text:
# 𝐵→𝑓₀(980)𝐾^(∗) decays and final state interactions

## Abstract

We study the exclusive decays of $`Bf_0(980)K^{()}`$ in the framework of the perturbative QCD by identifying the $`f_0(980)`$ as the composition of $`\overline{s}s`$ and $`\overline{n}n=(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$. We find that the influence of the $`\overline{n}n`$ content on the predicted branching ratios is crucial. We discuss the possible rescattering and gluonium states which could enhance the branching ratios of considered decays. We point out that the CP asymmetry in $`Bf_0(980)K_{S,L}`$ could be a new explorer of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$.

Recently, Belle Belle1  and BaBar BaBar1  have opened new channels in three-body nonleptonic $`B`$ decays, such as $`BKKK`$, $`KK\pi `$ and $`K\pi \pi `$ decays. In particular, BELLE has observed the decay of $`B^+f_0(980)K^+`$ with the branching ratio (BR) product of $`Br(B^+f_0(980)K^+)\times Br(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(9.6_{2.31.50.8}^{+2.5+1.5+3.4})\times 10^6`$ Belle1 . Since $`f_0(980)`$ is a neutral scalar meson, the measured $`Bf_0(980)K`$ decays not only show that in the first time $`B`$ decays to scalar-pseudoscalar final states but also provide the chance to understand the content of $`f_0(980)`$ and its production.

The essential inner structure of the scalar meson $`f_0(980)`$ is still obscure since it was established first by Ref. f0  with phase shift analysis. In the literature, $`f_0(980)`$ could be four-quark states denoted by $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ 4q  or $`K\overline{K}`$ molecular states KK  or $`\overline{q}q`$ states qq . However, one objection against the possibility of $`K\overline{K}`$ states is that the binding energy of $`1020`$ MeV for $`K\overline{K}`$ is much smaller than measured width in the range $`40100`$ MeV DP . It is suggested that in terms of the measured $`\varphi f_0(980)\gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ DP ; DLS ; AAN ; KVRS  decays and $`D_s^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ decay KVRS ; dfk , the flavor contents of $`f_0(980)`$ are $`\overline{s}s`$ mostly and a small portion of $`\overline{n}n=(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$. In this paper, we take $`f_0(980)`$ to be composed of $`\overline{q}q`$ states and use $`|f_0(980)>=\mathrm{cos}\varphi _s|\overline{s}s>+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _s|\overline{n}n>`$ to denote its flavor wave function.

Before presenting our perturbative QCD (PQCD) calculation to the decays, we would like to give a brief model-independent analysis on $`Bf_0(980)K`$. For simplicity, our analysis will only concentrate on dominant factorizable parts and regard the $`f_0(980)`$ as the composition of $`\overline{s}s`$ so that at the quark level the process corresponds to $`bs\overline{s}s`$ decay. Since at the quark level, the physics for $`B\varphi K`$ decays is the same as $`Bf_0(980)K^{()}`$, we first examine the $`\varphi K`$ mode. We start by writing the effective Hamiltonian for the $`bs`$ transition as

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}=u,c}{}}V_q^{}\left[C_1(\mu )𝒪_1^{(q^{})}+C_2(\mu )𝒪_2^{(q^{})}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}}C_i(\mu )𝒪_i\right],`$
where $`V_q^{}=V_{q^{}s}^{}V_{q^{}b}`$ are the products of the CKM matrix elements, $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the Wilson coefficients (WCs) and $`𝒪_i`$ correspond to the four-quark operators. The explicit expressions of $`C_i(\mu )`$ and $`𝒪_i`$ can be found in Ref. BBL . It is known that the vector meson $`\varphi `$ has the current matrix elements

$`0|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s|\varphi =m_\varphi f_\varphi \epsilon _\mu ,0|\overline{s}s|\varphi =0.`$ (1)
Therefore, the decay amplitude of $`B_d\varphi K^0`$ can be simply described by Chen-PLB525

$`A\left(B_d\varphi K^0\right)=f_\varphi V_t^{}\left(a_3^{(s)}+a_4^{(s)}+a_5^{(s)}\right)F_e^{BK}+2f_BV_t^{}a_6^{(d)}F_{a6}^{\varphi K}+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
where $`a_i^{(q)}`$ are defined by

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{N_c}},a_2=C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{N_c}},`$
$`a_{3,4}^{(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{3,4}+{\displaystyle \frac{3e_q}{2}}C_{9,10}+a_{3,4}^{(q)},a_{3,4}^{(q)}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{4,3}}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3e_q}{2N_c}}C_{10,9},`$
$`a_{5,6}^{(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{5,6}+{\displaystyle \frac{3e_q}{2}}C_{7,8}+a_{5,6}^{(q)},a_{5,6}^{(q)}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{6,5}}{N_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3e_q}{2N_c}}C_{8,7}.`$ (3)
Note that $`a_2`$ is larger than $`a_1`$ and $`a_{4,6}^{(q)}`$ are much larger than $`a_{3,5}^{(q)}`$, $`F_e^{BK}`$ is the $`BK`$ decay form factor and $`F_{a6}^{\varphi K}`$ denotes $`\varphi K|\overline{s}\gamma _5d|0`$ annihilation effect. We neglect $`\varphi K|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d|0`$ due to the chirality suppression. According to the results of Ref. CKL-PRD , the predicted BR of $`B_d\varphi K^0`$ is around $`9.6\times 10^6`$ which is consistent with Belle’s and BaBar’s results given by $`(10.0_{1.71.3}^{+1.9+0.9})\times 10^6`$ Belle2  and $`(8.7_{1.5}^{+1.7}\pm 0.9)\times 10^6`$ BaBar2 , respectively. However, in the $`Bf_0(980)K^0`$ decay the relevant current matrix elements are given by

$`0|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s|f_0(980)=0;0|\overline{s}s|f_0(980)=m_{f_0}\stackrel{~}{f}`$ (4)
where $`m_{f_0}(\stackrel{~}{f})`$ are the mass ( decay constant) of $`f_0(980)`$. From Eqs. (1) and (4), it is clear that the situation in the $`f_0(980)K^0`$ mode is just opposite to the case of $`\varphi K^0`$, i.e., the role in vector and scalar vertex is exchanged each other. Hence, the decay amplitude for $`Bf_0(980)K^0`$ can be simply written as

$`A\left(B_df_0(980)K^0\right)=2r_f\stackrel{~}{f}V_t^{}a_6^{(s)}S_e^{BK}+2f_BV_t^{}a_6^{(d)}F_{a6}^{f_0K}+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
where $`r_f=m_{f_0}/M_B`$, $`S_e^{BK}=K|\overline{b}s|B/M_B`$ and the factor of $`2`$ comes from Fierz transformation in the $`(VA)\times (V+A)`$ operator. By taking $`M_Bm_b`$ with $`m_b`$ being the $`b`$-quark mass, one can expect $`S_e^{BK}F_e^{BK}`$ by equation of motion. Comparing Eq. (2) with Eq. (5), it is obvious that there is a suppression factor $`r_f=0.186`$ in $`Bf_0(980)K^0`$. Including the factor of 2, taking $`a_6^{(s)}(\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B})/a_4^{(s)}(\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B})1.5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}f_\varphi `$ and neglecting the annihilation contributions, we estimate the ratio of $`Br(Bf_0(980)K^0)/Br(B\varphi K^0)`$ being around $`0.31`$. With the average value of Belle and BarBar, the predicted $`Br(Bf_0(980)K^0)`$ is around $`2.8\times 10^6`$. Will the value change while we include the $`\overline{n}n`$ content and annihilation contributions? In the following we display the results in a more serious theoretical approach.

It is known that large uncertainities are always involved in the calculations of transition matrix elements while studying exclusive hadron decays. Nevertheless, the problem will become mildly in the heavy $`B`$ meson decays because of the enormous $`B`$ samples produced by $`B`$ factories. That is, more precise measurements will help the theory to pin down the unknown parameters to make some predictions. In this paper, we adopt the PQCD approach in which the applications to exclusive heavy $`B`$ meson decays, such as $`BK\pi `$ KLS , $`B\pi \pi (KK)`$ LUY ; CL-PRD ; Chen-PLB520 , $`B\varphi \pi (K)`$ Melic ; CKL-PRD , $`B\eta ^{(^{})}K`$ KS  and $`B\rho K`$ Chen-PLB525  decays, have been studied and found that all of them are consistent with the current experimental data SU ; Keum . In the PQCD, in order to solve the various divergences encountered at end-point, we will include not only $`k_T`$ resummation, for removing end-point singularities, but also threshold resummation, for smearing the double logarithmic divergence arisen from weak corrections KLS-PRD .

In order to satisfy the local current matrix elements with Eq. (4), the $`f_0(980)`$ meson distribution amplitude is given by

$`0|\overline{q}(0)_jq(z)_l|f_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{ixPz}m_f[\mathrm{𝟏}]_{lj}\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x)`$ (6)
with the normalization

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}.`$
For $`B`$ and $`K^{()}`$ mesons, the corresponding distribution amplitudes CKL-PRD ; KLS-PRD  are written as

$`0|\overline{b}(z)_jq(0)_l|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{izxPx}([\mathit{}]_{jl}+M_B[I]_{jl})\gamma _5\varphi _B(x)`$ (7)
$`K|\overline{q}(z)_js(0)_l|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{izPx}\{[\gamma _5\mathit{}]_{jl}\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x)`$ (8)
$`+m_K^0[\gamma _5]_{jl}\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(x)+m_K^0[\gamma _5(\mathit{}_{}\mathit{}_+1)]_{jl}\mathrm{\Phi }_K^\sigma (x)\},`$
$`K^{}(\epsilon _L)|\overline{q}(z)_js(0)_l|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{izPx}\{M_K^{}[\mathit{\epsilon ̸}_L]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}(x)`$ (9)
$`+[\mathit{\epsilon ̸}_L\mathit{}]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^t(x)+M_K^{}[I]_{lj}\varphi _K^{}^s(x)\}`$
with $`n_{}=(0,1,0_{})`$, $`n_+=(1,0,0_{})`$ and $`m_K^0`$ being the chiral symmetry breaking parameter, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{K^{()}}(x)`$ stand for twist-2 wave functions and the remains belong to twist-3 with their explicit expressions being given in Ref. CKL-PRD ; BBKT . Although $`K^{}`$ meson has three polarizations, only the longitudinal part is involved in the decays of $`Bf_0(980)K^{}`$. We note that as the $`K`$ meson, the distribution amplitude of $`f_0(980)`$ can have more complicated spin structures. However, since our purpose is just for the properties of $`Bf_0(980)K^{()}`$, we consider only the simplest case. Moreover, if $`f_0(980)`$ consists of $`\overline{s}s`$ mostly, the choice of Eq. (6) is clearly dominant .

