text:
# Global existence for semilinear wave equations exterior to nontrapping obstacles

## 1. Introduction

The goal of this paper is to prove global existence of solutions to semilinear wave equations with quadratic nonlinearities exterior to a nontrapping obstacle. This extends results that were previously known in Minkowski space (see, e.g., ).

More precisely, let $`𝒦^n`$ be a smooth, compact, nontrapping obstacle, and set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=^n\backslash 𝒦`$. We shall consider solutions to

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u=_t^2u\mathrm{\Delta }_xu=Q(u^{}),(t,x)_+\times \mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ u(t,x)=0\text{for }x\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ u(0,)=f,_tu(0,)=g.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`Q`$ is a constant coefficient quadratic form in $`u^{}=(_tu,_xu)`$.

In order to solve (1.1), we need to assume that the data satisfies certain compatibility conditions. To describe these briefly, let $`J_ku=\{_x^\alpha u:0|\alpha |k\}`$. Then, for fixed $`m`$ and $`u`$ a formal $`H^m`$ solution of (1.1), we can write $`_t^ku(0,)=\psi _k(J_kf,J_{k1}g)`$, $`0km`$, for compatibility functions $`\psi _k`$ which depend on the nonlinear term $`Q`$, $`J_kf`$, and $`J_{k1}g`$. The compatibility condition for (1.1) with $`(f,g)H^m\times H^{m1}`$ requires that $`\psi _k`$ vanish on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when $`0km1`$. Additionally, one says that $`(f,g)C^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfy the compatibility condition to infinite order if this condition holds for all $`m`$. For more detail on compatibility conditions, see e.g., .

In proving the main theorem, we will need to use the invariance of the wave equation under translations and spatial rotations. Let $`Z=\{_t,_k,x_i_jx_j_i\}`$, $`1kn`$, $`1i<jn`$. The vector fields of $`Z`$ essentially preserve the Dirichlet boundary conditions. The Lorentz boosts $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0k}=t_k+x_k_t`$ do not have this property, and thus, do not seem appropriate for use in obstacle problems.

We are now ready to state the main result.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Suppose $`n4`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ exterior to a smooth compact nontrapping obstacle and assume that $`Q(u^{})`$ is as above. Assume that $`(f,g)C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ satisfies the compatibility conditions to infinite order. If $`\epsilon >0`$ is small and

(1.2)
$$\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha g_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\epsilon ,$$

then (1.1) has a unique global solution $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times \mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Theorem 1.1 is an extension of previous results of Shibata and Tsutsumi  and Hayashi . Shibata and Tsutsumi were able to prove Theorem 1.1 when $`n6`$. Their method, however, breaks down for the cases $`n=4,5`$ and requires that the nonlinearity be cubic. Hayashi was able to extend the result to $`n4`$ when the obstacle $`𝒦`$ is a ball. Here, we extend the result to all domains exterior to a nontrapping obstacle. The techniques that we use are similar to those used by Keel, Smith, and Sogge in  to show that well-known almost global existence results in $`n=3`$ for solutions of the Minkowski wave equation extend to exterior domains.

We will begin by showing that one can prove global existence in Minkowski space using these techniques. Specifically, we will consider

(1.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u=Q(u^{}),(t,x)_+\times ^n\hfill & \\ u(0,)=f,_tu(0,)=g.\hfill & \end{array}$$

In this case, we shall prove

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`n4`$. Assume that $`Q(u^{})`$ is as above and that $`(f,g)C^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$. If $`\epsilon >0`$ is small and

(1.4)
$$\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha f_{L^2(^n)}+\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha g_{L^2(^n)}\epsilon ,$$

then (1.3) has a unique global solution $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times ^n)`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In the following section, we will prove the main estimates in Minkowski space that we will need. In Section 3, we will prove Theorem 1.2. In Section 4, we will extend the results of Section 2 and collect the main estimates that will be needed to show global existence in the exterior domain. Finally, in Section 5, we will prove Theorem 1.1.

In a future paper, we hope to extend these results via similar techniques to handle quasilinear equations.

## 2. Main estimates in free space.

We will begin by proving a few results related to the standard energy inequality. That is, if $`v`$ is a solution to the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$, we have

(2.1)
$$v^{}(t,)_{L^2(^n)}Cv^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C_0^tG(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s.$$

The first of these is a weighted energy estimate. This result follows from a simple modification of the arguments in Hormander  (Lemma 6.3.5). A detailed proof can be found in .

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose that $`n4`$. Let $`v(t,x)`$ be a solution to the homogeneous Minkowski wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=0`$ with initial data $`f,gC_C^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$. Then, the following estimate holds

$$(t|x|+2)^2\left(\left|_xv(t,x)\right|^2+(_tv(t,x))^2\right)𝑑xC_R\left(\left|f\right|^2+|g|^2dx\right).$$

We will also need $`L_t^2L_x^2`$ estimates. The first of these is an $`L_t^2L_x^2L_t^2L_x^2`$ estimate when the forcing term is supported in a ball of fixed radius for any time $`t`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Suppose $`n4`$. Let $`v`$ be a solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$ with vanishing Cauchy data. Suppose, also, that $`G(s,x)=0`$ when $`|x|>2`$. Then,

$$\underset{|\alpha |N}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha G_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}$$

for a uniform constant $`C`$.

The proof of this proposition will be based on the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`v`$ be a solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=0`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$. Suppose further that $`v(0,x)=0`$, $`_tv(0,x)=g(x)`$, and supp $`g(x)\{|x|<1\}`$. Then, for any $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$v^{}(t,)_{L^2(|x|<t/2)}C(1+t)^{n/2}g_{L^2(^n)}.$$

Proof of Lemma 2.3: For $`t<3`$, the lemma follows easily from (2.1). We will, thus, assume $`t3`$. We will show how to get the bound for $`_tv`$. A similar argument can be used to bound $`_jv`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Since, by Holder’s inequality,

$$_tv(t,)_{L^2(|x|<t/2)}Ct^{n/2}_tv(t,)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(|x|<t/2)},$$

it will suffice to show

(2.2)
$$_tv(t,)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(|x|<t/2)}Ct^ng_{L^2(^n)}.$$

Since $`_tv`$ is a linear combination of $`e^{\pm it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}g`$, it will suffice to show the bound for $`e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}g`$. The other piece will follow from the same argument.

We begin by fixing a smooth, radial cutoff $`\chi `$ such that $`\chi (\xi )1`$ for $`|\xi |1`$ and $`\chi (\xi )0`$ for $`|\xi |2`$. Then, set

$$\beta (\xi )=\chi (\xi )\chi (2\xi ).$$

Thus, supp $`\beta \{1/2|\xi |2\}`$, and we have a partition of unity

$$\chi (\xi )+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta (\xi /2^j)=1$$

for all $`\xi 0`$. We can then decompose the left side of (2.2) as

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}g_{L^{\mathrm{}}(|x|<t/2)}\hfill \\ \hfill e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\chi (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }})g_{L^{\mathrm{}}(|x|<t/2)}+\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\beta (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}/2^j)g_{L^{\mathrm{}}(|x|<t/2)}\end{array}$$

and examine the pieces on the right side separately.

Since $`g`$ is supported in $`\{|x|1\}`$, we see that

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\beta (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}/2^j)g|& \left|e^{i(xy)\xi }e^{it|\xi |}\beta (\xi /2^j)𝑑\xi \right||g(y)|𝑑y\hfill \\ & \underset{|y|1}{sup}\left(\left|e^{i(xy)\xi }e^{it|\xi |}\beta (\xi /2^j)𝑑\xi \right|\right)g_{L^2(^n)},\hfill \end{array}$$

and similarly

(2.5)
$$|e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\chi (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }})g|\underset{|y|1}{sup}\left(\left|e^{i(xy)\xi }e^{it|\xi |}\chi (\xi )𝑑\xi \right|\right)g_{L^2(^n)}.$$

For (2.4), if we write the kernel in polar coordinates and do a change of variables, we have

$`{\displaystyle e^{i(xy)\xi }e^{it|\xi |}\beta (\xi /2^j)𝑑\xi }`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}e^{i\rho [(xy)\omega +t]}\beta (\rho /2^j)\rho ^{n1}𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑\rho `$
$`2^{jn}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}e^{i2^j\rho [(xy)\omega +t]}a(\rho )𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑\rho `$
where $`a(\rho )`$ is the smooth function, compactly supported away from 0 given by $`\beta (\rho )\rho ^{n1}`$. If we set

$$I_j=2^{jn}_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\rho [2^j(xy)\omega +2^jt]}a(\rho )𝑑\rho $$

and integrate by parts $`N`$ times, we see that

$$|I_j|C\frac{2^{jn}}{2^{jN}\left|t|xy|\right|^N}C2^{j(nN)}t^N$$

on $`\{|x|<t/2\}\{t3\}`$. Thus, if we choose $`N>n`$, we see that

(2.6)
$$|e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\beta (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}/2^j)g|C2^{jm}t^ng_{L^2(^n)}$$

for some $`m>0`$.

For (2.5), if we write the kernel in polar coordinates, we have

$$e^{i(xy)\xi }e^{it|\xi |}\chi (\xi )𝑑\xi _0^{\mathrm{}}_{S^{n1}}e^{i\rho [(xy)\omega +t]}a_0(\rho )𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑\rho $$

where $`a_0`$ is the smooth function given by $`\chi (\rho )\rho ^{n1}`$. Here $`\frac{^N}{^N\rho }a_0=0`$ for $`N<n1`$. Thus, if we set

$$I_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\rho [(xy)\omega +t]}a_0(\rho )𝑑\rho ,$$

we can integrate by parts $`n`$ times to get

$$|I_0|\left|\frac{1}{(t+\omega (xy))^n}\right|+\left|_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{i\rho [(xy)\omega +t]}}{(t+\omega (xy))^n}a_0^{(n)}(\rho )𝑑\rho \right|Ct^n$$

on the set $`\{|x|<t/2\}\{t3\}`$. Substituting this into (2.5), we have

(2.7)
$$|e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\chi (\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }})g|Ct^ng_{L^2(^n)}.$$

Plugging (2.6) and (2.7) into (2.3) yields (2.2) as desired. ∎

Proof of Proposition 2.2: Since the vector fields $`Z`$ commute with $`\mathrm{}`$ and since $`[Z,_j]=_{i=0}^na_{ij}_i`$ for some constants $`a_{ij}`$, it will suffice to show the result for $`N=0`$.

