text:
# Microscopic Magnetic Properties of (V1-xTix)2O3 near the Phase Boundary of the Metal-Insulator Transition

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic excitations from the anomalous metallic phase of V2O3 and its derivatives have received continued interest for more than three decades in connection with a famous temperature-induced metal-insulator transition (MIT) . Among various methods to stabilize the metallic phase against the antiferromagnetic insulating (AFI) phase, introducing V vacancies has extensively been studied in the last decade . While stoichiometric V2O3 remains paramagnetic once the metallic phase is stabilized by applying pressure , the ground state of metal-deficient V2-yO3 is a spin-density wave (SDW) state characterized by a small ordered moment ($``$0.15 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$) with a large fluctuating component ($``$0.32 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$) . 51V NMR, on the other hand, has revealed the existence of V4+-like magnetic “guest” sites in V2-yO3 , indicating a spatially inhomogeneous electronic state which is suspected to be incompatible with homogeneous SDW order .

Substitution of Ti for V also stabilizes the metallic phase, resulting in the SDW ground state similar to V2-yO3 . However, magnetic guest sites have not been detected yet in Ti-doped V2O3, which makes it a puzzle whether the SDW order is intrinsic to a homogeneous system or to the system with some sort of inhomogeneities like magnetic guests. In this paper, we report on the magnetic susceptibility and 51V NMR measurements on (V1-xTix)2O3 near the MIT phase boundary. We found the V3+-like guest sites distinguishable from the host site in both the AFI and paramagnetic metallic (PM) phases. The SDW order is therefore intrinsic to the doped V2O3 systems with a kind of magnetic impurities.

## 2 Experiments

Powder samples of (V1-xTix)2O3 were prepared by arc-melting of V2O3, Ti and TiO2 followed by annealing in H2 atmosphere at 950 C for 48 hours. Magnetic susceptibility was measured using a SQUID magnetometer. A clamp-type Cu-Be cell suited for the SQUID magnetometer  was used for the measurement of the susceptibility under pressure. NMR measurements were carried out with a coherent-type pulsed spectrometer.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Magnetic susceptibility and phase diagram

Figure 1 shows the temperature ($`T`$) dependence of the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ = $`M/H`$ ($`M`$ and $`H`$ being the magnetization and the external field, respectively) of (V1-xTix)2O3 measured at $`H=2`$ T on heating. The results are in good agreement with those reported in the literature  except that $`\chi `$ for $`x`$ = 0.045 and 0.046 are somewhat larger than the others. This comes from a nonlinear increase of $`M`$-$`H`$ curves at low fields for these samples due to a trace of ferromagnetic impurities, of which existence does not affect seriously the determination of transition temperatures because their response to the external field is scarcely dependent on $`T`$.

We can see from Fig. 1 that a sudden drop of $`\chi `$ signaling MIT disappears for $`x0.052`$. A kink then appears at low $`T`$ due to SDW ordering. The $`T`$-$`x`$ phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2. Here we defined the MIT temperature $`T_{\mathrm{MI}}`$ as a mid-point temperature of the rapid drop of $`\chi `$ due to MIT. $`T_{\mathrm{MI}}`$ decreases with $`x`$ almost linearly to $``$60 K in a rate $`dT_{\mathrm{MI}}/dx23`$ K/Ti % and is terminated at the critical concentration $`x_\mathrm{c}0.05`$. Above $`x_\mathrm{c}`$, Néel temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ appears at $``$18 K and increases gradually with $`x`$. The phase diagram clearly demonstrates that the MIT in (V1-xTix)2O3 with changing $`x`$ is not quantum critical but is strongly first order.

The bulk $`\chi `$ of (V0.954Ti0.046)2O3 under pressure is shown in Fig. 3. The most striking feature of the result is that both the anomalies due to MIT and SDW ordering are observable at 0.15 GPa. This suggests that the insulating and metallic phases coexist in some pressure region, i.e., MIT under pressure is first order as Ti doping. The resulting $`T`$-$`p`$ phase diagram is shown in the inset of Fig. 3. Applying pressure reduces $`T_{\mathrm{MI}}`$ in a rate $`dT_{\mathrm{MI}}/dp80`$ K/GPa which yields a scaling 0.29 GPa $``$ Ti % for the MIT. As opposed to Ti doping, $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ is suppressed by pressure, but the rate $`dT_\mathrm{N}/dp=5.3(2)`$ K/GPa is only one-fifth of that in V2-yO3 . $`dT_\mathrm{N}/dp`$ was found to decrease slightly with $`x`$ to $`4.6(2)`$ K/GPa for $`x=0.065`$.

### 3.2 51V NMR in the paramagnetic metallic phase

Field-swept 51V NMR spectra in the PM phase of (V0.945Ti0.055)2O3 are shown in Fig. 4. The spectrum is asymmetric with a tail at lower fields and is broadened significantly at low $`T`$. The asymmetric line profile suggests the existence of V sites having different crystallographic and/or magnetic environment from that in pure V2O3. We analyzed the spectrum by fitting to the sum of two Voigt functions on the assumption that there exists another V site or the “guest” site in addition to the “host” site. The results are also shown in Fig. 4. The intensity ratio between the host (dashed line) and the satellite (dashed-dotted line corresponding to the guest) resonances is about $`4:1`$ and is almost $`T`$-independent. This ratio can be understood by considering that the satellite signal at lower fields comes from V nuclei with at least one Ti atom on the four neighboring V sites, because in that case the intensity ratio is $`0.797:0.203=3.93:1`$, agreeing well with the observed one. The guest site should be in the V3+-like electronic state as the host site, because Ti atoms exist as trivalent ions in (V1-xTix)2O3 .

The $`T`$ dependence of the NMR shifts $`K^h`$ and $`K^g`$ ($`h`$ and $`g`$ denote host and guest, respectively) at the V sites is shown in Fig. 5. $`K^h`$ takes a maximum around 60 K, following the NMR shift of 51V in V2O3 under pressure  as in V2-yO3 . On the other hand, $`K^g`$ decrease gradually with decreasing $`T`$ and exhibits an upturn below about 60 K. The different $`T`$ dependence of $`K^h`$ and $`K^g`$ indicates that the $`d`$-spin susceptibilities of host and guest sites behave rather differently. We also showed in Fig. 5 the scale of the $`d`$-spin susceptibility $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ for the observed shift $`K`$ calculated using the relation $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}=(KK_{\mathrm{orb}})/A_{\mathrm{spin}}`$ ($`i=h,g`$). Here $`K_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is the shift due to Van-Vleck orbital susceptibility and $`A_{\mathrm{spin}}`$ is the $`d`$-spin hyperfine coupling constant, for which the values in V2O3, $`A_{\mathrm{spin}}=132`$ kOe/$`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{orb}}=1.45`$ %  were used. Noted that the host $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ never vanishes in the $`T0`$ limit after making a round maximum around 60 K as in V2O3 under pressure . The origin of the $`T`$ dependence of $`\chi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ for the host as well as the guest sites is not clear at present and remains as a future problem.