The decay rates of $`Bf_0(980)K`$ are expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{G_F^2M_B^3}{32\pi }|A|^2$$
(10)
where $`A`$ includes all possible components of $`f_0(980)`$ and topologies. As mentioned before, $`f_0(980)`$ has the components of $`\overline{s}s`$ and $`\overline{n}n`$, for different contents, the amplitudes of $`B_df_0(980)\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^+f_0(980)K^+`$ are written as

$`A_{\overline{s}s}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}V_t^{}S_{e6}^{P(s)}+f_BV_t^{}S_{a46}^{P(d)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{n}n}`$ $`=`$ $`f_KV_t^{}N_{e46}^{P(d)}+f_BV_t^{}N_{a46}^{P(d)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{s}s}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}V_t^{}S_{e6}^{P(s)}+f_BV_t^{}S_{a46}^{P(u)}f_BV_u^{}S_a+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{n}n}^+`$ $`=`$ $`f_KV_t^{}N_{e46}^{P(u)}+f_BV_t^{}N_{a46}^{P(u)}f_KV_u^{}N_ef_BV_u^{}N_a+\mathrm{},`$ (11)
respectively, where $`S_{e(a)}^{P(q)}(N_{e(a)}^{P(q)})`$ denote the emission (annihilation) contributions of the $`\overline{s}s(\overline{n}n)`$ content from penguin diagrams while $`S_{e(a)}(N_{e(a)})`$ are from tree contributions. The total decay amplitude for the neutral (charged) mode is described by $`A=\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_{\overline{s}s}^{(+)}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi A_{\overline{n}n}^{(+)}/\sqrt{2}`$. Due to the smallness of nonfactorizable effects, we neglect to show them in the Eq. (11) and just display the factorizable contributions with emission and annihilation topologies. But we will include their effects in our final numerical results. According to Eqs. (6$``$8), the hard amplitudes for $`\overline{s}s`$ content are derived as

$`S_{e6}^{P(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi r_f\alpha _sC_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_3𝑑b_3\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,b_1)`$ (12)
$`\times \{[\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x_3)+2r_K\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(x_3)+r_Kx_3(\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(x_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_K^\sigma (x_3))]`$
$`\times ES_{e6}^{(q)}(t_e^{(1)})h_e(x_1,x_3,b_1,b_3)`$
$`+2r_K\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(x_3)ES_{e6}^{(q)}(t_e^{(2)})h_e(x_3,x_1,b_3,b_1)\},`$
$`S_{a4}^{P(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi r_fr_KC_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_2𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_2𝑑b_2b_3𝑑b_3\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x_2)`$ (13)
$`\times \{[(1+x_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(1x_3)+(1x_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_K^\sigma (1x_3)]E_{a4}^{(q)}(t_a^{(1)})h_a(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)`$
$`\left[(1+x_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_K^p(1x_3)\right]E_{a4}^{(q)}(t_a^{(2)})h_a(x_3,x_2,b_3,b_2)\},`$
$`S_{a6}^{P(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi r_fC_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_2𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_2𝑑b_2b_3𝑑b_3\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_K(1x_3)`$ (14)
$`\times \left\{2E_{a6}^{(q)}(t_a^{(1)})h_a(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)+x_2E_{a6}^{(q)}(t_a^{(2)})h_a(x_3,x_2,b_3,b_2)\right\}`$
and the results for the content of $`\overline{n}n`$ are given by

$`N_{e4}^{P(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi r_f\alpha _sC_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,b_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x_2)`$ (15)
$`\times \left\{(12x_2)EN_{e4}^{(q)}(t_e^{(1)})h_e(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)+2EN_{e4}^{(q)}(t_e^{(2)})h_e(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right\}`$
$`N_{e6}^{P(q)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi r_fr_K\alpha _sC_FM_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,b_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x_2),`$ (16)
$`\times \left\{(2+x_2)EN_{e6}^{(q)}(t_e^{(1)})h_e(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)+2EN_{e6}^{(q)}(t_e^{(2)})h_e(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right\}.`$
Here, the hard part functions $`h_{e(a)}`$, mainly arising from the propagators of hard gluon and valence quark, have included the threshold resummation factor CKL-PRD , and the evolution factors are given by

$`ES_{e6}^{(q)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s(t)a_6^{(q)}(t)\mathrm{exp}[S_B(t,x_1)S_K(t,x_3)],`$
$`EN_{ei}^{(q)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s(t)a_i^{(q)}(t)\mathrm{exp}[S_B(t,x_1)S_{f_0}(t,x_2)],`$
$`E_{ai}^{(q)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s(t)a_i^{(q)}(t)\mathrm{exp}[S_{f_0}(t,x_2)S_K(t,x_3)]`$
where the exponential effects denote Sudakov factors generated by the $`k_T`$ resummation. Since the annihilation topologies in both contents are associated with the matrix elements $`<f_0(980)K|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d(u)|0>`$ and $`<f_0(980)K|\overline{s}\gamma _5d(u)|0>`$, the difference in the different content is only from the spectator, which is $`s(\text{d or u})`$ in $`\overline{s}s(\overline{n}n)`$ component. Hence, $`N_{a4(6)}^{P(q)}`$ could be obtained from $`S_{a4(6)}^{P(q)}`$ by replacing $`x_2`$ with $`1x_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x_2)`$ and $`1x_3`$ with $`x_3`$ in $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_K(1x_3)\}`$. In Eq. (11), we define that $`S_{a46}^{P(q)}=S_{a4}^{P(q)}+S_{a6}^{P(q)}`$ and $`N_{e46}^{P(q)}=N_{e4}^{P(q)}+N_{e6}^{P(q)}`$. The $`S_a`$ and $`N_e`$ can be obtained from $`S_{a4}^{P(q)}`$ and $`N_{e4}^{P(q)}`$ by replacing W.C. $`a_4^{(q)}`$ with $`a_2`$. We note that unlike the cases of $`BPP`$ and $`BPV`$ decays in which the chirality suppression in the $`(VA)\times (VA)`$ annihilation topology is conspicuous, the contribution of Eq. (13) may not be small because one twist-3 effect, such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K^\sigma `$, is not cancelled. And also, differing from $`BPP`$ decays, Eq. (15) is opposite to Eq. (16) in sign.

Similar to $`Bf_0(980)K`$ decays, the amplitudes for $`Bf_0(980)K^0`$ and $`B^+f_0(980)K^+`$ can be expressed as

$`A_{\overline{s}s}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}V_t^{}K_{e6}^{P(s)}+f_BV_t^{}K_{a46}^{P(d)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{n}n}`$ $`=`$ $`f_K^{}V_t^{}X_{e4}^{P(d)}+f_BV_t^{}X_{a46}^{P(d)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{s}s}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}V_t^{}K_{e6}^{P(s)}+f_BV_t^{}K_{a46}^{P(u)}f_BV_u^{}K_a+\mathrm{},`$
$`A_{\overline{n}n}^+`$ $`=`$ $`f_K^{}V_t^{}X_{e4}^{P(u)}+f_BV_t^{}X_{a46}^{P(u)}f_K^{}V_u^{}X_ef_BV_u^{}X_a+\mathrm{}.`$ (17)
where $`K_{e6}^{P(q)}`$, $`K_{a4}^{P(q)}`$ and $`K_{a6}^{P(q)}`$ can be obtained from $`S_{e6}^{P(q)}`$, $`S_{a4}^{P(q)}`$ and $`S_{a6}^{P(q)}`$, respectively, by replacing $`\varphi _K`$, $`\varphi _K^p`$ and $`\varphi _K^\sigma `$ with $`\varphi _K^{}`$, $`\varphi _K^{}^s`$ and $`\varphi _K^{}^t`$. With the similar analysis, we find that $`X_{e4}=N_{e4}`$ and $`X_{a4(6)}^{P(q)}`$ are related to $`K_{a4(6)}^{P(q)}`$ if we change $`x_2`$ and $`1x_3`$ to $`1x_2`$ and $`x_3`$, respectively. The $`K_a`$ and $`X_e`$ are the same as $`K_{a4}^{P(q)}`$ and $`X_{e4}^{P(q)}`$ but the associated WC is $`a_2`$.

In our numerical calculations, the $`B`$ meson wave function is taken as CL-PRD

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xM_B}{\omega _B}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _B^2b^2}{2}}\right]`$
where $`\omega _B`$ is the shape parameter and $`N_B`$ is the normalization, determined by

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x,b=0)={\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}.`$
Since $`f_0(980)`$ is a light meson, its wave function can be defined in the frame of the light-cone and the concept of the twist expansion can be used. And because the relevant scalar meson wave function has not been derived in the literature yet, we choose the following form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{f_0}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\left\{3(12x)^2+\xi (12x)^2(C_2^{3/2}(12x)3)+1.8C_4^{1/2}(12x)\right\}`$
with $`C_4^{1/2}(y)=(35y^430y^2+3)/8`$, $`C_2^{3/2}(y)=3/2(5y^21)`$ and $`\xi =0.30.5`$ in our estimations. In order to fix the values of $`\omega _B`$ and $`m_K^0`$, we take $`\omega _B=0.4`$ and $`m_K^0=1.7`$ GeV as those in the studies of the $`BK`$ and $`BK^{}`$ form factors CL-PRD ; CQ . Explicitly, with the values above and $`\stackrel{~}{f}=0.2`$ DP , the $`Bf_0(980)`$ form factor is found to be 0.270 (0.286) for $`\xi =0.3(0.5)`$. Using Eqs. (11$``$17), the values of hard amplitudes are shown in Table 1.

In addition, the decay BRs and CP asymmetries ($`𝒜_{CP}`$) for $`Bf_0(980)K`$ and $`Bf_0(980)K^{}`$ are shown in Table 2 with $`\varphi _s=0`$ and in Table 3 with $`\varphi _s=40^0`$ and $`140^0`$, where

$`𝒜_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ being the particle (antiparticle) partial decay rate. In both tables, the CP violating phase of $`V_{ub}`$ is taken to be $`\varphi _3=72^0`$. From Table 1, we see clearly that the sign of annihilation contribution $`S_{a46}^{P(d)}`$ is opposite to $`S_{e6}^{P(s)}`$ so that the BRs of $`Bf_0(980)K`$ are reduced significantly. Because the corresponding value of $`S_{a46}^{P(d)}`$ in $`Bf_0(980)K^{}`$ is too small as shown in Table 2, we can understand that the influence of the annihilation is insignificant. Also we see that if $`f_0(980)`$ is $`\overline{s}s`$ mostly, BRs of $`Bf_0(980)K`$ are only around $`10^6`$. On the contrary, they could be over $`5.0\times 10^6`$ at a large angle of $`\varphi _s`$; whereas BRs for $`Bf_0(980)K^{}`$ are similar to those at $`\varphi _s=0`$. To further understand the effect of $`\overline{n}n`$, we display the BRs as a function of $`\varphi _s`$ in Figure 1. Obviously, the predictions are very sensitive to the contributions of the $`\overline{n}n`$ component. The essential question is what the rang of $`\varphi _s`$ is allowed. Unfortunately, the preferable $`\varphi _s`$ is still unknown, i.e., both small Ochs  and large AAN  angle solutions exist simultaneously in the literature. The former prefers the value of $`\varphi _s=42.14_{7.3}^{+5.8^0}`$ but the latter $`138^0\pm 6^0`$.

It is also interesting to look for a decay which is directly related to the $`\overline{n}n`$ content only such that it can tell us how the impact of the content would be. We point out that one of the possible decays is $`B^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$. In this decay, from the identity of Eq. (4) the contribution from the $`\overline{s}s`$ content vanishes since it corresponds to the vector current vertex. As the $`\pi `$ meson is similar to $`K`$ except $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects as well as the relevant wave functions and CKM matrix elements, the BR is estimated to be $`0.25(0.45)\times 10^6`$ for $`\varphi _s=35^0(132^0)`$.

