1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

6: \usepackage{psfig}% bold math

7: %************************************************************

8: \newcommand{\ag}{a_{3g}}

9: \newcommand{\aga}{a_{\gamma}}

10: \newcommand{\ac}{a_c}

11: \newcommand{\BR}{{\cal B}}

12: \newcommand{\BRz}{{\cal B}_0}

13: \newcommand{\afs}{\alpha_s}

14: \newcommand{\jpc}{J^{PC}}

15: \newcommand{\alf}{\alpha}

16: \newcommand{\eff}{\varepsilon}

17: \newcommand{\sintht}{\sin{\theta}}

18: \newcommand{\costht}{\cos{\theta}}

19: \newcommand{\Npsp}{N_{\psi^\prime}}

20: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}

21: \newcommand{\mev}{\,\mbox{MeV}}

22: \newcommand{\pip}{\pi^+}

23: \newcommand{\pim}{\pi^-}

24: \newcommand{\piz}{\pi^0}

25: \newcommand{\threepi}{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0}

26: \newcommand{\kap}{K^+}

27: \newcommand{\kam}{K^-}

28: \newcommand{\ks}{K_S}

29: \newcommand{\kl}{K_L^0}

30: \newcommand{\pbar}{\bar{p}}

31: \newcommand{\etacp}{\eta_c^{\prime}}

32: \newcommand{\hc}{h_c}

33: \newcommand{\psp}{\psi^{\prime}}

34: \newcommand{\psip}{\psi(2S)}

35: \newcommand{\pspp}{\psi^{\prime \prime}}

36: \newcommand{\psipp}{\psi(3770)}

37: \newcommand{\jpsi}{J/\psi}

38: \newcommand{\DD}{D^+ D^-}

39: \newcommand{\EE}{e^+e^-}

40: \newcommand{\MM}{\mu^+\mu^-}

41: \newcommand{\TT}{\tau^+\tau^-}

42: \newcommand{\GG}{\gamma\gamma}

43: \newcommand{\PP}{\pi^+\pi^-}

44: \newcommand{\KK}{K^+K^-}

45: \newcommand{\pp}{\pi^+\pi^-}

46: \newcommand{\kk}{K^+K^-}

47: \newcommand{\kskl}{K^0_SK^0_L}

48: \newcommand{\KKSC}{K^{*+}K^-}

49: \newcommand{\KKSN}{K^{*0}\overline{K^0}}

50: \newcommand{\zz}{\bar{p} p}

51: \newcommand{\LL}{\ell^+\ell^-}

52: \newcommand{\rpi}{\rho\pi}

53: \newcommand{\OP}{\omega\pi^0}

54: \newcommand{\RP}{\rho\pi}

55: \newcommand{\RET}{\rho\eta}

56: \newcommand{\RETp}{\rho\eta^{\prime}}

57: \newcommand{\OET}{\omega\eta}

58: \newcommand{\OETp}{\omega\eta^{\prime}}

59: \newcommand{\FET}{\phi\eta} 

60: \newcommand{\FETp}{\phi\eta^{\prime}} 

61: \newcommand{\ogpi}{\omega\pi^0}

62: \newcommand{\omegapi}{\omega\pi^0}

63: \newcommand{\rhopi}{\rho\pi}

64: \newcommand{\rhopin}{\rho^0 \pi^0}

65: \newcommand{\ccbar}{c\bar{c}}

66: \newcommand{\ccb}{c\overline{c}}

67: \newcommand{\QQb}{Q\overline{Q}}

68: \newcommand{\qqb}{q\overline{q}}

69: \newcommand{\nnb}{n\overline{n}}

70: \newcommand{\ppbar}{p\bar{p}}

71: \newcommand{\BBb}{B\overline{B}}

72: \newcommand{\KKb}{K\overline{K}}

73: \newcommand{\ppb}{p\overline{p}}

74: \newcommand{\aab}{\Lambda\overline{\Lambda}}

75: \newcommand{\LLb}{\Lambda \overline{\Lambda}}

76: \newcommand{\ddbar}{D\bar{D}}

77: \newcommand{\ddb}{D\overline{D}}

78: \newcommand{\DDb}{D\overline{D}}

79: \newcommand{\DzDzbar}{D^0 \overline{D^0}}

80: \newcommand{\kskp}{K^0_S K^+ \pi^- + c.c.}

81: \newcommand{\kskn}{K^{*0}(892)\overline{K^0}+c.c.}

82: %%%%%---------------------------------------------------------

83: \newcommand{\VP}{1^-0^-}

84: \newcommand{\fddd}{{\cal F} (\ddb \ra f)}

85: \newcommand{\fndd}{\overline{\cal F} (\ddb \ra f)}

86: %%%%%---------------------------------------------------------

87: \newcommand{\jpsipp}{J/\psi \pi^+\pi^-}

88: \newcommand{\ppjpsi}{\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}

89: \newcommand{\gpp}{\gamma \pi^+\pi^-}

90: \newcommand{\gkk}{\gamma K^+K^-}

91: \newcommand{\gppb}{\gamma p\overline{p}}

92: \newcommand{\PPJP}{\pi^+\pi^- J/\psi}

93: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

94: \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}

95: \newcommand{\jpsito}{J/\psi \rightarrow }

96: \newcommand{\psipto}{\psi(2S) \rightarrow }

97: \newcommand{\psippto}{\psi(3770) \rightarrow }

98: \newcommand{\psito}{J/\psi \rightarrow }

99: \newcommand{\pspto}{\psi^{\prime} \rightarrow }

100: \newcommand{\psppto}{\psi^{\prime \prime} \rightarrow }

101: \newcommand{\EETO}{e^+e^-\to}

102: \newcommand{\M}{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}M}

103: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

104: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

105: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}

106: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

107: \newcommand{\beqns}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

108: \newcommand{\eeqns}{\end{eqnarray*}}

109: \newcommand{\bfg}{\begin{figure}}

110: \newcommand{\efg}{\end{figure}}

111: \newcommand{\bitm}{\begin{itemize}}

112: \newcommand{\eitm}{\end{itemize}}

113: \newcommand{\bnum}{\begin{enumerate}}

114: \newcommand{\enum}{\end{enumerate}}

115: \newcommand{\btbl}{\begin{table}}

116: \newcommand{\etbl}{\end{table}}

117: \newcommand{\btbu}{\begin{tabular}}

118: \newcommand{\etbu}{\end{tabular}}

119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

120: \def\eref#1{(\ref{#1})}

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}

123: %!!!!! Some useful journal names !!!!!%

124: %\def\EPJC{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} C}

125: %\def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

126: \def\IJMP{Int. J. Mod. Phys. A}

127: \def\NCA{Nuovo Cimento}

128: \def\NIM{Nucl. Instrum. Methods}

129: \def\NIMA{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A}

130: \def\NPB{Nucl. Phys. B}

131: \def\PLB{Phys. Lett. B}

132: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

133: \def\PRD{Phys. Rev. D}

134: \def\PRP{Phys. Rep.}

135: \def\ZPC{Z. Phys. C}

136: \def\EPJC{Eur. Phys. J. C}

137: \def\JHEP{Journal of High Energy Physics}

138: \def\HEPNP{HEP \& NP}

139: %%%%%%%%%

140: \begin{document}

141: 

142: \preprint{Draft-PRD}

143: 

144: \title{Measurement of the exclusive light

145: hadron decays of the $\pspp$ in $\EE$ experiments}

146: \author{P. Wang}

147: \author{X.H. Mo}

148: \author{C.Z. Yuan}

149: \affiliation{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of

150: Sciences, Beijing 100049, China}

151: 

152: \date{\today}

153: 

154: \begin{abstract}

155: 

156: The measurement of the exclusive light hadron decays of 

157: the $\pspp$ in

158: $\EE$ experiments with significant interference between the

159: $\pspp$ and non-resonance continuum amplitudes is discussed. The

160: radiative correction and the Monte Carlo simulation are studied.

161: A possible scheme to verify the destructive interference is

162: proposed for the detectors with energy-momentum resolution of $(1

163: \sim 2)\%$. \\

164: 

165: {\em Keywords:} $\pspp$ exclusive decay; interference; 

166: Monte Carlo simulation; $\EE$ experiment.

167: 

168: \end{abstract}

169: 

170: \pacs{13.25.Gv, 12.38.Qk, 14.40.Gx}

171: 

172: \maketitle

173: 

174: \section{Introduction}

175: 

176: The study of the charmonium has been revived due to large data

177: samples collected by CLEOc and BESII as well as by the

178: $B$-factories. A prominent physics which has drawn interest for

179: more than two decades is the very small branching fractions of

180: $\rhopi$ and other vector-pseudoscalar modes in $\psp$ decays

181: compared with their large branching fractions in $\jpsi$ decays.

182: One proposal to solve this puzzle is the $2S$-$1D$ states mixing

183: scenario~\cite{rosner} which predicts enhanced rate of $\rhopi$

184: mode in $\pspp$ decays. This scenario is extended to other decay

185: modes besides $\rhopi$, it foresees possible large partial widthes

186: for the light hadron modes in $\pspp$ decays~\cite{wym7,wym1}.

187: 

188: Recently, CLEOc and BESII reported the search for various light

189: hadron decays of the $\pspp$~\cite{cleolp05,besvp,besrp}. These

190: experiments produce the $\pspp$ in $\EE$ collision so the radiative

191: correction must be taken into account in the data analysis.

192: Another feature of the data analysis of the resonances produced in

193: $\EE$ collision is the need to consider the non-resonance

194: continuum amplitude. For example, in the $\EE \ra \rhopi$ data

195: collected at the $\pspp$ mass, if the $2S$-$1D$ mixing scenario

196: gives correct ${\cal B}(\pspp \ra \rhopi)$, then the non-resonance

197: continuum amplitude is comparable to the $\pspp$ decay amplitude,

198: the measured cross section is the result of the interference of

199: the two~\cite{wym3}. For the narrow resonances like $\jpsi$,

200: $\psp$, $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$, and $\Upsilon(3S)$, the

201: energy spread of the $\EE$ colliders must also be considered. But

202: in this work, we concentrate on the wide resonances like $\pspp$,

203: of which the width is much wider than the finite energy spread of

204: the $\EE$ colliders, so the energy spread does not change the

205: observed cross section in any significant way. In this paper, we

206: pay special attention to the circumstance that the interference

207: between the amplitudes of the resonance and continuum has

208: substantial contribution, particularly the circumstance that such

209: interference is destructive. We present the characteristic

210: features of the radiative correction under such circumstance. In

211: the forthcoming sections, we begin with the amplitudes for the

212: observed processes in $\EE$ experiments and the parametrization of

213: them. Then we present the general properties of radiative

214: correction. Next we turn to the Monte Carlo simulation. We discuss

215: the invariant mass distribution of the final hadron systems for

216: the continuum process and for the pure resonance process, as well

217: as for the circumstance in which both the resonance and continuum

218: amplitudes exist and there is significant interference effect

219: between them. Finally, we propose a possible scheme to verify the

220: destructive interference with the data collected at the energy of

221: the $\pspp$ mass for a detector with the energy-momentum

222: resolution of $(1 \sim 2)\%$.

