text:
# Bipartite maximally entangled nonorthorgonal states

## I Introduction

Quantum entanglement has generated much interest in the quantum information processing such as quantum teleportation, superdense coding, quantum key distribution, and telecoloning. The entangled orthogonal states receive much attention in the study of quantum entanglement. However the entangled nonorthogonal states also play an important role in the quantum cryptography and quantum information processing. Bosonic entangled coherent states (ECS) and su(2) and su(1,1) ECS are typical examples of entangled nonorthogonal states.

The coherent state can be used to encode quantum information on continuous variables and several schemes have been proposed for realizing quantum computation. The overlap $`\alpha |\alpha `$ of two coherent states $`|\pm \alpha `$ of $`\pi `$ difference is $`\mathrm{exp}(2|\alpha |^2),`$ which decreases exponentially with $`\alpha .`$ Then we can identify the coherent states $`|\pm \alpha `$ with large $`\alpha `$ as basis states of a logical qubit:

$$|0_L=|\alpha ,\text{ }|1_L=|\alpha .$$
(1)
One can also use Schrödinger cat states, the even and odd coherent states $`|\alpha _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left(|\alpha \pm |\alpha \right)`$ $`/\sqrt{2(1\pm e^{2|\alpha |^2})}`$ to encode a qubit and they are exactly orthogonal. However these states are extremely sensitive to photon loss.

Now we consider the bosonic ECS,

$$|\alpha ;\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1e^{4|\alpha |^2})}}\left(|\alpha |\alpha |\alpha |\alpha \right),$$
(2)
which can be produced by using a 50/50 beam splitter. If $`|`$$`\alpha |`$ is large, the ECS is considered as a state of two logical qubits (1):

$$|\alpha ;\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0_L|0_L|1_L|1_L\right),$$
(3)
which is obviously a maximally entangled state (MES), the singlet state.

More superisingly it is found that the ECS $`|\alpha ;\alpha `$ possess exactly one ebit entanglement and the amount of entanglement is independent $`\alpha `$. Dountlessly the ECS is a MES as it can be rewritten as

$$|\alpha ;\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\alpha _+|\alpha _{}+|\alpha _{}|\alpha _+\right)$$
(4)
in terms of the even and odd coherent states $`|\alpha _\pm .`$ Eq.(4) shows that the state $`|\alpha ;\alpha `$ manifestly has one ebit of entanglement.

In this paper we give conditions under which general bipartite entangled nonorthogonal states become MES. Using the conditions we construct a large class of bipartite maximally entangled nonorthogonal states in both the bipartite and multipartite systems. We also propose some methods to generate the bipartite maximally entangled nonorthogornal states.

## II MES condition for bipartite entangled states

We begin with a standard general bipartite entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mu |\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }+\nu |\overline{\gamma }|\overline{\delta },$$
(5)
where $`|\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`|\overline{\gamma }`$ are normalized states of system 1 and similarly $`|\overline{\beta }`$ and $`|\overline{\delta }`$ are states of system 2 with complex $`\mu `$ and $`\nu .`$ We consider the nonorthogonal case, i.e., the overlaps $`\overline{\alpha }|\gamma `$ and $`\overline{\beta }|\overline{\delta }`$ are nonzero. After normalization, the bipartite state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=a|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }+d|\overline{\gamma }|\overline{\delta },$$
(6)
where $`a=\mu /N_{12},`$ $`d=\nu /N_{12},`$ and

$$N_{12}=\sqrt{|\mu |^2+|\nu |^2+\mu \nu ^{}\overline{\gamma }|\overline{\alpha }\overline{\delta }|\overline{\beta }+\mu ^{}\nu \overline{\alpha }|\overline{\gamma }\overline{\beta }|\overline{\delta }}.$$
(7)
The two nonorthogonal states $`|\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`|\overline{\gamma }`$ are assumed to be linearly independent and span a two-dimensional subspace of the Hilbert space. Then we choose an orthogonal basis $`\{|\mathrm{𝟎},|\mathrm{𝟏}\}`$ as

$`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\alpha },|\mathrm{𝟏}=(|\overline{\gamma }p_1|\overline{\alpha })/N_1\text{ for system 1,}`$ (8)
$`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\delta },|\mathrm{𝟏}=(|\overline{\beta }p_2|\overline{\delta })/N_2\text{ for system 2,}`$ (9)
where

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\gamma },\text{ }N_1=\sqrt{1|p_1|^2},`$ (10)
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\delta }|\overline{\beta },N_2=\sqrt{1|p_2|^2}.`$ (11)
Under these basis the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be rewritten as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`(ap_2+dp_1)|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (13)
$`+aN_2|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}+dN_1|\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{𝟎},`$
which shows that the general entangled nonorthogonal state is considered as a state of two logical qubits.

Then it is straightforward to obtain the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{1(2)}`$ and the two eigenvalues of $`\rho _1`$ are given by

$$\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{14|adN_1N_2|^2}$$
(14)
which are identical to those of $`\rho _2.`$ The corresponding eigenvectors of $`\rho _{1(2)}`$ is denoted by $`|\pm _{1(2).}`$ Then the general theory of the Schmidt decomposition implies that the normalized state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=c_+|+_1|+_2+c_{}|_1|_2$$
(15)
with $`|c_\pm |^2=\lambda _\pm .`$

From Eqs.(14) and (15) we immediately know that the condition for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be a MES is $`|2adN_1N_2|=1.`$ Using Eqs.(7) and (11), we rewrite the condition explicitly as $`𝒞=1,`$ where

$$𝒞=\frac{2|\mu ||\nu |\sqrt{(1|p_1|^2)(1|p_2|^2)}}{|\mu |^2+|\nu |^2+\mu \nu ^{}p_1^{}p_2+\mu ^{}\nu p_1p_2^{}}.$$
(16)
Now we show that the quantity $`𝒞`$ is exactly one measure of entanglement, the concurrence for two qubits. There are different measures of entanglement. One simple measure is the concurrence. Since the system 1 and 2 in the bipartite state (5) are essentially two-state systems, we can characterize the entanglement of bipartite state by the concurrence. The concurrence for a pure state $`|\psi `$is defined by $`𝒞=|\psi |\sigma _y\sigma _y|\psi ^{}|.`$ Here $`\sigma _y=i(|\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟎}||\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏}|).`$ A direct calculation shows that the concurrence of the bipartite state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is just the quantity $`𝒞`$ given by Eq.(16). Then the condition for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be a MES is that the concurrence of the state is equal to 1 as we hoped.

For orthorgonal state, $`p_1=p_2=0,`$ and the concurrence $`𝒞=2|\mu ||\nu |/(|\mu |^2+|\nu |^2)`$ which obviously satisfies $`0𝒞1.`$ The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes a MES when $`|\mu |=|\nu |=1`$ as we expected$`.`$For partly orthorgonal state, $`p_10,p_2=0,`$ Eq.(16) becomes

$$𝒞=2|\mu ||\nu |\sqrt{1|p_1|^2}/(|\mu |^2+|\nu |^2).$$
(17)
Then the partly orthogonal state be a MES is when the inner product $`p_1=0`$. For completely nonorthorgonal state, $`p_10`$ and $`p_20.`$ It is remarkable to see that we still have possibilities to make the concurrence $`𝒞`$ be 1. One case for $`𝒞=1`$ is given by

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\nu ,`$ (18)
$`\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\delta }|\overline{\beta }.`$ (19)
The necessary and sufficient condition for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be a MES is discussed in detail in another paper. We call Eq.(19) as the MES condition for the general state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ The MES condition (19) immediately gives a interesting antisymmetric MES

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }|^2)}}\left(|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }|\overline{\beta }|\overline{\alpha }\right).$$
(20)
The amount of entanglement of the state is exactly one ebit and the entanglement is independent of the parameters involved. However for a symmetric state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }|^2)}}\left(|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }+|\overline{\beta }|\overline{\alpha }\right),$$
(21)
the corresponding concurrence is $`𝒞=\frac{1|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }|^2}{1+|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }|^2},`$ which indicates that the symmetric state is not maximally entangled except the orthorgonal case $`\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }=0.`$ Note that states $`|\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`|\overline{\beta }`$ are different normalized arbitrary states. From the above discussions we see that the relative phase plays an important role on the entanglement.

Hirota et al.  have found that the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ is a MES. However they impose a restriction that the overlap $`\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }`$ is a real number. As we discussed here, this restriction is not necessary and the states $`|\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`|\overline{\beta }`$ can be arbitrary. As a illustration of the importance of complex overlap, we consider a state

$`|\alpha ,\alpha ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1|\alpha |\alpha ^{}|^2)}}}\left(|\alpha |\alpha ^{}|\alpha |\alpha ^{}\right),`$

which is maximally entangled. The overlap $`\alpha |\alpha ^{}=e^{|\alpha |^2(e^{i2\theta }1)}`$ is real only when $`\alpha =|\alpha |e^{i\theta }`$ is real or pure imaginary. So the MES with real overlap is a small subset of the set formed by the MES with complex overlap.