It seems that in spite of the uncertain allowed value of $`\varphi _s`$, the predicted BR of $`B^+f_0(980)K^+`$ is smaller than the central (minimal) value of $`21.17(11.03)\times 10^6`$ reported by Belle in which $`Br(f_0(980)\pi ^+\pi ^{})=2/3R`$ with $`R=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \pi )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \pi )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(KK)0.68`$ PDG  is used. It is clear that unless there exists some other mechanism in the decay processes, it is difficult to explain the large measured BR by just considering short-distant interactions. Actually, the case is similar to the charmed decay of $`B^+\chi _{c0}K^+`$ with its BR being $`(6.0_{1.8}^{+2.1}\pm 1.1)\times 10^4`$ Belle3  and $`(2.4\pm 0.7)\times 10^4`$ Babar3  measured by Belle and BaBar, respectively. In order to to agree with the experimental data, the authors of Ref. CDP  suggest that the possible rescattering effects, such as $`BD_s^{}D`$, $`BD_sD^{}`$ and $`BD_s^{}D^{}`$ decays via triangle diagrams with the strong couplings of $`g_{DD\chi _{c0}}`$, $`g_{D^{}D^{}\chi _{c0}}`$, $`g_{D^{}D^{}\chi _{c0}}`$ etc., could enhance the BR and reach $`(1.13.2)\times 10^4`$. We find that the mechanism could also apply to $`Bf_0(980)K^{()}`$ decays by replacing $`\chi _{c0}`$ with $`f_0(980)`$ and taking the proper couplings such as $`g_{D_s^{}D_sf_0(980)}`$ etc.. The illustrated diagrams are displayed in Figure 2.

Since the differences between $`f_0(980)K^{()}`$ and $`\chi _{c0}K^+`$ modes are only related to the strong coupling constants, by following the procedure of Ref. CDP  and taking proper values of strong coupling constants, one expects that the rescattering effects in Figure 2 can reach $`𝒪(10^5)`$ easily. In addition, we note that, as the possibility of gluonium state in $`\eta ^{}`$ KS ; Ali  was proposed to explain the tendency of large BR for $`\eta ^{}`$ production CLEO-BELLE , it is also possible to understand $`Bf_0(980)K`$ decays by considering $`ggf_0(980)`$ coupling.

Finally, it is worth to mention that like the decays of $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K_{S,L}`$ and $`B\varphi K_{S,L}`$, $`Bf_0(980)K_{S,L}`$ can be another outstanding candidate for the observation of the time-dependent CP asymmetry, defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{CP}^{dir}(B_df)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_dt)A_{CP}^{mix}(B_df)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_d)`$ (18)
with

$`A_{CP}^{dir}(B_df)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1|\lambda |^2}{1+|\lambda |^2}}`$
$`A_{CP}^{mix}(B_df)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Im\lambda }{1+|\lambda |^2}},`$
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\eta e^{2i\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{A(\overline{B}_df)}{A(B_df)}},`$ (19)
where $`f`$ expresses the CP final state classified by $`\eta =\pm 1`$, $`A_{CP}^{dir}(A_{CP}^{mix})`$ denotes the direct (mixing-induced) CP violation and $`A(B(\overline{B}_d)f)`$ are the $`B(\overline{B})`$ meson decay amplitudes and $`\varphi _1=Arg(V_{td}^{}V_{tb})`$. From Eq. (19), we know that if no CP violating phase is involved in the decay amplitude, the direct CP violating observable will vanish and $`\lambda =\eta e^{2i\varphi _1}`$. Consequently, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry is only related to $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$. Fortunately, since there is no tree contribution, $`Bf_0(980)K_{S,L}`$ decays satisfy the criterion so that the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of $`Bf_0(980)K_{S,L}`$ is expected to be the same as that measured in $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K_{S,L}`$ decays, except a small derivation from higher order contributions GW .

We have studied $`f_0(980)`$ scalar meson production in B meson decays by assuming that its flavor contents are $`\overline{s}s`$ and $`\overline{n}n`$ states. We have found the role of $`\overline{n}n`$ on the BRs of $`Bf_0(980)K`$ is crucial. We have also pointed out that nonvanishing BR of $`B^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ could test the existence of the $`\overline{n}n`$ content although the expected BR is less than $`10^6`$. If the BRs of $`Bf_0(980)K^{()}`$ are measured to be $`10^5`$ in experiments, the results could be the evidence of existing rescattering effects in heavy $`B`$ meson decays. On the other hand, although we concentrate on the $`\overline{q}q`$ states of $`f_0(980)`$, we do not exclude the possibilities of four-quark $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ and gluonium states. The possibilities could be clarified by other experiments, such as $`\varphi \pi \pi (KK)\gamma `$ AG , $`D_s^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ E791  decays and $`B^+f_0(980)\pi ^+`$ with the measured BR of $`𝒪(10^6)`$. Furthermore, the more general approach to deal with the decays of $`Bf_0(980)K`$ can refer to Ref. CLPRL . We have also suggested that time-dependent CP asymmetry in $`Bf_0(980)K_{S,L}`$ could be a new explorer of $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1`$. We note that our study of $`B`$ decays with $`f_0(980)`$ in the final state can be applied to other modes with scalar or isoscalar final states such as $`\sigma (600)`$, $`a_0(980)`$ etc.. Remarkably, $`B`$ factories have opened a new opportunity to understand the contents of scalars and their productions.

Acknowledgments:

The author would like to thank H.N. Li, Y.Y. Keum, H.Y. Cheng, C.W. Hwang, K.C. Yang and C.Q. Geng for their useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under Grant No. NSC-91-2112-M-001-053 and by the National Center for Theoretical Science. And also, the idea is created during attending Summer Institute 2002 at Fuji-Yoshida, Japan.


format: text

text:
# A Note on Positive Distributions in Gaussian Analysis Published in: Ukrainian Mathematical Journal 47 No. 5 1995

## 1 Introduction

In recent years Gaussian Analysis and in particular White Noise Analysis have developed to a useful tool in applied mathematics and mathematical physics. For a detailed exposition of the theory and for many examples of applications we refer the reader to the recent monograph \[HKPS\].

One of the basic technical ideas in the development of the theory is the use of dual pairs of spaces of test and generalized functionals. Since the usefulness of a particular test functional space depends on the application one has in mind various dual pairs appear in the literature. Here we only mention two examples which appear very flexible in applications, the Meyer-Watanabe space $`𝒟`$ and the space of Hida test functionals $`(𝒮).`$ Recently new examples of such a dual pair appeared \[KoS93\], \[KLS94\]. Our interest in the space $`(𝒩)^1`$ and its dual $`(𝒩)^1`$ is motivated by the following arguments

* It seems to be the natural (and in some sense the only possible) construction in generalizations to a non-gaussian setting \[AKS93\], \[ADKS94\].
* The distribution space $`(𝒩)^1`$ is sufficiently large and thus contains very singular objects.
* An important feature is that it allows the inverse operations for Wick product and Wick exponential. In fact it allows a powerful ’Wick calculus’, see \[KLS94\].
* This has important applications in the theory of stochastic partial differential equations \[Be93\], \[HLØUZ93b\], \[Øk93\], \[Øk94\].

Motivated by results in finite dimensional distribution theory a natural question is whether the cone of positive generalized functionals is related to measures. For the space $`(𝒮)^{}`$ of Hida distributions this is true. Results in this direction can be found in \[Ko80a, b\], \[Po87\], \[BeKo\], \[Yok90\], \[Yok93\], \[Lee91\].

In this note we prove a similar statement for positive distributions in $`(𝒩)^1`$. The measures arising in this context are characterized by a faster growth of their moments compared to the measures related to Hida distributions. This growth condition can be translated into an equivalent integrability condition.

The central step in the proof is the construction of the measure by given positive generalized functional. Since the exponential functionals fail to be test functionals we are not able to recover the measure from its characteristic functional using Minlos’ theorem. Instead of doing this we refer to a theorem of Berezansky and Shifrin \[BS71\] which allows to construct a unique measure by given moments.

A slight modification of the proof gives a completely analogous result for the positive distributions in $`(𝒩)^\beta `$ which will be formulated without proof.

## 2 Gaussian Analysis

### 2.1 Preliminaries

We start by considering a standard Gelfand triple

$$𝒩𝒩^{}.$$

Here $``$ is a real separable Hilbert space with inner product $`,`$ and norm $`||`$ and $`𝒩`$ is a separable nuclear space densely topologically embedded in $``$. For example $`𝒩`$ can be chosen as the Schwartz test function space $`𝒮(𝐑)`$ for $`=L^2(𝐑)`$. This particular choice is the usual one in White Noise Analysis see e.g. \[HKPS\]. The nuclear space $`𝒩`$ can be represented as projective limit of a family of Hilbert spaces $`\left\{_p\text{}p𝐍\right\}`$, such that for all $`p_1,p_2𝐍`$ there exists $`p𝐍`$ such that $`_p_{p_1}`$ and $`_p_{p_2}`$ and the embeddings are of Hilbert-Schmidt class (see e.g. \[Pi\]). Without loss of generality we suppose that $`p𝐍`$, $`\phi 𝒩`$: $`|\phi ||\phi |_p`$. The dual space $`𝒩^{}`$ is the inductive limit of the corresponding dual spaces $`_p`$. We denote also by $`,`$ the dual pairings between $`_p`$ and $`_p`$ and between $`𝒩`$ and $`𝒩^{}`$ given by the extension of the inner product on $``$. Furthermore $`||_{\pm p}`$ denote the norms on $`_p`$ and $`_p`$ respectively and we preserve this notation for the norms on the complexifications $`_{p,𝐜}`$ and $`_{p,𝐜}`$ and on tensor powers of these spaces.

The symmetric Fock space over $``$ is built up from the symmetric tensor powers of the complexification $`_𝐜`$ : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_𝐜^{\widehat{}n}`$ with inner product given by $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}n!\overline{f^{(n)}},g^{(n)}`$. We consider $`𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{})`$ the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by cylinder sets on $`𝒩^{}`$. The canonical Gaussian measure $`\mu `$ on $`𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{})`$ is given by its characteristic functional

$$_𝒩^{}\mathrm{exp}(ix,\eta )d\mu (x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\left|\eta \right|^2)\text{ , }\eta 𝒩$$

via Minlos’ theorem (see e.g. \[BeKo\], \[Hi80\]). Let us consider the space of square-integrable complex valued functions with respect to this measure $`L^2(\mu )=L^2(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}),\mu )`$. The well-known Segal isomorphism between $`L^2(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ establishes the Wiener-Itô chaos decomposition of an element $`\phi L^2(\mu )`$ (see e.g. \[Se56\], \[Si\])

$$\phi (x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}:x^n:,\phi ^{(n)}\text{ .}$$

Here $`\phi ^{(n)}_𝐜^{\widehat{}n}`$, $`n𝐍`$ and $`\phi ^{(0)}𝐂`$ and we have the relation

$$\phi _{L^2}^2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n!\left|\phi ^{(n)}\right|^2.$$

For the definition of $`:x^n:`$ we refer the reader to the books of \[Si\], \[HKPS\].