Let $`G_j(s,x)=\chi _{[j,j+1]}(s)G(s,x)`$ where $`\chi _{[j,j+1]}`$ is the characteristic function of the interval $`[j,j+1]`$. Then, let $`v_j`$ be the forward solution to $`\mathrm{}v_j=G_j`$ with vanishing Cauchy data. By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and finite propagation speed, we have

$$v=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_jC\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|(sj|x|+2)v_j|^2\right)^{1/2}.$$

Thus, by Minkowski’s integral inequality,

(2.8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1+r)^{(n1)/4}& v^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}^2\hfill \\ & C\underset{j}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}(sj|x|+2)v_j^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}^2\hfill \\ & C\underset{j}{}(sj+1)^{(n1)/2}(sj|x|+2)v_j^{}(s,)_{L^2(|x|>(sj)/2)}^2\hfill \\ & +C\underset{j}{}(sj+2)^2v_j^{}(s,)_{L^2(|x|<(sj)/2)}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

By Lemma 2.1 and Duhamel’s principle, the first term in the right side of (2.8) is bounded by

$$\begin{array}{c}(sj+1)^{(n1)/2}\left(_j^{j+1}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑\tau \right)^2\hfill \\ \hfill C_j^{j+1}(s\tau +1)^{(n1)/2}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}^2𝑑\tau .\end{array}$$

By Lemma 2.3 and Duhamel’s principle, the second term in the right side of (2.8) is bounded by

$$\begin{array}{c}(sj+1)^2\left(_j^{j+1}(s\tau +1)^{n/2}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑\tau \right)^2\hfill \\ \hfill C_j^{j+1}(s\tau +1)^{n+2}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}^2𝑑\tau .\end{array}$$

Thus, after summing, we have

(2.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}v^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}^2C(s\tau +1)^{(n1)/2}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}^2𝑑\tau \hfill \\ \hfill +C(s\tau +1)^{n+2}G(\tau ,)_{L^2(^n)}^2𝑑\tau .\end{array}$$

If we integrate both sides of (2.9) from $`0`$ to $`t`$ and apply Young’s inequality, we see that the result follows for $`n4`$. ∎

The next estimate is an $`L_t^1L_x^2L_t^2L_x^2`$ estimate when the forcing term is not assumed to be compactly supported in $`x`$. This follows from the arguments of Smith and Sogge  and the author . From , we have

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`\beta `$ be a smooth function supported in $`\{|x|<4\}`$. Then,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\beta ()e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}f()_{\dot{H}^1(^n)}^2𝑑tC_\beta f_{\dot{H}^1(^n)}^2.$$

From this, we are able to deduce the following corollary using Duhamel’s principle.

###### Corollary 2.5.

Let $`v`$ be a solution to the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$. Then, for $`\beta `$ a smooth function supported in $`\{|x|4\}`$, we have

$$\underset{|\alpha |1}{sup}\beta (x)_{t,x}^\alpha v(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}Cv^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C_0^tG(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s.$$

And, from Corollary 2.5, we then easily get the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let $`v`$ be a solution to the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$. Then, for $`\beta `$ a smooth function supported in $`\{R|x|4R\}`$ with $`R>1`$, we have

$$r^{1/2}\beta (x)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}Cv^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C_0^tG(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s.$$

Proof of Corollary 2.6: As above, setting $`v_R(t,x)=v(Rt,Rx)`$, $`G_R(t,x)=R^2G(Rt,Rx)`$, and $`\beta _R(x)=\beta (Rx)`$, we have $`\mathrm{}v_R=G_R`$ and $`\text{supp }\beta _R\{1|x|4\}`$. Thus, by Lemma 2.5,

$`r^{1/2}\beta _R(x)v_R^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t/R]\times ^n)}`$ $`\beta _R(x)v_R^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t/R]\times ^n)}`$
$`Cv_R^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C{\displaystyle _0^{t/R}}G_R(s,)_{L_x^2(^n)}𝑑s`$
or

$$\begin{array}{c}Rr^{1/2}\beta (Rx)v^{}(Rs,Rx)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t/R]\times ^n)}\hfill \\ \hfill CRv^{}(0,Rx)_{L_x^2(^n)}+CR^2_0^{t/R}G(Rs,Rx)_{L_x^2(^n)}𝑑s.\end{array}$$

After a change of variables, this becomes

$$r^{1/2}\beta (x)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}([0,t]\times ^n)}Cv^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C_0^tG(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s$$

as desired.∎

We are now ready to prove our key radial decay estimate.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Suppose $`n4`$. Let $`v`$ be a solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$. Then,

$$(1+r)^{(n1)/4}v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}Cv^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C_0^tG(s,)_{L_x^2(^n)}𝑑s$$

for a uniform constant $`C`$.

Proof of Proposition 2.7: Fix $`\chi `$ to be a smooth, radial cutoff function where $`\chi (x)1`$ when $`|x|1`$ and $`\chi (x)0`$ for $`|x|>2`$. Additionally, set $`\beta (x)=\chi (x)\chi (2x)`$. Thus, $`\text{supp }\beta \{1/2|x|2\}`$ and

$`(1+r)^{(n1)/4}`$ $`v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2`$
$`(1+r)^{(n1)/4}\chi (x)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}\beta (x/2^j)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2`$
$`\chi (x)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}2^{j(n3)/4}(1+r)^{1/2}\beta (x/2^j)v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2.`$
The result, then, follows from an application of Corollary 2.5 and Corollary 2.6.∎

Since the vector fields $`Z`$ commute with $`\mathrm{}`$ and since $`[Z,_j]=_{i=0}^na_{ij}_i`$ for some constants $`a_{ij}`$, Proposition 2.7 and (2.1) imply

###### Theorem 2.8.

Suppose that $`v`$ is a solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^n`$. Then, for any $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}\left(Z^\alpha v^{}(t,)_{L_x^2(^n)}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha v^{}(s,x)_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha v^{}(0,)_{L^2(^n)}+C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha G(s,)_{L_x^2(^n)}𝑑s\end{array}$$

In addition to the $`L^2`$ estimates, we will need the following pointwise estimate. This is a weighted Sobolev estimate (see e.g., ).

###### Lemma 2.9.

Suppose that $`hC^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$. Then, for $`R>1`$,

$$h_{L^{\mathrm{}}(R/2|x|R)}CR^{(n1)/2}\underset{|\alpha |(n+2)/2}{}Z^\alpha h_{L^2(R/4|x|2R)}.$$

Proof of Lemma 2.9: By Sobolev’s lemma for $`\times S^{n1}`$, we have

$$|h(x)|C\underset{|\alpha |+j\frac{n+2}{2}}{}\left(_{|x|1/4}^{|x|+1/4}_{S^{n1}}|_r^j\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha h(r\omega )|^2𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑r\right)^{1/2}.$$

Thus,

$`h(x)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(R/2|x|R)}`$ $`CR^{(n1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |+j\frac{n+2}{2}}{}}\left({\displaystyle _{R/4}^{2R}}{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}|_r^j\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha h(r\omega )|^2r^{n1}𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑r\right)^{1/2}`$
$`CR^{(n1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |\frac{n+2}{2}}{}}Z^\alpha h_{L^2(R/4|x|2R)}.`$
## 3. Global existence in Minkowski space.

We now want to use Theorem 2.8 and Lemma 2.9 to prove Theorem 1.2. We will use an iteration to solve (1.3) and to show that

(3.1)
$$\underset{0tT}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}\left(Z^\alpha u^{}(t,)_{L^2(^n)}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,T]\times ^n)}\right)C\epsilon $$

for any time $`T`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.2: Set $`u_10`$. Then, define $`u_k`$ recursively by setting it to be the solution of

(3.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u_k(t,x)=Q(u_{k1}^{}(t,x)),(t,x)[0,T_{}]\times ^n\hfill & \\ u_k(0,)=f,_tu_k(0,)=g.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let

$$M_k(T)=\underset{0tT}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_k^{}(t,)_{L^2(^n)}+\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_k^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,T]\times ^n)}.$$

By (1.4) and Theorem 2.8, there is a constant $`C_0`$ such that

$$M_0(T)C_0\epsilon $$

for all $`T`$. Our goal is to inductively prove that if $`\epsilon <\epsilon _0`$ is sufficiently small, then

(3.3)
$$M_k(T)2C_0\epsilon $$

for every $`k=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$. To do so, we assume that this bound holds for $`k1`$ and we will use the assumption to prove (3.3) for $`k`$. By Theorem 2.8, we have

$$M_k(T)C_0\epsilon +C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}_0^TZ^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s.$$

Since $`Q`$ is quadratic, the bound

$$|Z^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,x)|C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}|Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)|\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |(n+2)/2}{}|Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)|\right)$$

holds for all $`|\alpha |n+2`$. Thus, applying Lemma 2.9, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}Z^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,)_{L^2(\{|x|[2^j,2^{j+1}]\})}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)_{L^2(\{|x|[2^j,2^{j+1}]\})}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |(n+2)/2}{}}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\{|x|[2^j,2^{j+1}]\})}`$
$`C2^{j(n1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)_{L^2(\{|x|[2^{j1},2^{j+2}]\})}^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,x)_{L^2(\{|x|[2^{j1},2^{j+2}]\})}^2`$
By the standard Sobolev lemma, we also have

$$\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,)_{L^2(\{|x|<1\})}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{|x|<2\})}^2.$$

Hence,

$$\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,)_{L^2(^n)}C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}^2$$

and using the inductive hypothesis,

$`M_k(T)`$ $`C_0\epsilon +C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}{\displaystyle _0^T}Z^\alpha Q(u_{k1}^{})(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s`$
$`C_0\epsilon +C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{(s,x):0sT\})}^2`$
$`C_0\epsilon +CM_{k1}^2(T)`$
$`C_0\epsilon +4C_0^2C\epsilon ^2.`$
Thus, if $`\epsilon \epsilon _0=\frac{1}{8CC_0}`$, then we see that (3.3) holds for any $`T`$.

