particles is correlated with the flavor of the decaying $`b`$ quark: e.g., a positive lepton yields a $`B^0`$ tag. Each event is assigned to one of four hierarchical, mutually exclusive tagging categories or is excluded from further analysis. The mistag fractions and efficiencies of all categories are determined from data.

A lepton tag requires an electron or muon candidate with a center-of-mass momentum $`p_{\mathrm{cm}}>1.0`$ or $`1.1\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, respectively. This efficiently selects primary leptons and reduces contamination due to oppositely-charged leptons from semileptonic charm decays. Events meeting these criteria are assigned to the Lepton category unless the lepton charge and the net charge of all kaon candidates indicate opposite tags. Events without a lepton tag but with a non-zero net kaon charge are assigned to the Kaon category.

All remaining events are passed to a neural network algorithm whose main inputs are the momentum and charge of the track with the maximum center-of-mass momentum, and the outputs of secondary networks, trained with Monte Carlo samples to identify primary leptons, kaons, and soft pions. Based on the output of the neural network algorithm, events are tagged as $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0`$ and assigned to the NT1 (more certain tags) or NT2 (less certain tags) category, or not tagged at all. The tagging power of the NT1 and NT2 categories arises primarily from soft pions and from recovering unidentified isolated primary electrons and muons.

Table 1 shows the number of tagged events and the signal purity, determined from fits to the $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ ($`K_S^0`$ modes) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ($`K_L^0`$ mode) distributions. The measured efficiencies for the four tagging categories are summarized in Table 2.

The uncertainty in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ measurement is dominated by the measurement of the position $`z_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ of the tagging vertex. The tagging vertex is determined by fitting the tracks not belonging to the $`B_{CP}`$ (or $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$) candidate to a common vertex. Reconstructed $`K_S^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates are used as input to the fit in place of their daughters. Tracks from $`\gamma `$ conversions are excluded from the fit. To reduce contributions from charm decay, which bias the vertex estimation, the track with the largest vertex $`\chi ^2`$ contribution greater than 6 is removed and the fit is redone until no track fails the $`\chi ^2`$ requirement or fewer than two tracks remain. The average resolution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=z_{CP}z_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ is 190$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between the two $`B`$ decays is then determined from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ measurement, including an event-by-event correction for the direction of the $`B`$ with respect to the $`z`$ direction in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame. An accepted candidate must have a converged fit for the $`B_{CP}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ vertices, an error of less than 400$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and a measured $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|<3\mathrm{mm}`$; 86% of the $`B_{CP}`$ events satisfy this requirement.

The $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurement is made with an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the combined $`B_{CP}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$ tagged samples. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution of the former is given by Eq. 1, with $`|\lambda |=1`$. The latter evolves according to the known rate for flavor oscillations in neutral $`B`$ mesons. The amplitudes for $`B_{CP}`$ asymmetries and for $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$ flavor oscillations are reduced by the same factor $`(12w)`$ due to mistags. The distributions are both convoluted with a common $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function, and are corrected for backgrounds, incorporated with different assumptions about their $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ evolution and convoluted with a separate resolution function. Events are assigned signal and background probabilities based on fits to $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ (all modes except $`J/\psi K_L^0`$) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ($`J/\psi K_L^0`$) distributions.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function for signal candidates is represented by a sum of three Gaussian distributions with different means and widths. For the core and tail Gaussians, the widths are scaled by the event-by-event measurement error derived from the vertex fits; the combined rms is 1.1$`\mathrm{ps}`$. A separate offset for the core distribution is allowed for each tagging category to account for small shifts caused by inclusion of residual charm decay products in the tag vertex; a common offset is used for the tail component. The third Gaussian (of fixed 8$`\mathrm{ps}`$ width) accounts for the fewer than $`1\%`$ of events with incorrectly reconstructed vertices. Identical resolution function parameters are used for all modes, since the $`B_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ vertex precision dominates the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution.

