text:
# The Collimated Wind in NGC 253

## 1 Introduction

NGC 253 has an outflow caused by starbursts in its central regions (Strickland et al., 2000; Pietsch et al., 2000; Weaver et al., 2002; Forbes et al., 2000). Being almost edge-on and one of the closest starburst galaxies, with a distance of $`2.6`$ Mpc (Puche & Carignan, 1988), it is one of the best examples for studying the structure of such outflows. García-Burillo et al. (2000) found SiO emission components whose velocities imply that the molecular gas is flowing out of the disk. The SiO emission is most likely caused by shocks. The H2 emission also traces the excited molecular gas (e.g, Sugai et al. 2000, 1999, 1997), including shocked gas. Tanaka et al.’s (1994) results showed that a search for extended H2 emission would be fruitful, although their spatial resolution was not enough to discuss its morphology. In this Letter we report our high spatial resolution Fabry-Perot imaging from UKIRT of the H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) emission in this galaxy. We also show a Hubble Space Telescope narrow-band image, which was obtained from archive data (Prop ID 7218: Rieke, M.), to emphasize the apparently sharply delineated components of the extended H2 emission.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

We obtained line images in the H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) transition using a Fabry-Perot imager mounted on the Cassegrain focus of the UKIRT 3.8 m telescope on Mauna Kea Hawaii on 1996 December 19. A K-band etalon with 50 mm effective aperture made by Queensgate Instruments was set in a collimated beam. A cooled narrow band filter (0.9%) was used for sorting one order of interference. We used the near-infrared camera, IRCAM3, which has a 256 $`\times `$ 256 InSb array, with a pixel scale of $`0^{\prime \prime }.3`$. Wavelength calibration was carried out using a Krypton lamp. The spectral resolution was 325 km s-1. The peak transmission at the target object position was set to its systemic velocity, $`v_{helio}245`$ km s-1 (e.g., da Costa et al. 1991). Although the Fabry-Perot provided an unvignetted field of approximately $`1^{}`$ in diameter for this velocity, the rotation of NGC 253 may have caused loss of some H2 flux in its receding southwestern edge. However, this only affects the farthest part of the image and does not alter the discussion in this Letter. For each line image, we repeated the following observing sequence: (1) line frame, (2) continuum frame, (3) line frame again, and (4) continuum frame on the opposite side of the line. The same observing sequence was carried out for sky frames. Two sets of such sequences provided a total on-line integration time of 12 minutes on the source. After sky subtraction from each object frame by the corresponding wavelength sky frame, we carried out flat fielding by using sky frames at the same wavelength setting. A transmittance correction, which included atmospheric absorption and the transmittance of the order-sorting filters, was made using the A3 V standard star BS 232 observed at a similar time and air mass and at the same wavelength setting.

We also retrieved HST NICMOS archive data. Images through narrow-band filters F212N ($`\lambda _c=2.1213\mu `$m; $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =1\%`$) and F215N ($`\lambda _c=2.1487\mu `$m; $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =1\%`$) were used to create a H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) line image, although the continuum subtraction is less accurate than the Fabry-Perot data. We also use HST WFPC2 archive data of F814W broad-band filter imaging.

## 3 Morphology of Extended H2 Emission

Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of the H2 emission obtained with the UKIRT Fabry-Perot. Strong H2 emission is associated with the continuum emission, which traces the disk stellar distribution. However, more extended H2 emission is also detected. Features found in our Fabry-Perot data are consistently seen also in the HST NICMOS image. We call the apparently “filamentary” features A, B, C, and D. Features B and D are more clearly recognized in the HST image since the contrast of these sharp features against nearby H2 emission is higher. Feature A extends southeast to a height of at least $`10^{\prime \prime }`$. The apparently narrow features A and B, and possibly also C, are tightly related to the intense hot plasma observed by Strickland et al. (2000) and Weaver et al. (2002) in soft (0.2–1.5 keV) X-rays: these H2 emission features are found at the edges of the hot plasma (Figure 2). They trace the expected places for an interaction between a superwind and its surrounding molecular gas. Strickland et al. (2000) showed that the X-ray emitting gas distribution is consistent with a conical outflow, although it may depend on the observed energy band whether or not the conical outflow has a hollow structure (Pietsch et al., 2001). Since it is unlikely that the filaments accidentally occur exactly and only at our tangential line of sight to the hot plasma outflow, we propose that (at our spatial resolution) the H2 emission structures consist of a more or less bi-conical shell-like structure around the outflow; and that the “filaments” in fact trace the tangential line of sight to this H2 emission shell. Although the shell may be inhomogeneous and, for example, may actually consist of many unresolved filaments embedded in a less dense sheet, even in this case it is unlikely that those filaments exist only at our line of sight.

The hot plasma outflow is tilted with respect to the axis perpendicular to the disk, when it leaves the disk plane, as found in the outflow of M82 by Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn (1998). The position angles of “filamentary” features A, B, C, and D on the plane of the sky are offset from the disk minor axis direction roughly by $`12^{}`$, $`37^{}`$, $`25^{}`$, and $`3^{}`$, respectively, towards the northeast side of the disk. The apparent offset seems larger on the northeast side, i.e., for features B and C, compared with features A and D. The tilt of the outflow may relate to the inhomogeneous nature of the interstellar medium in which the starburst takes place. Strickland (2002) discusses why the interstellar medium must be inhomogeneous in the vicinity of the starburst. If it was uniform dense gas, most of the initial kinetic energy of individual supernova remnants and stellar-wind-blown bubbles would be lost to radiation before being used for the heating to produce a superbubble.

## 4 Origin of Extended H2 Gas

From where does the H2 molecular gas in features A, B, C, and D originate? There are four possibilities: (1) H2 reproduction from the hot plasma, (2) molecular gas blown out by superwinds, (3) molecular gas at the same height but that has been swept to the side as the superwind expanded, and (4) molecular gas which was already where it is now seen. In Figure 2, the H2 emission is found only around the beginning of the hot plasma outflow and is not found further out. This rules out possibility (1) because H2 reproduction would be seen almost everywhere along the hot plasma edges. Figure 3 shows an optical image from HST WFPC2 archive data. Registration of this image to the near-infrared images was achieved using coordinates determined by Watson et al. (1996). We use this F814W image to investigate the dust distribution, because optical images are more sensitive to dust extinction than near-infrared images. We find a bright region coincident with the X-ray plasma and apparently “narrow” lanes at the positions of H2 emission features A and (less clearly) B. This suggests that dust is lacking in the hot plasma, and instead is tightly associated at least with features A and B, although it might extend farther from the disk plane than the H2 emission features. Less dust exists just outside the “narrow” dust lanes, suggesting that it may form a conical shell-like structure similar to the H2 emitting gas. This makes possibility (4) less likely. If dust had existed there previously, its distribution outside the hot plasma would be more homogeneous. The “narrow” lanes imply that the dust has been blown out or swept to the side in a similar way to the H2 emitting gas. The stronger H2 emission feature A appears to be located on the northeastern side (i.e. inside) of the corresponding dust lane, suggesting a stronger interaction with the superwind inside the dust shell.

Although from our observations alone we cannot conclude which of (2) and (3) is the origin of the extended H2 gas, results of theoretical works provide some insight for this (e.g., Strickland & Stevens 2000; Williams & Dyson 2002). For example, Suchkov et al. (1994) suggested that the wind drags out material from the disk. The extended H2 gas in NGC 253 might correspond to this dragged-out material, which may have a contribution for collimating the wind. It is also possible that the H2 gas is being entrained by the wind while dense molecular gas remaining in the disk collimates the wind. Even in this case, the base of the extended H2 gas closely traces the place of wind collimation.

Observations of SiO emission by García-Burillo et al. (2000) suggest that two SiO filaments come out of the plane of the nucleus of NGC 253. According to these authors, the velocities at the filament positions are easily accounted for if the molecular gas is outflowing. This implies that it is actually possible that a significant amount of molecular gas is coming out from the disk plane, although the positional difference between the SiO filaments and the extended H2 emission features implies that they are not the same phenomenon. Kinetic energies required for starburst outflows jump up by 2-3 orders of magnitude after the detection of dust and molecules, compared with those required only for ionized gas. This is possibly because there is so much mass associated with molecular gas phase compared to any other detectable phase. A recent example of this is discussed by Bland-Hawthorn & Cohen (2003) in the Galactic Center.