We now need to show that the $`u_k`$ converge to a solution. If we set

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}A_k(T)=\underset{0tT}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha (u_k^{}u_{k1}^{})(t,)_{L^2(^n)}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha (u_k^{}u_{k1}^{})_{L^2(\{(s,x):0sT\})},\end{array}$$

the proof will be completed if we can show

(3.5)
$$A_k(T)\frac{1}{2}A_{k1}(T),k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}$$

for any $`T`$. Since $`Q`$ is quadratic, we have

$$|Q(u_{k1}^{})Q(u_{k2}^{})|C\left(|u_{k1}^{}||u_{k1}^{}u_{k2}^{}|+|u_{k2}^{}||u_{k1}^{}u_{k2}^{}|\right).$$

By repeating the previous arguments, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}A_k(T)C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}_0^T(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha (u_{k1}^{}u_{k2}^{})(s,)_{L^2(^n)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left((1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_{k2}^{}(s,)_{L^2(^n)}\right)ds.\end{array}$$

Thus, by the Schwarz inequality, we have

$$A_k(T)C[M_{k1}(T)+M_{k2}(T)]A_{k1}(T)4CC_0\epsilon A_{k1}(T)$$

for any $`T`$. For $`\epsilon `$ as above, we see that (3.5) holds which completes the proof. ∎

## 4. Main estimates in the exterior domain.

In the next section, we will prove Theorem 1.1. The first step in adapting the argument of the preceding section is to show that there are analogs of Theorem 2.8 and Lemma 2.9 that hold exterior to a nontrapping obstacle.

By scaling, we may assume that $`𝒦\{|x|<1/2\}`$.

The analog of Lemma 2.9 follows directly from the proof given above when $`R>2`$. That is, if $`h(x)=0`$ when $`x𝒦`$, then

(4.1)
$$h_{L^{\mathrm{}}(R/2|x|R)}CR^{(n1)/2}\underset{|\alpha |(n+2)/2}{}Z^\alpha h_{L^2(R/4|x|2R)}.$$

When $`R2`$, this follows from standard Sobolev estimates.

We will also need exterior domain analogs of the energy-type estimates. In order to avoid issues with compatibility conditions, we will restrict to the case where the initial data vanish. In proving Theorem 1.1, we will reduce to this situation. Thus, we will be looking at solutions of

(4.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}w(t,x)=F(t,x),(t,x)_+\times \mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ w(0,x)=_tw(0,x)=0\hfill & \\ w(t,x)=0\text{for }x\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill & \end{array}$$

It is well known that analog of (2.1) holds in domains exterior to a nontrapping obstacle. Specifically, if $`w`$ is given by (4.2), then

(4.3)
$$w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C_0^tF(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s.$$

We now turn our attention to the exterior domain analog of our main estimate.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose $`n4`$, and let $`w`$ be the solution of (4.2). Then, for any $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}\left(Z^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s+C\underset{0st}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

For any $`R>1/2`$, set $`B_R=\{|x|R\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`E_R=\{|x|R\}`$. We will prove Theorem 4.1 by proving the following four estimates:

(4.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(B_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{0st}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })},\end{array}$$

(4.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w^{}_{L_{t,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })},\end{array}$$

(4.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(E_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })},\end{array}$$

(4.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w^{}_{L_{t,x}^2([0,t]\times E_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Proof of Equation (4.4): Since

$$\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(B_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$

we need only show

(4.8)
$$\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C_0^t\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha F(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.$$

We will prove (4.8) via induction. When $`N=0`$, this follows from the standard energy inequality (4.3). Thus, we will assume that (4.8) holds for $`N1`$ and prove that this implies the result for $`N`$.

Notice that since $`_t`$ preserves the boundary condition and that $`[\mathrm{},_t]=0`$, the inductive hypothesis applied to $`_tw`$ gives

(4.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha _tw^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_0^t_{t,x}^\alpha _tF(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s+C\underset{|\alpha |N2}{}_{t,x}^\alpha _tF(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Thus, since $`_{t,x}^\alpha _t^2w(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}_{t,x}^\alpha _tw^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ and $`_t^2w=\mathrm{\Delta }w+F`$, we have

(4.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }w(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^t_{t,x}^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s+C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha F(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Using elliptic regularity, we see that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$`w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+{\displaystyle \underset{1|\alpha |N}{}}_x^\alpha w^{}(t,x)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N1}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha _tw^{}(t,x)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N1}{}}\left(_x^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+_x^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }w(t,x)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+_{t,x}^\alpha _tw^{}(t,x)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)`$
Thus, by the inductive hypothesis, (4.9) and (4.10), we see that the proof of (4.4) is complete. ∎

Since

$$\underset{|\alpha |N}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)},$$

we see that (4.5) follows easily from the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`w`$ be as in (4.2). Then, for any $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^t_{t,x}^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s+C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\end{array}$$

Proof of Lemma 4.2: Following the same induction argument as above, it will suffice to show the $`N=0`$ case,

$$w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}C_0^tF(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s.$$

Suppose that $`F(s,x)=0`$ when $`|x|>4`$. In this case, since we are exterior to a nontrapping obstacle, the local energy decay of Melrose  and Duhamel’s principle imply

$$w^{}(t,)_{L^2(B_2)}C_0^t[1+(ts)]^{n/2}F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s$$

Thus, from Minkowski’s integral inequality, we have

$$w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}C_0^tF(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s$$

as desired.

Now suppose that $`F(s,x)=0`$ for $`|x|4`$. Fix $`\rho C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\rho 1`$ when $`|x|2`$ and $`\rho 0`$ when $`|x|>4`$. Let $`u_0`$ be the solution to the free wave equation $`\mathrm{}u_0=F`$ with vanishing data. Here we have set $`F`$ to zero on $`^n\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Write

$$w=u_0+u_r=(1\rho )u_0+[\rho u_0+u_r]$$

and set $`v=\rho u_0+u_r`$. By our assumption on $`F`$, we have

$$\mathrm{}v=_x\rho u_0+(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho )u_0$$

The argument in the preceding paragraph implies

$$w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}=v^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}\rho ^{}u_0^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}+(\mathrm{\Delta }\rho )u_0_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}.$$

Thus, an application of Corollary 2.5 concludes the proof.∎

###### Corollary 4.3.

Let $`w`$ be as in (4.2). Then, for any $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_{t,x}^\alpha w_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^t_{t,x}^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s+C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}_{t,x}^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\end{array}$$

Proof of Corollary 4.3: By the previous lemma, it will suffice to show

$$w_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}C_0^tF(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s$$

When $`F(s,x)=0`$ for $`|x|>4`$, using a modification of local energy decay, see , we have

$`w(t,)_{L^2(B_2)}`$ $`C{\displaystyle _0^t}(1+ts)^{n/2}F(s,)_{\dot{H}_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}`$
$`C{\displaystyle _0^t}(1+ts)^{n/2}F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a compact manifold with boundary containing $`B_2`$. Thus, in this case, the result follows from Young’s inequality.

When $`F(s,x)=0`$ for $`|x|4`$, we can argue as in the previous lemma in order to complete the proof of the corollary. ∎

We can now conclude the proof of (4.1) by proving (4.6) and (4.7). Let’s begin by fixing a $`\beta C^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\beta (x)1`$ for $`|x|2`$ and $`\beta (x)0`$ for $`|x|1`$. Setting $`v=\beta w`$, we see that $`v=w`$ on $`|x|>2`$ and that $`v`$ solves the free wave equation

$$\mathrm{}v=\beta F+\beta _xw+(\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )w$$

Decompose $`v`$ into $`v=v_1+v_2`$ where $`v_1`$ solves $`\mathrm{}v_1=\beta F`$ and $`v_2`$ is the solution of $`\mathrm{}v_2=\beta _xw+(\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )w`$. Set $`G=\beta _xw+(\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )w`$.

By Theorem 2.8, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}\left(Z^\alpha v_1^{}(t,)_{L^2(E_2)}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha v_1^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times E_2)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\end{array}$$

since for $`|\alpha |N`$,

$$Z^\alpha \beta ()F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.$$

Thus, it remains to show

(4.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}Z^\alpha v_2^{}(t,)_{L^2(E_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })},\end{array}$$

(4.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |N}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha v_2^{}_{L_{t,x}^2([0,t]\times E_2)}C\underset{|\alpha |N}{}_0^tZ^\alpha F(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |N1}{}Z^\alpha F_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Proof of Equation (4.11): Let $`G_j(s,x)=\chi _{[j,j+1]}(s)G(s,x)`$ where $`\chi _{[j,j+1]}`$ is the characteristic function of the interval $`[j,j+1]`$. Then, let $`v_{2,j}`$ be the forward solution of $`\mathrm{}v_{2,j}=G_j`$ in free space with zero initial data. By finite propagation speed and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have

(4.13)
$$v_2=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v_{2,j}C\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|(tj|x|+2)v_{2,j}|^2\right)^{1/2}.$$

Thus, by the Minkowski integral inequality and Lemma 2.1,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}Z^\alpha v_2^{}(t,)_{L^2(E_2)}^2`$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(tj|x|+2)Z^\alpha v_{2,j}^{}(t,)_{L^2(E_2)}^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left({\displaystyle _j^{j+1}}Z^\alpha G(s,)_{L^2(^n)}𝑑s\right)^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}Z^\alpha G_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times ^n)}^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}^2+C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha w_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}^2`$
Thus, (4.11) follows from Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3.∎

Proof of Equation (4.12): By Proposition 2.2, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha `$ $`v_2^{}_{L^2s,x([0,t]\times E_2)}C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}Z^\alpha G_{L_{s,x}^2(^n)}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}+C{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |N}{}}_{t,x}^\alpha w_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times B_2)}`$
Thus, (4.12) follows from Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3.∎

## 5. Global existence exterior to a nontrapping obstacle.

We now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.1. By scaling, we may assume that the obstacle $`𝒦`$ is contained in $`\{|x|<1/2\}`$. It is convenient to show that one can instead show global existence for an equivalent nonlinear equation which has vanishing Cauchy data, as in Keel-Smith-Sogge . This allows one to avoid the issues regarding the compatibility conditions. At this point, we can follow an iteration argument similar to that used to prove Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem (1.1): We start by making the reduction mentioned above. Notice that if $`f,g`$ satisfy (1.2), then we can find a local solution $`u`$ to (1.1) in $`0<t<1`$. Moreover, if $`\epsilon >0`$ in (1.2) is sufficiently small, there is a constant $`C`$ so that

(5.1)
$$\underset{0t1}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,1]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}C\epsilon $$

To see this, notice that local existence theory (see e.g., ) implies that (5.1) holds when $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small and the norms on the left side are taken over $`\{|x|<10\}`$. By finite propagation speed, on $`\{0<t<1\}\times \{|x|10\}`$, $`u`$ agrees with a solution of the boundaryless wave equation $`\mathrm{}u=Q(u^{})`$ with data equal to a cutoff times the original data $`(f,g)`$. Thus, in this case, (5.1) follows from (3.1).