### 3.3 51V NMR in the antiferromagnetic insulating phase

We have also observed the satellite in the zero-field 51V NMR spectrum in the AFI state. As shown in Fig. 6, the satellite appears at lower frequencies of the host resonance. The intensity of the satellite increases with $`x`$, suggesting that the satellite signal comes from V nuclei near Ti atoms. The hyperfine fields determined from the peak positions of the spectrum are listed in Table 1.

A periodic modulation of the spin-echo amplitude when varying the rf-pulse separation was observed for both the host and satellite resonances. From the modulation period, one can determine the splitting of the quadrupolar septet of 51V ($`I`$=7/2) . For $`x`$ = 0.02 the quadrupolar splitting of the host resonance is 218(2) kHz which is slightly larger than that of pure V2O3 (200 kHz) . A smaller splitting of 135(5) kHz was found for the satellite in the $`x`$ = 0.02 sample.

The appearance of the satellite near the host signal is indicative of the V3+-like electronic state of the guest site in the AFI phase as in the PM phase. This is contrasted with the observation in V2-yO3 where the V4+-like guests are identified via the zero-field 51V NMR . We should note here that the relative intensity of the satellite to the host signal is consistent with the probability of finding V nuclei having Ti atoms on the four neighboring V sites as in the PM phase. It is therefore reasonable to consider that the existence of V3+-like guest sites is characteristic of (V1-xTix)2O3 throughout its magnetic phase diagram.

## 4 Discussion and Summary

The observation of the V3+-like guest sites demonstrates that even in the metallic phase, the electronic state of (V1-xTix)2O3 is not so homogeneous as has been previoulsy thought. In addition, the host site preserves the V2O3 character in spite of the fact that the number of $`d`$ electrons per vanadium is formally reduced by doping. These are nothing but a manifestation of strong Coulomb repulsion between electrons which favors the number of electrons per site being an integer. The Coulomb interactions as well as nesting of the Fermi surface are therefore indispensable for the SDW ordering in metallic V2O3.

It seems, however, that the presence of the magnetic guest sites is crucial in realizing the SDW order, because long-range order (LRO) is absent in pure V2O3 despite the nearly identical spin fluctuations in the metallic phase of pure, V-deficient and Ti-doped V2O3 . A possible scenario is that metallic V2O3 is unstable to a perturbation destroying spatial coherence such as defects and impurities owing to the quantum critical nature of spin fluctuations . This is reminiscent of impurity-induced LRO in low-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets with disordered ground states . In metallic V2O3, V-vacancy induced V4+-like sites and Ti-doping induced V3+-like sites may serve as magnetic impurities, transforming the system into the SDW state. Local change due to doping of orbital fluctuations suppressing spin order  is also a likely source for long-range SDW ordering in the doped V2O3 systems.

In summary, we established the first-order doping-induced and pressure-induced MIT from AFI to AFM phases in (V1-xTix)2O3. The V3+-like magnetic guest sites exist in the PM phase as well as in the AFI phase, indicating the importance of spatially non-uniform electronic states for the SDW ordering.

## Acknowledgement

One of the authors (J.K.) was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 12740218).


format: text

text:
# Effective Gravitational Field of Black Holes

## I Introduction

The question of interpretation of quantum gravity calculations is one of the most difficult in quantum field theory. Apart from difficulties caused by the formal inapplicability of basic notions of the flat space theory, such as the asymptotic states in the standard S-matrix approach, the very notion of classical limit in the quantum theory of gravitation, underlying the issue of interpretation, is essentially different from that in other theories of fundamental interactions. It cannot be formulated neither as the large mass limit of interacting particles, since the gravitational radiative corrections do not disappear in this limit , nor even as the formal limit $`\mathrm{}0:`$ as was shown in Refs. , the first post-Newtonian correction to the gravitational potential, given by the quantum theory, is twice as large as that given by the Schwarzschild solution of the classical theory.

It was suggested in Refs.  that the correct correspondence between classical and quantum theories is to be established not for fundamental particles described by field operators entering the action functional, but rather for macroscopic bodies consisting of a large number of such particles. This interpretation of the correspondence principle is underlined by an observation that the $`n`$-loop radiative contribution to the $`n`$th post-Newtonian correction to the gravitational field of a body with mass $`M,`$ consisting of $`N=M/m`$ elementary particles with mass $`m,`$ contains an extra factor of $`1/N^n`$ in comparison with the corresponding tree contribution. Thus, the effective gravitational field produced by the body turns into the classical solution of the Einstein equations in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ (and therefore, $`M\mathrm{}`$). An immediate consequence of this interpretation is that in the case of finite $`N,`$ the loop corrections of the order $`\mathrm{}^0`$ describe deviations of the spacetime metric from classical solutions of the Einstein equations.

To justify this interpretation completely, one has to prove its gauge-independence, i.e., that arbitrariness in the choice of gauge conditions fixing the general covariance does not make values of measurable quantities, built from the effective metric, ambiguous. In Ref. , independence of the gauge parameter, weighting the DeWitt gauge conditions in the action, was proved by direct calculation at the one-loop order. The purpose of this Letter is to show that this result is not accidental, and to prove it in a much more simple and general way for arbitrary gauge conditions. After that, application to the black holes will be discussed.

## II Gauge dependence of $`\mathrm{}^0`$ one-loop corrections

Let us consider a body with mass $`M`$ consisting of an arbitrary number $`N`$ of particles. For simplicity the latter will be assumed identical scalars with mass $`m,`$ denoted by $`\varphi .`$ Dynamics of the field $`\varphi `$ is described by the action

$`S_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \left(\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\varphi ^2\right\}},`$ (1)
while the action for the gravitational field***Our notation is $`R_{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha =_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \mathrm{},RR_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu },gdetg_{\mu \nu },g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{sgn}(+,,,).`$ Dynamical variables of the gravitational field $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu },\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}\{+1,1,1,1\}.`$

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{k^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}R},`$ (2)
where $`k^2=16\pi G,`$ $`G`$ being the Newton gravitational constant.

The action $`S+S_\varphi `$ is invariant under the following gauge transformationsIndices of the functions $`F,\xi `$ are raised and lowered, if convenient, with the help of Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

$`\delta h_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\alpha _\alpha h_{\mu \nu }+(\eta _{\mu \alpha }+h_{\mu \alpha })_\nu \xi ^\alpha +(\eta _{\nu \alpha }+h_{\nu \alpha })_\mu \xi ^\alpha D_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (h)\xi _\alpha ,`$ (3)
$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\alpha _\alpha \varphi D^\alpha (\varphi )\xi _\alpha ,`$ (4)
where $`\xi ^\alpha `$ are the (infinitesimal) gauge functions. Let this invariance be fixed by the following conditions

$`F_\alpha (h)=0.`$ (5)
For the beginning, $`F_\alpha `$ will be assumed linear,

$`F_\alpha (h)F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu },`$ (6)
where $`F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }`$ are some differential operators (Lorentz covariant or not) independent of the fields $`h_{\mu \nu }.`$ The most general case will be considered later. Weighted in the usual way, gauge conditions enter the Faddeev-Popov action

$`S_{\mathrm{FP}}=S+S_\varphi +S_{\mathrm{gf}}+\overline{C}^\beta F_\beta ^{\mu \nu }D_{\mu \nu }^\alpha C_\alpha `$ (7)
in the form of the gauge fixing term

$`S_{\mathrm{gf}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}F_\alpha F^\alpha ,`$ (8)
where $`\xi `$ is the Feynman gauge parameter, and $`C_\alpha ,\overline{C}^\alpha `$ are the Faddeev-Popov ghosts.