A total of 35 parameters are varied in the final fit, including the values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ (1), the average mistag fraction $`w`$ and the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }w`$ between $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ mistags for each tagging category (8), parameters for the signal $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution (9), and parameters for background time dependence (6), $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution (3) and mistag fractions (8). The determination of the mistag fractions and signal $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function is dominated by the high-statistics $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$ sample, while background parameters are governed by events with $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ (except $`J/\psi K_L^0`$). We fix $`\tau _{B^0}=1.548\mathrm{ps}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}=0.472\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$ PDG2000 . The largest correlation between $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and any linear combination of the other free parameters is 0.076.

The measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ was performed as a blind analysis by hiding the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ obtained from the fit, as well as the $`CP`$ asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ distribution, until the analysis was complete. This allowed us to study statistical and systematic errors without knowing the numerical value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

The measured mistag rates obtained from the likelihood fit for the four tagging categories are summarized in Table 2. As a check, the mistag rates were evaluated with a sample of about 16,000 $`D^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ events and found to be consistent with the results from the hadronic decay sample.

The combined fit to the $`CP`$ decay modes and the flavor decay modes yields

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.34\pm 0.20(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.05(\mathrm{syst}).`$
The decay asymmetry $`A_{CP}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the log likelihood as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ are shown in Fig. 2. If $`|\lambda |`$ is allowed to float in the fit, the value obtained is consistent with 1 and there is no significant difference in the value of $`\eta _fm\lambda /|\lambda |`$ (identified with $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in the Standard Model) and our quoted result. Repeating the fit with all parameters fixed to their determined values except $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, we find a total contribution of $`\pm 0.02`$ to the error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is due to the combined statistical uncertainties in mistag rates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution and background parameters.

The dominant sources of systematic error are the assumed parameterization of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ resolution function (0.04), due in part to residual uncertainties in the SVT alignment, and uncertainties in the level, composition, and $`CP`$ asymmetry of the background in the selected $`CP`$ events (0.02). The systematic errors from uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ and $`\tau _{B^0}`$ and from the parameterization of the background in the selected $`B_{\mathrm{flav}}`$ sample are found to be negligible. An increase of $`0.02\mathrm{}\mathrm{ps}^1`$ in the assumed value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B^0}`$ decreases $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by 0.012.

The large sample of reconstructed events allows a number of consistency checks, including separation of the data by decay mode, tagging category and $`B_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ flavor. The results of fits to these subsamples are shown in Table 1 for the high-purity $`K_S^0`$ events. Table 1 also shows results of fits with the samples of non-$`CP`$ decay modes, where no statistically significant asymmetry is found.

Our measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is consistent with, but improves substantially on the precision of, previous determinations OPALCDFALEPH . The central value is consistent with the range implied by measurements and theoretical estimates of the magnitudes of CKM matrix elements CKMconstraints ; it is also consistent with no $`CP`$ asymmetry at the 1.7$`\sigma `$ level.

We wish to thank our PEP-II colleagues for their extraordinary achievement in reaching design luminosity and high reliability in a remarkably short time. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them.

This work has been supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), the Institute of High Energy Physics (China), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the Swiss National Foundation, the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

—————


text:
# Modern theory of Fermi acceleration: a new challenge to plasma physics

## I Introduction

Over the last few years new observations and missions, e.g., Energetic Gamma-ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) , *Chandra* , TeV- astronomy , revolutionized the measurement of radiation from a variety of objects in the Universe. In most cases the primary source of the radiation is believed to be accelerated charged particles, often of remarkably high energies, such as $`10^{20}eV`$ or even higher , usually referred to as the ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR). The accelerated particles themselves (we will also use the term cosmic rays, CRs) are in many cases generated by shock waves (shocks). Note, that the latter are the major events where the huge energy of stars, Supernovae’s (SN) or Black holes is released in bulk gas motions and ultimately dissipated. The most successful particle acceleration mechanism is, perhaps the diffusive shock acceleration (DSA) , which is a variant of the original Fermi idea (1949), also known as the First order Fermi acceleration process. According to this mechanism particles gain energy by bouncing off hydromagnetic disturbances frozen into the converging upstream and downstream flow regions near a shock. Clearly, the understanding of this mechanism is critical for radiation models since the primary particle spectrum is one of their most important “input” characteristics. The success of this mechanism has been due to the following appealing features