We are now ready to set up the iteration. Fix $`\eta C^{\mathrm{}}()`$ such that $`\eta (t)1`$ when $`t1/2`$ and $`\eta (t)0`$ for $`t>1`$. Let

$$u_0=\eta u.$$

Thus,

$$\mathrm{}u_0=\eta Q(u^{})+[\mathrm{},\eta ]u.$$

Hence, in order to show that there is a solution to $`\mathrm{}u=Q(u^{})`$ for all $`t`$, it will suffice to show that there is a solution $`w=uu_0`$ of

(5.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}w=(1\eta )Q((u_0+w)^{})[\mathrm{},\eta ](u_0+w)\hfill & \\ w(t,x)=0\text{for }x\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ w(0,x)=_tw(0,x)=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

In order to set up the iteration, as in the proof of Theorem 1.2, set $`w_0=0`$ and define $`w_k`$ recursively by letting it be a solution of

(5.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}w_k=(1\eta )Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})[\mathrm{},\eta ](u_0+w_k)\hfill & \\ w_k(t,x)=0\text{for }x\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ w_k(0,x)=_tw_k(0,x)=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Also, as before, set

$$M_k(T)=\underset{0tT}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}\left(Z^\alpha w_k^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w_k^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right).$$

Our first goal is to inductively prove that if $`\epsilon <\epsilon _0`$ is sufficiently small, then

(5.4)
$$M_k(T)4C_0\epsilon $$

for every $`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. When $`k=1`$, (5.4) follows from Gronwall’s inequality. We, now, assume that the bound (5.4) holds for $`k1`$. By Theorem 4.1 and (5.1), we then have

(5.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}M_k(T)C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}_0^TZ^\alpha (1\eta )(s)Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{0sT}{sup}\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha (1\eta )(s)Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha (1\eta )Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})_{L_{s,x}^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\\ \hfill +2C\epsilon +C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}_0^1Z^\alpha w_k^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s.\end{array}$$

Let’s examine the pieces on the right separately.

Since $`Q`$ is quadratic, for $`|\alpha |n+2`$, we have

(5.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}|Z^\alpha Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,x)|\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}|Z^\alpha (u_0+w_{k1})^{}(s,x)|\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |\frac{n+2}{2}}{}|Z^\alpha (u_0+w_{k1})^{}(s,x)|\right).\end{array}$$

Thus, by (4.1) and the standard Sobolev lemma, for $`j=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}Z^\alpha Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,x)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{\alpha n+2}{}r^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^{j1}|x|2^{j+2}\})}^2\\ \hfill +C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\right)\\ \hfill +C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}r^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^{j1}|x|2^{j+2}\})}^2.\end{array}$$

Since $`u_0(s,x)`$ vanishes for $`s>1`$, applying (5.1), gives

(5.7)
$$_0^TZ^\alpha (1\eta )(s)Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑sC(C_0\epsilon +M_{k1}(T))^2.$$

For the second term on the right of (5.5), by (5.6) and the standard Sobolev lemma, for $`|\alpha |n+1`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}Z^\alpha (1\eta )(s)Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\underset{n+1}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2\hfill \\ \hfill +2C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |n+1}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2.\end{array}$$

Thus, by (5.1), we have

(5.8)
$$Z^\alpha (1\eta )(s)Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}C(C_0\epsilon +M_{k1}(T))^2.$$

Finally, for the third term on the right side of (5.5), again by (5.6),

$$\begin{array}{c}Z^\alpha Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{})(s,x)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\hfill \\ \hfill C\underset{\alpha n+2}{}r^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^{j1}|x|2^{j+2}\})}^2\\ \hfill +C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\right)\\ \hfill +C\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha u_0^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^j|x|2^{j+1}\})}\right)\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}2^{j(n1)/4}r^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\{2^{j1}|x|2^{j+2}\})}Z^\alpha w_{k1}^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Thus,

(5.9)
$$Z^\alpha (1\eta )Q((u_0+w_{k1})^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}C(C_0\epsilon +M_{k1}(T))^2.$$

By combining (5.5), (5.7), (5.8), and (5.9), we see that

$$M_k(T)3C(C_0\epsilon +M_{k1}(T))^2+2C\epsilon +C\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}_0^1Z^\alpha w_k^{}(s,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s.$$

Thus, if $`\epsilon `$ is small enough, (5.4) follows from Gronwall’s Inequality.

Furthermore, if we set

$$\begin{array}{c}A_k(T)=\underset{0tT}{sup}\left(\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}Z^\alpha (w_k^{}w_{k1}^{})(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha (w_k^{}w_{k1}^{})_{L_{s,x}^2([0,T]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\end{array}$$

and argue as in Section 3, we see that

$$A_k(T)\frac{1}{2}A_{k1}(T)$$

if $`\epsilon `$ is small enough.

We have, thus, shown that $`w_k`$ converge to a solution of (5.2) which satisfies

$$\underset{|\alpha |n+2}{}\left(Z^\alpha w^{}(t,)_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+(1+r)^{(n1)/4}Z^\alpha w^{}_{L_{s,x}^2([0,t]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right)C\epsilon $$

for any $`t`$. Thus, $`u=u_0+w`$ is a solution to (1.1) satisfying an analogous bound. If the data satisfies the compatibility conditions to infinite order, the solution will be $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`_+\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ by standard local existence results (see e.g., ). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.∎


format: text

text:
# CERN-TH/2002-284 October 2002 Next-to-leading Order Calculations of the Radiative and Semileptonic Rare 𝐵 Decays in the Standard Model and Comparison with Data

## 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

First measurements of rare $`B`$ decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$  and $`BX_s\gamma `$  were reported by CLEO in 1993 and 1995, respectively.. Since then, a wealth of data on these decays has become available through the subsequent work of the CLEO collaboration , the ALEPH collaboration at LEP , and more recently from the experiments at the B factories, BABAR  and BELLE , which now dominate this field. We quantify the impact of $`BX_s\gamma `$ measurement on the CKM phenomenology.

Concerning the exclusive decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$, the NLO calculations of the decay widths were completed last year . Radiative decays provide a cleaner test of the underlying theoretical framework of perturbative QCD factorization which has been invoked initially to calculate the two-body exclusive non-leptonic $`B`$ decays, such as $`B\pi \pi `$ . Quantitative rapport of theory and experiment in these decays is on hold at present due to the imprecise knowledge of the form factor, as discussed later in this talk.

A big leap forward has been reported in the experimental study of the Cabibbo-suppressed decays $`B\rho \gamma `$ and $`B\omega \gamma `$ at this conference . These decays which enact $`bd\gamma `$ transition at the quark level yield complementary information on the CKM parameters and hence are potentially very important. We work out the constraints following from the current upper limits on the $`B\rho \gamma `$ branching ratios . Apart from these, the Cabibbo-suppressed radiative decays $`B\rho \gamma `$ allow us to study isospin- and CP-asymmetries, which in the SM have a sensitive dependence on the angle $`\alpha `$ of the unitarity triangle . We present the SM expectations for the decay rates and asymmetries, which are also potentially of interest in searching for physics beyond-the-SM .

The semileptonic decays $`B(X_s,K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}^\pm =e^\pm ,\mu ^\pm `$) are the new additions to the flavour changing neutral current FCNC decays, where B factories have made first experimental inroads . Of particular interest is the inclusive decay $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, whose measurement has been reported at this conference by the BELLE collaboration . These decays have been calculated in the SM to the same degree of theoretical precision as their radiative counterpart $`BX_s\gamma `$, and take into account the explicit $`O(\alpha _S)`$ corrections to the dilepton invariant mass distribution , the forward-backward asymmetry of the charged lepton  and the leading power corrections in $`1/m_b`$  and $`1/m_c`$ . Precise measurements of the dilepton invariant mass spectrum and the forward-backward asymmetry would allow to extract the (effective) Wilson coefficients, providing precision tests of the SM and enabling searches for physics beyond-the-SM .

What concerns the exclusive decays $`B(K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, important theoretical progress has been made recently , using ideas based on the large energy expansion . In particular, both the dilepton invariant mass spectrum and the forward-backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ have been calculated in the lower region of the dilepton invariant mass ($`s<m_{J/\psi }^2)`$ to the same accuracy as is the case for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, albeit using perturbative QCD factorization. This framework has also been used to carry out a helicity analysis of the decays $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`B\rho \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ . Data on $`B(X_s,K^{},K)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are compared with the SM estimates  and the two are found to be compatible with each other.

## 2 Inclusive Decay $`BX_s\gamma `$

The theoretical framework for analyzing the transition $`BX_s\gamma `$ is provided by the effective Hamiltonian

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}C_i(\mu )O_i,$$
(1)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $`V_{ij}`$ are the CKM matrix elements. The effective Hamiltonian is obtained from the SM by integrating out all the particles that are much heavier than the $`b`$-quark. The Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\mu )`$ play the role of effective coupling constants for the interaction terms $`O_i`$. The generic structure of the operators $`O_i`$ can be seen, for example, in Ref. .

Perturbative calculations are used to determine the Wilson coefficients in a given renormalization scheme, such as the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, at a renormalization scale, typically $`\mu _bO(m_b)`$,

$$C_i(\mu _b)=C_i^{(0)}(\mu _b)+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu _b)}{4\pi }C_i^{(1)}(\mu _b)+\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
Here, $`C_i^{(n)}(\mu _b)`$ depend on $`\alpha _s`$ only via the ratio $`\eta \alpha _s(\mu _0)/\alpha _s(\mu _b)`$, where $`\mu _0m_W`$. In the leading order (LO) calculations, everything but $`C_i^{(0)}(\mu _b)`$ is neglected in Eq. (2). In NLO, one takes in addition $`C_i^{(1)}(\mu _b)`$ into account.

