text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is of crucial importance to know the precise value of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant, both in Nuclear and in Particle physics. Together with the pion mass this coupling scales the nuclear interaction. Through the Goldberger-Treiman relation  it tests chiral symmetry. From this last relation one expects an accuracy in its value of about 1% as has been discussed in details in Ref. . Some further recent considerations on this relation and its implications for the $`\pi NN`$ coupling can be found, for instance, in Ref. .

In the 1980, the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant was believed to be well known. The analysis of $`\pi ^\pm p`$ scattering data  gives a value of $`14.28\pm 0.18`$ for the charged pion coupling constant. Forward dispersion relation analysis of pp scattering data  led to $`g_{\pi ^0}^2/4\pi =14.52\pm 0.40`$ for the neutral pion coupling constant. The Nijmegen group , in the 1990’s and on the basis of energy-dependent partial-wave analyses (PWA) of nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) scattering data, found smaller values. They obtained $`g_{\pi ^0}^2/4\pi =13.47\pm 0.11`$ and $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =13.58\pm 0.05`$. These values were confirmed in their more recent $`NN`$ PWA analyses . The Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) group  from analysis of both $`\pi ^\pm N`$ and $`NN`$ data has obtained also low values around $`g_\pi ^2/4\pi =13.7`$. From a PWA for the $`\pi ^+`$p reaction a value of 13.45(14) was recently obtained . The very recent $`\pi `$ and pion-photo-production  PWA VPI analyses give values of $`13.73\pm 0.10`$ and $`14.00\pm 0.13`$ respectively. Let us mention that some charge dependence has been also considered . All the determinations which rely on the analysis of large data bases from a great number of experiments, with some of the data rejected according to certain criteria, have a very good statistical accuracy. It is however difficult to assert them a clear systematic uncertainty.

A more direct determination is the use of the Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme (GMO) sum-rule  which, in principle, depends directly on physical observables. This was applied in particular in Ref.  giving a value of $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =13.75\pm 0.15`$ and very recently in Ref.  leading to $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =14.17\pm 0.17`$. Another direct method is based on the extrapolation to the pion pole of precise data on single-energy backward differential np cross sections. Both determinations allow a systematic discussion of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The use of the recent backward np Uppsala data at 162 MeV  and of a novel extrapolation method, the difference method, gives $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =14.52\pm 0.26`$ . Fairly new analysis of the recent PSI backward np data, with the classical Chew extrapolation and a conformal mapping method leads to $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =13.84\pm 0.43`$ . A summary of values for the coupling constant is given in Table 1. It can be seen that between the smallest and largest value there is a discrepancy of about 7%. The dispersion of the different $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ values can also be judged from Fig. 1.

Let us recall that, when using the np backward data, the experimental normalisation of the cross section is very important to the sensitivity. It is both the shape of the angular distribution at the most backward angles, and the absolute normalisation of the data, that are of crucial importance . The Nijmegen group has strongly criticised the Uppsala data at 162 MeV and its extrapolated result via the difference method . In particular in Ref.  it is claimed that there is a very strong model dependence of the difference method. It is the purpose of the present study to check the accuracy of the difference method and in particular, when applied to the precise 162 MeV Uppsala data we shall demonstrate, by choosing different models, that the model dependence is small and that for good reference models this method leads to a precision smaller than 2%.

The evidence that the backward peak of the np angular distribution is dominated by the one-pion exchange will be discussed in Sect. 2. The determination of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant through the extrapolation to the pion pole from models and np data is studied in Sect. 3, and some conclusions are given in Sect. 4.

## 2 Evidence for the one-pion exchange

It was early realized that the one-pion exchange (OPE) contributes importantly to the np charge exchange (CEX) at small momentum transfer. In Fig. 2 we have plotted the recent np CEX experimental differential cross section data measured at the Svedberg Laboratory at 162 MeV  as a function of $`q^2`$, square of the momentum transfer of the neutron to the proton. It can be seen that there is a strong peak at very small $`q^2`$. Note that in Fig. 2 $`q^2`$ is expressed in units of mπ, the charged pion mass. This differential cross section has a ”Coulomb like behaviour”, it goes to $`\mathrm{}`$, not at $`q^2=0`$ as in the photon-exchange case, but at $`q^2=m_\pi ^2`$, which corresponds to the pion pole of the OPE. The presence of this OPE pole very close to the physical region led Chew in 1958 to suggest a model-independent extrapolation to this pole which would allow to determine the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant . We here refer, for the interested reader, to the very detailed and well documented discussion concerning the OPE given in Ref. . We shall now recall the different methods of extrapolation which were considered in that same reference.