1. it reproduces the power-law energy spectra with an index remarkably similar to that inferred from the observations of the galactic cosmic rays (CRs) .
2. convincing, direct observational evidence of its operation at interplanetary shocks and the earth bow shock
3. the absence of any obvious intrinsic limitation to the maximum particle energy achievable by this process

Often, however, this mechanism is applied in its simplified version, the so called test particle (TP) or linear approximation (that neglects the backreaction of accelerated particles on the shock structure and produces a simple $`E^2`$ particle energy distribution). Although more realistic, some nonlinear theories do exist, they suffer from parameterization of particle transport coefficients such as the pitch-angle scattering, spatial diffusivity and plasma heating.

Also, it should be emphasized that the statement (2) above is only a prima facie evidence for the responsibility of this mechanism for galactic CRs, alluded to in (1). Despite similarity between physical parameters , the life-times and extensions of shocks in these two environments are vastly different (up to a factor $`10^{10}`$). This requires different approximations for these shocks. Namely, the treatment of large astrophysical shocks such as Supernova remnant (SNR) shells, shocks in the lobes of radio galaxies or even larger shocks in clusters of galaxies *must* include the back reaction of accelerated particles on the shock structure, and thus be intrinsically nonlinear. This, in turn, necessitates the selfconsistent treatment of the above mentioned anomalous transport phenomena.

From the perspective of the widely accepted SNR shock hypothesis of the origin of galactic CRs, perhaps, the most critical impact of this treatment would be on the statement (3) above. It implies that the maximum energy is limited only by the time available for acceleration and by the size of accelerating object (roughly not to be exceeded by the diffusive escape length for particles, which grows with energy). This is becoming a “hot” issue in view of the lack of evidence for TeV-protons in SNR shocks (despite the signature of GeV-protons, EGRET), which might indicate that the particle spectrum either cuts off somewhere between GeV and TeV energies (i.e., in a currently uncovered by any instrument energy range) or probably significantly steepens there. We must await observations from Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) and the next generation of the imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes that are currently being built  to see where and how the spectrum disappears or changes. To understand how this *may* happen, one needs to consider all the crucial requirements for this mechanism, which are

* the ability of some fraction of thermal particles downstream to make the first step to acceleration, i.e., to return upstream (injection problem)
* good confinement of accelerated particles near the shock front (to continue energy gain)
* the ability of the shock to withstand the pressure of accelerated particles (the shock smoothing, or shock robustness problem)

These requirements are also associated with the main difficulties of the theory and are, in fact, strongly related. We consider them briefly, in order.

### A Injection problem

Injection is the process of initial particle energization. Within the widely accepted “thermal leakage” scenario of injection, the way protons enter the shock acceleration process is physically the same as when they are accelerated afterwards (see, e.g., Ref.). After thermalization downstream, certain fraction of particles will catch up with the shock. Their further leakage upstream generates Alfven waves via the cyclotron resonance $`kp\mu eB/c`$ where $`\mu `$ is the cosine of the proton pitch angle, and $`p`$ is the particle momentum. These waves do two things. First, they self-regulate the thermal particle leakage (injection) by trapping particles downstream when their leakage becomes too strong and therefore the wave amplitude too large as well . Second, the large amplitude waves scatter already accelerating particles in pitch angle, thus ensuring their diffusive confinement near the shock.

According to the above resonance condition, waves excited by protons (with $`k\rho _p1)`$ are too long to scatter electrons, so that they interact with them adiabatically ($`k\rho _e1`$). Therefore, electrons need a separate injection scenario. One suggestion is that they might be injected via scattering on self-generated whistler waves . According to another mechanism suggested in Ref., electrons are extracted directly from the thermal pool near the shock front via their interaction with proton-generated lower-hybrid waves and electrostatic barrier formed there due to this interaction.

