text:
# Symmetry Breaking and Quark-Hadron Duality in Structure Functions

## I Introduction

The relation between resonances and deep inelastic structure functions has been the subject of considerable interest recently. This has been partly prompted by recent high precision data from Jefferson Lab F2P  on the unpolarized $`F_2`$ structure function of the proton in the resonance region, which showed a striking similarity, when averaged over resonances, to the structure function measured at much higher energies in the deep inelastic region. This phenomenon was first observed some time ago by Bloom and Gilman BG , who found that when integrated over the mass of the inclusive hadronic final state, $`W`$, the scaling structure function at high $`Q^2`$, $`F_2^{\mathrm{scaling}}`$, smoothly averages that measured in the region dominated by low-lying resonances, $`F_2^{\mathrm{exp}}`$,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑WF_2^{\mathrm{exp}}(W^2,Q^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑WF_2^{\mathrm{scaling}}(W^2/Q^2)}.`$ (1)
The integrand on the left-hand-side of Eq. (1) represents the structure function in the resonance region at low $`Q^2`$, while that on the right-hand-side corresponds to the scaling function, measured in the deep inelastic region at high $`Q^2`$. The latter is described by leading twist, perturbative QCD, as an incoherent sum over quark flavors, $`e_i^2`$; the former involves coherent excitation of resonances.

Global duality is said to hold after integration over all $`W`$ in Eq. (1). This equality can be related to the suppression of higher twist contributions to moments of the structure function RUJ , in which the total moment becomes dominated by the leading twist ($`Q^2`$ independent) component at some lower value of $`Q^2`$. Information on all coherent interaction dynamics is subsequently lost. A more local form of duality is also observed F2P , in which the equality in Eq. (1) holds for restricted regions of $`W`$ integration — specifically, for the three prominent resonance regions at $`W1.8`$ GeV. The duality between the resonance and scaling structure functions is also being investigated in other structure functions, such as the longitudinal structure function F1P , and spin dependent structure functions of the proton and neutron G1P ; G1N . For spin-dependent structure functions, in particular, the workings of duality are more intricate, as the difference of cross sections no longer needs to be positive. An example is the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance to the $`g_1`$ structure function of the proton, which is large and negative at low $`Q^2`$, but may become positive at higher $`Q^2`$.

Early work within the SU(6) symmetric quark model CGK ; CGNU ; COT  showed how the ratios of various deep inelastic structure functions at $`x=Q^2/2M\nu 1/3`$, both spin dependent and independent, could be dual to a sum over $`N^{}`$ resonances in the SU(6)P=56+ and 70- representations. With the emergence of precision data, showing detailed and interesting $`x`$ dependence as $`x1`$, various questions arise:

* How do changes in ratios as $`x1`$ relate to the pattern of $`N^{}`$ resonances identified in the quark model CGK ; CGNU ; COT ?
* Are certain families (spin-flavor correlations) of resonances required to die out at large $`Q^2`$ in order to maintain duality? If so, can electroproduction of specific examples of such resonances test this?
* Can such a program reveal the flavor-spin dependence of short distance forces in the QCD bound state?

The aim of this paper is to make a first orientation towards answering such questions. Quark models based on SU(6) spin-flavor symmetry provide benchmark descriptions of baryon spectra, as well as transitions to excited $`N^{}`$ states. To allow the origins of duality to remain manifest throughout our discussion, we shall restrict ourselves to the framework of the quark model, but consider the effects of SU(6) breaking explicitly. Such models serve as convenient laboratories for examining the generality of the quark-hadron duality phenomenon in more realistic scenarios than in earlier discussions. The duality between the simplest SU(6) quark parton model results KW  for ratios of structure functions with sums over the 56+ and 70- coherent $`N^{}`$ excitations was described in Refs. CGK ; CGNU ; CG . An essential feature of those analyses was that SU(6) was exact and that exotics in the $`t`$-channel were suppressed. In a global sense such results are self-consistent: the absence of $`t`$-channel exotics equates with an absence of $`\gamma \gamma qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ couplings, and hence, in effect, to the presence only of incoherent diagrams where the photons couple to the same quark, $`\gamma q\gamma q`$ (see Fig. 1(a)).

Although the $`s`$-channel sum was shown to be dual for ratios of incoherent quantities CGK ; CGNU ; COT , this alone did not explain why (or if) any individual sum over states scaled. Recently, the transition from resonances to scaling has been explored in microscopic models at the quark level. The phenomenological quark model duality of Refs. CGK ; CGNU ; COT  was recently shown CI  to arise in a simple model of spinless constituents. A model in which the hadron consisted of a point-like scalar “quark” bound to an infinitely massive core by a harmonic oscillator potential was used IJMV  to explicitly demonstrate how a sum over infinitely narrow resonances can lead to a structure function which scales in the $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ limit. These ideas have been further developed OTHER  to give an increasingly solid model underpinning of this phenomenological duality.

Since the original quark model predictions were made in the 1970’s, the quantity and quality of structure function data have improved dramatically. We now know, for instance, that in some regions of $`x`$ SU(6) symmetry is badly broken, with the strongest deviations from the naive SU(6) expectations being prevalent at large values of $`x`$. The new data will set challenges for theories of quark-hadron duality. There are critical questions which now need to be addressed, such as:

* Can duality survive locally in $`x`$, and what do the observed variations in $`x`$ require of $`N^{}`$ excitations if duality is to survive?
* What families (spin flavor correlations, or SU(6) multiplets) are suppressed as $`x1`$, or equivalently $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, for duality to hold?
* Does the excitation of low lying prominent $`N^{}`$ resonances, belonging to such families, exhibit such behavior?

If the $`x1`$ systematics for $`N^{}`$ families are not matched by specific $`NN^{}`$ transition form factors as a function of $`Q^2`$, then duality fails. If, however, they do match, then this can expose the patterns in the flavor-spin dependence of inter-quark forces.

In this paper we explore the question of whether quark-hadron duality exists in structure functions for the more realistic scenario in which SU(6) is explicitly broken. We focus on both electromagnetic and neutrino scattering. While most of the phenomenological information comes from electron scattering, neutrino-induced reactions provide an important consistency check on the derived duality relations, and predictions for neutrino structure function ratios can be tested once high-intensity neutrino beams become available NUMI . After reviewing the symmetric SU(6) quark model results for structure functions in Section II, we identify in Section III the necessary patterns of $`NN^{}`$ suppression in order to obtain structure functions which are compatible with data and expectations from hard scattering at large $`x`$ and higher $`Q^2`$. In the process we derive duality relations for various structure function ratios, in which the breaking of SU(6) symmetry is parameterized in terms of $`x`$-dependent mixing angles. Fixing the mixing angles by the unpolarized neutron to proton structure function ratio data then allows us to make explicit predictions for the $`x`$-dependence of polarization asymmetries for the proton and neutron, under various symmetry breaking scenarios. Experimental signatures for the corresponding $`NN^{}`$ suppressions are discussed in Section IV, and conclusions and ideas for future developments summarized in Section V.

## II Duality and the Quark Model

The SU(6) spin-flavor symmetric quark model serves as a useful basis in which one may visualize both the principles underpinning the phenomenon of quark-hadron duality and at the same time provide a reasonably close contact with phenomenology. Following earlier work in Refs. CGK ; CGNU ; COT ; CG ; CKO , it was shown by Close & Isgur CI  that the structure function ratios of the symmetric quark model can be obtained by summing over appropriate sets of baryon resonances. Higher twist effects, which give rise to violations of duality through non-diagonal quark transitions, such as in the “cat’s ears” diagram in Fig. 1(b), can be shown to cancel in a small energy range appropriate for summing over neighboring odd and even parity states. In the SU(6) quark model this corresponds to summing over states in the 56+ ($`L=0`$) and 70- ($`L=1`$) multiplets, with each representation weighted equally. The spin-averaged transverse $`F_1`$ structure function, for instance, in this framework is given by the sum of squares of form factors, $`F_{NR}(\stackrel{}{q}^2)`$, describing the transitions from the nucleon to excited states $`R`$,

$`F_1(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q}^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{R}{}}\left|F_{NR}(\stackrel{}{q}^2)\right|^2\delta (E_RE_N\nu ),`$ (2)
where $`E_N`$ and $`E_R`$ are the energies of the ground state and excited state, respectively. In terms of photoabsorption cross sections (or $`W`$ boson absorption cross sections for neutrino scattering), the $`F_1`$ structure function is proportional to the sum $`\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2}`$, with $`\sigma _{1/2(3/2)}`$ the cross section for total boson–nucleon helicity 1/2 (3/2). The spin-dependent $`g_1`$ structure function, on the other hand, corresponds to the difference $`\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2}`$.

Resonance excitation and deep inelastic scattering in general involve both electric and magnetic multipoles. Excitation in a given partial wave at $`Q^2=0`$ involves a complicated mix of these. However, as $`Q^2`$ grows one expects the magnetic multipole to dominate over the electric, even by $`Q^20.5`$ GeV2 in specific models CGK ; CG . Furthermore, recent phenomenological analyses of electromagnetic excitations of negative parity resonances suggests that for the prominent $`D_{13}`$ resonance the ratio of helicity-1/2 to helicity-3/2 amplitudes is consistent with zero beyond $`Q^22`$ GeV2 BURKERT , which corresponds to magnetic dominance. This dominance of magnetic, or spin flip, interactions at large $`Q^2`$ for $`N^{}`$ excitation matches the dominance of such spin flip in deep inelastic scattering. For instance, the polarization asymmetry $`A_1=g_1/F_1`$ is positive at large $`Q^2`$, whereas $`A_1<0`$ if electric interactions were prominent FC74 . Thus in the present analysis we assume that the interaction with the quark is dominated by the magnetic coupling. In this approximation the $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ structure functions are simply related by the Callan-Gross relation, $`F_2=2xF_1`$, independent of the specific models we use for the structure functions themselves.