More maximailly entangled ECS can be constructed. For instance, the bosonic coherent state $`|\alpha `$ can be replaced by the abstract su(2) coherent state and su(1,1) coherent state in the state $`|\alpha ;\alpha ,`$ and then obtain the corresponding su(2) and su(1,1) ECS with one ebit of entanglement.

## III More general entangled nonorthogonal states.

Now we consider a more general entangled coherent state of the following type

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=a|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }+b|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\delta }+c|\overline{\gamma }|\overline{\beta }+d|\overline{\gamma }|\overline{\delta }$$
(22)
where $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ are coherent states. We assume that the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a normalized state. When $`b=c=0,`$ the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reduces to the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ One typical useful example of this type of states is the state generated by the interaction

$$H=\chi a_1^{}a_1a_2^{}a_2,$$
(23)
where $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of system $`i`$. After an interaction time $`t=\pi /\chi ,`$ from the initial product of coherent states $`|\alpha |\beta ,`$ the output state is

$`|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(|\alpha +|\alpha )|\beta +(|\alpha |\alpha )|\beta \right]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\alpha |\beta +|\alpha |\beta `$ (26)
$`+|\alpha |\beta |\alpha |\beta )`$
This state was successfully used to construct entangled coherent–state qubits in an ion trap.

Using the same technique of above section we can consider the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a two–qubit state. We write the state as the form of qubits

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(ap_2+b+cp_1p_2+dp_1)|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (29)
$`+N_2(a+cp_1)|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`+N_1(d+cp_2)|\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{𝟎}+cN_1N_2|\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{𝟏}.`$
in the basis defined in Eq.(9).

For a general pure state

$$|\psi =a|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟎}+b|\mathrm{𝟎}|\mathrm{𝟏}+c|1|\mathrm{𝟎}+d|\mathrm{𝟏}|\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(30)
the concurrence is given by

$$C=2|adbc|.$$
(31)
From Eqs.(29) and (31), the concurrence of the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is obtained as

$$C=2\sqrt{1|p_1|^2}\sqrt{1|p_2|^2}|adbc|.$$
(32)
When $`b=c=0`$ Eq.(32) reduces to Eq.(16) as we expected. From Eq.(32) the corresponding concurrence of the state $`|\varphi `$ is simply obtained as

$$C=\sqrt{(1e^{4|\alpha |^2})(1e^{4|\beta |^2})}.$$
(33)
We see that the state becomes maximally entangled state if and only if the amplitudes $`|\alpha |1`$ and $`|\beta |1`$.

## IV Bipartite entantglement in multipartite systems

It is more interesting to ask if we can obtain bipartite MES in multipartite systems. A bipartite MES with even systems we can offer is

$`|\overline{\alpha };\overline{\beta }_{2N}`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{}|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }\mathrm{}|\overline{\beta }`$ (35)
$`|\overline{\beta }\mathrm{}|\overline{\beta }|\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{}|\overline{\alpha }`$
up to a normalization constant. To see the fact that this state is a MES we consider the first $`N`$ systems as system 1 and the other $`N`$ systems as system 2. By this observation, these two states satisfy the MES condition (19), i.e., they are the MES in the sense that the concurrence $`𝒞_{(12\mathrm{}N)(N+1,N+2\mathrm{}2N)}`$between the first $`N`$ systems and the second $`N`$ systems is equal to one. Of course we can construct more complicated bipartite MES in the multipartite system according to the MES condition.

Now we consider a ECS defined by

$$|\alpha ;\alpha _N=|\alpha \mathrm{}|\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{}|\alpha ,$$
(36)
For even $`N,`$ this state is a bipartite MES, however for odd $`N,`$ usually it is not. The above state can be considered as multipartite maximally entangled states if the coherent states $`|\pm \alpha `$are considered as logical qubits as in Eq.(1).

After normalization, the MES $`|\alpha ;\alpha _N`$ is expanded as

$`|\alpha ;\alpha _N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1e^{2N|\alpha |^2})}}}`$ (38)
$`\times \left(|\alpha \mathrm{}|\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{}|\alpha \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}(N|\alpha |^2)}}}`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1\mathrm{}n_N}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_N}\left[1(1)^{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_N}\right]}{2\sqrt{n_1!\mathrm{}n_N!}}}`$
$`\times |n_1\mathrm{}n_N`$
where $`|n_1\mathrm{}n_N=|n_1\mathrm{}|n_N`$ and $`|n_k`$ are Fock states of system $`k`$.

In the limit $`|\alpha |0,`$ we see that only the terms with $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_N=1`$ survive, and the resultant state is

$`|\text{W}_N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}`$ $`(|100\mathrm{}0+|0100\mathrm{}0+\mathrm{}`$ (43)
$`+|0000\mathrm{}1).`$
It is interesting to see that the state is the so-called W state . The entanglement of W state is maximally robust under disposal of any one of the qubits.

The state $`|\alpha ;\alpha _N`$ with even $`N`$ is a bipartite MES and then the W state with even $`N`$ is also a bipartite MES. For instance $`|\mathrm{W}_4`$ can be rewritten as

$$|W_4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^+|00+|00|\mathrm{\Psi }^+),$$
(44)
which manifestly has one ebit of entanglement. Here the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ represents one of the Bell state, i.e,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01+|10).`$

However the state $`|\alpha ;\alpha _N`$ with odd $`N`$ is not a bipartite MES. For instance, from Eq.(31) the concurrence between system 1 and systems 2 and 3 of the state $`|\alpha ;\alpha _3`$ is obtained as

$$𝒞_{1(23)}=\frac{\sqrt{(1e^{4|\alpha |^2})(1e^{8|\alpha |^2})}}{(1e^{6|\alpha |^2})}.$$
(45)
In the limit $`|\alpha |\mathrm{},`$ the concurrence becomes 1 as we expected, and in the limit $`|\alpha |0,`$ the concurrence $`𝒞_{1(23)}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3},`$ which can be understood as follows. The state $`|\alpha ;\alpha _3`$ becomes W state in the limit $`|\alpha |0,`$ and for state $`|`$W$`_N,`$ an equality

$$𝒞_{12}^2+𝒞_{13}^2+\mathrm{}+𝒞_{1N}^2=𝒞_{1(23..n)}^2$$
(46)
holds. For $`|\mathrm{W}_3`$ the concurrence $`𝒞_{12}=𝒞_{13}=2/3,`$ therefore $`𝒞_{1(23)}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}.`$

In three-qubit system we can construct a bipartite MES as

$`|\alpha ;{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}_3`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha |{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (48)
$`|\alpha |{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}},`$
In the limit $`|\alpha |0,`$ it reduces to the MES $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1|00+|0|\mathrm{\Psi }^+).`$ Further in odd systems the bipartite MES is constructed as

$`|\alpha ;{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2N}}}_{2N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha |{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2N}}}\mathrm{}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2N}}}`$ (50)
$`|\alpha |{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2N}}}\mathrm{}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2N}}}`$
with the concurrence $`𝒞_{1(\mathrm{23..2}N+1)}=1,`$ which results from the identity

$$\alpha |\alpha =(\alpha /\sqrt{2N}|\alpha /\sqrt{2N})^{2N}$$
(51)
and the MES condition.

## V Generation of the entangled states

Now we consider how to generate the bipartite maximally entangled nonorthogonal states in both bipartite and multipartite systems.

### A Bipartite entangled states

One method is already given by Barenco et al. and Bužek and Hillery, and based on controlled-SWAP gate which is described by the following transformation

$`|0|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }`$ $``$ $`|0|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta },`$ (52)
$`|1|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }`$ $``$ $`|1|\overline{\beta }|\overline{\alpha }.`$ (53)
Let the input state of the controlled-SWAP gate is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)|\overline{\alpha }|\overline{\beta }`$ and we measure the output state. If we measure the qubit on the state $`|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1),`$ we obtain exactly the antisymmetric maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ (31). The entanglement swapping method can be used to generate entangled coherent states in trapped-ion systems, which is also discussed in Ref.. Here we generalize the method proposed by van Enk and Hirota, who have studied how to generate $`|\alpha ;\alpha `$ by 50/50 beam splitter.

The 50/50 beam splitter is described by $`B_{1,2}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}(a_1^{}a_2+a_2^{}a_1)},`$ which transforms the state $`|\alpha _1|\beta _2`$ as

$`B_{1,2}|\alpha _1|\beta _2`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`|(\alpha +i\beta )/\sqrt{2}_1|(\beta +i\alpha )/\sqrt{2}_2.`$ (55)
Further using the phase shifter $`P_2=e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}a_2^{}a_2}`$ which makes phase shifting by $`\pi /2,`$ we can have the transformation $`_{1,2}=P_2B_{12}P_2,`$ which transforms the coherent states as

$$_{1,2}|\alpha _1|\beta _2=|ϵ_+_1|ϵ_{}_2,$$
(56)
where $`ϵ_\pm =(\alpha \pm \beta )/\sqrt{2}.`$ Now let the input state be $`|\alpha _1|\beta _2,`$ i.e., the input state is the direct product of the odd coherent state $`|\alpha _1`$ and the coherent state $`|\beta _2.`$ After the transformation $`_{1,2},`$ we obtain the output state as

$$|ϵ_+_1|ϵ_{}_2|ϵ_{}_1|ϵ_+_2$$
(57)
up to a normalization constant. Apply another phase shifter $`e^{i\pi a_2^{}a_2}`$ on the above state, we obtain the unnormalized state

$$|ϵ_+_1|ϵ_{}_2|ϵ_{}_1|ϵ_+_2,$$
(58)
which is exactly of the form of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$(20). So the two-parameter ECS is a MES independent of the two parameters $`ϵ_\pm `$.

