text:
# On radiative muon capture in hydrogen

## I Introduction

It is well known  that the charged weak interaction of the nucleon with a lepton is described by the weak hadron current

$$J_{W,\mu }^a(q_1)=J_{V,\mu }^a(q_1)+J_{A,\mu }^a(q_1),$$
(1)
where the vector part is given by the matrix element of the isovector Lorentz 4–vector current operator between the nucleon states,

$$\widehat{J}_{V,\mu }^a(q_1)=i\left(g_V(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\gamma _\mu \frac{g_M(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{2M}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q_{1\nu }\right)\frac{\tau ^a}{2},$$
(2)
and the axial–vector part is analogously,

$$\widehat{J}_{A,\mu }^a(q_1)=i\left(g_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+i\frac{g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{m_l}q_{1\mu }\gamma _5\right)\frac{\tau ^a}{2}.$$
(3)
Here a is the isospin index, $`m_l`$ is the lepton mass and the 4–momentum transfer is given by $`q_{1\mu }=p_\mu ^{}p_\mu `$, where $`p_\mu ^{}`$ ($`p_\mu `$) is the 4–momentum of the final (initial) nucleon.

The least known of the four form factors entering the currents Eqs. (2) and (3) is the induced pseudoscalar form factor, $`g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$, in the axial–vector current $`\widehat{J}_{A,\mu }^a`$. Actually, its presence in the axial–vector current (3) tests our understanding of the basic strong and weak interaction processes, such as the strong $`\pi NN`$ vertex and the weak pion decay. Elementary calculations lead to

$$g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_l\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$ is the pion propagator, $`g_{\pi NN}=13.05`$ is the pseudoscalar $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant and $`f_\pi =92.4`$MeV is the pion decay constant.

The matrix element of the axial current $`\widehat{J}_{A,\mu }^a`$ should satisfy partial conservation of the axial current (PCAC). It is easy to obtain that

$$\overline{u}(p^{})q_{1\mu }\widehat{J}_{A,\mu }^au(p)=\overline{u}(p^{})\left[2Mg_AF_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\frac{g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{m_l}q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right]\gamma _5\frac{\tau ^a}{2}u(p).$$
(5)
It is seen from this equation, that if

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_l\frac{1}{q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\left[1+\frac{Mg_A}{g_{\pi NN}f_\pi }F_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\right],$$
(6)
is subtracted from $`g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$, then indeed, PCAC is valid. Here we put

$$g_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=g_AF_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),$$
(7)
with $`g_Ag_A(0)=1.267`$. In the chiral model , the axial form factor is of the monopole form

$$F_A(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=\frac{m_{a_1}^2}{m_{a_1}^2+q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},$$
(8)
where $`m_{a_1}`$ is the mass of the axial vector meson $`a_1(1260)`$. Then for the $`\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$, Eq. (6), we have

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_l\frac{1}{q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\left[q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\left(1+\frac{Mg_A}{g_{\pi NN}f_\pi }\right)m_{a_1}^2\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_F^{a_1}(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).$$
(9)
However, this equation for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$ cannot be used, because of the singularity for $`q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0`$, which shows its presence in the hadron radiative part of the radiative muon capture amplitude (RMC) for large photon momentums $`k`$ and it is close to the physical region for the ordinary muon capture (OMC), because of the large value of the axial meson mass. So our model cannot be used beyond the exact Goldberger–Treiman relation and we take

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_l\mathrm{\Delta }_F^{a_1}(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}),$$
(10)
which is in agreement with .

The best way to search for the effect of the form factor $`g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$ is the muon capture. In the elementary process of OMC in the hydrogen,

$$\mu ^{}+p\nu _\mu +n,$$
(11)
according to Eq. (4), the value of the induced pseudoscalar form factor $`g_P`$ is

$$g_P^{OMC}(p)g_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0.877m_\mu ^2)=\frac{2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_\mu }{0.877m_\mu ^2+m_\pi ^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.87}g_A=8.71,$$
(12)
and for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$, Eq. (10), we have

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P^{OMC}(p)\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0.877m_\mu ^2)=\frac{2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi }{0.877m_\mu ^2+m_{a_1}^2}=0.13g_A=0.16,$$
(13)
which is a correction of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\%`$ to the $`g_P^{OMC}(p)`$, Eq. (12). The resulting value is

$$g_P^{PCAC}(p)=g_P^{OMC}(p)\stackrel{~}{g}_P^{OMC}(p)=8.55.$$
(14)
The axial form factor of the nucleon has recently been measured by the $`p(e,e^{}\pi ^+)n`$ reaction in Ref. . The dipole form of the form factor was used and the extracted axial mass $`m_A=1.077\pm 0.039`$GeV. For this form factor,

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})=2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_l\frac{2m_A^2+q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{(m_A^2+q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^2}.$$
(15)
and analogously with Eqs. (13) and (14) we have

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_P^{OMC}(p)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.34}g_A=0.43,$$
(16)
and

$$g_P^{PCAC}(p)=8.28,$$
(17)
respectively. Both values of $`g_P^{PCAC}(p)`$ are in reasonable agreement with the calculations of $`g_P^{PCAC}(p)`$ within the framework of the heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBChPT), .

Very flat dependence of the capture rate on $`g_P`$ in the OMC by the proton, Eq. (11), provides its world average value  with an error of $``$ 20 % and particular experiments have an error larger by a factor of $``$ 2.

Recently, a very precise experimental study of the muon capture by 3He ,

$$\mu ^{}+^3He\nu _\mu +^3H,$$
(18)
yields the transition rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exp}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1494}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}s^1,$$
(19)
which allowed  an extraction of the value of $`g_P`$ with an accuracy of $``$ 20 % from this experiment alone,

$$\frac{g_P}{g_P^{OMC}(^3He)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.05}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.19},$$
(20)
where for the reaction Eq. (18)

$$g_P^{OMC}(^3He)g_P^{OMC}(q_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0.954m_\mu ^2)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.68}g_A.$$
(21)
Analogously with Eq. (14), this value of $`g_P`$ differs slightly from the one demanded by PCAC by about the same amount as for the reaction Eq. (11). A contribution of 20 % due to the meson exchange current effect turned out to be essential to get the calculated transition rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{th}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1502}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}32}s^1,$$
(22)
into agreement with the data Eq. (19). Let us note that a further improvement of the extracted value of $`g_P`$ is hindered by an uncertainty of $``$ 2 % in calculations  which will be difficult to improve. The main uncertainty arises from the less known parameters of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation processes.

Another attractive tool to extract the value of $`g_P^{PCAC}`$ is the RMC by the proton,

$$\mu ^{}+p\nu _\mu +\gamma +n.$$
(23)
As is well known , the RMC amplitude contains the pseudoscalar form factor $`g_P`$ in the form

$$g_P^{L(N)}=x\frac{2g_{\pi NN}f_\pi m_\mu }{(q^{L(N)})^2+m_\pi ^2}xg_P^{OMC}(p)\frac{0.877m_\mu ^2+m_\pi ^2}{(q^{L(N)})^2+m_\pi ^2}\left[1\left((q^{L(N)})^2+m_\pi ^2\right)F\left((q^{L(N)})^2\right)\right],$$
(24)
where we implemented the correction of Eq. (6) and

$$F\left((q^{L(N)})^2\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/\left((q^{L(N)})^2+m_{a_1}^2\right),$$
(25)
for the chiral model  and

$$F\left((q^{L(N)})^2\right)=\left((q^{L(N)})^2+2m_A^2\right)/\left((q^{L(N)})^2+m_A^2\right)^2,$$
(26)
for the dipole form of the form factor. As it is seen from Eq. (24), the form factor $`g_P`$ depends either on the square of the four-momentum transfer $`q^L=pp^{}=\nu +k\mu =q_1`$ (characterizing the muon radiation process) or on the $`q^N=\nu \mu =q^Lk`$ (for the hadron radiation). For large photon momentums $`k`$, $`(q^L)^2+m_\mu ^2`$, whereas $`(q^N)^2m_\mu ^2`$, which enhances the hadron radiation amplitude by a factor of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$. This enhancement makes the reaction (23) particularly interesting. On the other hand, the dependence on $`g_P`$ of the effective form factors $`g_i`$, entering the effective RMC Hamiltonian, appears only from the order $`𝒪(1/M)`$, which makes the isolation of the dependence of the photon spectrum on $`g_P`$ difficult111In Ref. , it is proposed to isolate the effect due to the hadron radiative amplitude in a very difficult polarization experiment.. The factor $`x`$ in Eq. (24) is used to study the change of the photon spectrum and capture rates by scaling $`g_P`$.

The theory of the RMC was elaborated by many authors during the decades (see Refs. , and references therein).

The nuclear Hamiltonian, suitable for use in nuclear physics calculations of the RMC processes, was provided first by Rood and Tolhoek . It contains the leading and the next to leading order terms in $`1/M`$ derived from the conserved RMC amplitude given by a set of the Feynman diagrams. Christillin and Servadio  rederived in an elegant way the RMC amplitude obtained earlier by Adler and Dothan  using the low energy theorems. This amplitude is written in terms of elastic weak form factors and pion photoproduction amplitude, up to terms linear in $`k`$ and $`q`$. It was also found  that higher order terms cannot be obtained using this method. Recently, this amplitude was produced  from a chiral Lagrangian of the $`N\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system. It satisfies the corresponding continuity equations and the consistency condition exactly. Higher order terms follow without any restriction. It was shown that the leading order terms coincide with those given by the low energy theorems. However, higher order terms differ, which is given by a different prescription to pass towards higher energies.

The above mentioned set of the relativistic Feynman diagrams was used by Fearing  to calculate the photon energy spectrum for the reaction Eq. (23). This work was later extended by Beder and Fearing  by considering also the contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation processes. A recent comparison of the TRIUMF experiment  with the Beder–Fearing calculations provided a value of $`g_P^{OMC}(p)`$ which is enhanced by $``$ 50% in comparison with the value of Eq. (12), which corresponds to using $`g_P`$ from Eq. (24) with $`x=1.5`$ . This is the so–called ’$`g_P`$ puzzle’.

In connection with the presence of the factor $`x`$ in Eq. (24), it should be noted that

(i) Referring only to the change of $`g_P^{OMC}(p)`$ is confusing. As it is seen from Eq. (24), the whole form factor $`g_P`$ is scaled.

(ii) In the experiment , the high energy part of the photon spectrum is measured. Then increasing $`x`$ simulates processes enhancing this part of the spectrum222 See also the discussion in Ref. ..

In our opinion, the variation of $`x`$ can be considered as a tool to study an uncertainty in our knowledge of $`g_P`$ due to a restricted experimental accuracy. Any real difference from $`x=1`$ would mean violation of PCAC.