The relative photoproduction strengths of the transitions from the ground state to the 56+ and 70- are summarized in Table I for the $`F_1`$ and $`g_1`$ structure functions of the proton and neutron. For generality, we separate the contributions from the symmetric and antisymmetric components of the ground state nucleon wave function, with strengths $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$, respectively. The SU(6) limit corresponds to $`\lambda =\rho `$. The coefficients in Table I assume equal weights for the 56+ and 70- multiplets CGK . Similarly, neutrino-induced transitions to excited states can be evaluated CGNU , and the relative strengths are displayed in Table II for the proton and neutron. Because of charge conservation, only transitions to decuplet (isospin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$) states from the proton are allowed. (Note that the overall normalizations of the electromagnetic and neutrino matrix elements in Tables I and II are arbitrary.)

Summing over the full set of states in the 56+ and 70- multiplets leads to definite predictions for neutron and proton structure function ratios,

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_1^n}{F_1^p}},`$ (3)
$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_1^{\nu p}}{F_1^{\nu n}}},`$ (4)
and polarization asymmetries,

$`A_1^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^N}{F_1^N}},`$ (5)
$`A_1^{\nu N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^{\nu N}}{F_1^{\nu N}}},`$ (6)
for $`N=p`$ or $`n`$. In particular, for $`\lambda =\rho `$ one finds the classic SU(6) quark-parton model results CLOSEBOOK :

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},A_1^p={\displaystyle \frac{5}{9}},A_1^n=0[\mathrm{SU}(6)],`$ (7)
for electromagnetic scattering, and

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},A_1^{\nu p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},A_1^{\nu n}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}[\mathrm{SU}(6)],`$ (8)
for neutrino scattering, which correspond to $`u=2d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=4\mathrm{\Delta }d`$. The quark level results are easily deduced by considering the wave function of a proton in the SU(6) limit, polarized in the $`+z`$ direction CLOSEBOOK :

$`|p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|u^{}(ud)_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}}}|u^{}(ud)_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|u^{}(ud)_1`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|d^{}(uu)_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}|d^{}(uu)_1,`$
where the subscript 0 or 1 denotes the total spin of the two-quark component. The neutron wave function is obtained from Eq. (9) by interchanging $`ud`$. In this limit, apart from charge and flavor quantum numbers, the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks in the proton are identical, and, in particular, have the same $`x`$ distributions. The relations between the structure functions and leading order parton distributions are given in the Appendix. The various structure function ratios in the SU(6) quark model are listed in the first column of Table III.

One should point out that these results arise in an ideal world of SU(6) symmetry where the members of a 56+ or 70- are each degenerate, with common $`Q^2`$ dependent form factors. Reality is not like that. In the quark model the usual assignments of the excited states have the nucleon and $`P_{33}(1232)`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar belonging to the quark spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ 28 and quark spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ 410 representations of 56+, respectively, while for the odd parity states the 28 representation contains the states $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`D_{13}(1520)`$, the 48 contains the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`D_{13}(1700)`$ and $`D_{15}(1675)`$, while the isospin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ states $`S_{31}(1620)`$ and $`D_{33}(1700)`$ belong to the 210 representation. One purpose of this paper will be to investigate the systematics of such SU(6) breaking which split energy levels, give different $`Q^2`$ dependence to form factors, distort the $`u`$ and $`d`$ flavors and spin distributions, and affect the $`x1`$ behaviors via duality.

## III Duality and SU(6) Breaking

While the SU(6) predictions for the structure functions hold approximately at $`x1/3`$, significant deviations are observed at larger $`x`$. Empirically, the $`d`$ quark distribution is observed to be much softer than the $`u`$ for $`x0.5`$ CLOSEBOOK ; WHITLOW ; GOMEZ ; NP , leading to $`F_2^n/F_2^p2/3`$ at large $`x`$. Also, on the basis of helicity conservation FJ ; GUNION , one expects that the proton and neutron polarization asymmetries, for both electromagnetic and neutrino scattering, $`A_1^N,A_1^{\nu N}1`$ as $`x1`$, in dramatic contrast to the SU(6) expectations, especially for the neutron, where $`A_1^n=0`$ and $`A_1^{\nu n}=1/3`$.

In this Section we examine the conditions under which combinations of resonances can reproduce, via quark-hadron duality, the behavior of structure functions in the large-$`x`$ region where SU(6) breaking effects are most prominent. At the quark level, explicit SU(6) breaking mechanisms produce different weightings of components of the initial state wave function, Eq. (9), which in turn induces different $`x`$ dependences for the spin and flavor distributions. On the other hand, at the hadronic level SU(6) breaking in the $`NN^{}`$ matrix elements leads to suppression of transitions to specific resonances in the final state, while starting from a symmetric SU(6) initial state wave function. Thus if we admit breaking of the SU(6) symmetry, then for duality to be manifest the pattern of symmetry breaking in the initial state has to match that in the final state.

Note that for a fixed $`W=M_R`$ of a given resonance $`R`$, the resonance peak moves to larger $`x`$ with increasing $`Q^2`$, since at the resonance peak one has $`x=x_RQ^2/(M_R^2M^2+Q^2)`$. At low $`Q^2`$, the prominent resonances are spread out in $`x`$ and a necessary condition for duality involves integrating over a range of $`x`$ corresponding to $`W2`$ GeV. At large $`Q^2`$ for fixed $`x`$ one has large $`W`$ and hence a dense population of overlapping coherent resonance states. In such a circumstance duality can become locally satisfied. In turn this kinematics means that if a given resonance at $`x1/3`$ appears at relatively low $`Q^2`$, the $`x1`$ behavior of the resonance contribution to the structure function will be determined by the $`NR`$ transition form factor at large $`Q^2`$.

We shall look therefore for different $`Q^2`$ dependences in the transition form factors to different spin-flavor multiplets, and study their implications for $`x1`$ in the sum. Then we shall look at specific examples of resonances having these particular correlations and identify experimental tests of the hypothesis.

### III.1 Suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states

The most immediate breaking of the SU(6) duality could be achieved by varying the overall strengths of the coefficients for the 56+ and 70- multiplets as a whole. However, since the cancellations of the $`NN^{}`$ transitions for the case of $`g_1^n`$ occur within each multiplet, a non-zero value of $`A_1^n`$ can only be achieved if SU(6) is broken within each multiplet rather than between the multiplets. Some intuition is needed therefore on sensible breaking patterns within the supermultiplets.

Turning first to the 56+, empirical evidence suggests that at high $`Q^2`$ the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition form factor is anomalously suppressed relative to the elastic nucleon form factors DELTA ; CM . This phenomenon has been attributed to spin-dependent forces between quarks, such as from single gluon exchange DGG , which split the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ masses and necessarily break SU(6). Removing the 410\[56+\] from the $`s`$-channel sum causes $`R^{np}`$ to fall (to $`10/190.53`$), as required phenomenologically, and both $`A_1^p`$ and $`A_1^n`$ to increase (to 1 and 2/5, respectively) compared with the SU(6) values (see column 2 of Table III.

Investigation of the coefficients in Tables I and II, however, shows that a suppression of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ alone is not consistent with quark-hadron duality. In particular, it gives rise to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ ratio, extracted from the electromagnetic structure functions (see Eq. (45) in the Appendix), which is greater than unity, thereby violating a partonic interpretation of the structure functions. Similarly, suppression of all decuplet contributions, namely the 410 in the 56+ and 210 in the 70- (column 3 of Table III), still gives a value for the extracted $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ which exceeds unity.

The reason for the failure of duality here is that eliminating $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states in the $`s`$-channel sum spoils the cancellation of exotic exchanges in the $`t`$-channel, $`\gamma \gamma N\overline{N}`$. Non-exotic 1 and 35 SU(6) representations correspond to $`q\overline{q}`$, thus in the $`t`$-channel these appear as $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}`$; when such a diagram is viewed in the $`s`$-channel one sees that in effect it can map onto handbag or leading twist topologies, enabling a partonic interpretation, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Exotic exchanges, such as 405, require $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ in the $`t`$-channel, and map onto higher twist contributions, such as in Fig. 1(b). These are incompatible with single parton probability interpretations in principle, with the specific $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u>1`$ result illustrating this.

Moreover, the results for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ ratios extracted from the electromagnetic observables, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u=23/21`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d=1/3`$, do not agree with those obtained from the neutrino polarization asymmetries $`A_1^{\nu N}`$ (column 3 of Table III. In addition, for both of these scenarios the ratio $`d/u`$ extracted from $`R^{np}`$ does not match that obtained from $`R^\nu `$. These are all consequences of the presence of $`t`$-channel exotics in such scenarios, and further underscore the inconsistency of duality with suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states alone.

### III.2 Spin 3/2 suppression

If the characteristic $`Q^2`$ dependence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation is indeed due to spin dependence, then it may be that this is a phenomenon realized by all $`S=3/2`$ quark couplings, namely 410\[56+\] and 48\[70-\]. An immediate observation in this scenario from Tables I and II is that each of the contributions corresponding to (the surviving) quark spin $`S=1/2`$ configurations has equal strength for $`g_1`$ and $`F_1`$, which automatically gives unity for the polarization asymmetries $`A_1`$. This simply follows from the (high $`Q^2`$) approximation that only magnetic couplings to quarks contribute, so that only $`S=3/2`$ configurations allow non-zero $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ cross sections (we shall return to this later).

More generally, one can observe that duality is satisfied by summing over the individual $`S=1/2`$ and $`S=3/2`$ contributions separately, $`S_{1/2}`$ 28\[56+\] + 28\[70-\] \+ 28\[70-\], and $`S_{3/2}`$ 410\[56+\] + 48\[70-\]. If the relative contributions of the $`S_{1/2}`$ and $`S_{3/2}`$ channels are weighted by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _s`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s`$, respectively, then the ratio of unpolarized neutron to proton structure functions can be written as:

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s)}{1911\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}},`$ (10)
and the polarization asymmetries become:

$`A_1^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1923\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}{1911\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}},`$ (11)
$`A_1^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}}.`$ (12)
The dependence on the mixing angle $`\theta _s`$ of these ratios is illustrated in Fig. 2 (dashed curves). The SU(6) symmetric limit, Eq. (7), is reproduced when $`\theta _s=\pi /4`$, as indicated in Fig. 2. As $`\theta _s0`$, corresponding to $`S_{1/2}`$ dominance, the neutron to proton ratio decreases, and both the polarization asymmetries approach their maximal values,

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{19}},A_1^p=1,A_1^n=1[\theta _s=0].`$ (13)
In the other extreme limit as $`\theta _s\pi /2`$, the polarization asymmetries approach $`1`$, while $`R^{np}3/2`$. Neither of these scenarios are supported phenomenologically, as we shall discuss below, and the physical region appears to correspond to $`0\theta _s9\pi /32`$.