From the above procedure we can see that the odd coherent state plays an important role. If we replace the odd coherent state by the even coherent state and repeat the procedure, the resultant state is not a MES. If we let the input state be the product state of two odd coherent states, $`|\alpha _1|\alpha _2,`$ the resultant state is given by

$$|\sqrt{2}\alpha _{1+}|0_2|0_1|\sqrt{2}\alpha _{2+},$$
(59)
which is also a MES. If we replace the input state $`|\alpha _1|\alpha _2`$ by $`|\alpha _{1+}|\alpha _{2+}`$ or $`|\alpha _1|\alpha _{2+},`$ the resultant states are not MES.

### B Multipartite entangled coherent states

We first introduce the Kerr transformation

$$𝒦=\mathrm{exp}[i\pi (a_i^{}a_i)^2/2],$$
(60)
where $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the field mode $`i`$, respectively. It is well know that $`𝒦`$ can transfer a coherence state $`|\alpha _i`$ into a superposition of two coherent states $`|\pm \alpha _i,`$ i.e.,

$$𝒦_i|\alpha _i=2^{1/2}(|\alpha _i+i|\alpha _i)$$
(61)
up to a trivial global phase. This superposition state has proved to be very useful in constructing optical analogs to Schrödinger’s cat state. Now we try to generate the following multipartite entangled coherent state with $`N`$ modes

$`|\alpha ;\alpha _N^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/2}(|\alpha _1|\alpha _2\mathrm{}|\alpha _N`$ (63)
$`+i|\alpha _1|\alpha _2\mathrm{}|\alpha _N).`$
This state is in fact a multipartite entangled state for continuous variables. van Loock and Braunstein have used an interesting unitary transformation $`𝒰`$ to creat multipartite entangled states of continous variables. And later the transformation is used to realize optical cloning machine for coherent states. The transformation $`𝒰`$ is defined as a quantum network of beam splitters as

$`𝒰_N`$ $`=`$ $`_{N1,N}^{^{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)_{N2,N1}^{^{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\right)`$ (65)
$`\times \mathrm{}\times _{1,2}^{^{}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}\right),`$
where $`_{i1,i}^{^{}}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}[\theta (a_{i1}^{}a_ia_i^{}a_{i1})]`$ is also a beam splitter transformation acting on mode $`i1`$ and $`i.`$ The action of the beam splitter on the two modes can be expressed as

$`_{i1,i}^{^{}}(\theta )\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{i1}^{}\hfill \\ a_i^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)_{i1,i}^{{}_{}{}^{}}(\theta )`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill & \mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill & \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{i1}^{}\hfill \\ a_i^{}\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (73)
Directly from Eqs.(65) and (73), an useful relation is obtained as

$$𝒰_N\sqrt{N}a_1^{}𝒰_N^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_i^{}.$$
(74)
Eq.(74) leads to

$$𝒰_ND_1\left(\sqrt{N}\alpha \right)𝒰_N^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_i\left(\alpha \right),$$
(75)
where $`D_i\left(\alpha \right)=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha a_i^{}\alpha ^{}a_i)`$ is the displacement operator for mode $`i.`$

Let the intial state of the $`N`$–mode systems be $`|\sqrt{N}\alpha _1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N,`$ and let the unitary operator $`𝒰_N𝒦_1`$ act on it. Then we obtain

$$|\alpha ;\alpha _N^{^{}}=𝒰_N𝒦_1|\sqrt{N}\alpha _1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N.$$
(76)
That is to say, we can generate the multipartite ECS from a product $`N`$–mode state by successive application of the unitary operators $`𝒦_1`$ and $`𝒰_N.`$ The proposed scheme is simple and can be in principle realized by the present technology.

We can also generate the multipartite W state. From Eq.(74) we obtain

$$|\mathrm{W}=𝒰_N|100\mathrm{}0.$$
(77)
That is to say, the W state can be directly generated by applying the unitary operator $`𝒰_N`$ to the state $`|100\mathrm{}0.`$

Now let us see how to produce another kind of multipartite ECS. Let the initial state of $`N`$ bosonic systems be

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=(|\alpha _1|\alpha _1)|0_2|0_3\mathrm{}|0_N.$$
(78)
By applying the transformation $`_{N1,N}\mathrm{}_{3,4}_{1,2}`$ to the the initial state, we obtain

$`_{N1,N}\mathrm{}_{3,4}_{1,2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{1/2}}}_1|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^1}}_2\mathrm{}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{i/2}}}_i\mathrm{}`$ (83)
$`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N2)/2}}}_{N2}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}}_{N1}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}}_N`$
$`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{1/2}}}_1|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^1}}_2\mathrm{}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{i/2}}}_i\mathrm{}`$
$`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N2)/2}}}_{N2}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}}_{N1}|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}}_N.`$
It is easy to check that the $`𝒞_{1(23..N)}=1`$ due to the identity

$$\frac{\alpha }{2^{1/2}}|\frac{\alpha }{2^{1/2}}=\frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}|\frac{\alpha }{2^{(N1)/2}}\underset{i=2}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\alpha }{2^{i/2}}|\frac{\alpha }{2^{i/2}}.$$
(85)
So this state is a bipartite MES. Note that here the integer $`N`$ can be either even or odd.

## VI Conclusion

In conclusion we have given conditions under which general bipartite entangled nonorthogonal states become MES. According to the conditions a large class of bipartite maximally entangled nonorthogonal states are constructed in both the bipartite and multipartite systems. A remarkable property of these MES is that the amount of entanglement are independent of parameters involved in the states. We also propose some methods to generate the MES. Specifically the multipartite entangled coherent states and the multipartite W state are generated by quantum networks of beam splitters.

The applications of the bipartite MES discussed in this paper are already considered in the context of quantum teleportation of coherent states and entangled coherent states. The MES are expected to have more applications in the quantum information processings. Throughout the paper we only consider the bipartite entanglement. The more difficult task is to quantify the genuine multipartite entanglement in the multipartite nonorthogonal states, which are now under consideration.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks for the helpful discussions with Klaus Mølmer, Barry C. Sanders, and Anders Sørensen. This work is supported by the Information Society Technologies Programme IST-1999-11053, EQUIP, action line 6-2-1 and the European Project Q-ACTA.


format: text

text:
# EXTRAPOLATION OF 𝐾→𝜋𝜋 DECAY AMPLITUDE

## I Introduction

Accurate computation of the long-distance QCD corrections for the decay $`K\pi \pi `$ is important in testing the underlying mechanism of CP violation with the $`ϵ^{}`$ parameter. When one obtains a real amplitude for $`K\pi \pi `$ by any method of calculation, its validity is limited to the unphysical region below $`\pi \pi `$ rescattering. On the kaon mass shell one must supply a phase by taking account of rescattering. However, rescattering affects a magnitude of amplitude in general. While the phase of amplitude arises solely from elastic rescattering in the case of $`K\pi \pi `$, the magnitude of amplitude is affected by inelastic scattering as well. Many attempts have been made to incorporate the final-state interaction (FSI) in the $`K\pi \pi `$ decay amplitudes, most recently by Palante and Pich among others.

The final-state interaction (FSI) theory was first formulated in potential scattering in the 1950’s, then extended with dispersion relation to relativistic particle physics, often using the Omnès-Muskhelishvili (OM) representation. When our interest was in very low energy phenomena, it was a good enough approximation to discard all but elastic FSI rescattering. In particle physics, however, inelastic rescattering can be potentially important to the magnitude of amplitude even when it does not contribute to the phase. If we knew the values of the phase at all energies, we could compute the magnitude with the OM representation apart from factors of zeros. However, the phase of a decay amplitude above the inelastic rescattering threshold has nothing to do with the inelastic scattering phase shift of strong interaction. It depends on decay operators even when all quantum numbers are the same.

In addition to inelastic rescattering, strong interactions take place in the initial state before $`K`$ decays. Though it does not contribute to the phase, the initial-state interaction (ISI) generates $`p_K^2`$ dependence for the off-shell amplitude just as the FSI does. The existing calculations of the FSI largely neglect the ISI effect. Once the inelastic FSI and the ISI are included, the OM representation is by no means ’universal” contrary to the statement often found in recent literature.

Extrapolation off mass shell involves a few more basic issues that have not been discussed. One is the asymptotic behavior of a decay amplitude far off mass shell, which is directly related to the number of zeros and the asymptotic phase $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ of the amplitude. In the elastic approximation, we may follow potential scattering theory and determine the asymptotic behavior by Levinson’s theorem. In relativistic physics which contains inelasticity, Levinson’s theorem does not hold. Therefore we must determine in one way or another the value of $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ and the number of zeros and incorporate them in the OM representation.

