text:
# Ultrasonic evidence of an uncorrelated cluster formation temperature in manganites with first-order magnetic transition at 𝑇_𝐶

## I Introduction

The advances in the comprehension of the physical properties of manganese perovskites have been given in two main boosts. The first one started in 1950, when these materials were first considered by Jonker and van Santen.  In that period, that spanned over more than a decade, the basic mechanisms governing their magnetic and transport properties were defined, giving rise to the description of the double exchange interaction. The second one took place last decade, after the discovery of colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) (although a high MR had already been observed experimentally before, first by Searle and Wang and later by Kusters et al.). During this period, in which we are still immersed, the research activity reached a magnitude that made the topic a starring one in the community of Condensed Matter Physics, and the current opinion about the state-of-the-art underwent several changes. In the first few years after the description of CMR, explanations were tried on the basis of double exchange, but it was demostrated soon that such effect alone could not explain the magnitude of CMR. Later, certain evidences in favor of the existence of an inhomogeneous electronic state in these materials started to appear. This tendence continues nowadays after the conclusions of many groups that found -and are still finding- that the homogeneous description of the magnetic and electronic state of manganites is almost ruled out.

In order to establish the basis for such behavior the idea of phase separation, i.e., the coexistence of regions of localized and itinerant carriers within the same crystallographic structure, has been proposed. In this framework, Dagotto, Hotta and Moreo proposed in a recent review the existence of a temperature window where coexisting metallic and insulating clusters appear above the Curie temperature, $`T_C`$, when this transition is first-order and there is a source of disorder. This temperature window would extend up to $`T^{}>T_C`$, where these clusters dissociate to form two-Mn Zener polarons (or small polarons). The aim of the present work is to find experimental evidence of such temperature $`T^{}`$. For this purpose, ultrasonic attenuation and phase velocity measurements were carried out in La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 and La2/3Sr1/3MnO3. This technique is proved to be a very sensitive tool not only for studying defects and microscopic processes in solids, but also for probing systems undergoing magnetic and structural phase transitions.

## II Experimental details

Samples were prepared by solid state reaction of La2O3, CaO or SrCO3, MnO2 and MnO (at least 99.995 $`\%`$ in purity), which were heated in air in two steps (1100C 70 hours, 1200C 27 hours) and pressed into disks. The temperature was slowly ramped at 5C/min, and cooled down to room temperature at 2C/min. Intermediate grindings were made. Pellets were finally pressed at 7 Ton/cm2 and annealed at 1300C for 100 hours, with an intermediate grinding at 30 hours. The nominal oxygen content was almost stoichiometric as determined by iodometric analysis. X-ray powder patterns were collected at room temperature using a Philips PW1710 diffractometer, working with $`CuK\alpha `$ radiation. The lattice parameters, derived by Rietveld analysis, are in agreement with those reported in the literature.

Cylindrical pellets, with a diameter of 10.0 mm and heights 2.4 mm (LaCaMnO), and 3.1 mm (LaSrMnO) were used to perform ultrasonic measurements. The two opposite faces of each sample were polished so that the difference between two points in each surface was not more than 1 $`\mu `$m. The ultrasonic velocity and attenuation measurements were performed on a Matec-6600 series by means of the conventional pulse-echo technique. Y-cut quartz transducers of 5 MHz fundamental frequency were used for transverse ultrasonic excitation. They were coupled to the sample surface with a grease for high temperature uses (leak point 550 K). The sample was coupled at high temperature, and then cooled until 200 K and maintained at this temperature for 15 minutes before measurementes were carried out. The ultrasonic elapsed time for a pulse round trip (transit time) was obtained with the pulse-echo-overlap technique at the initial temperature. Then, time variation with temperature was automatically monitored with a sensitivity of 0.05 ns at 5 MHz. The experiment was taken in a closed-cycle refrigerator (Janis) and the temperature of the sample was varied at a rate of about 0.5 K/min.

## III Results and discussion

In Fig. 1(a) we show ultrasonic velocity vs. temperature data for La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 and La2/3Sr1/3MnO3, and attenuation vs. temperature data for La2/3Ca1/3MnO3, obtained with 5 MHz transversal waves between 220 and 400 K. For LaSrMnO it was impossible to measure the attenuation because its high value allowed to obtain only two echoes at room temperature (at higher temperatures the second echo became negligible). The transit time was measurable at room temperature, and then time variations were measured with our automated improved Matec system. The influence of thermal expansion has not been taken into account, because it is negligible: if ($`\delta `$$`l`$)/l=$`210^4`$ we have that for our sample, with $`l`$= 2.4 mm thick (4.8 mm microwave path) and a velocity of about 2500 m/s, $`\delta t`$ ($`t`$=time) is $`510^4`$ s and therefore, at TC, the associated variation of velocity is far smaller than the one we measured.

In our original ultrasonic velocity data, an approximately linear increment with temperature was observed at temperatures above 350 K for both samples. At this temperature range no mechanism related with magnetic phase transitions is expected, and this variation should be attributed to another mechanism, as the produced by crystalline defects present in the material. The resonant mechanism associated to dislocation lines is well known from crystalline metals. As Moreno-Gobbi and Eiras, working on crystalline copper, have shown, it gives a term proportional to T for velocity and proportional to T2 for attenuation. The coefficient of proportionality depends on $`L^2`$ for velocity and $`L^4`$ for attenuation, where $`L`$ is the average free length of the segment of dislocation lines. In the present paper we assume a background of this kind in order to take into account the variation of velocity at high temperatures. The velocity background was fitted to the high temperature region of velocity vs. temperature curves, and then substracted from original data. These fits gave a term $`0.37`$ T for LaCaMnO and $`0.46`$ T for LaSrMnO. The so-corrected velocity data are presented in Fig. 1(b). The differences between the numerical values of the coefficients of proportionality have their origins in the different values of $`L`$ expected for different materials.

The ultrasonic velocity for La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 presents two clear anomalies: an abrupt hardening at about 250-260 K, and another lesser at about 350-360 K. The first one marks the TC of this system (TC= 260 K). The behavior is similar to that found at MHz frequencies by other authors, and at kHz frequencies by Cordero et al. The abrupt decay of the curve at TC signals the first-order character of this transition, an interpretation that is in agreement with results obtained from other techniques. The decay in velocity is accompanied by a peak in the attenuation curve at TC. This peak is asymmetric, in agreement with the results of Cordero et al., who explain it invoking the presence of inhomogeneous phases below TC in a similar way to relaxor ferroelectrics.

The second anomaly takes place above TC, showing a hardening process at $`T^{}`$ $``$ 350-360 K (Fig. 2). In Fig. 1 it is also observed a very large attenuation peak at 320 K accompanying this velocity anomaly. This was not observed by Cordero et al. at kHz frequencies, but is clearly observed in our MHz measurements. The reason lies on the higher sensitivity of MHz techniques to small inhomogeneities, as magnetic clusters, due to the shortest wavelength (approximately 0.5 mm at 5 MHz for transversal waves).

In Figs. 1 and 2 it is also observed that the only noticeable anomaly in the utrasonic velocity curve of La2/3Sr1/3MnO3 is a hardening process beginning at about 370 K (in the order of that of LaCaMnO in the same temperature region), that is coincident with the second-order phase transition point of this compound, clearly observed by magnetization measurements (T$`{}_{C}{}^{}`$ 370 K). In the explored temperatures, no more transitions were detected. Based on this behavior we can perfectly associate the process of hardening observed at 370 K to this second-order phase transition.

One of the open issues in the comprehension of the physics of ferromagnetic manganese perovskites at present is to determine the nature of the magnetic phase above $`T_C`$. From our ultrasonic velocity data it seems that this phase is different in the two systems considered. First of all, whereas LaCaMnO displays a first-order transition at $`T_C`$, LaSrMnO presents a second-order one. This difference, that has already been highlighted by magnetic measurements, and attributed by Mira et al. to a change in the crystal symmetry, from orthorhombic to rhombohedral, seems to have further implications. Magnetoresistance, thermal expansion, magnetovolume and magnetocaloric effects experience a considerable change when moving from one compound to the other. Also, calorimetric data showed evidence for an anomaly at a similar $`T^{}`$ in those manganites La1-x(Ca,Sr)xMnO3 with a first-order transformation at $`T_C`$, in agreement with the ultrasonic data presented here that show the existence of a transition point at $`T^{}>T_C`$ in LaCaMnO. It is worth mentioning that our $`T^{}`$ is similar to the point at which both the volume thermal expansion deviates from a Gruneisen fit and the inverse magnetic susceptibility deviates from a Curie-Weiss fit, after results of de Teresa et al. in La2/3Ca1/3MnO3 (Ref. ). Supporting our results, we have to mention that neutron diffraction studies in the paramagnetic region of La2/3Sr1/3MnO3 show differences with respect to La2/3Ca1/3MnO3. We want also to call the attention on the similar values of the temperatures of the second-order transitions, $`T^{}`$ $``$ 350-360 K for La2/3Ca1/3MnO3, and $`T_C`$ $``$ 370 K for La2/3Sr1/3MnO3. In some sense, it leads to think that the magnetic interaction between the Mn atoms is of the same strength in both compounds and only the occurrence of the first-order change in LaCaMnO is breaking the long-range order at a temperature below $`T^{}`$. After Röder, Zhang and Bishop, this might be due to lattice effects, that would decrease the TC associated to the DE coupling.

The anomaly at $`T^{}`$ shows that the magnetic phase transition is not from ferromagnetism to a purely paramagnetic state, but some sort of magnetic structure is present. Such idea is in accordance with the theoretical results of Moreo et al., who have proposed, after computer simulations, that large coexisting metallic and insulating clusters of equal electronic density are generated in manganese oxides with first-order magnetic transitions. Kimura et al. have qualified these compounds as relaxor ferromagnets, with a relaxation from one phase to the other. The fluctuations between both phases have been seen by Transmission Electron Microscopy by Podzorov et al.. In such a case, after Kimura et al. the transition would be diffuse, like the one observed by us at $`T^{}`$. Nowadays there is being growing experimental work that leads to assume the electronic phase-separated nature of such materials, and now it is well established that this phase separation is not due to chemical inhomogeneities or to the existence of phases with a different chemical composition. Although this approach is quite recent in manganese perovskites, it had already been proposed by Señarís Rodríguez and Goodenough to explain the magnetic and electrical properties of Sr-doped cobalt perovskites, thinking of a percolative transition at TC.

In summary, we consider that our data confirm the existence, in La2/3Ca1/3MnO3, of the temperature window $`T_C<T<T^{}`$ proposed by Dagotto, Moreo and Hotta, where probably the coexistence of a phase separated regime of metallic and insulating regions could be taking place. Such window is not observed in La2/3Sr1/3MnO3, a material with a conventional second-order ferromagnetic to paramagnetic phase transition at its Curie temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

The DGI of the Ministry of Science of Technology of Spain is acknowledged for financial support under project FEDER MAT2001-3749. FR also wants to acknowledge the Fulbright foundation and MCYT of Spain for financial support.


format: text

text:
# ALL POISSON STRUCTURES IN ℝ³

## 1. Introduction.

Hamiltonian formulation of $`N=3`$ systems has been intensively considered in the last two decades. Recent works ,  on this subject give a very large class of the solutions of the Jacobi equation for the Poisson matrix $`J`$. Very recently generalizing the solutions given in  we proposed new classes of solutions of the Jacobi equation and gave also some compatible Poisson structures. In the same work we have considered also bi-Hamiltonian systems corresponding to compatible Poisson structures .