## 3 Extrapolation to the pion pole

### 3.1 Methods of extrapolation

The idea to extrapolate to the pion pole is to study a smooth physical function, the Chew function, built by multiplying the cross section by $`(q^2+m_\pi ^2)^2`$. This removes the pole term and the extrapolation can be made more safely and controllably. This function can be then fitted to the data in the physical region by a polynomial and extrapolated to the pole. One considers,

$$y(x)=\frac{(4\pi )^2sx^2}{m_\pi ^4g_R^4}\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)=\underset{\mathrm{i}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{n}1}{}}a_ix^i.$$
(1)
Here $`x=q^2+m_\pi ^2`$ and $`s`$ is the square of the total energy. At the pion pole $`x=0`$ and

$$y(0)a_0g_{\pi ^\pm }^4/g_R^4$$
(2)
where the pseudoscalar coupling constant $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi 14`$. The quantity $`g_R^2`$ is a reference scale for the coupling chosen for convenience. The model-independent extrapolation requires accurate data with absolute normalisation of the differential cross section. If the experimental differential cross section is incorrectly normalised by a factor $`N`$, the extrapolation determines $`\sqrt{N}g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$. This is one of the most important sources of uncertainty when extrapolating the data. The Chew method which has been the most used in the past requires at least 5 terms in the $`q^2`$ expansion .

A second method, which should improve the convergence of the Chew extrapolation, is the Ashmore method . It parameterises $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ in terms of a pion Born amplitude with the addition of a background term. Here we use the regularised pion Born amplitudes as given in Ref. . One expects also an important contribution to the np CEX from the $`\rho `$-meson exchange. We then use for the Ashmore background amplitude a pole term with adjustable strength simulating this $`\rho `$-meson exchange. This expression is fitted to the data and gives in principle a model-independent result for the coupling constant. More physics is built into the procedure, so fewer terms should be needed. More detailed expressions can be found in Ref .

In order to obtain an improvement in the extrapolation we have introduced the Difference Method . It is based on the Chew function, but it uses the fact that an important part of the cross section behaviour is described by models with exactly known values for the coupling constant. It applies the Chew method to the difference between the function $`y(x)`$ of a model and that of the experimental data, i.e.,

$$y_{Model}(x)y_{Exp}(x)=\underset{\mathrm{i}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{n}1}{}}d_ix^i.$$
(3)
If $`g_R`$ of Eq. (1) is replaced by the model value $`g_{Model}`$, one has at the pion pole,

$$y_{Model}(0)y_{Exp}(0)d_0\frac{g_{Model}^4g_{\pi ^\pm }^4}{g_{Model}^4}.$$
(4)
This should decrease systematic extrapolation uncertainties and remove a substantial part of the non-OPE information at large momentum transfers. We have formally not introduced a model dependence by using such a comparison function and such procedures are used in many contexts of physics to obtain better transparency and precision. One has to calibrate the method, that is, to find the precision to which the coupling constant can be determined and the possible systematic uncertainties that are associated with the extrapolation procedure.

### 3.2 Application to models

We now want to cross-check to which precision can work the difference method in the extrapolation to the pion pole. We shall first apply it to models where the coupling is exactly known. This allows to investigate its properties and in particular its systematics. In order to determine the systematic uncertainties in the procedures we have generated pseudo-data with uncertainties corresponding to the Uppsala 162 MeV experiment from 10000 computer simulations using exact data points from different models with a Gaussian, random error distribution . One has for a given pseudo-measurement m,

$$y_m^{Pseudodata}(x)=y^{Model}(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }y_m(x)$$
(5)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y_m(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }y^{Uppsala}(x)\sqrt{2Log(R_{1m})}cos(\pi R_{2m}).$$
(6)
In Eq. 6 $`R_{im}`$, for i=1, 2, are random numbers between 0 and 1 when m varies from 1 to 10000.

In the context of the workshop we have asked R. A. Arndt to provide us with different models from his $`NN`$ energy dependent PWA. One of the models, which we call A13.75, corresponds to the energy-dependent PWA of the $`pp`$ and np data from 0 to 400 MeV  with a minimisation on $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ . The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ on the $`NN`$ data is obtained for a coupling constant of 13.75. The second model we consider is built from the previous one with all parameters kept fixed, except the value of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant which is lowered down from 13.75 to 12.83, let us denote this model as A12.83g. A third model, denoted DA99, was also given to us but with an unknown coupling constant. We shall here apply the three methods described in section 3.1 in order to attempt to determine this coupling constant, considering the predictions of this model as pseudo-data. The differential cross section at 162 MeV of the model DA99 is compared to that of the Uppsala experiment in Fig. 2.