### 2.2 Test functions and Distributions

Consider the space $`𝒫(𝒩^{})`$ of continuous polynomials on $`𝒩^{}`$, i.e. any $`\phi 𝒫(𝒩^{})`$ has the form $`\phi `$$`(x)=_{n=0}^Nx^n,\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{(n)}`$ , $`x𝒩^{}`$ , $`N𝐍`$ for kernels $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{(n)}𝒩^{\widehat{}n}`$. It is well-known that any $`\phi 𝒫(𝒩^{})`$ can be written as a Wick polynomial i.e. $`\phi (x)=_{n=0}^N:x^n:,\phi ^{(n)}`$, $`\phi ^{(n)}𝒩^{\widehat{}n}`$, $`N𝐍`$ (see e.g. \[BeKo, Ch 2\]). To construct test functions we define for $`p,q𝐍`$, $`\beta [0,1]`$ the following Hilbertian norm on $`𝒫(𝒩^{})`$

$$\phi _{p,q,\beta }^2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n!)^{(1+\beta )}2^{nq}|\phi ^{(n)}|_p^2,\phi 𝒫(𝒩^{})\text{ .}$$
(1)
(By $`\left|\phi ^{(0)}\right|_p`$ we simply mean the complex modulus for all $`p`$.) Then we define $`(_p)_q^\beta `$ to be the completion of $`𝒫(𝒩^{})`$ with respect to $`_{p,q,\beta }`$. Or equivalently

$$(_p)_q^\beta =\left\{\phi L^2(\mu )\right|\phi _{p,q,\beta }<\mathrm{}\}\text{ .}$$

Finally, the space of test functions $`\left(𝒩\right)^\beta `$ is defined to be the projective limit of the spaces $`(_p)_q^\beta `$:

$$\left(𝒩\right)^\beta =\underset{p,q0}{}(_p)_q^\beta \text{ . }$$

For $`0\beta <1`$ the corresponding spaces have been studied in \[KoS93\] and in the special case of Gaussian product measures all the spaces for $`0\beta 1`$ were introduced in \[Ko78\]. For $`\beta =0`$ and $`𝒩=𝒮(𝐑)`$ the well-known space $`(𝒮)=\left(𝒮\right)^0`$ of Hida test functions is obtained (e.g. \[KoSa78\], \[Ko80a, b\], \[KT80\], \[HKPS\], \[BeKo\], \[KLPSW94\]), while in this work we concentrate on the smallest space $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$.

Let $`(_p)_q^1`$ be the dual with respect to $`L^2(\mu )`$ of $`(_p)_q^1`$ and let $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ be the dual with respect to $`L^2(\mu )`$ of $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$. We denote by $`.,.`$ the corresponding bilinear dual pairing which is given by the extension of the scalar product on $`L^2(\mu )`$. We know from general duality theory that

$$\left(𝒩\right)^1=\underset{p,q}{}(_p)_q^1.$$

In particular, we know that every distribution is of finite order i.e. for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ there exist $`p,q𝐍`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_p)_q^1`$. The chaos decomposition introduces the following natural decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒩\right)^1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(𝒩_𝐜^{})^{\widehat{}n}`$ be given. Then there is a distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},:x^n:`$ in $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ acting on $`\phi \left(𝒩\right)^1`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},:x^n:,\phi =n!\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},\phi ^{(n)}.$$

Any $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ then has a unique decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},:x^n:,$$

where the sum converges in $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ and we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n!\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},\phi ^{(n)},\phi \left(𝒩\right)^1.$$

From the definition it is not hard to see that $`(_p)_q^1`$ is a Hilbert space with norm

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1}^2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{nq}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}\right|_p^2.$$

Remark: Considering also the above mentioned spaces $`\left(𝒩\right)^\beta `$ and their duals $`\left(𝒩\right)^\beta `$ we have the following chain of spaces

$$\left(𝒩\right)^1\mathrm{}\left(𝒩\right)^\beta \mathrm{}\left(𝒩\right)=\left(𝒩\right)^0L^2(\mu )\left(𝒩\right)^{}\mathrm{}\left(𝒩\right)^\beta \mathrm{}\left(𝒩\right)^1.$$

### 2.3 Description of test functions by infinite dimensional holomorphy

We shall collect some facts from the theory of holomorphic functions in locally convex topological vector spaces, see e.g. \[Di\]. Let us introduce the space $`(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$ of complex valued entire functions on $`𝒩_𝐜^{}`$. A function $`u:𝒩_𝐜^{}𝐂`$ is entire if and only if for all $`y𝒩_𝐜^{}`$ there exists a sequence of homogeneous polynomials $`\frac{1}{n!}\mathrm{d}^nu(y)(z)`$ on $`𝒩_𝐜^{}`$ such that the Taylor decomposition

$$u(z+y)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\mathrm{d}^nu(y)(z)\text{ , }z𝒩_𝐜^{}$$

converges uniformly on any neighborhood

$$U_{p,q}=\{z_{p,𝐜}||z|_p^2<2^q\},p,q𝐍.$$

We refer to \[Di\] for the following convenient equivalent definition

###### Proposition 1

A functional $`u`$ is entire if and only if $`u`$ is locally bounded and for any $`y,z𝒩_𝐜^{}`$ the mapping $`\lambda u(y+\lambda z)`$, $`\lambda 𝐂`$ is entire (in the usual sense).

We will use a subset $`_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$ which consists of all entire functions of first order of growth and minimal type. I.e. $`u(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$ belongs to $`_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$ iff

$$p𝐍\epsilon >0C:\left|u(z)\right|Ce^{\epsilon \left|z\right|_p},z_{p,𝐜}.$$
(2)
Now we have introduced the notation to state a theorem proven in \[KLS94\] which shows that functions from $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ have a pointwise meaning on $`𝒩^{}`$ and are even (real) analytic on this space.

###### Theorem 2

Any test function in $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$ has a pointwise defined version which has an analytic continuation onto the space $`𝒩_𝐜^{}`$ as an element of $`_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$. Vice versa the restriction of any function in $`_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$ to $`𝒩^{}`$ is in $`\left(𝒩\right)^1`$.

In the rest of the paper we identify any $`\phi \left(𝒩\right)^1`$ with its version in $`_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})`$. In this sense we may write

$$\left(𝒩\right)^1=_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩^{})=\left\{u𝒩^{}\right|u_{\mathrm{min}}^1(𝒩_𝐜^{})\}\text{ .}$$

For later use we will prove the following corollary, which gives an explicit bound of the type (2) in terms of norms in the spaces $`(_p)_q^1`$.

###### Corollary 3

For all $`\phi \left(𝒩\right)^1`$ and $`q0`$ we have the following pointwise bound

$$\left|\phi (x)\right|C_{p,\epsilon }\phi _{p,q,1}e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p}\text{}x_p\text{ ,}$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon =2^{\frac{q}{2}}`$ and

$$C_{p,\epsilon }=_𝒩^{}e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p}d\mu (x)\text{ .}$$

Here $`p>0`$ is taken such that the embedding $`i_0^p:_p_0`$ is of Hilbert-Schmidt type.

#### Proof.

Let us introduce the following function

$$w(z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i)^nz^n,\phi ^{(n)}\text{ , }z𝒩_𝐜^{}$$

using the chaos decomposition $`\phi (x)`$ $`=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}:x^n:,\phi ^{(n)}`$ of $`\phi `$. Using the inequality

$$\left|\phi ^{(n)}\right|_p\frac{1}{n!}\epsilon ^n\phi _{p,q,1}\text{ , }\epsilon =2^{\frac{q}{2}}$$

we may estimate $`\left|w(z)\right|`$ for $`z_p`$ as follows

$`\left|w(z)\right|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|\phi ^{(n)}\right|_p\left|z\right|_p^n`$
$``$ $`\phi _{p,q,1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\epsilon ^n\left|z\right|_p^n`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _{p,q,1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\epsilon \left|z\right|_p\right)\text{ .}`$
To achieve a bound of the type (3) we use the relation \[KLS94\], \[BeKo\]

$$\phi (x)=_𝒩^{}w(y+ix)d\mu (y)\text{ , }x𝒩^{}\text{ .}$$

This allows to estimate

$`\left|\phi (x)\right|`$ $``$ $`\phi _{p,q,1}{\displaystyle _𝒩^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\epsilon \left|y+ix\right|_p\right)d\mu (y)`$
$``$ $`\phi _{p,q,1}e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p}{\displaystyle _𝒩^{}}e^{\epsilon \left|y\right|_p}d\mu (y)`$
We conclude the proof with the inequality

$$C_{p,\epsilon }=_𝒩^{}e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p}d\mu (x)\text{ }e^{\frac{\epsilon ^2}{4\alpha }}_𝒩^{}e^{\alpha \left|x\right|_p^2}d\mu (x)\text{ }$$

for $`\alpha >0`$ . If $`p>0`$ is such that the embedding $`i_0^p`$ is of Hilbert-Schmidt type and $`\alpha `$ is chosen sufficiently small the right hand integral is finite, see e.g. \[Kuo75, Fernique’s theorem\].  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Description of positive distributions

In this section we will characterize the positive distributions in $`(𝒩)^1`$. We will prove that the positive distributions can be represented by measures. They are characterized by a condition of growth of their moments. In the case of the Hida distribution space $`(𝒩)^{}`$ similar statements can be found in works of Kondratiev \[Ko80a, b\] and Yokoi \[Yok90\], \[Yok93\], see also \[Po87\] and \[Lee91\].

Since test functionals $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$ are pointwisely defined functions in the sense of theorem 2 it makes sense to define that $`\phi `$ is positive ($`\phi 0`$) iff $`\phi (x)0`$ for all $`x𝒩^{}`$. The definition of positivity of test functionals may be relaxed to $`\mu `$-a.e. positvity.

###### Definition 4

An element $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)^1`$ is called positive if for any positive $`\phi (𝒩)^{1\text{ }}`$we have $`\mathrm{\Phi },\phi 0`$ . The cone of positive elements in $`(𝒩)^1`$ is denoted by $`(𝒩)_+^1`$.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^1`$ be a positive generalized function. Then there is a unique (positive) measure $`\nu `$ on $`(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}))`$ such that $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)$$
(4)
and, moreover, $`p0,K,C>0:\xi 𝒩,n𝐍_0`$

$$\left|_𝒩^{}x,\xi ^nd\nu (x)\right|KC^nn!\left|\xi \right|_p^n\text{ .}$$
(5)
Vice versa, any (positive) measure $`\nu `$ which obeys (5) defines a positive distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^1`$ by (4).

Remark: For a given measure $`\nu `$ the distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be viewed as the generalized Radon-Nikodym derivative $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\mathrm{d}\mu }`$ of $`\nu `$ with respect to $`\mu `$. In fact if $`\nu `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $`\mu `$ then the usual Radon-Nikodym derivative coincides with $`\mathrm{\Phi }.`$

Proof of Theorem 5.
To prove the first part we define moments of a distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and give bounds on their growth. Using this we construct a measure $`\nu `$ which is uniquely defined by given moments***Since the algebra of exponential functions is not contained in $`(𝒩)^1`$ (see \[KLS94\]) we can not use Minlos’ theorem to construct the measure. This was the method used in Yokoi’s work \[Yok90\].. The next step is to show that any test functional $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$ is integrable with respect to $`\nu `$.