223: 

224: Avoiding complexity but without losing generality, we restrict our

225: discussions on two situations in which the data are collected

226: either off resonance at continuum, or at the energy of the

227: resonance mass. For the experimental setting in which $\pspp$ is

228: scanned, the technique details are more complicated. We shall

229: leave its study to a future work. Through out the paper, the

230: resonance $\pspp$ is taken as an example, but the analysis can be

231: easily extended to other resonances with their width to mass

232: ratios comparable to the energy-momentum resolution of the

233: detector.

234: 

235: \section{Three amplitudes in $\EE$ experiments}

236: \label{threeamplitude}

237: 

238: The OZI suppressed decays of the $\pspp$ into light hadrons are via

239: strong and electromagnetic interactions. In general, the cross

240: section of $\EE$ to a certain final state at the resonance is

241: expressed in the Born order by

242:  \beq

243:  \sigma_B(s)= \frac{4\pi s\alpha^2}{3}|\ag(s)+\aga(s)|^2{\cal P}(s).

244:  \label{born}

245:  \eeq

246: In the above equation, $\sqrt{s}$ is the center-of-mass (C.M.)

247: energy of $\EE$, $\alpha$ is the QED fine structure constant,

248: $\ag(s)$ and $\aga(s)$ denote the amplitudes in which the

249: resonance decays via strong and electromagnetic interactions

250: respectively, ${\cal P}(s)$ is the phase space factor for the

251: final states. However, in $\EE$ colliding experiments, the

252: continuum process

253:  \begin{equation}

254:  e^+e^- \rightarrow \gamma^* \rightarrow hadrons \nonumber

255:  \end{equation}

256: may produce the same final hadronic states as the resonance decays

257: do. We denote its amplitude by $\ac$, then the cross section

258: becomes~\cite{rudaz,wymz}

259:  \beq

260:  \sigma_{B}(s) =\frac{4\pi s \alpha^2}{3}

261:  |\ag(s)+\aga(s)+\ac(s)|^2~{\cal P}(s). \label{bornp}

262:  \eeq

263: So what truly contribute to the experimentally measured cross

264: section are three classes of diagrams, $i.e.$ the strong

265: interaction presumably through three-gluon annihilation, the

266: electromagnetic interaction through the annihilation of

267: $c\overline{c}$ pair into a virtual photon, and the one-photon

268: continuum process, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{threefymn}, where

269: the charm loops stand for the charmonium state. To analyze the

270: experimental results, we must take these three amplitudes into

271: account.

272: 

273: \begin{figure}

274: \begin{minipage}{8cm}

275: \includegraphics[width=3.25cm,height=2.5cm]{fyggg.eps}

276: \hskip 0.5cm

277: \includegraphics[width=3.25cm,height=2.5cm]{fygcc.eps}

278: \end{minipage}

279: \begin{minipage}{8cm}

280: \center

281: \includegraphics[width=3.5cm,height=2.5cm]{fygee.eps}

282: \end{minipage}

283: \caption{\label{threefymn} The three classes of diagrams of

284: $\EE\rightarrow light\, \, hadrons$ at charmonium resonance. The

285: charmonium state is represented by a charm quark loop.}

286: \end{figure}

287: 

288: For an exclusive mode, $\ac$ can be expressed by

289:  \begin{equation}

290:  \ac(s) = \frac{{\cal F}(s)}{s},

291:  \label{ac}

292:  \end{equation}

293: where ${\cal F}(s)$ is the electromagnetic

294: form factor which may have a dimension

295: depending on the final states, here we define ${\cal F}(s){\cal

296: P}(s)$ to be dimensionless. We adopt the convention that $\ac$ is

297: real. Since $\aga$ is due to the resonance, it is expressed in the

298: Breit-Wigner form

299:  \begin{equation}

300:  \aga(s)=\frac{3\Gamma_{ee}{\cal F}(s)/(\alpha \sqrt{s})}

301:  {s-M^2+i M \Gamma_t},

302:  \label{aga}

303:  \end{equation}

304: where $M$ and $\Gamma_t$ are the mass and the total width of the

305: resonance, $\Gamma_{ee}$ is its partial width to $\EE$. As $\ag$

306: is also due to the resonance decays, it can be parametrized

307: relative to $\aga$ by a complex factor

308:  \beq {\cal C}\equiv |\ag/\aga|e^{i \phi},

309:  \label{c}

310:  \eeq

311: as

312:  \begin{equation}

313:  \ag(s) = {\cal C} \cdot \frac{3\Gamma_{ee}{\cal F}(s)/(\alpha \sqrt{s})}

314:  {s-M^2+i M \Gamma_t}~.

315:  \label{ag}

316:  \end{equation}

317: 

318: Neglecting double OZI suppressed processes, 

319: the amplitudes of $\pspp$ decays into pairs of vector-pseudoscalar

320: mesons ($VP$) are parametrized in terms of three parameters: the

321: strong amplitude $g$, the electromagnetic amplitude $e$ and the

322: $SU(3)$ symmetry breaking factor $(1-s_g)$~\cite{phyreport,haber}.

323: These are listed in Table~\ref{tcleo} for some of the measured

324: decay modes together with the measured values by 

325: CLEOc~\cite{cleolp05} and BESII~\cite{besvp,besrp}. Similar

326: parametrization also applies to other OZI suppressed two-body

327: decays which conserve the generalized C-parity  by appropriate

328: change of labelling~\cite{phyreport}. As for the decays to pairs

329: of pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar mesons ($PP$) which violate the generalized

330: C-parity, the amplitudes are parametrized in terms of two

331: parameters: the electromagnetic amplitude $E$ and strong $SU(3)$

332: breaking amplitude ${\cal M}$~\cite{phyreport,haber}. These are

333: listed in Table~\ref{pp}, together with the BESII and CLEOc

334: measurements~\cite{bes2pspkskl,cleoformf}. Similar parametrization

335: can be extended to pairs of vector-vector mesons ($VV$). The amplitudes

336: $\ag$ and $\aga$ can be expressed in terms of this parametrization

337: scheme. For example, for $\rhopi$ mode, $\ag=g$, $\aga=e$, $|{\cal

338: C}|=|g/e|$; for $\KKSN$, $\ag=g(1-s_g)$, $\aga=-2e$, $|{\cal

339: C}|=|g(1-s_g)/(2e)|$; while for $\KK$,

340: $\ag=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\cal M}$, $\aga=E$. $|{\cal

341: C}|=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}|{\cal M}/E|$. For $VP$ final states, and

342: other final states conserving the generalized C-parity, define

343:  $$

344:  \theta_g = \mbox{arg} \left(\frac{g}{e}\right),

345:  $$

346: while for $PP$ and $VV$ final states, define

347:  $$

348:  \theta_g = \mbox{arg} \left(\frac{{\cal M}}{E}\right),

349:  $$

350: we have $\phi=\theta_g$ if in Table~\ref{tcleo} the sign between

351: $g$ and $e$ is positive; and $\phi=\theta_g+180^\circ$ if the sign

352: between $g$ and $e$ is negative; while $\phi=\theta_g$ for $\KK$

353: in Table~\ref{pp}. To include $\ac$ in the formula, simply replace

354: $\aga$ with $(\aga+\ac)$.

355: 

356: \begin{table*}

357: \caption{\label{tcleo} The experimental results from

358: CLEOc~\cite{cleolp05} and BESII~\cite{besvp,besrp} on $\pspp$

359: decays into $VP$ modes and $b_1\pi$. Also listed is the

360: parametrization of their amplitudes. Neglecting double OZI

361: suppressed processes, the amplitudes of $\pspp$ decays into $VP$

362: final states are parametrized by three terms: the strong amplitude

363: $g$, the electromagnetic amplitude $e$ and the SU(3) breaking

364: factor $(1-s_g)$~\cite{phyreport,haber}. 

365: Similar parametrization can be extended to other

366: OZI suppressed two-body decays which conserve the generalized C-parity

367: by appropriate change of labelling. The physical states $\eta$ and

368: $\eta^\prime$ are expressed by their quark components as $|\eta

369: \rangle = X_\eta \frac{1}{2} |u\overline{u} + d\overline{d}

370: \rangle + Y_\eta |s \overline{s} \rangle$ and $|\eta^\prime

371: \rangle = X_{\eta^\prime} \frac{1}{2} |u\overline{u} +

372: d\overline{d} \rangle + Y_{\eta^\prime} |s \overline{s} \rangle$.}

373: \begin{ruledtabular}

374: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}

375: Channel & Amplitude & \multicolumn{2}{c}{CLEOc }

376:                     & \multicolumn{2}{c}{BESII}             \\

377:         &           & $\sigma$(3.671 GeV) [pb]

378:                               & $\sigma$(3.773 GeV) [pb]

379:                     & $\sigma$(3.650 GeV) [pb]

380:                               & $\sigma$(3.773 GeV) [pb]   \\ \hline

381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

382: \multicolumn{6}{c}{VP }                                   \\ \hline

383: $\rho^+ \pi^-,~ \rho^- \pi^0, ~\rho^- \pi^+$

384:         &$g + e$& $8.0^{+1.7}_{-1.4}\pm 0.9$

385:                       & $4.4 \pm 0.3 \pm 0.5$

386:         & $< 25$              & $<6.0$                     \\

387: $\OP$   & $ 3e$   & $15.2^{+2.8}_{-2.4}\pm 1.5$

388:                       & $14.6 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.5$

389:     & $24.2^{+11}_{-9}\pm 4.3$& $10.7^{+5.0}_{-4.1}\pm 1.7$ \\

390: $\phi \pi^0$

391:         & $ 0$      & $< 2.2$ & $< 0.2$                 & &  \\

392: $\RET$  & $3e X_{\eta}$

393:                     & $10.0^{+2.2}_{-1.9}\pm 1.0$

394:                           & $10.3 \pm 0.5 \pm 1.0$

395:        & $8.1^{+7.4}_{-4.9}\pm 1.1$& $7.8^{+4.4}_{-3.5}\pm 0.08$ \\

396: $\OET$  & $(g + e) X_{\eta}$

397:                     & $2.3^{+1.8}_{-1.1}\pm 0.5$

398:                           & $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2} \pm 0.1$ & & \\

399: $\FET$  & $[g(1-2s_{g}) -2e] Y_{\eta}$

400:                     & $ 2.1^{+1.9}_{-1.2} \pm 0.2$

401:                               & $ 4.5 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.5$    & &\\

402: $\RETp$ & $3e X_{\eta^{\prime}}$

403:                     & $2.1^{+4.7}_{-1.6}\pm 0.2$

404:                           & $3.8^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\pm 0.4$

405:         & $<89 $              & $<28$                          \\

406: $\OETp$ & $(g + e) X_{\eta^{\prime}}$

407:                    & $<17.1$  & $0.6^{+0.8}_{-0.3}\pm 0.6$ & & \\

408: $\FETp$ & $[g(1-2s_{g}) - 2e] Y_{\eta^{\prime}}$

409:                    & $<12.6$

410:                               & $2.5^{+1.5}_{-1.1} \pm 0.4$ & & \\

411: $K^{*0}\overline{K^0},~\overline{K}^{*0} K^0$

412:         & $g(1-s_{g}) - 2e $

413:                    & $23.5^{+4.6}_{-3.9}\pm 3.1$

414:                       &$23.5 \pm 1.1 \pm 3.1$   & & \\

415: $K^{*+} K^- , ~K^{*-} K^+$

416:         & $g(1-s_{g}) + e $

417:                    & $ 1.0^{+1.1}_{-0.7} \pm 0.5$

418:                               &$ <0.6 $               & &  \\ \hline

419: \multicolumn{6}{c}{AP }                                 \\ \hline

420: $b_1\pi$&$g + e$& $7.9^{+3.1}_{-2.5}\pm 1.8$

421:                       & $6.3 \pm 0.7 \pm 1.5$  & & \\

422: \end{tabular}

423: \end{ruledtabular}

424: \end{table*}

425: 

426: \begin{table}

427: \caption{\label{pp} The measured 

428: %CLEOc\cite{cleoformf} for $\PP,\KK$ (for $K_S K_L$, the upper

429: %limit in parentheses is from BES~\cite{besvp} measured at $E_{cm}

430: %=3.65$~GeV). 