In analogy with Eqs. (10)–(12), the ratio of the unpolarized proton and neutron structure functions for neutrino scattering is:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+7\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}{1410\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}},`$ (14)
and the neutrino polarization asymmetries:

$`A_1^{\nu p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}{1+7\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}},`$ (15)
$`A_1^{\nu p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{78\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}{75\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s}}.`$ (16)
The dependence on the angle $`\theta _s`$ for the neutrino observables is shown in Fig. 3 (dashed curves). The trends of the ratios are similar to those of the electromagnetic ratios in Fig. 2 (with the neutron and proton reversed). Once again the SU(6) symmetric limit, Eq. (8), is reproduced when $`\theta _s=\pi /4`$. The phenomenologically favored scenario in which $`S_{3/2}`$ contributions are suppressed in the limit $`x1`$ gives rise to:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{14}},A_1^{\nu p}=1,A_1^{\nu n}=1[\theta _s=0].`$ (17)
From the relations between the structure functions and parton distributions in the Appendix one can verify that the results for $`d/u`$ extracted from $`R^{np}`$ are consistent with those from $`R^\nu `$ (Eqs. (44) and (51)), and those for $`\mathrm{\Delta }q/q`$ extracted from $`A_1^N`$ consistent with those from $`A_1^{\nu N}`$ (Eqs. (45)–(46)) and Eqs. (52)–(53)).

The dependence of the structure function ratios in Eqs. (10)–(12) and Eqs. (14)–(16) on one parameter, $`\theta _s`$, means that the SU(6) breaking scenario with $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression can be tested by simultaneously fitting the $`n/p`$ ratios and the polarization asymmetries. In general, data on unpolarized structure functions are more abundant, especially at high $`x`$, than on spin dependent structure functions, so it is more practical to fit the $`x`$ dependence of $`\theta _s(x)`$ to the existing data on unpolarized $`n/p`$ ratios, which can then be used to predict the polarization asymmetries.

Unfortunately, data on $`F_1`$ neutrino structure functions at $`x0.4`$–0.5 are essentially non-existent, and there have been no experiments at all to measure spin-dependent structure functions in neutrino scattering. The most precise data on the electromagnetic neutron to proton ratio $`R^{np}`$ comes from SLAC experiments WHITLOW ; GOMEZ . The absence of free neutron targets has meant that neutron structure information has had to be inferred from inclusive deuteron and proton structure functions. Because of uncertainties in the treatment of nuclear corrections in the deuteron at large $`x`$, however, which is more sensitive to the high momentum components of the deuteron wave function, the results beyond $`x0.6`$ are somewhat model dependent NP , as indicated in Fig. 4. The difference between the two sets of points is representative of the theoretical uncertainty in the extraction. In particular, the lower set of points corresponds to an analysis which accounts for Fermi motion in the deuteron FS , while the upper set of points includes Fermi motion and binding effects NP  (see also Ref. NUCLEAR ). A fit to the weighted average of the extrema of the two sets of data points, constrained to approach $`R^{np}=6/19`$ as $`x1`$, is indicated by the dashed curve (a polynomial of degree two is used to fit the $`x`$ dependence of $`\theta _s(x)`$ in Eq. (10)). The fit is clearly compatible with the current data on $`R^{np}`$, but could be further constrained by more accurate data at large $`x`$. Several proposals for obtaining the neutron to proton ratio at large $`x`$ with reduced nuclear uncertainties are discussed in Refs. A3 ; BONUS .

Using the mixing angle $`\theta _s(x)`$ fitted to $`R^{np}`$, the resulting polarization asymmetries for the proton and neutron are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively, compared with a compilation of large-$`x`$ data from SLAC SLAC , SMC SMC  and HERMES HERMES . The predicted $`x`$ dependence of both $`A_1^p`$ and $`A_1^n`$ in the $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression scenario is relatively strong; the SU(6) symmetric results which describe the data at $`x1/3`$ rapidly give way to the broken SU(6) predictions as $`x1`$. Within the current experimental errors, the $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression model is consistent with the $`x`$ dependence of both the $`R^{np}`$ ratio and the polarization asymmetries.

Using the neutrino ratios $`R^\nu `$, $`A_1^{\nu p}`$ and $`A_1^{\nu n}`$, the individual quark flavor and spin distribution ratios can be determined (or equivalently, extracted from the electromagnetic ratios as discussed in the Appendix). The unpolarized $`d/u`$ ratio in the $`S_{1/2}`$ dominance scenario is shown in Fig. 7 (dashed), and the spin-flavor ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.

### III.3 Helicity 3/2 suppression

The above discussion has demonstrated how duality between the parton model and a sum over low-lying resonances can arise on the basis of classifying transitions to excited states according to the total spin of the quarks, with either equal weighting of $`S_{1/2}`$ and $`S_{3/2}`$ components in the case of SU(6) symmetry, or suppression of the latter at large $`x`$. According to duality, structure functions at large $`x`$ are determined by the behavior of transition form factors at high $`Q^2`$; hence one may expect that at large enough $`Q^2`$ these would be constrained by perturbative QCD. In particular, at high $`Q^2`$ perturbative arguments suggest that the interaction of the photon (or $`W`$ boson) should be predominantly with quarks with the same helicity as the nucleon FJ ; GUNION . Since the photon ($`W`$ boson) scattering from a massless quark conserves helicity, the $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ cross section would be expected to be suppressed relative to the $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ CLOSEBOOK . The question then arises whether duality can exist between parton distributions at large $`x`$ and resonance transitions classified according to quark helicity rather than spin.

In general, if the relative strengths of the $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ and $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ contributions to the cross section are weighted by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _h`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h`$, respectively, then from Table I the ratio of the neutron to proton $`F_1`$ structure functions can be written as:

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{75\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}},`$ (18)
while the proton and neutron polarization asymmetries become:

$`A_1^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{79\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}{75\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}},`$ (19)
$`A_1^n`$ $`=`$ $`12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h.`$ (20)
Similarly for neutrino scattering, one has:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}{54\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}}`$ (21)
for the unpolarized structure functions, and

$`A_1^{\nu p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}},`$ (22)
$`A_1^{\nu n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{56\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}{54\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _h}}`$ (23)
for neutrino induced polarization asymmetries. The dependence of these ratios on the mixing angle $`\theta _h`$ is illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 (solid curves). For $`\theta _h=\pi /4`$ the SU(6) results in Eqs. (7) and (8) are once again recovered. In the phenomenologically favored region of $`0\theta _h\pi /4`$ the predictions for $`A_1^p`$ and for $`A_1^{\nu n}`$ are very similar to those derived on the basis of quark spin, which reflects the fact that the ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ are predicted to be similar in both cases. Both the $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ and $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression scenarios give rise to the same predictions for $`A_1^n`$ in the $`\theta 0`$ limit, although the approach to the maximum values is faster in the case of $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ suppression. For the unpolarized ratios, $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ suppression gives rise to larger values of $`R^{np}`$ and $`R^\nu `$ than for $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression. This is also evident from the modified transition strengths for $`F_1`$ and $`g_1`$ displayed in Tables IV and V for the case of $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ dominance at large $`x`$. Summing up the coefficients for the neutron and proton, one has in the limit $`x1`$:

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{7}},A_1^p=1,A_1^n=1[\theta _h=0],`$ (24)
for the electromagnetic ratios, and

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}},A_1^{\nu p}=1,A_1^{\nu n}=1[\theta _h=0],`$ (25)
for neutrino scattering.

Fitting the $`x`$ dependence of the mixing angle $`\theta _h(x)`$ to the $`R^{np}`$ data with the above $`x1`$ constraint (Fig. 4), the resulting predictions for $`A_1^{p,n}`$ are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Compared with the $`S_{1/2}`$ dominance scenario, the $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ dominance model predicts a faster approach to the asymptotic limits. The values for the ratios in Eqs. (24) and (25) correspond exactly to those calculated at the quark level on the basis of perturbative QCD counting rules FJ ; GUNION . There, the deep inelastic scattering at $`x1`$ requires the exchange in the initial state of two hard gluons, which preferentially enhances those configurations in the nucleon wave function in which the spectator quarks have zero helicity. The structure function at large $`x`$ is then determined by components of the nucleon wave function in which the helicity of the interacting quark matches that of the nucleon. For an initial state SU(6) wave function, Eq. (9), suppression of the helicity anti-aligned configurations leads to the unpolarized ratio $`d/u=1/5`$, and the polarization ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }q/q=1`$ for all quark flavors. Using the relations in the Appendix between the structure functions and the leading order quark distributions, one can verify the equivalence of the parton- and hadron-level results via quark-hadron duality.

The resulting quark-level ratios are shown in Fig. 7 for the $`d/u`$ ratio, and in Figs. 8 and 9 for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ ratios, respectively. While the behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ ratio is similar in both the $`S_{1/2}`$ and $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ dominance models, the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ ratio has a more rapid approach to unity for the latter case.

### III.4 Symmetric wave function suppression

In SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2) the relevant multiplets are the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ 28 and 210, and spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ 48 and 410. In SU(6) the 210 and 48 multiplets are in the 70- representation, and the 410 unambiguously in the 56+ representation. However, the 28 occur in both the 56+ and 70-. In general, for the 28 states one can write the nucleon wave function in terms of symmetric and antisymmetric components,

$`|N`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _w|\psi _\rho +\mathrm{sin}\theta _w|\psi _\lambda ,`$ (26)
where $`\psi =\phi \chi `$ is a product of the flavor ($`\phi `$) and spin ($`\chi `$) wave functions, and $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ denote the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations, respectively CLOSEBOOK . In the SU(6) limit one has an equal admixture of both $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ type contributions, $`\theta _w=\pi /4`$, and the symmetric wave function of Eq. (9) is recovered.