It should be noted that when the both species become relativistic and, if the synchrotron cooling time is longer than the acceleration time, the electron spectrum should be identical to that of the protons. However, it is electrons for which we have convincing direct evidence of Fermi acceleration in SNR shells. There are well documented measurements of nonthermal electron emission in radio, $`x`$ rays and possibly also in $`\gamma `$ rays, presented e.g., in Refs. ,  and , respectively. Although electrons play perhaps dynamically unimportant role in the shock structure, they should trace the dynamically important proton spectra.

### B Particle Confinement near the shock

As in the injection phase, further particle confinement near the shock is supported by self-generated Alfven wave turbulence, since the energetic particle distribution ahead of the shock is ion-cyclotron unstable (see, e.g., Ref.). Due to rapid pitch-angle scattering on these waves, particles cross the shock repeatedly, thus gaining energy. Clearly, the scattering frequency (turbulence level) sets up the acceleration rate. Note that the existing background magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence in the interstellar medium (ISM) would support only very slow acceleration. A long-standing problem is that the wave generation process is likely to be so robust that wave amplitude may far exceed the level admissible by the quasi-linear theory. It is usually expected that the turbulence saturates at a level $`\delta BB_0`$. Thus, particle scattering must occur via strongly nonlinear wave-wave and wave-particle interactions so that the conventional quasi-linear description should be replaced by a non-perturbative approach.

MHD simulations significantly advanced recently (see, eg  and references therein) but they would not suffice alone to self-consistently describe the wave generation by turbulently confined particles. The main difficulty is, as it will be seen in the sequel, the enormous extension of particle and wave spectra. It seems desirable to combine simulations in restricted but critical parts of the phase space (as the short-wave, low-energy part that controlls the injection and the long-wave, high energy part where particle losses occur) with an analytical approach in extended but tractable parts of the phase space where particle and wave spectra and even the flow profile exhibit relatively simple, scale invariant behaviour .

It should be evident that a purely numerical approach would encounter serious difficulties if applied to the shock acceleration of UHECRs. Indeed, even if we had numerical solution of the problem of CR acceleration in SNR shocks, i.e., up to energies $`10^{15}`$ eV, we would need to extend its dynamical range by a factor of $`10^5`$. Since the integration domain in configuartion space is typically proportional to the maximum energy, this would mean $`10^{10}`$ times larger phase space. It seems natural to use this large size of the phase space instead of letting computer to process decade after decade of it with basically the same physics. The analytic approach that we introduce in Sec.II B below utilizes the corresponding small parameters and therefore appears particularly suitable to the problem of acceleration of UHECRs.

### C Shock robustness

Due to the secular growth of the pressure of accelerated particles, the linear solution becomes invalid for shocks of sufficient life time, scale $`L`$ and magnetic field $`B`$ (the most critical parameter is $`BL`$ since the maximum particle energy scales as $`E_{max}(u/c)eBL`$, provided that enough time is available for acceleration, as discussed, e.g., in Ref.). The main nonlinear effect is due to the back reaction of energetic particles on the flow which reduces the velocity jump at the flow discontinuity (subshock) through the deceleration and heating of the plasma in front of it (i.e., in the so called CR precursor), Fig.1. The total shock compression, however, increases due to the decrease in the adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ caused by the presence of relativistic particles and, even more importantly, by their escape from the system (akin to radiative shocks). At the same time the maintenance of a finite subshock within the global shock structure (subshock itself, plus CR precursor) is critical to the injection process and thus for acceleration in general. A mathematical limitation of the TP approximation can be obtained in terms of particle energy and injection rate $`\nu `$, namely, $`\nu \sqrt{E_{max}}1`$ , which states that the pressure of accelerated particles must remain smaller than the shock ram pressure. It is also clear from this condition that the above three issues are strongly coupled. Injection ($`\nu `$) and particle confinement (which sets $`E_{max}`$) determine the shock structure and are, in turn, regulated by it. The acceleration time scale $`\tau _{acc}`$ (or particle diffusivity $`\kappa `$) and the precursor turbulent heating rate are also implicitly involved in this “feedback loop”. There are indeed too many shock variables to obtain reliable prediction by simply scanning the parameter space. Therefore, they need to be calculated self-consistently before the particle spectra can be calculated and compared with the observations.