It has become customary to quote the theoretical branching ratios for $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay with a cut on the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the results in the SM (in units of $`10^4`$) are :

$`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma ;E_\gamma >1.6\mathrm{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(3.57\pm 0.30),`$
$`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma ;E_\gamma >\frac{1}{20}m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`(3.70\pm 0.31).`$
The present world averages (also in units of $`10^4`$)

$`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma ;E_\gamma >1.6\mathrm{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(3.28{}_{0.36}{}^{+0.41}),`$
$`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma ;E_\gamma >\frac{1}{20}m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`(3.40{}_{0.37}{}^{+0.42})`$
result from the following four measurements: BABAR , CLEO , BELLE , and ALEPH . They are in good agreement with the NLO results in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. However, there is a residual theoretical uncertainty on the SM estimates related to the scheme-dependence of the quark masses. This can be judged from the theoretical branching ratios in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme for which one gets $`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )=(3.73\pm 0.31)\times 10^4`$ , and in the pole quark mass scheme yielding $`(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )=(3.35\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ . Reducing this theoretical uncertainty, which currently represents an error of $`O(10\%)`$, requires calculation of the next-to-next-to-leading order contribution to the decay width (i.e., explicit $`O(\alpha _s)^2`$ improvements), which is a formidable but doable task in a concerted theoretical effort . Anticipated experimental precision at the $`B`$ factories will make it mandatory to undertake this heroic effort.

The transition $`bs\gamma `$ is not expected to yield useful information on the CKM-Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$, which define the apex of the unitarity triangle of current interest. The test of CKM-unitarity for the $`bs`$ transitions in rare $`B`$-decays lies in checking the relation $`\lambda _t\lambda _c`$, which holds up to corrections of order $`\lambda ^2`$. This is implicit in the theoretical decay rates quoted above. Alternatively, one can drop the explicit use of the CKM unitarity and calculate the various contributions in the $`bs\gamma `$ amplitude from the current knowledge of $`\lambda _c|V_{cb}|=(41.0\pm 2.1)\times 10^3`$ and $`\lambda _u`$ from PDG , which then yields $`\lambda _tV_{ts}=(47\pm 8)\times 10^3`$ . This is consistent with $`\lambda _t=\lambda _c`$, but less precise. This is due to the strong mixing of the operator $`O_2`$ with $`O_7`$ under QCD renormalization, which enhances the coefficient of the $`\lambda _c`$ term in the $`bs\gamma `$ amplitude in comparison with the coefficient of the $`\lambda _t`$ term, thereby reducing the precision on $`\lambda _t`$.

## 3 EXCLUSIVE DECAYS $`B(K^{},\rho )\gamma `$

To compute the branching ratios for $`BV\gamma `$ ($`V=K^{},\rho )`$ reliably, one needs to calculate the explicit $`O(\alpha _s)`$ improvements to the lowest order decay widths. This requires the calculation of the renormalization group effects in the appropriate Wilson coefficients in the effective Hamiltonian , an explicit $`O(\alpha _s)`$ calculation of the matrix elements involving the hard vertex corrections , annihilation contributions , which are more important in the decays $`B\rho \gamma `$ but have also been worked out for the $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays , and the so-called hard-spectator contributions involving (virtual) hard gluon radiative corrections off the spectator quarks in the $`B`$-, $`K^{}`$-, and $`\rho `$-mesons . We discuss the decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$ and $`B\rho \gamma `$ in turn.

### 3.1  $`BK^{}\gamma `$ Decays

The branching ratio for the decays $`BK^{}\gamma `$ can be written as :

$`(BK^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _B{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha |V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}{32\pi ^4}}m_{b,\mathrm{pole}}^2M_B^3`$
$`\times \left[\xi _{}^{(K^{})}(0)\right]^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}^2}{M^2}}\right)^3\left|C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}+A^{(1)}(\mu )\right|^2.`$
Here, $`M_B`$ is the $`B`$-meson mass and $`\xi _{}^{(K^{})}(0)`$ is the form factor in the large energy effective theory. It differs from the corresponding form factor in QCD, $`T_1^K^{}(0)`$, by $`O(\alpha _s)`$ terms calculated in Ref. . Numerically, this relation can be expressed as $`T_1^K^{}(0)1.08\xi _{}^{(K^{})}`$. The effect of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections is encoded in the function $`A^{(1)}(\mu )`$ and its numerical value can be expressed in terms of a $`K`$-factor :

$$K=\frac{\left|C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}+A^{(1)}(\mu )\right|^2}{\left|C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}\right|^2},\mathrm{with}1.5K1.7.$$

This yields a charge-conjugate averaged branching ratio

$`(BK^{}\gamma )(7.2\pm 1.1)\times 10^5`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{b,\mathrm{pole}}}{4.65\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{}^{(K^{})}(0)}{0.35}}\right)^2,`$
where the default values of the most sensitive parameters are indicated. The value given for $`\xi _{}^{(K^{})}(0)`$ is based on using the light-cone QCD sum rules. Varying the parameters within reasonable ranges (see, for example, ) and adding the errors in quadrature, one gets

$$(BK^{}\gamma )(7.2\pm 2.7)\times 10^5,$$
(5)
to be compared with the corresponding experimental measurement :

$$(BK^{}\gamma )(4.22\pm 0.28)\times 10^5.$$
(6)
Given the large theoretical errors, there is agreement between theory and experiment. Since there exists good agreement between the SM and experiment in the inclusive decay $`BX_s\gamma `$, one could use the measured branching ratios for $`BK^{}\gamma `$ to determine the form factor $`T_1^K^{}(0)`$, which in the stated theoretical context yields $`T_1^K^{}(0)=0.27\pm 0.04`$. This is to be compared with the light-cone QCD sum rule result $`T_1^K^{}(0)=0.38\pm 0.05`$ , and with $`T_1^K^{}(q^2=0)=0.32_{0.02}^{+0.04}`$ , obtained by using the Lattice UK-QCD simulations combined with a LC-QCD-sum-rule inspired input for extrapolation from $`q^20`$, where the Lattice simulations are actually done, to the physical value $`q^2=0`$. A preliminary result on $`T_1^K^{}(0)`$ using Lattice-QCD has also been reported at this conference . Due to the spread in the theoretical estimates it is too early to draw a quantitative conclusion on the precise value of the form factor, and hence on the perturbative QCD factorization method underlying the theoretical estimates in $`BK^{}\gamma `$.

### 3.2  $`B\rho \gamma `$ Decays

The effective Hamiltonian for the radiative decays $`B(\rho ,\omega )\gamma `$ can be seen for the SM in . These transitions involve the CKM matrix elements in the first and third column, with the unitarity constraints taking the form $`_{u,c,t}\xi _i=0`$, with $`\xi _i=V_{ib}V_{id}^{}`$. All three matrix elements are of order $`\lambda ^3`$, with $`\xi _uA\lambda ^3(\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta })`$, $`\xi _cA\lambda ^3`$, and $`\xi _tA\lambda ^3(1\overline{\rho }i\overline{\eta })`$. This equation leads to the same unitarity triangle as studied through the constraints $`V_{ub}/V_{cb}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_s}`$).

We shall concentrate here on $`B\rho \gamma `$ decays. As the absolute values of the form factors in this decay and in $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays discussed earlier are quite uncertain, it is advisable to calculate instead the ratios of the branching ratios

$$R^\pm (\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )\frac{(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )}{(B^\pm K^\pm \gamma )},$$
(7)
$$R^0(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )\frac{(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )}{(B^0K^0\gamma )}.$$
(8)
They have been calculated in the NLO accuracy and the result can be expressed as :

$`R^\pm (\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}\right|^2[\mathrm{PS}]\zeta ^2(1+\mathrm{\Delta }R^\pm ),`$
$`R^0(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}\right|^2[\mathrm{PS}]\zeta ^2(1+\mathrm{\Delta }R^0),`$
where $`[\mathrm{PS}]=(M_B^2M_\rho ^2)^3/(M_B^2M_K^{}^2)^3`$ represents a kinematic factor, which is 1 to a good approximation, and $`\zeta =\xi _{}^\rho (0)/\xi _{}^K^{}(0)`$, with $`\xi _{}^\rho (0)(\xi _{}^K^{}(0))`$ being the form factors (at $`q^2=0`$) in the effective heavy quark theory for the decays $`B\rho (K^{})\gamma `$. Noting that in the SU(3) limit one has $`\zeta =1`$, we take $`\zeta =0.76\pm 0.10`$ \- a range which straddles various theoretical estimates of this quantity . The functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^0`$, appearing on the r.h.s. of the above equations and whose parametric dependence is suppressed here for ease of writing, encode both the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ and annihilation contributions. They have been evaluated as : $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^\pm =0.055\pm 0.130`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^0=0.015\pm 0.110`$, where the errors also include the effect of varying the angle $`\alpha `$ in the currently allowed region.

There are two more observables of interest, namely the isospin-violating ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho \gamma )`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho \gamma )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (B\rho \gamma )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(B\rho \gamma )}1,$$
(9)
and the CP asymmetry in the decay rates, which for $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma `$ decays is defined as

$$A_{CP}^\pm (\rho \gamma )\frac{(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )}{(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )+(B^+\rho ^+\gamma )}.$$
(10)
The expected values of the observables in the $`B\rho \gamma `$ system defined in Eqs. (7) - (10) and $`A_{CP}^0(\rho \gamma )`$, the CP asymmetry in the neutral modes, have been recently updated in Ref. . Including the errors on the current determination of the CKM parameters, the results are:

$`R^\pm (\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`0.023\pm 0.012,`$
$`R^0(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`0.011\pm 0.006,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`0.04_{0.07}^{+0.14},`$
$`A_{CP}^\pm (\rho \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`0.10_{0.02}^{+0.03},`$
$`A_{CP}^0(\rho \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`0.06\pm 0.02.`$ (11)
At this conference, the BABAR collaboration has reported a significant improvement on the upper limits of the branching ratios for the decays $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)\rho ^0\gamma `$ and $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma `$. Averaged over the charge conjugated modes, the current $`90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ upper limits are :

$`(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`1.4\times 10^6,`$ (12)
$`(B^\pm \rho ^\pm \gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`2.3\times 10^6,`$ (13)
$`(B^0\omega \gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`1.2\times 10^6.`$ (14)
They have been combined, using isospin weights for $`B\rho \gamma `$ decays and assuming $`(B^0\omega \gamma )=(B^0\rho ^0\gamma )`$, to yield the improved upper limit

$$(B\rho \gamma )<1.9\times 10^6.$$
(15)
Together with the current measurements of the branching ratios for $`BK^{}\gamma `$ decays by BABAR, this yields a $`90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ upper limit

$`R(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{(B\rho \gamma )}{(BK^{}\gamma )}}<0.047.`$ (16)
Thus, we see that the current experimental upper limit on the ratio $`R(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ is typically a factor 2 away from the central values of the SM. This can be seen graphically in Fig. 1, where we show the fit of the unitarity triangle resulting from the various direct and indirect measurements, including the CP asymmetry $`a_{\psi K_s}`$, reported by the BABAR and BELLE collaboration at this conference, with the current world average being $`a_{\psi K_s}=0.734\pm 0.054`$ . The (almost concentric) constraints in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane from the measured value $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}=0.503\pm 0.006\text{ps}^1`$ , and the two competing bounds $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_s}>14.4\text{ps}^1`$ , and $`R(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )<0.047`$  are also shown. The two set of curves for the constraints following from $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_s}`$, shown with and without the chiral logs, reflect the current uncertainty inherent in Lattice calculations due to chiral extrapolations from the region $`m_s`$ to $`m_d`$ . We see that the quantity $`R(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$ is not yet competitive with the other two constraints from either $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_s}`$. However, this sure will change as the B factory experiments will soon reach the SM-sensitivity on the decay mode $`B\rho \gamma `$, and hence on $`R(\rho \gamma /K^{}\gamma )`$.