In this work we give the most general solution of the Jacobi equation in $`^3`$, and give the condition for the existence of the compatible pairs of Poisson structures. Finally we give the conditions for the existence of the bi-Hamiltonian systems.

Matrix $`J=(J^{ij}),i,j=1,2,3,`$ defines a Poisson structure in $`^3`$ if it is skew-symmetric, $`J_{ij}=J_{ji}`$, and its entries satisfy the Jacobi equation

$$J^{li}_lJ^{jk}+J^{lj}_lJ^{ki}+J^{lk}_lJ^{ij}=0,$$
(1)
where $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$. Here we use the summation convention, meaning that repeated indices are summed up. We show that the general solution of the above equation (1) has the following form

$$J^{ij}=\mu ϵ^{ijk}_k\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are arbitrary differentiable functions of $`x^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`ϵ^{ijk}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. This has a very natural geometrical explanation. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }=c_1`$ and $`H=c_2`$ define two surfaces $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ respectively,in $`^3`$ , where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are some constants. Then the intersection of these surfaces define a curve $`C`$ in $`^3`$. The velocity vector $`\frac{dx}{dt}`$ of this curve is parallel to the vector product of the normal vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`H`$ of the surfaces $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, respectively, i.e.,

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\times H,$$
(3)
where $`\mu `$ is any arbitrary function in $`^2`$. This equation defines a Hamiltonian system in $`^3`$. We shall prove that all Hamiltonian systems in $`^3`$ are of the form given in (3).

As we shall see in Section 3 and 4, having the Poisson structure in the form (2) allows us to construct compatible Poisson structures $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and hence the corresponding bi-Hamiltonian systems. For further details please see .

## 2. General Solution.

Let $`J^{12}=u`$, $`J^{13}=v`$, $`J^{23}=w`$ , where $`u,v`$ and $`w`$ are some differentiable functions of $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`x_3`$. Then Jacobi equation (1) takes the form

$$u_1vv_1u+w_2uw_2u+v_3ww_3v=0.$$
(4)
Assuming that $`u0`$, let $`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}`$ and $`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{w}{u}}`$ then equation (4) can be written as

$$_1\rho _2\chi +\rho _3\chi \chi _3\rho =0.$$
(5)
This equation can be put in a more suitable form by writing it

$$(_1\chi _3)\rho (_2\rho _3)\chi =0.$$
(6)
Introducing differential operators $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ defined by

$$D_1=_1\chi _3D_2=_2\rho _3,$$
(7)
one can write equation (6) as

$$D_1\rho D_2\chi =0.$$
(8)
Lemma 1. Let equation (8) be satisfied. Then there are new coordinates $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_3`$ such that

$$D_1=_{\overline{x}_1},\text{a}ndD_2=_{\overline{x}_2}.$$
(9)
Proof. If equation (8) is satisfied, it is easy to show that the operators $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ commute, i.e.,

$$D_1D_2D_2D_1=0.$$

Hence, by the Frobenius theorem (see  p. 40) there exist coordinates $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_3`$ such that the equalities (9) hold. $`\mathrm{}`$

The coordinates $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_3`$ are described by the following lemma.

Lemma 2. Let $`\zeta `$ be a common invariant function of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, i.e.

$$D_1\zeta =D_2\zeta =0,$$
(10)
then the coordinates $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_3`$ of Lemma 1 are given by

$$\overline{x}_1=x_1,\overline{x}_2=x_2,\overline{x}_3=\zeta .$$
(11)
Moreover from (10) we get ($`_3\zeta 0`$),

$$\rho =\frac{_1\zeta }{_3\zeta },\chi =\frac{_2\zeta }{_3\zeta }.$$
(12)
Theorem 1. All Poisson structures in $`^3`$ take the form (2), i.e., $`J^{ij}=\mu ϵ^{ijk}_k\zeta `$. Here $`\mu `$ and $`\zeta `$ are some differentiable functions in $`^3`$

Proof. Using (12), the entries of matrix $`J`$, in the coordinates $`\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_3`$, can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}u\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill \mu _3\zeta ,\\ v\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill \mu _2\zeta ,\\ w\hfill & =\hfill & \hfill \mu _1\zeta .\end{array}$$
(13)
Thus matrix $`J`$ has the form (2) ($`\mathrm{\Psi }=\zeta `$). $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 1. So far we assumed that $`u0`$. If $`u=0`$ then the Jacobi equation becomes quite simpler $`v_3ww_3v=0`$ which has the simple solution $`w=v\xi (x_1,x_2)`$, where $`\xi `$ is an arbitrary differentiable of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. This class is also covered in our general solution (2) by letting $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ independent of $`x_3`$.

A well known example of a dynamical system with Poisson structure of the form (2) is the Euler equations.

Example 1. Consider the Euler equations (, pp.397–398,)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_1\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{I_2I_3}{I_2I_3}x_2x_3,\hfill \\ \dot{x}_2\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{I_3I_1}{I_3I_1}x_3x_1,\hfill \\ \dot{x}_3\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{I_1I_2}{I_1I_2}x_1x_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`I_1,I_2,I_3`$ are some (non-vanishing) real constants. This system admits Hamiltonian representation of the form (2). The matrix $`J`$ can be defined in terms of function $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)`$ and $`\mu =1`$, so

$$\begin{array}{ccc}u\hfill & =\hfill & x_3,\hfill \\ v\hfill & =\hfill & x_2,\hfill \\ w\hfill & =\hfill & x_1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
and $`H={\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2}{2I_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2}{2I_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_3^2}{2I_3}}`$.

Remark 2. All of the Poisson structures described in  and  have the form (2). The Poisson structure $`J`$, described in these references are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill u(x)& \hfill =& \hfill \eta (x_1,x_2,x_3)\psi _1(x_1)\psi _2(x_2)\varphi _3(x_3),\\ \hfill v(x)& \hfill =& \hfill \eta (x_1,x_2,x_3)\psi _1(x_1)\varphi _2(x_2)\psi _3(x_3),\\ \hfill w(x)& \hfill =& \hfill \eta (x_1,x_2,x_3)\varphi _1(x_1)\psi _2(x_2)\psi _3(x_3),\end{array}$$
(16)
where $`\eta (x_1,x_2,x_3),\psi _i(x_i),\varphi _i(x_i),i=1,2,3,`$ are arbitrary non vanishing differentiable functions. Defining $`\mu =\eta (x_1,x_2,x_3)\psi _1(x_1)\psi _2(x_2)\psi _3(x_3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle ^{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1}{\psi _1}}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle ^{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2}{\psi _2}}𝑑x_2+{\displaystyle ^{x_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _3}{\psi _3}}𝑑x_3`$ one obtains that $`J`$ has form (2).

Remark 3. In general the Darboux theorem states that (see ) , locally, all Poisson structures can be reduced to the standard one (Poisson structure with constant entries). The above theorem , Theorem 1 , resembles the Darboux theorem for $`N=3`$. All Poisson structures, at least locally, can be cast into the form (2). This result is important because the Dorboux theorem is not suitable for obtaining multi-Hamiltonian systems in $`^3`$, but we will show that our theorem is effective for this purpose. Writing the Poisson structure in the form (2) allows us to construct bi-Hamiltonian representations of a given Hamiltonian system.

Definition 1. Two Hamiltonian matrices $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ are compatible, if the sum $`J+\stackrel{~}{J}`$ defines also a Poisson structure.

Lemma 3. Let Poisson structures $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ have form (2), so $`J^{ij}=\mu ϵ^{ijk}_k\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\mu }ϵ^{ijk}_k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. Then $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ are compatible if and only if there exist a differentiable function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu \frac{_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(17)
provided that $`_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}0`$ and $`_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}0`$

Remark 4. In  a method is given to find new solutions of the Jacobi equation (1) from the known ones. Construction of compatible structures, Lemma 3, covers all such cases. Letting, for instance, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=x_1+x_2+x_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\xi `$ (to have the same notation as ) we obtain the most general solution of the Jacobi equation with $`u=u_0+\xi ,v=v_0+\xi ,w=w_0+\xi `$ where $`u_0=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_3,v_0=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_2,w_0=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ as the known solution.

The above Lemma 4 suggests that all Poisson structures in $`^3`$ have compatible pairs, because the condition (17) is not so restrictive on the Poisson matrices $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$. Such compatible Poisson structures can be used to construct bi-Hamiltonian systems.

Definition 2. A Hamiltonian equation is said to be bi-Hamiltonian if it admits two Hamiltonian representations $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, with compatible Poisson structures $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ such that

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=JH=\stackrel{~}{J}\stackrel{~}{H}.$$
(18)
Lemma 4. Let $`J`$ be given by (2) and $`H(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ is any differentiable function then the Hamiltonian equation

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=JH=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\times H,$$
(19)
is bi-Hamiltonian with the second structure given by $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ with entries

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{u}(x)& =& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_1g(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1x_2x_3),H(x_1,x_2,x_3)),\\ \stackrel{~}{v}(x)& =& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_2g(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1x_2x_3),H(x_1,x_2,x_3)),\\ \stackrel{~}{w}(x)& =& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_3g(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1x_2x_3),H(x_1,x_2,x_3)),\end{array}$$
(20)
and $`\stackrel{~}{H}=h(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1x_2x_3),H(x_1,x_2,x_3))`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=g(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,x_3),H(x_1,x_2,x_3))`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu \frac{_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Provided that there exist differentiable functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})`$, $`h(\mathrm{\Psi },H)`$, and $`g(\mathrm{\Psi },H)`$ satisfying the following equation

$$\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\frac{h}{H}\frac{g}{H}\frac{h}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\mathrm{\Psi },g)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\mathrm{\Psi },g)},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(\mathrm{\Psi },g)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(\mathrm{\Psi },g)}`$.

Proof. By Lemma 3, $`J`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ are compatible and it can be shown by a straightforward calculation that the equality (being a bi-Hamiltonian system)

$$\stackrel{~}{J}\stackrel{~}{H}=JH$$
(22)
or

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\times \stackrel{~}{H}=\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\times H$$
(23)
is guaranteed by (21). Hence the system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{dx_1}{dt}\hfill & =\hfill & \mu _3\mathrm{\Psi }_2H_2\mathrm{\Psi }_3H\hfill \\ \frac{dx_2}{dt}\hfill & =\hfill & \mu _3\mathrm{\Psi }_1H+_1\mathrm{\Psi }_3H\hfill \\ \frac{dx_3}{dt}\hfill & =\hfill & \mu _2\mathrm{\Psi }_1H_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2H\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
is bi-Hamiltonian. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 5. The Hamiltonian function $`H`$ is a conserved quantity of the system. It is clear from the expression (24) that the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is another conserved quantity of the system. Hence for a given Hamiltonian system there is a duality between $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Such a duality arises naturally because a simple solution of the equation (21) is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=H`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu `$.

Using the Lemma 4 we can construct infinitely many compatible Hamiltonian representations by choosing functions $`\mathrm{\Phi },g,h`$ satisfying (21). If we fix functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`g`$ then equation (21) became linear first order partial differential equations for $`h`$. For instance, taking $`g=\mathrm{\Psi }H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu `$, which fixes $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we obtain $`h=\mathrm{ln}H`$. Thus we obtain second representation of equation (3) with $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ given by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{ln}H`$. Let us give some examples of Hamiltonian systems. All the autonomous examples in  with bi-Hamiltonian representations can be listed below but we prefer time dependent ones.