431: $\PP,\KK$ cross sections at $E_{cm}=3.671$~GeV 

432: by  CLEOc\cite{cleoformf}

433: and the upper limit of $K_S K_L$ cross sections 

434: at $E_{cm}=3.65$~GeV by BES~\cite{bes2pspkskl}.

435: Also listed is the parametrization of $\pspp$ decays

436: into $PP$ final states. These amplitudes are parametrized in terms

437: of electromagnetic amplitude $E$ and strong $SU(3)$ breaking

438: amplitude ${\cal M}$~\cite{phyreport,haber}. 

439: Similar parametrization can be applied to

440: $VV$ final states.}

441: \begin{ruledtabular}

442: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

443: final state & $\sigma$ (3.671~GeV) & amplitude \\ \hline

444:  $\PP$  &  $ 9.0\pm 1.8\pm 1.3$~pb & $E$  \\

445:  $\KK$  &  $ 5.7\pm 0.7\pm 0.3$~pb & $E+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\cal M}$ \\

446: $\kskl$ & ($ <5.9$~pb at 90\% C.L. at 3.65~GeV)

447:                                    & $\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\cal M}$

448: \\ \hline

449: \end{tabular}

450: \end{ruledtabular}

451: %\end{table*}

452: \end{table}

453: 

454: If both the strong and electromagnetic interactions exist, the

455: partial width of $\pspp \ra f$ is calculated by

456:  \beq \Gamma_f =\Gamma_{ee}|{\cal F}(s)|^2\cdot|1+{\cal C}|^2{\cal P}(s).

457:  \label{gammaf}

458:  \eeq

459: If the decay to the final state only goes via electromagnetic

460: interaction, then

461:  \beq

462:  \Gamma_f = \Gamma_{ee}|{\cal F}(s)|^2\cdot{\cal P}(s).

463:  \label{gammafe}

464:  \eeq

465: As for the decay to $\kskl$ mode which only goes via strong

466: interaction (here we assume that there is no excited $\phi$ states

467: in the vicinity), ${\cal F}(s)=0$ since this mode does not couple

468: to a virtual photon. Nevertheless, according to the

469: parametrization in Table~\ref{pp}, the decay modes $\KK$ and

470: $\kskl$ have the same strong decay amplitude, while $\PP$ and

471: $\KK$ have the same electromagnetic decay amplitude, which is

472: consistent with the recently measured data listed in

473: Table~\ref{pp} within the experimental errors~\cite{cleoformf}.

474: Under such assumption, $|{\cal C}|$ can be determined by the

475: equation

476:  \beq

477:  \Gamma_{\kskl} = \Gamma_{ee}|{\cal F}_{\pp}(s)|^2

478:  \cdot|{\cal C}|^2{\cal P}(s). \label{gammafs}

479:  \eeq

480: Then with the measurement of $\KK$ mode, $\phi$ is obtained.

481: 

482: If the data is taken at the energy of the $\pspp$ mass, i.e. $s=M^2$,

483: from Eq.~(\ref{aga}) we see that $\aga$ has a phase of $-90^\circ$

484: relative to $\ac$. So there is no interference between $\ac$ and

485: $\aga$. For the decay modes which go only via electromagnetic

486: interaction, e.g. $\omega\pi^0$, $\rho\eta$, $\rho\eta^\prime$ and

487: $\pi^+\pi^-$, the interference between the resonance and continuum

488: can be neglected. (Under such circumstance, the interference is

489: still non-vanishing due to two reasons: first, for the practical

490: reason in the experiments, the data is usually taken at where the

491: maximum inclusive hadron cross section is, which in general does

492: not coincide with the mass of the resonance~\cite{Zline}; second,

493: even if the data is collected at the energy of the resonance mass,

494: the interference is non-vanishing because of radiative correction.

495: This will be proved later on in this paper. For the narrow

496: resonances with widthes smaller than the energy spread of the

497: $\EE$ colliders, the smearing of the C.M. energy also results in a

498: non-vanishing interference term. But these are beyond the concern

499: for the accuracy of current experiments.) Under such circumstance,

500: in the data analysis we simply subtract the continuum cross

501: section from the cross section measured on top of the resonance to

502: get the resonance cross section. The ratio of the resonance cross

503: section of a particular final state to the total resonance cross

504: section gives the branching fraction of this mode. For the $\pspp$,

505: $\aga$ is very small compared to $\ac$. This is seen that if

506: $s=M^2$,

507:  $$

508:  \left| \aga(M^2_{\pspp})/\ac(M^2_{\pspp}) \right|

509:  = \frac{3}{\alpha} \BR(\pspp \ra \EE).

510:  $$

511: With the measured value of $\BR(\pspp \ra \EE) = (1.12 \pm 0.17)

512: \times 10^{-5}$~\cite{pdg},

513:  $$

514:  \left| \aga(M^2_{\pspp})/\ac(M^2_{\pspp})

515:  \right| \approx 4.6 \times 10^{-3}.

516:  $$

517: So $\aga$ can be neglected. For those modes which only go via

518: electromagnetic interaction, the measured cross sections at the

519: $\pspp$ mass almost entirely come from the non-resonance continuum

520: amplitude $\ac$. This is demonstrated by the experimental results

521: on $\omega\pi^0$, $\rho\eta$, and $\rho\eta^\prime$ modes in

522: Table~\ref{tcleo} where their cross sections measured at the

523: $\pspp$ peak are consistent with the ones measured off the

524: resonance within experimental errors with the later scaled for $s$

525: dependence.

526: 

527: But for other final states which have contributions from $\ag$

528: besides $\aga$, there could be interference between $\ag$ and

529: $\ac$ as well as between $\ag$ and $\aga$. Since for the $\pspp$,

530: $\aga$ is very small compared to $\ac$, so only the interference

531: between $\ag$ and $\ac$ could be important. Based on the analysis

532: of the experimental data, we have suggested that the phase

533: $\theta_g$ is universally $-90^\circ$ in quarkonium

534: decays~\cite{wym4,wym2}. Since at the energy of resonance mass,

535: the phase of $\aga$ is $-90^\circ$ relative to $\ac$, so the

536: relative phase between $\ag$ and $\ac$ is either $180^\circ$ or

537: $0^\circ$, depending on whether the relative sign between $g$ and

538: $e$ in Table~\ref{tcleo}, or between ${\cal M}$ and $E$ in

539: Table~\ref{pp} is plus or minus. The interference between $\ag$

540: and $\ac$ is destructive for the final states $\rho\pi$,

541: $\omega\eta$, $\omega\eta^\prime$, $\KKSC + c.c.$, $b_1\pi$, and

542: $\KK$, but constructive for $\phi\eta$, $\phi\eta^\prime$, and

543: $\KKSN + c.c.$

544: 

545: Destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$ means that the

546: observed cross section at the energy of the resonance mass can be

547: smaller than the continuum cross section. The experimental results

548: on $\rho\pi$ and $\omega\eta$ modes in Table~\ref{tcleo}

549: demonstrate this interference pattern.

550: 

551: \section{Radiatively corrected cross section}

552: \label{sec_formf}

553: 

554: The actual description of $e^+e^-$ to a final hadronic state

555: through the annihilation of a virtual photon must incorporate

556: radiative correction. Such correction mainly comes from the

557: initial state radiation, and for the hadronic final state, the

558: final state radiation usually can be neglected~\cite{ptsai}.

559: 

560: The integrated cross section by $\EE$ collision incorporating

561: radiative correction is expressed by~\cite{rad}

562:  \begin{equation}

563:  \sigma_{r.c.} (s)=\int \limits_{0}^{1-s_m/s} dx F(x,s)

564:  \sigma_{B}(s(1-x))

565:  \label{radsec}

566:  \end{equation}

567: where

568: $\sigma_{B}(s)$ is the Born order cross section by

569: Eq.~(\ref{bornp}),

570: and in the upper limit of the integration $\sqrt{s_m}$ is the

571: cut-off invariant mass of the final state

572: hadron system after losing energy to photon emission. $F(x,s)$ is

573: calculated to an accuracy of $0.1\%$ in Ref.~\cite{rad}:

574: \begin{widetext}

575: \beqn

576:  F(x,s)&=&

577:  \beta x^{\beta-1} \left[1+\frac{3}{4}\beta+\frac{\alpha}{\pi}

578:  \left(\frac{\pi^{2}}{3}-\frac{1}{2}\right)+\beta^{2}

579:  \left(\frac{9}{32}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\right) \right]

580:  -\beta\left(1-\frac{x}{2}\right) \nonumber \\

581:  &+ &\frac{1}{8}\beta^{2} \left[4(2-x)\ln\frac{1}{x}-

582:  \frac{1+3(1-x)^{2}}{x}\ln(1-x)-6+x\right],

583:  \label{Fexp}

584:  \eeqn

585: \end{widetext}

586: with

587:  \begin{equation}

588:  \beta\;=\;\frac{2\alpha}{\pi} \left(\ln

589:  \frac{s}{m^{2}_{e}}-1\right).

590:  \label{beta}

591:  \end {equation}

592: 

593: In the above equations, $m_e$ is the mass of the electron. Here

594: the expression $F(x,s)$ includes the bremsstrahlung of an $\EE$

595: pair from the initial $\EE$ state. For $x \sim 0$, $x \sqrt{s}/2$ is

596: approximately equal to the energy carried away by the radiated

597: photons. But for $x \sim 1$, this meaning is not valid in the $\alpha^2$

598: order. The effects of vacuum polarization are not included explicitly in

599: Eq.~\eref{radsec}. Here we follow the convention that for hadronic

600: final state, the vacuum polarization by leptons and hadrons,

601: including vector-meson resonances, is taken into account in the

602: form factor ${\cal F}(s)$~\cite{Greco}.

603: 

604: In Eq.~\eref{radsec}, $F(x,s)$ is positive definite. If $s=M^2$,

605: for pure electromagnetic processes, the interference term between

606: $\aga$ and $\ac$ in $\sigma_{B}(s(1-x))$, i.e.