Searching for the processes enhancing the high energy part of the photon spectrum has recently been performed within the concept of HBChPT by several authors . Ando and Min  considered one–loop order correlations to the tree approximation and confirmed the existing discrepancy. Bernard, Hemmert and Meißner (BHM) calculated  both ordinary and radiative muon capture on the proton in an effective field theory of pions, nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobars by using the small scale expansion . According to , the most probable explanation of the problem is a combination of many small effects. Besides the photon spectra, BHM present the numerical results also for the singlet ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$) and triplet ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$) capture rates. This will enable us to compare our calculations with those by BHM in a more detail. Here we only note the difference of $``$ 10% in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$. As we shall see later, about half of this difference arises from the use of an approximate equation for the neutrino energy in Ref. .

In Ref. , a possible explanation of the discrepancy was suggested that a fraction of spin $`3/2`$ orthomolecular p$`\mu `$p state in liquid hydrogen can exist. The analysis of the experimental photon spectrum  yielded 10 to 20% of this state. However, this is in sharp contrast with the existing calculations , which give zero fraction of this state. As noted very recently in Ref. 333See also a discussion in Ref. ., a new analysis restricts the fraction of spin $`3/2`$ orthomolecular p$`\mu `$p state to at most 5%.

Finally, let us comment on Ref. , where Cheon and Cheoun reported on the derivation of an additional term from a chiral model, which does not appear in the standard approach to the RMC on the proton and which generates a large contribution to the photon spectrum. As it was shown in Ref. , the report  suffers from two flaws. First, the derivation of this terms contains an algebraic error due to an incorrect application of the covariant derivative in Eq. (14). After removing it, the effect is reduced by a factor of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$. The second flaw in Ref.  is related to the introduction of the pseudovector $`\pi NN`$ coupling by the vertex $`_1`$ of Eq. (18), which yields the desired term. However, the equivalent passage from one type of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling to another one is guaranteed only by the Foldy–Dyson unitary transformation. As shown in Ref. , when this transformation is applied to a chiral model with the pseudoscalar $`\pi NN`$ coupling, the pseudovector $`\pi NN`$ coupling appears in the resulting Lagrangian, which does not contain the incriminating term, however. Besides, the presence of this term in the RMC amplitude violates the Ward–Takahashi identity derived in Ref. . Later attempt to improve the situation  suffers from the same shortcomings. The report  was also criticised in Ref. .

This situation makes the expectation of the result from the next TRIUMF experiment in helium,

$$\mu ^{}+^3He\nu _\mu +\gamma +^3H,$$
(27)
with a particular tension. However, one should keep in mind also complications analogous to those in reaction Eq. (18) and non-negligible meson exchange current effects are to be expected, which makes the analysis much more difficult. It is clear that the Beder–Fearing relativistic formalism is not applicable in calculations with the realistic 3N wave functions and a consistent non–relativistic approach should be developed. Here we make an independent step in this direction by making the non–relativistic reduction of the amplitudes derived in Ref.  from a chiral Lagrangian of the $`N\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system. As a result, we get an effective Hamiltonian which is close to the one obtained by Rood and Tolhoek  but not identical with it. We also apply the constructed effective Hamiltonian to compute both the capture rates and the photon energy spectra for the reaction Eq. (23) and for various spin states. Our reduction provides more terms of the order $`(1/M)`$ and $`(1/M^2)`$ than Rood and Tolhoek present. Added to the leading order terms, they should reproduce with a good accuracy results given in Ref. 444These corrections up to the order $`(1/M^2)`$ were discussed in Ref. .. Another set of terms of the order $`𝒪(1/m_\rho ^2)𝒪(1/M^2)`$ is produced by reduction of additional relativistic amplitudes following from our chiral Lagrangian. We shall call it hard pion (hp) correction. Numerically, it enhances the photon spectra by 2–4%.

Next we include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar using again the formalism of chiral Lagrangians developed in Refs. , which we extend by adopting results of Refs. . Then the resulting $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \rho a_1`$ Lagrangian consists of three terms and is characterised by three couplings and four arbitrary parameters $`A,X,Y,Z`$. In its turn, each term contains a tensor of the form

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(B)=\delta _{\mu \nu }+\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}B)A+B\right]\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu ,B=X,Y,Z,$$
(28)
which ensures the independence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution to the S–matrix on the parameter $`A`$. The choice $`A=1`$ simplifies the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator considerably. The parameters $`X,Y,Z`$, which reflect the off–shell ambiguity of the massive spin 3/2 field were found  by analyzing the data on pion photoproduction555This model describes well also the latest data on the $`\pi ^0`$ electroproduction on the proton .. The value of these parameters depends on how the pion photoproduction amplitude is unitarized. This model does not require the use of the Breit–Wigner form of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator.

In the calculations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation effect in the reaction Eq. (23), Beder and Fearing  took a model for needed vertices with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, the Breit-Wigner form of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator and the needed $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling from Ref. , thus introducing an inconsistency into calculations. This model provides about 7% effect from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation to the photon spectrum.

The $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertices including the off–shell parameters $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ were discussed in Ref.  and the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex of the form Eq. (28) was considered also in the small scale expansion . However, the dependence of the results on these parameters was not exploited in any of the calculations performed within the framework of HBChPT.

Let us note that besides the adopted model , other models  were developed to describe the production of pions on protons by the electromagnetic interaction. All these models consider the same non–resonant Lagrangian of the $`N\pi \rho \omega `$ system, but differ principally in the treatment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar and in the method of unitarization of the $`\pi N`$ amplitude.

We have also analyzed the contribution due to amplitudes constructed from an anomalous Lagrangian of the $`\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system . We have found that the influence of this contribution on the photon energy spectrum is not significant. Earlier estimate of a contribution which arises from the Wess–Zumino–Witten part of the anomalous Lagrangian was reported in Ref. .

One can find in the literature an attempt to study the form factor $`g_P`$ in the reaction of electroproduction of charged soft pions off the proton ,

$$e+pe^{}+\pi ^++n.$$
(29)
The starting point of this attempt is the soft pion production amplitude given as

$$f_\pi M_\lambda ^{nj}(q,k)\stackrel{q\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}iq_\mu p^{}|d^4ye^{iqy}T\left(\widehat{J}_{A,\mu }^n(y)\widehat{J}_{V,\lambda }^j(0)\right)|p+\epsilon ^{njm}p^{}|\widehat{J}_{A,\lambda }^m(0)|p.$$
(30)
The matrix element of the time–ordered product of the two currents is related to the RMC amplitude by the time reversal. The form factor $`g_P`$ is contained on the right–hand side of Eq. (29) in the matrix element of the axial current. If one admits that in the soft pion limit only the nucleon Born terms contribute to the divergence of the current–current amplitudes, then one has the pion production amplitude which can provide information on $`g_P`$. However, when one of the currents is axial, a contribution to the divergence of the current–current amplitudes from the pion pole term in the t–channel survives even in the soft pion limit . A part of this contribution cancels the induced pseudoscalar term in the axial current and the remaining part is just the pion pole production amplitude, as one can expect intuitively. Then in the soft pion regime, the reaction Eq. (29) is suitable to study the weak axial nucleon form factor $`F_A(k^2)`$ and the electromagnetic form factor (the electromagnetic radius) of the charged pion, but not to extract any information on $`g_P`$.

In our opinion, the RMC reactions and particularly reactions (23) and (27) are at present the only available tool to study the form factor $`g_P`$ as a function of the momentum transfer.

In order to compare our effective form factors with the results of Ref. , we define in Sect. II the effective Hamiltonian analogously and we consider the velocity independent part only. Then in Sect. III, we present the results for the form factors following from our amplitudes  up to the order $`𝒪(1/M^2)`$. Further we deal with the contribution to $`g_i`$’s from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation amplitudes of our model and we compare our effective weak $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex with the one used in Ref. . Finally, we discuss the RMC amplitudes stemming from the anomalous Lagrangian.

In Sect. IV, we give the numerical results for the capture rates and we present various photon spectra. Our conclusions are presented in Sect. V. Our main result is an enhancement up to $``$ 7–15 % relative to the calculations without including the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar, which can explain twice as much of the discrepancy in comparison with the standard approach between the $`g_P^{PCAC}`$ and $`g_P`$ extracted from the experiment , if we take the values of the parameters of the model found from the data on pion photoproduction . If we are allowed to change these parameters independently, we can generate for the value of $`g_Pg_P^{PCAC}`$ the photon spectrum, which is in the region of the photon energies $`k`$ 60 MeV close to the spectrum, that should correspond to the experimental one.

Our triplet capture rate agrees with the one calculated very recently by BHM up to 10%. A half of this discrepancy can be attributed to an incorrect integration over the phase volume in Ref. .

## II Effective Hamiltonian for RMC

In presenting the effective Hamiltonian, we follow Rood and Tolhoek . Then the velocity independent part is

$`H_{eff}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}m_\mu }}(1\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{\nu })[g_1(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\stackrel{}{\epsilon })+g_2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon })+g_3i(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\times \stackrel{}{\sigma _l})`$ (35)
$`+g_4^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}\right)+g_4^{\prime \prime }\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\nu }\right)+g_5^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{k}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu }\right)+g_6^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu }\right)`$
$`+g_7^{}i\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)+g_7^{\prime \prime }i\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\nu }\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)+g_8^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{k}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)+g_8^{\prime \prime }\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{\nu }\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\right)`$
$`+g_9^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)+g_{10}^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu }\right)+g_{10}^{\prime \prime }\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\nu }\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu }\right)`$
$`+g_{11}^{}(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{k})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{k})(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu })+g_{11}^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{}{\sigma _l}\widehat{k})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\nu })(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\widehat{\nu })].`$
Here $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l`$ ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$) are the lepton (nucleon) spin Pauli matrices and $`\widehat{\nu }`$ ($`\widehat{k}`$) is the unit vector in the direction of the neutrino (photon) momentum vector $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ ($`\stackrel{}{k}`$). Not all the form factors are independent. Using equation

$$\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_\lambda =i\lambda \left(\widehat{k}\times \stackrel{}{\epsilon }_\lambda \right),\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\widehat{i}\lambda \widehat{j}\right),$$
(36)
one gets redefinitions:

$$g_2g_2\lambda \left(g_7^{}+yg_7^{\prime \prime }\right),g_{10}^{}g_{10}^{}+\lambda g_7^{\prime \prime },g_8^{}g_8^{}+\lambda g_3,g_4^{}g_4^{}\lambda g_3,$$
(37)
where $`y=(\widehat{\nu }\widehat{k})`$. The last two terms in (35) are new in comparison with .

## III Contribution to $`H_{eff}^{(0)}`$ from the amplitudes of the chiral Lagrangian of the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system

Here we discuss our amplitudes and contributions to $`g_i`$’s. We start by presenting briefly the part of the RMC amplitude derived earlier  without $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, referring for details to Sect. 3 of that paper. Then we deal with the amplitudes describing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation processes and we compare our effective vertices with those of Ref. . Finally, we discuss the amplitudes stemming from the anomalous Lagrangian.