Example 2. Consider systems that are obtained from RTW system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}\hfill & =\hfill & \gamma x+\delta y+z2y^2\hfill \\ \dot{y}\hfill & =\hfill & \gamma y\delta x+2xy\hfill \\ \dot{z}\hfill & =\hfill & 2z(x+1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
for appropriate subset of parameters by recalling. Following  we have:

RTW(1) system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_1\hfill & =\hfill & \delta x_2+x_3e^{2t}2x_2^2\hfill \\ \dot{x}_2\hfill & =\hfill & \delta x_1+2x_1x_2\hfill \\ \dot{x}_3\hfill & =\hfill & x_1x_3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
where $`\delta `$ is an arbitrary constant. The matrix $`J`$ is given by (2) with $`\mu =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1^2x_2^2+x_3e^t)`$ and Hamiltonian $`H=x_3(2x_2\delta )`$.
The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is given by (2) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}={\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2}}(x_1^2x_2^2+x_3e^t)(2x_2\delta )`$ and Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{ln}(x_3(2x_2\delta ))`$.

RTW(3) system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_1\hfill & =\hfill & (x_32x_2)e^t\hfill \\ \dot{x}_2\hfill & =\hfill & 2x_1x_2e^t\hfill \\ \dot{x}_3\hfill & =\hfill & 2x_1x_3e^t.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
The matrix $`J`$ is given by with $`\mu =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(x_1^2x_2^2+x_3)e^t`$ and Hamiltonian $`H=x_2x_3`$.
The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is given by (2) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=x_2x_3(x_1^2x_2^2+x_3)e^t`$ and Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{ln}(x_3x_2)`$.

RTW(4) system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_1\hfill & =\hfill & x_3e^{(\gamma +2)t}2x_2^2e^{\gamma t}\hfill \\ \dot{x}_2\hfill & =\hfill & 2x_1x_2e^{\gamma t}\hfill \\ \dot{x}_3\hfill & =\hfill & 2x_1x_3e^{\gamma t},\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where $`\gamma `$ is an arbitrary constant. The matrix $`J`$ is given by with $`\mu =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(x_1^2x_2^2)+x_3)e^{\gamma t}+x_3e^{(\gamma +2)t}`$ and Hamiltonian $`H=x_2x_3`$.
The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is given by (2) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=x_2x_3[(x_1^2x_2^2)+x_3)e^{\gamma t}+x_3e^{(\gamma +2)t}]`$ and Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{ln}(x_3x_2)`$.

RTW(5) system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{x}_1\hfill & =\hfill & \delta x_2+x_32x_2^2e^{2t}\hfill \\ \dot{x}_2\hfill & =\hfill & \delta x_1+2x_1x_2e^{2t}\hfill \\ \dot{x}_3\hfill & =\hfill & 2x_1x_3e^{2t},\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
where $`\delta `$ is a non-vanishing constant. The matrix $`J`$ is given by with $`\mu =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{\delta e^{2t}}{2}}(x_1^2x_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}x_3`$ and Hamiltonian $`H=x_1^2+x_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\delta }}x_2x_3`$.
The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is given by (2) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=[x_1^2+x_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\delta }}x_2x_3][{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e^{2t}}{2}}(x_1^2x_2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}x_3]`$ and Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{ln}(x_1^2+x_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\delta }}x_2x_3)`$.

Remark 6. If a system in $`^3`$ is Hamiltonian then $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and $`H`$ are constants of motion. This reduces the system of three coupled ODE to a single ODE. As an example let us consider Euler top equation given in Example 4. The constants of motion are $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)`$, and $`H={\displaystyle \frac{x_1^2}{2I_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^2}{2I_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_3^2}{2I_3}}`$. So, the equalities $`\mathrm{\Psi }=c_1`$ and $`H=c_2`$ give (assuming $`I_1I_2I_3`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}x_1=\sqrt{\overline{c}_1+\frac{I_1(I_3I_2)}{I_3(I_2I_1)}x_3^2}\\ x_2=\sqrt{\overline{c}_2+\frac{I_2(I_3I_1)}{I_3(I_1I_2)}x_3^2}\end{array}$$
(30)
where $`\overline{c}_1`$ and $`\overline{c}_2`$ are new constants and $`x_3`$ is given by

$$tt_0=\frac{dx_3}{\sqrt{\left(\overline{c}_1+\frac{I_1(I_3I_2)}{I_3(I_2I_1)}x_3^2\right)\left(\overline{c}_2+\frac{I_2(I_3I_1)}{I_3(I_1I_2)}x_3^2\right)}}$$
(31)
where $`t_0`$ is an integration constant. Hence one has the general solution with the required number of integration constants.

This work is partially supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences and by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The B factories at KEK and SLAC have made remarkable progress in many areas of B-physics, in particular in the extraction of Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM)  parameters crucial to testing the standard model. Indeed, the determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ via $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ in such a way that there is no dependence on theoretical assumptions promises to usher in a new era of precision tests of the CKM paradigm.

The determination of the other two unitarity angles, $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, without theoretical errors still presents a considerable experimental challenge. Even though CP violation itself may prove to be easy to observe in channels sensitive to $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, the effect tends to be modified by CP conserving effects such as strong phases. To obtain a truly model independent determination of these angles, these effects must be algebraically eliminated between several sets of observables or measured in an independent experiment.

Final states containing $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$ in decays of charged and  neutral B’s provide methods for clean extraction of the angles of the unitarity triangle (UT). Direct CP violation in $`B^\pm `$ decays leads to a clean determination of $`\gamma `$. Time dependent CP asymmetry measurements in decays such as $`B^0`$ or $`\overline{B}^0K^0D^0(\overline{D}^0)`$ lead to a determination of $`\delta \beta \alpha +\pi =2\beta +\gamma `$ and also in fact can give $`\beta `$. In these methods, for charged and neutral B’s, the crucial role is played by those final states of $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ that are common to both. Indeed, in addition to the exclusive modes of $`D^0`$, $`\overline{D}^0`$ that are common to them, as briefly discussed in even multibody  and inclusive decays can be used. The effectiveness of these $`BKD`$ methods for extracting angles of the UT can be vastly improved if charm factory can provide some of the information for the relevant D decays.

The primary focus of this paper will be to consider the case of $`\gamma `$ from modes such as $`B^\pm K^\pm (K^\pm )D^0,\overline{D}^0`$. Recall that there are a number of different final states which are common to $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ decays that can be used here. Such final states may be (1) CP eigenstates (CPES) as first discussed in (GLW) or CP non-eigenstates (CPNES) as discussed in (ADS). The CPNES may be (2) doubly Cabibbo suppressed (DCS) decays of $`D^0`$ (e.g. $`K^+\pi ^{}`$) or (3) singly Cabibbo suppressed (SCS) states (e.g. $`K^+K^{}`$) as recently considered in . Amongst these, CP asymmetries are expected to be large for case (2) and small for (1) and (3); on the other hand, the relevant Br’s tend to be larger for the latter two cases.

In the ADS method, the results from the interference through each $`D^0`$ channel depend on: (a) The CKM angle $`\gamma `$; (b) The strong phase of the $`B`$ decay; (c) The strong phase of the $`D^0`$ decay and (d) The decay rate of $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$. The phase $`\gamma `$ of course is the quantity that is of interest, and therefore, enough measurements, via sufficient number of decay modes, must be made so that the dependence on parameters (b) through (d) can be eliminated.

It has previously been suggested  that charm factory data could provide a useful additional input to the strong phase determination which is part of the ADS method. More generally, there are a number of ways in which a charm factory  can help in CKM-extractions.

1. Measurements of the Br’s of some of the D decay modes that enter the analysis; specifically determinations of the DCS D decays such as $`K^+`$ ($`K^+`$) \[$`\pi ^{},\rho ^{},a_1^{}`$\].
2. Improving the constraints on the $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing parameters, $`x_D`$, $`y_D`$ can be very helpful. .
3. More relevant to this paper is the use of a charm factory to determine two parameters needed for being able to use (exclusive and) inclusive decays of $`D^0,\overline{D}^0`$, as briefly mentioned in.

In particular this last application of charm factory data offers the potential advantage of increasing the statistics available in comparison to the original ADS method which only allows an analysis based on exclusive states. Furthermore, it allows a way to integrate 3 or 4 body modes into the analysis without making any assumption concerning the decay distribution in phase space.

In section 2 we discuss a general formalism for strong phases in inclusive states. For exclusive states $`f`$ there is a single strong phase difference $`\zeta (f)`$ between $`D^0f`$ and $`\overline{D}^0f`$. We show that for an inclusive state $`F`$ we can introduce a net “coherence coefficient” $`R_F`$ together with a mean strong phase difference $`\zeta (F)`$ which fully describes the relation between $`D^0F`$ and $`\overline{D}^0F`$. In section 3 we discuss how these parameters can be extracted from correlations at a $`\psi (3770)`$ factory. In section 4, for illustration, we define a toy model for the inclusive states $`D^0K^\pm +X`$ and discuss the extraction of $`\zeta `$ and $`R`$. In section 5 we discuss using this information to extract $`\gamma `$ from $`B^\pm K^\pm D^0`$ with the subsequent decay of $`D^0`$ to inclusive states along with the $`\psi (3770)`$ factory determination of $`\zeta `$ and $`R`$ and we give some numerical results obtained with the toy model. A brief summary appears in section VI.

## 2 Inclusive States

In the following discussion we will define an exclusive decay of the $`D^0`$ to be any decay which is governed by a single quantum mechanical amplitude. Thus, a decay such as $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ would be an exclusive state while for a three body decay such as $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, each point on the Dalitz plot would be considered a distinct exclusive state.

Conversely, an inclusive state is any state which is a set of exclusive states. For instance $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ integrated over all or part of the Dalitz plot would be an inclusive state as sets of states with different particle content such as $`D^0K^{}+n\pi `$. Inclusive states defined in this way may either be composed of a collection of discrete states (eg. $`\{K^{}+\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}+\rho ^+\}`$), of states which are a continuum (eg $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ integrated over the Dalitz plot) or of states which are a combination of both (eg. $`K^{}+n\pi `$). In the discussion below we will treat an inclusive state as being composed of a discrete set of exclusive states although the generalization to continuous sets of states is straightforward. Thus if $`F`$ is an inclusive final state we will write:

$`F`$ $`=\{f_i\}`$ (1)
where $`f_i`$ are the exclusive states which make up $`F`$.

Primarily we are interested in final states which are common to $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay. Two categories of such final states of particular interest are DCS states such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and CP eigenstates such as $`K_S\pi ^0`$. For each $`f_iF`$, let us denote:

$`A(f_i)`$ $`=`$ $`(D^0f_i)`$
$`\overline{A}(f_i)`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{D}^0f_i)`$
$`\zeta (f_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(A^{}(f_i)\overline{A}(f_i))`$ (2)
so $`\zeta (f_i)`$ is the strong phase difference between $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay to $`f_i`$.

Because both the channels $`B^{}K^{}D^0`$ and $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$ can contribute to the overall process $`B^{}K^{}F`$ for the inclusive state $`F`$, we can regard the object that decays into $`F`$ do be a quantum mechanical mixture of $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$.

Denoting this state by $`|I>`$, then

$`|I=a|D^0+be^{i\lambda }|\overline{D}^0`$ (3)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are real.