607: \begin{widetext}

608: \beqn

609:  2 \Re \left[\aga(s(1-x)) \ac(s(1-x)) \right]

610: &= & 2 \Re \left[

611:  \frac{{\cal F}(s(1-x))}{s(1-x)} \cdot \frac{3\Gamma_{ee}{\cal F}

612:  (s(1-x))/(\alpha \sqrt{s(1-x)})}

613:  {s(1-x)-M^2+iM\Gamma_t} \right] \nonumber \\

614:  & = & 2 \left[ s(1-x) - M^2 \right] 

615:  \cdot \frac{3 \left|{\cal F}(s(1-x)) \right|^2 \Gamma_{ee}}

616:  {\alpha [s(1-x)]^{3/2} \left[ (s(1-x) - M^2)^2 + M^2\Gamma_{t}^2\right]}~,

617:  \eeqn

618: \end{widetext}

619: vanishes only at $x=0$, but it is negative elsewhere in the

620: integration interval from 0 to $1-s_m/s$. So even in the pure

621: electromagnetic processes, with radiative correction, the

622: interference term gets a negative value.

623: 

624: In Eqs.~\eref{ac}, \eref{aga} and \eref{ag}, the form factor

625: ${\cal F}(s)$ is adopted to describe the hadronic interaction.

626: Both the Monte Carlo simulation and the calculation of the

627: radiatively corrected cross section require the knowledge of the

628: form factor in the energy range from $\sqrt{s}$ down to

629: $\sqrt{s_m}$. In principle, $\sqrt{s_m}$ can be as low as the

630: production threshold. But this requires the input values of the

631: form factor from $\sqrt{s}$ to the production threshold. In

632: Eq.~\eref{radsec}, $F(x,s)$ has been calculated to an accuracy of

633: $0.1\%$ by QED, but for virtually all the hadronic final states,

634: we have neither the theoretical models nor sufficient experimental

635: data to describe the form factors to such high precision. To

636: reduce the systematic uncertainty from the Monte Carlo

637: simulation, one strategy is to take the value of $s_m$ as %large as

638: close to $s$ as possible for the actual event selection criteria, 

639: i.e. we generate the event sample with $s_m$ just lower than that which 

640: are to be selected. In this way, we need only to describe the form factor

641: precisely from $\sqrt{s}$ down to a much higher $\sqrt{s_m}$,

642: instead of to the production threshold.

643: 

644: The variation of the form factor 

645: in a small energy interval usually can well be

646: approximated by

647:  \beq

648:  {\cal F}(s^\prime)={\cal F}(s)\left(\frac{s}{s^\prime}\right)^k,

649:  \label{formf}

650:  \eeq

651: with $k$ either derived from theoretical models, or obtained from

652: fitting the experimental data at nearby energy. Of course one may

653: use a more complicated function other than Eq.~(\ref{formf}) for

654: the approximation.

655: 

656: \section{Monte Carlo simulation}

657: 

658: \subsection{Soft and hard photon events}

659: 

660: In realization of Monte Carlo simulation, an auxiliary

661: parameter $x_0$ is introduced to separate the integration interval

662: of Eq.~\eref{radsec} into two parts, $(0, x_0)$ and $(x_0,

663: 1-s_m/s)$, with $x_0$ a small but nonzero value:

664:  \beq

665:  \sigma_{soft}(s) = \int \limits_{0}^{x_0} dx

666: %F(x,s) \frac{\sigma_{B}(s(1-x))}{|1-\Pi (s(1-x))|^2}

667: F(x,s) \sigma_{B}(s(1-x))

668:  \label{xsoft}

669:  \eeq

670: and

671:  \beq

672:  \sigma_{hard} (s) = \int \limits_{x_0}^{1-s_m/s} dx

673:  %F(x,s) \frac{\sigma_{B}(s(1-x))}{|1-\Pi (s(1-x))|^2}~.

674:  F(x,s) \sigma_{B}(s(1-x))

675:  \label{xhard}

676:  \eeq

677: In the above two equations, all functions and variables have the

678: same meaning as in Eq.~\eref{radsec}. We have

679: $$\sigma_{r.c.}(s)=\sigma_{soft}(s)+\sigma_{hard}(s)~.$$

680: The two terms in the above expression are usually called soft

681: photon and hard photon cross sections respectively. The Monte

682: Carlo program generates the soft photon events and hard photon

683: events according to their proportions in the total cross section.

684: In a soft photon event, the four-momentum of the radiated photons

685: are neglected, and the photons are not generated. Experimentally,

686: this means that in the soft photon events, the photons can not be

687: detected. Since in Eq.~\eref{xsoft}, $x_0$ is small, so

688: $x_0\sqrt{s}/2$ can be identified as the maximum energy carried

689: away by the undetected photons. This requires that $x_0\sqrt{s}/2$

690: must be smaller than the minimum energy of the photon which can be

691: detected in the experiment. In a soft photon event, the

692: energy-momentum is conserved between the incoming $\EE$ pair and

693: the final state hadron system, so $x_0$ must also be smaller than

694: the energy-momentum resolution of the detector. Usually $x_0$ is

695: assigned a nonzero value smaller than $0.01$. The outcome of the

696: Monte Carlo simulation does not depend on $x_0$. In a hard photon

697: event, the four-momentum of the radiated photons are generated,

698: and the energy-momentum is conserved with the inclusion of these

699: photons.

700: 

701: The differential cross sections with the emission of photons for

702: exclusive hadronic processes are calculated in

703: Refs.~\cite{hard1,hard2}, the calculation of Ref.~\cite{ISR} can

704: also be used to generate the hard photon events while the

705: generation of soft photon events is identical to the generation of

706: events at Born order. (The inclusive process is treated somewhat

707: differently in Ref.~\cite{jadach}.) The authors of these

708: references also provide Monte Carlo programs based on their

709: calculations. The program based on the calculation in

710: Ref.~\cite{hard1}, BABAYAGA, generates $\pi^+\pi^-$ events; the

711: program based on Ref.~\cite{hard2}, MCGPJ with the current

712: version, generates $\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$, and $K_SK_L$ events;

713: while the program based on Ref.~\cite{ISR} generates hard photon

714: events for $\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$,

715: $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$, and $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$ processes.

716: These programs achieve the precision of $(0.1 \sim 0.2)\%$.

717: 

718: In order to generate events with the presence of both the $\pspp$

719: resonance and continuum, some replacements are to be made in the

720: fore-mentioned programs. The Born order cross section by

721: Eq.~\eref{bornp} must be substituted to generate the correct

722: distribution of the invariant mass of the final state hadron

723: systems. Although the original programs only generate a few

724: hadronic final states, the programs based on

725: Refs.~\cite{hard2,ISR} are written in the form that more final

726: states can be added in a straightforward way. To do this, one need

727: to put the corresponding hadronic tensor $H_{\mu\nu}$ into the

728: program, where \beq H_{\mu\nu} = {\cal H}_{\mu} \times {\cal

729: H}^{*}_{\nu}, \eeq with ${\cal H}_{\mu}$ the current of virtual

730: photon transition to the final hadron state $f$. For reference we 

731: include its forms for some final hadronic states in the appendix.

732: 

733: \subsection{Distribution of invariant mass of hadrons}

734: 

735: \label{Mdistribution}

736: 

737: The distribution of the invariant mass of the final hadron system

738: $M_{inv}$ is very different between resonance and continuum. More

739: profound distinctive feature is in the circumstance that there is

740: interference, particularly destructive one, between the resonance and

741: continuum. In this section, we discuss this distribution.

742: 

743: \subsubsection{Resonance}

744: 

745: If the final state does not couple to a virtual photon, 

746: e.g. $\kskl$,

747: then in Eq.~\eref{bornp}, there is only the $\ag$ term, the Born

748: order cross section is expressed by the Breit-Wigner formula:

749:  \beq

750:  \sigma_{res}(s)=\frac{12\pi\Gamma_{ee}\Gamma_{f}}

751:  {(s-M^2)^2+M^2\Gamma_t^2}, \label{bw}

752:  \eeq

753: where $\Gamma_{f}$ is the partial width to the final state $f$.

754: 

755: For narrow resonances, by narrow we mean $\Gamma_t/M \ll x_0$,

756: Eq.~\eref{bw} behaves almost like a $\delta$ function.

757: %\beq

758: %\sigma_{res}(s) \approx

759: %\frac{12\pi^2}{M} \Gamma_{ee} \delta(s-M^2).

760: %\eeq

761: If the data is taken at the energy of the resonance mass, i.e.

762: $s=M^2$, in Eq.~\eref{bw}, $\sigma_{res}(s(1-x))$ is very large at

763: $x=0$ and very small elsewhere. So in Eq.~\eref{radsec}, the

764: contribution of $\sigma_B(s(1-x)$ to the radiatively corrected cross

765: section comes solely from a small interval around $x=0$.

766: Substitute $\sigma_{res}(s(1-x))$  for $\sigma_B(s(1-x))$ in

767: Eqs.~\eref{xsoft} and \eref{xhard}, $\sigma_{soft}$ is nonzero

768: while $\sigma_{hard}$ virtually vanishes due to their integration

769: intervals respectively. This means that in the Monte Carlo

770: simulation of a narrow resonance, only the soft photon events are

771: generated. The sole effect of the radiative correction is the

772: reduction of its height. This will be discussed later in this

773: paper.

774: 

775: The resonance $\pspp$ is not very narrow in this sense. If we take

776: $x_0=0.01$ and $s_m=0.8M^2$, soft photon events are 98.6\% of the

777: total.

778: 

779: \subsubsection{Non-resonance continuum}

780: 

781: For continuum process, there is a considerable  hard photon cross

782: section. Take an example of $VP$ final states, with $x_0=0.01$ and

783: $s_m=0.8s$, and assuming that the form factor varies as a function

784: of energy according to $1/s$ ($k=1$ in Eq.~\eref{formf}), in the

785: simulation the hard photon events are 22\% of the total.

786: 

787: \subsubsection{Interference between resonance and continuum}

788: \label{xint}

789: 

790: If both the resonance and continuum amplitudes exist, the Born

791: order cross section is obtained from Eq.~\eref{bornp} with $\ac$,

792: $\aga$ and $\ag$ by Eqs.~\eref{ac}, \eref{aga}, and \eref{ag}.

793: \begin{widetext}

794: \beqn

795:  \sigma_{B} (s(1-x))

796:  & = & \frac{4\pi s(1-x) \alpha^2}{3}  \left|\ac(s(1-x)) +

797:        \ag(s(1-x)) + \aga(s(1-x)) \right|^2 {\cal P}(s(1-x))

798:     \nonumber \\

799:  & = & \frac{4}{3}\pi s(1-x) \alpha^2|{\cal F}(s(1-x))|^2

800:        {\cal P}(s(1-x))\times \left|\frac{1}{s(1-x)} +

801: ({\cal C}+1) \frac{3\Gamma_{ee}/\left(\alpha \sqrt{s(1-x)}\right)}

802:  {s(1-x)-M^2 + i M\Gamma_{t}} \right|^2.

803: \label{int}

804: \eeqn

805: \end{widetext}

806: 

807: We pay special attention to the destructive interference and take 

808: as an extreme exmaple the circumstance that $\ag$ and $\ac$

809: almost cancel to each other in the Born order. This happens if

810:  \beq

811:  |{\cal C}| \approx \frac{\alpha \Gamma_t}{3\Gamma_{ee}},~~~

812:  \phi=-90^\circ. \label{cancel}

813:  \eeq

814: Under such circumstance, the partial width of this final state is

815: expressed by

816:  \beq

817:  \Gamma_f \approx \frac{M^2\Gamma_t^2}{12\pi\Gamma_{ee}} \sigma_{con}(M^2),

818:  \eeq

819: where $\sigma_{con}(M^2)$, scaled for $s$ dependence to $s=M^2$, is the 

820: Born order cross section for the non-resonance continuum.