### A The RMC amplitude without $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s

Besides the muon radiative part $`M^a(k,q)`$, the amplitude $`T^a(k,q)`$  consists of three terms representing the hadron radiative amplitude

$$T^a(k,q)=\frac{eG}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{M^a(k,q)+l_\mu (0)ϵ_\nu (k)\left[M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}(k,q)+M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi ;k,q)+M_{\mu \nu }^a(a_1;k,q)\right]\right\},$$
(38)
The amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}(k,q)`$ consists of the nucleon Born terms and of some related contact amplitudes. The amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi ;k,q)`$ contains the mesonic amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^{m.c.,a}(\pi ;k,q)`$ and all contact terms where the electroweak vertex is connected with the nucleon by the pion line. The amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^a(a_1;k,q)`$ has graphically a similar structure as the amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi ;k,q)`$ with the pion line changed for the $`a_1`$ meson one. These amplitudes satisfy separately continuity equations when contracted with the four momentum transfer $`q_\mu `$ of the weak vertex.

Since our model respect vector dominance and PCAC, the sum of the hadron radiative amplitudes satisfies exactly the following Ward–Takahashi identities

$$q_\mu [M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}+M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi )+M_{\mu \nu }^{c.t.,a}(a_1)]=if_\pi m_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q)_{\pi ,\nu }^a+i\epsilon ^{3ab}\overline{u}(p^{})\widehat{J}_{W,\nu }^b(q_1)u(p),$$
(39)
$$k_\nu [M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}+M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi )+M_{\mu \nu }^{c.t.,a}(a_1)]=i\epsilon ^{3ab}\overline{u}(p^{})\widehat{J}_{W,\mu }^b(q_1)u(p).$$
(40)
Besides, the monopole electroweak form factors with $`m_V=m_\rho `$ and $`m_A=m_{a_1}`$ appear naturally in our amplitudes. Let us note that Eq. (40) guarantees the gauge invariance of the model. The consistency condition  for our amplitudes is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q)k_\nu _{\pi ,\nu }^a=\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q_1)i\epsilon ^{3ab}M_\pi ^b.$$
(41)
Here $`_{\pi ,\nu }^a`$ is the radiative pion absorption amplitude, $`M_\pi ^b`$ is the pseudoscalar $`\pi NN`$ vertex and $`q=k+q_1`$.

The leading amplitudes are the nucleon Born terms $`M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}(k,q)`$666For notations see Sect. 3 of Ref. . (corresponding to $`M(b),M(c),M(d)`$ in Ref. ), the amplitudes $`M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi ,1)`$, $`M_{\mu \nu }^a(\pi ,2)`$ and $`M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}(5)`$ (the sum of them corresponds to $`M(e)`$ in Ref. ), and the mesonic amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^{m.c.,a}`$ (in correspondence with $`M(f)`$ in Ref. ). As discussed above, besides these amplitudes, other contact terms appear.

The low energy theorems allow one , by applying current conservation and PCAC to a general amplitude, to determine consistently the amplitude for the RMC in terms of elastic weak form factors and pion photoabsorption amplitude, up to terms linear in k and q. As shown in Ref. , higher order terms cannot be predicted. Since our amplitudes satisfy exactly current conservation and PCAC, we can obtain terms of any desired order. We now present the expansion of our non–resonant amplitudes up to the order $`𝒪(1/M^2)`$.

#### 1 Corrections up to the order $`𝒪(1/M)`$

The non-relativistic reduction of these amplitudes yields the following contributions up to the order $`𝒪(1/M)`$ to the form factors $`g_i`$

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_V^L\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{s}}{2M}}\widehat{k}\right]g_V^N\eta +g_A^N\lambda \eta \mu _V,`$ (42)
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_A^Lg_P^N\eta +g_V^N\lambda \eta \mu _Vg_A^N\eta ,`$ (43)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_A^L+g_M^N\eta +g_V^N\eta g_A^N\lambda \eta \mu _S,`$ (44)
$`g_4`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_A^Lg_V^N\lambda \eta \mu _V+g_P^L\left[\lambda _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{m_\mu }}(1y)\lambda _+\right],g_4^{}=g_4{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2M}},g_4^{\prime \prime }=g_4{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (45)
$`g_5`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_V^L+g_M^N\eta \mu _V+g_V^N\eta \mu _V+g_M^N\lambda \eta ,g_5^{}=g_5{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (46)
$`g_6`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_V^L+(g_P^N+g_A^N)\lambda \eta \mu _V+g_M^N\eta g_V^N\eta (1+2\mu _n),g_6^{}=g_6{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (47)
$`g_7`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+(g_V^L+g_M^L)+(g_P^N+g_A^N)\lambda \eta \mu _Vg_V^N\eta ,g_7^{}=g_7{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2M}},g_7^{\prime \prime }=g_7{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (48)
$`g_8`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+(g_V^L+g_M^L)g_V^N\lambda \eta \mu _S,g_8^{}=g_8{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2M}},g_8^{\prime \prime }=g_8{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (49)
$`g_9`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+(g_V^L+g_M^L)+(g_V^N+g_M^N)\lambda \eta \mu _S2g_A^N\eta \mu _n,g_9^{}=g_6{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (50)
$`g_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`g_P^N\eta {\displaystyle \frac{4M\nu }{m_\pi ^2+(q^L)^2}}+\lambda _+g_P^L{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{m_\mu }},g_{10}^{}=g_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2M}},g_{10}^{\prime \prime }=g_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}},`$ (51)
$`g_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _+g_P^L{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{m_\mu }},g_{11}^{}=g_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2M}},g_{11}^{\prime \prime }=g_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2M}}.`$ (52)
Here our notations mostly follow Ref. :

$$\stackrel{}{s}=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{\nu },\eta =\frac{m_\mu }{2M},\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \lambda ).$$

In addition we have

$$\mu _V=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mu _p\mu _n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\kappa _V,\mu _S=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mu _p+\mu _S\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\kappa _S.$$
(53)
Besides the obvious momentum dependence of the form factors $`g_P^{L(P)}`$ given in Eq. (24), all other nucleon weak vector and axial–vector form factors are assumed to have either the monopole momentum dependence, which naturally appears in our model, with $`m_V=m_\rho `$ and $`m_A=m_{a_1}`$, or, for the sake of comparison, the dipole one with $`m_V=0.843`$GeV and $`m_A=1.077`$GeV .

#### 2 Corrections of the order $`𝒪(1/M^2)`$

Here we have two groups of contributions. The first one arises from the expansion of the amplitudes considered above by one order more in $`1/M`$ which leads to

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_1`$ $`=`$ $`g_M^N\left(k\mu _V\stackrel{}{\nu }\widehat{k}\right)\left(g_V^N\mu _Sg_A^N\lambda \eta \mu _n\right)\left(\stackrel{}{s}\widehat{k}\right),`$ (54)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_2`$ $`=`$ $`g_M^N\lambda \left(\stackrel{}{\nu }\widehat{k}\right)+2\mu _n\left(g_A^N+\lambda g_V^Ng_P^N\right)\left(\stackrel{}{s}\widehat{k}\right),`$ (55)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_3`$ $`=`$ $`g_M^Nk+2g_A^N\lambda \mu _n\left(\stackrel{}{s}\widehat{k}\right)2g_V^N\mu _n\left(\stackrel{}{\nu }\widehat{k}\right),`$ (56)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\nu \eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_4^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`g_M^N\lambda \mu _S2g_V^N\lambda \mu _n,`$ (57)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{\nu \eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_8^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`g_V^N\lambda \mu _n,`$ (58)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{\nu \eta }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }g_{10}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_P^Ng_A^N\right)\mu _n.`$ (59)
The main part of the contribution to the photon spectrum arises from the terms proportional to $`g_A^N`$ and $`g_V^N`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_2`$. These terms appear due to the neutron recoil induced by the time component of the weak current. Actually, the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_4^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_4^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`g_{10}^{}`$ contribute in the order $`𝒪(1/M^3)`$. We have verified that they change the singlet capture rate by $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\%`$ and the triplet capture rate by $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8}\%`$, which is the reason to keep them. They also arise presumably from the neutron recoil.

The second group of corrections to order $`𝒪(1/m_\rho ^2)𝒪(1/M^2)`$ (the hp correction) stems from some contact terms present in the hadron radiative part of the amplitude Eq. (38). It is discussed in Sect. 4 of Ref. . Here we quote the results of the non–relativistic reduction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g_1=2g_V^L\left(\frac{2M}{m_\rho }\right)^2\eta \frac{k}{2M},\mathrm{\Delta }g_2=\frac{g_A^N}{2}\left(\frac{2M}{m_\rho }\right)^2\eta \frac{2k+y\nu }{2M}.$$
(60)
### B The RMC amplitude with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s

We derive the RMC amplitudes arising due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitations from chiral Lagrangians . They correspond to the standard nucleon Born terms with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar instead of nucleon in the intermediate state. The needed Lagrangian reads

$$_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \rho a_1}^M=\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu \stackrel{}{T}𝒪_{\mu \nu }(Z)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(_\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }+2f_\pi g_\rho \stackrel{}{a}_\nu \right)g_\rho \frac{G_1}{M}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu \stackrel{}{T}𝒪_{\mu \eta }(Y)\gamma _5\gamma _\nu \mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{}{\rho }_{\eta \nu }+h.c.$$
(61)
Here $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ is the operator of the transition spin. Another possible term in the $`\rho N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex is suppressed by one order in $`1/M`$ and it does not contribute in any sizeable manner .