The SU(6) symmetry can be broken if the mixing angle $`\theta _w\pi /4`$. In particular, if the mass difference between the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is attributed to spin dependent forces, the energy associated with the symmetric part of the wave function will be larger than that of the antisymmetric component. A suppression of the symmetric $`|\psi _\lambda `$ configuration at large $`x`$ will then give rise to a suppressed $`d`$ quark distribution relative to $`u`$, $`d/u0`$, which in turn leads to the extreme limits for the $`R^{np}`$ and $`R^\nu `$ ratio allowed by the quark parton model, $`R^{np}1/4`$ and $`R^\nu 0`$ QUARTER . It also leads to the proton and neutron polarization asymmetries becoming unity as $`x1`$ FC74 . At the parton level, this pattern of suppression can be realized, for instance, with a spin-dependent hyperfine interaction between quarks, $`\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$, which modifies the spin-0 and spin-1 components of the nucleon wave function and leads to a softening of the $`d`$ quark distribution relative to the $`u`$ at large $`x`$ (see Ref. QUARTER  for details).

This scenario is also consistent with the absence of exotics in the $`t`$-channel. This can be demonstrated by examining the pattern of suppressions in the structure function calculated, via quark-hadron duality, from the sum over resonances in the final state. In this case, the symmetric components of the states in the 56+ and 70- multiplets are suppressed relative to the antisymmetric, and the modified relative transition strengths are given in Table I with $`\lambda 0`$. In particular, since transitions to the (symmetric) $`S=3/2`$ or decuplet states (48, 410 and 210) can only proceed through the symmetric “$`\lambda `$” component of the ground state wave function, the “$`\rho `$” components will only excite the nucleon to 28 states. If the $`\lambda `$ wave function is suppressed, only transitions to 28 states will be allowed. Summing over all channels leads to an unpolarized neutron to proton ratio in terms of the mixing angle $`\theta _w`$ given by:

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{42\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}},`$ (27)
with polarization asymmetries given by:

$`A_1^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{67\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{63\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}},`$ (28)
$`A_1^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{1+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}}.`$ (29)
The dependence on $`\theta _w`$ is shown in Fig. 2. In the limit of $`\rho `$ dominance at $`x1`$, one recovers the ratios:

$`R^{np}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},A_1^p=1,A_1^n=1[\theta _w=0].`$ (30)
Fitting $`\theta _w`$ to the $`x`$ dependence of $`R^{np}`$ in Fig. 4 with the above constraints (dot-dashed), the resulting $`x`$ dependence of the polarization asymmetries $`A_1^p`$ and $`A_1^n`$ are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 (dot-dashed). The approach to the asymptotic values for the polarization asymmetries is less rapid than for the $`\sigma _{1/2}`$ or $`S_{1/2}`$ dominance scenarios.

Similarly, for neutrino scattering, one has:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{32\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}},`$ (31)
and

$`A_1^{\nu p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ (32)
$`A_1^{\nu n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{910\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}{96\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}},`$ (33)
for neutrino induced polarization asymmetries. Note that the neutrino–proton polarization asymmetry remains negative, as in SU(6), and is independent of the mixing angle. The dependence on $`\theta _w`$ of the ratios is illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 (dot-dashed curves), where in the limit $`\theta _w0`$ ($`x1`$) one has:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0,A_1^{\nu p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},A_1^{\nu n}=1[\theta _w=0].`$ (34)
The ratios of the associated quark densities are given in Figs. 7–9 for $`d/u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$, respectively. Because the neutron asymmetry $`A_1^{\nu n}`$ is negative, the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ ratio has qualitatively different behavior in the $`\lambda `$ suppression scenario than in the other two SU(6) broken models. It would clearly be of considerable interest to test the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$ experimentally, for instance in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering by tagging pions.

## IV Implications for Low Lying Resonances

If the suppression of specific spin-flavor correlations, as required to fit the $`x1`$ behavior of structure functions, is a property of spin-dependent inter-quark forces, then they should affect specific resonances that share these properties. In this Section we identify some examples and propose measurements that can test the veracity of the various scenarios discussed in Section III.

### IV.1 Suppression of 410 states

If the suppression of the $`P_{33}(1232)`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar at large $`Q^2`$ is characteristic of 410 and 48 states, then a careful study of electroproduction of the $`L=2`$ 56+ states $`P_{31}(1930)`$, $`P_{33}(1920)`$, $`F_{35}(1905)`$ and $`F_{37}(1950)`$ may reveal $`S_{3/2}`$ suppression as the appropriate physical mechanism responsible for symmetry breaking in structure functions at large $`x`$. Transitions to each of these states, in the absence of configuration mixing, should die relatively faster with $`Q^2`$ than for the 28 and 210 resonances. This should be particularly so for the $`F_{37}(1950)`$, where mixing should be minimal, although one must ensure to have gone past the high angular momentum threshold that may cause the form factors for high spin states to remain large in the small $`Q^2`$ region.

A possible way to normalize the production, and cancel out such threshold enhancements, will be to compare the relative strengths of these 410 and their partner 28\[56+\] states. Thus measurement of the $`Q^2`$ dependence of ratios such as

$$F_{35}(1905)/F_{15}(1680);P_{33}(1920)/P_{13}(1720)$$

would be crucial in testing this scenario.

### IV.2 Suppression of 48 states

In general, mixing is expected between the 48 and 28 states with the same $`J^P`$. For example, the physical $`S_{11}(1550)`$ and $`S_{11}(1650)`$ states are superpositions of 28 and 48 components:

$`S_{11}^a(1535)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |^28+\mathrm{sin}\theta |^48,`$ (35)
$`S_{11}^b(1650)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |^28\mathrm{cos}\theta |^48,`$ (36)
and similarly for the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ and $`D_{13}(1700)`$ states. From protons one then expects:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\gamma ^{}pS_{11}^a)}{\sigma (\gamma ^{}pS_{11}^b)}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta ,`$ (37)
which will be true for all $`Q^2`$, as the 48 component is not excited. From neutron targets, however, both components are excited at low $`Q^2`$, whereas the 48 is suppressed at large $`Q^2`$. Hence at small $`Q^2`$ one has:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\gamma ^{}nS_{11}^a)}{\sigma (\gamma ^{}nS_{11}^b)}}`$ $``$ $`f(\theta ),`$ (38)
where $`f(\theta )`$ is a function of the mixing angle and of the relative strengths of the 28 and 48 photocouplings. However, at large $`Q^2`$ only the 28 is predicted to survive (thus in effect the Moorhouse selection rule MOORHOUSE  will hold for neutrons too when $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$), in which case

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\gamma ^{}nS_{11}^a)}{\sigma (\gamma ^{}nS_{11}^b)}}|_{Q^2\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cot}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\gamma ^{}pS_{11}^a)}{\sigma (\gamma ^{}pS_{11}^b)}}|_{\mathrm{all}Q^2}.`$ (39)
As this behavior is predicted to be common for $`p`$ and $`n`$ targets, it should therefore hold true for the deuteron. The $`D_{15}(1690)`$ is a pure 48 state and so provides a clean test of the fast $`Q^2`$ suppression in electroproduction from neutron targets.

### IV.3 Suppression of $`\sigma _{3/2}`$

The suppression of helicity-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ contributions allows transitions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to survive, as well as excitations to the 48 states from the neutron (those from the proton vanish because of the Moorhouse selection rule MOORHOUSE ). At $`Q^2=0`$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation is pure M1, which equates with $`\sigma _{3/2}=3\sigma _{1/2}`$, and leads to the polarization asymmetry $`A_1^N=1/2`$. At large $`Q^2`$ the survival of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in the $`\sigma _{3/2}`$ channel, corresponds to the E2 excitation becoming comparable to the M1.

Electroproduction of the $`S_{11}`$, $`D_{13}`$ and $`D_{15}`$ resonances from neutrons will change from $`A_1^N=1/2`$ to $`A_1^N=1`$. This should remain true for the $`D_{15}`$, but can be obscured by mixing with 28 for the $`S_{11}`$ and $`D_{13}`$. Configuration mixing between the 28 and 48 states (with mixing angle $`30^{}`$) does allow a relatively strong transition to the $`S_{11}(1650)`$. Data from CLAS at Jefferson Lab BURKERT  suggest that, within the single quark transition model SQTM , the strength of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ transition is about half of that to the $`S_{11}(1535)`$. The mixing angle between the 48 and 28 states with $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ is much smaller ($`6^{}`$), so that transitions to the $`D_{13}(1700)`$ will be weakly excited from the proton. The strengths for the other 48 states are known only at $`Q^2=0`$, so that data on these transition form factors at $`Q^21`$–2 GeV2 would be valuable in establishing the extent of any suppression.

### IV.4 Suppression of $`\psi _\lambda `$ wave function

The consequences for $`N^{}`$s in this scenario are quite extensive. Namely, transitions to 410, 48 and 210 states are all suppressed, and only transitions to 28 are allowed. While the transitions for the proton to 28 are unchanged compared with the SU(6) case, for neutron the elastic transition is reduced by $`50\%`$, and the transition to the 70- enhanced by $`50\%`$.

Another prediction of $`\lambda `$ wave function suppression is identical production rates in both the 56+ and 70- channels, for electron and neutrino scattering. For the latter, essentially no empirical information exists, however, neutrino structure functions in the resonance region may be accessible in the future at a high-intensity neutrino beam facility NUMI . In particular, since neutrinos can excite protons only to decuplet states, this may provide a valuable test of the $`\lambda `$-suppression mechanism, and of the isospin dependence of the $`NN^{}`$ transitions.