## 5 What Excites the Extended H2 Gas?

Tanaka et al. (1994) found spatial variation of the H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=21`$ S(1) / H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) line ratio over a half arcminute from the nucleus, although they could not resolve the extended H2 emission reported in this Letter. But their results may imply spatial variation of the H2 excitation mechanisms. From slit spectroscopy, Engelbracht et al. (1998) suggested that 25 % of the H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) emission in a central $`2^{\prime \prime }.4\times 12^{\prime \prime }`$ aperture is excited by fluorescence – but this applies only to the strong nuclear H2 emission. Ideally, spectroscopy exactly at the extended H2 emission features would be needed to find the excitation mechanisms at the interface between the hot plasma and the molecular gas. However, a discussion of the energetics places some constraints on its excitation mechanisms. We measure an H2 luminosity of order $`1\times 10^{37}`$ erg s-1 for feature A.

First we consider X-ray heating. While Weaver et al. (2002) derived an unabsorbed 2–10 keV luminosity of $`10^{39}`$ erg s-1 for a heavily absorbed source of hard X-rays embedded within the nuclear starburst region, Pietsch et al. (2000) obtained an X-ray luminosity of $`9\times 10^{38}`$ erg s-1 for the X-ray plume. Assuming the efficiency of converting X-rays into H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) emission to be $`0.5\%`$ through X-ray heating (see Draine and Woods 1990), it seems difficult for the X-ray plume alone to provide the energy input for the H2 emission because only a small fraction ($``$ 0.1) of its X-rays would be incident on the solid angle around feature A. However, until an upper limit to the unabsorbed nuclear luminosity is established, we cannot rule out the possibility that the nuclear source itself might supply enough X-rays.

Next we consider UV fluorescence. Engelbracht et al. (1998) derived an extinction corrected ionizing photon number of $`1\times 10^{53}`$ s-1 from the starbursts. Taking into consideration an upper limit of 37000 K for the exciting stars (Engelbracht et al., 1998) and also Table 5 of Puxley et al. (1990), we find that of order $`10^{37}`$ erg s-1 of H$`{}_{2}{}^{}v=10`$ S(1) emission is obtained when integrated over the whole sphere of radius $`10^2`$ pc (for photodissociation region gas density less than $`10^3`$ cm-3). We used a model for clustered stars residing within a communal HII region, in which the fluorescent H2 emission originates from the edge of the giant HII region. Models in which individual stars have their own fluorescent H2 emission regions cannot produce large-scale structures such as feature A. Since only of order one tenth of the UV flux from the starbursts in the central regions would reach the solid angle around feature A, we conclude this is not enough unless dense photodissociation region ($`>10^3`$ cm-3) has a covering factor of an order of unity. Although this may be unlikely, we cannot rule out a contribution from the UV fluorescence particularly to excitation of those parts of the shells close to the disk.

Shocks may more easily produce the observed H2 emission. The H2 surface brightness at feature A is of order $`10^{15}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2. This is easily achieved by shock models (e.g., Burton et al. 1990). If we assume that, like the SiO emission, the H2 components are shock excited, we can estimate the mass of the hot molecular gas to be $`7`$–5 M for each of features A and B. Although it is likely that a much larger mass of cold molecular gas is associated with this hot gas, the hot gas mass itself is at least much smaller than outflowing gas/dust masses found so far: the gas mass for the SiO southern filament is estimated as $`2.0\times 10^6`$ M (García-Burillo et al., 2000) while the dust mass for the same filament is estimated as $`(0.4`$-$`2)\times 10^4`$ M (García-Burillo et al., 2000; Alton et al., 1999), when the distance of 2.6 Mpc is assumed. Therefore, it is possible that the hot molecular gas could have been blown out from the nuclear regions of NGC 253.

## 6 Similarity to IC 694

The more distant and luminous starburst galaxy IC 694 also exhibits extended H2 emission similar to that in NGC 253. It has a bipolar (or butterfly-like) structure in its central regions (Sugai et al., 1999; Alonso-Herrero et al., 2000). The distance from the nucleus of IC 694 to the starting point of this structure is $`100`$ pc ($`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$), comparable to NGC 253 ($`100`$ pc and $`70`$ pc for features A and B, respectively). The structure extends to about 300 pc from the disk. These characteristics are also apparent in NGC 253, although the case of IC 694 seems rather larger. Although even Chandra may not be able to clearly resolve the nuclear X-ray emission from the hot plasma in the central regions of IC 694, the H2 emission might, as for NGC 253, trace the edges of the hot plasma. If so, then we can glean information about the intense hot plasma distribution at the root of the superwind without seeing it directly.

We thank the staff at UKIRT and the JAC for their help during the observing run. The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. We thank the referee for helpful comments on improvements to the paper.


format: text

text:
# Northwestern University: N.U.H.E.P. Report No. 1010 August 7, 2002 Factorization Theorems for High Energy nn, 𝛾𝑝 and 𝛾𝛾 Scattering

The robustness of the factorization theorem for total cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}/\sigma _{\gamma p}=\sigma _{\gamma p}/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, originally proved by Block and Kaidalov for nn (the even portion of $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering), $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering, is demonstrated. Factorization theorems for the nuclear slope parameter $`B`$ and $`\rho `$, the ratio of the real to the imaginary portion of the forward scattering amplitude, are derived under very general conditions, using analyticity and the optical theorem.

Recently, Block and Kaidalov have proved three high energy factorization theorems:

$$\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)},$$
(1)
where the $`\sigma `$’s are the total cross sections for nucleon-nucleon, $`\gamma `$p and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering,

$$\frac{B_{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{B_{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{B_{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{B_{\gamma \gamma }(s)},$$
(2)
where the $`B`$’s are the nuclear slope parameters for elastic scattering, and

$$\rho _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }(s),$$
(3)
where the $`\rho `$’s are the ratio of the real to imaginary portions of the forward scattering amplitudes, with the first two factorization theorems each having their own proportionality constant. In the above, nn (for nucleon-nucleon) denotes the even portion of the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering amplitude. Their derivation assumed a eikonal model, with the (complex) eikonal $`\chi (b,s)`$ such that $`a(b,s)`$, the (complex) scattering amplitude in impact parameter space $`b`$, is given by

$`a(b,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(1e^{i\chi (b,s)}\right)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)}\right).`$
Using the optical theorem, the total cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)=4d^2\stackrel{}{b}\mathrm{Im}a(b,s)=2\left\{1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)}\mathrm{cos}[\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)]\right\}d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(5)
and the elastic scattering cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}(s)`$ is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{b}|a(b,s)|^2}={\displaystyle \left|1e^{\chi __\mathrm{I}(b,s)+i\chi __\mathrm{R}(b,s)}\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}}.`$ (6)
The ratio of the real to the imaginary portion of the forward nuclear scattering amplitude, $`\rho (s)`$, is given by

$`\rho (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}d^2\stackrel{}{b}a(b,s)}{\mathrm{Im}d^2\stackrel{}{b}a(b,s)}}`$ (7)
and the nuclear slope parameter $`B(s)`$ is given by

$$B(s)=\frac{b^2a(b,s)d^2\stackrel{}{b}}{2a(b,s)d^2\stackrel{}{b}}.$$
(8)
They used an even (under crossing) QCD-Inspired eikonal $`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}`$ for nn scattering, given by the sum of three contributions, glue-glue, quark-glue and quark-quark, which are individually factorizable into a product of a cross section $`\sigma (s)`$ times an impact parameter space distribution function $`W(b;\mu )`$, i.e.,:

$`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{gg}}(s,b)+\chi _{\mathrm{qg}}(s,b)+\chi _{\mathrm{qq}}(s,b)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`i\left[\sigma _{\mathrm{gg}}(s)W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{gg}})+\sigma _{\mathrm{qg}}(s)W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qg}})+\sigma _{\mathrm{qq}}(s)W(b;\mu _{\mathrm{qq}})\right].`$
The impact parameter space distribution functions used in eq. (9) were taken to be convolutions of two dipole form factors, i.e.,

$$W(b;\mu )=\frac{\mu ^2}{96\pi }(\mu b)^3K_3(\mu b),$$
(10)
where $`K_3(x)`$ is a modified Bessel function. For large $`s`$, the even amplitude in eq. (9) is made analytic by the substitution $`sse^{i\pi /2}`$ (see the table on p. 580 of reference ).