Let us now turn to examination of the radiative corrections. Since we are interested in the quantum contribution to the first post-Newtonian correction, the only diagram we need to consider is the one-loop diagram pictured in Fig. 1. As a simple dimensional analysis shows, other one-loop diagrams do not contain root singularities $`1/\sqrt{p^2}`$ corresponding to the $`\mathrm{}^0`$-contribution, while the higher-loop diagrams are of higher orders in the Newton constant. Note that it is the propagation of virtual scalar particle near its mass shell which is responsible for the occurrence of the $`\mathrm{}^0`$-contribution.

Although direct calculation of this diagram is cumbersome, the question of the $`\xi `$-dependence of its $`\mathrm{}^0`$ contribution can be easily analyzed as follows.

In the linear gauge (6), gauge dependence of this diagram is determined by that of the graviton propagators. If the graviton propagator is defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta h_{\rho \tau }\delta h_{\mu \nu }}}G_{\mu \nu \zeta \lambda }=\delta _{\zeta \lambda }^{\rho \tau },`$ (9)
$`\delta _{\zeta \lambda }^{\rho \tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _\zeta ^\rho \delta _\lambda ^\tau +\delta _\zeta ^\tau \delta _\lambda ^\rho ),`$ (10)
then its $`\xi `$-derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mu \nu \zeta \lambda }}{\xi }}=G_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{F_\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }F^{\sigma ,\gamma \delta }}{2\xi ^2}}G_{\gamma \delta \zeta \lambda }.`$ (11)
On the other hand, multiplying definition (9) by the generator $`D_{\rho \tau }^{(0)\alpha }D_{\rho \tau }^\alpha (h=0),`$ one has

$`F^{\alpha ,\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda }=\xi D_{\sigma \lambda }^{(0)\beta }\stackrel{~}{G}_\beta ^\alpha ,`$ (12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\beta ^\alpha `$ is the ghost propagator satisfying

$`F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\beta }\stackrel{~}{G}_\beta ^\gamma =\delta _\alpha ^\gamma .`$ (13)
Let us first consider the inner propagators in Fig. 1. In view of Eqs. (11), (12), $`\xi `$-dependent terms in these propagators are attached to the scalar line through the generator $`D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }.`$ On the other hand, the action $`S_\varphi `$ is invariant with respect to the gauge transformations (3),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi }}D^\alpha (\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_\varphi }{\delta h_{\mu \nu }}}D_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (h)=0.`$ (14)
Differentiating this identity with respect to $`\varphi ,`$ setting $`h_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ and taking into account that the external scalar lines are on the mass shell

$$\frac{\delta S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi }|_{h=0}=0,$$

each of the two $`\varphi h\varphi `$ vertices can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi \delta h_{\mu \nu }}}|_{h=0}D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi ^2}}|_{h=0}D^\alpha (\varphi ).`$ (15)
Thus, under contraction with the vertex factor, the scalar particle propagator, $`G_\varphi ,`$ satisfying

$$\frac{\delta ^2S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi ^2}|_{h=0}G_\varphi =1,$$

cancels out

$`G_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_\varphi }{\delta \varphi \delta h_{\mu \nu }}}|_{h=0}D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }=D^\alpha (\varphi ).`$ (16)
We conclude that the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ contribution to the one-particle-irreducible part of Fig. 1 is $`\xi `$-independent. Now, using Eqs. (11) and (12) in the external propagator, we see that the $`\xi `$-derivative of the corresponding contribution to the whole diagram is proportional to the generator $`D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }.`$ In other words, variations of the Feynman parameter induce spacetime diffeomorphisms.

This important result allows us to interpret the $`\mathrm{}^0`$-part of the radiative corrections in a purely classical manner. It was mentioned above that the loop corrections to the spacetime metric can be endowed with physical meaning only if their gauge dependence does not introduce an ambiguity into the values of measurable quantities. The latter are generally defined as functionals of the field variables, invariant with respect to the spacetime diffeomorphisms. Since we presently deal with the first post-Newtonian correction, this criterion can be written

$$\frac{\delta O}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}}D_{\mu \nu }^\alpha (h^{\mathrm{eff}})\frac{\delta O}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}}D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }=0,h_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}=g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$

where $`O`$ is any observable, and $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ the effective metric field. We thus see that variations of the Feynman parameter do not affect values of the observables. This is as it should be, since, unlike other gauge parameters entering the gauge conditions $`F_\alpha `$ and determining structure of a given coordinate system, the weighting parameter $`\xi `$ does not have any geometrical meaning. Furthermore, using the $`\xi `$-independence of observables, one can put $`\xi =0.`$ Then Eq. (12) shows that the effective metric can always be chosen to satisfy the gauge conditions exactly,

$$F_\alpha (h^{\mathrm{eff}})=F_\alpha ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}=0.$$

Finally, let us consider the most general case of nonlinear gauge conditions. The gauge fixing term has the form

$`S_{\mathrm{gf}}={\displaystyle \frac{F^\alpha F_\alpha }{2\xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{F}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha }{2\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{F}^\alpha f_\alpha }{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^\alpha f_\alpha }{2\xi }},`$ (17)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha `$ is the linear part of $`F_\alpha ,`$ having the form (6), and $`f_\alpha `$ is of higher orders in the fields $`h_{\mu \nu },`$ responsible for the appearance of new, “fictitious” interactions of gravitons. At the one-loop order, there is only one new diagram, of the type shown in Fig. 1, in which the triple graviton vertex is generated by the second term in the right hand side of Eq. (17). It is easy to see that the effect of addition of this diagram is again a spacetime diffeomorphism. Indeed, if the factor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha `$ acts on one of the internal graviton lines, using Eq. (12) and repeating literally the reasoning which led to Eq. (16), we see that the $`\mathrm{}^0`$-terms fall out of the diagram. If the factor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\alpha `$ acts on the external graviton line, the use of Eq. (12) shows that the corresponding contribution is proportional to $`D_{\mu \nu }^{(0)\alpha }.`$

Thus, variations of the Feynman parameter are proved to be equivalent to spacetime diffeomorphisms for the most general gauge conditions.

## III Effective gravitational field of black holes

It was mentioned in the Introduction that in comparison with the classical general relativity, the one-loop contribution to the first post-Newtonian correction to the gravitational field of a macroscopic body consisting of $`N`$ particles is suppressed by the factor $`1/N.`$ For instance, if the gauge condition is that of DeWitt

$`F_\alpha =^\mu h_{\mu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h,h\eta ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu },`$ (18)
the gravitational potential of a spherically symmetric body with mass $`M`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)={\displaystyle \frac{GM}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{2c^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{Nc^2r^2}}.`$ (19)
This suppression of the quantum contribution guaranties that the classical predictions of general relativity are in agreement with observations of motion of macroscopic bodies (for the solar gravitational field, for instance, $`1/Nm_{\mathrm{proton}}/M_{}10^{57}`$).