Results are listed in Tables 2 and 3, $`n`$ being the number of terms in the polynomial fit of the ’pseudo-data’. As for each calculation we performed 10000 pseudo-experiments, $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ is the average $`\chi ^2`$ per degrees of freedom, $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ is the mean value of the coupling constant and the errors quoted are the standard deviations which, in fact, are very close to the average value of the error of every pseudo-experiment. We also give, for the models A12.83g and A13.75, the systematic deviation $`\delta g_{\pi ^\pm }^2`$ of the mean value from the true value in the model. We have then a control on systematic extrapolation errors and can calibrate the corresponding corrections. The data is grouped in two intervals, the first one with $`0<q^2<4m_\pi ^2`$ called ’reduced range’ with 31 data points, corresponding to the previous Uppsala experiment  and the second one with $`0<q^2<10.1m_\pi ^2`$ denoted ’full range’ with 54 data points corresponding to the latest experiment . This allows to examine the sensitivity and stability of the extrapolation to a given cut in momentum transfer and to check that it is the small $`q^2`$ region that carries an important part of the pion pole information. As a function of $`n`$ the behaviour of $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ is characteristic: it drops quickly with increasing $`n`$ to a value close to unity. Additional terms give only small benefits, and the data become over-parameterised. One can then adopt different statistical strategies leading to similar results. One is to take results at the minimum $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$. This minimum is usually a shallow one, and values of $`n`$ close to $`n`$ of $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ minimum are almost equally probable statistically. Another possibility is to pick up $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ from one of the smallest values of $`n`$ consistent with a $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ well within the range expected from the experimental sample. We recall the reader that here there is about 47% probability of the experimental $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ to be larger than unity, and about 25% for it to be larger than 1.15.

For the Chew method a good fit is performed with a fourth order polynomial in $`q^2`$ for the reduced range, but with a large systematic downward shift of 0.71 for both ’A12.83g’ and ’A13.75’ PWA’s as compared to the original model values. With a third order polynomial fit the statistical error becomes smaller, but the systematic shift is unreasonably large viz. 2.43 and 2.48 respectively. In the full range , one or two more terms are needed to obtain a good fit. In any case a systematic shift remains even when a perfect fit is obtained, but at the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ it is always less than the statistical and extrapolation uncertainty. The ’DA99’ pseudo-data for both ranges give slightly different results for $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ at minimum $`\chi ^2`$, but if one applies the corresponding systematic shift one obtains the same value of 14.27(86).The statistical and extrapolation error is rather large so we do not obtain a precise determination of the coupling constant using this method. Fig. 3 shows the fit of the model DA99 in the reduced range together with its Chew-function (Eq. 1) extrapolations for n=4 (dotted line) and n=5 (solid line). The n=5 fit is better for $`q^2`$ above 2 m$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\pi }{}^{}`$.

For the Ashmore method a good description is achieved in the reduced range with one term less in the expansion. This shows that the physics beyond the $`\pi `$-exchange is reasonably described by the $`\rho `$-exchange, as anticipated in section 3.1. The systematic shifts are similar to those of the Chew method. The statistical and extrapolation error, when one stands close to the minimum $`\chi ^2`$, is however smaller. Once corrected by the mean value of the systematic shifts of the models the pseudo-data gives a $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2`$ of 14.25(47) with a central value very close to the previous result. In the full range the needed number of terms to get a good $`\chi ^2`$ is also smaller and the corrected value for n=5 is 14.37(35). Although the statistical and extrapolation accuracy has improved, this method also appears to lack the high accuracy we would like to have. The excellent fit to the model DA99 is drawn in Fig. 4 for the full range with the Ashmore parameterisation  with 5 terms.

The Difference Method should need less terms in the polynomial expansion than the two above methods, and this will give a smaller, statistical extrapolation error. Recall that the statistical extrapolation errors are only meaningful if $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ is close to 1. The fact that the angular distributions from the pseudo-data and models might be alike can help, in particular for large $`q^2`$. This can add more physical information without introducing in principle any model dependence. We use the two reference models studied above. Results are given in Tables 2 and 3 for the reduced and full ranges, respectively. The pion-pole extrapolations of the $`n`$-term polynomial fits of the Difference Method, on the the reduced and full ranges for the model DA99, are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the comparison models A12.83g and A13.75, respectively. The error bars increase at large $`x`$, which is due to the multiplication of the cross section by $`x^2`$, giving a smaller weight for the large $`q^2`$ region when extrapolating. The difference behaviour is slightly smoother with the reference model ’A13.75’, however it can be seen that in all cases 4 and 5 terms are necessary to have a good fit in the reduced and full range, respectively. In the full range, as one has more points, one gets a better statistical extrapolation error, this applies also to the difference between reference models which gives a check on the systematic uncertainties in the extrapolation. Both ranges have systematic shifts below 1%.