By requiring that the ratio of elastic to total scattering be process-independent, i.e.,

$$\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)^{\mathrm{nn}}=\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)^{\gamma p}=\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}\right)^{\gamma \gamma }$$
(11)
at all energies, a condition that insures that each process becomes equally black disk-like as we go to high energy, they showed that the eikonal $`\chi ^{\gamma p}`$ for $`\gamma p`$ scattering is obtained from the substitution into $`\chi ^{\mathrm{even}}`$ in eq. (9) of

$$\sigma _i\kappa \mathrm{and}\mu _i^2\mu _i^2/\kappa ,$$
(12)
and that the eikonal $`\chi ^{\gamma \gamma }`$ for $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering is found, in turn, by making the same substitutions into $`\chi ^{\gamma p}`$. As a consequence, they derived the three high energy factorization theorems shown above in eq. (1), eq. (2) and eq. (3).

It should be emphasized that the derivations in ref.  assumed that the impact parameter distribution functions $`W(b;\mu )`$ had the same functional forms for all three processes nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$, differing only in the size of the $`\mu `$’s.

The purpose of this note is to

* demonstrate the robustness of the original total cross section theorem, by using different functional forms for the $`W(b)`$ in the three processes,
* derive the $`\rho `$ theorem, eq. (3), using only analyticity,
* derive the nuclear slope theorem, eq. (2), essentially using only the optical theorem,

without invoking the eikonal formalism of ref.  which required that all three processes—nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$—used the same $`W(b;\mu )`$ functional forms.

We will now show robustness of the original theorem,

$$\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)}.$$
(13)
Unlike the original proof, we will now assume that the impact parameter space distributions are all different, with

$`W_{\mathrm{nn}}(b;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{96\pi }}(\mu b)^3K_3(\mu b)`$ (14)
$`W_{\gamma p}(b;\mu ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2\nu ^2}{4\pi (\mu ^2\nu ^2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\mu ^2\nu ^2}}(K_0(\nu b)K_0(\mu b))(\mu b)K_1(\mu b)\right)`$ (15)
$`W_{\gamma \gamma }(b;\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{4\pi }}(\nu b)K_1(\nu b),`$ (16)
which are the Fourier transforms

$`W_{\mathrm{nn}}(b;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^8}{(q^2+\mu ^2)^4}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{b}}d^2\stackrel{}{q}},`$
$`W_{\gamma p}(b;\mu ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^4\nu ^2}{(q^2+\mu ^2)^2(q^2+\nu ^2)}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{b}}d^2\stackrel{}{q}},`$
$`W_{\gamma \gamma }(b;\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^4}{(q^2+\nu ^2)^2}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{b}}d^2\stackrel{}{q}}`$ (17)
of a dipole-dipole, monopole-dipole and monopole-monopole form factor convolution, respectively. The $`K`$’s are modified Bessel functions. All of the above impact parameter space distributions are normalized such that $`W(b)d^2\stackrel{}{b}=1`$.

We now use a $`\gamma p`$ form factor that is the convolution of the dipole form factor of a nucleon with a monopole form factor of the type used for a pion, i.e., we assume that the matter distribution in the $`\gamma `$ has a similar shape to that of the pion. Hence, we obtain the $`\gamma \gamma `$ form factor by convoluting a monopole form factor with a monopole form factor. All that remains for our analysis is to relate the masses $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. To make our results effectively independent of the shapes of the distributions, we require that the mean $`b^2`$ using $`W_{\mathrm{nn}}(b;\mu )`$ of eq. (14) be the same as that using $`W_{\gamma \gamma }(b;\mu ,\nu )`$ of eq. (16). Hence,

$$=b^2W(b)d^2\stackrel{}{b}=\frac{16}{\mu ^2}=\frac{8}{\nu ^2}$$
(18)
and we will use the energy-indpendent relation $`\nu =\mu /\sqrt{2}.`$

Shown in Fig. 1 are the impact parameter space distributions $`W(b)`$ in GeV2 plotted against $`b`$, the impact parameter in GeV-1. The solid curve is $`W_{\mathrm{nn}}(b)`$, the Fourier transform of the dipole-dipole form factor used for nn scattering, the dotted curve is $`W_{\gamma p}(b)`$, the Fourier transform of the dipole-monopole form factor used for $`\gamma p`$ scattering and the dashed curve is $`W_{\gamma \gamma }(b)`$, the Fourier transform of the monopole-monopole form factor used for $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering, for $`\mu =0.89`$ GeV, $`\nu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mu =0.629`$ GeV. These choices make $`<b^2>_{\mathrm{nn}}=<b^2>_{\gamma \gamma }`$.

In the spirit of Block and Kaidalov, we now compare the total cross sections and the ratio of elastic to total cross sections for for the three processes, at several energies, to check for stability. We introduce the simpler notation $`W_{\mathrm{nn}}(b)`$, $`W_{\gamma p}(b)`$, and $`W_{\gamma \gamma }(b)`$, when eq. (14), eq. (15) and eq. (16) are evaluated at $`\mu =0.89`$ GeV and $`\nu =\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2}}=0.629`$ GeV, where $`\mu =0.89`$ GeV is the value for quark-quark scattering used in . For simplicity of calculation, we will assume that the eikonal is purely imaginary ($`\rho =0`$) and is composed of only one term, $`\sigma _0\times W_{ij}(b)`$, with $`ij`$ =nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$, respectively. Using eq. (5) and eq. (6), we numerically evaluate the relations

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \left[1e^{\sigma _0W(b)}\right]d^2\stackrel{}{b}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1e^{\sigma _0W(b)}\right]^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}}.`$ (20)
We will evaluate eq. (19) and eq. (20) for values of $`\sigma _0=160`$, 110 and 67 GeV-2, chosen so that the total cross section corresponds to the nucleon-nucleon cross section at cms energies $`1500`$, 400 and 25 GeV, respectively. The results for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ as a function of energy for the three reactions nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$, as well as the energy dependence of the total cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}/\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma p}/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, are given in Table 1.

For very small eikonals, the total cross sections are identical, independent of form factor shape, since all of the $`W(b)`$ satisfy the normalization condition $`W(b)d^2\stackrel{}{b}=1`$.

It is most striking that the total cross sections are essentially independent of the choice of form factor shape and that the ratios of elastic to total cross section are also closely the same for all three processes, independent of energy, when we equate the $`<b^2>`$’s, the mean squared $`b`$ values for nn and $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes. We further note that the ratios $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{nn}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma \gamma }`$ are both systematically $`1.5`$ % too large. As a consequence, the original cross section factorization theorem of Block and Kaidalov,

$$\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)},$$
(21)
is shown to be valid to $`0.3`$ % over a very large range of $`s`$. Thus, even without the constraint of identical $`W(b)`$ distributions for the three processes, the cross section factorization theorem is very robust.

We now turn our attention to the factorization theorems involving $`\rho `$ and $`B`$. We will find $`\rho _{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$ utilizing an analysis involving real analytic amplitudes, a technique first proposed by Bourrely and Fischer and later utilized extensively by Nicolescu and Kang. We follow the procedures and conventions used by Block and Cahn. The variable $`s`$ is the square of the c.m. system energy, whereas $`\nu `$ is the laboratory system momentum. Using the optical theorem, in terms of the even laboratory scattering amplitude $`f_+`$, where $`f_+(\nu )=f_+(\nu )`$, the total even cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\nu }}\mathrm{Im}f_+(\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}=0),`$ (22)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ is the laboratory scattering angle. We further assume that our amplitudes are real analytic functions with a simple cut structure. We use an even amplitude for reactions in the high energy region, far above any cuts, (see ref., p. 587, eq. (5.5a), with $`a=0`$), where the even amplitude simplifies considerably and is given, for example, by

$$f_+(s)=i\frac{\nu }{4\pi }\left\{A+\beta [\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)i\pi /2]^2+cs^{\mu 1}e^{i\pi (1\mu )/2}\right\},$$
(23)
where $`A`$, $`\beta `$, $`c`$, $`s_0`$ and $`\mu `$ are real constants. We are ignoring any real subtraction constants. In eq. (23), we have assumed that the total cross section rises asymptotically as $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$. The real and imaginary parts of eq. (23) are given by

$`\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\nu }}f_+(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\nu }}f_+(s)`$ $`=`$ $`A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}.`$ (25)
Using equations (22), (24) and (25), the total cross section for high energy scattering is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)=A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1},$$
(26)
and $`\rho `$, the ratio of the real to the imaginary portion of the forward scattering amplitude, is given by

$$\rho (s)=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}}{A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}}=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}.$$
(27)
Clearly, if the cross sections for the three processes, nn, $`\gamma p`$, and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scale, i.e., $`\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)}`$, then by inspection of eq. (26), the coefficients $`A,\beta `$ and $`c`$ for each of the three processes scale. Thus, the scale factor cancels out in $`\rho `$, which is a ratio, as seen in eq. (27). Hence, all three $`\rho `$ values are the same, i.e.,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }(s),$$
(28)
the $`\rho `$ factorization theorem of eq. (3). Clearly, the argument does not depend on the specific form of the amplitude assumed in eq. (23), being equally valid if the cross section were to rise as $`\mathrm{ln}s`$, or even rise as a power of $`s`$.