## II Nonlinear theories

A typical nonlinearly accelerating shock is illustrated in Fig.1. The most “visible” nonlinear effects are: (1) the deceleration of the flow upstream (see the flow profile on the top of Fig. 1) by the pressure of accelerated particles, (2) subshock reduction, as a consequence (its strength $`u_0/u_2`$ may become small compared to the total compression $`u_1/u_2`$ (3) bending of the B-field due to the compression of its tangential component because of the frozen in condition, $`uB_t=const`$, while the normal component is conserved due to $`\mathrm{div}𝐁=0`$.

### A Two-fluid model

Initially, the back reaction of accelerated particles (CRs) on the shock structure was studied within the two-fluid model (TFM). This model treats CRs as a second fluid carrying the momentum and energy across the shock, but not the mass. Complete solutions given in Refs. indeed revealed a very strong back reaction of the CRs onto the bulk plasma flow, leading to a bifurcation of the simple linear solution into a strongly nonlinear (efficient) solution with the acceleration efficiency approaching (in strong shocks) 100% due to the nonlinearly enhanced shock compression. This gives rise to a formally diverging (i.e., in reality strongly dependent on the maximum energy) CR pressure which makes the particle losses at the highest energies as important dynamically as injection, and strongly related to it through their feedback on the subshock strength. Moreover, these losses are controlled by the Alfven turbulence which, in turn, depends on the CR distribution in the shock precursor and thus on the losses themselves. Unfortunately, the TFM, being a hydrodynamic theory, cannot be closed in such a way that these essentially kinetic effects are properly represented.

### B Kinetic Theory

The earlier kinetic theories also demonstrated that upon accumulating enough CR energy, strong shocks develop into the nonlinear regime The minimal kinetic theory that captures bifurcations of the DSA can be formulated as follows.

We describe the distribution of high energy particles (CRs) by the so called diffusion-convection equation (see, e.g., Refs.). The gaseous discontinuity (the subshock) is assumed to be located at $`x=0`$ and, for convenience, we flip the $`x`$\- coordinate in Fig.1, so that the upstream side is $`x>0`$ half-space. Thus, the flow velocity in the shock frame can be represented as $`V(x)=u(x)`$ where the (positive) flow speed $`u(x)`$ jumps from $`u_2u(0)`$ downstream to $`u_0u(0+)>u_2`$ across the subshock and then gradually grows upstream up to $`u_1u(+\mathrm{})u_0`$. In a steady state the equation can be written as

$$u\frac{f}{x}+\kappa (p)\frac{^2f}{x^2}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{du}{dx}p\frac{f}{p},$$
(1)
where $`f(x,p)`$ is the isotropic (in the local fluid frame) part of the particle distribution. This is assumed to vanish far upstream ($`f0,x\mathrm{}`$), while the only bounded solution downstream is obviously $`f(x,p)=f_0(p)f(0,p)`$. The most plausible assumption about the cosmic ray diffusivity $`\kappa (p)`$ is that of the Bohm type, i.e., $`\kappa (p)=Kp^2/\sqrt{1+p^2}`$ (the particle momentum $`p`$ is normalized to $`mc`$). In other words $`\kappa `$ scales as the gyroradius, $`\kappa r_\mathrm{g}(p)`$. The reference diffusivity $`K`$ depends on the $`\delta B/B`$ level of the Alfvenic turbulence that scatters the particles in pitch angle. The minimum value for $`K`$ would be $`Kmc^3/eB`$ if $`\delta BB`$. Note that the replacement of this plain parameterization by a selfconsistent solution for the spectrum of turbulence driven by an inhomogeneous distribution of accelerated particles is a challenge to plasma physics. The existing quasi-linear approaches clearly fail in the efficient acceleration regime due to unacceptable wave amplitudes.