## V Conclusion

In this analysis we have performed a first detailed study of the conditions under which SU(6) symmetry breaking in the quark model can yield consistent results for structure function ratios in the context of quark-hadron duality. Several self-consistent SU(6) breaking scenarios have been identified, involving the suppression of transitions to states in the lowest even and odd parity multiplets with quark spin $`S=3/2`$, to states with helicity $`\frac{3}{2}`$, and to states which couple only through symmetric components of the wave function, $`\psi _\lambda `$.

The implications of the various symmetry breaking scenarios on the $`x`$ dependence of structure function ratios have been quantified, which can be tested in future experimental studies. In particular, fitting to the available data on the unpolarized neutron to proton ratio $`R^{np}`$ allows one to make predictions for the large $`x`$ behavior of polarization asymmetries $`A_1^N`$. Experiments proposed at an energy-upgraded Jefferson Lab should enable the $`R^{np}`$ ratio to be reliably determined up to $`x0.85`$ A3 ; BONUS . For the polarization asymmetries there is existing evidence that $`A_1^p>5/9`$ at $`x0.6`$, and recent data on $`A_1^n`$ from Hall A at Jefferson Lab A1N ; XIAOCHAO  give the first hint of a rise above zero at $`x0.6`$. High precision data on $`A_1^p`$ or $`A_1^n`$ at large $`x`$ would help constrain also the unpolarized $`n/p`$ ratio, and allow a simultaneous test of the duality relations.

Measurement of the neutrino structure function ratios, on the other hand, is more challenging due to the low rates at large $`x`$, and the need for large volume (typically iron) targets, which is particularly problematic for the spin-dependent observables. The prospect of high intensity neutrino beams at Fermilab to measure structure functions in the resonance region NUMI  offers a valuable complement to the study of duality and resonance transitions. A parallel avenue towards determining the spin-flavor asymmetries such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d/d`$, which is particularly sensitive to different SU(6) breaking assumptions, could be provided through a program of semi-inclusive scattering tagging fast pions in the current fragmentation region.

A quantitative description of transition form factors in the quark model at moderate $`Q^2`$ must involve both longitudinal and transverse response, electric and magnetic couplings, as well as hyperfine interactions which explicitly break SU(6) symmetry. On the other hand, most of these complications do not affect the main elements of duality, and can obfuscate the basic principles which drive the quark-hadron transition. For reasons of clarity, in the present analysis we have considered only magnetic transitions, which are expected to dominate at high $`Q^2`$. This assumption leads, for instance, to the electromagnetic neutron to proton ratio $`R^{np}=4/9`$ for the case of elastic scattering, which is equal to the squared ratio of the neutron to proton magnetic moments in SU(6) BG ; EL . Electric transitions would give a ratio $`R^{np}=0`$. Electric couplings will also modify the coefficients in Tables I and II for the other transitions COT . Although electric couplings will play a role at low $`Q^2`$, for the behavior of structure functions at large $`x`$ one expects magnetic couplings to dominate the transition form factors at high $`Q^2`$.

In future we shall extend this work to the longitudinal structure function, which will necessitate inclusion of electric couplings. Questions about the role of higher excitations, such as in the $`N=2`$, $`L=2`$ band, will also be important to elucidate in more refined analyses. There are a number of states with mass $`W1.8`$ GeV which belong to higher multiplets, such as the $`F_{15}(1680)`$, which is believed to play an important role in the third resonance region. In addition, it will be interesting to ascertain the role played by the the $`P_{11}(1440)`$ Roper resonance in duality, which may shed some light on the long-standing question about its internal structure LATTICE .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank V. D. Burkert for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), and by grants from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, and the EU program “Eurudice” HPRN-CT-2002-0031.

## Appendix: Parton model and duality relations

Here we summarize the quark parton model relations between electromagnetic and neutrino structure functions and leading order parton distributions. The spin-averaged and spin-dependent $`F_1`$ and $`g_1`$ structure functions are expressed in terms of a sum and difference of helicity cross sections,

$`F_1`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{1/2}+\sigma _{3/2},`$ (40)
$`g_1`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{1/2}\sigma _{3/2},`$ (41)
where $`\sigma _{1/2(3/2)}`$ is the cross sections corresponding to total boson–nucleon helicity 1/2 (3/2).

In the parton model the structure functions for charged lepton scattering can be expressed (at leading order) in terms of quark distribution functions,

$`F_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2q(x),`$ (42)
$`g_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }q(x),`$ (43)
where $`q=q^{}+q^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=q^{}q^{}`$. Inverting these, one can similarly extract leading order quark distributions from the measured structure functions. For instance, the $`d/u`$ quark distribution ratio can be determined from:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4R^{np}1}{4R^{np}}},`$ (44)
where $`R^{np}=F_1^n/F_1^p`$, while the spin dependent flavor ratios for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are obtained from the polarization asymmetries and the $`d/u`$ ratio in Eq. (44) XIAOCHAO ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}A_1^p\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{u}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}A_1^n\left(1+4{\displaystyle \frac{d}{u}}\right),`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d}{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}A_1^p\left(1+4{\displaystyle \frac{u}{d}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}A_1^n\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{d}}\right),`$ (46)
where

$`A_1^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d}{4u+d}},`$ (47)
$`A_1^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u+4\mathrm{\Delta }d}{u+4d}}.`$ (48)
Note that if $`A_1^p=A_1^nA_1^N`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }u/u=\mathrm{\Delta }d/d=A_1^N`$, independent of the value of $`d/u`$.

For neutrino scattering one has:

$`F_1^\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}g_q^2q(x),`$ (49)
$`g_1^\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}g_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }q(x),`$ (50)
where for protons $`g_q^2=1`$ for $`q=d,\overline{u},\mathrm{}`$ and 0 for $`q=u,\overline{d},\mathrm{}`$, and vice versa for neutrons. At large $`x`$ therefore $`F_1^{\nu p}`$, $`g_1^{\nu p}`$ directly probe the $`d`$ quark distributions, while $`F_1^{\nu n}`$, $`g_1^{\nu n}`$ probe the $`u`$ quark. In terms of the neutrino structure functions, the unpolarized ratio $`R^\nu =F_1^{\nu p}/F_1^{\nu n}`$ is therefore given by:

$`R^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{u}},`$ (51)
while the polarization asymmetries $`A_1^{\nu N}=g_1^{\nu N}/F_1^{\nu N}`$ become:

$`A_1^{\nu p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }d}{d}},`$ (52)
$`A_1^{\nu n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u}{u}}.`$ (53)


format: text

text:
# Measurements of Charmless Hadronic Two-Body B Meson Decays and the Ratio ℬ(𝐵→𝐷𝐾)/ℬ(𝐵→𝐷𝜋)

## I Introduction

Charmless decays of $`B`$ mesons may proceed by $`bu`$, $`bs`$, or $`bd`$ transitions. The latter two mechanisms require flavor changing neutral currents which are not present at tree level in the Standard Model, and therefore must occur through higher order processes such as the penguin mechanism. Such processes involve loops, which can open the window for particles and physics outside the Standard Model. Even in the absence of such new physics, interference among competing amplitudes for a given decay mode can be exploited to measure CKM phases. There is a significant body of literaturefleischeretal  on the use of the branching ratio $`(BK^{}\pi ^+)`$ and other charmless modes to determine or constrain the CKM angle $`\gamma `$, the phase of $`V_{ub}`$ in conventional representations of the CKM matrix. Compared to the methods of extracting $`\gamma `$ that are based the $`BDK`$ decay modesDK , these approaches based on charmless decay modes are less clean theoretically, but more promising experimentally because the event yields are significantly higher.

Recent work on two-body charmless decay modes suggests that the unitarity triangle may be constructable entirely from charmless modes, without recourse to the traditional constraints involving $`B`$ mixing measurements, CP asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi K_S^0`$, or CP violation in kaon decays. The charmless modes therefore offer an independent approach to probe CP violating effects in heavy quark decay. Significant disagreement between these two approaches, if found in experimental results, would directly challenge the Standard Model and its fundamental statement that all CP violating phenomena stem from a single phase in the CKM matrix. Early results based on current data are already availableneubertnew , and do indicate a degree of inconsistency. In this paper we present new experimental data on charmless modes and note that these data enhance rather than ameliorate the discrepancy.

CLEO has previously published several papersprevious  reporting measurements of charmless hadronic $`B`$ meson decay modes, including searches for charmless baryonic final states, with the data of the CLEO II experiment. Here we report corresponding measurements in the new CLEO III data with results for three $`\pi \pi `$ modes, $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^+\pi ^0,\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, four $`K\pi `$ modes, $`BK^+\pi ^{},K^+\pi ^0,K^0\pi ^+,K^0\pi ^0`$, three $`K\overline{K}`$ modes, $`BK^+K^{},K^0K^{},K^0\overline{K^0}`$, and three dibaryonic modes, $`Bp\overline{p},p\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. We also merge CLEO II and CLEO III results to determine a final measurement for each mode based on the full CLEO data set, which hereby supercedes our previous publications. Recent measurements from BABAR and Belle are in excellent agreement with oursbabarandbelle . We also report a new measurement of the ratio of branching ratios, $`(BD^0K^{})/(BD^0\pi ^{})`$.

Here and throughout this paper charge conjugate modes are implied. We also make use of the notation $`h^\pm `$ to represent a charged hadron that may be either a kaon or pion.

## II The CLEO Detector and Datasets

CLEO is a general purpose solenoidal magnet detector operating at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR). The latter is a symmetric-energy storage ring tuned for the data sets discussed here to provide center of mass energies near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S). At $`\sqrt{s}=M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\text{(4S)}}`$ the hadronic cross section is approximately 4 nb, with 1 nb of $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\text{(4S)}B\overline{B}`$ and 3 nb of four-flavor continuum $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$. In the CLEO III running period, July 2000 through June 2001, we obtained an integrated luminosity of 6.18 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) and 2.24 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ off-resonance, i.e., just below the $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold. The off-resonance data are used for background determinations. The on-resonance data corresponds to $`N_{B\overline{B}}=(5.73\pm 0.47)\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) decays. The corresponding numbers for the CLEO II running period (1990-1999) are 9.13 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (($`9.66\pm 0.19)\times 10^6`$$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) decays) and 4.35 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Differences in the $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ yield per unit integrated luminosity reflect differences in run conditions.