Averaging the values at minimum $`\chi ^2`$ (values in boldface in Tables 2 and 3) from the Difference-Method extrapolations one gets, over the reduced range,

$`\sqrt{N}g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`14.07\pm 0.32(\text{statistical + extrapolation})`$
$`\pm 0.11(\text{systematic})\pm 0.16(\text{normalisation})`$
$`=`$ $`14.07\pm 0.37,`$
i.e. an accuracy of 2.6 %, and over the full range,

$`\sqrt{N}g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`14.14\pm 0.25(\text{stat. + extr.})\pm 0.08(\text{syst.})\pm 0.16(\text{norm.})`$
$`=`$ $`14.14\pm 0.31,`$
which corresponds to an accuracy of 2.2 %. The results are fairly close which substantiates our statement on the relevant information being nearly entirely at low $`q^2`$. In view of the somewhat larger extrapolation uncertainty in the case of the reduced range, we take the full range value, 14.14(31), which compares quite well with the exact value of the model DA99 which is 14.28. Using the experimentally given statistics of the 162 MeV Uppsala data, the difference method has allowed us to determine the unknown DA99 coupling to less than 1 % within an uncertainty of 2.2 %.

### 3.3 Application to data

We shall now apply the difference method to the 162 MeV Uppsala data  to cross-check the precision of the $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ determination of Ref. . We here consider different reference models than those used in . Besides the three comparison models considered in the previous section we also use two more PWA fit of the $`pp`$ and np data from 0 to 400 MeV with $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ fixed to 12.83 (model A12.83) and 14.28 (model A14.28) . In Table 4 we give the total $`\chi ^2`$ and the $`\chi ^2`$/data on the 3747 np data considered for all the models we study here. We also recall their $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ together with the corresponding pseudovector coupling $`f_c^2/4\pi `$, related to $`g_{4\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ by $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2=f_c^2(2M_{M_N}/m_{\pi ^\pm })^2`$ with $`M_N`$ average proton-neutron mass. As for the model A12.83g, the model A14.28g (DA99) was obtained from the model A13.75 with all parameters kept fixed but increasing the $`\pi NN`$ coupling from 13.75 to 14.28. Predictions of all these comparison models for the 162 MeV Uppsala data are shown in Fig. 2.

Results for the reduced and full range are listed in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. The A12.83g comparison model requires 4 terms in the reduced range and 5 in the full one. Figure 7 shows that there is some edge effect in the reduced range at $`q^2=4m_\pi ^2`$. For the model A12.83 one needs also 4 terms in the reduced range. The obtained value, 14.37(31) is quite consistent with those determined in the model A12.83g, either in the reduced range, 14.69(31) or in the full range, 14.41(24). In the full range the minimum is very shallow and the $`n=4(\chi ^2/N_{df}=1.18)`$ and $`n=5(\chi ^2/N_{df}=1.16)`$ values, 13.65(14) and 13.94(25), respectively, are compatible. The lower value, 13.65(14), is however not compatible with the value, 14.37(31) of the reduced range at $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$ minimum, We shall then retain, in the full range for the A12.83 model, the $`n=5`$ determination, 13.94(25). Figure 8 shows as before the necessity to have at least 4 or 5 terms to obtain a good fit. In the reduced range 3 terms are here sufficient with the reference model A13.75 leading to $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi =14.50(12)`$ while in the full range $`\chi ^2`$ minimum is reached with 4 terms with a value of 14.38(14). Figure 9 shows in both range a smoother behaviour than before. In the A14.28 and A14.28g case one needs the same number of terms as for A13.75 but the corresponding $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ are somewhat larger and not always compatible with previous values. Curves for the extrapolation are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Applying the difference method between models (see also Tables 2 and 3) shows relatively large systematics which allows to understand this dispersion.

Let us here remind the reader that the difference method analysis is quite consistent. One can check, in the Tables 2, 3, 5 and 6, that, at a given $`n`$ value, the difference between the results of the difference method for the reference models and data is very close to the systematic shift between the two models. One has,

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi (n,\text{Model A}\text{Uppsala})`$ $``$ $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi (n,\text{Model B}\text{Uppsala})`$ (7)
$``$ $`\delta g_{\pi ^\pm }^2(n,\text{Model A}\text{Model B}).`$
For instance if we compare in the full range the $`n=4`$, (A13.75 $``$ Uppsala) result to that of (A12.83g $``$ Uppsala) we have a difference (see Table 6) of 0.59 (14.38 - 13.79) which is close to the systematic shift between these models .65 (see Table 3 ). In Ref.  where the comparison models were the Nijmegen potential , the Nijmegen  (NI93) and Virginia  (SM95) energy dependent PWA’s, dispersion of results were smaller. This could be traced to the fact that these models, where $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ has been minimised with respect to the $`NN`$ data, have a high $`q^2`$ momentum more similar to that of the Uppsala data.