Let us now turn our attention to the factorization theorem of the nuclear slopes. We will assume that the differential elastic scattering is adequately parameterized by

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}=\left[\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}\right]_{t=0}e^{Bt}.$$
(29)
We can write, working in the center of mass system,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}}\right]_{t=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}}}\right]_{\theta _{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=0}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}\left|\mathrm{Re}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)+i\mathrm{Im}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)\right|^2.`$
Introducing $`\rho =\mathrm{Re}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)/\mathrm{Im}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)`$, we rewrite eq. (30) as

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}}\right]_{t=0}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho +i)\mathrm{Im}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)}{k}}\right|^2`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\pi \left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho +i)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}{4\pi }}\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\rho ^2)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^2}{16\pi }},`$
where we have used the optical theorem, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{4\pi }{k}\mathrm{Im}f_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}(0)`$, where $`k=`$ the center of mass momentum, in the next-to-last step. Integrating eq. (29) over $`t`$ from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$, we find the total elastic scattering

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^2(1+\rho ^2)}{16\pi B}.$$
(32)
We can finally rewrite eq. (32) in the useful form

$$\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}}=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(1+\rho ^2)}{16\pi B}.$$
(33)
It should be pointed out that the application of eq. (33) to $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes assumes that the photon has turned into a hadron and is interacting hadronically.

If we apply to eq. (33) the fundamental condition used by Block and Kaidalov that the ratio of elastic to total cross section is process-independent—after using the equality of the $`\rho `$ values for all three processes—we find that

$$\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}}{B_{\mathrm{nn}}}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}}{B_{\gamma \mathrm{p}}}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }}{B_{\gamma \gamma }}.$$
(34)
Applying the cross section factorization theorem of eq. (1), $`\sigma _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)/\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)=\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$, to eq. (34), we deduce the factorization theorem of eq. (2) for the nuclear slopes $`B`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{B_{\mathrm{nn}}(s)}{B_{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}=\frac{B_{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)}{B_{\gamma \gamma }(s)}.$$
(35)
In conclusion, we have demonstrated the robustness of the factorization theorem for total cross sections, even when using different shapes of the impact parameter distribution functions for nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering. Further, we have proved the $`B`$ and the $`\rho `$ factorization theorems of Block and Kaidalov using the more general conditions of the optical theorem and analyticity. Experimental evidence for these theorems can be found in references , and .

I would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics during the preparation of this manuscript.


text:
# Separable states can be used to distribute entanglement

(February 21, 2003)

## Abstract

We show that no entanglement is necessary to distribute entanglement; that is, two distant particles can be entangled by sending a third particle that is never entangled with the other two. Similarly, two particles can become entangled by continuous interaction with a highly mixed mediating particle that never itself becomes entangled. We also consider analogous properties of completely positive maps, in which the composition of two separable maps can create entanglement.

Einstein associated entanglement with “spooky action-at-a-distance”, a strange quantum effect that did not tally with his ideas of how the universe ought to work Einstein et al. (1935). Modern quantum information theory, however, takes a different view: entanglement is a physical quantity. And like other physical quantities, it can be used as a resource. The major successes in the field have come from asking: “what new possibilities arise when entanglement is available?”. The power of this quantum resource became especially apparent after the discovery of quantum teleportation Bennett et al. (1993), which showed that, if entanglement and classical communication are available, global quantum operations can be implemented locally. Since then, huge progress has been made in describing the way entanglement can be distributed and manipulated among separated parties. As for other physical quantities, conservation laws have been formulated dictating e.g. that the amount of entanglement can not be increased by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) Bennet et al. (1996). Specifically, this means entanglement can only be created by an interaction between particles.

In this Letter, we investigate more closely the conditions required to entangle two distant particles. Though there is no unique way to quantify entanglement for mixed states, the usual definition of an entangled state – as one that can not be created by LOCC – *is* unambiguous. To create entanglement, then, a global quantum operation is necessary. For separated particles, this must be carried out by sending a mediating particle between them (see Fig. 1), i.e. by communication via a quantum channel. Note that fundamentally this is the only way entanglement is created 111Experiments often produce entanglement via indirect interactions. In ion-traps, electronic states of the ions interact via phonon modes; in cavities, atoms are entangled via interactions with photons in the cavity. (See e.g. For (2000).), as all interactions in nature occur via mediating gauge bosons. It is clear that the particles can be entangled if the mediating (or ‘ancilla’) particle becomes entangled: entangle the first particle with the ancilla, send the latter through the channel, and swap it with the second particle. We can picture the entanglement being sent *through* the channel. One would expect that the ancilla *necessarily* becomes entangled, in any scheme. Surprisingly, we will prove that this intuitive picture is false, and that two particles can become entangled without the ancilla *ever* becoming entangled. (Note that this does not imply entanglement can be created by LOCC since a quantum channel was used.)

We demonstrate this fact in two different ways. First we consider a process in which two particles interact continuously with an ancilla (Fig. 2). We prove that if it is possible to entangle the particles while leaving the ancilla separable at all times, it is possible to turn this into a discretized scheme in which an ancilla is sent between Alice and Bob a number of times. Inspired by quantum optical systems, we give an example of such a continuous process in which the ancilla remains separable.

As a second demonstration, we give an explicit discrete procedure in which an ancilla is sent from Alice to Bob, and the interactions are described by local unitary operations: a single use of a quantum channel is already sufficient to distribute entanglement *without* sending entanglement. By analyzing bipartite partitions of the tripartite system, we explain why the process works. Finally, we translate this result describing properties of states into a result describing properties of completely positive maps (CPM): we give an example of two maps that individually cannot create entanglement from initially separable states, nevertheless their composition can.

First consider the continuous case. As a model of an interaction mediated by another particle, consider a system of two particles ‘$`a`$’ and ‘$`b`$’ both interacting with the same ancilla ‘$`c`$’ (Fig. 2) but not directly with each other. If we restrict ourselves to pure states, the effect presented above is impossible: to entangle $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`c`$ must become entangled with respect to the partition $`(ab)`$$`c`$ 222We say a state $`\rho _{abc}`$ is separable with respect to the partition $`(ab)`$$`c`$ iff $`\rho _{abc}=_k|\phi _k_{ab}\phi _k||c_kc_k|`$, and is entangled otherwise.. This is easily proven by looking at the infinitesimal change of a pure separable state $`|a|b|c`$ under the action of a Hamiltonian of the form $`H_{AC}\mathrm{𝟙}_B+\mathrm{𝟙}_AH_{BC}`$. The condition that the ancilla remains separable is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\mathrm{𝟙}+\delta t(H_{AC}+H_{BC})\right)|a|b|c\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(|a|b+\delta t|\psi _{ab}\right)\left(|c+\delta t|\psi _c\right)\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`|\psi _{ab}`$ and $`|\psi _c`$ are unnormalized states. It is readily seen that the state $`|a|b+\delta t|\psi _{ab}`$ is entangled to first order in $`\delta t`$ if and only if $`|\psi _{ab}`$ has a non-vanishing component $`a^{}|b^{}|\psi _{ab}`$ for some $`|a^{},|b^{}`$ orthogonal to $`|a,|b`$. However, multiplying equation (1) by $`a^{}|b^{}|`$ shows this is not the case. This is in complete accordance with the intuition that entanglement can only be transmitted if the mediating particle itself becomes entangled.