As was explained in Ref. , gravitational interaction of the constituent particles is taken into account in Eq. (19), up to terms of higher order in $`G,`$ by identifying $`M`$ as the gravitational mass of the body. This is legitimate only if the interaction is not too strong, namely, if its expansion in powers of $`G`$ is justified.

Let us now consider a situation when evolution of the system of particles ends up with formation of the horizon. Then the above condition on the strength of particle interaction inevitably breaks down at some stage. In the absence of self-consistent quantum theory of gravitation, nothing can be said about the ultimate fate of the collapsing matter. What can be said, however, is that from the point of view of external observer, the number $`N`$ is now irrelevant to the gravitational field of the collapsar (this is a consequence of the “no hair” theorem). Made by the infinite gravitational force indivisible, this object can be considered as a “particle”. I will assume that it can be described by a scalar field with mass $`M`$ equal to the gravitational mass of the black hole. Then the one-loop contribution of the order $`\mathrm{}^0`$ to the gravitational field of the black hole, represented in Fig. 1, is

$`h_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{loop}}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2G^2}{c^2\sqrt{p^2}}}\left(3M^2\eta _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{c^2}}+7M^2{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right).`$ (20)
Written down in the coordinate space with the help of the formulae

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}}}{|𝐩|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2r^2}},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{p_ip_k}{|𝐩|^3}e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2r^2}}\left(\delta _{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{2x_ix_k}{r^2}}\right),r^2\delta _{ik}x^ix^k,`$ (22)
equation (20) gives, in the static case,

$`h_{00}^{\mathrm{loop}}={\displaystyle \frac{2G^2M^2}{c^2r^2}},h_{ik}^{\mathrm{loop}}={\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{c^2r^2}}\left(2\delta _{ik}+{\displaystyle \frac{7x_ix_k}{r^2}}\right).`$ (23)
In order to find complete expression for the metric in the first post-Newtonian approximation, one has to add the tree contribution, given by the Schwarzschild solution transformed to the DeWitt gauge condition (18) under which Eqs. (23) were derived. Using Eq. (4) of Ref. , we thus obtain the following expression for the interval

$`ds^2g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}dx^\mu dx^\nu =\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}\right)c^2dt^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{7r_g^2}{4r^2}}\right)dr^2`$ (24)
$`r^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7r_g^2}{4r^2}}\right)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),`$ (25)
where $`\theta ,\varphi `$ are the standard spherical angles, and $`r_g=2GM/c^2.`$

As an application of the obtained result, let us consider one of the classic effects of general relativity, the orbit precession in the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric body. Let a test particle with mass $`m`$ move in the equatorial plane ($`\theta =\pi /2`$) around black hole. Denoting $`S_\mathrm{b}`$ the action of the body, we write the Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mu \nu }\frac{S_\mathrm{b}}{x^\mu }\frac{S_\mathrm{b}}{x^\nu }m^2c^2=0,$$

where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the inverse of $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}.`$ A simple calculation gives, to the leading order,

$`S_\mathrm{b}`$ $`=`$ $`Et+L\phi `$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑r\left[\left(\frac{E^2}{c^2}+2mE^{}\right)+\frac{r_g}{r}\left(m^2c^2+4mE^{}\right)\frac{1}{r^2}\left(L^22r_g^2m^2c^2\right)\right]^{1/2}},`$ (27)
where $`E,L`$ are the energy and angular momentum of the particle, respectively, and $`E^{}=Emc^2`$ its non-relativistic energy. The first two terms in the integrand in Eq. (26) coincide with the corresponding terms of classical theory, while the third does not, leading to the angular shift of the perihelion

$`\delta \phi ={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi GM}{c^2a(1e^2)}}`$ (28)
per period ($`a`$ and $`e`$ are the major semiaxis and the eccentricity of the orbit, respectively), which is to be compared with the classic result

$$\delta \phi =\frac{6\pi GM}{c^2a(1e^2)}.$$

## IV Conclusions

Interpretation of the correspondence principle, suggested in Ref. , endows the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ loop contributions with direct physical meaning as describing deviations of the spacetime metric from classical solutions of the Einstein equations. This purely classical treatment of the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ loop contributions is supported by the main result of the present work: variations of the weighting parameter are equivalent to spacetime diffeomorphisms. Thus, observables built from the effective metric are independent of the unphysical Feynman parameter. As to other gauge parameters entering the gauge conditions $`F_\alpha `$ and determining geometry of a given coordinate system, the corresponding analysis is much more complicated and will be presented elsewhere.

It should be clear from the considerations of Sec. II that this result is valid whatever matter fields produce the gravitational field. In essential, it is a consequence of the gauge symmetry of the action $`S+S_\varphi .`$ Despite simplicity of the proof at the one-loop order, however, the author has not yet been able to extend it to all orders.

As an application of this result, the one-loop effective gravitational field of black hole was calculated. It is given by Eq. (24). One of the consequences is that the orbit precession in this field differs from that predicted by the classical Einstein theory, and is given by Eq. (28). It should be mentioned in this connection that emission of the gravitational waves by the black hole binaries also must be affected by the quantum contributions. The LIGO and VIRGO gravitational wave detectors, which are currently under construction, will hopefully bring light into this issue.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank P. I. Pronin, K. V. Stepanyantz, and especially A. V. Borisov (Moscow State University) for interesting discussions.


text:
# Resummation and power corrections by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation

## Abstract

Event-shape distributions in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation offer a unique laboratory for understanding perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of QCD. Dressed Gluon Exponentiation is a resummation method designed to evaluate differential cross sections close to a kinematic threshold and provide the basis for parametrization of power corrections. The method and its application in the case of the thrust and the heavy jet mass distributions in the two-jet region are briefly presented.

Event-shape distributions are an effective way to describe the final state in hard processes. In the case of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, event shapes offer a unique laboratory for understanding perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of the theory. Being infrared- and collinear-safe quantities, event-shape distributions can be calculated perturbatively. Nevertheless, these observables typically have large perturbative and non-perturbative corrections, which are related to fundamental properties of soft gluon radiation and hadronization.

Particularly interesting physics appears in the two-jet region, where the cross-section peaks. Then $`1`$ thrust, $`t`$, is small, and equals, to a good approximation, the sum of the two (light and heavy) jet masses $`t\rho _L+\rho _H`$. Any hard emission, which makes the variables $`t`$ and $`\rho _H`$ large, is suppressed by $`\alpha _s`$ at the hard scale $`Q`$. In the two-jet region the cross section is dictated by soft and collinear gluon radiation. This has two immediate implications. The first is that, in spite of the large centre-of-mass energy $`Q`$, the relevant scale in the two-jet region is low, $`tQ`$. The second is that, because of the singularity of the matrix element, multiple emission must be taken into account. Consequently, in the two-jet region fixed-order calculations are insufficient. Two techniques were developed to confront such difficulties: (1) renormalons2-9, which were mainly used to identify power corrections through the sensitivity of the perturbative calculation to low momenta. This sensitivity is also reflected in the divergence of the perturbative expansion at large orders; and (2) Sukakov resummation, which deals with the summation of logarithmically enhanced contributions that dominate the perturbative coefficients close to a kinematic threshold.