Another issue is nonuniqueness of off-shell amplitudes, which is inherent in quantum field theory. According to a general theorem, on-shell amplitudes are unique no matter what operator one may choose for a particle field as long as it has a correct wave function renormalization and a right set of quantum numbers on mass shell. However, off-shell amplitudes can depend on choice of particle fields, which is by no means unique in the case of hadrons. In particular, the asymptotic behavior is sensitive to the choice. In order to write the OM representation uniquely, therefore, we must first define the kaon field and then determine the asymptotic behavior and the number of zeros of the decay amplitude.

Since we think that many of these basic issues in the off-shell extrapolation have been either improperly treated or entirely ignored in literature, we attempt to expose them and obtain some quantitative idea of the uncertainties associated with them in this paper. While a recent criticism concerns mostly technical aspects of Ref., we focus on more basic aspects of the FSI theory.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we clarify distinction between the FSI and the ISI. For this purpose we write the $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude first by the dispersion relation for scattering of a weak spurion off an on-shell kaon. In this dispersion relation, the FSI generates the $`s`$-channel singularities while the ISI contributes to the $`u`$-channel singularities. Then we write the OM representation by dispersing the kaon mass $`p_K^2`$ and show that both the FSI and the ISI contribute to the right-hand cuts in the OM representation. In Sec. III, we relate the number of zeros of amplitude to the asymptotic phase and magnitude in the OM representation in general. In Sec. IV, after reviewing the inherent ambiguity of an extrapolated particle field in field theory, we study the asymptotic behaviors of the $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitudes in QCD by defining the off-shell kaon field by the partially-conserved axial-vector current (PCAC) relation. In Sec. V, we interpolate the phases for the dominant $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitude and for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ amplitude between the inelastic threshold and the high energy limit. Then we examine in detail the case that the decay amplitudes have the smallest number of zeros including the well-known low-energy zero. In this particular case we make quantitative discussion on the extrapolation effect by giving illustrative estimates of how much variation occurs in the extrapolation from $`p_K^2=m_\pi ^2`$ to $`m_K^2`$. We find that the ISI and the inelastic FSI are not negligible even in the case of a single zero. In more general cases, uncertainty is larger. The source of the largest uncertainty is in the number of zeros and their locations.

## II Dispersion relations

The decay matrix element for $`K\pi \pi `$ is written as

$$M=\pi (p_a)\pi (p_b)^{out}|H_W(0)|K(p_K).$$
(1)
In actual computation an effective decay operator $`c_i(\mu )𝒪_i`$ is chosen for $`H_W`$, which incorporates short-distance QCD effects in $`c_i(\mu )`$ by renormalization group. Since the interaction above the energy scale $`\mu `$ is included in $`c_i(\mu )𝒪_i`$, we ought to truncate dispersion integrals accordingly, as we shall discuss later.

### A Spurion scattering

Treat $`H_W`$ as the source of spurion $`S`$ by setting $`\mathrm{}S=H_W`$ and write a dispersion relation for the on-shell scattering,

$$S(p_s)+K(p_K)\pi (p_a)+\pi (p_b),(p_s^2=0)$$
(2)
with the Mandelstam variables, $`s=(p_s+p_K)^2=(p_a+p_b)^2`$, $`t=(p_Kp_a)^2=(p_sp_b)^2`$, and $`u=(p_Kp_b)^2=(p_sp_a)^2=m_K^2+2m_\pi ^2st`$. The decay amplitude $`M(s,t)`$ at $`t<(m_K+m_\pi )^2`$ is real analytic in the complex $`s`$-plane; $`M(s^{},t)=M(s,t)^{}`$. The right-hand cut starts at $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$ while the left-hand cut starts at $`u=(m_K+m_\pi )^2`$, namely, at $`s=2m_Km_\pi +m_\pi ^2t(s_L)`$. (See Fig. 1.) For $`t`$ fixed small, the $`s\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`M(s,t)`$ is determined by Regge asymptotic behavior of $`K^{}`$ exchange. Since $`\alpha _K^{}(m_\pi ^2)0.3`$, one can write a once-subtracted dispersion relation in $`s`$ at the physical point $`t=m_\pi ^2`$ as:

$$M(s,t)=M(s_0,t)+\frac{ss_0}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{Im}M(s^{},t)}{(s^{}s)(s^{}s_0)}𝑑s^{}+\frac{ss_0}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{s_L}\frac{\mathrm{Im}M(s^{},t)}{(s^{}s)(s^{}s_0)}𝑑s^{}.$$
(3)
The decay amplitude is obtained by setting $`p_s^\mu =0`$, namely, $`s=m_K^2`$ and $`t=u=m_\pi ^2`$. The first integral in Eq. (3) due to the $`s`$-channel intermediate states describes the FSI, both elastic and inelastic. Its discontinuity across the cut is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}M(s,t)_R=\underset{n}{}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta (p_a+p_bp_n)\pi |j_\pi (0)|n^{out}n^{out}|H_w(0)|K.$$
(4)
The lowest two-body inelastic intermediate state is $`K\overline{K}`$. The triangular diagram depicted in Fig. 2a is the simplest and probably the most important of the inelastic FSI. In contrast, the second integral of Eq. (3) arises from the $`u`$-channel intermediate states which give the discontinuity,

$$\mathrm{Im}M(s,t)_L=\underset{n}{}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta (p_Kp_bp_n)\pi |H_W(0)|n^{out}n^{out}|j_\pi (0)|K.$$
(5)
The nearest left-hand singularity is generated by the process, $`K\rho K\pi \pi `$, namely, a virtual dissociation followed by a weak decay. (See Fig. 2b.) The diagram of Fig. 2b has no $`s`$-channel singularity and therefore cannot be identified with the FSI. Nonetheless, it contributes to the $`s`$ dependence of the amplitude. The process of the $`K^{}\pi `$ intermediate state of Fig. 2c belongs to the same class. We call this class of diagrams as the ISI diagrams. Most generally, a single diagram can contribute to both the ISI and the FSI. It is clear from the two diagrams in Fig. 2 that the elastic and inelastic FSI alone, namely the $`s`$-channel singularities, are not sufficient to determine the $`s`$ dependence of $`M(s)`$. It is also obvious that the phase due to the diagrams of Fig. 2b and 2c are in no way related to scattering phase shifts of strong interaction at the corresponding energy.

### B Phase representation

Having defined the ISI by the spurion dispersion relation, we now write the OM dispersion relation by taking the initial kaon off mass shell. If we follow the reduction formula, we would reduce one of the pions in addition to the kaon. Rather than handling product of three operators $`j_\pi `$, $`j_K`$, and $`H_W`$, we may take more an intuitive approach by relying on perturbative diagram analysis of analyticity.

Choosing a suitable extrapolation field for the kaon, we can write a dispersion relation in the variable $`p_K^2`$ keeping $`p_s^\mu =0`$. Since $`s=(p_K+p_s)^2=p_K^2`$ for $`p_s^\mu =0`$, we denote $`p_K^2`$ by $`s`$. In terms of the Mandelstam variables previously defined, we fix $`t`$ and $`u`$ to $`m_\pi ^2`$ keeping $`s`$ as the only variable. Then all singularities appear on the positive real axis of $`s`$. (See Fig. 3.) The intermediate states $`K\overline{K}`$, $`\rho K`$, and $`K^{}\pi `$ of the diagrams in Fig. 2 generate cuts starting at $`s=4m_K^2`$, $`(m_\rho +m_K)^2`$, and $`(m_K^{}+m_\pi )^2`$, respectively. To obtain the phase dispersion relation of Omnès-Muskhelishvili, we write a dispersion relation for the logarithm of the decay amplitude $`M(s)`$. Keeping in mind that zeros of $`M(s)`$ are singularities of $`\mathrm{ln}M(s)`$, we obtain

$$M(s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{ss_i}{s_0s_i}\right)M(s_0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ss_0}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta (s^{})}{(s^{}s)(s^{}s_0)}𝑑s^{}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\delta (s)=\mathrm{arg}M(s)`$. In writing the dispersion integral for $`\delta (s)`$ with only one subtraction, we make the mild assumption that $`\delta (s)`$ does not keep rising or falling indefinitely for large $`s`$. Though the absorptive parts of the ISI diagrams and the inelastic FSI diagrams both appear on the right-hand cuts of the OM representation, they describe physically different processes. When we calculate the on-shell decay amplitudes, we are incorporating part of the ISI effect through the $`K\pi `$ form factor. To our knowledge, however, nobody has included the ISI process in the OM representation.