Let us however investigate how the amount of entanglement of the ancilla is related to the amount of entanglement that can be transmitted. Physically, the ancilla has a spectrum of energy levels corresponding to eigenstates of its Hamiltonian. Imagine that interactions with particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ couple eigenstates of the ancilla, and the interactions are weak so that transitions between energy levels are virtual. The most significant processes in the evolution of the system are then second order virtual transitions of $`c`$ from an energy level back to itself, accompanied by an interaction between particles $`a`$ and $`b`$. If the ancilla starts in an energy eigenstate, the virtual transition will leave it in the same eigenstate, not entangled with $`a`$ or $`b`$. It *will* become entangled with $`a`$ or $`b`$ due to less significant higher order processes, but this entanglement will be weak. Particles $`a`$ and $`b`$, however, can become strongly entangled if the interaction lasts a long time, and we have a situation close to the advertised effect: $`a`$ and $`b`$ can become entangled while the ancilla remains *almost* separable. But assume now that there is noise in the system, which can be modeled by mixing the quantum states with the maximally mixed state. Mixing a barely entangled state with an amount of noise proportional to the entanglement destroys the entanglement Vidal and Tarrach (1999); Braunstein et al. (1999). We can therefore add a sufficiently large weight of the maximally mixed state to remove the weak entanglement with the ancilla, but not so large that it destroys the strong entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$. (This is related to the results that entanglement can be created by interaction with a common heat bath Braun (2002)). If mixed states are considered, it therefore seems to be possible to obtain the desired effect in the continuous regime.

But this implies the seemingly stronger result that a separable ancilla bouncing back and forth between two distant particles (see Fig. 1) can distribute (distillable) entanglement. A continuous interaction whose evolution operator is of the form $`e^{i(H_A+H_B)t}`$ can be discretized, e.g. using the Trotter expansion: $`e^{A+B}=lim_n\mathrm{}(e^{A/n}e^{B/n})^n`$. Note that the discretized evolution can be made arbitrary close to the original one by choosing a large (but finite) $`n`$. This strange effect forces us to completely abandon the physical picture of sending entanglement *through* a quantum channel. E.g. this implies that the Ekert protocol in quantum cryptography Ekert (1991) could be implemented by sending separable states.

To demonstrate these ideas, let us consider a specific example of the continuous case, in which $`a`$ and $`b`$ are qubits and the ancilla $`c`$ is a qutrit with eigenstates $`|0`$, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. Motivated by ion-trap quantum computation experiments (see e.g. Ref. Wineland et al. (2002)), in which vibrational modes of the trapped ions play the role of the ancilla Cirac and Zoller (1995); Sörensen and Mølmer (1999), or by cavity-QED experiments Osnaghi et al. (2001) in which the ancilla is the cavity mode, we consider the Hamiltonian

$$H=\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}\mathrm{𝟙}+\frac{ϵ}{2}(\widehat{c}+\widehat{c}^{})\left(\sigma _x^a+\sigma _x^b\right),$$

where $`ϵ`$ is small and characterizes the strength of the interaction, and $`\widehat{c}^{}`$ is the “creation” operator in the truncated Hilbert space of the ancilla: $`\widehat{c}=|0_c1|+\sqrt{2}|1_c2|`$, so $`\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}=|1_c1|+2|2_c2|=H_0`$. The interactions couple eigenstates of the ancilla, as described above. As we are interested in the leading order evolution (and how much the true evolution deviates from this), we turn to perturbation theory. The Hamiltonian operates in four invariant subspaces: $`H=H_+^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{++}^{ab}+H_{}^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{ab}+H_0^c\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_+^{ab}+\mathrm{\Pi }_+^{ab}\right)`$, where $`H_\pm =\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}\pm ϵ(\widehat{c}+\widehat{c}^{})`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$’s denote projectors whose subscripts refer to the $`|+,|`$ qubit states with $`|\pm =1/\sqrt{2}(|0\pm |1)`$. The evolution operator can then be written as a direct sum of operators on these spaces: $`U=e^{iH_+t}e^{iH_0t}e^{iH_0t}e^{iH_{}t}`$. Expanding $`H_\pm `$ using standard perturbation theory, we have $`e^{iH_\pm t}=e^{iDt}+O(ϵ^4t)+O(ϵ)`$, where $`D=\mathrm{diag}(ϵ^2,1ϵ^2,2+2ϵ^2)`$ is the matrix of eigenvalues of $`H_\pm `$ approximated to leading order (accurate to $`3^{rd}`$ order since all odd order terms are zero). The $`O(ϵ^4t)`$ term arises from higher order perturbations of the eigenvalues, the $`O(ϵ)`$ term from perturbation of the eigenstates. We can then approximate the evolution operator:

$$U=U_{\mathrm{eff}}+O(ϵ^4t)+O(ϵ),$$
(2)
where $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}=e^{iDt}e^{iH_0t}e^{iH_0t}e^{iDt}`$. In the limit of small $`ϵ`$, the evolution of the system is “close” to evolution under $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. How do states evolve under $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$? If we start $`c`$ in an eigenstate of $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ ($`|0`$, $`|1`$ or $`|2`$), its state remains unchanged up to a global phase, and can not become entangled with $`a`$ and $`b`$. If $`a`$ and $`b`$ start in a superposition of eigenstates of $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the $`|++`$ and $`|`$ portions acquire a phase difference relative to the $`|+`$ and $`|+`$ portions ($`e^{2iϵ^2t}`$ if $`c`$ is in the $`|2`$ state, $`e^{iϵ^2t}`$ otherwise, recalling the expressions for $`D`$ and $`H_0`$). Particles $`a`$ and $`b`$ can therefore become highly entangled for times of order $`1/ϵ^2`$, even though the ancilla remains separable at all times. The true evolution under $`U`$ deviates from that under $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ due to the higher order terms in Eq. (2), and *will* entangle the ancilla if the system starts in a pure state. To show that a small amount of mixing is sufficient to remove this entanglement while leaving $`a`$ and $`b`$ highly entangled, we must bound this deviation at times $`t1/ϵ^2`$ to $`O(ϵ)`$ (that is, the deviation between what we *would* get if the system evolved under $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and what we *do* get when the system evolves under $`U`$). This means bounding the matrix norm $`e^{iH_\pm t}e^{iDt}`$. To achieve this, we make use of the matrix of eigenvectors of $`H_\pm `$ approximated to third order in $`ϵ`$, denoted $`X`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{iH_\pm t}e^{iDt}e^{iH_\pm t}Xe^{iDt}X^1\hfill \\ \hfill +Xe^{iDt}X^1e^{iDt}.\end{array}$$

The first norm on the right hand side ($`𝒩_1`$) is governed by higher order perturbations of the eigenvalues, and can be bounded to $`O(ϵ^4t)`$ by standard results in linear algebra (Golub and van Loan, 1996, §2.3.4 & §11.3.2), giving

$$𝒩_1X^1^2XH_\pm XXDt.$$

The second norm ($`𝒩_2`$) is governed by perturbation of the eigenvectors. It can be bounded to $`O(ϵ)`$ by expanding the exponentials as power series, and making use of the fact that a matrix satisfies its own characteristic equation to reduce the expansions to finite order polynomials, whose coefficients are functions of the eigenvalues $`d_{1,\mathrm{},3}`$ of $`D`$ and time $`t`$. The time dependence is removed by taking maxima of these coefficients over all times, giving

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒩_2||X^1||\frac{2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}((d_3^2d_1^2)||XDDX||\hfill \\ \hfill +(d_3d_1)||XD^2D^2X||),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix formed by $`d_{1,\mathrm{},3}`$.

We can now investigate the evolution of the initial state

$$\rho =\frac{1}{(1+\alpha )^2}\left(|0_a0|+\alpha \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟙}_a\right)\left(|0_b0|+\alpha \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝟙}_b\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{𝟙}_c$$

which is not only separable, but also classically uncorrelated. The ancilla is in a mixture of eigenstates of $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, so will not become entangled to leading order (i.e. by $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), whereas $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in a superposition of the eigenstates of $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ ($`|+,|`$) and do become entangled, as discussed previously. Using the bounds $`𝒩_{1,2}`$, we can bound the contribution of the higher order terms to the the evolved density matrix. This allows us to derive an expression for the minimum amount of mixing $`\alpha `$ that is required, for a given $`ϵ`$, to ensure any entanglement with the ancilla is removed. We derive a second inequality involving $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ`$ by considering the maximum amount of mixing that does not destroy the entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$ Verstraete and Verschelde (2003). We can then calculate a bound on the $`ϵ`$ that allow the two expressions to be satisfied simultaneously, i.e. the interaction strengths for which there is some $`\alpha `$ that removes all entanglement with the ancilla but leaves entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$. We obtain the condition $`ϵ<1/7000`$. We have therefore proven that the desired effect is physical. Numerically we find that this bound is much too strict, and $`ϵ1/10`$ is already sufficient.