We can thus expand the decay rate for the mixed state $`|I>`$ to $`F`$ as:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(IF)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{a^2|A(f_i)|^2+b^2|\overline{A}(f_i)|^2`$ (4)
$`+2ab|A(f_i)||\overline{A}(f_i)|\mathrm{cos}(\zeta (f_i)+\lambda )\}`$
$`=`$ $`a^2A(F)^2+b^2\overline{A}(F)^2`$
$`+2R_FabA(F)\overline{A}(F)\mathrm{cos}(\zeta (F)+\lambda )`$
where

$`A(F)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle |A(f_i)|^2}`$
$`\overline{A}(F)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle |\overline{A}(f_i)|^2}`$
$`R_Fe^{i\zeta (F)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|A(f_i)||\overline{A}(f_i)|e^{i\zeta (f_i)}}{A(F)\overline{A}(F)}}`$ (5)
The key point to note is that $`R_F`$ and $`\zeta (F)`$ are independent of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\lambda `$. The decay rate of $`I`$ thus depends only on four parameters of $`F`$, namely $`A(F)`$, $`\overline{A}(F)`$, $`R_F`$ and $`\zeta _F`$, regardless of how many states make up $`F`$. We can think of $`A(F)`$ and $`\overline{A}(F)`$ as the average amplitudes of $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ decay to $`F`$ while $`\zeta (F)`$ is the average strong phase difference for $`F`$ and $`R_F`$ is a measure of the coherence of $`F`$. Note that $`0R_F1`$.

In the case where $`F=\{f_1\}`$ consists of a single quantum state, then $`R_F=1`$. In this case the decay rate of $`I`$ is only determined by three parameters: the amplitudes of $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ decay and the strong phase difference, $`\zeta (F)=\zeta (f_1)`$. If $`f_1`$ is a CP eigenstate then, assuming that $`D^0`$ decay is CP conserving, $`A(F)=\overline{A}(F)`$, $`R_F=1`$ and $`\zeta (F)=0`$ or $`\pi `$ depending on whether $`f_1`$ is CP=$`+1`$ or CP=$`1`$.

More generally if $`F`$ is a set of states such that $`CP:FF`$ then it follows that $`A(F)=\overline{A}(F)`$ and $`\zeta (F)=0`$ or $`\pi `$ (depending on whether $`F`$ is predominantly CP=$`+1`$ or CP=$`1`$) but $`R_F`$ depends on the makeup of $`F`$ and indicates the purity of $`F`$. Thus, if $`F`$ is made up of CP eigenstates with the same CP=$`\pm 1`$ eigenvalue, $`R_F=1`$ and $`F`$ behaves as a single CP=$`\pm 1`$ eigenstate. In  the extraction of $`\gamma `$ using the detailed analysis of 3 and 4 body states of this form is considered via an analysis of the amplitude structure in phase space.

Some examples of inclusive states to which we can apply this approach are:

1. $`F=\{K^{}\pi ^+\}`$: This is a single CP non eigenstate (CPNES) so therefore $`R_F=1`$ while $`A(F)`$, $`\overline{A}(F)`$ and $`\zeta (F)`$ need to be determined experimentally. Current measurements  of the branching ratios give $`Br(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)=3.80\%`$ and $`Br(D^0K^+\pi ^{})1.5\times 10^4`$ thus $`\overline{A}(F)/A(F)0.05`$ in this case.
2. $`F=\{K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0\}`$ This is an inclusive CPNES if one integrates over the Dalitz plot; therefore $`A(F)`$, $`\overline{A}(F)`$, $`\zeta (F)`$ and $`R_F`$ need to be experimentally determined. It is useful to break down the Dalitz plot into a number of sub-regions $`F=F_1F_2\mathrm{}F_n`$ each of which will be characterized by $`A(F_i)`$, $`\overline{A}(F_i)`$, $`\zeta (F_i)`$ and $`R_{F_i}`$
3. $`F=\{K^{}+X\}`$: This case is an even more inclusive CPNES than the previous one. Again it may be useful to decompose F into a number of subsets determined either by the composition of $`X`$ (eg. number of pions) or by the energy of the $`K^{}`$.
4. $`F=\{K_s\pi ^0\}`$: This is a single CP eigenstate (CPES) with CP=$`1`$ therefore $`A(F)=\overline{A}(F)`$, $`R_F=1`$ and $`\zeta (F)=\pi `$.
5. $`F=K_s+X`$: This is a CP invariant inclusive state (CPIIS) so $`A(F)=\overline{A}(F)`$ and $`\zeta _F=0`$ or $`\pi `$. Which value of $`\zeta _F`$ applies and the value of $`R_F`$ need to be determined experimentally. Again, it may be useful to decompose this set of states according to the composition of $`X`$ or the energy of the $`K_S`$. Note that changing the $`K_S`$ to a $`K_L`$ changes $`\zeta (F)\pi \zeta (F)`$ but keeps the other parameters unchanged.
6. $`F=K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$: Again this is a CPIIS which can be decomposed on the basis of the energy of the $`K_S`$.

## 3 Extracting Phases and Coherence from $`\psi (3770)`$

The ability to use inclusive and exclusive decays of $`D^0`$ in order to obtain CP violation phases will be enhanced if a separate determination of $`A(F)`$, $`\overline{A}(F)`$, $`R_F`$ and $`\zeta (F)`$ can be made.

We will assume that $`A(F)`$ and $`\overline{A}(F)`$ can be determined from the $`D^0`$ branching ratios. A determination of $`\zeta (F)`$ and $`R_F`$ may be made at a $`\psi (3770)`$ charm factory.

This follows from the fact that $`\psi (3770)`$ is a spin-1 state and therefore the decay $`\psi D^0\overline{D}^0`$ is an antisymmetric wave function:

$`(|D^0|\overline{D}^0|\overline{D}^0|D^0)/\sqrt{2}`$ (6)
This entangled state gives us access to strong phase information for final states in a number of different ways. Here we will discuss the case where we assume $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ oscillation is small.

We can take advantage of this entanglement by observing various correlations between the decay of the two mesons which arise from $`\psi (3770)`$ decay. For a given inclusive state $`F`$, it is useful to distinguish between 4 different kinds of correlations

1. The correlation of $`F`$ with another inclusive state $`G`$ by measuring the branching ratio $`\psi (3770)[F][G]`$
2. The correlation of $`F`$ with its charge conjugate by measuring the branching ratio $`\psi (3770)[F][\overline{F}]`$ as previously discussed in the case of exclusive states in .
3. The correlation of $`F`$ with a CP eigenstate by measuring the branching ratio $`\psi (3770)[F][CPeigenstate]`$
4. The correlation of $`F`$ with itself by measuring the branching ratio $`\psi (3770)[F][F]`$

Let us consider first the most general case where the $`\psi (3770)`$ decays overall to the final state $`FG`$ where $`F`$ and $`G`$ are inclusive final states.

The decay rate to this final state is thus

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(FG)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left|A(f_i)\overline{A}(g_j)\overline{A}(f_i)A(g_j)\right|^2`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[|A(f_i)|^2|\overline{A}(g_j)|^2+|\overline{A}(f_i)|^2|A(g_j)|^2`$
$`2|A(f_i)A(g_j)\overline{A}(f_i)\overline{A}(g_j)|`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\zeta (f_i)\zeta (g_j))]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi (3770)D^0\overline{D}^0`$. Summing this over $`i`$ and $`j`$ we thus obtain an expression in terms of the exclusive quantities:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(FG)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0[A_F^2\overline{A}_G^2+\overline{A}_F^2A_G^2`$ (8)
$`2R_FR_GA_F\overline{A}_FA_G\overline{A}_G`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\zeta (F)\zeta (G))]`$
A special case of the above is where $`G=\overline{F}`$ in which case this expression reduces to:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F\overline{F})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left[A_F^4+\overline{A}_F^42R_F^2A_F^2\overline{A}_F^2\mathrm{cos}(2\zeta (F))\right]`$ (9)
If, on the other hand, $`G`$ is a CP eigenstate, or indeed a set of CP eigenstates with the common eigenvalue $`\lambda _{CP}=\pm 1`$, then $`\zeta _G=0`$ or $`\pi `$ respectively and $`R_G=1`$ while $`A(G)=\overline{A}(G)`$. In this case then,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(FG)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0A_G^2[A_F^2+\overline{A}_F^2`$ (10)
$`2\lambda _{CP}R_FA_F\overline{A}_F\mathrm{cos}(\zeta (F))]`$
Finally, in the special case where $`F=G`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(FF)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0A_F^2\overline{A}_F^2(1R_F^2)`$ (11)
Note that this expression gives 0 if $`F`$ is an exclusive state as expected by Bose symmetry . In each of these cases, one can specialize to the case where $`F`$ (or $`G`$) is an exclusive case where we then have $`R_F=1`$ (or $`R_G=1`$).

From the above relations, it is clear that if we have a number of inclusive or exclusive states we can solve for the various values of $`\zeta (F)`$ and $`R_F`$. To make this clearer, for a given set of inclusive final states $`=\{F_1,\mathrm{}F_n\}`$ let us define $`n_o`$ to be the number of observables, $`n_p`$ the number of parameters and $`\delta n=n_on_p`$. Thus, $`\delta n0`$ is a necessary condition for the determination of the parameters.

If $``$ contains $`k`$ inclusive states and $`\mathrm{}`$ exclusive states, $`n=k+\mathrm{}`$, then the total number of free parameters is $`n_p=2k+\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\zeta `$ for each inclusive and exclusive state and $`R`$ for each inclusive state.

For each pair of distinct members (exclusive or inclusive) of $``$ there are two distinct observables, $`Br(FG)=Br(\overline{F}\overline{G})`$ and $`Br(F\overline{G})=Br(\overline{F}G)`$. This gives a total contribution to $`n_o`$ of $`n(n1)`$.

For each inclusive member of $``$, there are the two observables $`Br(FF)=Br(\overline{F}\overline{F})`$ and $`Br(F\overline{F})`$ giving a contribution to $`n_o`$ of $`2k`$ while for each exclusive state $`Br(FF)0`$, hence the contribution is $`\mathrm{}`$ from correlations of the form $`F\overline{F}`$.

Finally, for each member of $``$ one can observe the correlation with a set of CP eigenstates giving an additional contribution of $`n`$ to $`n_o`$. Thus,

$`n_p`$ $`=`$ $`2k+\mathrm{}=k+n`$
$`n_o`$ $`=`$ $`k+n+n^2`$
$`\delta n`$ $`=`$ $`n^2`$ (12)
where $`n_o`$ is the sum of $`n(n1)`$ correlations of the form $`FG`$ and $`F\overline{G}`$; $`n`$ of the form $`F\overline{F}`$; $`n`$ of the form $`F`$ \+ $`CPES`$ and $`k`$ of the form $`FF`$ (for inclusive states only).

Clearly, using one state “in isolation” Eqn. (11) and Eqn. (9) give us just enough information to determine $`R`$ and $`\zeta `$ for an inclusive state while Eqn. (9) will give us information to determine $`\zeta `$ for an exclusive state. Observing the cross correlations with other states and CP eigenstates thus gives us a degree of over determination $`\delta n=n^2`$.

Of course if the branching ratio to some of the final states is small, the statistical error on some of these correlations may be large. To consider how well this program may be carried out, we will construct a toy model of certain $`D`$ decays.

## 4 Toy Models

The effectiveness of various methods in determining $`\delta `$ depends to some extent on the properties of various $`D`$ decays. Since these decays have not been fully characterized, particularly in the DCS modes, we will use a “toy model” in which we will endeavor to capture the known properties of these decays. This should allow us to obtain a general idea of the values of $`R`$ and $`\zeta `$ which will be obtained for various classes of inclusive states. In particular we will construct a toy model for $`K^\pm +X`$ final states. We will attempt to model at least part of the rate in each of these channels as the sum of exclusive states. Each exclusive final state may either be produced through a continuum process, in which case we will assume that the amplitude is constant over phase space, or it may be produced through resonance channels which we will describe by a Breit-Wigner distribution.

### 4.1 Model for $`D^0K^{}+X`$ and $`K^++X`$

In this section we consider a model for $``$, the set of $`K^{}+X`$ where $`X`$ contains at most one $`\pi ^0`$. We will model such decays by considering decays of the form $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$; $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$; $`D^0K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$.