## III Zeros of decay amplitude

The large $`s`$ behavior of $`M(s)`$ in Eq. (6) is determined by the number of zeros and the asymptotic value of the phase $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$. It is straightforward to find that, up to logarithmic factors,

$$\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}M(s)s^{N\delta (\mathrm{})/\pi },$$
(7)
where we have normalized as $`\delta (4m_\pi ^2)=0`$ at the threshold. Therefore, once we know the large $`s`$ behavior of $`|M(s)|`$, the number of zeros is determined by $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$. In potential theory, $`M(s)`$ is proportional to the inverse Jost function $`1/f_+(k)`$. The Jost function $`f_+(k)`$ is analytic in the upper half plane of the complex variable $`k(=(s/4m_\pi ^2)^{1/2})`$ and approaches unity at $`|k|=\mathrm{}`$. The zeros of $`f_+(k)`$ mean bound states. If we repeat the argument leading to Eq. (7) for $`f_+(k)`$ and use $`\mathrm{arg}f_+(k)=\delta (k)`$ and $`f_+(\mathrm{})=1`$, Levinson’s theorem results; $`N_b+\frac{1}{\pi }\delta (\mathrm{})=0`$, where $`N_b`$ is the number of zeros of $`f_+(k)`$, i.e., that of bound states.***Levinson’s theorem is usually quoted as $`N_b=\left(\delta (0)\delta (\mathrm{})\right)/\pi `$. In potential theory, therefore, $`\delta (\mathrm{})=0`$ in any channel that has no bound state. When inelastic scattering is included, however, $`M(s)`$ is no longer as simple as the inverse of the Jost function of potential scattering and therefore Levinson’s theorem does not hold.

It should be emphasized that above the inelastic threshold, the phase $`\delta (s)`$ of $`M(s)`$ has nothing to do with the phase shift of $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ scattering at the corresponding energy. The phase of $`M(s)`$ is a result of complicated interplay of strong and weak interactions unlike the scattering phase shift of strong interaction. (See Appendix A.) Therefore, it is nearly hopeless to determine $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ either experimentally or directly from theory. All we can hope is to determine $`N\delta (\mathrm{})/\pi `$, not $`N`$ and $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ separately, from the large $`s`$ behavior of $`|M(s)|`$ using Eq. (7).

We know that $`M(s)`$ has one zero in the low-energy region. In the flavor SU(3) symmetry limit of strong interaction with no electromagnetic or quark mass difference correction, charge-conjugation oddness of parity-violating $`H_W`$ requires that $`K\pi \pi `$ be forbidden in the $`I=0`$ channel. Therefore, the $`K\pi \pi `$ decay amplitude vanishes at $`p_K^2=p_a^2=p_b^2`$ in this limit. It was shown in the soft-pion analysis of the 1960’s that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitude of $`K\pi \pi `$ vanishes like $`2p_K^2p_a^2p_b^2`$. If SU(3) breaking enters only through the external meson momenta, therefore, $`M(s)`$ should vanish at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$. This low-energy off-shell behavior is very robust for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ amplitude. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay through pure weak interaction (i.e., no electromagnetic or quark mass difference correction) shows the same behavior. However, we do not know how many more zeros $`M(s)`$ may have outside the soft-meson region. To study more about zeros, we next look into the large $`s`$ behavior of $`M(s)`$.

## IV Extrapolated field for kaon and asymptotic behaviors

A well-known theorem of field theory states that no matter what local operator may be used for a particle field, the on-shell S-matrix is unique after correct wave-function renormalization is made. The flip side of this theorem is that off-shell matrix elements depend on choice of a particle field. We obtain the same on-shell low-energy $`\pi \pi `$ scattering whether we may use the linear $`\sigma `$-model or the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model. Within the nonlinear model, there are different realizations such as the original version by Schwinger, the Callan-Coleman-Wess-Zumino (CCWZ) realization, and so forth. All give Weinberg’s $`\pi \pi `$ scattering lengths correctly. In general, however, their off-shell behaviors are different. We can see the situation when we express the pion field $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ of the linear $`\sigma `$-model in terms of the pion field $`𝝅`$ of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model of CCWZ: $`\mathit{\varphi }=\sqrt{Z_3}(𝝅\frac{1}{3f_\pi ^2}(𝝅𝝅)+\mathrm{})`$. The off-shell pion amplitude of the linear $`\sigma `$-model is sum of the off-shell one-pion amplitude, the off-shell three-pion amplitude and so forth of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model. Only when the pion is on mass shell, do the amplitudes of two models agree with each other. We encounter the same situation when the kaon field is taken off mass shell. In the low-energy expansion, symmetry and kinematical constraints often mask or obscure differences among off-shell amplitudes. Nevertheless, the $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude would depend on choice of the extrapolation field if we included the terms of the order higher than $`O(p^2)`$ in the expansion.

S-matrix theory of the 1960’s was an attempt to build particle physics theory only with on-shell quantities, avoiding off-shell ambiguities. When we used the OM-representation to formulate the FSI, however, we actually stepped over the premise of S-matrix theory. Unlike the electromagnetic form factors, to which the OM-representation was most successfully applied, we must take a hadron (the kaon in our case) off mass shell in order to write the OM representation for the $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude. In the case of the electromagnetic form factors, the current operator is defined at the beginning. Similarly we must first determine what operator is used to describe the off-shell kaon. Only after we have defined the kaon field and have chosen QCD as the underlying fundamental theory, do the number and the location of zeros as well as the asymptotic value $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ become unique. If one chooses one of the nonlinear realizations and works with its effective Lagrangians, the large $`s`$ behavior of $`M(s)`$ would be far more singular and actually meaningless since their applicability is limited to low energies. The amplitude $`M(s)`$ has no unique physical meaning nor direct connection to reality except at $`s=m_K^2`$. The phase theorem assures that only the phase of the decay amplitude in the elastic rescattering region is unique and physical. Nonuniqueness of off-shell quantities should cancel out in the final result of computation of the physical quantity $`M(m_K^2)`$, but only in principle. We may phrase that the FSI theory formulated with the OM representation is not S-matrix theory but field theory even though it uses the technique of S-matrix theory.

Let us study the asymptotic behavior in QCD at large $`s`$, that is, at $`s=O(\mu ^2)`$ which we assume to be the lower end of the asymptopia. Use of the PCAC relation $`_\lambda A^\lambda =m_P^2f_P\varphi `$ for the pseudoscalar mesons is appropriate since we are able to work in perturbative QCD while maintaining chiral symmetry off shell. We obtain the large $`s`$ limit of $`M(s)`$ from

$$i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{1}{m_K^2f_K}\right)d^4xe^{i(p_a+ip_b)x}(\mathrm{}m_K^2)\pi (p_a)\pi (p_b)|\mathrm{T}(c_i(\mu )𝒪_i(0)_\lambda A^\lambda (x))|0.$$
(8)
We follow the reasoning of perturbative QCD in the approximation of $`m_{u,d}(m_s)0`$. Since $`_\lambda A^\lambda =im_s(\overline{q_L}s_R\overline{s_R}q_L)`$ $`(q=u,d)`$, one power of $`m_s`$ appears from $`_\lambda A^\lambda `$. Furthermore, one insertion of $`m_s`$ is needed for the right-handed $`s_R`$ (or $`\overline{s_R}`$) of $`\overline{q_L}s_R\overline{s_R}q_L`$ to turn into $`s_L`$ (or $`\overline{s_L}`$) of the weak current. Therefore $`M(s)`$ must contain $`m_s^2`$ at large $`s`$. Though the SU(3) breaking due to one power of $`m_s`$ is almost compensated by $`1/m_K^2`$, the other power of $`m_s`$ remains as a large SU(3) breaking. When we use the PCAC for the kaon field, therefore, the amplitude extrapolated to the large $`s`$ limit shows a large SU(3) breaking through the current quark mass difference.

Next we look into chirality matching of the $`u,d`$ quarks. We first examine the case that $`𝒪_i=J_\mu ^{}J^\mu `$ consists of left-handed currents alone. The leading quark diagram is shown in Fig. 4a. In this case, the factor $`f_\pi p_\pi ^\mu `$ arises from the formation of each pion (the oval blobs in Fig. 4). Together with $`m_s^2`$, therefore, we obtain the large $`s`$ behavior of the form

$$M(s)\frac{G_Fm_s^2f_\pi ^2s}{m_K^2f_K}$$
(9)
up to a power of $`(\mathrm{ln}s)^1`$. In contrast, when $`𝒪_i`$ consists of left and right-handed currents as the dominant penguin operator $`𝒪_6`$ does, the pion is formed from a chirality-matched pair of $`\overline{q_L}q_R`$ or $`\overline{q_R}q_L`$ with the matrix element $`m_\pi ^2f_\pi /(m_u+m_d)`$. This type of decay dominates at low energies, e.g., on the kaon mass shell. When we go to high energies, however, the absence of $`p^\mu `$ in the pion formation makes this penguin amplitude softer in $`s`$ dependence:

$$M(s)\frac{G_Fm_s^2f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^4}{m_K^2f_K(m_u+m_d)^2},(\mathrm{for}𝒪_6).$$
(10)
When we combine Eq. (9) or (10) with Eq. (7), we obtain $`N\delta (\mathrm{})/\pi =1`$ or 0. If the low-energy zero at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ is the only zero of $`M(s)`$, then the asymptotic phase should approach $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, depending on the asymptotic behavior of $`M(s)`$:

$`\delta _0(\mathrm{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& (N=1;M(s)s),\hfill \\ \pi & (N=1;M(s)\mathrm{const}).\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
The first line applies to the “tree” operator $`𝒪_{1,2}`$, while the second line is for the dominant penguin operator $`𝒪_6`$. We emphasize that these asymptotic behaviors are specific to the case of the PCAC in QCD. They are not necessarily applicable to effective theories for which we do not know $`M(\mathrm{})`$.