We take the operator $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }(B)`$ in a form

$`𝒪_{\mu \nu }(B)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }+C(B)\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu ,`$ (62)
$`C(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}B\right)A+B.`$ (63)
A choice $`A=1`$ simplifies considerably  the propagator of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The coupling constant $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is not well known and the values for $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi `$ from the interval between 0.23 and 0.36 can be found in the literature . From the dispersion theory , $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.30}`$ and $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.35}`$ from the decay width . Also a good fit to the 33 phase shift was obtained in Refs.  by using $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.314}`$. The new data on pion photoproduction prefer $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.371}`$ . The ranges of the other relevant parameters of the model are

$$0.8Z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.7},1.25Y\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.75},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.97}G_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.65}.$$
(64)
Our radiative amplitude with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation can be written analogously with the nucleon Born term $`M_{\mu \nu }^{B,a}(1)`$  as

$`M_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})[\left(\widehat{J}_{W,\mu \alpha }(q)\right)^+S_F^{\alpha \gamma }(Q)\widehat{J}_{em,\nu \gamma }(k)\left(T^+\right)^aT^3`$ (66)
$`+\left(\widehat{J}_{em,\nu \gamma }(k)\right)^+S_F^{\gamma \alpha }(P)\widehat{J}_{W,\mu \alpha }(q)\left(T^+\right)^3T^a]u(p),`$
Here the weak $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex reads

$$\widehat{J}_{W,\mu \alpha }(q)=\widehat{J}_{V,\mu \alpha }(q)\widehat{J}_{A,\mu \alpha }(q),$$
(67)
with the vector part defined as

$$\widehat{J}_{V,\mu \alpha }(q)=i\left(\frac{G_1}{M}\right)m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\rho (q)\left(q_\beta \delta _{\mu \lambda }q_\lambda \delta _{\mu \beta }\right)𝒪_{\alpha \beta }(Y)\gamma _5\gamma _\lambda ,$$
(68)
and with the axial–vector part of the form

$$\widehat{J}_{A,\mu \alpha }(q)=\left(\frac{f_\pi f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }\right)\left[m_{a_1}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \lambda }^{a_1}(q)q_\mu q_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q)\right]𝒪_{\alpha \lambda }(Z).$$
(69)
Further the electromagnetic $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex is

$$\widehat{J}_{em,\nu \gamma }(k)=\widehat{J}_{V,\nu \gamma }(k,k^2=0)=i\left(\frac{G_1}{M}\right)\left(k_\beta \delta _{\nu \lambda }k_\lambda \delta _{\nu \beta }\right)𝒪_{\gamma \beta }(Y)\gamma _5\gamma _\lambda .$$
(70)
Finally, $`S_F^{\alpha \gamma }(p)`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar propagator. With the choice $`𝒪_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$, our amplitudes Eqs. (67)–(69) coincide in the form with the ones obtained in Ref.  from the study of the weak $`N`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex in the reaction $`\nu d\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}n`$777For a recent study of this reaction see ..

For the divergence of the resonant amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}`$ from Eq. (66) we have

$$q_\mu M_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}=if_\pi m_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q^2)M_{\pi ,\nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}.$$
(71)
Here the associated resonant radiative pion absorption amplitude $`M_{\pi ,\nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}`$ is,

$`M_{\pi ,\nu }^{\mathrm{\Delta },a}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p^{})[\left(\widehat{M}_{\pi ,\alpha }^\mathrm{\Delta }(q)\right)^+S_F^{\alpha \gamma }(Q)\widehat{J}_{em,\nu \gamma }(k)\left(T^+\right)^aT^3`$ (73)
$`+\left(\widehat{J}_{em,\nu \gamma }(k)\right)^+S_F^{\gamma \alpha }(P)\widehat{M}_{\pi ,\alpha }^\mathrm{\Delta }(q)\left(T^+\right)^3T^a]u(p),`$
and the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex reads

$$\widehat{M}_{\pi ,\alpha }^\mathrm{\Delta }(q)=i\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }q_\lambda 𝒪_{\alpha \lambda }(Z).$$
(74)
We now present the contributions from the amplitude Eq. (66) to the form factors $`g_i`$. They are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda (C_{}C_+)C\left\{1+(1R)\left[C(Y)+C(Z)+2(2+R)C(Y)C(Z)\right]\right\},`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(C^++C_{})C(1R)[(1+2R)+2(12R)C(Y)+2(1R)C(Z)`$ (79)
$`+4(2R)C(Y)C(Z)]+(C^++C_{})C{\displaystyle \frac{g_P^N}{6Mg_A^N}}[(1R)(1+2R)k`$
$`+y\nu ]+2(1R)\{[(12R)k+y\nu ]C(Y)+[(1R)k+y\nu ]C(Z)`$
$`+2[(2R)k+(2+R)y\nu ]C(Y)C(Z)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda (C_++C_{})C\left\{1+(1R)\left[C(Y)+C(Z)+2(2+R)C(Y)C(Z)\right]\right\},`$ (80)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_4^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_8^{}=(C_++C_{})C,`$ (81)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_6`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{3M}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_P^N}{g_A^N}}(C_+C_{})C\left\{1+(1R)\left[C(Y)+C(Z)+2(2+R)C(Y)C(Z)\right]\right\},`$ (82)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{10}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(C_++C_{})C{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{6M}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_P^N}{g_A^N}}\left\{12(1R)\left[C(Y)+C(Z)+2(2+R)C(Y)C(Z)\right]\right\},`$ (83)
where

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }}G_1\eta k,R=M/M_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (84)
$`C_+^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M)+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }+M}}\left[m_\mu \nu +{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{2M}}\left(2\nu m_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{m_\mu }}(\nu +yk)\right)\right]\right\},`$ (85)
$`C_{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M)+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{M_\mathrm{\Delta }+M}}\left[\nu m_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{2M}}\left(2\nu m_\mu \right)\right]\right\}.`$ (86)
According to the concept developed in Refs. , we take the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar real.

### C The RMC amplitude from an anomalous Lagrangian of the $`\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system

We have considered so far the amplitudes where a natural parity does not change in any vertex. The natural parity of a particle is defined as $`P(1)^J`$, where $`P`$ is the intrinsic parity and $`J`$ is the spin of the particle. Some amplitudes of this kind relevant for the process under study are presented in Fig. 1.

The starting point is an anomalous Lagrangian of the $`\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system ,  constructed within the approach of hidden local symmetries . The electromagnetic interaction in such a system was first considered in Ref.  and the relevant constants $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$ were extracted from the data as well. The weak interaction was incorporated explicitly in Ref.  and the refit of the constants to the modern data  was made in Ref. .

The Lagrangian reads

$`_{an}`$ $`=`$ $`2ig_\rho \epsilon _{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\left[\left(_\kappa \omega _\lambda \right)\left(g_\rho \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu e\stackrel{}{𝒱}_\mu \right)+\left(g_\rho \omega _\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e_\kappa \right)\left(_\lambda \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \right)\right]`$ (90)
$`[\stackrel{~}{c}_7({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi }}_\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }+e\stackrel{}{𝒜}_\nu )+\stackrel{~}{c}_8({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e\stackrel{}{𝒜}_\nu )g_\rho \stackrel{}{a}_\nu )]`$
$`+2ie\epsilon _{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_\kappa _\lambda \right)\left(g_\rho \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu e\stackrel{}{𝒱}_\mu \right)+\left(g_\rho \omega _\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e_\kappa \right)\left(_\lambda \stackrel{}{𝒱}_\mu \right)\right]`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{c}_9({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi }}_\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }+e\stackrel{}{𝒜}_\nu )+\stackrel{~}{c}_{10}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e\stackrel{}{𝒜}_\nu )g_\rho \stackrel{}{a}_\nu )],`$
where besides the meson fields, the external vector isoscalar $`_\mu `$ and isovector $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}_\mu `$ and axial vector isovector $`\stackrel{}{𝒜}_\mu `$ fields are also included. The constants $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_7=8.64\times 10^3,\stackrel{~}{c}_8=1.02\times 10^1,\stackrel{~}{c}_9=9.23\times 10^3,\stackrel{~}{c}_{10}=1.29\times 10^1.$$
(91)
The axial RMC amplitudes arising from the anomalous Lagrangian $`_{an}`$, Eq. (90), are

$`M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho ^2}{3}}\epsilon _{\eta \nu \beta \sigma }k_\eta q_\sigma q_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \lambda }^\rho (q_1)\overline{u}(p^{})\left(\gamma _\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V}{2M}}\sigma _{\lambda \alpha }q_{1\alpha }\right)\tau ^au(p),`$ (92)
$`M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(2)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho ^2}{3}}\epsilon _{\eta \nu \beta \mu }k_\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \lambda }^\rho (q_1)\overline{u}(p^{})\left(\gamma _\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V}{2M}}\sigma _{\lambda \alpha }q_{1\alpha }\right)\tau ^au(p),`$ (93)
and they correspond to the processes presented in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). Together with the radiative pion absorption amplitude of Fig. 1(c)

$$M_{\pi ,\nu }^{an,a}=\frac{g_\rho }{3f_\pi }\epsilon _{\eta \nu \beta \sigma }k_\eta q_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{\beta \lambda }^\rho (q_1)\overline{u}(p^{})\left(\gamma _\lambda \frac{\kappa _V}{2M}\sigma _{\lambda \alpha }q_{1\alpha }\right)\tau ^au(p),$$
(94)
the amplitudes Eq. (93) satisfy PCAC:

$$q_\mu \left[M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(1)+M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(2)\right]=if_\pi m_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_F^\pi (q)M_{\pi ,\nu }^{an,a}.$$
(95)
The contribution from the anomalous amplitudes Eq. (93) to the total hadron radiative amplitude Eq. (38) for the reaction Eq. (23) is given as

$$T_{an}^a=\frac{eG}{\sqrt{2}}l_\mu (0)\epsilon _\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{c}_7+\stackrel{~}{c}_9\right)\left[M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(1)+M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(2)\right].$$
(96)
In Ref. , a contribution arising from the Wess–Zumino–Witten anomalous Lagrangian was estimated. Graphically, it corresponds to our Fig. 1(b) with the pion instead of the rho meson and with the vector interaction $`\widehat{𝒱}_\mu ^a`$ instead of the axial one. The associated amplitude depends on the momentum transfer $`q^L`$ and therefore, it does not possess the enhancement factor $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ for large photon momentums. For illustration, we present the contribution to one of the form factors

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g_4^{}=\eta \frac{k^2}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\frac{\lambda k+y\nu }{2m_\mu }g_P^L,$$
(97)
all other contributions have a similar structure. It is also seen that these contributions are of the order $`𝒪(1/M^3)`$, because $`8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2M^2`$.

In our case, it is the amplitude related to the graph Fig. 1(a), which is $`q^N`$–dependent. We present from the calculated contributions to $`g_i`$ arising from the amplitudes Eq. (93) only the one for the form factor $`g_2`$, the other ones are suppressed by one order in $`1/M`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g_2=\frac{g_\rho ^2}{3g_A}\left(\frac{2M}{m_\rho }\right)^2(1+\kappa _V)\eta \frac{k}{2M}\frac{\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4M^2}g_P^N+\frac{g_\rho ^2}{3}\left(\frac{2M}{m_\rho }\right)^2(1+\kappa _V)\eta \frac{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{s}}{4M^2}.$$
(98)
For comparison, we keep also the $`g_P^N`$–dependent contribution. Using the KSFR relation $`2f_\pi ^2g_\rho ^2=m_\rho ^2`$, we can rewrite this contribution to the form

$$\frac{1+\kappa _V}{g_A}\eta \frac{k}{M}\frac{\stackrel{}{s}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{12f_\pi ^2}g_P^N.$$

Taking into account that $`12f_\pi ^2M^2/10`$ we can see that the $`g_P^N`$–dependent contribution is larger than the $`g_P^L`$–dependent one for large values of $`k`$ by a factor $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$ . However, it is not enough to influence the photon spectrum, because of an additional factor $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_7+\stackrel{~}{c}_9)`$ in the amplitude Eq. (96) (see below). It is seen from Eq. (98) that the first term on the right–hand side is suppressed in comparison with the second one arising from the contact amplitude $`M_{\mu \nu }^{an,a}(2)`$. As we shall see later, the second term contributes to the triplet capture rate by an amount of $`0.2\%`$.