Let us now move to the discrete case (see Fig. 1). Alice and Bob start by preparing a (classically correlated) separable state in step 1, where Alice has particles $`a`$ and $`c`$, Bob has particle $`b`$. In step 2, Alice applies an operation on her two particles $`a`$ and $`c`$, then sends particle $`c`$ to Bob. Finally, in step 3 Bob applies an operation on $`b`$ and $`c`$, resulting in a state that contains (distillable) entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$ (tracing out $`c`$), even though $`c`$ has remained separable from $`(ab)`$ throughout.

This quantum information picture gives us more insight into the basic principles underlying this (bipartite) effect, in which entanglement properties of tripartite systems turn out to play a key role. In tripartite systems, the entanglement properties of all bipartite partitions are independent Dür et al. (1999). For example, there exist mixed states in which $`c`$ is separable from $`(ab)`$, $`b`$ is separable from $`(ac)`$, yet $`a`$ is entangled with $`(bc)`$. Indeed, step 2 creates a state with precisely these properties. Step 3 then entangles $`b`$ with $`(ac)`$ without changing the entanglement properties of the other bipartite partitions. At each step, $`c`$ remains separable from the rest of the system.

We now give an explicit example in which all particles are qubits, demonstrating the above process. Step 1: Alice and Bob prepare the (manifestly separable) classically correlated state

$$\rho _{abc}=\frac{1}{6}\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_k,\mathrm{\Psi }_k,0\mathrm{\Psi }_k,\mathrm{\Psi }_k,0|+\underset{i=0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{1}{6}|i,i,1i,i,1|$$

where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k=1/\sqrt{2}\left(|0+e^{ik\pi /2}|1\right)`$. Step 2: Alice applies a CNOT operation on particles $`a`$ and $`c`$ (where $`a`$ is the control qubit), producing the state

$$\sigma _{abc}=\frac{1}{3}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}|+\underset{i,j,k=0}{\overset{1}{}}\beta _{ijk}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ijk}$$
(3)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{GHZ}_{abc}=1/\sqrt{2}\left(|000+|111\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ijk}=|ijkijk|`$, and all $`\beta `$’s are $`0`$ apart from $`\beta _{001}=\beta _{010}=\beta _{101}=\beta _{110}=1/6`$. This state is invariant under a permutation of the qubits $`b`$ and $`c`$, and must therefore be separable with respect to the $`b`$$`(ac)`$ and $`c`$$`(ab)`$ partitions. Step 3: Bob applies a CNOT on $`b`$ and $`c`$ (with $`b`$ as the control qubit), resulting in the state

$$\tau _{abc}=\frac{1}{3}|\varphi ^+_{ab}\varphi ^+||0_c0|+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{𝟙}_{ab}|1_c1|$$

where $`|\varphi ^+=1/\sqrt{2}\left(|00+|11\right)`$ is maximally entangled. The ancilla $`c`$ clearly remains separable with respect the rest of the system, but the state now contains entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$.

Bob can extract this entanglement in a number of ways. Measuring $`c`$ in the computational basis, he can extract a maximally entangled state of $`ab`$ with probability $`1/3`$. Alternatively, if a deterministic effect is required, he can apply a local completely positive map (CPM) to particles $`b`$ and $`c`$, defined by $`_{bc}(\rho )=_jO_{bc}^{(j)}\rho O_{bc}^{(j)}`$ with Kraus operators $`O_{bc}^{(1)}=\mathrm{𝟙}_b|0_c0|`$, $`O_{bc}^{(2)}=|0_b0||1_c1|`$, and $`O_{bc}^{(3)}=|0_b1||1_c1|`$, satisfying $`_jO^{(j)}O^{(j)}=\mathrm{𝟙}`$. Throwing away the ancilla leaves the state $`\rho _{ab}=\mathrm{tr}_c\left(_{bc}(\tau _{abc})\right)=1/3|\varphi ^+\varphi ^+|+1/3\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}+1/3\mathrm{\Pi }_{10}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=|ijij|`$. This has non-positive partial transpose, so must be (distillable) entangled Peres (1996); Horodecki et al. (1997). Thus Alice and Bob achieve the announced effect.

An effect in the same spirit as the examples presented for (mixed) states can also be found for quantum operations, i.e. for trace-preserving completely positive maps (TPCPM). The result is a direct application of the duality between non-local maps and states Cirac et al. (2001) to the present puzzle. We will prove that a composition of two *separable* maps can be entangling. More precisely, we consider a first (nonlocal) map acting on three qubits $`abc`$ that cannot create entanglement with respect to the bipartite partitions $`b`$$`(ac)`$ and $`c`$$`(ab)`$, and a second map that cannot create entanglement with respect to $`a`$$`(bc)`$ and $`c`$$`(ab)`$. Obviously, neither of the maps can create entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$. Interestingly, however, it turns out that the sequential application of these TPCPM’s can create (distillable) entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$.

Let us consider the TPCPM $`_1`$ with Kraus operators

$$\begin{array}{c}A_1=|000000|+|111111|,\\ \begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill A_2& =|001001|,\hfill & \hfill A_3& =|010010|,\hfill & \hfill A_4& =|101101|,\hfill \\ \hfill A_5& =|110110|,\hfill & \hfill A_6& =|000011|,\hfill & \hfill A_7& =|111100|.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(4)
Using the duality between maps and states developed in Cirac et al. (2001), one can easily show that this map cannot create entanglement in the partitions $`b`$$`(ac)`$ and $`c`$$`(ab)`$: the CPM corresponding to Kraus operators $`\{A_1\mathrm{}A_5\}`$ of Eq. (4) gives rise to a dual state that is exactly of the form of Eq. (3), which is separable in the stated partitions. As this state can be used to implement the map probabilistically, the map itself cannot be entangling in $`b`$$`(ac)`$ or in $`c`$$`(ab)`$. For the second map, we define the TPCPM $`_2`$ with Kraus operators as for $`_1`$, but with the roles of $`a`$ and $`b`$ interchanged. This cannot create entanglement in the $`a`$$`(bc)`$ and $`c`$$`(ab)`$ partitions.

The map $``$ obtained by composing both maps $`=_2_1`$ has Kraus operators $`C_1=A_1`$, $`C_2=A_2`$, $`C_3=|000010|`$, $`C_4=A_6`$, $`C_5=A_7`$, $`C_6=|111101|`$, $`C_7=A_5`$. One can readily prove that this map cannot entangle states in the partition $`c`$$`(ab)`$, but is entangling in the partitions $`a`$$`(bc)`$ and $`b`$$`(ac)`$. It immediately follows that the composition map can create (distillable) entanglement between $`a`$ and $`b`$ out of a separable state. For example, an entangled state $`\rho _{AB}`$ is obtained by acting with $``$ on the separable state $`|+++`$, when the map is followed by a local measurement of $`c`$ in the $`|+,|`$ basis.

In this letter we have investigated the conditions required to entangle two distant particles. We have shown that continuous interaction with a highly mixed ancilla can create entanglement *without* entangling the ancilla. We have also shown that entanglement can be created by sending a *separable* ancilla, and that an analogous effect exists for quantum operations. These results easily generalize to multi-party systems: many particles interacting with a common ancilla, or an ancilla sent between each party in turn. Thus no entanglement is required to create entanglement, forcing us to abandon the picture of entanglement being sent *through* a quantum channel.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Lewenstein, J. M. Raimond, W. Zurek, and S. Popescu for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part by the E.C. (RESQ IST-2001-37559, HPMF-CT-2001-01209 (W.D.)) and the Kompetenznetzwerk ”Quanteninformationsverarbeitung” der Bayerischen Staatsregierung.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this letter a measurement of the production rate of $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ pairs from gluons in hadronic Z decays is described. The selection relies on tagging semileptonic decays of the c quarks from gluon splitting, and makes use of several discriminating variables related to the event topology.