For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay, the pure weak decay has the zero at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$. (Appendix B) If this is the only zero ($`N=1`$), we have $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=0`$ since $`M(s)s`$. On the other hand the EM penguin matrix element need not vanish at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$. The perturbative QCD argument presented above remains valid even after one internal photon line is inserted. Therefore $`M(s)constant`$ for the dominant penguin operator $`𝒪_8`$. The cases of the smallest number of zeros for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ amplitudes are, therefore,

$$\delta _2(\mathrm{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& (N=1;M(s)s)\hfill \\ 0& (N=0;M(s)\mathrm{constant}),\hfill \\ \pi & (N=0;M(s)s).\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
The first line applies to the pure weak decay $`𝒪_{1,2}`$, while the second line is for the EM penguin $`𝒪_8`$.

If there are more zeros in the amplitude, $`\delta _I(\mathrm{})`$ shifts upward from those given in Eqs. (13) and (14). The larger the value of $`|\delta _I(\mathrm{})|`$ is, the more important the contributions from the inelastic FSI and the ISI are, as we shall see below.

## V Quantitative discussion

We first define the problem to which we address in this paper: Suppose that we compute with the effective weak interaction $`c_i(\mu )𝒪_i`$ the decay amplitude $`M(s)`$ at some small value $`s_0`$ below the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold. The value of such $`M(s_0)`$ is real though it incorporates all the FSI and the ISI that enter through the dispersion integral of $`\delta (s)`$. Then we ask how much $`|M(m_K^2)|`$ is different from $`M(s_0)`$. We should keep in mind that the value of $`M(m_\pi ^2)`$ depends on choice of the kaon field in principle. Strictly speaking, therefore, this problem makes sense only after we have defined the kaon field.

We focus on the least ambiguous case that $`M(s)`$ has the minimum number of zeros, namely, only one zero at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ for all amplitudes except for the EM penguin and no zero for the EM penguin. The zero at or near $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ is robust. In contrast, it is rather an ad hoc assumption that there is no other zero. We use the values of $`\delta _I(\mathrm{})`$ predicted by the PCAC for the kaon, namely, $`\delta _0(\mathrm{})=\pi `$ for the dominant gluon penguin operator of left and right-handed currents and $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=0`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ operators. (cf Eqs. (13) and (14).)

When $`H_W`$ is one of the effective operators $`c_i(\mu )𝒪_i`$, it is reasonable to match the OM representation to the short-distance QCD by cutting off the dispersion integral at $`s\mu ^2`$. Since $`\mu ^2`$ is the spacelike scale of renormalization group, it would be more appropriate to make analytic continuation of $`c_i(\mu )`$ to the timelike region. This would generate an imaginary part of $`O((\mathrm{ln}\mu )^1)`$ relative to the real part as the high-energy tail of FSI. We can ignore it as a small correction if $`\mu `$ is in the perturbative regime of QCD. It has been a subject of discussion how far one can lower $`\mu `$ without losing desired accuracy and how one should match $`c_i(\mu )`$ to low-energy matrix element computation. If we could choose as low as $`\mu =`$ 1 GeV, the issues of this paper would mostly disappear since all we would need is the elastic scattering phase shifts. However, such a low cutoff is hard to justify particularly in the $`I=0`$ channel where the scalar resonances $`f_0`$ exist at 1500 MeV and 1700 MeV. While $`\mu `$ 2 GeV is probably safe, it may be possible to lower $`\mu `$ close to 1.5 GeV ($`m_c`$). Near $`s=\mu ^2`$, $`\delta (s)`$ ought to approach its asymptotic value $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$. Otherwise the $`s`$ dependence of $`M(s)`$ computed with the cutoff dispersion integral would not give a smooth asymptotic behavior at $`s=\mu ^2`$.

Below the inelastic threshold, the phase of $`M(s)`$ is equal to the $`s`$-wave phase shift of elastic $`\pi \pi `$ scattering by Watson’s theorem. The elastic phase shift of $`I=0`$ is positive and grows to large values with energy, while that of $`I=2`$ stays negative and small in magnitude. Though theoretically the inelastic scattering starts at $`\sqrt{s}=4m_\pi `$, in reality the inelasticity in the $`I=0`$ channel appears rather suddenly at $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ where the $`K\overline{K}`$ channel opens. The $`I=0`$ scattering phase shift rapidly rises to $`\pi `$ across $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ passing through the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance just below the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. As we have emphasized, however, the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift above $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ has little to do with the phase of the $`K\pi \pi `$ decay amplitude: Once an inelastic channel opens, the phase theorem no longer relates the two phases since the latter depends on the relative sign and magnitude of the $`KK\overline{K}`$ transition matrix element to the $`K\pi \pi `$ decay amplitude too, as we shall see below. Therefore the surge of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift across $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ does not necessarily means that the phase $`\delta _0(s)`$ of $`M(s)`$ rises abruptly in the same way. In fact, when an elastic channel strongly couples to an inelastic channel, a partial wave amplitude moves quickly toward the center of the Argand diagram and its scattering phase shift often undergoes a rapid variation across the inelastic threshold. It is quite possible that the phase $`\delta _0(s)`$ of $`M(s)`$ varies more slowly across $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ than the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift does.

With the asymptotic values of $`\delta _0(\mathrm{})=\pi `$ and $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=0`$ (cf Eqs. (13) and (14), we have drawn schematically the behaviors of the phase $`\delta _I(s)`$ of $`M(s)`$ up to $`s=\mu `$($``$ 2 GeV) in Fig. 5a by smoothly interpolating between $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ and $`\mu `$.

### A Inelastic FSI and ISI

The phase $`\delta _I(s)`$ above the inelastic threshold comes from the ISI and the inelastic FSI. For curiosity, we have actually computed the diagrams that generate the lowest singularities in the OM representation (Fig. 2a and 2c). The FSI contribution of the diagram in Fig. 2a to the absorptive part $`\mathrm{Im}M(s)`$ of $`I_{\pi \pi }=0`$ is:

$$\mathrm{Im}M^{K\overline{K}}(s)=\left(\frac{g_{K^{}K\pi }^2}{4\pi }\right)\sqrt{\frac{s4m_K^2}{s}}I(s)\kappa (s)\mathrm{Re}M(s),$$
(15)
where $`\kappa (s)`$ is the ratio of the $`KK\overline{K}`$ amplitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ to the $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ at $`\sqrt{s}`$, $`g_{K^{}K\pi }^2/4\pi 1.3`$ is the $`K^{}K\pi `$ coupling, and $`I(s)`$ is a known logarithmic function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. We have chosen $`\frac{1}{2}(|outout|)+|inin|)`$ for the intermediate states in order to ensure the absorptive part to be real. For a numerical estimate of the magnitude, let us choose some value for $`\sqrt{s}`$, say, $`\sqrt{s}=2.5m_K(1.25`$ GeV), for which $`I(s)0.50`$. We set $`\kappa (s)=(sm_K^2)/(sm_\pi ^2)`$, which is the prediction of the octet dominance for $`H_W`$ and SU(3) symmetry for strong interactions. Then we find

$$\mathrm{Im}M^{K\overline{K}}0.39\times \mathrm{Re}M(\mathrm{at}\sqrt{s}=2.5m_K).$$
(16)
At higher $`\sqrt{s}`$, the states such as $`\eta \eta `$, $`a_1\pi `$, and $`\rho \rho `$ become important intermediate states. While reliable estimate is less easy for those decay modes, the inelastic FSI of $`KK\overline{K}\pi \pi `$ appears sizable.

Let us turn to the ISI of the diagram of Fig. 2c which generates the lowest ISI singularity. There are two independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ transitions for $`K^{}\rho \pi `$:

$$a(𝝅𝝆)(\overline{K}S)+b(𝝅\times 𝝆)(\overline{K}𝝉S)+h.c.,$$
(17)
where $`S=(0,1)`$ represents the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ spurion. The first term of Eq. (17) cancels out in the diagram of Fig. 2c by the isospin structure. The second term gives

$$\mathrm{Im}M^{K^{}\pi }(s)=\left(\frac{g_{KK\pi }g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{4\pi }\right)\left(\frac{2|𝐪|}{\sqrt{s}}\right)\lambda (s)J(s)\mathrm{Re}M(s),$$
(18)
where $`\lambda (s)`$ is the ratio $`b/\mathrm{Re}M(s)`$, $`𝐪`$ is the c.m. momentum of $`K^{}\pi `$, and $`J(s)`$ is another known function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. In contrast to the case of the inelastic FSI of the $`K\overline{K}`$ intermediate state above, we know little about the value of $`\lambda (s)`$. For $`\lambda (s)1`$ we obtain at $`\sqrt{s}=2.5m_K`$ ($`J(s)0.36`$)

$$\mathrm{Im}M_0^{K^{}\pi }0.27\times \mathrm{Re}M_0(\mathrm{at}\sqrt{s}=2.5m_K),$$
(19)
The ISI is not negligible either though Eq. (19) gives only an order-of-magnitude estimate at best. The intermediate states $`\rho K`$, $`\omega K`$, and so forth start contributing to the ISI at a little above $`\sqrt{s}=2.5m_K`$.