Let us note that the sum of the vector RMC amplitudes arising from the anomalous Lagrangian Eq. (90) is zero with a good accuracy.

One can obtain more general result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_2`$, Eq. (98), by a change

$$1/3g_{\rho 1}/g_{\omega 1},\kappa _Vg_{\rho 2}/g_{\rho 1},$$

which coresponds to the model used in Refs.  for describing the pion photoproduction amplitude in the t channel. In this model, the $`\pi \rho \gamma `$ and $`\pi \omega \gamma `$ amplitudes are effectively the same as those obtained from our anomalous Lagrangian Eq. (90) and the $`\rho NN`$ and $`\omega NN`$ vertices contain four constants $`g_{\rho 1}`$, $`g_{\rho 2}`$, $`g_{\omega 1}`$ and $`g_{\omega 2}`$, which are the free parameters, obtained together with other free parameters of the model from a fit to the data.

Compared with the sets of the form factors given in Eqs. (59) and (60), the $`g_i`$’s, Eq. (98), are even larger. However, due to the values of $`\stackrel{~}{c}_i`$, Eq. (91), the factor $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_7+\stackrel{~}{c}_9)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}\times 10^2`$ makes the contribution from the amplitude $`T_{an}^a`$, Eq. (96), small.

## IV Results

Using the Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}^{(0)}`$, Eq. (35), and the sets of the form factors $`g_i`$, Eqs. (52), (59),(60), and (83), we have calculated the capture rates and the photon energy spectra for the RMC in a muon-hydrogen system described by a spin density matrix $`\rho _\xi `$ ($`\xi =s,t`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi }{dk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^3}}(\alpha ^2G_Fcos\theta _cm/m_\mu )^2mM_nk{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dy{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _0^2}{W+k(y1)}}Tr\{(1\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\nu })`$ (100)
$`\times H_{eff}^{(0)}\rho _\xi \left[H_{eff}^{(0)}\right]^+\}.`$
Here $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`cos\theta _c`$ is the Cabibbo angle, $`m`$ is the reduced mass of the $`\mu p`$ system, the neutrino energy is determined by the energy conservation

$`\nu _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{W+k(y1)}}(k_{max}k)[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_p}}(1y)+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_p^2}}(y1)`$ (102)
$`\times (m_\mu +k(y1))\left]\right(k_{max}k),`$
where the maximum photon energy is given as

$$k_{max}=\frac{W^2M_n^2}{2W},W=M_p+m_\mu ,$$
(103)
and $`M_{p(n)}`$ is the proton (neutron) mass. The singlet and triplet spin density matrices are

$$\rho _s=\frac{1}{4}(1\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l),\rho _t=\frac{1}{4}(1+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_l).$$
(104)
We have also calculated the capture rates and spectra for the ortho- and paramolecular p$`\mu `$p states and for the mixture of muonic states relevant to the TRIUMF experiment . The ortho ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_o`$)- and paramolecular ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$) capture rates are given in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_o=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.756}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.253}\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.286}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.857}\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,$$
(105)
and the capture rate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$, relevant to the TRIUMF experiment , is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.061}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.854}\mathrm{\Lambda }_o+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.085}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p.$$
(106)
Now we present numerical results for the capture rates.

### A Capture rates

Here we present the results for the capture rates calculated in various models. If not stated otherwise, we use the monopole form factors and we put $`x=1`$ in Eq.(24).

A) We first discuss the results obtained in the model with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar kept on–shell. We give the singlet and triplet capture rates in a more detail, in order to see explicitly various contributions,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.40}(0)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.65}(1)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.29}(2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.11}(hp)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.07}(al)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.05}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (107)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.43}(3.51)s^1,`$ (108)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}43.7}(0)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}53.1}(1)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.7}(2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.9}(hp)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}(al)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.2}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (109)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}103.0}(103.4)s^1.`$ (110)
Here on the right–hand side of Eqs. (108) and (110), the number n (n=0,-1,-2) in the brackets means the order of the contribution in $`𝒪(1/M^n)`$ and hp (al) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mean the contributions from the hard pion form factors Eq. (60) (from the form factors Eq. (98)) and from the form factors Eq. (83) due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar excitation processes, respectively. These were calculated using the parameters

$$\frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\pi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.371},G_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.525},Y=Z=0.5.$$
(111)
The choice of the parameters $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ is such that only the terms proportional to $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ in Eq. (28) contribute (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is on–shell). The contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\%`$, which is in agreement with BHM. The numbers in the brackets on the right–hand side of Eqs. (108) and (110) are obtained using Eq. (24) for $`g_P^{L(N)}`$ without the correction $`\stackrel{~}{g}_P^{L(N)}`$ included.

For the other capture rates we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_o=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}28.7}\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}89.3}\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}32.3}\times 10^3s^1.$$
(112)
For the dipole form factors, analogously with Eqs. (108) and (110) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.28}(3.50)\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}101.5}(102.5)\times 10^3s^1.$$
(113)
Let us compare our results with available calculations. The singlet and triplet capture rates were calculated earlier by Opat . He obtained $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=4.96\times 10^3`$s-1 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=90.0\times 10^3`$s-1.

Very recent calculations  yield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=(2.903.10)\times 10^3`$s-1 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=(112114)\times 10^3`$s-1. Having in mind that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ results as the difference of two large and almost equal numbers, the agreement between our value Eq. (108) of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ and the BHM value can be considered as satisfactory. However, the difference of $``$ 10% between the triplet capture rates is too large. A half of this discrepancy can be understood by checking the integration over the phase volume. We use for the neutrino momentum Eq. (102) with $`k_{max}`$ from Eq. (103), while BHM employ for $`k_{max}`$ equation (4.37), which is in our notations

$$k_{max}=m_\mu (1+\frac{m_\mu }{2M_N})(1+\frac{m_\mu }{M_N})^1m_\mu (1\frac{m_\mu }{2M_N}+\frac{m_\mu ^2}{2M_N^2}),$$
(114)
where $`M_N=(M_p+M_n)/2`$ is the nucleon mass. From Eq. (103), one obtains $`k_{max}=99.15`$MeV, while from Eq. (114) one has $`k_{max}=100.3`$MeV and instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=103.0\times 10^3`$s-1 one obtains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=108.0\times 10^3`$s-1, which is larger by $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\%`$. Using in Eq. (102) for $`\nu _0`$ the expansion Eq. (114) for $`k_{max}`$, one obtains

$`\nu _0`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu k{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{2M_N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_N}}(1y)(m_\mu k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_N^2}}\left[m_\mu +k(y1)\right]`$ (116)
$`\times \left[m_\mu ^2+2k(m_\mu k)(y1)\right].`$
In Ref. , Eq. (4.39) is used for $`\nu _0`$. It retains terms up to the order $`𝒪(1/M_N)`$888There is factor 2 missing in the denominator of the third term on the right–hand side of this equation., which yields in our case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=107.2\times 10^3`$s-1. But the source of the remaining difference of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\%`$ between the results for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ is not clear.

B) The results of calculations without the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation effect are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=3.38\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=100.8\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=31.6\times 10^3s^1.$$
(117)
C) We now present the capture rates for the same case as in B), but for the value of the parameter $`x=1.5`$. The rates are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=8.35\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=116.6\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=39.8\times 10^3s^1.$$
(118)
The strong dependence of the capture rates on $`g_P`$ was already known to Opat .

D) The capture rates, calculated for the same parameters as in A), but $`Y=1.75`$ and $`Z=0.8`$, are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=3.28\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=106.0\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=33.0\times 10^3s^1.$$
(119)
In this case, the effect of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation is for the values of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$, allowed by the inequalities of Eq. (64), maximal and it is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$.

E) The capture rates, calculated as in D, but $`Z=1.95`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=5.93\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=116.7\times 10^3s^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=38.1\times 10^3s^1.$$
(120)
These capture rates are close to those calculated in the case C) for $`x=1.5`$. In order to achieve the same enhancement in the rates, one should put $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar more off–shell than it is needed in pion photoproduction processes. On the other hand, the values of the off–shell parameters $`X,Y,Z`$ depend strongly on whether the pion production amplitude is unitarized or not and on the method of unitarization. Let us note that our choice of the parameters of the model is not optimal. In order to extract an optimal set of these parameters from the data, one should use a minimization procedure.

Similar enhancement in the capture rates as in the case E) can be achieved by taking $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$ or $`G_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$, which is an amplification of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$ in the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling and of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}`$ in the constant $`G_1`$, which is much more than the enhancement factor of $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}`$ for the parameter $`Z`$.

### B Photon spectra

Photon spectra, corresponding to the capture rates calculated in the model A of the previous section, are presented in Fig. 2. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar is included, but the choice of the parameters $`Y=Z=0.5`$ is such that the isobar is on–shell. As it is seen from Fig. 2, our spectra are in a close correspondence with those of Fig. 3 of Ref. . However, our spectrum for the triplet state of the $`\mu p`$ system (long–dashed curve) differs from the analogous spectrum of Fig. 5 , as it should be, because the triplet capture rates differ significantly.

The percentage change in the spectra when the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation effect is taken into account is presented in Fig. 3. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation effect was calculated according to the model A of the previous section. The case without this effect corresponds to the model B. This change in the spectra due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was first calculated by Beder and Fearing . Our Fig. 3 is in a good agreement with Fig. 4 of Ref. , but it differs from the analogous Fig. 6 of Ref. .

Similar calculations are presented in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 using instead of the model A the spectra of the model D and E, respectively. As it is seen, by putting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar off–shell, both the singlet and triplet spectra are changed sensibly.

In Fig. 6, we show how the photon spectra, relevant to the mixture of the muonic states for the TRIUMF experiment, depend on the parameters of our model. The dotted curve corresponds to the model B (no $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, x=1), the dashed curve is the photon spectrum for the case A ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on–shell, $`Y=Z=0.5`$), the dot–dashed curve is calculated using the model D: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is off–shell, the parameters $`Y=1.75,Z=0.8`$ are at the boundary of the region Eq. (64) allowed by the pion photoproduction data . In this case, about two times more discrepancy is explained in comparison with the dashed curve. The dependence of the photon spectrum on the change in $`g_P`$ is illustrated by the long–dashed curve, calculated within the model C (no $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, x=1.5). We have found that this curve, normalized to 14.5 counts at $`k=60`$MeV, follows closely the solid curve of Fig. 4 . All other curves in this and in the next figure are multiplied by this normalization factor. The long–dashed curve closely follows the solid curve from $`k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}`$MeV, which corresponds to the model E: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is off–shell, the parameter $`Y=1.75`$ is the same as in the case D, the parameter $`Z=1.95`$.

Evidently, this picture is in agreement with the one obtained by comparing the Beder–Fearing model  with the experiment : the experimental photon spectrum can be satisfactorily described with $`g_P`$ of the form Eq. (24) only for $`x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}`$ and only a small part of the discrepancy could be explained by calculating the spectra by including the on–shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar. As it is seen from the solid curve, putting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar off–shell, one can describe the experimental data quite well.