Summarising these results we take for $`g^2`$ the following average in the reduced range

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}[14.69(31)+14.37(31)+14.50(12)+14.96(12)+14.94(12)]`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`14.69(20)`$
It is here only the second value (from A12.83$``$Uppsala) which is slightly outside the range of the 2 last values from A14.28 and A14.28g

Taking half of the average of $`|\delta g_{\pi ^\pm }^2|`$ between models at $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=1.00`$ for the estimation of the systematic uncertainty (see Table 5) we obtain

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`14.69\pm 0.20\text{(stat. + extr.)}\pm 0.15\text{(syst.)}\pm 0.17\text{(norm.)}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`14.69(30)`$
i.e. an accuracy of 2 %. For the full range (see Table 6) we have

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}[14.41(24)+13.94(25)+14.38(14)+14.83(13)+14.75(13)]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`14.46(18)`$
Adding the systematic (estimated as above) and normalisation errors we obtain

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`14.46\pm 0.18\text{(stat.+ extr.)}\pm 0.15\text{(syst.)}\pm 0.17\text{(norm.)}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`14.46(29)`$
i.e. again an accuracy of 2%. Note that for A12.83 $``$ A14.28 we need to go to $`n=7`$ to get $`\chi ^2/N_{df}=1.00`$ with a $`\delta g_{\pi ^\pm }^2`$ of $``$0.36. The value of Eq. (11) is to be compared to the value we determined in Ref. , viz.

$`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ $`=`$ $`14.52\pm 0.13\text{(stat.+ extr.)}\pm 0.15\text{(syst.)}\pm 0.17\text{(norm.)}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`14.52(26)`$
i.e. an accuracy of 1.8%. It is seen that both determination, Eqs. (11) and (12), are very close. The determination of Ref. , Eq. (12) has a better statistical extrapolation error which can be understood as the comparison model have possibly a better determined high $`q^2`$ behaviour as just mentioned above.

## 4 Conclusions

This analysis of the 162 Mev Uppsala precise experiment on np charge exchange demonstrates here again that such data can be used for a direct and accurate determination of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. We reproduce the original coupling constant using the present procedures for pseudo-data from PWA’s as exemplified with the model DA99. The extrapolation error increases with the number of parameters. Our value is 7% larger than the Nijmegen  result $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2=13.58\pm 0.05`$, but it is consistent with values given in earlier data compilations based on the analysis of $`\pi N`$ and $`NN`$ scattering data .

The data have been used to determine a precise value for the charged $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant using extrapolation to the pion pole. Using the most accurate extrapolation method, the Difference Method, we find $`\sqrt{N}g_{\pi ^\pm }^2=14.46\pm 0.18`$ ($`f_{\pi ^\pm }^2=0.0800\pm 0.001`$) with a systematic error of about $`\pm 0.15`$ ($`\pm 0.0008`$) and a normalisation uncertainty of $`\pm 0.17`$ ($`\pm 0.0009`$). We do reproduce the input coupling constants of models using equivalent pseudo-data. The practical usefulness of the method, its precision and its relative insensitivity to systematics appear to be under control. The pseudo-data demonstrate that considerable precision is achieved statistically at a single energy. The absolute normalisation of the data is nevertheless crucial. The precision of the method used here has not yet reached its theoretical limit, but we can point out the key information necessary for this in the $`NN`$ sector. We need as precise as possible unpolarised differential cross sections with an absolute normalisation of 1 to 2% to reach a precision of about 1% in the coupling constant. For the Uppsala data an accurate normalisation  of 2.3 % was obtained using integration over the angular distribution. It was performed on the part they measured (from 72 to 180) and on the remaining one calculated from PWA’s and models. The result was scaled to the well known experimentally total cross section . It is important to extend the angular range of data, to be able to achieve an improved normalisation.

For that purpose there is, as we have heard  in this workshop, an experiment in progress at The Svedberg Laboratory. It will measure the np differential cross section in the forward hemisphere. This should hopefully determine the normalisation to 1 % and then lower down the accuracy on $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$ from 1.8 % to 1.5 %. To the question which was asked at this workshop “Does the difference method work at the 1 % level?” the answer is so far no, but as we have demonstrate it can work to less than 2 %, in particular with good reference models we obtained a precision of 1.8 %. Here with different reference models the precision reached was 2 %. Contrary to what was claimed in Ref.  we do not see a large model dependence, even using “extreme” models as the A12.83g with $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$=12.83 or $`f_c^2/4\pi `$=0.071. The model dependence is relatively small as can be judged from a comparison of the result here and that of Ref.  where while using different reference models the results agree within less than 0.5 %.