The determination of $`u(x)`$ in eq.(1) requires three further equations. The first one is the conservation of the momentum flux in the smooth part of the shock transition ($`x>0`$, i.e., in the CR-precursor)

$$P_\mathrm{c}+\rho u^2=\rho _1u_1^2,x>0$$
(2)
where $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ is the pressure of the high energy particles

$$P_\mathrm{c}(x)=\frac{4\pi }{3}mc^2_{p_0}^{p_1}\frac{p^4dp}{\sqrt{p^2+1}}f(p,x)$$
(3)
It is assumed here that there are no particles with momenta $`p>p_1`$ (they leave the shock vicinity because there are no MHD waves with sufficiently long wave length $`\lambda `$, since the cyclotron resonance requires $`p\lambda `$). The momentum region $`0<p<p_0`$ cannot be described by equation (1) and the behavior of $`f(p)`$ at $`pp_0`$ is described by the injection parameters $`p_0`$ and $`f(p_0)`$ . The plasma density $`\rho (x)`$ can be eliminated from equation (2) by using the continuity equation $`\rho u=\rho _1u_1`$. Finally, the subshock strength $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ can be expressed through the Mach number $`M`$ at $`x=\mathrm{}`$

$$r_\mathrm{s}\frac{u_0}{u_2}=\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma 1+2R^{\gamma +1}M^2}$$
(4)
where the precursor compression $`Ru_1/u_0`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the adiabatic index of the plasma.

The system of equations (1,2,4) describes in a self-consistent manner the particle spectrum and the flow structure, although under parameterization of such critical quantities as $`\nu `$ and $`p_1`$. Our poor knowledge of the maximum momentum $`p_1`$ is related to the prescribed form of particle diffusivity $`\kappa (p)`$.

It is useful to reduce this system to one integral equation . A key dependent variable is an integral transform of the flow profile $`u(x)`$ with a kernel suggested by an asymptotic solution of the system (1)-(2) which has the form

$`f(x,p)=f_0(p)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q}{3\kappa }}\mathrm{\Psi }\right]`$

where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle _0^x}u(x^{})𝑑x^{}`$

is the flow potential and the spectral index downstream $`q(p)=d\mathrm{ln}f_0/d\mathrm{ln}p`$. The integral transform is as follows

$$U(p)=\frac{1}{u_1}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{q(p)}{3\kappa (p)}\mathrm{\Psi }\right]𝑑u(\mathrm{\Psi })$$
(5)
and it is related to $`q(p)`$ through the following formula

$$q(p)=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}U}{d\mathrm{ln}p}+\frac{3}{r_\mathrm{s}RU(p)}+3$$
(6)
The physical meaning of the function $`U(p)`$ is very simple. It reflects the degree of shock modification. Namely, a function $`U(p)+u_2`$ is an effective flow velocity upstream as seen by a particle with momentum $`p`$ that diffusively escapes ahead of the shock to a point $`x`$ where the flow speed is $`u(x)=U(p)+u_2`$. Once $`U(p)`$ is found, both the flow profile and the particle distribution can be determined by inverting transform (5) and integrating equation (6). Now, using the linearity of equation (2) ($`\rho u=const`$), we derive the integral equation for $`U`$ by applying the transformation (5) to the $`x`$ derivative of equation (2) . The result reads

$`U(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{s}1}{Rr_\mathrm{s}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{Kp_0}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_1}}𝑑t^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa (t^{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q(t^{})}{\kappa (t)q(t)}}\right]^1`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U(t_0)}{U(t^{})}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{Rr_\mathrm{s}}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{\prime \prime }}{U(t^{\prime \prime })}}\right]`$ (8)
where $`t=\mathrm{ln}p`$, $`t_{0,1}=\mathrm{ln}p_{0,1}`$. Here the injection parameter

$$\nu =\frac{4\pi }{3}\frac{mc^2}{\rho _1u_1^2}p_0^4f_0(p_0)$$
(9)
is related to $`R`$ by means of the following equation