821: 

822: To calculate the proportion of soft and hard photon events,

823: Eq.~\eref{int} is to be substituted into Eqs.~\eref{xsoft} and

824: \eref{xhard} respectively. Notice that these two equations only

825: differ by their integration intervals. For the discussions on

826: the $\pspp$ in this work, we take $x_0=0.01$ which is greater than

827: $\Gamma_t/M$. If the resonance amplitude satisfies

828: Eq.~\eref{cancel}, then for Eq.~\eref{xsoft}, in the integration

829: interval $(0, x_0)$, there is almost complete cancellation between

830: the two terms of $\sigma_{B}(s(1-x))$; while for Eq.~\eref{xhard},

831: in the integration interval $(x_0, 1-s_m/s)$, the magnitude of

832: the resonance

833: which is the second term of $\sigma_{B}(s(1-x))$, virtually

834: vanishes. This means that the resonance and its interference with

835: continuum affect mainly the soft photon cross section; while the

836: hard photon cross section is predominately due to $\ac$. In this

837: way, the interference  changes the proportions of the soft and

838: hard photon events as well as the total radiatively corrected cross

839: section. The destructive interference between resonance and

840: non-resonance continuum reduces the soft photon cross section,

841: which means a smaller proportion of soft photon events.

842: 

843: To illustrate the above discussion quantitatively, we take the

844: example that the resonance amplitude satisfies Eq.~\eref{cancel}.

845: Under such circumstance, the proportion of the soft photon events

846: is 15\% for $x_0=0.01$ and $s_m=0.8s$. (This is not the lowest

847: possible proportion of the soft photon events. With $\phi =

848: -90^\circ$, the complete cancellation happens only between $\ag$

849: and $\ac$. There is still a small but non-vanishing $\aga$ left.

850: If $\ag$ cancels out not only $\ac$, but also $\aga$, the

851: proportion of soft photon events can be even smaller.) This means

852: that for a detector with energy-momentum resolution $x_0/2=0.5\%$,

853: among the data taken at non-resonance continuum, 78\% of the

854: events have invariant mass equal to the C.M. energy of the

855: incoming $\EE$; while among the data taken at the $\pspp$ mass, we

856: may find that the majority of the events (85\%) have invariant

857: mass smaller than the C.M. energy of the incoming $\EE$. If this

858: happens, it indicates destructive interference between the resonance

859: and non-resonance continuum amplitudes.

860: 

861: Fig.~\ref{curve1} shows the probability density as a function of

862: the squared invariant mass of the final hadron system $M_{inv}^2$.

863: For continuum, as well as for no interference or constructive

864: interference between the resonance and continuum cases, the

865: maximum probability density occurs (actually diverges) at

866: $M_{inv}^2=s$, which corresponds to $E_\gamma \ra 0$ with

867: $E_\gamma$ the energy of the emitted photons; but if the

868: destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$ exists, 

869: and it leads

870: to almost complete cancellation of the two amplitudes, the

871: probability density may have a minimum point near $M_{inv}^2=s$.

872: 

873: \begin{figure}[htbp]

874: \includegraphics[width=7.cm,height=6.0cm]{curve2.eps}

875: \caption{\label{curve1}The distribution of the probability density

876: as a function of $M_{inv}^2/s$ with $M_{inv}$ the invariant mass

877: for a $VP$ final state. The solid line is for continuum. The

878: dashed line is an example of destructive interference between

879: $\ag$ and $\ac$ with the two amplitudes satisfying

880: Eq.~\eref{cancel}. The probability is normalized to

881: $\sigma_{r.c.}(M^2_{\pspp})$ with $s_m=0.8s$.}

882: \end{figure}

883: 

884: In the circumstance that at $s=M^2$, the three terms in

885: Eq.~\eref{bornp} completely cancel, i.e. $\ag+\aga+\ac = 0$, so

886: the Born order cross section vanishes, the radiatively corrected

887: cross section $\sigma_{r.c.}(s)$ still gets a nonzero value, as

888: long as $s_m < s$. This is because that in Eq.~\eref{radsec},

889: $F(x,s)$

890: is a positive definite function, while $\sigma_B(s(1-x))$ vanishes

891: only at $x=0$, but remains positive definite elsewhere in

892: the integration interval. This leads to the phenomena in $\EE$

893: experiments: a detector with finite energy-momentum resolution

894: always observes a non-vanishing cross section, even if the Born

895: order cross section vanishes due to destructive interference

896: between the resonance and continuum.

897: 

898: \subsection{The calculated efficiency}

899: 

900: According to Eq.~\eref{radsec}, $\sigma_{r.c.}$ is a function of

901: $s_m$ as well as $s$. For the reason which we discussed in 

902: Sec.~\ref{sec_formf}, in the Monte Carlo simulation, usually we generate

903: events to a cut-off invariant mass $\sqrt{s_m}$, so the calculated 

904: efficiency $\epsilon$ is also a function of $s_m$.

905: 

906: If the observed number of event is denoted as $N$, corresponding

907: integrated luminosity is denoted as ${\cal L}$, then we have

908: $$ N = {\cal L} \cdot \sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m) \cdot \epsilon({s_m}),$$

909: here and in the following discussions, we explicitly indicate the

910: dependence of $\sigma_{r.c.}$ and $\epsilon$ on $s_m$. The above

911: equation can also be expressed as

912:  \beq

913:  \frac{N}{\cal L} = \sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m) \cdot \epsilon({s_m}).

914:  \label{sigrceff}

915:  \eeq

916: The left side of the above expression is an experimentally

917: measured quantity. The product $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m) \cdot

918: \epsilon({s_m})$ does not depend on $s_m$.

919: 

920: Very often, the experimental results are presented in terms of

921: Born order cross section, particularly the off resonance continuum

922: cross section. For the data taken off the resonance, we measure

923: the electromagnetic form factor of the final state, which is

924: simply related to the Born order cross section. A so-called

925: radiative correction factor is introduced as

926:  \beq

927:  f_{ISR}(s,s_m) = \frac{\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)}{\sigma_{B}(s)}.

928:  \label{fatisr}

929:  \eeq

930: Here if the form factor takes the form of Eq.~(\ref{formf}), then

931: $f_{ISR}(s,s_m)$ can be calculated. It does not depend on ${\cal

932: F}(s)$, although it still depends on $k$ in Eq.~(\ref{formf}).

933: With Eqs.~\eref{sigrceff} and \eref{fatisr}, we have

934: $$ \sigma_{Born}(s) = \frac{\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)}{f_{ISR}(s,s_m)}

935: =\frac{N}{{\cal L} \cdot \epsilon(s_m) \cdot f_{ISR}(s,s_m)}~.$$

936: In the denominator, the product of $\epsilon({s_m}) \cdot

937: f_{ISR}(s,s_m)$ cancels out the dependence on $s_m$.

938: 

939: The interference between the resonance and continuum amplitudes

940: may change the factor $f_{ISR}$ in a profound way. For

941: non-resonance continuum, with $\sqrt{s}$ well above the production

942: threshold, if the form factor goes down rapidly as $s$ increases

943: (e.g. $k \ge 1$ in Eq.~\eref{formf}), as $s_m$ approaches the

944: threshold, $f_{ISR}$ is usually greater than 1; but if $s_m$ is

945: taken close to $s$, then $f_{ISR}$ can always be smaller than 1,

946: since as $s_m \ra s$, $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m) \ra 0$. For a

947: resonance, $f_{ISR}$ does not depend on $k$. It is roughly

948: approximated by~\cite{Zline}

949:  \beqn

950:  f_{ISR} \approx \left(\frac{\Gamma_t}{M}\right)^\beta

951:  \left[1+\frac{3}{4}\beta+\frac{\alpha}{\pi}

952:  \left(\frac{\pi^{2}}{3}-\frac{1}{2}\right)+\beta^{2}

953:  \left(\frac{9}{32}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\right) \right].

954:  \eeqn

955: Here $\beta$ is given by Eq.~\eref{beta}. If $\Gamma_t \ll M$, the

956: value of this expression is less than 1. It means that the initial

957: state radiation reduces the height of the resonance. If there is

958: significant interference between the resonance and continuum,

959: $f_{ISR}$ may take any value between the order of 1 to infinity.

960: It becomes infinity in the circumstance that $\sigma_B(s)$

961: vanishes due to destructive interference between the resonance and

962: continuum. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{xint}, $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)$

963: still gets a nonzero value in this circumstance.

964: 

965: For illustrative purpose, here we take an example that in the

966: Monte Carlo simulation of $\EE$ collision at $\sqrt{s}=M_{\pspp}$,

967: the $VP$ final state events with the cut-off invariant mass of

968: $0.9M_{\pspp}$ are generated, and the form factor varies as a

969: function of the energy according to $1/s$, while in the data

970: selection, the invariant mass of the final $VP$ particles is

971: required to be greater than $98\%\sqrt{s}$. Under these

972: conditions, for the continuum cross section, 87.4\% of the

973: generated events survives and $f_{ISR}=0.946$; for the $\pspp$

974: resonance, $99.9\%$ of the generated events is left and

975: $f_{ISR}=0.716$; while for the destructive interference between

976: $\ag$ and $\ac$ which satisfies Eq.~\eref{cancel}, only $49.0\%$

977: of the generated events have invariant mass greater than

978: $98\%M_{\pspp}$, but $f_{ISR}=65.5$.

979: 

980: \section{Measurement in the presence of interference}

981: \label{sec_mint}

982: 

983: The above discussions lead to a profound feature of the

984: experimental measurement in the presence of interference between

985: the resonance and non-resonance continuum: the complete

986: determination of the branching fraction must come together with

987: the determination of the phase between the resonance and continuum

988: by scanned data around the resonance peak. The data must be taken

989: at least at four energy points, because there are three quantities

990: which must be determined simultaneously: ${\cal F}(M^2)$, $|{\cal

991: C}|$ and $\phi$. 

992: At the same time, the form of dependence of the observed 

993: cross section on $|{\cal C}|$ is quadric.

994: Herein

995: the non-resonance continuum amplitude or equivalently ${\cal

996: F}(M^2)$ is determined by the data taken at continuum. In the

997: treatment of the data taken around the resonance, if both strong

998: and electromagnetic interactions exist, the Monte Carlo generator

999: requires the input of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$, so the data

1000: analysis is an iterative process. The usual procedure is to fix

1001: $\phi$, and varying $|{\cal C}|$, until the calculated efficiency

1002: $\epsilon(s_m)$ by the Monte Carlo and the radiatively corrected

1003: cross section $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)$ satisfy

1004: Eq.~\eref{sigrceff}. Then the partial width is obtained by

1005: Eq.~\eref{gammaf}.

1006: 

1007: If the data

1008: are taken at two points, i.e. one at continuum off the resonance

1009: and the other one at the energy of the resonance mass, only a 

1010: relation between $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ can be obtained. 

1011: The solution of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ is differentiated 

1012: into two circumstances, depending on the relative

1013: magnitudes of the observed total cross section $\sigma_t$

1014: and continuum cross section $\sigma_c$. Here $\sigma_c$

1015: is the radiatively corrected cross section of the

1016: non-resonance continuum calculated with the form factor 

1017: at the energy $\sqrt{s}=M_{\pspp}$. 