As we have just found, our model can explain about two times more of the discrepancy between the $`g_P^{PCAC}`$, Eq. (14), and of $`g_P`$ extracted from the experiment , if one restricts oneself to the set of the parameters from Eq. (64). They were extracted in Refs.  from the data on pion photoproduction by using unitarized multipoles arising from the pion photoproduction amplitude. The problem with the unitarity appears in the pion photoproduction, because of the pion–nucleon interaction in the final state. It is true that the time reversed of the pion production amplitude is connected with the hadron radiative part of our RMC amplitude by the continuity equations Eqs. (39),(71), and (95). However, we do not need to unitarize our amplitude. Therefore it is not clear, how the inequalities Eq. (64) are restrictive for the problem considered here. It is seen that the model can reproduce reasonably the experimental photon spectrum  in the region $`k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}`$MeV for the PCAC value of $`g_P`$, Eq. (14), if the values of the parameters $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are taken to be $`Y=1.75`$ and $`Z=1.95`$.

In Fig. 7, we show the dependence of the calculations on uncertainties in our knowledge of $`g_P`$ and of the admixture $`\xi `$ of the $`S=3/2`$ orthomolecular $`p\mu p`$ state. As discussed recently , admixture of the $`S=3/2`$ orthomolecular $`p\mu p`$ state changes the molecular capture rate to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_o^{}=\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }_o(1/2)+(1\xi )\mathrm{\Lambda }_o(3/2),$$
(121)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_o(1/2)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_o`$ of Eq. (105) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_o(3/2)=1.009\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$. It was found in  that the data on OMC in hydrogen requires $`g_P\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2}g_P^{PCAC}`$ or $`\xi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.95}`$. This restriction on $`g_P`$ is in agreement with our Eq. (20) for the OMC in 3He. The dependence on the uncertainty in $`g_P`$ and on $`\xi `$ is illustrated by the long–dashed, dot–dashed and dashed curves. The numbers in the brackets are for the total capture rate, for the partial capture rate in the interval ($`60k_{max})`$MeV and for the capture rate in counts for this interval, respectively. Otherwise, the unit for the capture rates is $`10^3`$s-1. For the sake of illustration, we assigned a 10% error  to a set of ’data’ represented by 14 points of the spectrum C. The number of counts 276, related to this curve is to be compared with the number of counts 286, which can be read off the histogram presented in Fig.4 . As it is seen, all curves lay already inside the 2$`\sigma `$ bound.

## V Summary

In this paper, we have presented the capture rates and the photon energy spectra for the RMC in hydrogen, calculated using the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}^{(0)}`$, Eq. (35), where the form factors $`g_i`$ are obtained from the amplitudes derived from the chiral Lagrangian of the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system. The non–resonant part of the Lagrangian contains the normal and anomalous Lagrangians of the $`N\pi \rho \omega a_1`$ system interacting with the external electromagnetic and weak fields by the associated one–body currents . In the expansion of the amplitudes in $`1/M`$, we keep all terms up to the order $`𝒪(1/M^2)`$.

For the resonant part of our Lagrangian, we have extended the standardly used model  by adopting results of the model developed by Olsson and Osypowski  and by Davidson, Mukhopadhyay and Wittman , allowing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar to be off–shell.

The calculated triplet capture rate differs by $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\%`$ from the one derived quite recently within the HBChPT approach in Ref. . About a half of this discrepancy can be understood by the use of an approximate equation for the neutrino momentum in Ref. . The origin of the rest of the discrepancy is not clear.

In the model, restricting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar on–shell, our spectra are close to those obtained earlier by Beder and Fearing . Our full model, that includes off–shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar, can explain two times more of the discrepancy between the PCAC value of $`g_P`$, Eq. (14), and of $`g_P`$ extracted from the experiment , if one restricts oneself to the values of the parameters of the model extracted from the data on the pion photoproduction off the nucleon. Let us note that taking into account existing uncertainty in $`g_P^{PCAC}`$ extracted from the OMC in the hydrogen and 3He and in the parameter $`\xi `$, regulating the admixture of the $`S=3/2`$ orthomolecular $`p\mu p`$ state, one finds that this model is, actually, in reasonable agreement with the data .

Moreover, if one is allowed to vary the parameters of the model independently, the experimental photon spectrum can be described for the induced pseudoscalar form factor $`g_P`$ of Eq. (24) without any scaling ($`x=1`$). It would be difficult to find any physics behind the scaling of $`g_P`$, which would mean violation of PCAC. On the other hand, the part of our full model, containing the electroweak interaction of the off-shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar, is widely used to describe successfully the pion photoproduction data, which provides a strong basis for confidence in our results. For the reaction of the RMC in the hydrogen, Eq. (11), it is the only model known so far, providing enough enhancement in the high energy region of the photon spectrum.

In conclusion we note that the reactions of the RMC in the hydrogen and 3He are at present the only available effective tool for the study of the form factor $`g_P`$ as a function of the momentum transfer. Therefore, more efforts, both theoretical and experimental, are highly desirable.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Grant No. GA ČR 202/00/1669. The research of F. C. K. is supported in part by NSERCC. A part of this work was done during stays of E. T. at the Theoretical Physics Institute of the University of Alberta. He thanks Professor F. C. Khanna for the warm hospitality. The help with computations by R. Teshima is acknowledged. We thank Professor R. Davidson for the correspondence and Dr. O. Dragoun for discussions.


format: text

text:
# The Sagittarius dwarf galaxy as a microlensing target

## 1 Introduction

More than $``$350 microlensing events detected towards the Galactic Centre have been published to date by several collaborations: MACHO (Alcock et al. 1997b ; Alcock et al. 1999b ; Alcock et al. macho3 (2000), hereafter A00), OGLE (Udalski et al. ogle1 (1994); Udalski et al. ogle2 (2000)) and DUO (Alard & Guibert duo (1997)). The resulting optical depth is $`3\times 10^6`$ in Baade’s window, a value that is higher than the theoretical expectation. Several authors have tried to reconcile the observations with the theoretical calculation (Han & Chang h98 (1998), Peale peale (1998)) but too many uncertainties remain in the Bulge structure and kinematics to allow a reliable determination of the lens population. The bulk of the observed events is believed to be caused by self-lensing within a bar making a small angle relative to the line of sight (Paczyński et al. pac2 (1994), Zhao & Mao zm (1996)), but a substantial number of events (10$`\%`$-20$`\%`$) may be due to lensing involving Disk stars (Mollerach & Roulet mr (1996), Nair & Miralda-Escudé nair (1999)).
It is, however, also possible for some microlensing events detected towards the Galactic Centre to be caused by sources in the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Sgr) lensed by Galactic stars (hereafter MW/Sgr events). Sgr is located $``$16 kpc behind the Galactic Centre (Ibata et al. iwgis (1997)). Its highest surface density region is located at (l=5.6, b=-14.0) and it is oriented roughly perpendicular to the Galactic Plane so that its northern extension (in galactic coordinates) is present within some fields of microlensing experiments towards the Bulge (Alard a96 (1996), Alcock et al. 1997a ). The Sun/Bulge/Sgr configuration favors a high optical depth for member stars of this dwarf galaxy because of the large value of the distance ratio. Recently, Cseresnjes, Alard & Guibert (cag (2000); hereafter CAG) published a density map of Sgr based on the RR Lyrae distribution between b=-14.0and b=-4.0and it is now possible to tackle this question quantitatively.
In this paper we estimate the fraction of events involving a source in Sgr using a simple galactic model. Sect. 2 describes the models we use for our study. In Sect. 3 we estimate the optical depth, event rate, fraction of events involving a source in Sgr and we consider alternatives to our model to estimate the uncertainties. In Sect. 4 we apply our calculation to current microlensing surveys. Sect. 5 is devoted to a brief discussion about the scientific interests of MW/Sgr events, and is concluded in Sect. 6.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 Milky Way

#### 2.1.1 Bulge

The Bulge is modeled by a bar with a total mass of 2.0 1010 M and a triaxial distribution corresponding to the best fit model (G2) to the COBE/DIRBE map (Dwek et al. dwek (1995))

$$\rho _b=2.30\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{s}^2}{2}\right](\mathrm{M}_{}.\mathrm{pc}^3)$$
(1)
with

$$\mathrm{s}^4=\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{x}^{}}{1.58\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{y}^{}}{0.62\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^2\right]^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{z}^{}}{0.43\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^4$$
(2)
where $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ are the distances along respectively the major axis and minor axis of the Bar in the Disk plane, $`z^{}`$ is the distance along the minor axis of the bar perpendicular to the Disk plane. We take the orientation of the bar parallel to the direction (l,b)=(-20,0).

The velocity dispersion is taken from Han & Gould (hg (1996)) who calculated $`(\sigma _x^{},\sigma _y^{},\sigma _z^{})`$=(115.7, 90.0, 78.6) km.s-1 from the tensor virial theorem. The distance to the Galactic Centre is set to 8 kpc.
The galactic surface stellar density in the direction (l,b) is estimated from the Bulge luminosity function (Fig. 1) obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) towards Baade’s window (Holtzman et al. holtz (1998)):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\frac{_{(l,b)}\rho (x)x^2dx}{_{BW}\rho (x)x^2dx}\right)\times _{L_{min}}^{L_{max}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{BW}(L)dL$$
(3)
where $`L_{min}`$ corresponds to the limiting magnitude. The extinction is taken from Schlegel et al. (schlegel (1998)) except at low galactic latitudes where the extinction is inferred from the colors of RR Lyrae at minimum light in the MACHO field when available (Alcock et al. 1997a ).

#### 2.1.2 Disk

For the Disk, we adopt the model of Gould, Bahcall & Flynn (gould (1997)) who fitted the M dwarf spatial distribution obtained with the HST

$`\rho _d=0.63\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}}{3.5\mathrm{kpc}}}]\times \{0.2\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{z}|}{0.64\mathrm{kpc}}}]`$
$`+0.8\mathrm{sech}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{z}}{0.32\mathrm{kpc}}}\right]\}(\mathrm{M}_{}.\mathrm{pc}^3).`$ (4)
The density distribution is normalized in order to get a local surface density of 50 M.pc-2, consistent with current dynamical estimates (Flynn & Fuchs ff (1994)). Since the luminosity function of the Disk at high $`|z|`$ (where most of the Disk sources are located) is poorly constrained, we take the same luminosity function as for the Bulge. We adopt vc=220 km.s-1 for the circular velocity of the local standard of rest and ($`\sigma _l,\sigma _b`$)=(20.0,16.0) km.s-1 for the velocity dispersion of the Disk. Finally, for the peculiar motion of the Sun, we take vpec=16.5 km.s-1 directed towards (l=53,b=25).