The CLEO III detectorcleo3det  differs from the CLEO II detectorcleo2det  most notably in the inclusion of a ring-imaging Cherenkov device (RICH)rich  which provides particle identification at all momenta above the Cherenkov threshold. Even at the highest momenta relevant for $`B`$ physics, about 2.8 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, the RICH separates kaons and pions by 2.3 standard deviations. Measurements of specific ionization ($`dE/dx`$) in the drift chamber provide an additional 2.0 standard deviation separation at the highest momenta. Charged particle tracking is done by the 47-layer drift chamber and a four-layer silicon tracker which reside in a 1.5T solenoidal magnetic field and provide momentum resolution described by $`(\sigma _p/p)^2=A^2+B^2p^2`$ with $`A0.005`$ and $`B0.001\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. The absolute momentum calibration is confirmed by comparing the invariant mass of standard decays $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ with PDG valuespdg . Photons are detected using a 7800-crystal CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeterwhich is unchanged between CLEO II and CLEO III.

## III Elements of the analysis

The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) is produced at rest in the lab frame and decays with low $`Q`$ value to a pair of $`B`$ mesons that travel non-relativistically, with $`p_B300\mathrm{MeV}`$. In this analysis we assume equal rates of $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ productionfplusminuscleo . All decay modes studied in this paper are two-body or quasi-two-body modes. Apart from the modest $`\pm 150\mathrm{MeV}`$ doppler shifts resulting from the motion of the $`B`$ mesons in the lab frame, the daughter particles are nearly monochromatic, and, up to resolution smearing, jointly carry the full beam energy $`E_b`$ and have invariant mass equal to the $`B`$ mass $`M_B`$. The approximate monochromaticity of the daughters simplifies particle identification and energy resolution, and helps keep the associated systematic errors low. The other $`B`$ in the event decays into, on average, five charged and five neutral particles, distributed uniformly in the detector acceptance. The principal background to the analysis comes from the non-$`b`$ hadronic data, $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$, with $`q\overline{q}=u\overline{u},d\overline{d},s\overline{s},\mathrm{and}c\overline{c}.`$ High momentum, back-to-back particles are typical in such events, and some have invariant masses and total energies close to or in the signal region of the $`B`$ events. Fortunately, distinctive event topologies separate most of these background events from the signal.

This analysis has two principal parts: (a) the application of hard selection criteria to obtain signal-like events, based on kinematics, event topology, and particle identification; (b) the application of an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to the surviving event ensembles to extract the yields of signal and background(s) for each mode. The likelihood fit allows us to make maximum use of available information, while avoiding efficiency losses that further selection criteria would entail.

For the purposes of reconstruction, the CLEO III dataset reported on here is divided into two subsets of roughly equal integrated luminosity, which we will call Set A and Set B. The distinction has ultimately no significant effect on the results, but because of changes in event reconstruction algorithms between the two sets, there are slight differences in resolutions and efficiencies – mostly affecting modes with charged particles – that we treat separately until the final CLEO III results are reassembled at the end. We provide in Table 1 some informative comparisons between Set A and Set B.

Charged track and photon candidates are required to satisfy loose quality requirements which reject poorly determined candidates while retaining high efficiency for real tracks and showers. $`K_S^0`$ candidates are selected from pairs of charged tracks forming well-measured displaced vertices with a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass within three standard deviations of the nominal $`K_S^0`$ mass. In addition the vertex must satisfy $`|r_{VTX}|>5`$mm in the transverse plane, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{K_S^0}\stackrel{}{r}_{VTX}>0`$. The $`K_S^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mode is not used. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidates consist of $`p\pi `$ pairs with invariant mass within three standard deviations of the nominal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass. Pairs of photons with an invariant mass within 2.5 standard deviations of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass are kinematically fit with the mass constrained to the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass.

### III.1 General Event Selection

Candidates for rare $`B`$ decay events are selected for further analysis on the basis of two kinematic variables and one event-shape variable. For each candidate, we construct the beam constrained $`B`$ candidate mass $`M_B=\sqrt{(E_b^2\stackrel{}{p}^2)}`$ where $`E_b`$ is the beam energy, and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the momentum of the candidate computed from the vector sum of the daughter momenta. For real $`B`$ mesons $`|\stackrel{}{p}|E_b`$ and the width of this distribution is dominated by the $`2.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ intrinsic beam energy spread. The beam energy is determined run by run from CESR lattice information, and slight corrections are applied afterward to ensure that the observed $`B^{}`$ mass in $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ events matches the accepted valuepdg . In addition we compute the energy balance variable $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ = $`EE_b`$ where $`E`$ is the sum of the daughter energies. The width of this distribution is about 20 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ in all charged modes, as determined by the momentum resolution of the tracking systems, and is about 40 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ in modes involving neutral pions.

Any candidate with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<400`$ MeV and $`M_B>5.2`$ GeV is kept. An additional requirement on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sph}}`$, the cosine of the angle between the sphericity axis of the candidate and the sphericity axis of the rest of the eventprevious , is used to reject the dominant $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ background. All candidates must satisfy the requirement $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sph}}|<0.8`$, which rejects approximately 80% of the background while retaining nearly 80% of the signal.

### III.2 Particle Identification Requirements (CLEO III)

In the case of a candidate mode involving one or more charged pions or kaons, such as $`BK\pi `$ or $`B\pi \pi ^0`$, each charged track must be positively identified as $`K`$ or $`\pi `$. The pattern of Cherenkov photon hits in the RICH detector is fit to both a kaon and pion hypothesis, each with its own likelihood $`_K`$ and $`_\pi `$. The mean number of photon hits entering the fit is twelve, and we require a minimum of four. Calibrated $`dE/dx`$ information from the drift chamber is used to compute a $`\chi ^2`$ for kaon and pion hypotheses. The RICH and $`dE/dx`$ results are combined to form an effective $`\chi ^2`$ difference,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{K\pi }=2\mathrm{ln}_K+2\mathrm{ln}_\pi +\chi _K^2\chi _\pi ^2.$$
(1)
Kaons are identified by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K\pi }<\delta _K`$ and pions by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K\pi }<\delta _\pi `$, with values of $`\delta _K`$ and $`\delta _\pi `$ chosen to yield $`(90\pm 3)`$% efficiency as determined in an independent study of tagged kaons and pions obtained from the decay $`D^+\pi ^+D^0(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$. With this choice of $`\delta _K`$ and $`\delta _\pi `$, the misidentification rate for kaons faking pions (pions faking kaons) is 11%(8%) at momenta around 2.6 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

For candidate modes involving protons, positive proton identification is required. $`dE/dx`$ does not distinguish well between protons and kaons at the $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ momenta of interest, however, so the proton-kaon separation is achieved with a discriminant based only on RICH information: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{Kp}=2\mathrm{ln}_p+2\mathrm{ln}_K<\delta _p`$. In this case $`\delta _p`$ is chosen to yield proton (antiproton) identification efficiency of $`76\pm 1(72\pm 1)`$% with a kaon fake rate of 1%, as determined in an independent study using tagged kaons from the $`D^+`$ sample as above, and protons from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi `$ decays.

### III.3 Event Selection for CLEO II modes

We present three results for which we also analyzed the full CLEO II data set, namely $`BK^0\overline{K^0}`$, $`B\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, and $`Bp\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The $`K_S^0`$ selection required that the $`K_S^0`$ vertex is separated from the beam spot by more that 3 sigma (5.5 sigma for CLEO II.V for which the innermost drift chamber was replaced with a 3 layer silicon vertex detector). The candidate mass must lie within 10 MeV of the nominal $`K_S^0`$ mass. We require that the $`K_S^0`$ flight direction points to within 3 sigma of the beamspot .

The protons in the $`p\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ final state must be compatible within 3 sigma with a proton $`dE/dx`$ hypothesis and incompatible with both the electron (calculated from calorimeter information) and muon (calculated from muon chamber information) hypotheses. We require that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ candidate mass lie within 10 MeV of the nominal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass, the vertex be at least 5 mm removed radially from the beam spot, and the $`\chi ^2`$ of the vertex fit be less than nine. There is no particle identification applied to daughter particles of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays.

## IV Analysis Variables

Events which meet all the requirements described in the preceding paragraphs are now used in a likelihood fit to extract signal yield. We characterize each candidate event by four variables: the mass and energy variables introduced above, $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the flight direction of the candidate $`B`$, and a Fisher discriminantFisher .

The flight direction is given by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}=\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐳}`$ where $`𝐩`$ is the vector sum of the daughter momenta and $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ is the beam axis. Since the vector $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) is produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation it has a polarization $`J_z=\pm 1`$, and the subsequent flight direction of the pseudoscalar $`B`$ mesons is distributed as $`|Y_1^{\pm 1}(\theta ,\varphi )|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. Background events are flat in this variable.

The Fisher discriminant is used to refine the separation of signal and $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ background that is initially addressed by the hard cut on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sph}}`$ in the general event selection. The Fisher discriminant, $`x_{}`$, is a linear combination of fourteen variables, with coefficients chosen to maximize the separation of signal and background events. The optimization procedure uses Monte Carlo events for the signal and off-resonance and ($`M_B`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) sideband data events for the background. As in previous CLEO publicationsprevious  the component variables include the direction of the thrust axis of the candidate with respect to the beam axis, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{thr}}`$, and the nine conical bins of a “Virtual Calorimeter” whose axis is aligned with the candidate thrust axis. A fuller description of the Virtual Calorimeter is available in a previous publicationbigrareb . Note that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{thr}}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}`$ are quite different quantities. For two body decay $`BXY`$, one has simple closed form expressions: $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}=\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐳}`$ with $`𝐩𝐩_X+𝐩_Y`$, whereas $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{thr}}=\widehat{𝐪}\widehat{𝐳}`$ with $`𝐪𝐩_X𝐩_Y`$.