Let us also mention, as we were told  in this workshop that np backward measurement with tagged neutron beams (which leads to absolute normalisation) are in progress at IUCF for 185 $`T_{lab}`$ 195 MeV and $`90^{}<\theta <180^{}`$. If the very backward steeper shape of the Uppsala data as compared with earlier data  is confirmed together with its absolute normalisation then the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant cannot be as low as found, for instance, by the Nijmegen group. If the Uppsala data is correct and if the coupling constant is small then to reconciliate both, either the total cross section could be off or the angular distribution in the forward hemisphere could be different of what it is believed so far from PWA analyses. Hopefully the two above mentioned experiments in progress should help to clarify the situation. There will be also pp and np spin-transfer measurements which could be used to precise the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant .

In principle, an experiment at one single energy is enough to determine $`g_{\pi ^\pm }^2/4\pi `$, for all energies contain similar information. Although the method of analysis seems to work well, it is, however, useful to deduce the coupling constant from data at several energies. This would increase confidence that some unexpected systematic effect influences the conclusion.

We thank the The Svedberg Laboratory crew for the data. We are also grateful to J. Blomgren, M. Lacombe and N. Olsson for helpful discussions and to W.R. Gibbs for advice on producing pseudo-data from models. TE acknowledges an interesting discussion with M. Rentmeester and BL the hospitality of the The Svedberg Laboratory.

This work has been financially supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council and, grâce au Service Scientifique et Technique de l’Ambassade de France à Stockholm en Suède, par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères Français.


format: text

text:
# Nature of 45∘ vortex lattice reorientation in tetragonal superconductors

\[

## Abstract

The transformation of the vortex lattice in a tetragonal superconductor which consists of its 45 reorientation relative to the crys tal axes is studied using the nonlocal London model. It is shown that the reorientaton occurs as two successive second order (continuous) phase transitions. The transition magnetic fields are calculated for a range of parameters relevant for borocarbide superconductors in which the reorientation has been observed.

\]

Properties of the vortex matter have recently attracted great attention due to diversity of phases and novel phenomena associated with them. One of the main research goals is determination of the phase diagram. In high temperature superconductors the vortex matter phases include the vortex liquid and various vortex solids which exist due to the competition of intervortex interactions with fluctuations both thermal and those due to the quenched disorder.  On the other hand, in borocarbide superconductors a rich variety of quite perfect vortex crystals has been observed. The experimental information comes from such different measurements as neutron diffraction, decoration, and scanning tunneling microscopy. For these near isotropic materials the entropy contribution to the free energy is small and phase transitions in the vortex lattice are governed by competition between intervortex interactions of different symmetry.

The borocarbides are materials of the tetragonal symmetry. Interactions of this symmetry should exist for any physical subsystem of the crystal. In particular, in the mixed state with the field along the fourfold tetragonal axis they would favor a square vortex lattice. However, the standard magnetic repulsion of vortices is isotropic in this case. The isotropic interaction becomes dominant when the intervortex distance is large enough and a sparse lattice is close to hexagonal, the most closely packed two dimensional lattice. One, therefore, expects that the interplay of the interactions of different symmetries may result in structural transformations of the vortex lattices, observed in borocarbides.

For the applied magnetic field along the fourfold symmetry axis, these transformations are as follows. With decreasing magnetic field, the lattice undergoes a second order phase transition, at which the square structure loses stability and becomes a rhombic (distorted hexagonal) vortex lattice.  As the field further decreases, the rhombic lattice changes the orientation relative to underlying crystal by 45, which has been classified as the first order transition. For the field along the twofold axis, the 90 reorientation has been reported.

In this paper we study in detail the 45 reorientation and clarify its nature. We show that this reorientation proceeds as two successive second order (continuous) transitions and not as an abrupt first order transition, the scenario assumed before. Instead of considering a limited class of rhombic lattices, we study the general class of arbitrary lattices. We find that in the field region between the two second order phase transitions, the lattice with the lowest possible symmetry is realized (with the inversion being the only symmetry element). This intermediate region is quite narrow and the structural evolution in this field domain might be difficult to discern experimentally. However, the thermodynamic characteristics of the superconductor are different for the two scenarios, and this can be tested. In particular, no latent heat is expected during the lattice reorientation. We also predict a peak in the critical current in the transition region if the pinning is of a weak collective type. Below we describe the London model with nonlocal corrections relevant for the mixed state of borocarbides. Then, the numerical procedure is outlined and the results are presented