## 4 THE DECAYS $`B(X_s,K,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$

To discuss the FCNC semileptonic decays in the SM, one has to extend the operator basis given in Eq. (1) by adding two semileptonic operators:

$`O_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{\mathrm{V}}{\underset{}{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}}}),`$
$`O_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{g_s^2}}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{\mathrm{A}}{\underset{}{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}}}),`$ (17)
where $`e`$ ($`g_s)`$ is the QED (QCD) coupling constant and the subscript $`L`$ refers to the left-handed components of the fermion fields. There are additional non-local contributions, which can be added to $`C_9`$, defining an effective Wilson coefficient, which is a misnomer as it is actually a function of the dilepton mass squared ($`\widehat{s}=s/M_B^2`$): $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{s})=C_9\eta (\widehat{s})+Y(\widehat{s})`$, where $`\eta (\widehat{s})=(1+O(\alpha _s))`$ includes the real gluon bremsstrahlung and virtual contributions to the matrix element of the operator $`O_9`$ , and $`Y(\widehat{s})`$ contains perturbative charm loops and Charmonium resonances ($`J/\psi ,\psi ^{},\mathrm{}`$).

Concentrating on the perturbative contribution only, which is expected to be the dominant contribution away from the resonances, and including the leading power corrections in $`1/m_b`$ and $`1/m_c`$, the dilepton invariant mass distribution for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be written as :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})}{d\widehat{s}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_{b,pole}^5\left|\lambda _{ts}\right|^2}{48\pi ^3}}`$ (18)
$`\times (1\widehat{s})^2[(1+2\widehat{s})\left(\right|\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_{10}^{\text{eff}}|^2\right)G_1(\widehat{s})`$
$`+4\left(1+2/\widehat{s}\right)\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\right|^2G_2(\widehat{s})+12\text{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_7^{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{C}_9^{\text{eff}}\right)`$
$`\times G_3(\widehat{s})+G_c(\widehat{s})],`$
where the functions $`G_i(\widehat{s})`$ ($`i=1,2,3)`$ encode the $`1/m_b`$ corrections  and the function $`G_c(\widehat{s})`$ the corresponding $`1/m_c`$ corrections . Their explicit forms as well as of the other effective coefficients in the above equation can be seen in Ref. . As noted in Ref. , inclusion of the explicit $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections reduces the branching ratio for $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, compared to the partial $`O(\alpha _s)`$-corrected result  and its scale dependence is considerably reduced.

Data from the BELLE collaboration on the dilepton invariant mass spectrum has been analyzed using Ref. , which incorporates all the explicit $`O(\alpha _s)`$ and power corrections mentioned above. The hadron invariant mass spectrum in $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, calculated in the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) and in a phenomenological Fermi motion model , has been used to estimate the effect of the experimental cuts on $`M_{X_S}`$. The results are given in Table 1, and are to be understood with a cut on the dilepton invariant mass $`M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}>0.2`$ GeV. Given the current experimental errors, the agreement with the SM-based estimates is reasonably good.

The corresponding results for the exclusive decays $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, averaged over $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$, and for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$, presented at this conference  are also given in Table 1 and compared with the SM-based estimates . One notes the comparatively larger theoretical uncertainty in the exclusive decay rates due to the form factors. However, within the theoretical and experimental errors, SM accounts well the current data on all the inclusive and exclusive rare $`B`$ decays. This can be used to constrain models of physics beyond-the-SM .


text:
# Search for the 𝐊_𝐋→𝜋^𝟎𝜋^𝟎𝐞⁺𝐞⁻ Decay in the KTeV Experiment

The discovery in the KTeV experiment of the $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ decay mode  later confirmed by KEK-E162 and CERN-NA48  together with the observation of a large CP violating asymmetry  in the angular distribution between the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ planes, has generated interest in searching for $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$. This letter details the first attempt to detect this mode.

The $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ decay can proceed at tree level via several amplitudes . The main processes are a) the CP violating bremsstrahlung process in which the $`K_L`$ decays into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ where one of the pions radiates a photon which internally converts into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair, and b) the CP conserving direct decay of the $`K_L`$ into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair plus an M1 photon. Other smaller amplitudes include c) the CP violating direct decay of the $`K_L`$ into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ plus an E1 photon and d) the “charge radius” amplitude describing the $`K_LK_S`$ transition by emission of a virtual photon followed by the CP conserving decay $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. This process is similar to the regeneration of $`K_LK_S`$ by scattering from atomic electrons, both of which are proportional to the mean squared charge radius of the neutral kaon. In contrast, the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ decay, because the pions are neutral, has no bremsstrahlung amplitude. In addition, the direct emission of a M1 photon or an E1 photon is suppressed since gauge invariance and Bose statistics require a $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ angular momentum of $`l2`$ .

A consequence of the suppression of the direct M1 and E1 emission processes and the absence of a bremsstrahlung process is that the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio is expected to be considerably smaller  than the $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio measured to be $`3.2\times 10^7`$ . The $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ is predicted to be dominated by the CP conserving “charge radius” amplitude with additional contributions from the CP conserving E2 and CP violating M2 direct emission amplitudes. Theoretical estimates of the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio vary considerably from a vector meson dominance model estimate of $`2.0\times 10^8`$  and chiral perturbation theory calculations of $`1\times 10^{10}`$  and $`2.3\times 10^{10}`$ .

An observation of $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ would provide an indirect measurement of the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ branching ratio, a mode which is difficult to detect directly because of the serious backgrounds . Observation of this mode would also allow investigation of chiral perturbation theory contributions to O($`p^4`$) and O($`p^6`$). The extra contributions of the full chiral perturbation calculations beyond that of the charge radius amplitude of Ref.  can complicate the extraction of this amplitude .

A search for the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ decay mode has been conducted by the KTeV collaboration using the 1997 E799 data set. In the E799 spectrometer configuration, two almost parallel neutral beams passed through the fiducial decay region of the KTeV spectrometer 95 m$`z`$ 158 m downstream of a BeO production target. The beams were produced by $`(35)\times 10^{12}`$ 800 GeV/c protons per minute delivered in 20 second spills incident at an angle of 4.8 mrad on a BeO target. The composition of the beams was mainly $`K_L`$’s and neutrons with a small admixture of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s. An integrated total of $`2.7\times 10^{11}`$ $`K_L`$ decays took place in the fiducial region while the trigger was live. The $`K_L`$ energies varied between 20 and 200 GeV with a mean of 70 GeV.

The KTeV spectrometer components which were used for the analysis of these decays consisted of four stations of drift chambers, two upstream and two downstream of an analysis magnet which provided a $`p_t`$ kick of 0.205 GeV/c for momentum determination of charged tracks. Downstream of the last drift chamber, in succession, were a charged particle trigger hodoscope which provided the first level trigger requirement of two charged tracks and a 3100 element pure CsI calorimeter for photon and electron id and energy determination. Surrounding the decay region and the elements of the detector were veto counters that detected charged and neutral particles that were not in the acceptance. The complete KTeV E799 spectrometer configuration is described in Ref.

The data were collected with a trigger which required two charged tracks in the drift chambers, four or more showers with energies $``$ 1 GeV and total energy in the CsI calorimeter be greater than 30 GeV and no significant energy be present in any segment of the veto counters surrounding the decay volume and spectrometer elements.

Events were selected off line that had six energy clusters in the CsI, two of which were associated with the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. The $`K_L`$ decay vertices were determined by minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ of a fit which included the differences between the invariant mass of the secondary particles from the $`\pi ^0`$ decays ($`\gamma \gamma `$ or $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$ in the case of modes with $`\pi ^0`$’s undergoing Dalitz decay as discussed below) and $`\pi ^0`$ mass together with the distance between the vertex and the $`e^\pm `$ tracks. The $`\chi ^2`$ incorporated the measured uncertainties of the energies and positions of the photon clusters in the CsI and the uncertainties of the $`e^\pm `$ track position due to the drift chamber resolutions and multiple scattering. The event reconstruction checked all possible pairings of the photons to determine the best $`\pi ^0`$ combinations.

In addition, a large $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ sample (where $`\pi _D^0`$ indicates a Dalitz decay, $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$) was selected from events which had an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair and five CsI clusters unassociated with tracks. The $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ signal was compared to a Monte Carlo of this mode incorporating detector acceptances, efficiencies and resolutions. Good agreement was observed in numerous kinematic distributions. Using the detector simulation of the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ decays, a region of 0.493 GeV/c$`{}_{}{}^{2}M_{\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}}`$ 0.501 GeV/c2 and $`p_t^2(e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma )1.5\times 10^4`$ GeV2/c2 was determined for the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ search. The signal region contained 86% of the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ decays (using the Sehgal model for our generated signal events). Here, $`p_t^2(e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma )`$ was calculated relative to the vector from the center of the target to the $`K_L`$ decay vertex.

The most serious background to the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ mode resulted from $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays in several ways: a) one photon from a $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay converted internally or externally into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair while one of the other photons in the decay fails to produce a detectable energy deposit in the CsI or missed the CsI and the remaining four photons formed a good $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ pair; b) two of the six final state photons converted internally or externally into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair and an $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ were lost; c) one of the $`\pi ^0`$ decayed into an $`e^+e^{}`$. In addition to the backgrounds from $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays, $`K_L\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ decays with an extra accidental CsI energy cluster contributed a background. Finally, other backgrounds due to $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$, $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, and $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decays were found to be negligible due to physics cuts discussed below and to small branching ratios.