In Table 1 we give the decomposition of these modes into resonance channels which we consider and their branching ratios from . Note that the sum of all these branching ratios is 29% out of the total 58% for all $`K^{}+X`$ states. In  the experimental data for $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ was fit to a model with $`K^0`$, $`\rho ^+`$ and $`K^+`$ channels and a 3-body continuum. We will use this model to describe these 3-body decays.

For each of the quasi-two body modes, we will assume that the resonances (ie. $`\rho `$, $`a_1`$, $`K^{}`$) is modeled by a Breit-Wigner amplitude while the continuum 3 and 4-body states we will assume have a constant amplitude over phase space. We will assume that the strong phase difference between the different channels that lead to $`K+3\pi `$ and $`K+4\pi `$ final states are $`0`$ although we find that the results considered below do not depend greatly if arbitrary phase differences are used.

For the corresponding DCS decays $`\overline{D}^0K^{}+X`$ we apply SU(3) to the Cabibbo-allowed decays, in particular we exchange $`ds`$ in the final state. We rescale the amplitudes so that the total DCS rates match the results in .

Using this model, we find that for $``$ in total, $`R_{}=0.51`$ and $`\zeta _{}=11^{}`$. In Fig. 1, we show $`\zeta `$ as a function of the energy fraction $`E_K/E_{max}`$ of the $`K^{}`$ where $`E_{max}=(m_D^2+m_K^2m_\pi )/(2m_D)`$. Likewise in Fig. 2 we show $`R`$ as a function of the energy fraction.

From Fig. 2 we see that intermediate values of $`E_K`$ have smaller values of $`R`$ than low energy and high energy $`K`$’s. We therefore consider dividing $``$ into three subsets $`=_1_2_3`$ where for $`_1`$, $`E_K/E_{max}0.65`$ for $`_2`$ $`0.65E_K/E_{max}0.9`$ and for $`_3`$ $`0.9E_K/E_{max}`$.

Using the model, we find that for $`_1`$, $`\zeta __1=34^{}`$ and $`R=0.74`$ while $`Br(_1)/Br()=20.5\%`$; for $`_2`$, $`\zeta __2=86^{}`$ and $`R=0.29`$ while $`Br(_1)/Br()=42.9\%`$ and for $`_3`$, $`\zeta __3=30^{}`$ and $`R=0.91`$ while $`Br(_1)/Br()=36.4\%`$.

Likewise we can consider subsets of $``$ determined by particle content. For example if we define $`_{3bdy}`$ to be final states of the form $`K^{}\pi ^0\pi ^{}`$ and $`_{4bdy}`$ to be final states of the form $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ then $`\zeta _{_{3bdy}}=2.1^{}`$; $`R_{3bdy}=0.60`$ while $`\zeta _{4bdy}=81^{}`$; $`R_{4bdy}=0.13`$.

The degree of CP violation in $`B^{}K^{}[D^0F]`$ is proportional to $`R_F`$ so a larger value of $`R`$, in general, indicates greater utility in terms of extracting $`\gamma `$. The strong phase $`\zeta `$ will be combined with the strong phase difference between $`B^{}K^{}D^0`$ and $`B^{}K^{}\overline{D}^0`$.

### 4.2 Phase and Coherence Determination for Toy Model

Let us consider now the determination of $`\zeta `$ and $`R`$ at a $`\psi `$ factory for toy model for $`K+X`$. In the following, we will use the above decomposition of the events into $`_1`$, $`_2`$ and $`_3`$ according to the $`K^\pm `$ energy.

The CP eigenstates which we will consider will consist of ($`CP=1`$) 2 body final states which do not contain a $`K_L`$. The branching ratios to such final states is $`5\%`$. Clearly some improvement could be obtained if more general final states were considered.

To determine the 6 parameters $`R_{13}`$ and $`\zeta _{13}`$ we thus have the modes displayed in Table (2) which, according to Eqn. (12) gives us $`n_o=15`$ independent observables for $`n_p=6`$ parameters giving $`\delta n=n^2`$.

In order to estimate how much data is required to determine the parameters $`\zeta _i`$ and $`R_i`$, we suppose that there are $`\widehat{N}_{DD}=10^7`$ events  of the form $`\psi (3770)D^0\overline{D}^0`$. In Fig. (3) the solid curve indicates the result for $``$ taken as a whole so that the data which is used is the correlation of $``$ with $``$, $``$ with $`\overline{}`$ and $``$ with CPES-. The other three curves indicate the results for $`_1`$ (dashed), $`_2`$ (dotted) and $`_3`$ (dash-dotted).

The resulting curves are invariant under the transformation $`\zeta _i\zeta _i`$ and $`\zeta _i\pi +\zeta _i`$ since those transformations clearly leave the correlations unchanged. The angles $`\zeta _i`$ can only therefore be determined up to a 4 fold ambiguity.

From these curves it is clear that modulo the ambiguity, the angles are determined to $`O(2^{})`$ with $`\widehat{N}_{DD}=10^7`$ events.

In Fig. (4) a similar plot of the minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ is given as a function of $`R_i`$ for $`_i`$ given $`N_{DD}=10^7`$. In this case $`R_i`$ can be determined to $`2\%`$ with $`N_{DD}=10^7`$ while with $`N_{DD}=10^6`$ the 3-sigma bound on R is about $`10\%`$. We will find that applying this determination of $`\zeta `$ and $`R`$ is more than adequate for the determination of $`\gamma `$ at the $`B`$ factory.

## 5 Extracting $`\gamma `$ from Direct CP Violation

Let us now turn our attention to the case of $`B^\pm D^0K^\pm `$. In this case the two contributing amplitudes are $`bc\overline{u}s`$ and $`bu\overline{c}s`$ and so the sensitivity is only to the single CKM angle $`\gamma `$ and indeed this process has been discussed extensively  as a means to measure this angle. The crucial factor in an effective determination of $`\gamma `$ is the final state chosen for the $`D^0`$ decay.

The method proposed in  (GLW method) requires the following measurements, two of which (eqn. (15) and eqn. (16)) are the same:

$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\mathrm{FES}])`$ (13)
$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0\mathrm{FES}+])`$ (14)
$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\mathrm{FES}+])`$ (15)
$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0\mathrm{FES}])`$ (16)
$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0\mathrm{CPES}])`$ (17)
$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\mathrm{CPES}])`$ (18)
where $`FES\pm `$ is a flavor eigenstate of charm=$`\pm 1`$ and $`D^0`$ generically means a mixture of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$. One expects an O(10%) CP violating difference between (17) and (18) from this data; it is possible to reconstruct $`\gamma `$ up to an 8-fold ambiguity.

There is, however, a practical problem with the observation of FES states. The only states which are pure FES’s are semi-leptonic decays such as $`D^0\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}K^{}`$. In the case of the reaction Eqn. (16) there is the potential backgrounds from semileptonic decay of the parent $`B`$ . There is perhaps some prospect of overcoming this in the case of the $`D^0`$ analog  but this also may not be easy.

Cabibbo allowed hadronic final states cannot be used at all because in all such cases reaction (14) followed by a DCS decay to the same final state will quantum mechanically interfere. In fact such interference is O(100%) and thus provides another route to the determination of $`\gamma `$.

In particular, if $`f`$ and $`g`$ are exclusive final states (one of them may be a CP eigenstate) then $`\gamma `$ may be determined  (ADS method) up to a 8-16 fold ambiguity from:

$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0f]`$ (19)
$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\overline{f}]`$ (20)
$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0g]`$ (21)
$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\overline{g}]`$ (22)
where we assume that the branching ratios of $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ to $`f`$ and $`g`$ are known and that $`Br(B^{}D^0K^{})`$ is known but we must fit for the branching ratio $`Br(B^{}\overline{D}^0K^{})`$ which seems difficult to measure experimentally. For the method to be effective, $`f`$ should be chosen such that $`D^0f`$ is a DCS transition in which case the CP violating difference between reaction (19) and (20) is expected to be O(100%).

To obtain a good determination of $`\gamma `$ it is best to add additional modes which will therefore over determine $`\gamma `$ and reduce the ambiguity to 4-fold (i.e. a unique determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$).

Let us now generalize this method by considering inclusive final states. As we discussed above, each inclusive set, $`F`$, carries with it an additional parameter $`R_F`$ compared to an exclusive final state. With such final states, one can never hope to determine $`\gamma `$ since the reactions

$`Br(B^{}K^{}[D^0F]`$ (23)
$`Br(B^+K^+[D^0\overline{F}]`$ (24)
provide two observables but introduce the two additional degrees of freedom $`\{\zeta _F,R_F\}`$. One must therefore have additional information bearing on these parameters. Clearly then, data from a $`\psi (3770)`$ charm factory can directly determine $`R_F`$ and $`\zeta _F`$ for each inclusive final state which can provide the additional information required.

### 5.1 Inclusive ADS

Following  let us introduce the following notation for the various branching ratios:

$`a=Br(B^{}k^{}D^0)`$ $`\overline{a}=Br(B^+k^+\overline{D}^0)`$
$`b=Br(B^{}k^{}\overline{D}^0)`$ $`\overline{b}(k)=Br(B^+k^+D^0)`$
$`c(F)=Br(D^0F)`$ $`\overline{c}(F)=Br(\overline{D}^0F)`$
$`c(\overline{F})=Br(D^0\overline{F})`$ $`\overline{c}(\overline{F})=Br(\overline{D}^0\overline{F})`$
$`d(k,F)`$ $`=`$ $`Br(B^{}k^{}[D^0F])`$
$`\overline{d}(k,\overline{F})`$ $`=`$ $`Br(B^+k^+[D^0\overline{F}])`$ (25)
Here $`k^\pm `$ represents either $`K^\pm `$ or $`K^\pm `$ (or indeed one may consider any other kaonic resonance or system of strangeness=$`1`$ and well defined CP).

In the standard model, it is expected that $`a(k)=\overline{a}(k)`$, $`b(k)=\overline{b}(k)`$ and $`\overline{c}(X)=c(\overline{X})`$ all of which we will assume from here on . The value of the quantities $`d`$, $`\overline{d}`$ may be expressed in terms of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ as:

$`d(k,F)`$ $`=`$ $`a(k)c(F)+b(k)c(\overline{F})`$
$`+2R_F\sqrt{a(k)b(k)c(F)c(\overline{F})}`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\zeta _k+\zeta _F+\gamma )`$
$`\overline{d}(k,\overline{F})`$ $`=`$ $`a(k)c(F)+b(k)c(\overline{F})`$ (26)
$`+2R_F\sqrt{a(k)b(k)c(F)c(\overline{F})}`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(\zeta _k+\zeta _F\gamma )`$
where $`\zeta _k`$ is the strong phase difference between $`B^{}k^{}D^0`$ and $`B^{}k^{}\overline{D}^0`$; $`\zeta _F`$ is the strong phase difference between $`DF`$ and $`D\overline{F}`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the CP violating weak phase difference between $`B^{}k^{}D^0`$ and $`B^{}k^{}\overline{D}^0`$.

To illustrate the procedure for finding $`\gamma `$, let us first consider the use of exclusive modes via the ADS method and then supplementing it with information obtained from a $`\psi (3770)`$ factory. The exclusive modes we sill consider are

1. $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$
2. $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$
3. $`D^0`$ CP=$`1`$ eigenstates (CPES-).