Since $`𝒫(𝒩)^1`$ we may define moments of a positive distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)^1`$ by

$$\mathrm{M}_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)=\mathrm{\Phi },\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}},\xi _j,n𝐍,\xi _j𝒩,1jn$$

$$\mathrm{M}_0=\mathrm{\Phi },1\text{.}$$

To get estimates on the moments we first assume $`\xi _1=\mathrm{}=\xi _n=\xi 𝒩.`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_p)_q^1`$ for some $`p,q>0`$ we may estimate as follows

$$\left|\mathrm{\Phi },,\xi ^n\right|\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1},\xi ^n_{p,q,1}\text{ .}$$

To obtain a bound of $`,\xi ^n_{p,q,1}`$ we use the well known Hermite decomposition

$$,\xi ^n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{[\frac{n}{2}]}{}}\frac{n!}{k!(n2k)!}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|\xi \right|_0^2\right)^k:,\xi ^{(n2k)}:$$

and the equality

$$:,\xi ^n:_{p,q,1}=n!2^{\frac{1}{2}nq}|\xi |_p^n\text{ .}$$

Since Wick powers $`:,\xi ^k:`$ , $`k𝐍`$ are orthogonal in each $`(_p)_q^1`$ we can estimate as follows

$`,\xi ^n_{p,q,1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{[\frac{n}{2}]}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{k!(n2k)!2^k}}\right)^2|\xi |_0^{4k}:,\xi ^{(n2k)}:_{p,q,1}^2`$
$``$ $`(n!)^22^{nq}\left|\xi \right|_p^{2n}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{[\frac{n}{2}]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k!)^2}}2^{2k(1+q)}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)(n!)^22^{nq}\left|\xi \right|_p^{2n}\text{ ,}`$
where $`\mathrm{I}_0`$ is a modified Bessel function of order zero ($`\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)<1.3`$ for $`q0`$). Via the polarization formula this implies

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}},\xi _j_{p,q,1}\sqrt{\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)}\left(e2^{\frac{q}{2}}\right)^nn!\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|\xi \right|_p\text{ .}$$

Then we arrive at

$$\left|\mathrm{M}_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{}\xi _n)\right|KC^nn!\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|\xi _j\right|_p$$
(6)
with $`K=\sqrt{\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1},C=e2^{\frac{q}{2}}.`$

Due to the kernel theorem \[BeKo\], \[GV\] we then have the representation

$$\mathrm{M}_n(\xi _1,\mathrm{}\xi _n)=\mathrm{M}^{(n)},\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n\text{ ,}$$

where $`\mathrm{M}^{(n)}𝒩^{^{\widehat{}n}}`$. The sequence $`\left\{\mathrm{M}^{(n)},n𝐍_0\right\}`$ has the following property of positivity: for any finite sequence of smooth kernels $`\left\{g^{(n)},n𝐍\right\}`$ (i.e. $`g^{(n)}𝒩^{\widehat{}n}`$ and $`g^{(n)}=0`$ $`nn_0`$ for some $`n_0𝐍`$) the following inequality is valid

$$\underset{k,j}{\overset{n_0}{}}\mathrm{M}^{(k+j)},g^{(k)}\overline{g^{(j)}}0\text{ .}$$
(7)
This follows from the fact that the left hand side can be written as $`\mathrm{\Phi },|\phi |^2`$ with

$$\phi (x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}x^n,g^{(n)},x𝒩^{}\text{ ,}$$

which is a smooth polynomial. Following \[BS71\], \[BeKo\] inequalities (6) and (7) are sufficient to ensure the existence of a uniquely defined measure $`\nu `$ on $`(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}))`$, such that for any $`\phi 𝒫`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)\text{ .}$$

Now we are going to prove the embedding $`(𝒩)^1L^1(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}),\nu )`$. Let $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$ be given. Since $`\phi `$ allows bounds of the type (3) we have to find $`p^{}`$ and $`\epsilon `$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{})`$ is integrable with respect to $`\nu `$.

Choose $`p^{}>p`$ such that the embedding $`i_p^p^{}:_p^{}_p`$ is of Hilbert-Schmidt type.  Let $`\left\{e_k,k𝐍\right\}𝒩`$ be an orthonormal basis in $`_p^{}`$. Then $`\left|x\right|_p^{}^2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x,e_k^2`$, $`x_p^{}`$. We will first estimate the moments of even order

$$_𝒩^{}\left|x\right|_p^{}^{2n}d\nu (x)=\underset{k_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{k_n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_𝒩^{}x,e_{k_1}^2\mathrm{}x,e_{k_n}^2d\nu (x)\text{,}$$

where we changed the order of summation and integration by a monotone convergence argument. Using the bound (6) we have

$`{\displaystyle _𝒩^{}}\left|x\right|_p^{}^{2n}d\nu (x)`$ $``$ $`KC^{2n}(2n)!{\displaystyle \underset{k_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{k_n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|e_{k_1}\right|_p^2\mathrm{}\left|e_{k_n}\right|_p^2`$
$`=`$ $`KC^{2n}(2n)!\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left|e_k\right|_p^2\right)^n`$
$`=`$ $`K\left(Ci_p^p^{}_{HS}\right)^{2n}(2n)!`$
because

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|e_k\right|_p^2=i_p^p^{}_{HS}^2\text{ .}$$

The moments of arbitrary order can now be estimated by the Schwarz inequality

$`{\displaystyle \left|x\right|_p^{}^nd\nu (x)}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{\nu (𝒩^{})}\left({\displaystyle \left|x\right|_p^{2n}d\nu (x)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{K\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1}}\left(Ci_p^p^{}_{HS}\right)^n\sqrt{(2n)!}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1}\left(e2^{(1+\frac{q}{2})}i_p^p^{}_{HS}\right)^nn!`$
since $`(2n)!4^n(n!)^2`$ and $`\nu (𝒩^{})=𝐄(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1}`$.
Choose $`\epsilon <`$ $`\left(e2^{(1+\frac{q}{2})}i_p^p^{}_{HS}\right)^1`$ then

$`{\displaystyle e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{}}d\nu (x)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \left|x\right|_p^{}^nd\nu (x)}`$ (8)
$``$ $`\sqrt[4]{\mathrm{I}_0(2^q)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,q,1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\epsilon e2^{(1+\frac{q}{2})}i_p^p^{}_{HS}\right)^n<\mathrm{}`$
Hence the first part of the theorem is proven.

Let $`\nu `$ be a measure on $`𝒩^{}`$ such that (5) holds. Then an argument completely analogous to the first part of the proof shows that $`(𝒩)^1L^1(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}),\nu )`$ .

To establish continuity of the linear functional $`\phi \phi (x)d\nu (x)`$, $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$ we proceed as follows. From the first part of the proof we know that (5) is sufficient to prove that $`\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{})`$ is integrable with respect to $`\nu `$. We only have to choose $`p^{}>p`$ such that $`i_p^p^{}:_p^{}_p`$ is of Hilbert-Schmidt type and to choose $`\epsilon `$ sufficiently small. Because of corollary 3 there exist $`C_{p^{},\epsilon }>0`$ and $`q>0`$ such that

$$\left|\phi (x)\right|C_{p^{},\epsilon }\phi _{p,q,1}\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{})\text{ , }x_p^{}\text{ .}$$

Thus

$$\left|_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)\right|C_{p^{},\epsilon }\phi _{p,q,1}_𝒩^{}\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{})d\nu (x)$$

Since the integral on the right hand side is finite the measure $`\nu `$ defines a distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)^1`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)\text{ .}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark: From the theorem follows immediately: If $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^1`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be extended to those exponential functions $`\phi =e^{i,\xi }`$ for which $`Im\xi `$ is in a neighborhood of zero where $`T\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi },e^{ix,}=_𝒩^{}e^{ix,}d\nu (x)`$ is holomorphic. This is due to the fact that the characteristic function of $`\nu `$ constructed in theorem 5 is analytic in a strip of regularity.

Using the proof of theorem 5 we can also show the following equivalent formulation which uses an integrability condition instead of moment inequalities:

Theorem 5
Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^1`$. Then there is a unique (positive) measure $`\nu `$ on $`(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}))`$ such that $`\phi (𝒩)^1`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)$$
(9)
and, moreover, $`p^{}>0,\epsilon >0`$

$$_𝒩^{}e^{\epsilon \left|x\right|_p^{}}d\nu (x)<\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
Vice versa, any (positive) measure $`\nu `$ which obeys (10) defines a positive distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^1`$ by (9).

#### Proof.

The first part already is proved in the course of the proof of theorem 5. See equation (8). The other direction is trivial since (10) implies a condition of the type (5). $`\mathrm{}`$

A straightforward modification in the proof of theorem 5 gives the following theorem characterizing $`(𝒩)_+^\beta `$.

###### Theorem 6

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^\beta `$, $`\beta [0,1)`$ be a positive generalized function. Then there is a unique (positive) measure $`\nu `$ on $`(𝒩^{},𝒞_\sigma (𝒩^{}))`$ such that $`\phi (𝒩)^\beta `$

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\phi =_𝒩^{}\phi (x)d\nu (x)$$
(11)
and, moreover, $`p0,K,C>0:\xi 𝒩,n𝐍_0`$

$$\left|_𝒩^{}x,\xi ^nd\nu (x)\right|KC^n(n!)^{\frac{1+\beta }{2}}\left|\xi \right|_p^n\text{ .}$$
(12)
Vice versa, any (positive) measure $`\nu `$ which obeys (12) defines a positive distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)_+^\beta `$ by (11).

For $`\beta =0`$ this result reduces to the well-known theorem in the case of Hida distributions \[Ko80a, b\], \[Yok93\], \[Lee91\].

This theorem gives another argument (besides the absence of a characterization theorem) why we do not consider spaces $`(𝒩)^\beta `$ for $`\beta >1`$. In that case we would have a growth of the moments with $`(n!)^\alpha `$ where $`\alpha >1`$. In such a case the uniqueness of the measure fails to hold (even in a finite dimensional setting).

Acknowledgements: We thank Prof. B. Øksendal for deepening our interest in questions connected with $`(𝒩)^1`$. One of us (W.W.) gratefully acknowledges financial support of a scholarship from ’Graduiertenförderung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen’.


text:
# Present Status of the K2K Experiment

## 1 Introduction

The K2K experiment is the first long-baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment with a distance of hundreds of km and using an accelerator-based neutrino beam. The nominal sensitive region in the neutrino-oscillation parameters is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>3\times 10^3`$eV2. This covers the parameter region suggested by the atmospheric neutrino anomaly observed by several underground experiments, and confirmed by Super-Kamiokande (SK).

An overview of the K2K experiment is as follows. An almost pure wide-band $`\nu _\mu `$ beam generated in the KEK 12-GeV Proton Synchrotron (PS) is detected in the SK detector at a distance of 250 km. Two beam monitors are located along the beam line. One is a pion monitor (PIMON), which is a gas Cherenkov detector installed downstream of the second magnetic Horn. The other is a muon monitor (MUMON), which is an ionization chamber and a silicon pad array behind the beam dump. In addition, two different types of front detectors (FDs) are located at the KEK site. One is a 1kt water Cherenkov detector (1KT), which is a miniature of the SK detector. The other is a so-called fine-grained detector (FGD), which is composed of a scintillating fiber tracker (SFT), trigger counters (TRG), lead glass counters (LG) and a muon range detector (MRD).

Since the neutrino beamline, the beam monitors and detectors are already described in previous articles, they are not described here. Instead, summaries of these detector components are given in tables. Table 1 gives the design features of the neutrino beamline. Table 2 gives the design and performance features of beam monitors. The design, purpose, and performance of the detectors are given in Table 3. A schematic view of the Front detectors is also shown in Fig.1.

The K2K experiment was successfully started in early 1999, and physics data were recorded from June 1999 to July 2001. The total data-taking period during three years was 234.8 days. The accumulated beam intensity was $`47.9\times 10^{18}`$ protons on the target (p.o.t.), which is about 50% of the goal of the experiment, $`10^{20}`$ p.o.t.

## 2 Study of the Neutrino beam properties at the KEK site

The characteristics of the neutrino beam at the KEK site were examined using FDs and beam monitors. In this section, the present status of analyses on (1)the neutrino beam direction, (2)the neutrino beam intensity and its stability, (3)the $`\nu _e/\nu _\mu `$ ratio, (4)the neutrino energy spectrum, and (5)extrapolation of the neutrino flux are presented.