This exploratory numerical exercise indicates that both the ISI and the inelastic FSI are large enough to deserve study. Since computation by individual diagrams involves too many uncertainties, we instead attempt to extract general trends and some quantitative results with minimal assumptions.

### B $`I=0`$ channel

We estimate the variation $`M(m_K^2)M(s_0)`$ for the dominant gluon penguin decay with $`\delta _0(s)`$ of Fig. 5a. We choose $`s_0`$ at the SU(3)-symmetry point $`m_\pi ^2`$ and quote the variation due to the exponential in the $`\pi \pi `$ isospin channel $`I`$ after separating out the factor $`(sm_\pi ^2)`$:

$`M_I(s)`$ $``$ $`(sm_\pi ^2)\stackrel{~}{M}_I(s)`$ (20)
$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{M}_I(m_K^2)|/\stackrel{~}{M}_I(m_\pi ^2).`$ (21)
The result is

$$_0\{\begin{array}{cc}1.50& (\mu =1.5\mathrm{GeV}),\hfill \\ 1.57& (\mu =2\mathrm{GeV})\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
The subtraction in the dispersion integral suppresses the contribution from the high-energy tail at 1.5 GeV $`<\sqrt{s}<`$ 2 GeV. The authors of Ref. quoted $`_0=1.41\pm 0.06`$ without including the contribution above the inelastic threshold. We can estimate the effect of the ISI and the inelastic FSI by evaluating the phase integral above $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$ separately from the elastic region $`\sqrt{s}2m_K`$. The contribution from the ISI and the inelastic FSI is:

$$_0^{ISI+IFSI}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.13& (\mu =1.5\mathrm{GeV}),\hfill \\ 1.18& (\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
The ISI and the inelastic FSI combined contribute to the variation of $`M_0(s)`$ by a third to one half of the elastic FSI. The sizable contribution above the inelastic threshold means that we cannot truncate the integral at $`\mu =`$ 1 GeV and connect to short-distance calculations. This is an unfortunate situation since we cannot obtain the values of $`\delta _0(s)`$ at $`2m_K<\sqrt{s}<\mu `$ directly from experiment. For comparison we have made an estimate in the case that $`\delta _0(s)`$ follows the behavior of the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift across the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. (see the broken curve in Fig. 5a.) The value of $`_0^{ISI+IFSI}`$ in this case is:

$$_0^{ISI+IFSI}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.17& (\mu =1.5\mathrm{GeV}),\hfill \\ 1.23& (\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Though the ISI and the inelastic FSI are important, their magnitudes are not highly sensitive to the $`s`$ dependence of $`\delta _0(s)`$. As we shall see below, it is the value of $`\delta _0(\mathrm{})`$, namely, the number of zeros of the amplitude that they are more sensitive to.

### C I=2 channel

We consider the case of $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=0`$ for the pure weak decay ($`N=1`$) and the EM penguin decay ($`N=0`$). Because of the large enhancement of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ decay over the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay, the $`I=2`$ channel of $`K_S`$ may receive a sizable $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ contribution from an enhanced $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$ decay followed or preceded by long-distance electromagnetic isospin breaking, e.g., $`\pi `$-$`\eta `$ mixing.§§§In the papers where Cabibbo and Gell-Mann proved the theorem of the vanishing $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{1}{2}`$, they even speculated on the possibility that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ decays could be attributed entirely to the electromagnetic correction to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ transition. The long-distance contributions from $`\pi \eta `$, $`\pi \eta ^{}`$, and some intermediate states containing a photon were studied without FSI. Such a contribution may compete with the pure weak decay and the EM penguin decay in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay generated by long-distance electromagnetic corrections, however, $`\delta _2(s)`$ of $`M_2(s)`$ is no longer equal to the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift of $`I=2`$ nor $`I=0`$ even below $`\sqrt{s}=2m_K`$.

When we ignore the long-distance electromagnetic correction and use $`\delta _2(s)`$ of Fig. 5a, the numbers corresponding to Eqs. (22) and (23) are:

$$_2=0.91(\mu =1.5\mathrm{GeV}),$$
(25)
and

$$_2^{ISI+IFSI}=0.99(\mu =1.5\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(26)
Our numbers are in perfect agreement with $`_20.92\pm 0.02`$ obtained in . However there is no factor of $`(sm_\pi ^2)`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ EM penguin decay. The contribution from above 1 GeV is much smaller in $`I=2`$ than in $`I=0`$ because of $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=0`$. For the same reason, dependence on the value of $`\mu `$ is very mild. For the EM penguin operators $`𝒪_{9,10}`$, $`M(s)s`$ so that the asymptotic phase would be $`\delta _2(\mathrm{})=\pi `$ (cf Eq. (14)). In this case we obtain a stronger suppression. It should be emphasized again that Eq. (25) does not apply to long-distance electromagnetic corrections to the gluon penguin operator decay, since we cannot equate $`\delta _2(s)`$ of $`M_2(s)`$ to a $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift even in the elastic region. The OM representation is practically useless in this case.

### D More zeros ($`N2`$)

When $`M_0(s)`$ has more than one zero, the asymptotic value $`\delta _0(\mathrm{})`$ is larger. Consider the case that $`M_0(s)`$ has one more zero ($`N=2`$). In this case $`\delta _0(\mathrm{})=2\pi `$. The second zero must be located on the real axis in order to be consistent with real analyticity $`M(s^{})=M(s)^{}`$. The zero at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ is obtained in the Taylor expansion to $`O(p^2)`$ with SU(3) symmetry. When we include $`O(p^4)`$, the location of this zero stays as long as SU(3) symmetry is maintained, but another zero emerges. If the second zero is outside the soft-meson region, we cannot trust its presence. If it is inside or close to the soft-meson region, it means that the next-order terms are important at low energies. If the lowest-order chiral Lagrangians give a good description of $`K`$ decays, the second zero should be far from the soft-meson region and therefore the second zero factor $`(ss_2)`$ would not generate very rapid variations at low energies. Our hope is that the dominant penguin operator has no second zero and reaches its asymptopia quickly. If the second zero exists in the region of $`|s|=O(16\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)`$, the variation due to the second zero factor $`(ss_2)`$ could be substantial when we extrapolate from $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ to $`m_K^2`$. Lack of our knowledge of its precise location introduces a large uncertainty in the extrapolation.

If we assume that $`\delta _0(s)`$ rises linearly in $`\sqrt{s}`$ to $`2\pi `$ from 1 GeV to 2 GeV (Fig. 5b), the ratio of the exponential factors at $`s=m_K^2`$ and $`m_\pi ^2`$ after removing $`(sm_\pi ^2)(ss_2)`$ is:

$$_0=1.64(\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(27)
In comparison, if $`\delta _0(s)`$ follows the inelastic behavior of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift (the broken curve in Fig. 5b), the corresponding value could be:

$$_0=1.83(\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(28)
In the case of two zeros, therefore, the ISI and inelastic FSI contribution can be as large as or even larger than the elastic FSI contribution.

If $`M(s)`$ has three zeros, the second and third zeros can appear off the real axis in a complex conjugate pair. After we include the variation due to the factor $`_i(ss_i)`$, the uncertainties get quickly out of control as $`N`$ increases. The uncertainty due to the number of zeros and their locations appears to be by far the largest.

## VI Conclusion

We have studied with the Omnès-Muskhelishvili representation the off-shell kaon mass dependence of the $`K\pi \pi `$ decay amplitudes for the purpose of exposing the uncertainties that have so far not been seriously studied. Determining the phases above the inelastic threshold encounters two difficulties. One is complexity of inelastic rescattering and the other is physical nonuniqueness of off-shell amplitudes in general. In this paper we have studied the off-shell behavior with QCD as the underlying fundamental theory and with the PCAC for the extrapolated kaon field. As it is suspected, the largest uncertainty is how many zeros exist in the amplitudes and where they are located. We regret that we cannot be optimistic in our conclusion as to accuracy or certainty of the off-shell extrapolation. If we work in the spurion scattering formalism where all hadrons are on shell, we do not encounter the physical nonuniquness due to off-shellness. However, evaluation of the dispersion relation is equally formidable since it requires knowledge of the hadron-spurion scattering with the spurion carrying nonvanishing energy-momentum. In either approach, we are unable to work only with physical quantities directly measurable in experiment. If we were able to lower the cutoff to $`\mu =`$ 1 GeV, we could do without the inelastic region. However, this does not seem possible since $`\delta _0(s)`$ is not yet asymptotic at 1 GeV.

If we have very accurate knowledge of $`M(s)`$ in the low-energy region, we can suppress the large $`s`$ portion of the integral by writing a phase dispersion integral with more than one low-energy subtraction. In this case the low-energy values of $`M(s)`$ that we feed in the dispersion relation would incorporate implicitly the contribution from inelastic region. The problem would then reduce to determining the physically unique value of $`M(m_K^2)`$ with the elastic phase shift and with the off-shell values of $`|M(s)|`$ which are well defined only after field theory is specified for mesons. Though the physical nonuniqueness of the off-shell $`|M(s)|`$ should, in principle, cancel out in $`M(m_K^2)`$, it is not clear whether we can obtain, in practice, accurate enough low-energy values of $`M(s)`$ from higher-order chiral Lagrangian terms.