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`Kp_0\left(1R^1\right)`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_1}}\kappa (t)𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{U(t_0)}{U(t)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{Rr_\mathrm{s}}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{U(t^{})}}\right]\right\}^1`$ (11)
The equations (4,8,11) form a closed system that can be easily solved, e.g., numerically. Asymptotic analytic solutions are also available . The physical quantities involved are: the far upstream Mach number $`M`$ (which is given, external parameter); internal parameters: $`M_0`$ (the Mach number at the subshock), the injection rate $`\nu `$, the particle maximum momentum $`p_{max}p_1`$, and particle diffusivity $`\kappa (p,x)`$. These internal parameters must be determined self-consistently, but currently are parameterized or calculated using some simplifying assumption. For example, assuming that there is no turbulent heating in the shock precursor (which is doubtful in such a turbulent environment), the parameter $`M_0=M/R^{(\gamma +1)/2}`$ \[see eq.(4)\].

## III Critical nature of acceleration process

The presence of bifurcation in this acceleration process is best seen in variables $`R,\nu `$. The quantity $`R1`$ is a measure of shock modification produced by CRs, in fact $`(R1)/R=P_\mathrm{c}(0)/\rho _1u_1^2`$ \[Eq.(2)\] and may be regarded as an order parameter. The injection rate $`\nu `$ characterizes the CR density at the shock front and can be tentatively treated as a control parameter. It is convenient to plot the function $`\nu (R)`$ instead of $`R(\nu )`$ \[using equations (11) and (4)\], Fig.2.

In fact, the injection rate $`\nu `$ at the subshock should be calculated given $`r_\mathrm{s}(R)`$ with the self-consistent determination of the flow compression $`R`$ on the basis of the $`R(\nu )`$ dependence obtained. However, in view of a very strong, even nonunique dependence $`R(\nu )`$, this solution can be physically meaningful only in regimes far from criticality, i.e., when $`R1`$ (test particle regime) or $`R1`$ (efficient acceleration). There are, however, self-regulating processes that should drive the system *towards critical region* (where $`R(\nu )`$ dependence is very sharp) . First, if $`\nu `$ is subcritical it will inevitably become supercritical when $`p_1`$ grows in course of acceleration. Once it happened, however, the strong subshock reduction (equation ) will reduce $`\nu `$ as well and drive the system back to the critical regime, Fig.3.

The maximum momentum $`p_1`$ is subject to self-regulation as well. Indeed, when $`R1`$, the generation and propagation of Alfven waves is characterized by strong inclination of the characteristics of wave transport equation towards larger wavenumbers $`k`$ on the $`kx`$ plane due to wave compression. Thus, considering particles with $`pp_1`$ inside the precursor, one sees that they are in resonance with waves that must have been excited by particles with $`p>p_1`$ further upstream but, there are no particles with $`p>p_1`$. Therefore, the required waves can be excited only locally by the same particles with $`pp_1`$ which substantially diminishes the amplitude of waves that are in resonance with particles from the interval $`p_1/R<p<p_1`$. (The left inequality arises from the resonance condition $`kcpeB/mc`$ and the frequency conservation along the characteristics $`ku(x)=const`$). This will worsen the confinement of these particles to the shock front. The quantitative study of this process is another challenge to the theory of plasma turbulence. What can be inferred from Fig.2 now, is that the decrease of $`p_1`$ straightens out and rise the curve $`\nu (R)`$, so that it returns to the monotonic behaviour. However once the actual injection becomes subcritical (and thus $`R1`$) then $`p_1`$ will grow again restoring the two extrema on the curve $`\nu (R)`$.