A fruitful approach to the problem of the vortex lattice phases is the extended London model. We start here with London equations corrected for nonlocality:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}j_i(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}q_{ij}(𝐤)a_j(𝐤)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}\left(m_{ij}^1\lambda ^2n_{ijlm}k_lk_m\right)a_j(𝐤).`$ (2)
Here, $`a_j=A_j+(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )_j\theta ,`$ $`A_j`$ is the vector potential, $`\theta `$ is the order parameter phase, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum. The nonlocal response kernel $`q_{ij}(𝐤)`$ is expanded up to the second order terms in the wave vector $`𝐤`$. The tensor $`n_{ijlm}v_iv_jv_lv_m\gamma (T,\mathrm{})`$ where $`𝐯`$ is the Fermi velocity and the function $`\gamma `$ decreases somewhat with temperature and drops fast for short mean-free paths $`\mathrm{}`$.  It is difficult to accurately estimate the components of $`\widehat{n}`$ because of uncertainties in determination of Fermi velocities and, in particular, of the mean-free path. At low temperatures, $`\widehat{n}\gamma /\kappa ^2`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the Ginzburg–Landau parameter. Since good crystals of borocarbides are clean materials with $`\kappa =10÷15`$, one expects the components of $`\widehat{n}`$ to be of the order $`10^2`$. Note also that for the problem of vortex lattices in fields well under the upper critical field, the correction $`\lambda ^2\widehat{n}k^2\xi _0^2k^21`$ ($`\xi _0`$ is the zero-$`T`$ coherence length). Therefore, for strong type-II superconductors, the corrections to the standard London equations and the truncation in the expansion (2) are well justified.

For the tetragonal symmetry, the tensor $`\widehat{n}`$ in the crystal frame has four independent components $`n_{xxxx}`$, $`n_{xxyy}`$, $`n_{zzzz}`$, and $`n_{xxzz}`$ The inverse mass tensor has two different components $`m_{xx}^1=m_{yy}^1`$ and $`m_{zz}^1`$. The London free energy functional corresponding to Eq. (2) reads

$$F=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}𝐤}{4\pi ^2}\left(|𝐡|^2\lambda ^2ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}k_jk_mq_{lk}^1h_nh_i\right)$$
(3)
where $`𝐡(𝐤)`$ is the magnetic field and $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the unit antisymmetric tensor. The nonlocal corrections preserve linearity of the London equations and do not change the standard London result that the interaction of two vortices is proportional to the field of one of them at the location of the other. As usual, the free energy density of a vortex lattice is given by $`F=\left(B^2/8\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)_𝐠h_z(𝐠)`$ where $`B`$ is the magnetic induction, $`𝐠`$ is a vector of the reciprocal lattice and $`h_z`$ is the component of the single vortex field along the vortex axes. We are interested in the field along the fourfold symmetry axis $`z`$. Solving Eq. (2) for a single vortex one can bring the free energy density to the form

$$F=\underset{𝐠}{}\frac{B^2/8\pi }{1+\lambda ^2g^2+\lambda ^4(ng^4+dg_x^2g_y^2)},$$
(4)
where $`n=n_{xxyy}`$ and $`d=2(n_{xxxx}3n_{xxyy}).`$ The free energy $`F(B,T)`$ is the thermodynamic potential, which is minimum in equilibrium of a superconducting slab in a perpendicular applied field. The temperature enters $`F(B,T)`$ via $`T`$ dependent parameters $`\lambda (T),`$ $`n(T)`$ and $`d(T)`$ that can, in principle, be calculated using a microscopic model. Note that besides the factor $`B^2`$, the induction enters via the area of the primitive lattice cell. We determine the stable lattice by numerical minimization of $`F(B,T;𝐠)`$ with respect to the lattice structure specified by a given set of $`𝐠`$’s.

The vortex lattice is completely defined by the basis vectors $`𝐚_1`$ and $`𝐚_2`$, i.e., by four parameters. Since a unit cell accommodates one flux quantum, $`a_1a_2\mathrm{sin}\beta =\mathrm{\Phi }_0/B`$, three parameters suffice. Following Ref. we choose $`\alpha `$, $`\rho (a_2/a_1)\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, and $`\sigma (a_2/a_1)\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ as the needed three (see Fig. 1 for definitions of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$). The parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are convenient because one can select a domain of their variation, each point of which corresponds to a lattice with various equivalent choices of the basis vectors $`𝐚_{1,2}`$. Thus, the minimization of $`F`$ is done at fixed $`B`$, $`n`$, and $`d`$ with respect to $`\rho ,\sigma `$ and $`\alpha `$ for $`0<\alpha <\pi `$, $`0\rho 0.5,`$ and $`\rho ^2+\sigma ^21`$. The minima of $`F`$ are often located on the boundaries of this domain; we use the “Amoeba” numerical routine convenient in such circumstances. The cutoff factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\xi ^2g^2\right)`$ was introduced inside the sum (4) to properly account for the failure of the London model in the vortex core. Changing parameters $`B`$ and $`n,d`$ we obtain the phase diagram.