### 2.1 Neutrino beam direction

The neutrino beam-line was constructed using a GPS position survey; the alignment of the beam-line, FDs and SK is better than 0.1 mrad. The neutrino beam direction relative to the beam-line was measured with MUMON and MRD independently.

The position resolution of MUMON is about 2 cm, corresponding to an angular resolution of 0.1 mrad. Because $`\nu _\mu `$ and muons originate in the same pion decay in the decay volume, the $`\nu _\mu `$ beam direction can be examined from the profile center of the muon beam. The time variation of the profile center is plotted in Fig. 2. The direction of the muon beam agrees with the beam-line within 1 mrad.

The neutrino beam direction is also measured using neutrino interactions in MRD. From spatial constructions of the vertex positions, the center of the vertex positions is found to agree with the SK direction within 1 mrad. The time variation of the beam center, also plotted in Fig. 2, shows that the steering of the beam direction is stable, and is consistent with the results from the muon monitors.

Since the angular acceptance of the SK detector from the KEK site is about 0.2 mrad, and the energy spectrum of the neutrino beam is expected to be uniform within 3 mrad from the center of the beam axis, the adjustment of the neutrino beam direction ($`<`$ 1 mrad) is sufficient.

### 2.2 Neutrino beam intensity and its stability

The absolute neutrino event rates in the FDs are used to calculate the expected number of events in SK. The neutrino events in 1KT are reconstructed from the Cherenkov ring pattern by the same method as that used in the SK atmospheric neutrino analysis. We selected events with the reconstructed vertex being inside 25.1 tons of the fiducial volume, which is defined by a 2 m radius, 2 m long cylinder along the beam axis. Since the average number of neutrino events in the whole 1KT detector is about 0.2 events/spill, multiple neutrino events in one spill must be taken into consideration. The total sum of PMT signals, which are recorded by FADC, is used for counting the number of neutrino interactions in a spill. By considering this correction, the number of neutrino interactions in the fiducial volume was obtained to be $``$0.02 events per spill. This measurement has a 4% systematic uncertainty, which is mainly due to vertex resolution of the reconstructions.

Although the absolute event numbers were also studied by SFT and MRD, the neutrino events in 1KT are preferable for an absolute event number analysis, because the possible systematic errors inherent to the detection method are the same as that of SK, and are canceled in the analysis. Therefore, details of the SFT and MRD analysis are not presented in this report.

The stability of the beam intensity is contaneously measured from the neutrino event rate in MRD because of their large statistics. A detailed description of the event reconstruction can be found in . The time variation of the neutrino interactions in MRD is shown in Fig. 3. The neutrino beam intensity is stable within a few %.

### 2.3 $`\nu _e/\nu _\mu `$ ratio

The $`\nu _e/\nu _\mu `$ ratio of the neutrino beam at the KEK site was measured by 1KT and FGD. The idea of the measurements is given in . An analysis with 1KT is still under way, and no numerical result has been obtained yet. On the other hand, a very preliminary result with FGD is reported to be (1.8$`\pm `$0.6$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.8}{1.0}`$)%, where the expectation based on a Monte-Carlo simulation is 1.3%. The original neutrino beam has been proved to be almost a pure $`\nu _\mu `$ beam.

### 2.4 Neutrino energy spectrum

The neutrino energy spectrum was examined with 1KT and FGD. The 1KT has a high efficiency for low-energy neutrinos below 1 GeV and a full 4$`\pi `$ coverage in the solid angle. However, the efficiency for muons above $``$1 GeV is poor because most of the muons escape from the detector. On the contrary, although FGD has a high efficiency for higher momentum muons, the efficiency for low-momentum muons is relatively poor, and the angular acceptance is limited to be within 50 degrees from the beam axis. By combining the 1KT and FGD results, the entire range of the neutrino energy spectrum can be covered.

In the 1KT detector, events with only one $`\mu `$-like Cherenkov ring are selected. It was also required that the vertex position is in the 25.1 tons of the fiducial volume described in the previous section, and the particles are fully-contained in the inner detector. To determine the neutrino energy, single $`\mu `$-like ring events are assumed to be the charged-current quasi-elastic (CCQE) interaction of muon neutrinos, $`\nu _\mu N\mu N^{}`$. Most of the neutrino energy is transfered to the muons in this interaction mode. The neutrino energy $`(E_\nu )`$ can be directly calculated from the momentum $`(p_\mu )`$ and angle $`(\theta _\mu )`$ of the outgoing muons as

$$E_\nu =\frac{m_NE_\mu m_\mu ^2/2}{m_NE_\mu +p_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu },$$
(1)
where $`m_N`$ and $`m_\mu `$ are the masses of the nucleon and the muon, respectively, and $`E_\mu =\sqrt{p_\mu ^2+m_\mu ^2}`$. The muon momentum and angle from the beam axis are shown in Fig. 4 together with the Monte Carlo expectations described below.

In FGD, neutrino events which satisfy the following criteria are selected: (1)the vertex position is inside of the 5.94 ton SFT fiducial volume; (2)one track passes through 3 layers of scintillating fibers, TRG, LG, and is stopped in MRD. CCQE events are recognized as 1-track or 2-track events because the recoiled proton track can be occasionally identified as another short track. If the CCQE interaction is assumed, the travel direction of the recoiled proton can be expected from the direction of the muon track by using momentum conservation. The angle between the expected direction and the real second track $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta })`$ can be used to distinguish CCQE events from other interactions. Three categories of events are defined as: (1)1-track events, (2)2-track events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }<25^{}`$, and (3)2-track events with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }>30^{}`$. The second and the third samples are CCQE and non-CCQE enriched event samples, respectively. The momentum $`(p_\mu )`$ and angle $`(\theta _\mu )`$ distributions for three events samples are shown in Fig. 5.

The expectations are based on GEANT with a detailed description of the materials and magnetic fields in the target region and the decay volume. It uses measurements of the primary-beam intensity and profile at the target as input parameters. The primary proton interactions on aluminum are modeled with a parameterization of hadron production data. Other hadronic interactions are treated by GEANT-CALOR.

The momentum distribution in 1KT and FGD can be used to determine the neutrino energy spectrum by the following procedure. The neutrino energy spectrum is divided into 8 energy regions, and the corresponding muon momentum distributions are prepared by a Monte-Carlo simulation for each detector. The weighting factor of each region as well as other systematic errors are assumed to be fitting parameters. By the comparing with the real data in 1KT and FGD, the neutrino energy distribution is determined. The most probable values and their possible ranges of the systematic errors are also obtained from the fitting, and are applied to the following SK analysis.

The best-fit results are also shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. The agreement with the data is excellent.

### 2.5 Extrapolation of the neutrino flux

The production of neutrinos is calculated from the simple two-body decay of the charged pions. Therefore, once the kinematic distribution of charged pions after the second magnetic horn is known, it is possible to predict the muon neutrino spectrum at any distance.

The pion momentum and angular distribution are measured by PIMON, whose characteristics are given in Table 2. In PIMON, intensity and shape of the Cherenkov image in the focal plane are measured by the PMT array. The measurement is a superposition of slices of the Cherenkov ring from charged pions of various momentum and angles. The refraction indices are controlled by the gas pressure, and seven independent measurements at different Cherenkov thresholds are done. From these measurements, the relative pion beam intensities are obtained as a function of the momentum and angle. To avoid contamination of the Cherenkov light from the surviving 12-GeV primary protons, the refraction indices are adjusted to be below the Cherenkov threshold of the 12-GeV proton. Accordingly, an analysis for the pion momentum less than 2 GeV is not possible, and the measurable neutrino energy range is limited to be larger than 1 GeV. A more detailed description of the PIMON and the analysis method can be found in .

Fig. 6 shows the $`\nu _\mu `$ energy spectrum shape and the flux ratio in SK and FDs (so-called Far/Near flux ratio) obtained by the above-mentioned analysis together with the results from a Monte-Carlo simulation. The agreements between this analysis and the simulation are excellent. Fig. 6(bottom) can be used to calculate the expected event numbers in SK from the observations in the FDs.

## 3 Observation in Super-Kamiokande

To obtain beam-correlated fully contained neutrino interactions, an event selection similar to an atmospheric neutrino analysis was applied. For the selected events, the time correlation with the neutrino beam was then examined. Fig. 7 shows the time difference between the neutrino beam and the events obtained from atmospheric neutrino selection.

Considering the neutrino beam duration (1.1$`\mu `$sec) and accuracy of the absolute time determination ($`<0.2\mu `$sec), events within a 1.5$`\mu `$sec time window covering the neutrino beam period were selected. A total of 56 fully-contained events were found in 22.5kt of the fiducial volume. The number of the neutrino events and the results from the particle identification are summarized in Table 4. Because the expected atmospheric neutrino background in the fiducial volume within the neutrino beam period was calculated to be $`1.3\times 10^3`$ events, the 56 events in the fiducial volume are a clear signal of neutrinos from KEK.

## 4 Oscillation analysis

Strategies of the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation study at K2K are summarized as follows. If $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillate to $`\nu _\tau `$, the absolute event number of neutrino interactions in SK is reduced because $`\nu _\tau `$ interact only through neutral current interactions in the K2K neutrino energy range. In addition, the neutrino energy spectrum in SK should be distorted, because the oscillation probability is a function of the neutrino energy.

In the following two subsections, the status of the data analyses on the absolute event numbers and on the distortion of the neutrino energy spectrum are presented. In the final subsection, an analysis of the constraints on the neutrino oscillation parameters is discussed.

### 4.1 Absolute event numbers

The expected event numbers in SK are calculated from the neutrino event rate in FDs, and an extrapolation from the FDs to SK. The numbers obtained in 1KT, SFT, and MRD are used for the event rate in the FDs, as reported in $`\mathit{2.2}`$. The Far/Near flux ratio has already been obtained from PIMON, as presented in $`\mathit{2.5}`$. The expectations based on the data from the FDs are 80.1$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+6.2}{5.4}`$(1KT), 87.5$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+10.6}{11.9}`$(SFT), and 87.4$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+12.7}{13.9}`$(MRD). These results are consistent with each other. As mentioned in $`\mathit{2.2}`$, we used the numbers from 1KT as official numbers because of its small systematic errors.

The statistical probability that the observation is equal to or smaller than 56, where the expectation is 80.1$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+6.2}{5.4}`$, is about 1%. The observation is significantly smaller than the expectation.

### 4.2 Shape of the neutrino energy spectrum

The neutrino energy spectrum is calculated from 29 single-ring $`\mu `$-like events. (Among 30 single-ring $`\mu `$-like events listed in Table 4, one event recorded in the early stage of the experiment is not used in the spectrum analysis because the condition of the neutrino beam line is different from that of the other data-taking period. See also Fig. 3.)

Fig. 8 shows the energy spectrum of the 29 events with expectations. These expectations were obtained from the neutrino energy spectrum discussed in $`\mathit{2.4}`$, and the Far/Near flux ratio presented in $`\mathit{2.5}`$. A reduction of the neutrino event in the 0.5-1.0 GeV bin is obvious. If the absolute normalization of the flux is assumed to be a free parameter without any constraints, the probability that the data is explained by statistical fluctuation of the null oscillation is calculated to be about 15%. A more quantitative analysis is done by combining with the absolute event numbers.