The rate of gluon splitting to $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ pairs is defined as

$$g_{\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}}=\frac{N(\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{g},\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}})}{N(\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{hadrons})}.$$
(1)
Measuring $`g_{\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}}`$ is an important test of perturbative QCD at the Z scale. The processes $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ and $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ are also significant backgrounds for several analyses involving heavy quarks. For example, one third of the total experimental uncertainty on $`R_\mathrm{b}`$ comes from these processes . Furthermore, gluon splitting to heavy quarks is a background for Higgs boson searches .

The theoretical treatment of the production of heavy quarks from gluons is described in  and the rate $`g_{\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}}`$ is predicted to be in the range $`1.4\%`$ to $`2.5\%`$.

Previous measurements have been performed using a $`\mathrm{D}^{}`$ tag , a lepton tag  or event shape variables . The lepton tag currently provides the most precise results.

## 2 The ALEPH detector

A detailed description of the ALEPH detector can be found in  and of its performance in . A brief overview is given in this section.

Charged particles are detected in the central part of the apparatus, consisting of a high resolution silicon strip vertex detector (VDET), a cylindrical drift chamber (ITC) and a large time projection chamber (TPC). The three tracking detectors are immersed in a 1.5 T axial magnetic field provided by a superconducting solenoid. They are surrounded by the calorimetric system, consisting of the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), the hadron calorimeter (HCAL) and the muon chambers.

The VDET  lies at the core of the tracking system. It is made of two layers, at average radii of 6.5 and 11.3 cm, each providing measurements in both the $`r\varphi `$ and $`rz`$ projections, with a resolution of $`12\mu `$m for $`r\varphi `$ coordinates and varying between 12 and $`22\mu `$m for $`z`$ coordinates, depending on the track polar angle $`\theta `$. The angular coverage is $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.85`$ for the inner layer and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.69`$ for the outer layer.

The ITC measures up to eight coordinates per track in the $`r\varphi `$ projection, with a resolution of $`150\mu `$m.

The TPC provides up to 21 three-dimensional coordinates per track, with resolutions in the $`r\varphi `$ and $`rz`$ projections of $`180\mu `$m and $`500\mu `$m, respectively. The TPC also provides up to 338 measurements of the specific energy loss by ionization ($`dE/dx`$); this allows electrons to be distinguished from other charged particles by more than three standard deviations up to a momentum of 8 GeV/$`c`$.

The ECAL is a sampling calorimeter covering the angular range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.98`$, segmented in $`0.9^{}\times 0.9^{}`$ projective towers, read out in three longitudinal stacks. The nominal thickness of the calorimeter is 22 radiation lengths. The energy resolution for isolated electrons and photons is $`\sigma _E/E=0.009+0.18/\sqrt{E}`$, with $`E`$ measured in GeV.

The hadron calorimeter (HCAL) is composed of 23 layers of streamer tubes interleaved with iron slabs. The total iron thickness corresponds to about 7 interaction lengths at normal incidence.

Electrons are identified by the characteristic longitudinal and transverse development of their associated showers in the ECAL. The $`dE/dx`$ information from the TPC is used to enhance the hadron rejection power, while non-prompt electrons originating from photon conversions in the detector material are rejected on the basis of their kinematical and geometrical properties.

Muons are identified by their penetration pattern in the HCAL; the additional three-dimensional coordinates measured in two double layers of external muon chambers help in resolving the remaining possible ambiguities.

The lepton identification technique is described in detail in , with minimum momentum cuts of $`2`$ GeV$`/c`$ for electrons and $`2.5`$ GeV$`/c`$ for muons.

## 3 Preselection

The analysis is based on the LEP$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ data set, which consists of about 3.9 million $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ decays collected by ALEPH from 1991 to 1995. The analysis makes also use of 8.7 million simulated $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events, 5.1 million $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ events, 2.3 million $`\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ events, and 1.8 million signal events each containing the $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ process. The generator is based on JETSET 7.3 , and all events are passed through a detailed simulation of the detector based on GEANT$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ . Simulated events are reweighted to take into account the latest world average of $`g_{\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}`$.

The method relies on the analysis of events clustered into three jets, where an electron or a muon is found in the least energetic jet (taken to be the gluon jet candidate). Additional discrimination between signal and background is obtained using variables related to the event topology.

First, events with a small value of the thrust are selected ($`T<0.94`$). Figure 1 shows the thrust distribution for data and simulated hadronic events, together with the distribution of signal events. For the events selected, particles are clustered into three jets, using the JADE algorithm  (“E scheme”). The energies of the jets are recalculated by enforcing energy and momentum conservation, under the assumptions that jet directions are perfectly measured and that jets are massless, as

$$E_i=E_{\mathrm{cm}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi _{jk}}{\mathrm{sin}\psi _{jk}+\mathrm{sin}\psi _{ij}+\mathrm{sin}\psi _{ik}},$$
(2)
where $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the centre-of-mass energy and $`\psi _{ij}`$ is the angle between jets $`i`$ and $`j`$. Non-planar events, for which Eq. 2 does not hold, are rejected by requiring $`\psi _{12}+\psi _{23}+\psi _{31}>358^{}`$. The jet energies calculated in this way are used to order the three jets by decreasing energy.

Lepton candidates are searched for, following the same procedure as in . In the present analysis the cut on the distance of closest approach of the lepton track to the beam axis ($`d_0`$) is tightened to $`d_0<0.1`$ cm, to improve the rejection of leptons from K or $`\pi `$ decay. Events with an identified lepton belonging to the third jet are retained for further analysis.

This preselection yields 13363 events, out of which 5639 contain an electron candidate and 7724 a muon candidate. The composition of the two subsamples evaluated with simulated events is shown in Table 1: the flavour content of the background is substantially different in the two cases. The larger fraction of light quark events for the muon subsample is related to the contamination of pions. The fraction of different particle types contributing to the samples of muon and electron candidates is shown in Table 2, where prompt lepton indicates a lepton originating from the decay of a heavy flavour particle.

## 4 The extraction of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$

The purity of the selected sample is inadequate to perform a measurement of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ with a meaningful precision. Additional variables are needed to provide further separation between the signal and the $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ background, as follows.

* After the preselection cut mentioned in Section 3, as clearly visible from the distributions in Fig. 1, the thrust $`𝑻`$ retains some discriminating power between the (multi-jet-like) signal events and the bulk of the $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ background.
* Each event is divided into two hemispheres by a plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. The confidence levels $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (hereafter called b-tag probabilities ) that the charged particle tracks of each hemisphere originate from the primary vertex provide a tag against $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ events and, to a lesser extent, $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ events.
* The b-tag probability $`𝒃_{\mathbf{}}`$ and the momentum $`𝑷_{\mathbf{}}`$ of the tagged lepton in the third jet also contribute to the aforementioned anti-b-tag capability.
* Conversely, the projection $`𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬}}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of the missing momentum along the axis of the third jet is largest for $`𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ decays, and is therefore discriminant against $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐮\overline{𝐮}\mathbf{,}𝐝\overline{𝐝}`$ and $`𝐬\overline{𝐬}`$ events, for which the missing momentum direction is mostly random. This variable is statistically almost as powerful as the third jet mass, used for instance in . However, the latter is not included in the present analysis because it is found to depend on details of the fragmentation model and to be inadequately reproduced by the simulation.
* Finally, the relative discriminating power of the variables mentioned above varies with the third jet polar angle. The cosine $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}`$ of the tagged lepton polar angle is therefore added to better control this dependence.

These variables are combined with an artificial neural network into single discriminants, $`𝑵_𝐞`$ and $`𝑵_𝝁`$, for the electron and the muon samples separately. The neural network is trained with half the simulated $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ sample and half the simulated signal sample. The remaining statistics, together with the $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ and the $`\text{Z}\mathbf{}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ simulated samples, are used to determine the selection efficiencies.

As an example, the discriminant power of $`𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬}}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is shown in Fig. 2, where the distributions of the signal and background components are compared (normalized to the same area). Figure 3 shows the agreement between data and simulation for the variables with highest discriminating power, at preselection level.

The distributions of $`𝑵_𝐞`$ and $`𝑵_𝝁`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The separation between signal and background is worse for the muon subsample, due to the high contamination of non-prompt muons in the preselected sample.