1018: As in the Born order cross sections, if

1019: $\sigma_t>\sigma_c$, $\phi$ can 

1020: take any value from $-180^{\circ}$ to $180^{\circ}$, 

1021: and for each value of $\phi$ there is one and only one

1022: solution for $|{\cal C}|$; 

1023: on the other hand, if $\sigma_t < \sigma_c$, $\phi$ is

1024: constrained within a range around $-90^{\circ}$, in 

1025: which every possible value of $\phi$ 

1026: corresponds to two solutions of $|{\cal C}|$.

1027: A formal discussion is left into the appendix.

1028: In such measurement, $|{\cal C}|$ is determined versus the

1029: phase $\phi$ in a two dimensional curve. The recommended way is to

1030: start from $\phi=-90^\circ$, since there is always at least one

1031: solution of $|{\cal C}|$. If the obtained $\sigma_t$ 

1032: is smaller than $\sigma_c$, the second solution must be searched. 

1033: Then for the $\phi$ values greater and smaller than $-90^\circ$,

1034: the solutions of $|{\cal C}|$ are found similarly. Thus the

1035: curve relating $|{\cal C}|$ with $\phi$ is obtained point

1036: by point. 

1037: 

1038: Although $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)$ and $\epsilon(s_m)$ depend on

1039: $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$, for different solutions of $|{\cal C}|$

1040: and $\phi$ which fit the experimental data, $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)$

1041: and $\epsilon(s_m)$ only depend on $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ weakly.

1042: This can be understood by noticing that the efficiency can be

1043: expressed in terms of the efficiency for soft photon events

1044: $\epsilon_{soft}(x_0)$, and the one for hard photon events

1045: $\epsilon_{hard}(s_m)$. Apparently we have

1046:  \beq

1047:  \sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m) \epsilon(s_m) = \sigma_{soft}(s,x_0)

1048:  \epsilon_{soft}(x_0) + \sigma_{hard}(s,s_m) \epsilon_{hard}(s_m).

1049:  \label{effic}

1050:  \eeq

1051: As discussed in Sec.~\ref{xint}, if we take $x_0 > \Gamma_t/M$,

1052:  the distribution of the hard photon events and the

1053: hard photon cross section are predominately due to $\ac$, so

1054: $\sigma_{hard}(s,s_m)$ and $\epsilon_{hard}(s_m)$ are almost

1055: independent of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$. As for the soft photon

1056: events, the distribution follows the Born order differential cross section,

1057: so $\epsilon_{soft}(x_0)$ does not depend on $|{\cal C}|$ and

1058: $\phi$ either. So in Eq.~\eref{effic}, for a rough approximation,

1059: only $\sigma_{soft}(s,x_0)$ depends on $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$.

1060: The solutions of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ are to satisfy the

1061: equation

1062:  \beq

1063:  \frac{N}{{\cal L}} = \sigma_{soft}(s)

1064:  \epsilon_{soft} + \sigma_{hard}(s,s_m) \epsilon_{hard}(s_m).

1065:  \label{fiteq}

1066:  \eeq

1067: Here $N/{\cal L}$ is given by the experiment, only

1068: $\sigma_{soft}(s,x_0)$ depends on $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$, so

1069: $\sigma_{soft}(s,x_0)$ remains as a constant for any possible

1070: solution of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ which fit the data. Since

1071: $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)=\sigma_{soft}(s,x_0)+\sigma_{hard}(s,s_m)$,

1072: and $N/{\cal L}=\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)\epsilon(s_m)$,

1073: $\sigma_{r.c.}(s,s_m)$ and  $\epsilon(s_m)$ are almost constants

1074: as well. This property helps to find other solutions with

1075: different $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$ values once one of the solution

1076: is found. It also makes the iterative process converge very fast.

1077: 

1078: \section{Verify the interference with the data at $\pspp$}

1079: 

1080: The discussions in Sec.~\ref{Mdistribution} leads to a scheme which

1081: could verify the destructive interference between $\pspp$ and

1082: non-resonance continuum with only the data at $\pspp$ peak. Modern

1083: detectors with a CsI(Tl) calorimeter and a magnetic field of 1

1084: Tesla or more, like CLEOc and BESIII, measure the energy-momentum

1085: with resolution of $1\%$, which is comparable to the

1086: ratio $\Gamma_{\pspp}/M_{\pspp}$. In this scheme the invariant

1087: mass distribution of the hadrons is measured, and in the event

1088: selection, requirement of the invariant mass, $M_{inv}$, greater

1089: than a certain value, $M_{cut}$, is applied. For non-resonance

1090: continuum, as $M_{cut}$ is loosed from $0.99\sqrt{s}$ 

1091: to, e.g. $0.95\sqrt{s}$ or $0.90\sqrt{s}$, the

1092: number of events increases slowly; for no interference or

1093: constructive interference between the resonance and continuum, 

1094: the number of events increases even slower; for pure resonance, 

1095: the number of events does not increase at all;

1096: on the other hand, if the destructive interference leads

1097: to substantial cancellation between the resonance and continuum

1098: amplitudes, as $M_{cut}$ is lowered, the number of events

1099: increases rapidly. Table~\ref{scheme} gives the the cross section

1100: as a function of $M_{cut}$, taking the cross section with

1101: $M_{cut}=0.99\sqrt{s}$ as the unit. Listed cross sections are due to 

1102: the non-resonance continuum and the destructive interference between

1103: $\ag$ and $\ac$ with the amplitudes satisfying Eq.~\eref{cancel}.

1104: It is assumed that the final state is $VP$ and the form factor

1105: varies as a function of energy according to $1/s$.

1106: Fig.~\ref{curve2} shows the cross section as a function of

1107: $M_{cut}$ for these two circumstances, normalized to the cross

1108: section with $M_{cut}=0.99\sqrt{s}$. In Fig.~\ref{curve2} and

1109: Table~\ref{scheme}, we see that, as $M_{cut}$ is loosed from

1110: $99\%\sqrt{s}$ to $90\%\sqrt{s}$, the cross section of the

1111: continuum increases by merely $21\%$; but for the destructive

1112: interference, it could increase by more than 3 times. In the

1113: experimental data, if the number of events increases rapidly as

1114: one lowers $M_{cut}$ in event selection, it indicates destructive

1115: interference between $\pspp$ and continuum with the two amplitudes

1116: in comparable strength.

1117: 

1118: \begin{table}

1119: \caption{\label{scheme} The variation of the cross section as a

1120: function of $M_{cut}$ for the non-resonance continuum and the

1121: destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$ with the two

1122: amplitudes satisfying Eq.~\eref{cancel}, taking the cross sections

1123: with $M_{cut}=0.99\sqrt{s}$ as the unit.}

1124: \begin{ruledtabular}

1125: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

1126: ${M}_{cut}/\sqrt{s}$ & destructive interference & continuum \\

1127: \hline 0.99  & 1.00 & 1.00 \\ \hline 0.98  & 1.61 & 1.06 \\ \hline

1128: 0.97  & 2.00 & 1.09 \\ \hline 0.96  & 2.30 & 1.12 \\ \hline 0.95

1129: & 2.53 & 1.14 \\ \hline 0.90  & 3.33 & 1.21 \\ \hline

1130: \end{tabular}

1131: \end{ruledtabular}

1132: \end{table}

1133: 

1134: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1135: \includegraphics[width=7.cm,height=6.0cm]{curve1.eps}

1136: \caption{\label{curve2}The cross section as a function of

1137: $M_{cut}$ normalized to the cross section with

1138: $M_{cut}=0.99\sqrt{s}$. Solid line is for continuum. Dashed line

1139: is for destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$ with the

1140: two amplitudes satisfying Eq.~\eref{cancel}. }

1141: \end{figure}

1142: 

1143: To simulate the experimental situation, in Fig.~\ref{curve3} the

1144: interval of the invariant mass of the final state hadron system

1145: from 100\% to 90\% of the $\EE$ C.M. energy is divided into 20

1146: bins, and the probabilities of the hadrons in the bins are plotted

1147: for the events at continuum and at the energy of $\pspp$ mass with

1148: the destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$ satisfying

1149: Eq.~\eref{cancel}. Here off resonance at continuum, the events are

1150: highly concentrated in the last bin with $M_{inv}/E_{c.m.}=100\%$;

1151: while for destructive interference, the events are distributed

1152: more flatly among the bins. If there is no interference or if the

1153: interference is constructive, the events are even more

1154: concentrated in the last bin than off resonance at continuum in

1155: the plot. %If there is only the resonance contribution, 

1156: %most of the events are in the last bin.

1157: 

1158: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1159: \includegraphics[width=7.cm,height=6.0cm]{curve3.eps}

1160: \caption{\label{curve3}The interval of the invariant mass of the

1161: final state hadron system from 100\% to 90\% of the $\EE$ C.M.

1162: energy is divided into 20 bins, the probabilities of the hadron

1163: event in each bin are plotted for continuum (dots) and for the

1164: $\pspp$ with the destructive interference between $\ag$ and $\ac$

1165: satisfying Eq.~\eref{cancel} (boxes).}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: 

1168: This scheme requires the selected data sample be free from

1169: background contamination. The most important background comes from

1170: the radiative tail of the $\psp$. For the data taken at the $\pspp$

1171: peak, the radiative tail due to the $\psp$ has an invariant mass which

1172: is $97.8\%$ of the $\EE$ C.M. energy. The radiative tail of the

1173: $\psp$ at the energy of the $\pspp$ mass has a total cross section of

1174: 2.6~nb, so this scheme is feasible for those decay modes like

1175: $\rhopi$, $\KKSC$, and $\omega\eta$ with branching fractions in

1176: $\psp$ decays no more than the order of

1177: $10^{-5}$~\cite{cleopsp,bespsp} since the background of these

1178: modes from radiative tail of the $\psp$ is at the order of 0.1~pb. But

1179: for those modes which have large branching fractions in $\psp$

1180: decays, e.g. $b_1\pi$, the contribution of the $\psp$ tail must be

1181: considered carefully.

1182: 

1183: \section{Summery}

1184: 

1185: In this paper, we examined the radiative correction and Monte

1186: Carlo simulation for the measurement of $\pspp$ exclusive decays

1187: into light hadrons in $\EE$ experiments. We draw special attention on

1188: the interference effect between the $\pspp$ resonance and 

1189: non-resonance continuum amplitudes. We analyzed how the

1190: interference, particularly the destructive interference may change

1191: the invariant mass distribution of the final state hadrons. The

1192: discussions also lead to a possible scheme to verify the

1193: destructive interference using only the data taken at the energy

1194: of the $\pspp$ mass for the detectors with the energy-momentum

1195: resolution of $(1 \sim 2)\%$. We suggest this scheme be applied on

1196: decays such as $\omega\eta$, $\omega\eta^\prime$, $\KKSC$, and

1197: $\rhopi$ by future BESIII experiment.