Also the turbulent precursor heating straightens up the bifurcation diagram and returns it to the critical state. We illustrate this in Fig.4 for different heating efficiencies $`\alpha `$, introduced phenomenologically through the decrease in the flow Mach number across the CR precursor

$$M_0^2=M^2R^{8/3}+\frac{\alpha }{3}(R1)p_{max}$$
(12)
Here the first term is due to the familiar adiabatic compression while the second describes the turbulent heating, assumed to be proportional to the CR pressure contrast $`R1`$ (source of the free energy for turbulence) as well as to the precursor length $`p_{max}`$. The plots in Figs. 2,4 demonstrate that parameterization approaches in which the internal parameters (like $`\alpha `$ and $`p_{max}`$ in many simulations) are treated as given may be useful only when (and if) these parameters are well outside the critical region which is marked by very sharp or even nonunique parameter dependence. For example, as seen from Fig.4, if $`\alpha `$ (which is essentially unknown) lies within the interval $`10^810^7`$, then there are no means to calculate the flow structure ($`R`$), and thus the particle spectrum with a reasonable accuracy. To treat the injection rate in the critical region as a “control” parameter is equally useless, Figs. 2,4.

It appears to be more productive to *assume* a *marginal state* in which the maximum and the minimum of $`\nu (R)`$ merge, at least in a sense of an averaged (in time and space) process.

This means that $`\nu ^{}(R)=\nu ^{\prime \prime }(R)=0`$ at some $`R=R_\mathrm{c}`$. These two equations and the dependence $`\nu (R)`$ itself, not only determine $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}\nu (R_\mathrm{c})`$ but also provide an additional relation that involve other parameters of the problem which clearly enter the function $`\nu (R)`$. These are the Mach number $`M`$, the heating rate $`\alpha `$ and the maximum momentum $`p_{\mathrm{max}}p_1`$. For example, given $`M`$ and $`\alpha `$ we can easily calculate $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ . These results show, that at least in shocks with high Mach numbers and no significant turbulent heating, the nonlinear effects may significantly limit the maximum energy achievable by this acceleration mechanism. Before any relevance of this result to, e.g., the lack of observational evidence of TeV protons in SNR can be seriously debated, a number of difficult issues must be addressed which we discuss briefly in the next section.

## IV Discussion

Instead of relying on parameterization, and guessing about the possible values of relevant parameters it was suggested that, due to the self-regulation, the system should evolve precisely into the critical point within given parameter space . A comprehensive evaluation of this suggestion and the study of self-regulation mechanisms poses a serious challenge to plasma physics. Note, however, that the critical self-organization approach was proven very useful in describing transport phenomena in laboratory plasmas, when the turbulence is generated by transport driving gradients, i.e., the pressure or density gradients, e.g., . The most important current issue is the construction of adequate links between the internal parameters (and so the Alfvenic turbulence), and their dependence upon the external parameters. This is an interdisciplinary problem in high energy astrophysics and nonlinear plasma physics. It combines hydrodynamics, particle kinetics with a strong emphasis on the theory of dynamical chaos and ergodicity (injection), Alfvenic turbulence, collisionless nonlinear plasma phenomena and, in particular, the theory of collisionless shocks.

Currently not all the aspects of this problem are well understood. We believe that we understand how the acceleration operates in the test particle (linear) regime, and have an analytic description of nonlinearly modified shocks including particle spectra, although under a prescribed Bohm-type particle diffusion. Injection can be calculated currently only for a relatively strong subshock, while we need it for varying shock parameters of dynamically evolving CR shocks. Turbulence dynamics, associated plasma heating and the turbulent transport of CRs are understood to even lesser extent. A systematic determination of parameters involved should allow the self-consistent calculation of particle spectra.

Specifically, this requires detailed understanding of several physical phenomena in a shock environment, which include:

1. generation of waves by energetic protons, wave transport and spectral evolution
2. turbulent transport of protons, in space and momentum, injection
3. electron injection triggered by proton generated turbulence
4. heating by Alfvenic and (magneto-) acoustic turbulence, which controls the global shock structure

The resolution of these issues will lead to the further progress in our understanding of particle acceleration and associated emission.

## Acknowledgments

Some of the presented results have been obtained in collaboration with L. Drury and H. Völk. We also acknowledge helpful discussions with F. Aharonian and T. Jones.

This work was supported by U.S. DOE under Grant No. FG03-88ER53275.