The branching ratios for $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ is 3.80 % while the branching ratio for $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ is $`1.48\times 10^4`$. The branching ratio for $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ is $`6.0\%`$ while the corresponding branching ratio for the $`D^0`$ decay is unknown. For our calculation we will assume that it is the latter multiplied by the double Cabibbo suppression factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _c`$. The branching ratio to $`CP=1`$ states we will take to be about $`5\%`$. Of course the strong phases and $`\gamma `$ are totally unknown but for the purposes of illustration, we will take as the real value of $`\gamma =60^{}`$, with $`\zeta (K^+\pi ^{})=120^{}`$; $`\zeta (K^+\pi ^{})=60^{}`$ and $`\zeta _B=50^{}`$.

In the ADS method, two modes are sufficient, in principle, to determine $`\gamma `$ with some ambiguity and this is illustrated in Fig. (5). In this figure, we assume that $`\widehat{N}_B`$, the number of $`B^{}s`$ times the acceptance, is $`10^9`$. We assume that the actual number of events of each type detected is equal to the theoretical value; the horizontal axis covers various possible values of $`\gamma `$ and for each hypothesized value of $`\gamma `$ a minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ is obtained<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Thus, if we assume that acceptance is 10% and there are $`10^9`$ $`B`$’s, a 3$`\sigma `$ criterion for eliminating values of $`\gamma `$ translates to $`\chi ^2>90`$ on this graph.. The dotted curve assumes that data is taken for just the two modes: $`B^{}K^{}[D^0K^+\pi ^{}]`$ and $`B^{}K^{}[D^0\mathrm{CPES}]`$ (+ charge conjugates). It can be readily seen that the ambiguities of that method tend to interfere with a clean determination of $`\gamma `$.

Of course three modes will improve the situation so if we now add in the other $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, we obtain the solid curve and clearly there is some improvement. Note that in all cases (including what we discuss below) there is a residual 4-fold ambiguity between $`\gamma `$, $`\pi \gamma `$, $`\pi +\gamma `$ and $`2\pi \gamma `$ as discussed in .

To improve the situation still further, let us consider adding information from a $`\psi (3770)`$ factory. Here we will take the number of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs times acceptance to be $`\widehat{N}_D=10^7`$. The information from the correlations of the above two modes with each other and with the CP eigenstates thus serve to determine $`\zeta (K^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`\zeta (K^+\pi ^{})`$ with a degree of over determination $`\delta n=4`$. in Fig. (6) we show $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of $`\zeta `$ for these two modes. It is clear that except for the discrete ambiguities, the values of these angles are relatively well determined.

Returning now to Fig. (5) the dashed-dotted line shows the improvement obtained by adding this information from the charm factory.

Let us now consider the case where we use inclusive final states, in particular we will consider the sets of inclusive states $`=_1_2_3`$ discussed in our toy model together with the CPES- states. As discussed above, the determination of $`\zeta `$ and $`R`$ using $`\psi (3770)`$ factory data is shown in figures Fig. (3) and Fig. (4).

We can not use inclusive modes to find $`\gamma `$ via the ADS method because of the extra degree of freedom $`R`$ associated with each mode. With the data from a $`\psi (3770)`$ charm factory such a determination becomes possible. This is illustrated in Fig. (7). The solid curve shows the result obtained from $``$ with CPES- while the dashed curve shows the result using $`_{13}`$ separately with CPES-. Clearly there is considerable gain in segregating the data into different subsets.

In Table (3) we summarize the 3-$`\sigma `$ errors in the determination of $`\gamma `$ which follow from the calculations in Figs. (5) and Figs. (7). The $`\psi (3770)`$ data clearly improves the error in the case of exclusive states. In the case of inclusive states where $`\psi (3770)`$ data is essential, we see that dividing the inclusive state into several sub modes can lead to an improved determination of $`\gamma `$.

Finally, it is important to note that these methods are not limited to the case where the $`D^0`$ decay is inclusive, one can also use $`R`$ and $`\zeta `$ to characterize inclusive decays of the parent $`B`$. For instance, as pointed out by  the decay $`B^{}D^0K^{}\pi ^0`$ has the advantage that there is no color suppression in the $`bu`$ transition; hence larger branching ratios would be expected. Using our methods, this mode integrated over a portion of the $`B`$ Dalitz plot would be characterized by two parameters $`R_B`$ and $`\zeta _B`$ as opposed to just $`\zeta _B`$ for the two body $`B`$ decay.

If exclusive $`D`$ decays are used alone then at least three modes would be required to determine $`\gamma `$. If, however exclusive and inclusive modes of $`D^0`$ decay are used where $`R`$ and $`\zeta `$ are supplied by the charm factory then two modes would be sufficient to determine $`\gamma `$. Again, this method makes no apriori assumptions concerning the structure of the $`B`$ decay amplitude and may be generalized to a broad class of inclusive decays such as $`B^{}D^0K^{}+n\pi `$, $`D^0K^{}\rho `$ etc.

A special case of the above would be to consider the two $`D^0`$ decays to the exclusive states $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and CPES where the $`D^0`$ is produced via $`B^0D^0K^{}`$, $`B^0D^0K^{}`$, $`B^0D^0K^{}`$ and $`B^0D^0K^{}`$. It is likely that these four modes have similar strong phases so $`R_B`$ due to the summation over these $`K`$ and $`D`$ resonances is likely to not be $`<<1`$. With a charm factory determination of $`\zeta (K^+\pi ^{})`$ there would be enough information to determine $`\gamma `$. The advantage is that all the final states here are relatively clean experimentally and the ADS mode $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ is likely to have relatively large CP violation so this combination could provide an early determination of $`\gamma `$.

## 6 Summary

In this paper we have generalized the analysis of direct CP violation from states which are single quantum states to states which are inclusive either because they are integrated over phase space or include states with different particle content. In particular, we study the determination of $`\gamma `$ using decays of the form $`B^{}K^{}D^0`$ where the $`D^0`$ subsequently decays to various inclusive final states.

We have shown that for a given inclusive state $`F`$ the phase relation between $`D^0F`$ and $`\overline{D}^0F`$ can be expressed in terms of a strong phase $`\zeta `$ and a coherence coefficient $`R`$. These quantities can be extracted at a $`\psi (3770)`$ charm factory by observing correlations of the form $`\psi (3770)DDF_iF_j`$, $`\psi (3770)DDF_i\overline{F}_j`$ and $`\psi (3770)DDF_i\mathrm{CPES}`$ where $`F_i`$ are various inclusive states.

This information then allows the extraction of $`\gamma `$ via CP violating effects in the reaction $`B^{}K^{}[D^0F_i]`$ in a model independent way. To illustrate the method we construct a toy model for inclusive decays of the form $`K^{}+X`$. We find that if this is decomposed into three subsets according to the energy of the $`K^{}`$, then a determination of $`\gamma `$ with a 3-$`\sigma `$ error of $`2.3^{}`$ can be made if $`\widehat{N}_B=10^9`$.

This research was supported by Contract Nos. DE-FG02-94ER40817 and DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# A First Close Look at the Balmer Edge Behavior of the Quasar Big Blue Bump

## 1 Introduction

Studies of the spectral energy distribution of quasars have shown that, among the various apparent components present, the most energetically dominant component is in the optical/UV (e.g. Sanders et al. 1989). However, rather surprisingly, the emission mechanism of this component, often called the Big Blue Bump (BBB), has not been well understood. Although the BBB is often assumed to be from optically-thick thermal emission from an accretion disk, observations are hardly said to be well described by simple disk models (Antonucci, 1988, 1999; Koratkar & Blaes, 1999). The current situation is that various disk models are still trying to accommodate the main features observed.

Among several serious problems are the continuum slope and apparent lack of continuum edges. In order to explain the observed optical/near-UV slope (e.g. $`F_\nu \nu ^{0.3}`$, Francis et al. 1991; Neugebauer et al. 1987), the overall disk temperature has to be rather low (Koratkar & Blaes, 1999). However, naively, at least in such a cool disk, its atmosphere would show large continuum edges. Apparently, we do not observe such features at the Lyman edge (Antonucci, Kinney & Ford, 1989; Koratkar, Kinney & Bohlin, 1992). This could possibly be accommodated by sophisticated disc atmosphere models (e.g. Hubeny et al. 2000), where the spectrum integrated over radii are smeared through the relativistic Doppler shifts and gravitational redshifts. In these models, the flux discontinuity at the Lyman limit is rather well smeared. There is instead a slope change near the Lyman limit which is accompanied by an emission bump just longward of the change (Hubeny et al., 2000). Some quasar composite spectra (e.g. Zheng et al. 1997), as well as some individual spectra (e.g. 3C273, Kriss et al. 1999), show a slope change near this wavelength. But the predicted emission bump is not seen and it appears at the moment that the model slope change is not in a satisfactory agreement with the observed ones (Blaes et al., 2001).

Another problem is the magnitude and direction of polarization. A simple disk atmosphere would show the polarization equal to the classical case of the plane parallel electron scattering atmosphere which has $`P`$ of $`011.7`$% for the inclination angle of $`090`$°, with the direction of polarization (direction of Electric vector vibration) perpendicular to the disc symmetry axis (Chandrasekhar, 1960). The observed polarization of the BBB emission is typically $`1`$%, and the position angle of polarization is parallel to the radio jet structure, when observations are available, which is presumed to be parallel to the disc axis. More recent calculations show that absorption opacity and general relativistic effects (Laor, Netzer & Piran, 1990) and Faraday depolarization with magnetic fields in the disc atmosphere (Agol & Blaes, 1996; Agol, Blaes & Ionescu-Zanetti, 1998) can reduce the magnitude of polarization. The inconsistency in the direction of polarization will still remain, but absorption opacity effects might in some cases flip the polarization direction (first noted by D.I. Nagirner, as described by Gnedin & Silant’ev 1978), and a rough surface of the discs might lead to the parallel polarization (Coleman & Shields, 1990). Alternatively, the disk radiation is completely depolarized and then re-polarized slightly in the parallel direction by surrounding gas. We also note that there is evidence of very high polarization shortward of Lyman edge in some objects (e.g. Koratkar et al. 1995).

While the Lyman edge feature could be smeared by the relativistic Doppler shifts and gravitational redshifts in the disk atmosphere models, these will be less effective at smearing the Balmer edge feature. This is simply from a robust prediction of the disk models that the Balmer edge region of the spectrum originates from farther out in radius than the Lyman edge region. This should all be true even though the accretion disc stellar atmosphere models of the Lyman and Balmer edge features are still plagued by considerable uncertainties (see e.g. Hubeny et al. 2000, Hubeny et al. 2001 for discussion). Comptonization may also smear the Lyman edge (Czerny & Zbyszewska, 1991), but as this is more important in high temperature regions, the Balmer edge should be less affected (see e.g. Fig.8 of Hubeny et al. 2001). In addition, aside from the disk models, the Lyman edge feature, which is due to a resonant transition, could rather easily be imprinted by a foreground absorption, but this is less likely for the Balmer edge. The Balmer edge should therefore be a key target wavelength region. The observation of this wavelength range not only could test an accretion model, but more fundamentally, could extract direct evidence for the thermal nature of the BBB emission. Even this fundamental issue has not been shown directly, and this lack of direct evidence for the emission nature has been one of the main sources of the controversy.

The only problem with checking this empirically is that the Balmer edge wavelength region of the BBB emission is very hard to observe due to the Balmer emission lines/continuum and FeII emission lines from the Broad Line Region (BLR) and outer regions (called the 3000Å bump, or the small blue bump). However, we can sometimes remove all these unwanted emissions by taking a polarized flux spectrum. As mentioned above, many quasars are found to be polarized at $`P1`$%, and at least in some cases, emission lines (broad and narrow) are unpolarized - the polarization is confined to the continuum (Schmidt & Smith 2000; Antonucci 1988, showing the data of Miller and Goodrich). This indicates that the polarization mechanism resides interior to the BLR in these cases. Thus, the polarized flux shows the spectrum interior to the BLR, revealing the underlying behavior at the Balmer edge region.