In addition, we take advantage of the high quality particle identification in CLEO III to augment the Fisher discriminant with information on the presence of electrons, muons, protons, and kaons in the event. The momentum of the highest momentum electron, muon, kaon, and proton are used as inputs to the Fisher discriminant. For these purposes we need only rudimentary particle identification criteria. If any of the possible particle type hypotheses has no corresponding track identified (which is very often the case), a value zero is used as the input to the Fisher discriminant.

The Fisher variable thus defined provides discrimination between charmless $`B`$ decay signal modes and $`q\overline{q}`$ background at a level equivalent to two gaussian distributions separated by 1.4$`\sigma `$, and is independent of the details of the signal mode for all the modes studied here.

## V Likelihood Fit

### V.1 Fit Components

With the four analysis variables $`M_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $`x_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}`$, we characterize each event in terms of normalized probability distribution functions ($`PDF\mathrm{s}`$): $`_{\mu \kappa }(M_B)`$, $`_{\mu \kappa }(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, $`_{\mu \kappa }(x_{})`$, and $`𝒞_{\mu \kappa }(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B})`$. The thirteen different charmless decay modes to be fit will in general have contributions from (a) signal, (b) $`q\overline{q}`$ background, and (c) cross-feed from other $`B`$ modes. Subscripts $`\mu `$ and $`\kappa `$ identify the particular decay mode ($`\mu `$) and the type of contribution ($`\kappa `$). The probability that a given event characterized by ($`M_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $`x_{}`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}`$) is an event of component type $`\kappa `$ of decay mode $`\mu `$ is then given by the product of $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$

$$P{}_{\mu \kappa }{}^{}=_{\mu \kappa }(M_B)_{\mu \kappa }(\mathrm{\Delta }E)_{\mu \kappa }(x_{})𝒞_{\mu \kappa }(\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}).$$
(2)
We determine the yields $`n_\kappa `$ of signal, $`q\overline{q}`$ background, and cross-feed background in decay mode $`\mu `$ by maximizing the extended likelihood function with respect to the yields $`n_\kappa `$:

$$_\mu (n_{sig},n_{q\overline{q}},n_{xfeed})=\mathrm{exp}(\underset{\kappa }{}n_\kappa )\underset{\mathrm{events}}{}(\underset{\kappa }{}n_\kappa P{}_{\mu \kappa }{}^{}).$$
(3)
The $`q\overline{q}`$ background is the dominant background source in all cases, and in only five of the fifteen modes do we need to include any cross-feed backgrounds. Four of these are due to the $`10\%`$ $`K/\pi `$ misidentification probability. In fitting $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ we include components for $`BK^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`BK^+\pi ^0`$, respectively; in $`BK^+K^{}`$ we include a component for $`BK^+\pi ^{}`$; and in $`BD^0K^{}`$ we include a component for $`BD^0\pi ^{}`$. Although the cross-feed backgrounds arise from mistaken particle identification, they are still distinguishable from the signal through $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, which is shifted by about 50 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ relative to the signal $`PDF`$. The cross-feed fits are only for background removal and the yields are not used in any other signal determination.

The fifth mode requiring a cross-feed component is $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. In this case a small contribution from $`B^+\rho ^+\pi ^0`$ arises when the charged pion has very little momentum in the lab frame. Although the missing particle also shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ by at least one pion mass, resolution smearing leaves a small tail in the signal region. The treatment here is the same as in our previous publication on $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$previous . We note also that potential feedthrough of $`B^+\rho ^+\pi ^0`$ into $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ is smaller than in the $`\pi ^0`$$`\pi ^0`$ case because the low-side resolution smearing is less for the $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mode, and because the ratio $`(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)/(B^+\rho ^+\pi ^0)`$ is larger than $`(B^+\pi ^0\pi ^0)/(B^+\rho ^+\pi ^0)`$. Monte Carlo studies confirm these observations and we therefore do not include this term in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ fit.

### V.2 $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$

We parametrize the $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$ with various functions and combinations of functions which are listed below. In each case the parameters of the function are determined from a fit to signal Monte Carlo event samples for the signal component and cross-feed component (if there is one), and from a fit to off-resonance data for the $`q\overline{q}`$ background component. These parameters are then fixed for all subsequent fitting procedures so the only free variables in the likelihood function Eq. 3 are the signal and background yields. There is of course underlying uncertainty in the parameter values which fix the $`PDF`$ shapes, but this uncertainty is systematic in nature and will be discussed later in section VI. All functions are normalized to unit area over the accepted range of the free variable.

* Gaussian ($`G`$): used for $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal component $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$ that do not involve neutral pions. The parameters are the mean and width.
* Asymmetric Gaussian ($`𝒢`$): used for $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in modes where neutral pions appear. Fluctuations in the measured $`\pi ^0`$ energy are intrinsically asymmetric – with a longer tail on the low energy side – because of energy leakage out the back of the CsI crytals in the electromagnetic calorimeter. The parameters are the mean and separate left and right widths.
* Linear ($`L`$): used for $`q\overline{q}`$ backgrounds in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The free parameter is the slope.
* ARGUS ($`A`$): used to characterize the $`M_B`$ shape of $`q\overline{q}`$ backgroundsargus . $`A(M_B)=\sqrt{1M_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/E_b^2}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda (1M_B^2/E_b^2))`$. The parameter $`\lambda `$ governs the turn-over of the shape and the slope at low values of $`M_B`$. The beam energy $`E_b`$ determines the endpoint of the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`M_B`$ spectrum. Over the course of CLEO III data taking this end point clusters around several close but not identical values. In practice we form a sum of three ARGUS functions with different endpoint values, weighted by the corresponding integrated luminosities. In addition, to account for run-to-run beam energy variation, we convolve each ARGUS function with a Gaussian of width $`\sigma 0.7\mathrm{MeV}`$ in $`E_b`$.
* Breit-Wigner ($``$): used in Fisher parametrizations to describe non-Gaussian tails. Parameters are mean and width.
* Fisher ($`F_0`$): a linear combination of functions used to characterize the $`q\overline{q}`$ background Fisher shape. It is primarily an asymmetric Gaussian (87% of the area), but includes an additional Breit-Wigner (9%) with the same mean, and a small symmetric Gaussian (4%).

Table 2 lists the $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$ used for each fit component of each mode. The fourth fit variable, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{B}`$ is in all cases taken to have the functional form $`1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{B}`$ for signal and cross-feed components, and flat for $`q\overline{q}`$ background.

### V.3 Fit Results

Table 3 shows the results of the fits to the CLEO III data. All errors shown are statistical only. The apparently large yields of $`q\overline{q}`$ background reflect the large background-normalizing sidebands in $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and are not indicative of $`S/B`$. Typically $`S/B1`$ for the observed modes.

## VI Systematic Uncertainties

The net uncertainty in our branching ratio determinations is dominated by the statistical errors in the event yields but also includes a systematic contribution.

We categorize systematic uncertainties in two groups, multiplicative and additive. Additive uncertainties are those that affect the overall yield of signal events, while multiplicative are those that enter as scale factors in converting the yield to a branching ratio. In view of the following equation,

$$(BX)=\frac{N_X^{\mathrm{observed}}}{N_{B\overline{B}}\times (\mathrm{eff})\times (\mathrm{secondary}\mathrm{BR})}$$
(4)
the multiplicative uncertainties correspond to the uncertainty in our knowledge of the absolute number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs in the data sample, denoted $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$, and the reconstruction efficiency of each mode. In practice the uncertainties in the secondary branching ratios of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi `$ and $`D^0(K\pi ,K\pi \pi ^0,K\pi \pi \pi )`$ are negligibly small compared to uncertainties in $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ and reconstruction efficiency.

### VI.1 Additive Systematic Uncertainties

The accuracy of the signal yield obtained from the likelihood fit depends primarily on the fidelity of the $`PDF\mathrm{s}`$ used in the fit. A secondary consideration is the correctness of the product form assumed in Eq. 2, which ignores any correlations among the four fit variable distributions. Such correlations however are expected to be small, and Monte Carlo tests of the fit procedure confirm this expectation. We therefore focus on the systematic uncertainties in signal yield which arise from systematic uncertainties in the $`PDF`$ parametrizations already noted in Section V.2. To evaluate these uncertainties we refit the data multiple times with one $`PDF`$ parameter varied each time. The resulting signal variations are summed in quadrature, separately for negative and positive yield variations, ignoring any correlations which may exist among the parameters. A representative set of these uncertainties are displayed in Table 4 for the $`K\pi `$ mode; details will vary from mode to mode. (For simplicity of presentation we have combined results from Set A and Set B, and merged the three component terms of the Fisher $`PDF`$.) The essential feature, however, is that the net additive systematic error corresponds to a relative error of 3.5% which is substantially smaller than that statistical error, and also smaller than the multiplicative systematic errors to be discussed next. This pattern holds true for all modes.

### VI.2 Multiplicative Systematic Uncertainties

We summarize the multiplicative systematics in Table 5.

The absolute number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs in the data sample sets the scale for all branching ratios. We determine this number by three different methods: counting decays of the type $`BD^0\pi ^{}`$, fitting distributions of the Fox-Wolframfox  event shape variable $`R_2`$, and direct computation from the run-by-run integrated luminosities, beam energies, and the shape of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance (normalized to 1.07 nb at the peak). The $`R_2`$ method was used in previous CLEO II publicationsprevious , and in principle has excellent statistical power and small systematic uncertainties, but requires substantial off-resonance data that was not available in the first 30% of the CLEO III running period. Where off-resonance data is available, the $`D\pi `$ method and the $`R_2`$ method agree very well, and since the $`D\pi `$ method is available for all data sets we use it. The direct computation technique is used only as a check of the other methods, and is found to be in good agreement with them. In the $`D\pi `$ method, three secondary modes are used, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, and a small cross-feed from $`BDK`$ is subtracted.