### 2.2 Sgr dwarf galaxy

The Sagittarius dwarf galaxy is modeled by the surface density map obtained by CAG from RR Lyrae counts. The RRab density is converted into a stellar density through the luminosity function published by Mateo et al. (muskkk (1995)). The size of their field is 0.063 deg2 and it contains 5 RRab, corresponding to a RRab density of $``$80$`\pm `$35 deg-2 where the uncertainty represents the 1$`\sigma `$ Poissonian noise. For comparison, a symmetric field relative to the minor axis of Sgr contains $``$60 RRab stars in the map published by CAG. The Sgr stellar density can thus be estimated by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Sgr}=\frac{N_{RRab}}{80}\times _{L_{min}}^{L_{max}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Sgr}(L)𝑑L$$
(5)
where $`N_{RRab}`$ is the RRab density in Sgr. The luminosity function of Mateo et al. is nearly complete until M$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$4.5, which is $``$1 mag below the Turn Off of Sgr (Marconi et al. marconi (1998)). We extrapolate this function to MV=9 by taking the mean slope of this function between MV=3.5 and MV=4.5 (Fig 1).
The kinematical data of Sgr are taken from Ibata et al (iwgis (1997)) who found (U,V,W)=(232,0:,194) km.s-1. Due to the lack of an adequate reference frame, the V component is at the moment poorly constrained. However, the elongation of Sgr which is roughly perpendicular to the Galactic plane suggests a low value for V. The radial velocity dispersion of stars in Sgr is $`\sigma _r`$=11.4 km.s-1. We will assume that the velocity dispersion in Sgr is isotropic although this is probably not true due to its elongated shape. However, this has little consequence in our study since the overall dispersion in the relative velocity is highly dominated by the dispersion of the galactic lenses.

## 3 Optical depth and event rate

### 3.1 Optical depth

The optical depth is the probability at a given time for a source star to be amplified through microlensing by more than a factor of 1.34. The optical depth can be understood as the fraction of solid angle covered by Einstein disks between the observer and the source star (Paczyński pac (1996)). For a star located at Ds it is given by

$$\tau (\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})=_0^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}\frac{\rho _\mathrm{l}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{l})}{\mathrm{M}}\pi \mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{E}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{dD}_\mathrm{l},\rho _\mathrm{l}=\rho _\mathrm{l}^{\mathrm{disk}}+\rho _\mathrm{l}^{\mathrm{bar}}$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4\mathrm{G}\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{c}^2}\frac{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{l}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{l})}{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}}$$
(7)
is the Einstein radius, Dl is the distance of the lens and $`\rho _l`$ is the lens density. If the sources are spread along the line of sight, one has to average over all distances and luminosities:

$$\tau =\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}_{L_{min}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})}^{L_{max}}\tau (\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Phi }(L)\mathrm{dD}_\mathrm{s}dL}{_0^{\mathrm{}}_{L_{min}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s})}^{L_{max}}\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Phi }(L)\mathrm{dD}_\mathrm{s}dL}.$$
(8)
Fig.2 shows the optical depth map for sources located in Sgr ($`\tau _{Sgr}`$). This optical depth varies between $``$10-6 and $`3\times 10^5`$ in the MACHO fields. This is a factor $``$6-7 higher than for a Galactic source, as shown in Table 1 for three directions and two limiting magnitudes (V=21 mag and V=23 mag). The first direction (l,b)=(2.7,-3.3) corresponds to the mean MACHO field published in A00, the second direction (l,b)=(5.0,-5.5) is located on Sgr’s main axis, and the third direction at (l,b)=(6.0,-9.0) corresponds to the lower-most MACHO field (Popowski et al. pop (2000)). The higher optical depth for a source in Sgr is due to the greater distance ratio which induces an increase of the Einstein radius.

### 3.2 Event rate

The event rate for a source star located at Ds and lensed by a single mass population can be calculated by (Roulet & Mollerach rm (1997))

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{dt}_\mathrm{E}}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E})=\frac{2}{\mathrm{M}}_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}\rho _l\left(\frac{\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{E}}{t_E}\right)^4f(𝐯^{})d\gamma \mathrm{dD}_\mathrm{l}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E}=\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{E}/|𝐯^{}|`$ is the Einstein ring crossing time, $`𝐯^{}`$ is the lens velocity relative to the line of sight and projected onto the lens plane, f($`𝐯^{}`$) is the velocity distribution and $`\gamma `$ is the position angle of $`𝐯^{}`$. Fig. 3 and Table 1 show the event rate distribution for the ideal case of 100$`\%`$ detection efficiency for all time-scales and a single mass lens population of 1 M$``$. The time-scale of a MW/Sgr event ($`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E}60`$ days) is longer by a factor $``$1.3 than the MW/MW events ($`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E}45`$ days). These time-scales increase for both MW/MW and MW/Sgr events towards higher $`|b|`$ because of the increasing contribution of the Disk lenses located between the Sun and the Galactic Centre. The time-scale dispersion is slightly lower for MW/Sgr events because the velocity dispersion of the source is negligible in this case.

### 3.3 Fraction of events involving Sgr sources

To estimate the number of events involving sources in Sgr we convolved the event rate distribution with a Salpeter mass function $`\xi (\mathrm{M})\mathrm{M}^{2.35}`$ with an upper cut-off at 1 M$``$ and a lower cut-off at the brown dwarf limit (0.08 M$``$). The total number of events for a source located at Ds is (Roulet & Mollerach rm (1997)):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}_{0.08\mathrm{M}_{}}^{1\mathrm{M}_{}}\frac{\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{M}}\gamma (\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E},\mathrm{M})\xi (\mathrm{M})\mathrm{dt}_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{dM}}{_{0.08\mathrm{M}_{}}^{1\mathrm{M}_{}}\xi (\mathrm{M})\mathrm{dM}}$$
(10)
where

$$\gamma (\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E},\mathrm{M})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{dt}_\mathrm{E}}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s},\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{E}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{M}}}).$$
(11)
Similar to the optical depth for sources spread along the line of sight, one has to integrate Eq.10 over the range of source distances and luminosities. The upper panels of Fig.4 show the maps of the number of events expected per year and per square degree ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{Sgr}}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Sgr}}`$) originating from sources in Sgr for two limiting magnitudes (V=21 mag and V=23 mag). These maps show that the highest rate is expected near (l,b)=(4,-5.5). Closer to the Galactic Plane the rate is limited by the extinction which becomes too important to reach the sources, whereas at higher $`|b|`$ the optical depth drops too fast to take advantage of the increasing source density in Sgr. It is interesting to note that the region of highest rate is located near the centre of the MACHO fields.
The lower panels of Fig.4 shows the fraction of MW/Sgr events $`f_{Sgr}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{Sgr}}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Sgr}})/(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}})`$ for Vlim=21 mag (left) and Vlim=23 mag (right) respectively. It is obvious from these maps that $`f_{Sgr}`$ depends on the limiting magnitude of the survey. This is due to the variation of the star ratio ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{Sgr}}/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$) with the limiting magnitude (Fig.1). The star ratio reaches a minimum between V=20 mag and V=21 mag (depending on the extinction), corresponding to a magnitude range fainter than the Bulge Turn Off but brighter than the Sgr Turn Off. After this minimum, the star ratio increases continuously towards fainter magnitudes. Thus, the deeper the survey, the higher $`f_{Sgr}`$. The MW/Sgr events become dominant only near the highest density region of the dwarf galaxy located at (l,b)=(5.5,-14.0). Note that the rates are calculated for an efficiency of unity whereas the event detection efficiencies generally increase with the event duration. Hence, since MW/Sgr events have a longer time-scale than the MW/MW events, these maps only present lower limits for $`f_{Sgr}`$ in current experiments.

### 3.4 Uncertainties in the MW/Sgr event rates

Estimating the uncertainties in the MW/Sgr event rate is not an easy task because the parameter space is so wide. Different rates may be obtained for different Bar models, luminosity functions, lens mass functions, extinctions, etc… . In this section we estimate the effect of varying each parameter one by one in our model. This should provide a clear idea of the uncertainties. To do this, we will focus on the direction (l,b)=(4.0,-5.5), close to the location where the highest MW/Sgr rate is expected.

#### 3.4.1 Source density in Sgr

The uncertainty in the source density in Sgr is relatively high ($``$40$`\%`$) as the transformation of RR Lyrae into stars is based on only five variables. However, correcting the MW/Sgr rate is straightforward since the event rate scales linearly with the surface density in Sgr. A different source density in Sgr would influence only the rate but not the spatial distribution of the events. This is also true for $`f_{Sgr}`$ at $`|b|`$10, where the MW/MW events dominate.
Another uncertainty may result from the luminosity function of Sgr. As stated above, we had to extrapolate this function for magnitudes fainter than M$`{}_{\mathrm{V}}{}^{}`$4.5 because of completeness problems. This magnitude corresponds to an apparent magnitude of V$``$22.5-23.5 mag (depending on extinction). Hence the uncertainty in the luminosity function of Sgr has no effect on our results for Vlim=21 and should only mildly influence the results for Vlim=23.

#### 3.4.2 Extinction

The extinction determines how faint one can reach the luminosity function of the sources. Fig. 5 (upper panels) shows how the MW/Sgr event rate and fraction evolve if we let the extinction vary up to $`\pm `$0.3 mag about the assumed value. As expected, the rate increases when extinction drops. The error on the rate is $``$10$`\%`$ for a deviation of $`\pm `$0.2 mag about AV. The fraction of events is only marginally influenced by uncertainties in AV because extinction affects the MW/MW and MW/Sgr rates in an almost similar way.

#### 3.4.3 Lens mass function

In our calculation we used a simple Salpeter function for the mass distribution of the lenses. While this is a fair approximation in most cases, we investigate the effect of changing the exponent of the mass function and let it vary between 0.55 and 3.05:

$$\xi (\mathrm{M})\mathrm{M}^\alpha ,0.55<\alpha <3.05.$$
(12)
Fig.5 shows that flat mass functions induce lower rates. For instance, an index $`\alpha `$=1.35 would produce $``$20$`\%`$ less events. A flat mass function at the low mass end seems to be favored by the luminosity function towards the Bulge (Holtzman et al. holtz (1998), Zoccali et al. zoc (2000)). However there remains uncertainties in the binaries fraction, and also a flat mass function would be in conflict with the distribution of time-scales of observed microlensing events towards the Galactic Centre. The fraction of MW/Sgr events is almost independent of the mass function.