We have obtained high S/N spectropolarimetry data of quasars with the Keck telescope, which allow us to investigate this Balmer edge behavior in detail. We report in this paper that we have indeed found a Balmer absorption feature in one of the quasars we observed.

## 2 Observations

We have observed two quasars listed in Table 1 on May 8, 2002 (UT) with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS; Oke et al. 1995) on the Keck-I telescope using its polarimetry module. These quasars are (1) polarized but known to have no emission lines in the polarized flux spectrum of limited S/N in the literature (2) in the redshift range of $`z0.3`$ to have the Balmer edge in the observed frame fall on the appropriate wavelength range for the instrument sensitivity and sufficiently far from the atmospheric cutoff. We have used the blue-side CCD with grism 300/5000 at a dispersion of 2.2Å per pixel. The slit width was $`1.^{\prime \prime }5`$ and the spectral resolution was $`15`$Å. The data were obtained with the slit approximately along the parallactic angle. The spatial sampling was $`0.^{\prime \prime }215`$ per pixel.

The data were reduced in the standard manner: the bias level was subtracted using the overscan region, frames were flat-fielded using dome flat exposures, and obvious cosmic-ray hits were removed and interpolated using neighboring pixels. Then the polarimetry data reduction was done following (Miller et al.1988). We lost the first hours of the night with clouds, and some of the subsequent observations might have been through cirrus, which may have caused a little guide error. We have checked the balance factor $`\omega `$ spectra (, Miller et al.1988) and object positions for each pair of two frames taken with the waveplate rotated by 45°, and also checked the consistency of $`q`$ and $`u`$ between different pairs. We have excluded the pairs which had an obvious guide problem and/or whose $`\omega `$ spectra had a strong curvature over the wavelengths. The sets in which the $`q`$ or $`u`$ is systematically different from other sets were found only in these excluded frames. From the 4 sets of 4 frames (4 waveplate positions) left for Ton 202 and 2 sets left for 4C37.43 (listed in Table 1), the normalized $`q`$ and $`u`$ were obtained. The Stokes $`I`$ was obtained from the same two sets for 4C37.43, but for Ton 202, it was obtained from three sets, excluding one which showed a slight curvature in the $`\omega `$ spectrum. The Stokes $`I`$’s were flux-calibrated using the standard star BD+33d2642.

Due to a problem at the end of the night, we lost the time for the polarization standard star observation. Therefore, there is an uncertainty of a constant in our measurement of the position angle (PA) of polarization. But this constant was roughly determined based on the published PAs of our targets, and the uncertainty is probably $`5`$° from the probable variability of the PAs of the targets: the observed PAs in the literature are within $`5`$° of 70° and 105° for Ton 202 and 4C37.43, respectively, except for one occasion in each target (Berriman et al. 1990, Schmidt & Smith 2000; see section 4.3).

The unpolarized standard star was also BD+33d2642. This star is reported to be slightly polarized with $`P0.2`$% (Schmidt, Elston & Lupie, 1992). We also find this level of polarization but at PA of $``$100° as opposed to $``$10° reported by Schmidt et al. (1992). We believe that the PA in Schmidt et al. is in error by 90° for the following reasons. (1) A few measurements made by G. Schmidt et al. since their paper have actually showed the PA to be 95°(G. Schmidt, pc, 2003). (2) The overall tendency of interstellar polarization around the star is at around PA 100°. (3) We looked at another data set of the same star taken in Jan 1998 at Keck (given to us by A. Barth) and found the polarization consistent with ours. (4) Finally, another Keck observation by Cimatti et al shows 100° (A. Cimatti, pc, 2002). Our $`P`$ measurement shows a Serkowski-like curve, and matches well with Schmidt et al’s multi-band $`P`$ measurement, if rotated by 90°. Based on the difference between these data sets, the instrumental polarization is expected to be less than $`0.050.1`$%. This is also supported by the comparison of two sets of our Ton202 observation which were taken in different slit directions (see also section 4.3).

At the red end of the spectrum $`\lambda 6600`$Å, the spatial profile degrades (worse in the observation of 4C37.43, possibly due to larger flexure in the focus direction in LRIS from the lower attitude of the telescope). Therefore we have used rather large extraction windows to accommodate it, $`3.^{\prime \prime }7`$ for Ton 202 and $`6.^{\prime \prime }7`$ for 4C37.43, although there might still be a slight uncertainty in the P measurement at the reddest end.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Ton 202

Figure 1 shows the normalized Stokes parameters $`q`$ and $`u`$ for the quasar Ton 202 at $`z=0.366`$, along with the total flux $`F_\lambda `$ at the bottom for reference. The reference axis of $`q`$ and $`u`$ has been rotated to be at the position angle (PA) of the object’s polarization, which is essentially wavelength independent. Figure 2 shows unnormalized Stokes $`Q`$ in thick lines, which is essentially the polarized flux spectrum $`P\times F_\lambda `$, and $`U`$ in dotted lines at the bottom. The dotted spectrum at the top is the total flux $`F_\lambda `$ scaled to roughly match the polarized flux at the red side. The emission lines, both broad and narrow ones, are essentially all absent in the polarized flux to a high S/N, corresponding to the clear decrease of polarization at the emission line wavelengths (see Fig.1).

From Figure 2, the slope of the polarized flux at the red side is roughly the same as that of the total flux. However, we find that the slope of the polarized flux changes at the bluer side of $``$4000Å in the rest frame (note the rest wavelength scale at the top of Figures), just where the small blue bump starts in the total flux. There might also be a possible up-turn at the bluer side of $``$3600Å in the rest frame. To illustrate the slope change quantitatively, if we measure the slope at the blue side (2800 - 4000Å in the rest frame) and the red side (4000 - 4900Å) by fitting a broken power law, we obtain $`\alpha =1.73\pm 0.07`$ and $`0.54\pm 0.08`$, respectively, where $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ (we have excluded the red end of the spectrum considering the possible uncertainty from the spatial profile degradation; see section 2). Note that this spectral slope change is too sharp to be explained by dust reddening: we tried adopting available reddening laws (e.g. Cardelli et al.1989) on a power-law continuum, but no reasonable fit was obtained.

We identify this slope change (and the possible secondary up-turn) to be a Balmer edge feature, seen in absorption in the shorter wavelength side. It certainly does not look like an “edge” seen in the continuum opacity. This is conceivable, since the real edge should consist both of the continuum edge and high order Balmer lines, so that the combined effect may well be that the edge feature starts rather at around 4000Å, instead of 3646Å. In addition, there may be absorption by metal lines, resembling the 4000Å break in an old stellar population. Recall too that there may be a secondary dip/up-turn at $`3600`$Å near where the actual edge is expected.

However, admittedly, the edge and absorption lines probably need to be broadened in order to be consistent with the observed spectral shape of the polarized flux. This could be attributed to a Doppler smearing due to a high velocity dispersion expected in the deep potential well at the nucleus (though in terms of accretion disc models, the smearing effect is smaller for the Balmer edge than for the Lyman edge, as discussed in section 1). Without referring to any particular model, however, the shape of the feature and the wavelength of the slope change strongly suggest that the feature is most likely to be a Balmer edge absorption feature.

### 3.2 4C37.43

The data for 4C37.43 ($`z=0.371`$) are shown in Figures 3 and 4 in the same manner as for Ton 202. The data are of lower S/N compared to those for Ton 202, but there might be a weak broad H$`\beta `$ emission line in the polarized flux in this object. This means that there might also be some contribution from the small blue bump in the polarized flux of this object, making our scraping method incomplete. Apparently, there does not seem to be a clear slope change in the polarized flux, but the plot in $`\nu F_\nu `$ (Fig.8) might suggest a very slight slope change again around 4000Å. This is still unclear in the slope measurements with a broken power law: $`\alpha =0.17\pm 0.11`$ where $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ in the blue side (2800-4000Å in the rest frame) and $`\alpha =+0.06\pm 0.23`$ in the red side (4000-4700Å, excluding the possible broad line component and the red-end portion).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The nature of the Big Blue Bump emission

As we have pointed out above, there are essentially no broad (and narrow) emission lines in the polarized flux of Ton 202, and the polarization is confined to the continuum. This means that the polarization seen here is very different from the polarization seen in many Seyfert 2 galaxies. In the latter, the continuum emission and the broad line emission are both scattered in the region exterior to the BLR and coming into our line of sight, so that both the continuum and broad lines are present in the polarized flux. In these Seyfert 2’s, the position angle of polarization is perpendicular to the radio jet structure. These two facts have lead to the thought that the scattering region is located along the jet axis outside the nucleus and the BLR.

In contrast, in the case of Ton 202 where the broad lines are shown to be essentially unpolarized (and in other quasars shown in Schmidt and Smith 2000, though with a limited S/N), the region which is causing the polarization should be interior to the BLR (unless the polarized light is a completely different component from the BBB emission; see the discussion below in section 4.2). Unlike the cases of the Seyfert 2’s above, we still do not have a good understanding of the polarization mechanism in these quasars. One of the main difficulties in disc atmosphere calculations is that disk atmospheres generally produce polarization perpendicular to the disk axis, while the position angle of polarization is observed to be parallel to the jet axis. (The difference between the optical polarization PA and the radio jet axis is 15° and 9° for Ton 202 and 4C37.43, respectively, from Schmidt & Smith 2000; given the polarization PA variability and the imperfectly measurable radio axis PA, the differences from zero are not necessarily real.) However, the non-existence of exact models for the parallel polarization does not affect our conclusion that the polarizing region (the region causing the polarization) should be interior to the BLR (see more below for the discussion of the size).

Geometrically, we can first think of two cases. (1) The source of the BBB emission and the polarizing region are essentially the same — the Balmer-edge absorption, its broadening, and polarization are occurring within the BBB emitter (see Fig.5a). One such an example is a disk atmosphere (aside from the inconsistency in polarization direction). The Balmer edge feature in the polarized flux can mean either that the total flux of the BBB has an edge feature with a wavelength-independent polarization, or the total flux is rather featureless but the polarization is low at shortward of the edge. In either case, the edge feature in the polarized flux is simply intrinsic to the BBB emission in the sense that the feature is formed within the BBB emitter. (2) The polarizing region is located somewhere between the BBB emitter and the BLR. One conceivable case is an optically-thin oblate electron scattering region surrounding an unpolarized BBB emitter (see Fig.5b). The region would be optically thin (see discussion below), oblate and perpendicular to the jet axis in order to produce the polarization parallel to the axis (see Brown & McLean 1977 for polarization calculation). We would not consider dust scattering since the region is essentially within the dust sublimation radius. The intrinsic BBB polarization might have been completely wiped out by Faraday depolarization. In this optically-thin scattering case, the polarized flux spectrum is simply proportional to the incident BBB emission, so that the edge feature should have been formed, again, within the BBB emitter.

Therefore, in both cases above, the Balmer-edge absorption feature identified in the polarized flux is intrinsic to the BBB emission. Thus the feature indicates that the BBB emission is indeed thermal. The fact that the edge feature is seen in absorption in the shorter wavelength side indicates that the emission is optically thick. This is our first, primary conclusion.

The possible weak broad line component in the polarized flux of 4C37.43 might suggest that the size of the polarizing region in this object is not much smaller than the size of the BLR, which might be the case in general. In this sense, the case (2) above may be preferred rather than case (1). The radius of the oblate electron scattering region might be extended as large as the inner radius of the BLR.