### 4.3 Constraints on the oscillation parameters

To evaluate the absolute number of events and the spectrum shape simultaneously, an un-binned maximum likelihood analysis is employed. The likelihood is defined as the product of the normalization term and the shape term:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )=_{norm}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )\times _{shape}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta ).$$
(2)
The normalization term, $`_{norm}`$, is a simple poisson probability of observing $`N_{obs}`$(=56) for the prediction $`N_{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )`$. The shape term, $`_{shape}`$, is the product of the probabilities for each single $`\mu `$-like events:

$$_{shape}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{1\mu }}{}}p_i(E_i;\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta );$$
(3)
where $`p_i`$ is the probability of $`i`$-th event having energy $`E_i`$ at a given set of oscillation parameters. $`N_{1\mu }`$ is the number of single $`\mu `$-like events used in the analysis, and is 29.

When the likelihood, $``$, is maximized, various systematic errors are taken into consideration. The source of the systematic errors include the spectrum shape, the Far/Near flux ratio, non-CCQE/CCQE ratio, the efficiency in SK, the absolute energy scale in SK and so on. Not only the individual systematic errors, but also the correlation between them are carefully taken into account. For the systematic error parameters which are common with FD, their probable range from the FD analysis are considered. More details about the systematic errors and their threatments are not discussed in this report, but is reported are .

The oscillation parameter set which maximize the likelihood, $``$, was calculated to be

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta )=(2.8\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,1.0).$$
(4)
In this case, the expected total event number is 54.2. The expected energy spectrum is shown by the red line in Fig. 8. The agreements with the experimental results are excellent.

The probability that the K2K results can be explained by a statistical fluctuation of null oscillation is calculated from the likelihood ratio of the null oscillation to the best-fit point. The results were obtained to be 0.4% or 0.7%, depending on the two independent treatments of the systematic errors in the likelihood. We conclude that the null oscillation probability is less than 1%.

Finally, constraints on the oscillation parameters are studied from the likelihood ratio to the best fit. The allowed region in the oscillation parameter plane is shown in Fig. 9. The 90% C.L. allowd region on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ for the full mixing, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(1.53.9)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(5)
These results agree well with the most recent SK atmospheric neutrino analysis, as shown in Fig. 9.

## 5 Summary

The K2K long-baseline neutrino-oscillation experiment has been successfully operated since 1999. By the end of 2001, a total intensity of 47.9$`\times 10^{18}`$ protons on target was accumulated. A total of 56 fully-contained neutrino interactions in the 22.5kt of the fiducial volume of the SK detector were observed, where the expectation based on the data from the Front Detectors is 80.1$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+6.2}{5.4}`$. The neutrino energy spectrum obtaind from 29 single $`\mu `$-like ring events shows a clear deficit in neutrino energy between 0.5 GeV and 1.0 GeV. The probability that the measurements at SK can be explained by a statistical fluctuation of the null oscillation is less than 1%. The 90% C.L. allowed region on the oscillation parameters is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(1.53.9)\times 10^3`$eV2 for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$. This result is consistent with the results from the SK atmospheric neutrino analysis.


text:
# Wave-function and CKM renormalization

## 1 Introduction

In this conference two recent determinations of the unitarity triangle angle $`\beta `$ have been presented. BaBar finds $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.75\pm 0.09\pm 0.04`$, while Belle measures $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.82\pm 0.12\pm 0.05`$. The first error is statistical and it is rapidly decreasing, while the second one is systematical and it will eventually limit the experimental determination of this fundamental quantity. It is hoped that after 2007, LHCb will be able to reduce the overall uncertainty to less than 1% .

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that in a not too distant future a day will come when our experimental colleagues, when reporting on their high precision measurement of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements, will have to tell us in which renormalization scheme the corresponding mixing angles and $`CP`$ violating phase(s) have been measured, exactly as they do so when reporting on the measured value of $`\alpha _s`$.

It is essential to have the renormalization mechanism well under control to be able to separate the radiative corrections due to electroweak physics from those due to new physics. Most likely the latter —if they exist at all— are of the same size or even smaller than the former, exactly as a similar analysis in the neutral current sector has shown in recent years. Effective lagrangian techniques are important in this context.

In the neutral sector it is already totally mandatory to include electroweak radiative corrections to bring theory and experiment into agreement. Tree level results are incompatible with experiment by many standard deviations . In a few years electroweak radiative corrections will be required in the studies analysing the “unitarity” of the CKM matrix too 111The CKM matrix is certainly unitary, but the physical observables that at tree level coincide with these matrix elements certainly do not necessarily fulfil a unitarity constraint once quantum corrections are switched on.See e.g.  for a discussion on this point. Corrections are of several types. With an on-shell scheme in mind, we need counter terms for the electric charge, Weinberg angle and wave-function renormalization (wfr.) for the $`W`$ gauge boson. We shall also require wfr. for the external fermions and counter terms for the entries of the CKM matrix. These are in fact related in a way that will be described below . Finally one needs to compute the 1PI vertex parts of the different processes.

Several proposals have been put forward in the literature to define appropriate counter terms both for the external legs and for the CKM matrix elements. The original prescription for wfr. diagonalizing the on-shell propagator was introduced in . In  the wfr. “satisfying” the conditions of  were derived. However since  does not take care about the branch cuts present in the self-energies those results must be considered only consistent up to absorptive terms. Later it was realized  that the on-shell conditions defined in  where inconsistent and in fact impossible to satisfy for a minimal set of renormalization constants due to the imaginary branch cuts present in the self-energies. The author of  circumvented this problem by introducing a prescription that de facto eliminates such branch cuts, but at the price of not diagonalizing the propagators in flavour space.

As we shall see later, some Ward identities based on the SU(2)L gauge symmetry relate wfr. and counter terms for the CKM matrix elements . So two of the necessary ingredients to renormalize the charged current vertices are actually related. In  it was seen that if the prescription of  was used in the counter terms for the CKM matrix elements, the results were in violation of gauge invariance. An additional condition for the gauge invariance of the physical amplitudes is that counter terms for the CKM matrix elements $`K_{ij}`$ are by themselves gauge independent. This condition is fulfilled by the CKM counter term proposed in  as it is in minimal subtraction , .

Other proposals to handle charged vertex renormalization exist in the literature . In all these works either the external wfr. proposed originally in  are used, or the issue is sidestepped altogether. In either case the absorptive part of the self-energies are not taken into account. As we shall see doing so leads to $`S`$ -matrix elements which are gauge dependent, and this irrespective of the method one uses to renormalize $`K_{ij}`$ provided the redefinition of $`K_{ij}`$ is gauge independent and preserves unitarity.

A more detailed account of this work is presented in

## 2 W+ and top decay

We shall consider $`W^+\left(q\right)f_i\left(p_1\right)\overline{f}_j\left(p_2\right)`$ and $`f_i\left(p_1\right)W^+\left(q\right)f_j\left(p_2\right)`$. Latin indices correspond to families. For the first process there are at the one-loop level two different type of Lorentz structures that appear

$`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_i\left(p_1\right)\mathit{\epsilon ̸}\left(q\right)Lv_j\left(p_2\right),(LR),`$
$`M_L^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_i\left(p_1\right)Lv_j\left(p_2\right)p_1\epsilon \left(q\right),(LR).`$ (2.1)
and for the second one

$`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_j\left(p_2\right)\mathit{\epsilon ̸}^{}\left(q\right)Lu_i\left(p_1\right),(LR),`$
$`M_L^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_j\left(p_2\right)Lu_i\left(p_1\right)p_1\epsilon ^{}\left(q\right),(LR).`$ (2.2)
At tree level

$$_0=\frac{eK_{ij}}{2s_W}M_L^{\left(1\right)},$$
(2.3)
where Eq. (2.1) is used for $`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ in $`W^+`$ decay and Eq. (2.2) instead for $`M_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ in $`t`$ decay. The one-loop corrected transition amplitude can be written as

$$_1=\frac{e}{2s_W}M_L^{\left(1\right)}[K_{ij}(1+\frac{\delta e}{e}\frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_W)+\frac{1}{2}(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{Lu}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{Ld})$$

$$+\delta K_{ij}]\frac{e}{2s_W}(\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}M_L^{\left(1\right)}+M_L^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}+M_R^{\left(1\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}+M_R^{\left(2\right)}\delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}).$$
(2.4)
In this expression $`\delta F_{L,R}^{(1,2)}`$ are the electroweak form factors from one-loop vertex diagrams. The renormalization constants for $`e`$, $`s_W`$ and the wfr. of the gauge boson can be found in . $`\delta K_{ij}`$ and the fermion wfr. will be discussed next.

## 3 The Role of Ward Identities

There is a SU(2) Ward identity  that relates the CKM counterterms and wfr. constants. Let us see how the argument goes. In the weak basis, doublets renormalize with a common wfr. constant

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u_0\\ d_0\end{array}\right)_L=Z^{L\frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L.$$
(3.1)
On the other hand, in the mass diagonal basis there is no reason for up-type and down-type quarks to renormalize in the same way

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{u}_0\\ \stackrel{~}{d}_0\end{array}\right)_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}Z^{uL\frac{1}{2}}u\\ Z^{dL\frac{1}{2}}d\end{array}\right)_L.$$
(3.2)
The passage from one basis to the other is accomplished with the help of unitary matrices $`V^0`$ and $`V`$ for the up-type and down-type quarks, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{u}=V_u^{}u\stackrel{~}{u_0}=V_u^0u_0,\stackrel{~}{d}=V_d^{}u\stackrel{~}{d_0}=V_d^0d_0.$$
(3.3)
Elementary manipulations allow us to arrive at the following identity involving wfr. constants in the mass diagonal basis and the CKM matrix

$$Z^{uL\frac{1}{2}}K=K^0Z^{dL\frac{1}{2}},$$
(3.4)
and, writing $`K^0=K+\delta K`$, we arrive at

$$\delta K_{jk}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\left(\delta \widehat{Z}^{uL}\delta \widehat{Z}^{uL}\right)KK\left(\delta \widehat{Z}^{dL}\delta \widehat{Z}^{dL}\right)\right]_{jk},$$
(3.5)
where we have changed notation and used $`\widehat{Z}`$ for the wfr. constants appearing in the above expression. Indeed, they are not necessarily the same ones that have to be used to renormalize and guarantee the proper on-shell residue for the external legs and we anticipate that they will not. The reason is clear: the above wfr. constants $`\widehat{Z}`$ are introduced so as to preserve the diagonal character of the mass matrix and they do not necessarily keep the kinetic terms diagonal on-shell.

From the above expressions it is also straightforward to derive the following Ward identity

$$(\widehat{Z}^{uL}\widehat{Z}^{uL})^{\frac{1}{2}}K=K(\widehat{Z}^{dL}\widehat{Z}^{dL})^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(3.6)
Notice that in order to arrive to (3.5) we have used the fact that both $`K`$ and $`K^0`$ are unitary matrices. It is perfectly possible, though perhaps a bit strange, to use a renormalized CKM matrix that is not unitary. If this is the case, the appropriate expression for the counterterm would simply be

$$\delta K_{jk}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\delta \widehat{Z}^{uL}KK\delta \widehat{Z}^{dL}\right]_{jk}.$$
(3.7)
The previous Ward identity is certainly a necessary condition for the gauge invariance of the results, but it is not sufficient.

Any renormalization scheme that is manifestly gauge invariant and in addition mass independent, will obviously fulfill the above Ward identity automatically. This can be seen explicitly from the calculations presented in  that use minimal subtraction and a mass independent scheme, respectively. However, the on-shell conditions to be imposed on the external legs are manifestly different for different quarks, since they have different masses. It is therefore impossible that the external leg wfr. obey the previous Ward identity and they cannot be used to define the CKM counterterms.