#### 3.4.4 Bar model

The Galactic model is probably the most important parameter in our study. We will discuss here only the consequence of modifying the Bar since the majority of events are believed to be caused by lenses located within this component. Dwek et al. (dwek (1995)) fitted three families of analytical functions (Gaussian-type, exponential-type and power-law-type) to the infra-red surface brightness measured by the COBE/DIRBE instrument towards the Galactic Centre. We took as a ‘reference’ model the one corresponding to their best fit (which they named G2). However, other models fit the COBE/DIRBE map almost equally well. We consider now two other models:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{E2}}=25.65\times \mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{r}](\mathrm{M}_{}.\mathrm{pc}^3)$$
(13)
and

$$\rho _{\mathrm{P3}}=39.16\times \left(\frac{1}{1+r^2}\right)^2(\mathrm{M}_{}.\mathrm{pc}^3)$$
(14)
where

$$r=\left[\left(\frac{x^{}}{x_0}\right)^2+\left(\frac{y^{}}{y_0}\right)^2+\left(\frac{z^{}}{z_0}\right)^2\right]$$
(15)
x’, y’ and z’ are defined in the same way as Eq.2. The scale lengths are ($`x_0,y_0,z_0`$)=(0.74,0.16,0.27)kpc and (0.90,0.23,0.28)kpc for $`\rho _{E2}`$ and $`\rho _{P3}`$ respectively. The angle between the x-axis of the Bar and the Sun-GC direction are 41.3 (E2 model) and 35.4 (P3 model). Additionally, we consider model E2 with different parameters: ($`x_0,y_0,z_0`$)=(0.90,0.385,0.25)kpc and an angle of 24. These latter parameters correspond to the best fit of the OGLE red clump star distribution towards the Galactic Centre (Stanek et al. stanek (1997)). All the above Bar models are normalized in order to get a Bar mass of 2$`\times `$1010M.
We use these models to calculate the MW/Sgr rate and $`f_{Sgr}`$ at Galactic longitude l=5 for -12$`{}_{}{}^{}<b<`$-3, following approximately Sgr’s main axis. These rates are compared to our reference model in Fig.6. The successive bumps in the rates are due to the variation of extinction along the strip. All the models produce a maximum rate near b$``$-5.5. The rapid decrease of the rates at lower latitudes are due to the increasing extinction where Sgr sources can no longer be detected. Similar to the Bulge self-lensing case, the G2-model is the most efficient for producing MW/Sgr events while the P3-model is the least efficient. Surprisingly, both E2 models (COBE and OGLE) seem to produce the same amount of MW/Sgr events in spite of their different parameters. One would have expected a higher rate for the OGLE Bar model because of its higher inclination. For instance, in Fig. 5 we show how the event rate evolves if we let the angle of our reference model vary, confirming that a lower angle favors a higher rate. However, the OGLE model has longer scale-lengths, inducing a lower density (remember all Bar models are normalized to the same mass), compensating the effect of the lower Bar angle. Of course there is a strong dependence between the Bar mass and the MW/Sgr rate. In Fig.5 we let the Bar mass vary between 1.5$`\times 10^{10}`$ and 2.5$`\times 10^{10}`$M, encompassing the estimation range of different authors (e.g. Gerhard & Vietri gv (1986), Kent kent (1991), Zhao zbar (1996)). Indeed, the MW/Sgr rate scales almost linearly with the Bar mass with a slight non-linearity caused by the Disk. Finally, the fraction of MW/Sgr events is almost independent of the model, showing that the efficiencies for a Bar model to produce MW/MW and MW/Sgr events are similar.

## 4 Application to observations

### 4.1 MACHO

Recently the MACHO collaboration reported 99 events towards the Galactic Centre (Alcock et al. 1999b ; A00). Their detection is based on the Difference Image Analysis technique (DIA, Alcock et al. 1999a ), which is sensitive to microlensing events on stars as faint as V=23 mag, provided the peak magnification of these stars is brighter than V$``$21 mag. We computed the expected event rate for their average field (l=2.7,b=-3.3) using the detection efficiency published in A00. The resulting event rate distribution is compared to the observations (normalized to an exposure of 106 stars $`\times `$ 1 year) in Fig.7, showing the relatively good match of our reference model to the observed event distribution, especially at short time-scales. We find that the fraction of MW/Sgr events is 1.1$`\%`$, thus the number of MW/Sgr events published in A00 is of the order of unity.
The MACHO collaboration has now collected seven seasons of data in 94 fields ($``$45 deg2) located between b$``$-2and b$``$-9(Popowski et al. pop (2000)). When these data will have been processed with the DIA technique, there will be potentially $``$1 000 events available and some of these will be located at higher $`|b|`$ where the probability for MW/Sgr events increases. It is thus very likely that some of these events will involve sources in Sgr.

### 4.2 OGLE

The OGLE collaboration published the largest catalogue to date, comprising a set of 214 microlensing events to a limiting magnitude of V$``$21 mag towards the Galactic Centre (Udalski et al. ogle2 (2000)). Their detection process is based on PSF photometry so that one has to take into account the blended events to calculate the rate (Alard a97 (1997)). These events are caused by magnification (through microlensing) of unresolved sources located inside the seeing disk of a resolved star to which the event is attributed. This causes the detected stars to act as multiple sources (Han han (1997)). A blended event mimics a classical microlensing event with a reduced Einstein radius (Di Stefano & Esin dise (1995)). Thus, the rate associated with these blended events is calculated in the same manner as in Eq.9, except that one has to take into account the reduction of the Einstein radius by a factor

$$\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{b}=\sqrt{2\left(\frac{\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{b}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{b}^21}}1\right)}$$
(16)
with $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{b}=0.34(l_b/L)(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}/10\mathrm{pc})^2+1.34`$ where $`L`$ is the absolute luminosity of the source being micro-lensed and $`l_b`$ is the apparent luminosity of the blending star. A good estimation of the apparent magnitude distribution towards the Galactic Centre is provided by a power law $`l_b^2`$ (Zhao et al. zsr (1995)). Furthermore, one has to normalize this rate by the fraction of the field covered by all the seeing disks associated with the detected stars because only events on sources located into the seeing disk of the resolved stars are detected. For OGLE, this ratio is $``$0.5 (Alard a97 (1997)). We take the detection efficiency from Udalski et al. (ogle1 (1994)). It results that the fraction of events due to microlensing of Sgr sources in OGLE is $``$0.7$`\%`$ at (l,b)=(2.7,-3.3). This value is slightly lower than for MACHO because sources fainter than V$``$21 mag contribute only through blended events which have lower time-scales than resolved events and are thus more difficult to detect. Furthermore, the OGLE fields are spread over a wide range in galactic longitude (-10$``$l$``$10) and some of these fields may not contain any stars of Sgr. The number of events involving a source in Sgr in the OGLE catalog is thus also of the order of unity.

## 5 How to detect MW/Sgr events and why

To detect MW/Sgr events, one needs to reach Sgr’s turn off. This is only feasible for fields with not a sufficiently low extinction (A$`{}_{\mathrm{V}}{}^{}`$2 mag) and requires sensitivity to magnitudes fainter than $``$21 mag. Fortunately, image subtraction methods are improving rapidly (Alard & Lupton al (1998), Alcock et al. 1999a , Alard a\_isis (2000)) and allow us to reach magnitudes down to V$``$23 because (1) crowding is virtually suppressed, (2) the micro-lensed star need not be pre-registered in a catalog and can be detected at any time provided the peak magnification makes it brighter than the detection limit. Detection of MW/Sgr events is thus already within the reach of current microlensing surveys. One needs, however, a criterion to discriminate between MW/MW and MW/Sgr events. The heliocentric radial velocity of a Sgr member star is $``$140$`\pm `$10 km.s-1. This is sufficiently large to allow an unambiguous separation between Sgr and Bulge sources (see for instance Fig. 4 of Ibata et al. igi (1995)). MW/Sgr events can thus easily be spotted with a single spectroscopic measure which can be performed well after the event occured.
There are several reasons why detection of MW/Sgr events is interesting. First, they provide stronger constraints on the lens mass than MW/MW events. Determining the lens mass for a single lens microlensing event is a highly degenerate problem because the mass depends simultaneously on the proper motions and distances of both the lens and the source (through the event time-scale). Since the distance ($``$24 kpc) and proper motion (2.1 mas.year$`{}_{}{}^{1}`$250 km.s-1 towards the Galactic Plane) of Sgr are relatively well constrained (Ibata et al. iwgis (1997)), the lens mass determination becomes much more simple. For example, we present in Fig. 8 the lens mass density probabilities for MW/Sgr and MW/MW events with time-scales of 20 days and 15 days respectively. These curves have been constructed by simulating 106 lens/source configurations drawn from the values and uncertainties quoted in Sect. 2. One sees that the density probability of MW/MW event is skewed towards large masses and that it can result from a broad range of lens masses. On the other hand, the lens mass of a MW/Sgr event is much better constrained and it is possible for a *single* event to associate an upper limit to the lens mass. Of course, the MW/MW sample is large and allows a statistical estimation of the lens mass population, but something like $``$10-20 MW/Sgr events could provide additional constraints on this determination.
Another interesting point is the longer time-scales of MW/Sgr events relative to MW/MW events. They should therefore be easier to detect by microlensing surveys. This is important because the lens mass scales as the square of the event time-scale. It results that MW/Sgr events probe the lens masses spectrum deeper into the low mass end than MW/MW events. In our reference model we found tE(MW/Sgr)$``$1.3 tE(MW/MW), resulting in a low mass detection limit $``$1.7 lower for a Sgr source than for a Galactic source.
In this paper we investigated only the formal case where a source in Sgr is micro-lensed by a deflector in the Disk or in the Bulge. Other configurations involving a source in Sgr are also possible. Lines of sight towards Sgr’s northern stream probe regions located *behind* the Bulge and can be used to put constraints on lens populations in these regions. Potential candidates for such populations are a warp and/or flare of the Disk or a yet-undetected stream of stars. Also, while lines of sight towards the Magellanic clouds probe the outer Halo, Sgr could be used as a target to put constraints on the dark mass content of the inner Halo. We showed that the fraction of MW/Sgr events was almost independent of the Bar model. A significantly higher fraction of MW/Sgr events would hint at an additional intervening lens population.

## 6 Conclusion

We have shown that some of the microlensing events towards the Galactic Centre may be due to magnification of sources in Sgr. These events have a longer time-scale than the MW/MW events and occur preferentially on faint sources, below Sgr’s turn off at V$``$21 mag. These events do not contribute significantly in the catalogs published up to now by MACHO and OGLE because these concerned only fields at low $`|b|`$ where the fraction of MW/Sgr events is $``$1$`\%`$. However when one considers a field farther away from the Galactic Plane the contribution of Sgr in the event rate has to be taken into account. The MACHO collaboration has now collected seven seasons of data down to b$``$-9and some of the new events will plausibly involve sources in Sgr. We caution that any optical depth map inferred from observations might become biased by the presence of Sgr at high $`|b|`$.
A possible way to detect the MW/Sgr events is to perform spectroscopic measurements on all the sources in order to determine their radial velocity. The detection of this kind of events is interesting as it will considerably reduce the degeneracy in the event parameters because the distance and proper motion of the source will be known, allowing us to put strong constraints on the lens mass. Additionally, the Northern stream of Sgr can be used as a microlensing target to probe the potential lens populations located behind the Bulge.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the anonymous referee for his/her useful advice which helped to improve the paper.