1198: 

1199: \appendix

1200: 

1201: \section{The hadronic current}

1202: 

1203: The current of virtual photon transition to the final state $f$ is

1204: defined as~\cite{martin}

1205: $$ {\cal H}_{\mu} \equiv \langle f |_{out} J^{em}_{\mu} |0 \rangle. $$

1206: For reference we include its forms for some final hadronic states in the 

1207: following. A complete list of ${\cal H}_{\mu}$ for all possible two-body 

1208: final states can be found in Refs.~\cite{ptsai2,tosa}.

1209: 

1210: \subsection{Pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar}

1211: 

1212: For the final states $\pi^+\pi^-$ or $K^+K^-$,

1213:  $$

1214:  {\cal H}_{\mu} = {\cal F}_{P}(s)(p_{+}-p_{-})_{\mu},

1215:  \label{pi}

1216:  $$

1217: where $p_+$ and $p_-$ are the four-momentum vectors of $\pi^+$

1218: ($K^+$) and $\pi^-$ ($K^-$) respectively, and ${\cal F}_{P}(s)$ is

1219: the $\pi$ or $K$ form factor at the energy scale $s=(p_+ + p_-)^2$.

1220: 

1221: \subsection{Vector-pseudoscalar}

1222: 

1223: For the VP final states,

1224:  $$

1225:  {\cal H}_{\mu} = {\cal F}_{VP}(s)\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}

1226:  p_{V}^{\alpha}p_{P}^{\beta}e^{\gamma},

1227:  $$

1228: with $\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}$ the completely

1229: antisymmetric unit tensor of fourth rank, $p_{V}$ and $p_{P}$ are

1230: the four-momentum vectors of the vector and pseudoscalar mesons

1231: respectively, $e$ is the polarization of the vector meson, ${\cal

1232: F}_{VP}(s)$ is the form factor at the energy scale

1233: $s=(p_{V}+p_{P})^2$.

1234: 

1235: \subsection{$\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ with $\rhopi$ intermediate states}

1236: 

1237: For the 3-body final states $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$,

1238:  $$

1239:  {\cal H}_{\mu} = {\cal F}_{3\pi}(s)\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}

1240:  p_{+}^{\alpha}p_{-}^{\beta}p_{0}^{\gamma},

1241:  $$

1242: with $p_+$, $p_-$ and $p_0$ the four-momentum vectors of $\pi^+$,

1243: $\pi^-$ and $\pi^0$ respectively, ${\cal F}_{3\pi}(s)$ the form

1244: factor at the energy scale $s=(p_++p_-+p_0)^2$.

1245: 

1246: We may also include the three intermediate states $\rho^+\pi^-$,

1247: $\rho^-\pi^+$, $\rho^0\pi^0$ and their interference into ${\cal

1248: H}_\mu$ by multiplying a factor

1249: \begin{widetext}

1250:  $$

1251:    \frac{m_\rho^2}{p_{+-}^2-m_\rho^2+i\Gamma_\rho(p_{+-}^2) s /m_\rho}

1252:  + \frac{m_\rho^2}{p_{+0}^2-m_\rho^2+i\Gamma_\rho(p_{+0}^2) s /m_\rho}

1253:  + \frac{m_\rho^2}{p_{-0}^2-m_\rho^2+i\Gamma_\rho(p_{-0}^2) s /m_\rho},

1254:  $$

1255: \end{widetext}

1256: where $m_\rho$ and $\Gamma_\rho(s)$ are the mass and

1257: energy-dependent width of $\rho$, $p_{+-}=p_{+}+p_-$,

1258: $p_{+0}=p_{+}+p_0$, and $p_{-0}=p_{-}+p_0$.

1259: 

1260: \section{Solutions of $|{\cal C}|$ and $\phi$}

1261: 

1262: In this section, we discuss the possible solutions of $|{\cal C}|$ 

1263: and $\phi$ and so the branching fraction of the resonance

1264: decays if the experimental data are available at only two

1265: energies, one off the resonance and the other one at the energy of

1266: resonance mass. We begin with Eq.~\eref{int} and define

1267:  \beq t^2 =

1268: \left|\frac{1}{s(1-x)} + ({\cal C}+1)

1269: \frac{3\Gamma_{ee}/\left(\alpha \sqrt{s(1-x)}\right)}

1270:  {s(1-x)-M^2 + i M\Gamma_{t}} \right|^2~.

1271: \label{tsqdef}

1272:  \eeq

1273: Here it is more convenient to consider instead of $|{\cal C}|$ and

1274: $\phi$, the total resonance amplitude by 

1275:  \beqns

1276:  \rho &=&  | {\cal C} + 1 |; \\

1277:  \psi &=&  \arg( {\cal C} + 1 )~.

1278:  \eeqns

1279: Here $\rho=|(\ag+\aga)/\aga|$ is the total resonance amplitude

1280: normalized to the electromagnetic amplitude, and

1281: $\psi=\arg((\ag+\aga)/\aga)$ is the phase of the total resonance

1282: amplitude relative to the electromagnetic amplitude. As discussed

1283: in Sec.~\ref{threeamplitude}, for $\pspp$, $|\aga| \ll |\ac|$, so

1284: $\aga$ can be neglected, only the amplitudes of $\ag$ and $\ac$

1285: are important. These two amplitude have significant interference

1286: if their magnitude are comparable, i.e.

1287:  $$

1288:  |{\cal C}| \sim \frac{\alpha \Gamma_t}{3 \Gamma_{ee}}

1289: \approx 217.

1290:  $$

1291: For the discussion on the interference, we only need to consider

1292: the circumstance that $|{\cal C}| \gg 1$. Then we have

1293: approximately $\rho \approx |{\cal C}|$ and $\psi \approx \phi$.

1294: This means that since $|\aga| \ll |\ac|$, if $|\ag|$ is comparable

1295: with $|\ac|$, then $\ag+\aga \approx \ag$, i.e. the total

1296: resonance amplitude is approximately equal to the amplitude via

1297: strong decay.

1298: 

1299: For briefness, we introduce the following notations:

1300:  \beq

1301: \begin{array}{c}

1302: {\displaystyle q=\frac{1}{s(1-x)},

1303: ~~~k=\frac{3\Gamma_{ee}}{\alpha \sqrt{s(1-x)}} }, \\

1304: {\displaystyle a=s(1-x)-M^2,~~~b=M\Gamma_{t} } ,

1305: \end{array}

1306: \label{eq_note}

1307:  \eeq

1308: then we have

1309:  \beqn

1310: t^2 &=&  \left| q + (|{\cal C}| e^{i \phi} +1) \cdot

1311:  \frac{k}{a + i b} \right|^2~ \nonumber \\

1312:     &=&  \left| q + \rho e^{i \psi}  \cdot

1313:  \frac{k}{a + i b} \right|^2~ .

1314: \label{t2}

1315:  \eeqn

1316: 

1317: Eq.~\eref{t2} can be rewritten as

1318:  \beq

1319:  t^2 =  q^2 + 2 q R \cos

1320: (\psi-\lambda) + R^2~~, \label{eq_tsq}

1321:  \eeq

1322: with

1323:  \beqns

1324:  R &=& {\displaystyle \frac{\rho k}{\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}} }~; \\

1325: \tan \lambda &=&  {\displaystyle \frac{b}{a} }~.

1326:  \eeqns

1327: 

1328: To take the radiative correction, we introduce an integral

1329: operator defined as

1330:  \beq

1331: \int dG \equiv

1332: \int \limits_{0}^{1-s_m/s} 4\pi s(1-x) \alpha^2|{\cal F}(s(1-x))|^2

1333: {\cal P}(s(1-x))~,

1334:  \eeq

1335: then the radiatively corrected cross section becomes

1336: $$ \sigma_{r.c.}(s) = \int dG t^2 \equiv T^2~.$$

1337: Notice

1338: $$ q R \cos (\psi -\lambda) \leq q R = \frac{qk}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}~, $$

1339: and use the relation

1340: $$ \left[ \int dG q R  \right]^2

1341:  < \int dG q^2 \cdot \int dG \frac{k^2}{a^2+b^2}~,$$

1342: we %immediately acquire

1343: have

1344: \beq

1345: \sqrt{A^2+B^2} \cos (\psi - \Lambda) < Q K,~

1346: \label{eq_ineq}

1347: \eeq

1348: where

1349: \beqns

1350: A = \int dG \frac{ a q k}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}~,~~~

1351: B = \int dG \frac{ b q k}{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}~, \\

1352: K^2 = \int dG \frac{k^2}{a^2+b^2}~,~~~

1353: Q^2 = \int dG q^2~,

1354: \eeqns

1355: and

1356: $$ \tan \Lambda = \frac{B}{A}~.$$

1357: Introduce a variable $\xi$ and let

1358:  \beq

1359: \cos \xi = \frac{\sqrt{A^2+B^2}}{Q K} \cdot \cos (\psi - \Lambda)~,

1360: \label{eq_xi}

1361:  \eeq

1362: we obtain an expression similar to Eq.~\eref{eq_tsq}: %that is

1363:  \beq

1364: T^2 =  Q^2 + 2 \rho Q K \cos \xi + \rho^2 K^2~~.

1365: \label{eq_lagtsq_1}

1366:  \eeq

1367: In virtue of Eq.~\eref{eq_xi}, the angle $\xi$ does not have an

1368: apparent physical meaning but has a rather complex relation to the

1369: angle $\psi$.

1370: 

1371: \begin{figure}[tbh]

1372: \begin{minipage}{8.8cm}

1373: \includegraphics[width=3.5cm,height=2.6cm]{slone.eps}

1374: \hskip 0.5cm

1375: \includegraphics[width=4.2 cm,height=2.6cm]{sltwo.eps}

1376: (a) $T>Q$ \hskip 2.5cm (b) $T<Q$

1377: \end{minipage}

1378: \caption{\label{fig_slun} Possible solutions of $\rho$ and $\psi$

1379: for $T>Q$ (a) and for $T<Q$ (b). Here $T,~Q,~\rho K$ denote the

1380: total, continuum and resonance amplitudes, respectively. In the

1381: figures $\xi^{\prime}= \psi^{\prime}-\Lambda$, where

1382: $\psi^{\prime}= - \psi$ according to the angle definition between

1383: two vetors. In (b) the dashed line corresponds to one solution case

1384: for special $\xi^{\prime}$. }

1385: \end{figure}

1386: 

1387: Introduce an angle $\zeta$ defined as $\zeta=\pi - \xi$, then

1388: Eq.~\eref{eq_lagtsq_1} becomes,

1389:  \beq T^2 =  Q^2 - 2 \rho Q K \cos

1390: \zeta + \rho^2 K^2~~, \label{eq_lagtsq}

1391:  \eeq

1392: in which the three variables $T$, $Q$ and $\rho K$ form a triangle

1393: and obey the law of cosines. If $T > Q$, $\zeta$ may take any

1394: value between $-180^\circ \sim 180^\circ$, there is one and only

1395: one solution for a given value of $\zeta$; while if $T < Q$, there

1396: are two solutions for a value of $\zeta$, but the range of

1397: $\zeta$ is constrained by $\sin \zeta \le T/Q$. For $\sin \zeta =

1398: Q/T$, the two solutions coincide. In Figs.~\ref{fig_slun}(a) and

1399: \ref{fig_slun}(b) we show schematically

1400: the two cases for $T > Q$  and $T < Q$ respectively.