Special cuts were required to eliminate each type of background. The background due to $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays in which two photons converted into $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs or one of the $`\pi ^0`$’s decayed into two $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs was suppressed by rejecting events in which there were extra track segments upstream or downstream of the magnet. If a photon converted externally in the upstream spectrometer material, the resulting $`e^+e^{}`$ did not typically produce two reconstructed upstream track segments due to the small opening angle. If one member of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair had low momentum and was swept out of spectrometer acceptance by the analysis magnet, no extra track segments were produced downstream of the magnet either. In these cases, the invariant mass of the observed charged track and the other photon from the $`\pi ^0`$ decay was close to the mass of the parent $`\pi ^0`$ and the event was rejected by cutting on the $`\gamma e^\pm `$ mass. Specifically, the background from $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays with two photons from different $`\pi ^0`$ converting to $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs and no extra track segments in the spectrometer was suppressed by rejecting events with two $`e\gamma `$ mass combinations with 0.115 GeV/c$`{}_{}{}^{2}M_{e\gamma }0.145`$ GeV/c2 and the two remaining photons’ mass within 3 MeV/c2 of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass.

The background due to $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays where one photon converted into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair and the other photon missed the calorimeter were rejected by calculating the missing photon energy and momentum assuming either 1) the missing photon went into the beam hole and had, in combination with the $`e^+e^{}`$, the $`\pi ^0`$ mass or 2) the missing photon came from a $`K_L`$ which had zero $`p_t^2`$. If either, in the first case, $`M_{e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ 0.51 GeV/c2 and $`p_t^2(e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma )`$ 0.0005 GeV2/c2 or, in the second case, the $`e^+e^{}`$ plus missing gamma mass was greater than 0.065 GeV/c2, the event was rejected.

To eliminate $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays where one photon converted into an $`e^+e^{}`$ and the other photon was lost due to coalescing with another photon in the CsI, all observed clusters were tested to see if any cluster could be due to an overlap of two photons. The energy of each observed cluster in turn was divided in various proportions and the two resulting clusters were used in a fit of the event to the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ hypothesis. All possible combinations of all different clusters with different split fractions were combined with the other photons and the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair were considered to see if any combination was consistent with a $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ event. If the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ invariant mass or the vertex $`\chi ^2`$ of a combination was consistent with a $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ decay, the event was rejected.

The background due to $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays in which one $`\pi ^0`$ decayed into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair (BR($`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$)= $`6.09\times 10^8`$ ) was eliminated by requiring that $`M_{e^+e^{}}0.10`$ GeV/c2. This cut also eliminated the background from a $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decay in which one of the $`\pi ^0`$’s decayed into $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ and one of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs had low energy and went undetected. The background due to $`K_L\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ decays with an accidental cluster in the calorimeter was eliminated by requiring that $`M_{e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ 0.45 GeV/c2. All $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma `$ combinations were checked and the mass cut was applied to the one with the smallest $`\chi ^2`$ for a $`K_L\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ decay.

After these cuts, the major remaining background, as determined from Monte Carlo simulations, was due to $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ decays. All other backgrounds were negligible. The contributions from all types of $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ backgrounds are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of $`p_t^2`$ and $`M_{e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma }`$ for the equivalent of three E799 data sets after all cuts. One event is observed in the signal region and the backgrounds outside the signal region are similar in distribution and magnitude to the background observed in data when normalized to the E799 integrated flux. One event from the background Monte Carlo of three E799 data sets leads to an estimated background to the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ signal mode of $`0.33_{0.21}^{+0.56}`$ events.

Using the vertex fit, the mass of Meeγγγγ and $`p_t^2`$ of the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma `$ events from the triggers requiring two charged track and six cluster were calculated and the cuts mentioned above determined from Monte Carlo simulations of the signal and various backgrounds or from the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ data events were applied. Figure 2 shows the data remaining after applying the cuts. One event was observed in the signal box. Shown in Fig. 3 are the comparisons of the data and Monte Carlo simulations of the events vs. $`p_t^2`$ and $`M_{e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma \gamma }`$.

An overall product of the acceptance and efficiency of 0.25% for the signal mode was obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation of $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ mode using the model of Ref.  with a chiral perturbation parameter $`w_s`$= 0.46 . Since estimations of $`w_s`$ from exisiting experimental data are indirect and model dependent, we have studied the variation of our acceptance as a function of $`w_s`$. We found that a simulation using a $`w_s`$= 0.9 gives a minimum acceptance of 0.205% in the model of Ref.  (and a maximum upper limit for $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio). By comparison, a simulation using phase space for the decay gave an acceptance of 0.29%. We have used the lower acceptance 0.205% for calculating the single event sensitivity using in determining a $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ branching ratio upper limit.

$`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ events with a missing $`\gamma `$ down the beam hole (which could be reconstructed as $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ using the technique for treating beam hole photons discussed above) were used as a normalization mode since they had the same trigger and analysis cuts as the signal mode. Figure 4 shows the mass distribution of these events compared to the Monte Carlo simulation. A distinct $`K_L`$ peak is reconstructed for the data with a resolution matching the simulation of this type of events. The disagreement between the level of data and Monte Carlo of the normalization events has been folded into the systematic error in the single event sensitivity.

A single event sensitivity of $`1.71\pm 0.06(stat)\pm 0.19(syst)\times 10^9`$ was calculated using the ratio of the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ signal efficiency to the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ normalization sample efficiency, the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ branching ratio of $`7.59\times 10^3`$  and the observed 2234 $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi _D^0`$ normalization events of the type described in the previous paragraph. The observation of one event in the signal box resulted in an upper limit for BR($`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$) of $`6.6\times 10^9`$ at the 90% confidence level. Using the ratio of the BR$`(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )`$ to BR$`(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ of $``$50 , our result is a factor of 10 more sensitive than the present upper limit of $`5.6\times 10^6`$ from a direct search  for $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$.

In conclusion, we have made the first attempt to detect the $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ decay mode. We have established an upper limit of $`6.6\times 10^9`$ at the 90% confidence level (using a $`w_s`$= 0.9 in the model of Ref. ) which excludes the vector dominance model of Ref.  but does not quite reach the level of expected branching ratios predicted by the more recent models of Refs. .

We gratefully acknowledge the support and effort of the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, The National Science Foundation and The Ministry of Education and Science of Japan.

To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Permanent address C.P.P. Marseille/C.N.R.S., France
∗∗Permanent address Univ. of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil


text:
# 1 Branching ratios (in %) for some nonleptonic decays of 𝐷⁺ mesons.

hep-ph/0210071
ROMA1-1342/2002

A comment on hadronic charm decays
M. Lusignoli 111maurizio.lusignoli@roma1.infn.it and A. Pugliese 222alessandra.pugliese@roma1.infn.it

Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,

and I.N.F.N., Sezione di Roma,

P.le A. Moro 2, I-00185, Rome, Italy

## Abstract

We give arguments in favor of the compatibility with standard physics of some large nonleptonic branching fractions in Cabibbo–forbidden $`D^+`$ decays, contrary to a recent claim in the literature.

More than twenty years ago, the large difference between the lifetimes of charged and neutral $`D`$ mesons has been attributed to the effect of the interference between color-favored and color-suppressed amplitudes in $`D^+`$ decays  and/or of the $`W`$-exchange contribution in the $`D^0`$ decay amplitudes . Since the second explanation would imply (in its simplest form) a large annihilation contribution in $`D_s^+`$ and large branching ratios (BR’s) for unobserved decay channels, the interference is commonly believed to be the main effect . Concerning exclusive decays, the surprisingly large BR for the decay $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$ showed that the colour suppression is much less effective than expected  in these decays. This fact may further point to important cancellations due to interference between color-allowed and color-(not-so-much)suppressed amplitudes in $`D^+`$ decays.

All the above applies to the (dominant) Cabibbo–allowed decays. In the Cabibbo–forbidden $`D^+`$ decays to two strange mesons, only the color-favored tree amplitude contributes (as it is also the case for $`D^0`$ decays in two charged particles). Therefore, the branching fractions for these decays might be considerably larger than what would be obtained with the simple–minded suppression by a factor $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C`$ with respect to Cabibbo–allowed decay rates. The same is true for the doubly–forbidden decays $`D^+K^{()+}X`$. The precise values of these BR’s will however be affected by other effects, such as annihilation contributions and final state interactions (rescattering), and are therefore very model-dependent.

In a recent letter, Close and Lipkin  suggested that the measured BR’s of the decays $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$ ($`3.1\pm 1.4\%`$)  and $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$ ($`2.6\pm 1.1\%`$) , if confirmed with smaller error bars, may require “new physics” to explain them. We believe that this conclusion is not necessary.

In ref. two points have been made: (a) the Cabibbo–forbidden branching ratios for $`D^0`$ decays are $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.4\%`$, namely considerably smaller than the above–mentioned BR’s; (b) the Cabibbo–allowed $`D^+`$ BR’s are instead not much larger. On the first point, we note that the ratio of lifetimes is $`\tau _{D^+}/\tau _{D^0}=2.55\pm 0.04`$: therefore, for equal decay amplitudes, a $`D^+`$ Cabibbo–forbidden BR of $`1\%`$ may be actually expected.

The second point is less clear–cut, due to the effect of interference in the decay amplitudes. Since interferences suppress both numerator and denominator in the BR in this case, a simplistic idea would attribute similar values for the BR of $`D^+`$ and $`D^0`$ in Cabibbo–allowed decays: this is at variance with the experimental data, since BR($`D^0\rho ^+K^{})=10.2\pm 0.8\%`$ and BR($`D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^0)=6.6\pm 2.5\%`$ 333It may be noted that $`6.6\pm 2.5\%`$ is compatible, within two standard deviations, both with $`3.1\pm 1.4\%`$ ($`D^+`$ Cabibbo–suppressed, a surprise) and with $`10.2\pm 0.8\%`$ ($`D^0`$ Cabibbo–allowed, as roughly expected).. Another embarassing fact is the considerable difference in the BR’s for $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$ and $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$. Here hadronization effects are different, since in one case the virtual $`W^+`$ gives rise to a pseudoscalar meson, in the other to a vector meson. In particular models, the data may (or may not) be reproduced.