Our final comment is on the implications of our study in $`B`$ decay. The FSI is highly inelastic on the $`B`$ mass shell and the ISI starts at $`s=(m_B^{}+m_\pi )^2`$, right above the $`B`$ mass. Unless short-distance strong interactions completely dominate in the FSI and the ISI, computation of magnitudes of decay amplitudes would be subject to very large uncertainties, far more than in $`K`$ decay. Several theoretical arguments have been presented in favor of short-distance dominance after factorization. Nevertheless, if we should find from experiment an FSI phase much larger than the short-distance prediction in some decay mode, our work here would be telling us that it is almost hopeless to compute such a decay amplitude with decent accuracy.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Division of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-95-14797.

## A Phase in the presence of inelasticity

Many of us are aware that the phase of decay amplitude is not determined by strong interaction alone at energies where inelastic rescattering occurs. Its value is an outcome of complicated interplay between strong and weak interactions. Sicne there is some confusion on this important point in literature, we clarify it in the simplest possible term here.

Consider the decay amplitude for $`Aa+b`$ at energies where scattering of $`a+b`$ is inelastic in general. The partial-wave S-matrix of strong interaction scattering is diagonalized by eigenchannels:

$$n^{out}|n^{in}=\delta _{nn^{}}e^{2i\delta _n}.$$
(A1)
Making time reversal on $`n^{out}|H_w|A`$, we obtain for T-invariant $`H_W`$

$`n^{out}|H_W|A`$ $`=`$ $`A|H_W|n^{in},`$ (A2)
$`=`$ $`A|H_W|n^{out}n^{out}|n^{in},`$ (A3)
$`=`$ $`e^{2i\delta _n}A|H_W|n^{out}.`$ (A4)
With $`A|H_W|n^{out}=n^{out}|H_W|A^{}`$, this relation leads us to

$$M_n(s)=\overline{M}_n(s)e^{i\delta _n(s)},$$
(A5)
where $`\overline{M}_n(s)`$ is real. This is the phase theorem referred to as Watson’s theorem or, to be more precise, the Watson-Fermi-Aizu theorem. At energies where only one eigenchannel is open in the final state, the phase of a matrix element for any operator having the same quantum numbers as $`H_W`$ is universal and equal to the scattering phase shift.

However, the situation is different at energies where inelastic channels are open and a final state is not an eigenchannel of scattering. Because of T-invariance of strong interaction, the transformation between $`|ab`$ and eigenchannels $`|n`$ can be chosen as orthogonal:

$$|ab^{out}=\underset{n}{}O_{ab,n}|n^{out},(O_{ab,n}^{}=O_{ab,n}).$$
(A6)
Therefore the decay amplitude $`M_{ab}`$ into the observable final state $`|ab`$ takes the form

$$M_{ab}(s)=\underset{n}{}O_{ab,n}(s)\overline{M}_n(s)e^{i\delta _n(s)}.$$
(A7)
The net phase of $`M_{ab}(s)`$ results from a superposition of the eigenphase shifts weighted with the orthogonal transformation matrix elements $`O_{ab,n}(s)`$ and the weak decay amplitudes $`\overline{M}_n(s)`$ into the eigenchannels.

In contrast, the phase shift $`\delta _{ab}`$ of scattering $`a+ba+b`$ in the presence of inelasticity is defined with the inelasticity $`\eta _{ab}`$ by $`ab^{out}|ab^{in}\eta _{ab}e^{2i\delta _{ab}}`$. Therefore,

$$\eta _{ab}e^{2i\delta _{ab}}=\underset{n}{}O_{ab,n}^2e^{2i\delta _n}.$$
(A8)
The phase $`\delta _{ab}`$ is a quantity determined by strong interactions alone. Above the inelastic threshold the phase of the decay amplitude $`M(s)_{ab}`$ has nothing to do with the strong interaction phase shift.

## B Low-energy zeros

It is straightforward to extend the theorem by Cabibbo and Gell-Mann  to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ decay of $`K\pi \pi `$ and show that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ amplitude also vanishes in the SU(3) limit of strong interaction. We reconstruct the extension of the proof and show the robustness of the low-energy zero.

When $`H_W`$ is the current-current interaction in a symmetric product of two octet $`VA`$ currents, it forms $`\{8_S\}`$ and $`\{27\}`$. Using the SU(3) tensor notation (1,2,3) for ($`u,d,s`$), we can express the transformation property of $`H_W`$ as

$$H_WH_{31}^{12}+H_{12}^{31},$$
(B1)
where the upper and lower pairs of indices are both symmetric under interchange. To remove $`\{8_S\}`$ from the right-hand side, we should subtract the trace portion. But it is not necessary here since the theorem was already proven for the octet spurion. The relative sign of $`H_{31}^{12}`$ and $`H_{12}^{31}`$ is positive. In the case of $`\{8_S\}`$ this relative sign aligns $`H_W`$ along $`\lambda _6`$ instead of $`\lambda _7`$. It is crucial to the proof of the theorem for the $`\{27\}`$ spurion as well.

We parametrize the $`0^{}0^{}+0^{}`$ decay matrix elements of $`\{27\}`$ without derivatives in terms of the $`3\times 3`$ octet meson matrix $`M`$, instead of $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda _a\varphi _a/f_\pi )`$ of SU(3)$`{}_{L}{}^{}\times SU(3)_R`$:

$$=(M_i^1M_3^iM_1^2+M_1^iM_i^3M_2^1)+(12)+(31)+(12,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}1).$$
(B2)
The relative sign within each bracket is positive, as pointed out above. Otherwise $``$ would point along a wrong component of $`\{27\}`$.

The parity-violating part of $`H_W`$ is odd under charge conjugation C when $`H_W`$ is (approximately) CP invariant. That is, $`H_{31}^{12}H_{12}^{31}`$ under C for $`H_W^{\mathrm{pv}}`$. It means that the $`\{27\}`$ (and also $`\{8_S\}`$) made of symmetric products of the $`V`$ and $`A`$ currents must be a $`𝒞`$-odd multiplet of SU(3). The SU(3) charge parity $`𝒞`$ is defined for a self-charge-conjugate multiplet $`\{n\}`$ by the sign of $`|\{n\};I,I_3,Y\pm |\{n\};I,I_3;Y`$ under C, or in the tensor notation, $`T_{kl\mathrm{}}^{ij\mathrm{}}\pm T_{ij\mathrm{}}^{kl\mathrm{}}`$. Since $`MM^T`$ ($`T`$ = transposed) under C, all terms in Eq. (B2) transform into each other such that $`+`$. Namely, $``$ can make only a $`𝒞`$-even $`\{27\}`$. Therefore, we cannot construct an SU(3) covariant matrix element having the correct charge conjugation property.

It is obvious in the chiral Lagrangian approach that one cannot write nonderivative Lagrangian terms for $`\{8\}_L`$ nor $`\{27\}_L`$ of $`H_W`$. However, chiral symmetry is not really needed to prove the theorem; the original proof by Cabibbo and Gell-Mann never used it.

The theorem fails once SU(3) breaking is included. The decay spurion arising from $`H_W`$ with the electromagnetic interaction or the quark mass difference is no longer a symmetrized product of two octets. The EM penguin contains $`\{10\}`$, and $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ too.

The thereom is valid even after derivatives are included for the mesons: $`M_\mu M^\mu M`$ generates $`(p_2p_3)`$, which is equal to $`(p_1^2p_2^2p_3^2)/2`$ and reduces to a common value $`p^2/2`$ at the SU(3)-symmetry point, $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=p^2`$. Therefore all contracted pairs of derivatives are factored out as SU(3) invariants so that the SU(3) symmetry property of $`M_\mu M^\mu M`$ is identical with that of $`MMM`$.

Given this theorem, the off-shell $`K\pi \pi `$ amplitude to $`O(p^2)`$ is unique up to a proportionality constant. To prove it, write the off-shell amplitude as a function of $`p_a^2`$, $`p_b^2`$, and $`p_K^2`$ by incorporating the Bose statistics for the final $`\pi _a\pi _b`$ in $`s`$-wave:

$$=A(p_a^2+p_b^2)+Bp_K^2+O(p^4).$$
(B3)
In order for $``$ to vanish at the SU(3) symmetry point, $`B`$ must be equal to $`2A`$. Consequently, $`=A(2p_K^2p_a^2p_b^2)`$. This argument applies to both $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{27\}`$.

All we need for the proof is $`M+M^T`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{3}{2}`$ of $`H_W^{\mathrm{pv}}`$ is a $`𝒞`$-odd $`\{27\}`$. Therefore, even if the extrapolation fields of $`0^{}`$ mesons did not respect chiral symmetry off mass shell, the theorem would be valid. It is a misnomer to refer to the zero at $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ as the “chiral zero”.