The two dominant characteristics of the two-jet region, namely low momenta and multiple emission are addressed by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation (DGE). The calculation of the distribution can be seen as a two-step procedure, where the first step is a typical renormalon calculation, namely the evaluation of a single dressed gluon (SDG) cross-section, and the second is the exponentiation. The SDG calculation is similar to a leading order calculation, where a gluon is emitted from the primary quark–antiquark pair, with the essential difference that the gluon can be off-shell and the actual gluon virtuality is used as the scale of the running coupling. It is in this that DGE differs from previous calculations, such as the resummation with next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy. The exponentiation itself relies on the factorization property of soft and collinear radiation, which holds in the case of an off-shell gluon. DGE makes the same approximation as NLL resummation that gluons are emitted independently.

The DGE expression for the single jet mass distribution is given by an inverse Laplace integral:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\rho }}(\rho ,Q^2)={\displaystyle _c}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\rho \nu +\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)\right\},`$ (1)
where $`c`$ is an integration contour parallel to the imaginary axis and

$`\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\rho \frac{1}{\sigma }\frac{d\sigma }{d\rho }(\rho ,Q^2)}|_{\text{SDG}}\left(e^{\nu \rho }1\right)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2\beta _0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zB_\nu (z)\mathrm{exp}\left(z\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi z}{\pi z}}.`$
Here $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ corresponds to the “gluon bremsstrahlung” effective charge and the Borel function is given by

$`B_\nu (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}\left[e^{2z\mathrm{ln}\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(2z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z}}\right)\left[e^{z\mathrm{ln}\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\right].`$
Using this distribution, and the assumption that the hemisphere masses are independent, both the thrust and the $`\rho _H`$ distributions are readily obtained,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dt}}(t,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _c}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi i\nu }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\nu t+2\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)\right\}`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\rho _H}}(\rho _H,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\rho _H}}\left[{\displaystyle _c}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi i\nu }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\nu \rho _H+\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)\right\}\right]^2.`$ (4)
Since only logarithmically enhanced terms are resummed by the DGE formulae, matching with fixed-order results is necessary. The currently available accuracy of such calculations is next-to-leading order (NLO).

At the perturbative level, DGE differs from the standard NLL resummation by a class of formally sub-leading logarithms, which are factorially enhanced. This enhancement is a direct consequence of the infrared renormalons: the numerical factors emerge from the integration over the QCD coupling at low momenta. These corrections cannot be neglected: at $`Q=M_\mathrm{Z}`$ they amount to $`20\%`$ of the exponent $`\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)`$. The resummation of running-coupling effects in the exponent makes it renormalization-scale invariant, thus avoiding a major source of uncertainty.

The presence of power-suppressed ambiguities in (2) indicates specific non-perturbative corrections. The appearance of these infrared renormalons in the exponent implies that the associated power corrections exponentiate. Moreover, assuming the dominance of these corrections, the dependence of the ambiguity on $`\nu 1/\rho `$ is indicative of the functional form of the power corrections. The most important Borel singularities in $`\mathrm{ln}J_\nu (Q^2)`$ appear at half integer values of $`z`$ and are related to soft gluon emission at large angles. The first singularity, at $`z=1/2`$, corresponds to a shift of the distribution, while the main effect of higher singularities can be recast in a convolution of the perturbative distribution with a shape function (SF) that depends on a single variable $`\rho Q`$. Finally, the absence of Borel singularities of this type at integer $`z`$ values suggests that the even central moments of the SF are suppressed, while the relevant non-perturbative parameters are the odd ones. This explains, in particular, why a shift can be a good approximation to the SF in a wide range of thrust (or $`\rho _H`$) values.

In the approximation considered, both the thrust (3) and the $`\rho _H`$ (4) distributions are expressed in terms of the single jet mass distribution $`J_\nu (Q^2)`$.

Therefore, a single SF incorporates the non-perturbative corrections in both cases. This implies that fixing the unknown parameters ($`\alpha _s`$ and the SF) by a fit to the thrust distribution, the non-perturbative $`\rho _H`$ distribution can be simply calculated and compared with experimental data. The results of this exercise are presented in the above figures. The figure on the left shows the thrust distribution data at $`M_\mathrm{Z}`$ compared with the perturbative DGE calculation (3) (dotted line) as well as a shift (dashed line) and a SF (full line) fits. The fits, which take into account data in the range $`14`$$`189`$ GeV, yield $`\alpha _{\overline{\text{MS}}}(M_\mathrm{Z})=0.1090\pm 0.0004`$, the first two central moments of the SF being $`\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.605\pm 0.013\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\lambda _2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2=0.002\pm 0.024\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The errors quoted are experimental. The figure on the right shows the prediction for the $`\rho _H`$ distribution, which uses as input the parameters of the thrust best fit, compared with data. The overall agreement is good. This result supports our approximations and, in particular, it supports our assumption that the correlation between the hemispheres is insignificant in the peak region. Nevertheless, two major caveats must be pointed out. The first is that the data used do not correspond to the standard hadronic level, but rather to a measurement where all hadrons are assumed to decay into massless particles. The “decay scheme” is an effective way to decrease the effect of hadron masses on the measured distribution. The second caveat is that, in the $`\rho _H`$ case, an independent fit where $`\alpha _s`$ is free yields a significantly lower best-fit value for $`\alpha _s`$ and a correspondingly higher value for $`\lambda _1`$. This is shown in the following figure, which summarizes the best shift-based fits for the thrust and the $`\rho _H`$ distributions. Results of independent fits, where both $`\alpha _s`$ and the shift $`\lambda _1`$ are fitted, are shown as one $`\sigma `$ ellipses, while fits where $`\alpha _s`$ is fixed are shown as crosses. The $`\rho _H`$ distribution fits are sensitive to the fitting range. Agreement

with a SF based fit, which is much more stable, was used to optimize the fitting range. The sensitivity to the fitting range provides a strong indication that the perturbative approximation to the $`\rho _H`$ distribution is not good enough. This also explains the discrepancy in $`\alpha _s`$ with respect to the thrust. A detailed analysis shows that the missing perturbative corrections are primarily associated with non-logarithmic terms at NNLO, which would tend to decrease the cross section at large $`\rho _H`$. Even in the absence of a NNLO result, a quantitative analysis of power corrections in the peak region, based on the DGE resummation formula and the available NLO, is possible. Indeed, as the figure shows, when $`\alpha _s`$ is fixed according to the thrust fit, the $`\rho _H`$ best-fit value for $`\lambda _1`$ agrees with that of the thrust. The agreement is due to the improved approximation achieved by DGE: the discrepancy in a NLL based fit is large.