Models that are able to describe the main features of the two-body $`D`$ decay data without introducing any “new physics” have appeared in the literature  since a long time. They are generally based on a modified factorization approximation, in which the color suppression factor and annihilation and $`W`$-exchange contributions are determined by fitting some parameters to the experimental data. In the following, to give an example of a model where the BR for $`D^+K^+\overline{K^0}`$ turns out to be large (1.52%), we present results from . These were obtained making a fit with 15 parameters to all BR data for $`D`$ decays in two pseudoscalar mesons (PP), a pseudoscalar and a vector meson (PV) and a pseudoscalar and a light scalar meson (PS) (corresponding to 56 experimental data points or upper bounds). Here, we will only discuss the fitted theoretical results for some particular decays, in order to illustrate the previous arguments. In particular, we will give results for decays to $`\overline{K}^0`$ and $`K^0`$ mesons separately, although in the fit decays in $`K_S`$ were considered, since the neutral kaons are experimentally detected through their two pion decays.

The annihilation/$`W`$-exchange contribution in the factorized approximation (i.e. neglecting possible gluon emissions from the initial quarks) depends on the matrix element of the divergence of a vector (axial-vector) current for PP (PV) decays. This is transformed, using the equations of motion, to the matrix element of a scalar (pseudoscalar) density multiplied by the difference (sum) of quark masses. As a consequence, the annihilation contributions to Cabibbo–allowed $`D_s^+`$ and to Cabibbo–forbidden $`D^+`$ decays are quite small, being suppressed by light quark masses. Relevant annihilation contributions are present instead for Cabibbo–forbidden $`D_s^+`$ and doubly–Cabibbo–forbidden $`D^+`$ decays.

The pattern arising for the factorized amplitudes may be strongly mixed up by final state interactions. In this model, all the states belonging to the same representation of the flavor SU(3) symmetry mix among themselves. The rescattering is dominated by the nearby resonances, whose experimental masses and widths (when known) determine the phase-shifts444A similar treatment of final state interactions has been recently presented in . However, in that paper the phase shifts have been erroneously multiplied by a factor of two..

The results of the fit for some $`D^+`$ decay channels of interest are presented in Table 1. In the first column we list the branching ratios that would result prior to rescattering corrections ($`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}}`$) – not a fit to the data. The second column contains the final, rescattered results ($`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{RR}}`$). In the third column we write the present experimental data  that in some cases differ from the data that were fitted.

The left part of Table 1 refers to PP decays. We note that the two Cabibbo–forbidden decays have very different $`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}}`$’s: this is due to the interference between “tree” and “color–suppressed” amplitudes, present in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ case (as well as in the Cabibbo–allowed decay to $`\pi ^+\overline{K}^0`$) and absent for the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$ decay, which has therefore a much larger BR. A similar argument also applies to the doubly–forbidden decays, that do not have interference and have instead possibly large annihilation contributions: their BR’s are of the order of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}}(D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$) and much larger than $`\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _C\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}}(D^+\pi ^+\overline{K}^0`$). The rescattering effects are quite big, and approximately half of the biggest Cabibbo–forbidden BR is redistributed to the other channels, namely $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\pi \eta ^{}`$.

In the right part of Table 1, it can be noted that the naturally paired channels (ViPj and PiVj) have very different BR’s. The simplest case to analize is the $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$ and $`K^+\overline{K}^0`$ pair, with no interference and a very small annihilation contribution. In the factorized approximation, the first decay is induced by the $`VV`$ part of the effective hamiltonian, the second by the $`AA`$ part. The parameters entering in the calculation favor the first contribution, the main reason being the ratio of decay constants $`f_K^{}/f_K1.4`$; final state interactions further enhance this effect. When also interference enters the game, the smaller BR’s may be almost completely cancelled, as it happens for the Cabibbo–allowed case. The rescattering effects are not very big for the channels having large $`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}}`$, while they obviously change a lot the smallest ones. The general pattern is however rather stable.

The results of the fit for some $`D_s^+`$ decay channels of interest are presented in Table 2. Again, our comments refer to the results prior to rescattering corrections, listed in the first and fourth columns. It is to be noted that the branching ratios in final states containing a hypothetical $`s\overline{s}`$ pseudoscalar meson with the $`\eta `$ mass would be approximately twice the values reported in the first row in Table 2, with the value for the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing angle that we use .

We comment at first on the PP decays. A comparison of the color–favored decays (into $`\pi ^+\eta `$, $`\pi ^+K^0`$ and $`K^+K^0`$) shows that the ratios of Cabibbo–forbidden and doubly–Cabibbo–forbidden to the Cabibbo–allowed BR are, respectively, about 0.1 and 0.001, instead of the expected values ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C0.05`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _C0.003`$): this may be explained as the effect of a rather large annihilation contribution in the Cabibbo–forbidden decay, $`D_s^+\pi ^+K^0`$, and of an important interference in the doubly–Cabibbo–forbidden channel. Similar arguments hold for the color–suppressed decays. A discussion of the final state $`K^+\eta `$ would be more involved, since also the non-strange components of the $`\eta `$ meson participate in this decay.

In the decays to PV final states, as it was noted for the $`D^+`$, those induced by the $`VV`$ part of the effective Hamiltonian are larger than the others in the Cabibbo–allowed and doubly–forbidden cases. The Cabibbo–forbidden and color–favored decays $`D_s^+\rho ^+K^0`$ and $`D_s^+\pi ^+K^0`$ are roughly equally frequent, as a consequence of large annihilation contributions, equal and opposite555The opposite sign arises from the F–type coupling of the pseudoscalar density. in these two channels. The annihilation terms are also responsible of the big difference among the Cabibbo–forbidden and color–suppressed decays $`D_s^+`$ $`\rho ^0K^+`$, $`\omega K^+`$ and $`\pi ^0K^+`$. The rescattering corrections are often quite large, and the pattern discussed above is somehow hidden in the final results. However, it must be said that the general quality of the fit for $`D_s^+`$ decays is not very good, for example the prediction for $`D_s^+\rho ^+\eta ^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{BR}_{\mathrm{NR}(\mathrm{RR})}=2.52(2.46)\%`$ against an experimental value 12$`\pm `$4 %. It may well be that some surprise will come out from new $`D_s^+`$ data, once better statistical and systematical accuracy is attained.

In Table 3 we have reported for completeness the data and predictions for some exclusive $`D^0`$ decays. Comments analogous to those given on the other Tables could be made, in particular concerning the large differences between $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$, as well as between $`\rho ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^+\rho ^{}`$, which are rather softened by rescattering effects. We note moreover that final state interactions are essential to allow the decays into a pair of strange neutral mesons .

It may be of some interest to consider partially inclusive rates of Cabibbo–allowed (CA), forbidden (CF) and doubly–forbidden (DCF) decay processes. For such quantities the comparison of experimental data with theoretical predictions are much less dependent on the rescattering corrections. Their ratios may then be compared with the appropriate power of $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _C`$ to check if the simple–minded suppression (CF/CA $`2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C`$ and DCF/CF $`0.5\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C`$) gives an adequate description of the data. This is illustrated in Table 4, that we now comment upon.

The success of the theoretical model in describing the data is generally acceptable. The worst case is given by the Cabibbo–allowed $`D^+\mathrm{PV}`$ decays, where the theoretical predictions are considerably larger than experiment.

Concerning the inclusive data and theoretical predictions for $`D^0`$ decays, the simple–minded suppression referred to above is a consequence of (flavor) SU(3) symmetry. In the limit of total decoupling of the third quark family, the weak effective hamiltonians form a U-spin triplet, the $`D^0`$ meson has zero U-spin and therefore one has only one decay amplitude . Moreover, the annihilation contributions to decays into PP vanish for CF, are SU(3) violating and of opposite sign for CA and DCF, while they are nonvanishing and SU(3) allowed for decays to PV. These features give a reasonable explanation of the results for the ratios, both bigger than naively expected in PP decays and near to the naive expectations in PV decays.

The charged and charmed mesons form a U-spin doublet. As a consequence, even in the symmetric limit, we have two independent decay amplitudes, and one would recover the simple-minded suppression factors only if these two amplitudes were equally important. More generally, SU(3) symmetry would predict the following relations

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{CF}}{\mathrm{CA}}\right)_{D^+}\left(\frac{\mathrm{DCF}}{\mathrm{CF}}\right)_{D_s^+}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{CF}}{\mathrm{CA}}\right)_{D_s^+}\left(\frac{\mathrm{DCF}}{\mathrm{CF}}\right)_{D^+}=\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _C,$$
(1)
both for PP and for PV final states. From Table 4 one obtains for the three terms in the above equation the numerical results (0.0064, 0.0094, $`\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _C=0.0026`$) for PP decays and (0.0024, 0.0057, 0.0026) for PV decays. This shows that the flavour symmetry is rather badly broken in this factorized model, without any need of “new physics”.

The inclusive data of $`D^+`$ show once more that the ratio CF/CA is much larger than the (very) naive expectation, due to destructive interference in the Cabibbo–allowed amplitudes. This is particularly evident for the decays into PP, although no single branching fraction is larger than 1%. The ratio DCF/CF is also larger than expected, due to the annihilation contribution in DCF.

The predictions for $`D_s^+`$ inclusive decays (the data are still too sparse to give indications) suggest that, while CF/CA is “normal”, the ratio DCF/CF is smaller than naively expected, due to interference effects in DCF.

Decays in two vector mesons are not included in this fit, so that we are not able to present a theoretical estimate of the other large BR($`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$).

In this paper, we have shown that in a model for $`D`$ decays based on (generalized) factorization and including resonance–mediated final state interactions it is possible to get a branching ratio for the Cabibbo–forbidden channel $`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$ of about 1.52 % versus an experimental value of 3.1$`\pm `$1.4 % (in fact, an even larger prediction for this BR was given in a previous version of the model  prior to the experimental result). On the other hand, the theoretical prediction for the Cabibbo–allowed decay BR($`D^+\rho ^+K_S`$) is 5.82 % versus the experimental result 3.30$`\pm `$1.25 % (the other Cabibbo–allowed decay is well reproduced). Within the present, large error bands this is compatible: for the ratio of the two BR’s we have 0.26 (theory) versus 0.94$`\pm `$0.55 (experiment). While the central values undeniably disagree, the discrepancy may be alleviated not only by a much smaller BR($`D^+K^+\overline{K}^0`$), but also by a somewhat larger BR($`D^+\rho ^+K_S`$): this is the direction to which a model using factorization and no extreme “new physics” hypothesis would point.