Many Seyfert 1 galaxies also show a few % level polarization in continuum (e.g. Goodrich & Miller 1994; Smith et al. 2002). When the radio structure is available, the radio axis is parallel to the optical polarization direction in the majority of the cases (Antonucci, 1983, 2002; Smith et al., 2002). In contrast to our two quasars, broad lines are very clearly polarized in these Seyfert 1 galaxies. However, the broad line polarization integrated over the line profile is generally at a different PA than the continuum, and the PAs often show some systematic rotation within the line wavelengths (Goodrich & Miller, 1994; Smith et al., 2002). This might suggest that the polarizing region in these Seyfert 1s is not much larger than the BLR, and it may be closely related to the oblate scattering region discussed above.

### 4.2 Other possibilities

The two cases above are probably the simplest cases for producing the observed polarization. However, we cannot rule out some cases where the Balmer edge feature seen in the polarized flux is still not intrinsic to the BBB emission. There might be a case where the scattering medium in case (2) above is also imprinting the absorption feature on the polarized flux spectrum (while the incident BBB spectrum is featureless; see Fig.6a). In this case, however, we need to have an absorption optical thickness of order unity in the Balmer continuum along the size of this region. The broadening of the absorption feature also need to occur in this scattering/absorbing medium. This would require a rather large velocity dispersion, having to put this region, for example, in a rather deep potential well. Having too a significant absorption optical thickness, especially in a deep potential well, is rather equivalent to having the whole scattering region as the BBB emitter itself, so that the distinction becomes largely semantic. This region might also produce a significant soft X-ray absorption. The broadening might be due to the scattering by hot electrons, but in this case, a significant alteration of the X-ray Fe K$`\alpha `$ line might be expected (but see Czerny & Zbyszewska 1991).

Alternatively, the Balmer absorption feature could be imprinted in the featureless polarized flux by some foreground region (Fig.6b). The background source of a featureless polarized flux could be the BBB emitter itself or a completely different source (in this case, a high polarization is required for this secondary source), assuming that the polarized flux is somehow produced by e.g. synchrotron process or electron scattering within that source. This case would require some particular velocity structure in this foreground medium along the line of sight, to produce the apparent slope change. Also the absorption feature would be more significant in the Lyman edge region in this case, since the Lyman transition is a resonant one. Such Lyman edge absorption is not seen in quasars, though the UV data for Ton 202 itself are quite noisy (Lanzetta et al. 1993; the UV spectrum of 4C37.43 looks featureless at the Lyman edge). Note that, conversely, the slope changes at the Lyman edge region seen in some cases, as discussed in section 1, could be a foreground absorption, but this is less likely to be the case for the (non-resonant) Balmer edge region.

Schmidt & Smith (2000) preferred synchrotron emission for the explanation of the optical polarization of the lobe-dominant quasars which show the alignment of the polarization PA and radio axis, including our two targets here. The polarized flux of Ton 202 in their observation seemed featureless, while it was not in our observation, which could be due to a limited S/N in their observation but also a variability (see the next section). If synchrotron emission is the origin of the polarization, the observed Balmer-edge feature is thought to be imprinted in the polarized flux somewhere along the line of sight, which is what we have just discussed. While we cannot rule this out, we need to consider the critical implications described above.

More generally, we note that synchrotron emission from the misdirected blazar core components, which is favored by Schmidt & Smith (2000), does not seem to be enough to explain the observed optical polarized flux level of lobe-dominant quasars. For our two objects specifically, the ratio of the radio core flux to the optical polarized flux in $`F_\nu `$ is $`2\times 10^3`$ (see Table 1 in Schmidt & Smith 2000). Thus the ratio of the radio core flux to the putative optical synchrotron flux is $`2\times 10^3\times P^{}`$, where $`P^{}`$ is the fractional polarization of the optical synchrotron emission. Since the radio cores of lobe-dominant quasars typically become optically thin by 30GHz (Antonucci, Barvainis & Alloin, 1990), the expected ratios would be more like $`2\times 10^4`$ (for $`F_\nu \nu ^1`$). Also, it is known that the optical polarization distribution for lobe-dominant radio loud quasars is similar to that for radio quiet quasars (Stockman, Moore & Angel, 1984).

### 4.3 Variability

Our polarization measurement of 4C37.43 looks rather consistent with that of Schmidt & Smith (2000) in the red part of the spectrum. But in the bluer part, the $`P`$ in our measurement is slightly higher by $`0.10.2`$%, and the total flux looks also slightly bluer, leading to a bluer polarized flux color ($`\alpha =0.11\pm 0.07`$ for $`\lambda _{\mathrm{rest}}=28004700`$Å in our data, whereas $`\alpha =0.8\pm 0.2`$ in Schmidt & Smith 2000). Compared with the data for Ton 202 in Schmidt & Smith (2000) and Antonucci (1988; data of Miller and Goodrich), the measured polarization in our data is slightly higher especially at 4000-4800Å in the rest frame of the quasar. The difference in $`P`$ is up to 0.5%, which is much larger than the instrumental polarization level discussed in section 2. In the unlikely case that the identified edge-like feature in the polarized flux is solely due to the instrumental polarization, the $`q`$ and $`u`$ spectrum in the sky coordinates should look different in the data taken at different instrument angles (see Table 1), if the instrumental polarization stays the same in the instrumental coordinates. Since the instrument angles are different by 30°, the instrumental polarization component should rotate by 60° in the $`q`$-$`u`$ plane of the sky coordinates, which should obviously show up in the $`u`$ spectrum. This is not the case, and the polarized flux spectra from two different instrument angles show essentially the same feature.

Therefore, the polarization of Ton 202, and probably also 4C37.43, seems to have varied slightly over these several years (from 1996-1999 to 2002). This is actually conceivable, since the polarization arises from a region smaller than (or in general, at most comparable to) the BLR, as we argued above. As noted in section 2, the polarimetric data of Berriman et al. (1990) and Schmidt & Smith (2000) which span from 1978 to 1999 have some evidence of variability for both of the objects (see section 4.2 of Schmidt & Smith 2000). Similar probable variations of the polarization have been reported for broad line radio galaxies (e.g. Antonucci 1984). The polarization of the continuum and broad lines in Seyfert 1 galaxies, discussed in section 4.1, are seen to vary on similar time scales (e.g. Young et al. 1999, Smith et al. 2002). We plan to follow up our objects in an upcoming observing run.

### 4.4 Behavior in the shorter wavelength region and other targets

Figures 7 and 8 shows the same data as in Figure 2 and 4 but in $`\nu F_\nu `$ instead of $`F_\lambda `$, with both axes on log scales. For Ton 202, $`\nu F_\nu `$ has a peak in the wavelength around the Balmer edge feature at least locally. If the total flux has the same spectral shape as the polarized flux, as in the case of polarization being produced in the surrounding electron scattering region or in the case of a wavelength-independent polarization of the BBB emitter, this implies that the energy output from the small blue bump is much larger than previously thought. Also, in order for the UV continuum to ionize the surrounding region, the BBB emission should turn up as it goes into the shorter wavelength region under the small blue bump. The possible up-turn observed in the polarized flux is still uncertain and will be followed up with a new blue sensitive CCD at the Keck. Targets with higher redshifts would of course be better for the investigation at shorter wavelengths.

As for statistics and other targets, we have observed and presented in this paper two quasars among the ones which previously appeared to show polarization confined to continuum (no polarized broad line) in a limited S/N. One of them, Ton 202, is confirmed to have no polarized broad line in our high S/N observation, and has shown a clear slope change in the polarized flux. The result for the other quasar, 4C37.43, is not still conclusive. In Schmidt & Smith (2000), there are 5 more quasars with continuum-confined polarization in a limited S/N. Their polarized flux should be observed with a very high S/N so that the broad lines and the Balmer edge wavelength region can be closely examined. We have further observed some of them at the VLT, which will be published elsewhere.

### 4.5 Broadening and Accretion Disk Models

As we have pointed out, even though the high order Balmer absorption lines, and possibly metal lines, are expected to blur the edge substantially, the observed edge feature suggests a broadening probably by a high velocity dispersion of the gas around the nucleus. In this case, very crudely, the velocity dispersion needed is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /\lambda 400/36000.1c`$, corresponding to $`100R_g`$ ($`R_g=GM/c^2`$ for a black hole mass $`M`$) for a Keplerian rotation.

In terms of accretion disc models for quasars, this radius is broadly conceivable for a Balmer edge emitting radius. The broadening depends on the inclination of the disc to the line of sight: our quasars are not expected to be so close to face-on, based on the observed core-to-lobe radio flux ratios $`R`$ ($`logR=0.40`$ and $`0.71`$ for Ton 202 and 4C37.43, respectively, from Wills et al. 1992, though this is a very crude indicator). Then, the Doppler broadening would be effective. The preliminary calculation using the model of Hubeny et al. (2000) without any absorption lines show that the emission from the disc atmosphere can produce at least very crudely such a smeared Balmer edge feature. Note again that the high order Balmer absorption lines can be crucial to the spectral shape at the edge region. An appropriate model is under development. We stress, however, that our conclusion of an optically-thick thermal BBB emitter does not involve any particular model of the nucleus.

## 5 Conclusions

We have taken high S/N polarized flux spectra of two quasars with LRISp on the Keck telescope in order to investigate the behavior around the Balmer edge. One of them, Ton 202, shows a slope change at around 4000Å. There might also be a possible up-turn at 3600Å in the same polarized flux spectrum. We identify this to be a Balmer edge feature, seen in absorption in the shorter wavelength side. There are essentially no broad emission lines in the polarized flux spectrum of Ton 202. This indicates that the polarized flux arises interior to the BLR, showing the spectrum with all the contaminating emissions from the BLR and outer regions scraped off and removed. Therefore, the polarized flux spectrum shape is likely to be intrinsic to the Big Blue Bump emission. In this case, the identified Balmer edge feature indicates that the Big Blue Bump emission is thermal and optically thick.

The polarized flux shape would be intrinsic to the BBB emission in two general cases: (1) the Balmer-edge absorption, its broadening, and polarization are occurring within the BBB emitter itself or (2) the broadened Balmer-edge absorption feature is formed within the BBB emitter, and some part of the emission is subsequently scattered (thus getting polarized) by electrons in an optically-thin region surrounding the BBB emitter. This region would be oblate in shape and perpendicular to the jet axis in order to produce polarization parallel to the axis.

In another quasar, 4C37.43, there might be a very weak broad component of H$`\beta `$ line in the polarized flux. This could imply that the polarization arises from scales not much smaller than the BLR. This might be the case in general, so that the case (2) above may be preferred and the size of the postulated oblate scattering region might generally be comparable to the innermost radius of the BLR.

However, we cannot rule out some cases where the Balmer-edge feature is not intrinsic to the BBB emission. The Balmer-edge absorption feature might be formed within the scattering region surrounding the featureless BBB emitter, along with the polarization. However in this case, the scattering/absorbing region should be rather optically thick and in a rather deep potential well, which might make this case almost equivalent to the case (1) above. It might also be possible to postulate (possibly independent) compact featureless polarized flux emitter and have the absorption and broadening in a foreground region, but this would require a particular velocity structure, and the absorption at the Lyman edge would be implausibly large.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank A. Barth, D. Leonard, A. Cimatti, G. Schmidt for helping us to clarify the polarization measurements on the null standard star, E. Agol for providing calibration data, R. Goodrich for various information on the Keck polarimetry, and A. Laor for useful comments on the manuscript of the paper. The work by RA was supported in part by NSF grant AST-0098719, and the work by OB was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-7075.