The main finding of this work is that the reorientation of the lattice proceeds as two steps. Figure 2 shows the transition lines on the $`B,d`$ plane for a fixed $`n=0.015`$. The equilibrium lattices both before and after the reorientation have the rhombic symmetry $`D_{2h}`$. Their symmetry axes, which coincide with the diagonals of a rhombic unit cell (with the appropriate choice of such a cell, see Fig. 2), are aligned with $`[110]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ at lower magnetic inductions, whereas the symmetry axes are at $`[100]`$ and $`[0\overline{1}0]`$ for higher $`B`$’s. This result is in accordance with data for $`YNi_2B_2C`$. In a narrow region between the two rhombic phases, a less symmetric lattice is stable. Here, the unit cell is a general parallelogram. All in-plane symmetry elements disappear except the inversion, and the symmetry group reduces to $`C_{2h}.`$

One could describe the reorientation process as a gradual rotation of the unit cell accompanied by a slight deformation. Figure 3 shows how the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ change when $`B`$ increases in the vicinity of the reorientation (for $`d=0.05`$ and $`n=0.015`$). The transitions at $`B3.18\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \lambda )^2`$ and $`B3.27\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \lambda )^2`$ are seen clearly. The angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and the other lattice parameters are continuous at the two transition fields. We conclude that both phase transitions that occur during the reorientation are of the second order. The sequence of symmetry changes with the field decreasing is $`D_{2h}C_{2h}D_{2h}.`$ While at the first step of the reorientation, the symmetry becomes lower, at the second step the symmetry increases. Correspondingly, the ground state is double degenerate in both $`D_{2h}`$ phases; the degenerate vacua (two equilibrium structures of the same energy) are related by rotations over $`90^{}`$). The structure becomes four times degenerate in the intermediate $`C_{2h}`$ phase (rotations over $`\pm 45^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$). Practically, this may lead to apparently increased disorder in the $`C_{2h}`$ phase.

It is worth noting that the relative energy differences between the equilibrium $`C_{2h}`$ lattice and the rhombic ones is exceedingly small. As an example, we provide this figure for $`d=0.05`$ and $`n=0.015`$: the relative difference between energies of the rhombic lattice at the transition point and the lattice in the middle of the field domain of $`C_{2h}`$ structure is of the order $`10^7`$. This is much smaller than $`10^2`$ for the relative energy differences usually cited for triangular and square lattices within the standard London or Ginzburg–Landau models.

The location of the phase transition lines is sensitive to both $`n`$ (for the isotropic correction in Eq. (4)) and $`d`$ (of the four-fold symmetric correction). Figure 4 shows the phase diagram of the vortex lattice on $`B,d`$ and $`B,n`$ planes in the region of the reorientation process. The region of stability of the monoclinic lattice is broader for smaller $`n`$’s and larger $`d`$’s. Still, as is seen at Fig. 4, this field region is narrow for values of $`n`$ and $`d`$ adopted in our simulations. For example, for LuNi2B2C  with $`\lambda 710`$Å, the field unit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \lambda )^2`$ is about $`100`$G.

The new scenario of the lattice reorientation in a tetragonal superconductor which is found this paper has implications for thermodynamic characteristics of the vortex lattice and its dynamic behavior. We have found, and this is our main result, that the reorientation proceeds as two successive phase transitions of the second order when the applied field or temperature vary. Therefore, continuous variation of the entropy (i.e., no latent heat) and of the reversible magnetization are expected during reorientation. In contrast, the old scenario of the first order transition implied discontinuous jumps of the above quantities.

As is seen at Fig. 4, for small values of $`n`$ and $`d`$, the domain of monoclinic phase shrinks. Then, it would be difficult to distinguish experimentally this situation from 1st order transition, because the entropy would change fast with $`B`$ during the reorientation (for the $`B`$-sweep at a fixed $`T`$). Still, one should not observe hysteresis, characteristic of the 1st order transitions. If the sequence of transitions we suggest here is found, it would be of interest to suppress $`n`$ and $`d`$ by making the mean-free path shorter and to see how the transition evolves (as has been done with doping Lu-based borocarbide crystals with Co.)

Both the upper and lower phase transitions ($`D_{2h}C_{2h}`$) of the reorientation process cause uniform spontaneous deformations of the vortex lattice. As a result, a particular combination of the elastic lattice moduli vanishes at the transitions. It has been recently shown that a change of elastic properties of this type leads generally to peculiarities in the critical current, provided a weak collective pinning operates in the material. Therefore, the reorientation of the vortex lattice in borocarbides may lead to a peak in the critical current.

Finally, we would like to point to other possible applications of our results. The London model we employed reflects properly the symmetry of the system. It was originally derived for an anisotropic Fermi surface and isotropic superconducting pairing. However, the d-wave type of pairing also leads to a similar effective London model (for not very low temperature where the effects of the order parameter nodes become essential). The reorientation of the vortex lattice has indeed been found theoretically, and characterized as the first order transition. It would be of interest to check whether or not our scenario of the reorientation applies to this case as well.

This work is supported by NSC of Taiwan through the grants #89-2112-M-009-0016 and #89-2112-M-009-039.