We conclude that incorporating the resummation of running-coupling effects in the Sudakov exponent is essential for a quantitative analysis of the distribution in the two-jet region. Since power corrections are important, resummation with a fixed logarithmic accuracy is insufficient. DGE is therefore indispensable.


text:
# Lines on projective varieties

## Definition

A variety (or manifold) $`X^N`$ (or $`𝔸^N`$) is covered by lines if through a general point $`xX`$ there passes a finite number of lines contained in $`X`$.

It was known classically that a surface covered by lines can contain at most two lines through a general point. In \[MP\] it was shown that a $`3`$-fold covered by lines contains at most $`6`$ lines through a general point.

I prove:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X^n^{n+a}`$ be covered by lines. Then there are at most $`n!`$ lines passing through a general point of $`X`$.

The theorem holds for any ground field of characteristic zero. The same conclusion is valid for analytic varieties in affine or projective space if one asks that the lines be contained in the closure of $`X`$. The same conclusion even holds in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ category if one replaces “general point” by “every point” in the hypotheses.

Theorem 1 will be a consequence of theorem 2:

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X^n^{n+1}`$ be a hypersurface and let $`xX`$ be a general point. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\lambda T_xX`$ denote the tangent directions to lines having contact to order $`\lambda `$ with $`X`$ at $`x`$. (The notation is such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1=T_xX`$.) If there is an irreducible component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ such that $`\text{dim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k>nk`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e., all lines corresponding to points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k`$ are contained in $`X`$.

Note that the expected dimensionof $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ is $`nk`$.

###### Corollary

Let $`X^n^{n+a}`$ be a variety such that through a general point $`xX`$ there is a $`p`$-plane having contact to order $`np+2`$. Then $`X`$ is uniruled by $`^p`$’s.

The corollary is not expected to be optimal for most values of $`k`$, see \[L2, theorem 4\].

###### Demonstration Proof of theorem 2

We use notation as in \[L1\] and \[L2\]. We choose a basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ of $`T_xX`$ such $`[e_1]`$ is a general point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{[e_1]}\mathrm{\Sigma }^k=\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_p\}`$. By hypothesis $`p1=\text{dim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k>nk`$.

Let $`1\alpha ,\beta n`$. We let $`r_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ denote the coefficients of the second fundamental form $`F_2`$ of $`X`$ at $`x`$ and $`r_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _i}`$ denote the coefficients of $`F_i`$. sometimes we write $`r_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _i}^i=r_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _i}`$ to keep track of $`i`$.

We let $`2s,tp`$, $`p+1j,ln`$.

By our normalizations, we have $`r_{1,\mathrm{},1}^\lambda =0`$ and $`r_{1,\mathrm{},1,s}^\lambda =0`$ for $`2sp`$ and $`2\lambda k`$. We will show that $`r_{1,\mathrm{},1}^h=0`$ and $`r_{1,\mathrm{},1,s}^h=0`$ for $`2sp`$ and for all $`h`$, showing that there is a $`p`$-dimensional space of lines passing through $`X`$ at $`x`$.

The technique of proof is the same as in \[L2\], namely we will use our lower order equations to solve for the connection forms $`\omega _1^j`$ in terms of the semi-basic forms $`\omega ^l`$ and then plug into the higher $`F_h`$ to obtain the vanishing of $`F_h(e_1,\mathrm{},e_1)`$ and $`F_h(e_1,\mathrm{},e_1,e_s)`$. Using the formalism for the $`F_h`$ developed in from \[L1\], we obtain that for $`\lambda k`$:

$$r_{1,\mathrm{},1,i}^\lambda \omega ^i=r_{1,\mathrm{},1,j}^{\lambda 1}\omega _1^j$$

These are $`k2`$ equations for the $`np`$ one-forms $`\omega _1^j`$ in terms of the $`np`$ semi-basic forms $`\omega ^j`$. Recall that $`npk2`$. The system is solvable as were the $`(k2)\times (np)`$ matrix $`(r_{1,\mathrm{},1,j}^\lambda )`$ not of maximal rank, there would be additional directions in the tangent space to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^k`$. Thus we have

$$\omega _1^j0\text{ mod }\{\omega ^{p+1},\mathrm{},\omega ^n\}$$

so the equation

$$r_{1,\mathrm{},1,\beta }^{k+1}\omega ^\beta =r_{1,\mathrm{},1,j}^k\omega _1^j$$

implies $`r_{1,\mathrm{},1}^{k+1}=r_{1,\mathrm{},1,2}^{k+1}=\mathrm{}r_{1,\mathrm{},1,p}^{k+1}=0`$ and thus the line through $`[e_1]`$ has contact to order $`k+1`$ and moreover $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{[e_1]}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{k+1}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{[e_1]}\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$. Now one can use these equations iteratively to show the same holds to order $`k+2`$ and all orders, i.e., the component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ containing $`[e_1]`$ equals the component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ containing $`[e_1]`$. ∎

###### Demonstration Proof of theorem 1

Without loss of generality in theorem 1 we may assume $`X`$ is a hypersurface as one can reduce to this case by linear projection. First note that $`n!`$ is the expected bound in the sense that in $`T_xX`$ one has the ideal $`I`$ generated by $`F_2,F_3\mathrm{}F_n`$ defining the variety $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^nT_xX`$ of all lines having contact with $`X`$ at $`x`$ to order $`n`$. (Note that the polynomials of degree greater than two are not well defined individually but the ideal $`I`$ is.) Since $`T_xX`$ is a $`^{n1}`$, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^n`$ is zero-dimensional, it is at most $`n!`$ points and we are done. If $`\text{dim}\mathrm{\Sigma }^n>0`$ then theorem 2 applies.∎

## Concluding remarks

Theorem 1 generalizes theorem 1 of \[L2\], which says that if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{n+1}\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{n+1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$. It is sharp for hypersurfaces as a general hypersurface of degree $`n`$ will be covered by $`n!`$ lines. It is unlikely theorem 1 is sharp in higher codimension, however the following example due to F. Zak shows that one cannot hope to do too much better: Let $`Y^{n1}`$ be a hypersurface with $`(n1)!`$ lines passing through a general point and let $`X=Seg(Y\times C)`$ where $`C^M`$ is a curve. One can arrange for the codimension of $`X`$ to be arbitrarily large in this way and $`X`$ has $`(n1)!`$ lines passing through a general point.

One could hope to now do a classification in the spirit of \[MP\]. For example, $`n!`$ should only be possible for hypersurfaces of degree $`n`$. An interesting class of examples with a small number of lines is obtained by taking linear sections of uniruled homogeneous varieties.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank E. Mezzetti and F. Zak for useful conversations.


text:
# Further Evidence for the Decay 𝐾⁺→𝜋⁺𝜈𝜈̄

E787 Collaboration

## Abstract

Additional evidence for the rare kaon decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ has been found in a new data set with comparable sensitivity to the previously reported result. One new event was observed in the pion momentum region examined, $`211<P<229`$ MeV/$`c`$, bringing the total for the combined data set to two. Including all data taken, the backgrounds were estimated to contribute $`0.15\pm 0.05`$ events. The branching ratio is $`B`$($`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$)$`=1.57_{0.82}^{+1.75}\times 10^{10}`$.

The decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is very sensitive to the coupling of top to down quarks, $`V_{td}`$, in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark mixing matrix. In the context of the Standard Model (SM), the predicted branching ratio is $`B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=0.75\pm 0.29\times 10^{10}`$ newbb . In an earlier study, a single event consistent with the decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ at a branching ratio of $`B`$($`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$)= $`1.5_{1.2}^{+3.5}\times 10^{10}`$ was foundpnn99 ; pnn95 . In this letter, final results from Experiment E787det ; E949  at the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) of Brookhaven National Laboratory are presented, including a new data sample of comparable sensitivity to that reported previously.

The observable signature for $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay from kaons at rest involves only the $`\pi ^+`$ track and $`\pi ^+`$ decay products. Major background sources include the two-body decays $`K^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ ($`K_{\mu 2}`$) and $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ ($`K_{\pi 2}`$), pions scattered from the beam, and $`K^+`$ charge exchange (CEX) reactions resulting in decays $`K_L^0\pi ^+l^{}\overline{\nu }_l`$, where $`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$. In order to make an unambiguous measurement of $`B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$, it is advantageous to suppress all backgrounds well below the signal level.

The data discussed here were acquired during the 1998 run of the AGS, using kaons of 710 MeV/$`c`$ incident on the apparatus at a rate of about $`4`$ MHz. The kaons were detected and identified by Čerenkov, tracking, and energy-loss counters after which 27% reached a scintillating-fiber target used for kaon and pion tracking. Measurements of the momentum ($`P`$), range ($`R`$), and kinetic energy ($`E`$) of charged decay products were made using the target, a central drift chamber, and a cylindrical range stack (RS) made up of 21 layers of plastic scintillator with two layers of tracking chambers embedded in it, all within a 1-T solenoidal magnetic field. The $`\pi ^+\mu ^+e^+`$ decay sequence from pions which came to rest in the RS was observed using 500-MHz transient digitizers. Photons were detected in a calorimeter mainly consisting of a 14-radiation-length-thick barrel detector made of lead/scintillator sandwich and 13.5-radiation-length-thick endcaps of undoped CsI crystals.

To be accepted as a $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ candidate, a decay particle must be positively identified as a $`\pi ^+`$ by comparing $`P`$, $`R`$, and $`E`$ measurements, and by observation of the $`\pi ^+\mu ^+e^+`$ decay sequence. Events containing other decay products including photons or beam particles were eliminated by detectors covering $`4\pi `$ sr. A clean hit pattern in the scintillating-fiber target and a delayed decay at least 2 ns after an identified $`K^+`$ suppressed background events due to CEX and scattered beam pions. The search was restricted to the measured momentum region $`211<P<229`$ MeV/$`c`$ between the $`K_{\mu 2}`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$ peaks. The maximum pion momentum from $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays at rest is 227 MeV/$`c`$.

The data analysis, described in Refs.pnn99 ; Paul , focused on obtaining detailed estimates of all backgrounds prior to examining the pre-determined signal region. In order to evaluate observed events, the parameter space of observables for the 1998 data set was subdivided into 7500 bins with differing levels of expected backgrounds. The signal region was defined to include the first 486 bins and was not examined until the final step in the analysis procedure. The background expected in the signal region was estimated from $`BG=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{486}b_i`$ where $`b_i`$ is the expected number of background events from all sources in bin $`i`$. Assuming the SM value for the branching ratio, $`7.5\times 10^{11}`$sm\_assump , an expected signal number $`S_i`$ was also obtained for each bin as $`S_i=7.5\times 10^{11}A_iN_K`$ where $`A_i`$ is the acceptance in bin $`i`$ and $`N_K`$ is the number of kaons. A signal-to-background function $`f=\frac{S_i}{b_i}`$ was defined to characterize each bin in terms of the relative probability for events occurring there to originate in $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay or background. For the event observed in the 1995-97 data set (Event A) which passed the tightest cuts designed to evaluate candidate events, a similar procedure resulted in the signal-to-background function value $`f^A=35`$, which indicated a very high probability that it was due to signal and a low level of consistency with any of the known sources of background.

For the 1998 data set, the final candidate selection requirements were similar to those used previously, although more stringent track reconstruction criteria were imposed. For the background sources listed above, the numbers of events expected were $`n_{K_{\mu 2}}=0.034_{0.024}^{+0.043}`$, $`n_{K_{\pi 2}}=0.012_{0.004}^{+0.003}`$, $`n_{Beam}=0.004\pm 0.001`$ and $`n_{CEX}=0.016_{0.004}^{+0.005}`$, where the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. In total, the background level anticipated in the signal region was $`BG=0.066_{0.025}^{+0.044}`$ events. For this level of background, the acceptance for $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ was $`A=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{486}A_i=0.00196\pm 0.00005^{stat}\pm 0.00010^{syst}`$, obtained from the factors given in the last column of Table 1. The estimated systematic uncertainty in the acceptance was due mostly to the uncertainty in pion-nucleus interactions.

To confirm the background estimates, the selection criteria were relaxedpnn95 ; Paul  to allow about 14 times higher background, and all bins except those in the final signal region were examined. Two events were observed, in agreement with the number of expected background events $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=487}^{7500}b_i=0.9\pm 0.7`$ for this region. One of these (Event B1) had a low value of the signal-to-background function $`f^{B1}=0.07`$. The second event (Event B2) had all the characteristics of a signal event but a low apparent time of $`\pi \mu `$ decay resulted in an intermediate value for the signal-to-background function $`f^{B2}=0.7`$ reflecting the possibility that it was due to $`K_{\mu 2}`$ decaypme .

Following the background study, the signal region for the 1998 data set was examined yielding one candidate event (Event C) with $`f^C=3.6`$. The kinematic values are $`P=213.8\pm 2.7`$ MeV/$`c`$, $`R=33.9\pm 1.2`$ cm (in equivalent cm of scintillator), and $`E=117.1\pm 3.6`$ MeV. A display of this event is shown in Fig. 1. Close inspection of Event C indicates that it is consistent with being due to $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay. Although a small amount (0.6 MeV in total) of coincident nontrack related energy was observed in the target, this level of additional energy was expected to occur randomly somewhere in the detector in about 11% of all events, and was well below the cut at 3 MeV on this parameter.

The combined result for E787 data taken between 1995 and 1998 is shown in Fig. 2, the range vs. kinetic energy of events surviving all other cuts. In Fig. 2 the box represents the signal region in which two events (Events A and C) appear. Using the $`f`$ values of the observed events, a likelihood ratio techniqueJunk  was used to determine the best estimate of the branching ratio. Based on two observed events with their associated $`f`$ values, the acceptances given in Table 1, the numbers of $`K^+`$ incident on the target, and the expected background levels given in Table 2, the result is $`B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=1.57_{0.82}^{+1.75}\times 10^{10}`$L90 ; outside\_box . This result would be consistent with being due entirely to background only at the level of 0.02%Junk .