The cuts on $`𝑵_𝐞`$ and $`𝑵_𝝁`$ are chosen to be 0.55 and 0.45 in order to minimize the total uncertainty on $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$. This final selection cut yields 2258 events with an electron candidate and 3332 events with a muon candidate. The sample composition is estimated from the simulation, and is shown in Table 3.

The value of the gluon splitting rate is extracted as

$$𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒈_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathbf{)}\mathit{ϵ}_𝑸\mathbf{}𝒈_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathit{ϵ}_𝑩}{\mathit{ϵ}_𝑪\mathbf{}\mathit{ϵ}_𝑸}\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
where $`𝒇`$ is the fraction of events selected in the data. The selection efficiencies $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑸`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑪`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑩`$ for events with, respectively, no gluon splitting, gluon splitting in $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$, and gluon splitting in $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ are estimated from the simulation (Table 4).

In the calculation of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$, $`𝒈_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ is fixed to the latest world average value $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.54}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.51}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ . The results extracted from the two subsamples are $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.32}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.28}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.99}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$, where the errors only account for the statistical uncertainty on $`𝒇`$.

## 5 Systematic errors

The sources of uncertainty on the selection efficiencies given in Table 4 are discussed in this section. The resulting systematic uncertainties on $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ are summarized in Table 8.

1. Statistics of the simulation
The statistical uncertainties on the selection efficiencies translate to $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.13}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{\%}`$.
2. Gluon splitting to $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ pairs
The uncertainty on $`𝒈_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ yields $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\mathbf{\%}`$.
3. Thrust cut
The efficiency of the thrust cut is found to be slightly but significantly different in data and simulation. The effect is taken into account by reweighting the simulated efficiencies to the data efficiencies. If no reweighting is performed, a shift is observed in the result: $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{\%}`$. This shift is taken as an error estimate, with full correlation between the two channels.
4. Heavy quark properties
The lifetimes of the b hadrons determine the impact parameter distribution of the decay products,which is the basis of the “anti-b tag” method used in this analysis. Their experimental values are taken from ; the uncertainties translate to $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{\%}`$.

The semileptonic branching ratios of c and b hadrons  affect the flavour composition of the samples. Their uncertainties and their influence on the result of the analysis are shown in Table 5.

The energy spectra of leptons coming from $`𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$, $`𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ and $`𝐛\mathbf{}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ decays have been tuned and varied as in , and the effect has been propagated to the measured gluon splitting rate as shown in Table 5.

The $`𝒙_𝑬\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝒑_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{/}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}\mathbf{)}`$ distribution of the heavy hadrons affects their decay length distribution and the momenta of their decay products. The uncertainty coming from the limited knowledge of this quantity has been evaluated by varying the mean $`𝒙_𝑬^{\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒙_𝑬^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}`$ within their estimated errors: $`\mathbf{}𝒙_𝑬^{\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.702}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}`$, $`\mathbf{}𝒙_𝑬^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.484}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}`$ , obtaining $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{\%}`$, respectively.
5. Lepton identification efficiency
The charm particles produced from gluon splitting are generally of low energy and this has two consequences for the lepton selection. Close to the lower momentum cut-offs the identification efficiency for the electrons degrades due to the poorer relative energy resolution of the calorimeter, whilst for the muons there is an increasing level of backgrounds from $`𝝅`$ and K decays, as discussed in (vi). The systematic error associated to the lepton identification efficiency is estimated as in . The resulting effect is $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{\%}`$.
6. Fake and non-prompt leptons
A light hadron (K, $`𝝅`$), or a light hadron decaying to a muon within the tracking volume ($`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝁`$, $`𝝅\mathbf{}𝝁`$), can be selected by the muon identification algorithm with a certain probability. A reliable estimate of such a mistag probability is important for the evaluation of the purity of the selected sample, derived from simulated events.

Two high-purity samples of light hadrons are selected, and the muon selection efficiencies in data and simulation are compared.

The first sample is selected inclusively by means of a dedicated “uds” tag, designed to select event hemispheres that do not contain decay products of heavy flavoured particles. Such a tag is based on the presence of secondary vertices, on the momentum of the fastest charged particle, on the total visible energy and, if a lepton candidate is present, on its transverse momentum with respect to the jet axis. Tracks are selected in the opposite hemisphere with the muon identification kinematic cuts as in Section 3.

A second sample is obtained by reconstructing $`𝐊_𝐒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays, as in . The candidates are required to have a decay length larger than 1 cm, and an invariant mass in a window of width $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.014}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.3}𝑷_𝐊\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ around the nominal $`𝐊_𝐒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mass. The contamination of prompt muons from heavy flavour decays is further reduced by applying a soft uds tag to the hemisphere opposite to the $`𝐊_𝐒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidate.

The number of tracks selected and identified as muon in data and simulation are shown, for the two samples, in Tables 6 and 7. The mistag probability in the data is calculated after subtracting the prompt muon component estimated from the simulation.

The two samples consistently indicate that the mistag probability is higher in data than in the simulation, by the ratios $`\mathbf{1.17}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}`$ and $`\mathbf{1.15}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}`$. A correction factor of $`\mathbf{1.17}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ has been conservatively applied to the simulation. The resulting uncertainty on the measurement is $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.50}\mathbf{\%}`$.

For electrons an uncertainty of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ is assigned to the rate of misidentified hadrons, and of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ to the rate of photon conversions , yielding $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}\mathbf{\%}`$.
7. Generators
The modelling of the $`𝐠\mathbf{}𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ process affects the selection efficiencies and hence the value of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$. The process can be described in terms of three basic variables: the energy $`𝑬_𝐠`$ of the gluon, its effective mass $`𝒎_𝐠^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the decay angle $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ of the c quark, measured in the gluon rest frame. The distributions of these variables as given by the JETSET generator are reweighted to match the prediction of the HERWIG generator , and the difference observed in the measured value of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. The procedure yields $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.26}\mathbf{\%}`$ for the effect of $`𝑬_𝐠`$ and $`𝒎_𝐠^{\mathbf{}}`$ (which are strongly correlated), $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.12}\mathbf{\%}`$ for the angular distribution.
8. Mass of the charm quark
The mass of the charm quark is taken to be $`\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}`$ GeV/$`𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. A shift in the charm mass results in a variation of the $`𝑬_𝐠`$ and $`𝒎_𝐠^{\mathbf{}}`$ distributions. The corresponding uncertainties on the measured values are $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.19}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝚫𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}\mathbf{\%}`$.

## 6 Consistency checks

### 6.1 Stability of the neural network cuts

The stability of the results is checked against the cuts on $`𝑵_𝐞`$ and $`𝑵_𝝁`$. Figure 5 shows, for the electron and muon subsamples, the variation of the results versus the cuts, together with the statistically uncorrelated error. No significant dependence is observed.

### 6.2 Analysis of simulated events

In the simulation, without reweighting, the fraction of hadronic events with a gluon splitting to a $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ pair is $`\mathbf{1.79}\mathbf{\%}`$. The analysis applied to simulated events yields $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.70}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.75}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.29}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$, consistent with the input value.

### 6.3 Shape of $`𝑵_𝐞`$ and $`𝑵_𝝁`$

The shape of the neural network output distributions for the electron and the muon samples is shown in Fig. 4. The agreement between data and simulation over the whole range confirms that the excess observed in the data is compatible with originating from gluon splitting to $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$. A fit of $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ to this shape would have therefore been feasible and would have (marginally) improved the statistical accuracy of the measurement. However, because this shape is expected to be sensitive to details of the fragmentation simulation, the already dominant systematic uncertainty would have increased accordingly, thus reducing the significance of the measurement.

## 7 Results and conclusions

The rate of gluon splitting to a $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ pair in hadronic Z decays has been measured from samples containing an electron or a muon candidate:

$`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝐞`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{3.32}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.28}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.42}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}^𝝁`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{2.99}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.72}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{.}`$
The two results are combined with the correlations between systematic uncertainties taken into account using the BLUE technique . The combined final ALEPH result is

$`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{3.26}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.42}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{.}`$
This result is in agreement with the other measurements  and with the present world average $`𝒈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.96}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$ .

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our colleagues from the accelerator divisions for the successful operation of LEP. It is also a pleasure to thank the engineers and technicians of the collaborating institutions for their support in constructing and maintaining the ALEPH experiment. Those of us from non-member states thank CERN for its hospitality.