To avoid the additional uncertainties implied by secondary $`D^0`$ branching ratios, we employ CLEO II $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ determinations to set the absolute scale for CLEO III:

$$\frac{(B\overline{B})_{III}}{(B\overline{B})_{II}}=\frac{(D\pi )_{III}}{(D\pi )_{II}}\frac{ϵ_{II}}{ϵ_{III}}.$$
(5)
Event rates per unit luminosity ($``$) and efficiencies ($`ϵ`$) are determined separately for CLEO II (subscript $`II`$) and CLEO III (subscript $`III`$), and for each of the three secondary decay modes. In the end the dominant limiting uncertainty in this technique is the statistical error in $`D\pi `$ yields.

Rare $`B`$ decay modes involving $`\pi ^0`$, $`K_S^0`$, or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the final state have additional uncertainties associated with the efficiency to reconstruct these particles. We determine the reconstruction efficiencies in Monte Carlo ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{MC}}`$) simulation and then perform a separate determination in data ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}`$). The total error in the ratio $`ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{MC}}`$, which includes both statistical errors and some systematic errors (such as branching ratios) is then interpreted as the systematic uncertainty in the reconstruction efficiency. For $`\pi ^0`$ the data determination consists of measuring the ratio

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}(\pi ^0)\frac{N(D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0)/(K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0)}{N(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)/(K^{}\pi ^+)}$$
(6)
where we take the ratio of $`D^0`$ branching ratios obtained from reference pdg  to be $`3.44\pm 0.22`$. We find $`ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{MC}}=1.00\pm 0.08\pm 0.02`$ where the second error reflects conservative uncertainty in the Dalitz amplitudes of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. A similar study was done using $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$, $`\eta \pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, and $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decays. We anticipate that further study will refine the $`\pi ^0`$ systematic error estimates. A more precise determination of the systematic error, however, is not called for by this analysis as any uncertainty under $`20\%`$ changes our signal sensitivities only marginally. $`K_S^0`$ reconstruction uncertainty is determined similarly from comparing $`D^+K_S^0\pi ^+`$ and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, which yields $`ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{MC}}=1.01\pm 0.07`$. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the comparison is of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cpK\pi `$, and we obtain $`ϵ_{\mathrm{DATA}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{MC}}=0.93\pm 0.17`$. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case, the net uncertainty is dominated by the relatively poorly known branching ratios. In all cases the systematic uncertainties estimated by this technique are conservative (large) but still do not dominate the final total error.

## VII CLEO III Results

Event yields for the CLEO III data subsets A and B are given above in table 3. Because the signal efficiencies of Set A and Set B differ slightly the event yields in the two datasets do not have exactly the same meaning and are not directly comparable or summable. To obtain overall CLEO III results we express the measurements of Set A and Set B in the common language of branching ratios, $`=n_{sig}/(N_{B\overline{B}}ϵ)`$ forming the joint likelihood $`_{\mathrm{stat}}()=_A()_B()`$. The subscript “stat” emphasizes that this version of the likelihood function reflects only statistical features of the data. We fold in systematic errors, which are common to Set A and Set B, by convolving the normalized statistical likelihood function

$$\widehat{}_{\mathrm{stat}}()=\frac{_{\mathrm{stat}}()}{_0^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{stat}}(\beta )𝑑\beta }$$

with both additive event yield uncertainties $`\eta `$, distributed according to an asymmetric Gaussian, $`𝒢(\eta )`$, and multiplicative scale factor uncertainties $`\rho `$, distributed according to a symmetric Gaussian $`G(\rho )`$. The widths of these distributions have been discussed above. Formally this convolution may be written

$$\widehat{}()=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \widehat{}_{\mathrm{stat}}\left(\frac{N_{B\overline{B}}ϵ+\eta }{N_{B\overline{B}}ϵ(1+\rho )}\right)𝒢(\eta )G(\rho ).$$
(7)
For convenience the double convolution is performed by a Monte Carlo method.

The resulting distribution of $`\widehat{}()`$ is the final CLEO III likelihood function including all of the uncertainties in the measurement. From it we find the minimum of the $`2\mathrm{ln}`$ distribution to measure our mean, and find the 1$`\sigma `$ intersections to determine the errors. Since this is the total error, we unfold the systematic error by subtracting the statistical error in quadrature from the total error. We set 90% confidence level upper limits by determining the value of $``$ for which

$$_0^{}\widehat{}(\beta )𝑑\beta =0.90,$$

and calculate significances by looking at the zero yield value of the $`2\mathrm{ln}`$ distribution. In the limit of a purely Gaussian likelihood function, this definition of significance reduces to the signal yield divided by its one standard deviation error.

## VIII Combined CLEO II and CLEO III Results

We combine CLEO II and CLEO III measurements using the likelihood functions described above for CLEO III and reported in Ref. lastkpipaper  for CLEO II. For some modes we use previously unpublished likelihood functions. The baryonic modes and the $`K_S^0`$$`K_S^0`$ mode were analyzed here with the full CLEO II data set for the first time.

Particle identification in CLEO II was limited, and modes with potential for $`K/\pi `$ misidentification, such as $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`BK^+\pi ^{}`$, were analyzed in terms of two-dimensional likelihood functions, $`(N_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}},N_{K^+\pi ^{}})`$. The improved $`K/\pi `$ separation in CLEO III however permits us to treat these modes independently in the new data. To combine CLEO II and CLEO III likelihood functions, therefore, we first project the two-dimensional CLEO II functions on to one-dimensional versions, using $`(x)=(x,y)𝑑y`$, and then express in terms of branching ratios, $`()=(N_{sig}/(N_{B\overline{B}}ϵ))`$. Systematic errors are included following the same method as described for CLEO III above to obtain a total CLEO II likelihood function for each mode. A final combined CLEO II and CLEO III likelihood function is then formed from the joint likelihood, $`_{\mathrm{final}}()=_{\mathrm{CLEOII}}()_{\mathrm{CLEOIII}}()`$. For $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ modes with non-zero yields we plot the negative log-likelihood functions in Fig. 1. Likelihood functions for the di-baryonic modes are shown in Fig. 2. Table 6 summarizes the final results, with separate entries for CLEO II results (extracted from the references and reproduced here for the convenience of the reader), CLEO III results, and the combined CLEO II and CLEO III results.

## IX Physically Interesting Ratios and the Phase of $`V_{ub}`$

As discussed in the introduction, it is possible to extract information about the phase of $`V_{ub}`$ from these charmless $`B`$ decay data. The method of Reference 3 is based on two ratios of the branching fractions which we have measured and reported above. Using the notation of this reference, and combining statistical and systematic errors in quadrature, the ratios are found to be:

$$R_{}\frac{(B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm )}{2(B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0)}=0.73\pm 0.21,$$
(8)
and

$$ϵ_{exp}\mathrm{tan}\theta _C\frac{f_K}{f_\pi }\left[\frac{2(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0)}{(B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm )}\right]^{1/2}=0.18\pm 0.04.$$
(9)
We see that the precision available with the CLEO data is about 20-30% in these quantities. With data from the BABAR and Belle experimentsbabarandbelle  we can make world (weighted) averages of branching ratios and reach 10-15% experimental precision in the critical ratios: $`R_{}=0.71\pm 0.09`$ and $`ϵ_{exp}=0.21\pm 0.02`$. These numbers in turn indicate a preferred region for $`\gamma =Arg(V_{ub})`$ which is greater than 90alan . Using these world-averaged data we construct contours in the $`\rho \eta `$ plane according to prescription of Reference 3 and display the result in Figure 3. The dark band represents the experimental central value convolved with theoretical uncertainties; lighter bands show the additional coverage when 68% and 95% experimental confidence regions are included. For reference we also overlay 68% and 95% confidence level ellipses of the preferred apex of the unitarity triangle as obtained in a standard analysis based on $`B`$ mixing, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, $`V_{ub}`$, and kaon decaysstochhi . An intriguing discrepancy between these regions is noticeable. In the short term the most substantial progress to be made will be in reducing the statistical errors on the branching ratios of charmless $`B`$ decay modes. If discrepancies survive there could be non-trivial implications for the Standard Model, as discussed in Ref. 3.

## X The $`(BDK)/(BD\pi )`$ ratio

In view of the good $`K/\pi `$ separation in CLEO III data we also report a new determination of the ratio $`(B^{}D^0K^{})/(B^{}D^0\pi ^{})`$ which benefits substantially from good particle identification. The original CLEO II publication is available in Ref. abi .

For this analysis, $`D^0`$ candidates are reconstructed in three secondary modes, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$. Requirements for the $`BD^0h^{}`$ modes include a 30 MeV $`D^0`$ mass cut, a 100 MeV $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ cut, and standard particle ID as described previously on both the primary $`h^{}`$ from the $`B`$ and on the secondary kaon from the $`D^0`$. The $`\pi ^0`$ mass for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ mode is required to be within 30 MeV of its nominal mass. For the $`D^0K`$ likelihood fit, $`D^0\pi `$ is included as a cross-feed background, and corresponds to approximately 50% of the DK yield shown in Fig. 4. (Both $`D^{}\pi `$ and $`D\rho `$ were found not to be significant backgrounds to either signal mode.) Fig. 4 shows $`M_B`$ distributions for $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ candidates with the likelihood fit shape superimposed.

Combining the three $`D^0`$ submodes, we find

$$\frac{(B^{}D^0K^{})}{(B^{}D^0\pi ^{})}=(9.9_{1.20.6}^{+1.4+0.7})\times 10^2.$$
(10)
Most systematic errors cancel in this ratio, with only a small residual arising from the particle identification requirements imposed on the primary $`\pi /K`$ in both numerator and denominator.

## XI Summary

We have presented final results from the CLEO experiment on charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays. The decay modes include the ten $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$, and KK final states as well as the dibaryonic states $`p\overline{p}`$, $`p\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. In addition we have presented a new determination of the ratio of branching ratios $`(BDK)/(BD\pi )`$. The results are based on the full CLEO II and CLEO III data samples totalling 15.3 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, and supercede previously published results by this collaboration.

## XII Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. M. Selen thanks the Research Corporation, and A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.