Bounds on $`|V_{td}|`$ may be obtained from $`B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ by maximizing the charm quark contribution within the limits given in Ref.newbb  and assuming its phase relative to the top quark contribution to be $`0^{}`$ or $`180^{}`$. The branching ratio limits given above along with $`\overline{m}_t(m_t)=166\pm 5`$GeV/$`c^2`$, and $`V_{cb}=0.041\pm 0.002`$newbb  yield $`0.007<|V_{td}|<0.030`$ (68% C. L.)V90 . Note that these limits do not require knowledge of $`V_{ub}`$ or $`ϵ_K`$. Alternatively, one can extract corresponding limits on the quantity $`|\lambda _t|`$ ($`\lambda _tV_{ts}^{}V_{td}`$): $`2.9\times 10^4<|\lambda _t|<1.2\times 10^3`$. In addition, the bounds $`0.88\times 10^3<Re(\lambda _t)<1.2\times 10^3`$ can be obtained. For $`Im(\lambda _t)`$, an upper limit of $`Im(\lambda _t)<1.1\times 10^3`$ (90% C.L) is found. The bounds on $`\lambda _t`$ are derived without reference to the $`B`$ system or to measurements of $`ϵ_K`$ or $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ and are of particular interest because $`Im(\lambda _t)`$ is proportional to the area of the unitarity triangle.

The limit found in the search for decays of the form $`K^+\pi ^+X^0`$, where $`X^0`$ is a neutral weakly interacting massless particle x0 , is $`B(K^+\pi ^+X^0)<0.59\times 10^{10}`$ (90% CL), based on zero events observed in a $`\pm 2\sigma `$ region around the pion kinematic endpoint.

We would like to acknowledge the contributions made by colleagues who participated in earlier phases of this work including M. Atiya, T. F. Kycia (deceased), D. Marlow, and A. J. S. Smith. We gratefully acknowledge the dedicated effort of the technical staff supporting this experiment and of the Brookhaven AGS Department. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contracts No. DE-AC02-98CH10886, W-7405-ENG-36, and grant DE-FG02-91ER40671, by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan through the Japan-U.S. Cooperative Research Program in High Energy Physics and under the Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research for Encouragement of Young Scientists and for JSPS Fellows, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the National Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Dynamical suppression of large instantonsTalk presented by G. Münster

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Instantons are field configurations of non-abelian SU($`N`$) gauge theories, which lead to non-perturbative effects. In recent years they have been studied in lattice gauge theories by means of Monte Carlo calculations by different groups .

In the dilute gas approximation the logarithm of the partition function contains an integral over instanton sizes, $`𝑑\rho \rho ^5(\rho \mathrm{\Lambda })^b`$, where $`b=11N/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale parameter. The integrand increases with $`\rho `$, leading to an infrared divergence. This is an artifact of using the semiclassical approximation after it has become invalid, i.e. for $`\rho 1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If the semiclassical approximation is meaningful at all, a solution of this problem in the context of the full instanton ensemble is required.

The simplest way is to cut the integrations off at some ad-hoc value $`\rho _c`$. But the dominant contribution comes from large $`\rho _j`$ near the cut-off where the assumption of diluteness fails. Moreover, the introduction of an ad-hoc cut-off leads to inconsistencies with the renormalization group .

In order to solve the problem it has been proposed that instanton sizes are cut off in a dynamical way . The cut-off should originate from configurations where instantons start to overlap. The interaction is expected to suppress overlapping instantons and to result in a self-consistent cut-off.

In connection with the dynamical cut-off the distribution of instanton sizes is of central importance. For small sizes the distribution is predicted to be

$$n(\rho )\rho ^{b5}$$
(1)
by the dilute gas approximation. For large sizes $`\rho `$, where the dynamical cut-off is in effect, not much is known about the distribution. There are arguments  in favour of a suppression like

$$n(\rho )\mathrm{exp}(c\rho ^p)\text{with}p=2.$$
(2)
We have investigated  the distribution of instanton sizes in a model  where the instanton interactions are approximated by a repulsive hard core potential. The radius of an instanton core varies proportional to the size $`\rho _j`$ of the instanton. Although this approximation appears to be crude, the general features of the instanton ensemble with a dynamical cut-off are present.

## 2 SIZE DISTRIBUTION

In $`d=1`$ dimensions the distribution of instanton sizes is exactly given by

$$n(\rho )=\frac{C}{b}\rho ^{b2}\mathrm{e}^{c\rho }.$$
(3)
where we recognize an exponential suppression of large instanton sizes.

In higher dimensions, $`d>1`$, we obtained approximate expressions by means of a van der Waals type approximation ,

$$n(\rho )=\frac{Cd}{b}\rho ^{bd1}\mathrm{exp}(c\rho ^d).$$
(4)
For small $`\rho `$ it grows powerlike with the semiclassical exponent $`\alpha =bd1`$. The value of the exponent $`p=d`$ in the exponential decay at large $`\rho `$ should be considered with reservations, because the saddle point approximations are of uncertain quality there.

We have studied the size distribution also by means of grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations of the simplified instanton gas model. In the case of $`d=1`$ dimensions the Monte Carlo data agree very well with the available exact result (3).

In the more interesting case of four space-time dimensions ($`d=4`$) we consider $`\alpha =7/3`$, which is the value for SU(2) gauge theory. The resulting size distribution shows the expected behaviour. For small instanton radii a power law with exponent $`\alpha `$ can be confirmed. In order to study the behaviour of $`n(\rho )`$ for large $`\rho `$ we considered the ratio $`F(\rho )=n(\rho )/\rho ^\alpha `$ and tried fits of the form $`F_{fit}(\rho )=a\mathrm{exp}(c\rho ^p)`$. In agreement with the theoretical results they showed that $`c`$ depends on $`\alpha `$, while $`p`$ is nearly independent of it. In Fig. 1 the result of a fit in the interval $`[0,2.25]`$ is shown.

The main interest is in the exponent $`p`$. We find $`a0.89`$, and the fit leads to $`c=3.3\pm 0.2`$ and $`p=1.9\pm 0.2`$. For $`\alpha =6`$, the SU(3) case, the results for $`p`$ are the same within the present errors.

In recent years much effort has been devoted to lattice Monte Carlo calculations of properties of the instanton ensemble, and some quantitative statements have been given. For small $`\rho `$, lattice calculations appear to support the power law (1). For the large-$`\rho `$ distribution, de Forcrand et al. predict an exponential decrease with $`p=3\pm 1`$ from their $`SU(2)`$ lattice data . In contrast to this, Smith and Teper conclude form their $`SU(3)`$ simulations a decay according to $`\rho ^\xi `$ with $`\xi 10\mathrm{}12`$ .

To conclude, fits to our numerical Monte Carlo results suggest a behaviour like

$$n(\rho )\stackrel{\rho \mathrm{}}{}\rho ^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(c\rho ^2).$$
(5)
The results indicate that our simplified model reproduces the main features of instanton ensembles with a dynamical infrared cut-off.