## 4 Renormalization of External Legs

We want to define an on-shell renormalization scheme that guarantees the correct properties of the fermionic propagator in the $`p^2m_i^2`$. The conditions necessary for that purpose were first given by Aoki et. al. in . We renormalize the bare fermion fields as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ For reasons that will become clear along the discussion, we shall allow $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ to be independent renormalization constants. Due to radiative corrections the propagator mixes fermion of different family indices. Namely

$$iS^1\left(p\right)=\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{}{}\mathit{}m\delta m\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(p\right)\right)Z^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(4.1)
where the bare self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is non-diagonal and is given by $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }=`$1PI. Within one-loop accuracy we can write $`Z^{\frac{1}{2}}=1+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z`$ etc. Introducing the family indices explicitly we have

$$iS_{ij}^1\left(p\right)=\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)\delta _{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right),$$
(4.2)
where the one-loop renormalized self-energy is given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\left(p\right)\frac{1}{2}\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}\left(\mathit{}m_j\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathit{}m_i\right)\delta Z_{ij}+\delta m_i\delta _{ij}.$$
(4.3)
h The conditions  necessary to avoid mixing will be

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)u_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$ (4.4)
$`\overline{v}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{incoming}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$ (4.5)
$`\overline{u}_i^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_i^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{particle})`$ (4.6)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}\left(p\right)v_j^{\left(s\right)}\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(p^2m_j^2),(\mathrm{outgoing}\text{ }\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{particle})`$ (4.7)
where no summation over repeated indices is assumed and $`ij.`$ These relations determine the non-diagonal parts of $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$.

Here it is worth to make one important comment regarding the above conditions. First of all we note that in the literature the relation

$$\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0,$$
(4.8)
is taken for granted. This relation is tacitly assumed in  and explicitly required in . Imposing Eq. (4.8) would guarantee hermiticity of the Lagrangian written in terms of the renormalized physical fields. However, we are at this point concerned with external leg renormalization, for which it is perfectly possible to use a different set of renormalization constants. In fact, using two sets of renormalization constants is a standard practice in the on-shell scheme . In case one is worried about the consistency of using a set of wfr. constants not satisfying (4.8) for the external legs while keeping a Hermitian Lagrangian, it should be pointed out that there is a complete equivalence between the set of renormalization constants we shall find out below and a treatment of the external legs where diagrams with self-energies (including mass counter terms) are inserted instead of the wfr. constants; provided that the mass counter term satisfy the on-shell condition. This gives results identical to ours and different from those obtained using the wfr. proposed in , which do fulfil (4.8).

In any case, self-energies develop absorptive terms and this makes Eq. (4.8) incompatible with the diagonalizing conditions (4.4)-(4.7). Therefore in order to circumvent this problem one can give up diagonalization conditions (4.4)-(4.7) or alternatively the hermiticity condition (4.8). The approach taken originally in  and works thereafter was the former alternative, while in this work we shall advocate the second one.

The approach of  consists in dropping out absorptive terms from conditions (4.4)-(4.7). Two severe problems arise if one follows this approach: (a) Since only the dispersive part of the self-energies enters into the diagonalizing conditions the on-shell propagator remains non-diagonal. (b) The on-shell scheme based in this prescription leads to gauge parameter dependent physical amplitudes. The reason for this unwanted dependence is the dropping of absorptive gauge parameter dependent terms in the self-energies that are necessary to cancel absorptive terms appearing in the vertices.

We shall now present the renormalization constants derived solely from the on-shell conditions (4.4)-(4.7) and allowing for $`\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0`$. In a rather obvious notation

$$\delta Z_{ij}^L=\frac{2}{m_j^2m_i^2}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_j^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_j^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_j^2\right)m_j\right]$$

$$\delta Z_{ij}^R=\frac{2}{m_j^2m_i^2}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_j^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_j^2\right)m_j^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_j^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_j^2\right)m_j\right]$$

$$\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L=\frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_i^2\right)m_j\right]$$

$$\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^R=\frac{2}{m_i^2m_j^2}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)m_im_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)m_i^2+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L\left(m_i^2\right)m_j\right]$$
(4.9)
It is immediate to check that $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ij}^L\delta Z_{ij}^L0`$. This non-vanishing difference is due to the presence of branch cuts in the self-energies that invalidate the pseudo-hermiticity relation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\left(p\right)\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{}\left(p\right)\gamma ^0`$. If we, temporally, ignore those branch cut contributions our results reduces to the ones depicted in  or . In the SM these branch cuts are generically gauge dependent as a cursory look to the appropriate integrals shows at once. The proper consideration of the branch cuts is absolutely essential.

Once the off-diagonal wfr. are obtained we focus our attention in the diagonal sector. Here, even after using the on-shell conditions some freedom remains. We obtain

$$\delta m_i=\frac{1}{2}Re\left\{m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+m_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\right\}.$$
(4.10)
This condition defines a mass and a width that agrees at the one-loop level with the ones given in . Finally,

$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)X{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)+X{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+X+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$
$`\delta Z_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)X+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{2}}+D,`$ (4.11)
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)}{m_i}},`$ (4.12)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`m_i^2\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma L}\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{\gamma R}\left(m_i^2\right)\right)+m_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L\left(m_i^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R\left(m_i^2\right)\right)`$ (4.13)
Note that since $`X=0`$ at the one-loop level and choosing $`\alpha _i=0`$ we obtain $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^L=\delta Z_{ii}^L`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}_{ii}^R=\delta Z_{ii}^R.`$ However we have the freedom to choose $`\alpha _i0`$. This does not affect the mass terms or neutral current couplings, but changes the charged coupling currents by multiplying the CKM matrix $`K`$ by diagonal matrices. These redefinitions do not change the physical observables provided the $`\alpha _i`$ are pure imaginary numbers. This ambiguity corresponds in perturbation theory to the well know freedom in phase redefinitions of the CKM matrix. Except for this last freedom, the on-shell conditions determine one unique solution, the one presented here, with $`\overline{Z}^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0Z^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^0`$.

## 5 Gauge Invariance

Let us briefly recapitulate where we stand at this point. In section 3 the relation (3.5) relating the CKM counterterm to a set of wfr. renormalization constants that we denoted by $`\widehat{Z}`$ was discussed. This set of renormalization constants has to fulfill the Ward identity (3.6). The diagonal character of the mass matrix is preserved along the renormalization process for any value of the momenta when these wfr. constants are used.

On the other hand, in the previous section another set of wfr. constants has been introduced by requiring the diagonalization of the whole kinetic term at specific values of the momenta (on-shell) as well as the corresponding unit residue condition.

It is important to realize that both set of wfr. constants do not coincide. However, the poles are identical in both set of wfr. constants, as they correspond, in fact, to different choices of schemes that have to render the same set of Green functions finite. In the case of the external leg wfr. we claim that we have no choice if we are to implement the proper LSZ conditions. In fact, the prescription in  does not achieve the diagonalization of the absortive parts of the self-energies. On the other hand, for the CKM counterterms one does have a choice; one can use for example minimal subtraction (or variations thereof), subtraction at a given $`q^2`$ or whatever other method yields mass independent renormalization conditions. They will simply give different values of the renormalized entries of the CKM mixing matrix.

How can be sure that our procedure for the renormalization of the external legs is indeed correct? As we have seen in section 3, gauge invariance is an issue when dealing with CKM renormalization. Let us therefore use gauge invariance as an additional check. We will then discover that the presciption proposed here is the only one that provides gauge invariant amplitudes

Let us go back to eq. (2.4). We know  that the combination $`\frac{\delta e}{e}\frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}`$ is gauge parameter independent. All the other vertex functions and renormalization constants are gauge dependent. We want the amplitude (2.4) to be exactly gauge independent —not just its modulus— so the gauge dependence must cancel between all the remaining terms.

To determine the gauge dependence of the different self-energies appearing in the external leg counterterms and the vertex 1PI Green function we shall appeal to the so-called Nielsen identitie. We urge the interested reader to check  for details. The outcome of the analysis is that three of the form factors appearing in the vertex (2.4) are by themselves gauge independent, namely $`_\xi \delta F_L^{\left(2\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(1\right)}=_\xi \delta F_R^{\left(2\right)}=0`$. $`\xi `$ is the gauge-fixing parameter. We shall also see that the gauge dependence in the remaining form factor $`\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}`$ cancels exactly with the one contained in $`\delta Z_W`$ and in $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}`$. Indeed the Nielsen identities lead to

$$_\xi \left(M_L^{\left(1\right)}\delta F_L^{\left(1\right)}\right)=M_L^{\left(1\right)}_\xi \left(\delta \overline{Z}_{ir}^{uL}K_{rj}+K_{ir}\delta Z_{rj}^{dL}+\delta Z_WK_{ij}\right)$$
(5.1)
where Eq. (2.4) and the gauge independence of the electric charge and Weinberg angle has been used in the last equality. Note that Eq. (5.1) states that the gauge dependence of the on-shell bare one-loop vertex function cancels out the renormalization counter terms appearing in Eq. (2.4). This is one of the crucial results and special care should be taken not to ignore any of the absorptive parts —including those in the wfr. constants. As a consequence

$$_\xi _1=\frac{e}{2s_W}M_L^{\left(1\right)}_\xi \delta K_{ij},$$

so the counterterm for $`K_{ij}`$ must be separately gauge independent, as originally derived in . If one uses, for instance, the on-shell prescription wfr. constants to determine the CKM counterterms in eq. (3.5), the latter will be gauge dependent and so will be the amplitude, which is unacceptable. On the other hand, minimal subtraction for instance is fine.

The difficulties related to a proper definition of $`\delta K`$ were first pointed out in , where it was realized that using the on-shell $`Z`$’s of  in Eq. (3.5) led to a gauge dependent $`K`$ and amplitude. They suggested a modification of the on-shell scheme based on a subtraction at $`p^2=0`$ for all flavours that ensured gauge independence. We want to stress that the choice for $`\delta K`$ is not unique and different choices may differ by gauge independent finite parts .

However, this is only half the story. Assuming that a gauge independent scheme has been used to define the $`\widehat{Z}`$ and, accordingly, the CKM counterterms $`\delta K_{ij}`$, the Nielsen identities ensure the gauge independence of the amplitude if and only if the set of wfr. constants derived in section 4 are used for the external legs. If instead of using our prescription for $`\delta Z`$ and $`\delta \overline{Z}`$ one makes use of the wfr. constants of  to renormalize the external fermion legs, it turns out that the gauge cancellation dictated by the Nielsen identities does not actually take place in the amplitude. The culprit is of course the neglect of the absorptive parts. Notice, that the vertex contribution has gauge dependent absorptive parts and they remain in the final result.

One might think of absorbing these additional terms in the counter term for $`\delta K`$. This does not quite work. Indeed one can see from explicit calculations that the ‘left-over’ absorptive parts would lead to a non-unitary CKM matrix.

It turns out that in the SM these gauge dependent absorptive parts, leading to a gauge dependent amplitude if they are dropped, do actually cancel, at least at the one-loop level, in the modulus of the $`S`$-matrix. However, in  it is shown that gauge independent absorptive parts do survive even in the modulus of the amplitude for top or anti-top decay (and only in these cases).

## Acknowledgements

This work was triggered by many fruitful discussions with B. A. Kniehl. The work of D.E. and P.T. is supported in part by TMR, EC–Contract No. ERBFMRX–CT980169 (EURODAPHNE) and contracts MCyT FPA2001-3598 and CIRIT 2001SGR-00065. It is a true pleasure to thank V.Rubakov and all the organizing committe of the Quark 2002 Workshop for having arranged such a superb meeting.