1401: 

1402: Next we consider the variation of $\epsilon(s_m)$. As discussed in

1403: Sec.~\ref{sec_mint}, to determine the efficiency by the Monte

1404: Carlo simulation, the resonance parameter $\rho$ and $\psi$ are

1405: input parameters which are also the quantities to be measured. So

1406: the data analysis is an iterative process. Here we are to prove

1407: that if the efficiency

1408: %is a weak-dependent function of $\rho$ and/or $\psi$,

1409: remains stable for different solutions of $\rho$ and $\psi$, or

1410: with only weak dependence on these two variables, the above

1411: discussion is still valid.

1412: 

1413: In Eq.~\eref{eq_lagtsq}, $T^2$ is the total observed cross

1414: section, which is obtained by experimentally measured quantities

1415: as

1416: $$ T^2 =\frac{N}{{\cal L} \cdot \epsilon }~,$$

1417: where the efficiency $\epsilon$ is a function of $\rho$ and $\psi$.

1418: Without losing generality, we only write its dependence on $\rho$

1419: explicitly, i.e. $\epsilon=\epsilon(\rho)$.

1420: %As we assume,

1421: As shown in Sec.~\ref{sec_mint}, $\epsilon(\rho)$ remains stable

1422: for different solutions of $\rho$ and $\psi$, and the dependence

1423: on these variables is weak, so we take Taylor expansion of

1424: $\epsilon$ in terms of $\rho$, and neglect the higher order terms:

1425:  \beqns

1426: \epsilon(\rho) &=& \epsilon(\rho_0) + {\displaystyle \left.

1427: \frac{d \epsilon(\rho)}{d \rho } \right|_{\rho=\rho_0} (\rho-\rho_0) }+

1428:  {\cal O} [(\rho-\rho_0)^2]  \\

1429:           &\approx & \epsilon_0 + \eta \rho

1430: =\epsilon_0 {\displaystyle \left(1+ \frac{\eta}{\epsilon_0}\rho\right)}~,

1431:  \eeqns

1432: where

1433:  \beqns

1434: \epsilon_0 &=& \epsilon(\rho_0) - {\displaystyle \left.

1435: \frac{d \epsilon(\rho)}{d \rho } \right|_{\rho=\rho_0} \rho_0 }~,\\

1436: \eta &=& {\displaystyle \left.

1437: \frac{d \epsilon(\rho)}{d \rho } \right|_{\rho=\rho_0} }~.

1438:  \eeqns

1439: Here the correction term to $\epsilon_0$ is small, i.e.

1440:  \beq

1441:   \frac{\eta \rho}{\epsilon_0} \ll 1~.

1442: \label{taylor1}

1443:  \eeq

1444: Therefore we have

1445: %%\beqns

1446: $$

1447: T^2 = \frac{N}{{\cal L} \cdot {\displaystyle \epsilon_0 \cdot

1448: \left(1+ \frac{\eta \rho}{\epsilon_0}\right) }}

1449:     = \frac{N}{{\cal L} \cdot \epsilon_0} \cdot

1450: {\displaystyle \left(1- \frac{\eta \rho}{\epsilon_0}\right)}

1451:     = \sigma_t \cdot \left(1- \frac{\eta \rho}{\epsilon_0}\right),

1452: $$

1453: %%\eeqns

1454: where we define

1455: $$ \sigma_t = \frac{N}{{\cal L} \cdot \epsilon_0}~,$$

1456: with $\sigma_t$ the total cross section calculated by the

1457: efficiency $\epsilon_0$. $Q^2$ is the continuum cross section

1458: which does not depend on $\rho$ and $\psi$. Substituting the above

1459: expression of $T^2$ back into Eq.~\eref{eq_lagtsq} we have

1460:  \beq

1461: K^2 \rho^2 -\left( 2QK\cos\zeta-\sigma_t \frac{\eta}{\epsilon_0}

1462: \right)

1463:  \rho + (Q^2 - \sigma_t) = 0~.

1464: \label{eq_rho}

1465:  \eeq

1466: We get

1467: \beq

1468: \rho=\left[(Q \cos \zeta - \delta \sigma_t) \pm

1469: \sqrt{(Q \cos \zeta - \delta \sigma_t)^2+(\sigma_t-Q^2)}\right]/K~,

1470: \label{eq_rhoslun}

1471: \eeq

1472: with

1473: \beq

1474: \delta = \frac{\eta}{2 K \epsilon_0}~.

1475: \label{def_delta}

1476: \eeq

1477: Consider the quantity under the radical

1478: \beqns

1479: z&=&(Q \cos \zeta - \delta \sigma_t)^2+(\sigma_t-Q^2) \\

1480:  &=& \delta^2 \sigma^2_t - (2 \delta Q \cos \zeta -1)\sigma_t -

1481:  Q^2 \sin^2 \zeta~.

1482: \label{z}

1483:  \eeqns

1484: In order for Eq.~\eref{eq_rhoslun} to have solutions, it requires

1485: $z \ge 0$. For $\sigma_t > Q^2$, this is always true.

1486: Notice that %in Eq.\eref{eq_rhoslun},

1487: $\rho$ must be greater than 0 by definition, in this circumstance,

1488: $\rho$ has one and only one solution for any given value of

1489: $\zeta$, with no constraint on $\zeta$. If $\sigma_t < Q^2$, in

1490: order to have $z>0$, we need the condition

1491: $$\sigma_t >\frac{(2 \delta Q \cos \zeta -1) +

1492: \sqrt{(2 \delta Q \cos \zeta -1)^2+4 \delta^2 Q^2 \sin^2 \zeta} }

1493: {2 \delta^2}~ $$ which imposes constraint on $\zeta$. In such

1494: case, there are two solutions for each allowed value of $\zeta$.

1495: In Eq.~\eref{def_delta}, $\eta/\epsilon_0$ is small, so is

1496: $\delta$. In the limit $\delta \to 0$, we find $\rho$ has two

1497: solutions when $ Q^2 \sin^2 \zeta < \sigma_t < Q^2$. If $z=0$,

1498: which means

1499: $$\sigma_t =\frac{(2 \delta Q \cos \zeta -1) +

1500: \sqrt{(2 \delta Q \cos \zeta -1)^2+4 \delta^2 Q^2 \sin^2 \zeta} }

1501: {2 \delta^2}~, $$ the two solutions of Eq.~\eref{eq_rho} becomes

1502: one.

1503: 

1504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1505: 

1506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1507: 

1508: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{rosner}J.L.~Rosner,

1511:   \Journal\PRD{64}{094002}{2001}.

1512: \bibitem{wym7}P.~Wang, X.H.~Mo and C.Z.~Yuan,

1513:   \Journal\PRD{70}{077505}{2004}.

1514: \bibitem{wym1}P.~Wang, C.Z.~Yuan and X.H.~Mo,

1515:   \Journal\PRD{70}{114014}{2004}.

1516: \bibitem{cleolp05}CLEO Collaboration, G.S.~Adam {\em et al.},

1517:   hep-ex/0509011.

1518: \bibitem{besvp}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.},

1519:   \Journal\PRD{70}{112007}{2004}.

1520: \bibitem{besrp}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.},

1521:   \Journal\PRD{72}{072007}{2005}.

1522: \bibitem{wym3}P.~Wang, C.Z.~Yuan and X.H.~Mo,

1523:   \Journal\PLB{574}{41}{2004}.

1524: \bibitem{wymz}P.~Wang, C.Z.~Yuan, X.H.~Mo and D.H.~Zhang,

1525:   \Journal\PLB{593}{89}{2004}.

1526: \bibitem{rudaz}S.~Rudaz, \Journal\PRD{14}{298}{1976}.

1527: \bibitem{phyreport}L.~K$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$pke and N.~Wermes,

1528:            \Journal\PRP{174}{67}{1989}.

1529: \bibitem{haber}H.E.~Haber and J.~Perrier,

1530:   \Journal\PRD{32}{2961}{1985}.

1531: \bibitem{bes2pspkskl}BES Collaboration, J.Z.~Bai {\em et al.},

1532:        \Journal\PRL{92}{052001}{2004}.

1533: \bibitem{cleoformf}CLEO Collaboration, G.S.~Adam {\em et al.},

1534:   hep-ex/0510005.

1535: \bibitem{Zline}F.A.~Berends {\em et al.}, in

1536: Proceedings of the Workshop on Z Physics at LEP, v.1, (1989) page

1537: 89, edited by G.~Altarelli, R.~Kleiss and C.~Verzegnassi.

1538: \bibitem{pdg}Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman {\em

1539: et al.}, \Journal\PLB{592}{1}{2004}.

1540: \bibitem{wym4}P.~Wang, C.Z.~Yuan and X.H.~Mo,

1541:   \Journal\PRD{69}{057502}{2004}.

1542: \bibitem{wym2}P.~Wang, C.Z.~Yuan and X.H.~Mo,

1543:   \Journal\PLB{567}{73}{2003}

1544: \bibitem{ptsai}Y.S.~Tsai, SLAC-PUB-3129 (1983).

1545: \bibitem{rad}E.A.~Kuraev and V.S.~Fadin, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 41}

1546:        (1985) 733 [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 41} (1985) 466];

1547:     G.~Altarelli and G.~Martinelli, CERN {\bf 86-02} (1986) 47;

1548:     O.~Nicrosini and L.~Trentadue, \Journal\PLB{196}{551}{1987};

1549:     F.A.~Berends, G.~Burgers and W.L.~Neerven, \Journal\NPB

1550:     {297}{429}{1988}; {\it ibid.} {\bf 304} (1988) 921.

1551: \bibitem{Greco} A.~Bramon and M.~Greco, in {\it The Second

1552:     DA$\Phi$NE Physics Handbook}, edited by I.Maiani,

1553:     G.~Pancheri and N.~Paver, Vol.2, p451, 1995.

1554: %\bibitem{vacuum}F.A.~Berends and G.L.~Komen,

1555: %    \Journal\PLB{63}{432}{1976}.

1556: \bibitem{hard1}C.M.~Carloni, \Journal\PLB{520}{16}{2001}.

1557: \bibitem{hard2} A.B.~Arbuzov {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0504233;

1558:    A.B.~Arbuzov {\em et al.}, \Journal\JHEP{10}{006}{1997}.

1559: \bibitem{ISR}H.~Czy\.{z} and J.H.~K\"{u}hn,

1560:     \Journal\EPJC{18}{497}{2001}.

1561: \bibitem{jadach}J.~Jadach, B.F.L.~Ward and Z.~Was,

1562:         \Journal\PRD{63}{113009}{2001}.

1563: \bibitem{cleopsp}CLEO Collaboration, N.E.~Adam {\em et al.},

1564:    \Journal\PRL{94}{012005}{2005}.

1565: \bibitem{bespsp}BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.},

1566:    \Journal\PLB{614}{37}{2005}; \\

1567:    BES Collaboration, M.~Ablikim {\em et al.},

1568:    \Journal\PLB{619}{247}{2005};

1569: \bibitem{martin}G.~Bonneau and F.~Martin, \Journal\NPB{27}{381}{1971}.

1570: \bibitem{ptsai2}Y.S.~Tsai, \Journal\PRD{12}{3533}{1975}.

1571: \bibitem{tosa}Y.~Tosa, Nagoya University preprint DPNU-34(1976).

1572: \end{thebibliography}

1573: 

1574: \end{document}

1575: