text:
# Semiclassical Analysis of Extended Dynamical Mean Field Equations

## I Introduction

The dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) , a recently developed many body approach to strongly correlated electron systems has been very successful in unraveling non perturbative problems such as the Mott metal to insulator transition. In spite of its many successes, this technique has several limitations resulting from its single site character and from the lack of feedback of the non local collective excitations on the one particle spectra. Several approaches are being pursued to extend the scope of the DMFT method. In this paper we explore an extension of the DMFT method (EDMFT)  which maintains a local self energy while incorporating feedback effects of the charge and spin dynamics in the one electron properties. This method gives rise to quantum impurity problems with fermionic and bosonic baths that need to be solved self consistently. This method has already been applied to wide class of models, such as the spin fermion model,  fermions interacting with long range (Coulomb) electron-electron interaction, electron-phonon systems and frustrated magnets.

The EDMFT equations are more involved than the conventional DMFT equations because they involve a solution of a self consistency problem in an additional bosonic sector and only recently a full numerical analysis of the self consistency conditions of EDMFT was carried out. The interpretation of the EDMFT instabilities is also not as straightforward as in DMFT because bosonic and fermionic propagators involve very different regions of momentum space, and a formulation of EDMFT for ordered phases was only obtained recently.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the EDMFT approach further by analyzing several aspects of this method: a) We implement a semiclassical technique for its solution  and compare its results to the earlier QMC study to test its accuracy. We show that the analytic treatment is in satisfactory agreement with exact (QMC) results in the high temperature regime of the three dimensional (3d) model and provides analytic expressions for various physical quantities. b) We extend this study to the case of two dimensional (2d) phonons, which had not been treated in ref. We demonstrate that in the 2d case the EDMFT treatment at finite temperatures, if it produces an ordering transition it is necessarily of the first order. This analysis applies to a very general class of models including those used in ref.

We also analyze the EDMFT equations in the ordered phase,  for a simple spin model. This analysis clarifies the strengths and the limitations of the EDMFT approach, in a very simple setting.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we write the Fermion Boson model and the extended DMFT equations. Then we describe the semiclassical strategy for their analysis in both weak and strong electron-phonon coupling. In section III we present results of solving the saddle point equations for 3d phonons coupled to electrons in different regimes and discuss the agreement with results in QMC approach. In section IV we describe the results for 2d phonons. If the electrons are fully integrated out the semiclassical treatment of EDMFT has to reduce to a mean field theory in classical statistical mechanics. In section V we compare EDMFT with other classical mean field treatments such as the Weiss mean field approach and the Bloch Langer method. The stability analysis of the EDMFT theory is carried out in Appendix D.

## II Model and semiclassical approximation

The model under consideration is described by the lattice Hamiltonian:

$$H=H_{el}+H_{ph}+H_{elph}$$
(1)
where

$$H_{el}=\underset{ij,\sigma }{}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }$$
(2)
$$H_{ph}=\underset{i}{}\frac{p_i^2}{2M}\underset{ij}{}\frac{J_{ij}}{2}x_ix_j$$
(3)
$$H_{elph}=\underset{i\sigma }{}\lambda x_i(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }\frac{1}{2})$$
(4)
The first term describes free electrons, $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) creates (annihilates) an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ on a site $`i`$. The second term describes nonlocal (dispersive) phonons, $`x_i`$ and $`p_i`$ are canonical variables. The last term couples the fermionic and the bosonic degrees of freedom. We consider a half filled system of fermions.

The second term could alternatively be written as:

$$H_{ph}=\underset{q}{}\omega _q(a_q^{}a_q+\frac{1}{2})$$
(5)
where $`a_q`$, $`a_q^{}`$ are related to the phonon field by $`x_q=(2M\omega _q)^{\frac{1}{2}}(a_q+a_q^{})`$ and $`\omega _q^2=J_q/M`$. Dispersion (momentum dependence) of the boson frequency $`\omega _q`$ stems from nonlocal character of $`J_{ij}`$. The local limit of $`J_{ij}`$ corresponds to the Holstein model, so the model under consideration is an extension of the Holstein model to dispersive phonons.

The extended DMFT equations for this model  are a set of equations for Weiss functions $`G_{0\sigma }^1(i\omega _n)`$ and $`D_0^1(i\omega _n)`$:

$$G_\sigma [G_0,D_0](i\omega _n)=\underset{q}{}\left[i\omega _nt_q+G_\sigma [G_0,D_0]^1(i\omega _n)G_{0\sigma }^1(i\omega _n)\right]^1$$
(6)
$$D[G_0,D_0](i\omega _n)=\underset{q}{}\left[M(i\omega _n)^2J_q+D[G_0,D_0]^1(i\omega _n)D_0^1(i\omega _n)\right]^1$$
(7)
where full Green’s functions $`G_\sigma (i\omega _n)`$ and $`D(i\omega _n)`$ are expressed through $`G_{0\sigma }^1(i\omega _n)`$ and $`D_0^1(i\omega _n)`$ in terms of the effective impurity action:

$$S_{eff}=\underset{\omega _n,\omega _m,\sigma }{}c_\sigma ^{}(i\omega _n+i\omega _m)\left(G_{0\sigma }^1(i\omega _n)\delta _{0,\omega _m}+\lambda x(i\omega _m)\right)c_\sigma (i\omega _n)\frac{1}{2}D_0^1(i\omega _m)x^2(i\omega _m)$$
(8)
$$G_\sigma (i\omega _n)=\frac{𝒟[c_\sigma ^{},c_\sigma ,x]c_\sigma (i\omega _n)c_\sigma ^{}(i\omega _n)e^{S_{eff}[c_\sigma ^{},c_\sigma ,x]}}{𝒟[c_\sigma ^{},c_\sigma ,x]e^{S_{eff}[c_\sigma ^{},c_\sigma ,x]}}=c_\sigma (i\omega _n)c_\sigma ^{}(i\omega _n)_{S_{eff}}$$
(9)
$$D_\sigma (i\omega _n)=x^2(i\omega _n)_{S_{eff}}$$
(10)
Eqs. (6-10) in general have to be solved numerically. In many cases though, a number of approximations reducing numerical work but preserving a physical content of the problem is possible. One of the approximations is in using a model density of states (DOS) for fermions and bosons, so that momentum summations in EDMFT equations could be performed analytically. It is convenient to chose semicircular electron DOS:

$$\rho _{el}(ϵ)=\frac{2}{\pi W^2}\sqrt{W^2ϵ^2}$$
(11)
where $`W`$ is the electron band halfwidth. The particular choice of semicircular electron DOS is qualitatively unimportant since we consider half filled electron band. For phonons, on the contrary, the shape of the phonon band near the bottom is crucial for temperatures smaller than the phonon band width. For d-dimensional phonons the bottom of the band has $`ϵ^{\frac{d2}{2}}`$ singularity. That is why to represent 3d and 2d phonons we chose semicircular and step-function-like phonon DOS respectively:

$`3d`$ $`\rho _{ph}(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \omega _1^2}}\sqrt{\omega _1^2(ϵ\omega _0)^2}`$ (12)
$`2d`$ $`\rho _{ph}(ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _1}}\theta \left(\omega _1^2(ϵ\omega _0)^2\right)`$ (13)
After replacing summations over wave vector by integrations over energy, Eq. (6) and Eq. (7) read:

$$G_\sigma (i\omega _n)=𝑑ϵ\frac{\rho _{el}(ϵ)}{\zeta ϵ}$$
(14)
$$D(i\omega _n)=𝑑ϵ\frac{\rho _{ph}(ϵ)}{\xi ^2ϵ^2}$$
(15)
where $`\zeta =i\omega _n+G_\sigma ^1(i\omega _n)G_{0\sigma }^1(i\omega _n)`$, $`\xi ^2=M(i\omega _n)^2+D^1(i\omega _n)D_0^1(i\omega _n)`$; density of states $`\rho (ϵ)\frac{dq}{dϵ_q}`$. For electron $`\rho _{el}(ϵ)`$ and phonon $`\rho _{ph}(ϵ)`$ DOS respectively $`ϵ_q=t_q`$ and $`ϵ_q^2=J_q`$. For DOS defined in Eqs. (11-13) integrations over energy in Eqs. (14,15) yield:

$$G_\sigma (i\omega _n)=\frac{2}{W^2}\left(\zeta s\sqrt{\zeta ^2W^2}\right)$$
(16)
where $`s`$=sgn\[Im$`\zeta `$\].

$`3d`$ $`D(i\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi \omega _1^2}}\left(2\xi +\sqrt{(\xi \omega _0)^2\omega _1^2}\sqrt{(\xi +\omega _0)^2\omega _1^2}\right)`$ (17)
$`2d`$ $`D(i\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi \omega _1}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi +\omega _1)^2\omega _0^2}{(\xi \omega _1)^2\omega _0^2}}\right]`$ (18)
We consider here a semiclassical treatment of the problem. In its most general form, the approach has been described in ref,  and is an application of the saddle point method. In this paper we use a more limited form of this method that consists of evaluating Eqs. (9,10) by a saddle point technique. It can be viewed as a combination of two separate approximations: the static approximation (equivalent to the phonon mass $`M\mathrm{}`$ limit) and a saddle point analysis of the EDMFT equations in the static approximation.

The approach of treating the collective excitations as classical, while the electrons are treated fully quantum mechanically, goes back to the Hubbard approximation. It was pointed out that a static approximation of the impurity model coupled with the DMFT self consistency conditions indeed gives a solution closely related to Hubbard’s. This approach has been used extensively in refs  in DMFT studies of the Holstein model. From the DMFT studies of the Mott transition,  we know that this approach becomes insufficient in the correlated metallic regime at very low temperatures, where a quasiparticle feature forms in addition to the spectral features produced in the semiclassical approximation. It is worth pointing out, that improvements of the static or of the saddle point approximation, will not remedy this shortcoming, which requires a non perturbative resummation of instanton events. Still, we show here that this simple analysis is able to reproduce all the trends of the solution of the EDMFT equations by the more expensive QMC method.

The EDMFT equations in the static approximation Eqs. (9,10) reduce to:

$$G(i\omega _n)=𝑑xP(x)\frac{1}{G_0^1(i\omega _n)+\lambda x}$$
(19)
$$D=\beta 𝑑xP(x)x^2$$
(20)
where

$$P(x)=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{exp}\left(g\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1G_0(i\omega _n)^2\lambda ^2x^2\right)\frac{\beta }{2}D_0^1x^2\right)$$
(21)
Eqs. (19-21) have to be solved together with Eqs. (6, 7). In the static limit only the zero phonon frequency survives, so we drop frequency index for the phonon correlation functions $`D_0`$ and $`D`$ . In Eqs. (19-21) and everywhere below we consider $`x`$ being the phonon field amplitude, it is related to its Fourier transform as $`x=\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}x_{\omega _m=0}`$. We consider no symmetry breaking in the electron spin channel, so we dropped the spin index; factor $`g`$ (equal 2 for spin one-half) in the Eq. (21) appears from trace over the spin index. $`N`$ normalizes $`P(x)`$ to unity. $`P(x)`$ is the probability distribution function of the phonon field amplitude $`x`$.

We now evaluate Eqs. (19-21) in the saddle point approximation in the variable $`x`$. There are two limits, weak and strong coupling. In the weak coupling the saddle point is at $`x=0`$, and in the strong coupling there are two equivalent saddle points at $`x=\pm x_00`$. Deriving the saddle point equations we explicitly use semicircular electron DOS, Eqs. (11 ,16). The relation between the bare and full Green’s functions is especially simple in this case:

$$G_0(i\omega _n)^1=i\omega _nt^2G(i\omega _n)$$
(22)
where $`t=W/2`$. Everywhere below in the paper energy is measured in units of $`t`$. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the particle-hole symmetric case.

In the weak coupling regime in the saddle point approximation, which includes Gaussian fluctuations of $`x`$ around zero, semiclassical EDMFT equations Eqs. (19-21) read:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )^3(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )^2+\alpha ^2=0$$
(23)
$$D_0^1D^1=T\underset{n0}{}\frac{2g\lambda ^2}{(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega _n)^2}$$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}=iG(i\omega _n)`$ and $`\alpha ^2=\lambda ^2|D|T=\lambda ^2T𝑑ϵ\rho _{ph}(ϵ)[D^1D_0^1ϵ^2]^1`$, so $`\alpha ^2`$ is solved for the phonon self energy thus making the system of the saddle point equations closed.

In the strong coupling regime we consider two saddle points $`x=\pm x_0`$. We discard fluctuations around these points (so $`|D|=\beta x_0^2`$), since nontrivial information is contained in the fact that we have two saddle points, and not in the Gaussian fluctuations, like it was in the case of weak coupling. EDMFT equations Eqs. (19-21) now read:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )^2(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )+\stackrel{~}{G}\alpha ^2=0$$
(25)
$$D_0^1=T\underset{n0}{}\frac{2g\lambda ^2}{(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega _n)^2+\lambda ^2TD}$$
(26)
Weak coupling equations Eqs. (23,24) are a saddle point expansion up to the first order in small parameter $`\lambda ^2DT`$, and strong coupling equations Eqs. (25,26) - up to the first order in large parameter $`\lambda ^2D/T`$. These equations have overlapped regions of applicability, provided $`T1`$. This allows us to combine weak and strong coupling equations into a unique set of equations, controlled by the small parameter $`T`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )^2(\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega )+\stackrel{~}{G}\alpha ^2=0$$
(27)
$$D_0^1D^1=2g\lambda ^2T\underset{n0}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}}{\stackrel{~}{G}+\omega _n}$$
(28)
These are our final semiclassical EDMFT equations. They are exact in the limit $`MT^2\omega _0^2`$, $`T1`$. For 3d and 2d phonons Eqs. (27,28) have to be solved together with Eq. (17,18), where $`\xi ^2=D^1D_0^1`$. Saddle point equations Eqs. (27,28) are very simple, they can be solved for $`D`$ and $`D_0`$ with minimal numerical efforts. Left hand side (lhs) part of Eq. (27) is a third degree polynomial, so electron Green’s function can be written as an elementary function determined by a single parameter $`\alpha ^2`$ which is a function of phonon self energy and bare parameters of the model.

In the limits of small and large $`\alpha ^2`$ (or $`\lambda `$) Eqs. (27,28) are solved completely for self energies:

$`\alpha 1`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{el}(i\omega _n)=\left(\frac{\omega _n}{2}+\sqrt{1+(\frac{\omega _n}{2})^2}\right)\alpha ^2$$
(29)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\frac{4g}{3\pi }\lambda ^2$$
(30)
Moreover, in the dispersionless case $`\alpha ^2=\lambda ^2T/(\omega _0^2\frac{4g}{3\pi }\lambda ^2)`$. This expression is valid everywhere except for the small region $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \omega _0T`$ below $`\lambda _c\omega _0`$. We consider here a disordered phase solution. In $`d=3`$ the disorder solution becomes unstable at $`\lambda \omega _0\omega _1`$ while it remains stable for all coupling in $`d=2`$. The self energies in the strong coupling regime $`\alpha 1`$ are given by :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{el}(i\omega _n)=\frac{\alpha ^2}{\omega _n}$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\frac{g\lambda ^2}{2\alpha }$$
(32)
In the strong coupling the phonon field distribution function is split in two peaks. The peak separation is $`2x_0`$, where $`x_0=g\lambda D_0/2`$, $`D=\beta x_0^2`$. In the dispersionless case $`\alpha ^2=(\frac{g}{2}\lambda ^2/\omega _0^2)^2`$, this is valid when $`\lambda \omega _0`$. This is completely similar to the previous analysis.

In $`d=3`$ the instability to the ordered phase occurs already at small $`\omega _1\frac{\omega _0^3}{\beta g^2}\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}`$, so $`D_0`$ stays practically unrenormalized.

In $`d=2`$ at $`\omega _1\frac{\omega _0^3}{\beta g^2}\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}`$ the system enters a regime when the phonon energy is exponentially small:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}(\omega _0\omega _1)^22\omega _1\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta g\frac{\omega _1}{\omega _0^3}\lambda ^2\right]$$
(33)
In the limit $`T0`$ one readily obtains the polaron formation condition, which happens at intermediate ($`\lambda _c\omega _0`$) coupling:

$$\frac{4g}{3\pi }\lambda _c^2D_0=1$$
(34)
where $`D_0=\omega _0^2`$ in the dispersionless case, but has to be found numerically for interacting phonons.

## III 3D phonons

In this section we compare our semiclassical solution to the exact QMC results. The saddle point equations we derived are exact when $`(2\pi T)^2M\omega _0^21`$ and $`Tt^11`$. The QMC results however, were obtained for $`(2\pi T)^2M\omega _0^22.5`$ and $`Tt^10.13`$. We want to show, that even in these cases when the parameters controlling the saddle point equations are relatively close to $`1`$, the semiclassical solution, even without including the refinements outlined in ref  not only captures all the qualitative trends of the exact solution, but in many instances is quantitatively close to it.

We study the case of 3-dimensional phonons. We use the same parameters as in the ref: inverse temperature $`\beta =8`$, the phonon band is centered at $`\omega _0=.5`$, electrons have double spin degeneracy $`g=2`$ and hopping amplitude $`t=1`$, phonon mass $`M=1`$. The electron band is half filled. To model 3d phonons semicircular DOS Eq. (12) is used. We present the solution of Eqs. (27,28) and Eq. (17).

In every figure in this section we plot both our and QMC curves. Our results are plotted using solid or dashed lines only, without symbols. QMC graphs are presented using dotted lines and always with symbols.

A local instability, starting from the disordered phase, takes place within EDMFT when as discussed in ref the effective phonon frequency $`\omega ^{}=\sqrt{(\omega _0\omega _1)^2+\mathrm{\Pi }}`$, given by the pole in the phonon Green’s function, becomes equal to zero. The phonon mode softening for different values of the phonon dispersion are shown in Fig.1. $`\omega ^{}`$ is plotted versus the quantity characterizing the effective interaction: $`U=\lambda ^2/\omega _0^2`$. The effective electron-electron interaction, mediated by phonons is given by $`U_{eff}=\lambda ^2D_0`$ evaluated at zero frequency . When the phonon dispersion vanishes $`U_{eff}=U`$. The upper curve in Fig.1 corresponds to the dispersionless case.

On the other hand, we find this is not the best way to detect an instability to an ordered phase and we discuss in Appendix D an alternative way to compute within EDMFT the phonon self energy which retains momentum dependence.

The equations in section II do not include possibility of the phonon field symmetry breaking. They need to be modified to describe long range ordering, and we implement this in section V. A well known property of mean field theories is that they allow the analytic continuation of mean field solutions beyond the parameter regime where they are stable. This was very fruitful in the understanding of the paramagnetic Mott insulating phase which is unstable to ferromagnetism.  As was done by QMC in ref, we study the continuation of the EDMFT equations beyond paramagnetic phase. It may hopefully be understood as a metastable phase. This requires some care since the instability to a charge ordered phase is signaled by a singularity appearing in the integrand in Eq. (15) and this instability causes $`D`$ to acquire an imaginary part. As in ref, we take the principal part of the integrand, the imaginary part of $`D_0`$, being equal to zero in every numerical iteration loop, which allows us to compare our results with the results of the QMC method.

### A Weak coupling

The finite dispersion treated within DMFT renormalizes $`D_0`$ (see Fig.2(a)). Since the effective electron electron interaction is proportional to $`D_0`$, the electron self energy is enhanced as well (see Fig.2(b)). While the features of the exact solution are qualitatively well reproduced in the semiclassical approach, it lacks quantitative agreement. The weak coupling is the worst case. The quantitative agreement is better for intermediate and strong coupling.

### B Strong coupling

In the strong coupling regime as dispersion increases, $`D_0`$ renormalizes downward (see Fig.3(a)), together with the electron self energy (see Fig.3(b)). For the strong coupling the quantitative agreement with QMC is very good.

### C Intermediate coupling

At intermediate coupling system is in a crossover between weak and strong coupling regimes. As $`\omega _1`$ increases, effective electron-electron interaction first becomes stronger, $`D_0`$ and electron self energy increases, like at weak coupling. At $`\omega ^{}=0`$ behavior changes on reverse, the picture is similar to strong coupling case. This is illustrated in Fig.4(a) and Fig.4(b).

## IV 2D phonons

In the previous section we calculated various functions at different parameters in the 3d case. The saddle point approximation is exact in the limit of infinite mass $`M`$ and zero temperature $`T`$. At finite $`M`$ and $`T`$ the applicability of the method in a wide region of parameters was established in the previous section by comparison to QMC data. In this section we study 2d phonon case (Eqs. (27,28) and Eq. (18)) in the same range of parameters.

Unlike the 3d case, the 2d disorder solution is locally stable, and we focus on this solution in this section. As we will show in section V EDMF in dimensions $`d<4`$ , gives rise to a first order transition at a critical coupling strength. We study the disordered state solution continued along the second order transition branch, which is skipped in the first order transition.

In the EDMFT approach, $`d=2`$, appears as a lower critical dimension for finite temperature second order transition. This result describes accurately the situation with order parameters posessing a continuous symmetry, but it is a spurious consequence of the inability of a local approximation to generate spatial anomalous dimensions in the cases where order breaks a discrete symmetry.

First we illustrate the exponential softening of the collective mode : in Fig.5 we plot effective frequency $`\omega ^{}`$ versus $`U`$ . The Fig.5 should be compared to Fig.1 (3d case). In the latter the curves hit $`U`$ axis, what implies second order transition. In Fig.5 the curves rather gradually approach $`U`$ axis, never crossing it.

Phonons generate effective electron-electron interaction $`\lambda ^2D_0`$ , so we are especially interested in $`D_0`$ behavior. We investigate 2d system for similar sets of parameters as we did in 3d case.

We obtained the following plots in weak, intermediate and strong coupling regimes:

The behavior of 2d system is very similar to that of 3d system before the energy of the phonon mode vanishes. In all cases $`D_0`$ gets renormalized, as the dispersion and consequently the effective interaction increases. The electron self energy enhances correspondingly. The only difference is the rate of $`D_0`$ renormalization in the weak, strong and intermediate coupling. $`D_0`$ renormalizes faster at larger $`\lambda `$ (see Fig.9), since electrons are stronger coupled to phonons.

## V Ordered Phase and Critical Temperature

We now turn to the generalization of the EDMFT equations to the ordered phase. For simplicity we will consider a classical model. This is justified, since in the semiclassical limit we can always integrate out the electrons, reducing EDMFT equations to classical mean field equations. For instance tracing out the electrons and performing a static approximation in the electron-phonon field leaves us with an action of the form ( neglecting terms of order $`\varphi ^6`$ and higher):

$$S[\varphi ]=\underset{i}{}\frac{r}{2}\varphi _i^2+\frac{U}{4}\varphi _i^4\underset{ij}{}\varphi _i\frac{J_{ij}}{2}\varphi _j=S_{loc}[\varphi ]\underset{ij}{}\varphi _i\frac{J_{ij}}{2}\varphi _j$$
(35)
To extend the EDMFT approach to the ordered phase it is useful to write down the Baym Kadanoff functional for the action,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[m,D]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}D+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}D_0^1D+\frac{1}{2}mD_0^1m+\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]$$
(36)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a sum of all two particle irreducible diagrams constructed from phonon Green’s functions $`D`$, phonon field expectation value $`m`$ and four legged interaction vertex $`3!U`$. We could also say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a sum of all two particle irreducible diagrams constructed from phonon Green’s functions $`D`$ and four, three, two legged vertices plus the first diagram shown in figure (10), which contains no propagators. The vertices yield factors of $`3!U`$, $`3!Um`$, $`3Um^2`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}Um^4`$ for four, three, two and zero legged vertices respectively. Each diagram in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has an extra $`1`$ factor.

In the Fig.10 we drew first and second order (in $`U`$) diagrams entering $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The extended DMFT equations in the ordered phase are derived by making the local approximation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the Baym Kadanoff functional and solving the stationary conditions for the magnetization and the local propagator resulting from the stationarity of Eq. (36) after this local approximation is made. In the local approximation the leading terms in a perturbative expansion in the quartic coupling are given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{4}Um^4+\frac{3}{2}UDm^2+\frac{3}{4}UD^23U^2D^3m^2\frac{3}{4}U^2D^4+\mathrm{}`$

Stationarity of the functional in Eq. (36) would give exact equations for $`D`$ and $`m`$. In the local approximation these equations reduce to EDMFT equations in zero magnetization and therefore generalize those to the ordered phase. They are given by

$`m(rJ_{q=0})+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta m}}=0`$ (37)
$`D={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[rJ_q+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta D}}]^1`$ (38)
where only local graphs are included in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ . Diagram series equivalent to the first equation are shown in Fig.11.

For the practical solution of the EDMFT Eqs. (38) , it is useful to follow the dynamical mean field procedure of introducing an impurity local effective action  to sum up the graphs generated by the functional for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and its functional derivatives $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\delta D`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\delta m`$ in terms of the cavity fields $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . The effective action

$$S_{EDMFT}[\varphi ]=S_{loc}[\varphi ]h\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\varphi ^2$$
(39)
generates the correct local quantities provided that the Weiss fields $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are chosen to obey the EDMFT self consistency conditions:

$$r\mathrm{\Delta }D^1=2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta D}$$
(40)
$$h=m(r\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta m}$$
(41)
Eqs. (38) and Eqs. (40,41) are a closed set of EDMFT equations, describing both ordered and disordered phase of the classical system Eq. (35):

$$D=\underset{q}{}[D^1+\mathrm{\Delta }J_q]^1$$
(42)
$$S_{EDMFT}[\varphi ]=S_{loc}[\varphi ]m\left(J_{q=0}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\varphi ^2$$
(43)
$$m=\varphi _{S_{EDMFT}}$$
(44)
$$D=\varphi ^2_{S_{EDMFT}}m^2$$
(45)
The equations above are consistent in describing the transition: magnetization vanishing in the ordered phase, and divergence of spin susceptibility across the transition do occur at the same critical temperature.

When $`U\mathrm{}`$, $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`U/r=1`$ the system, described by the action Eq. (35) reduces to a classical Ising model with spin values $`\pm 1`$. In this limit the standard Weiss mean field equations

$$m=\mathrm{tanh}mJ_{q=0}$$
(46)
can be compared with the EDMFT equations which now read:

$`m=\mathrm{tanh}m\left(J_{q=0}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ (47)
$`1m^2={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left[(1m^2)^1+\mathrm{\Delta }J_q\right]^1`$ (48)
We will also compare the EDMFT equations to an extension of mean field theory due to Bloch and Langer (BL):

$$M_1=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x(2\pi G_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{(M_1J_{q=0}x)^2}{2G_2}]\mathrm{tanh}x$$
(49)
$$M_2=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x(2\pi G_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{(M_1J_{q=0}x)^2}{2G_2}](\mathrm{cosh}x)^2$$
(50)
$$G_2=\underset{q}{}\frac{J_q}{1J_qM_2}$$
(51)
where $`M_1`$ is the magnetization. It can be shown that EDMFT counts (without overcounting) more terms in diagrammatic expansion of various physical quantities, like correlation function or free energy, than BL method does. One can also check that for the classical $`\pm 1`$ spin model EDMFT gives a better estimate for $`T_c`$ than BL method does.

We computed the critical temperature $`T_c`$ for the Ising model on a Bethe lattice with finite coordination following the paramagnetic solution till it disappears using the different approximations described in this section. The results are shown in Fig.12. The EDMFT result shows significant improvement over MFT, and is slightly better than BL method. Some more technical details comparing the approximation schemes are relegated to Appendix A.

In spite of the quantitative improvement of $`T_c`$, the order of the transition is incorrectly given by the EDMF approximation. In Fig.13 we present result of solving EDMFT equations for the simplest $`\pm 1`$ spin model in $`d=3`$. We plotted magnetization as a function of temperature. At sufficiently low temperature the solution consists of three branches with magnetizations $`m_3>m_2>m_1=0`$. These branches are extrema of the free energy, which is shown schematically in Fig.14. $`m_3`$ and $`m_1`$ correspond to local minima in the free energy, while $`m_2`$ corresponds to a local maximum and is unphysical. The transition is clearly of the first order. The order of the transition does not change up to $`d=4`$.

The inability of EDMFT to predict the correct order of the transition is related to the inability of a local theory to produce anomalous dimensions, and persists in quantum problems when the dynamical critical exponent and the dimensionality are such that they require the introduction of spatial anomalous dimensions. Details are given in Appendix B and C.

## VI Conclusion

We have performed a semiclassical analysis of the EDMFT equations for a simple Fermion Boson model. Comparison with earlier QMC treatments of the same problem reveals that this method reproduces semiquantitatively all the trends found in the previous study. It can be used therefore in the study of more complicated systems, such as fermions interacting with spin fluctuations. We have also investigated this approach in the ordered phase revealing some inadequacies of the approach which are closely related to the existence of anomalous dimensions in finite dimensional systems. Since this non trivial $`k`$ dependence which is characteristic of low dimensional systems cannot be generated by a local theory, EDMFT produces spurious results such as the existence of a first order phase transition in $`d<4`$ . Since at zero temperature the dynamical critical exponent is such that in two dimensions an ansatz without anomalous dimensions is internally consistent,  a continuation of the disordered state, beyond the first order phase transition, might be useful to study this system. In this spirit we pointed out that a continuation of the EDMFT, at finite temperatures, suitably interpreted, gives improved estimates of the critical temperature compared to the simplest mean field treatment or the Bloch Langer method. It could be used to obtain better estimates of ferromagnetic transition temperatures where spatial fluctuations of the order parameter substantially decrease the Curie temperature below the DMFT estimates. This is the case of bcc Iron, a problem which will require a more realistic investigation of EDMFT. Further investigation of the quantum problem will require zero temperature methods which go beyond the semiclassical approximation.

## A Critical Temperature

The transition to the ordered state for a classical model in BL method is signaled by the divergence in the zero momentum term in the sum:

$$G_2=\underset{q}{}\frac{J_q}{1J_qM_2}$$
(A1)
This equations is analogous to the selfconsistency equation of the EDMFT, it is arises when summing ring diagrams. $`M_2`$ is a vertex and $`J_{ij}`$ is a line in the ring diagram. $`G_2(i)M_2`$ is the sum of all ring diagrams which cover the site $`i`$. $`M_2`$ and $`G_2`$ are related to $`D`$ in EDMFT:

$$D=M_2+M_2G_2M_2$$
(A2)
Below we are explicitly summing ring graphs on a Bethe lattice to express $`G_2`$ through $`M_2`$.

We are introducing notations, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_2(i)`$ and $`Q(i)`$: $`\stackrel{~}{G}_2(i)`$ equals $`G_2(i)`$ when the latter is computed on a lattice with all but one bonds cut out from the site $`i`$. $`Q(i)M_2`$ includes those diagrams from $`\stackrel{~}{G}_2(i)M_2`$ which have only one vertex belonging to the site $`i`$.

The following relations can be established:

$$G_2=z\stackrel{~}{G}_2+z\stackrel{~}{G}_2(z1)M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2+z\stackrel{~}{G}_2(z1)M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2(z1)M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2+\mathrm{}$$
(A3)
$$\stackrel{~}{G}_2=Q+QM_2Q+QM_2QM_2Q+\mathrm{}$$
(A4)
$`Q=JM_2J+JM_2(z1)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2J+JM_2(z1)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2(z2)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2J`$ (A5)
$`+JM_2(z1)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2(z2)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2(z2)\stackrel{~}{G}_2M_2J+\mathrm{}`$ (A6)
where $`z`$ is the number of nearest neighbors, $`J`$ is a bond on the lattice.

Summing geometrical series, we obtain:

$$G_2=\frac{z\stackrel{~}{G}_2}{1(z2)M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2}$$
(A7)
$$\stackrel{~}{G}_2=\frac{Q}{1M_2Q}$$
(A8)
$$Q=J^2M_2\frac{1+M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2}{1(z2)M_2\stackrel{~}{G}_2}$$
(A9)
Solving these equations we get:

$$G_2=\frac{zQ}{1zM_2Q}$$
(A10)
$$Q=\frac{1\sqrt{1(z1)(2M_2J)^2}}{(z1)2M_2}$$
(A11)
Eq. (A10) and Eq. (A11) solve $`G_2`$ for $`M_2`$.

Curves $`J_c`$ vs $`z`$ for BL and EDMFT, together with MFT solution $`J_c=1/z`$ are presented in Fig.12 and compared to the exact solution:

$$J_c=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{z2}$$
(A12)
## B Order of the phase transition

Here we are proving that the EDMFT equations give a transition of the first order for $`d<4`$ and of the second order in the higher dimensions. For classical phonons EDMFT equations read:

$`m(rJ_{q=0})={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m}}`$ (B1)
$`D={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[r+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta D}}J_q]^1`$ (B2)
It is easily seen that

$$\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m^2}|_{m=0}=2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[0,D]}{\delta D}$$
(B3)
Solving Eq. (B2) for $`r`$ using the above relation for derivatives, up to the second order in $`m`$ we have:

$$\frac{m^2}{2}D^{^{\prime \prime }}|_{m=0}=D|_{m=0}\underset{q}{}\left[\left(2\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta D^2}\frac{1}{6}\frac{\delta ^4}{\delta m^4}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]|_{m=0}m^2+J_{q=0}J_q\right]^1$$
(B4)
The coefficient in front of $`m^2`$ in the right hand side (rhs) is positive. The lhs of Eq. (B4) is $`m^2`$; while the rhs has two contributions, one $`m^{d2}`$ and the other $`\delta \beta `$, where $`\delta \beta =\beta \beta _c`$. For $`d<4`$ the term $`m^{d2}`$ is dominant and $`\delta \beta m^{d2}<0`$. A negative $`\delta \beta `$ implies the first order transition. For $`d>4`$ the term $`m^2`$ from lhs becomes dominant and $`\delta \beta m^2>0`$. This is the usual mean field behavior resulting in a second order transition.

We showed that in a classical model the transition is of the first order below the upper critical dimension. The same is true for a quantum transition as well. We show it in the appendix C considering large $`N`$ limit.

As discussed earlier in connection with the order of the transition, this artifact of the EDMFT results from the inability of a local theory to capture physics that requires the introduction of anomalous dimensions. In spite of this shortcoming, when properly interpreted, EDMFT results in improved estimates of the critical temperature relative to DMFT.

## C Quantum phase transition

In this appendix we investigate the phase transition in the quantum version of $`\varphi ^4`$ model. We compare EDMFT and a full lattice model using large $`N`$ technique. We will show that above the upper critical dimension $`d>d_{uc}=4z`$ the exact critical exponents and the critical exponents obtained in EDMFT coincide. Below $`d_{uc}`$ the EDMFT and the lattice model exhibit different critical exponents. In the EDMFT the transition is of the first order for $`\frac{1}{2}d_{uc}<d<2`$ and of the second order otherwise. The transition is of the second order in the lattice case. Moreover, in EDMFT the exponents have universal value for $`d<\frac{1}{2}d_{uc}`$ and a non universal value for $`\frac{1}{2}d_{uc}<d<d_{uc}`$.

The lattice model is described by the action:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}D_0^1\varphi ^2+\frac{U}{4}(\varphi ^2)^2$$
(C1)
where $`D_{0\omega ,q}^1=r+|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2`$, $`\varphi ^2=_{a=1}^N\varphi _a^2`$, $`U=u/N`$, $`r`$ is a variable parameter which drives the phase transition. Corresponding EDMFT equations are:

$$mD_{0\omega ,q=0}^1+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m}=0$$
(C2)
$$D=\underset{q}{}[D_{0q}^1+2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta D}]^1$$
(C3)
The functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]`$ includes all two particle irreducible diagrams which are constructed from the magnetization $`m`$ (dot), the particle propagator $`D`$ (line) and the interaction term $`U`$ (four legged vertex). $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the following equation:

$$\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m^2}|_{m=0}=2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[0,D]}{\delta D}$$
(C4)
Expanding $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in small $`m`$ and using Eq. (C4) we write EDMFT equations as:

$$D_{0\omega ,q=0}^1+2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[0,D]}{\delta D}+\frac{1}{6}\frac{\delta ^4\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m^4}|_{m0}m^2=0$$
(C5)
$$D_\omega =_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑q^d[|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2+\{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{6}\frac{\delta ^4\mathrm{\Phi }[m,D]}{\delta m^4}|_{m0}\}m^2]^1$$
(C6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }[0,D]}{\delta D^2}`$.

Let $`D_{0c}`$, $`D_c`$, $`r_c`$ be values of $`D_0`$, $`D`$, $`r`$ in the transition point. Subtracting $`D_{0c\omega ,q=0}^1+2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }[0,D_c]}{\delta D}=0`$ from Eq. (C5) and keeping lowest order terms we have:

$$\delta r+2\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta D+\frac{1}{6}\frac{\delta ^4\mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta m^4}m^2=0$$
(C7)
where $`\delta r=rr_c`$, $`\delta D=DD_c`$. This equation provides a relation between the variation of the driving term $`r`$ and the order parameter $`m`$. We will show that for $`d>d_{uc}`$ the last term in the left hand side wins over the second term, the transition is mean field like. The second term becomes important and determines the character of the transition for $`d<d_{uc}`$.

We will consider the large $`N`$ limit up to the order of $`1/N`$. Diagrams which enter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are chains of bubbles (see Fig.15), which can be summed up as geometrical series:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{u}{2}+\frac{u}{1+\frac{u}{2}\chi }\right)$$
(C8)
where $`\chi _\omega 𝑑\nu D_\nu D_{\nu +\omega }`$ in the quantum problem or $`\chi =D^2`$ in the classical problem. The only term of the order $`1/N`$ which enters $`\delta ^4\mathrm{\Phi }/\delta ^4m`$ is $`6u/N`$. All other terms are of order $`O(1/N^3)`$.

Eq. (C7) and Eq. (C8) holds in case of a lattice as well, but $`D`$ now depends on both momentum and frequency, and summations now run over wave vectors as well.

The upper and lower critical dimensions are determined by the convergence of integrals $`Tr\delta D`$ and $`TrD`$ in the ultraviolet and infrared limits respectively:

$$Tr\delta D𝑑\omega 𝑑q\frac{q^{d1}}{(|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2)^2}$$
(C9)
$$TrD𝑑\omega 𝑑q\frac{q^{d1}}{(|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2)}$$
(C10)
These equations are the same for the mean field and lattice models, they yield the upper critical dimension $`d_{uc}=4z`$ and the lower critical dimension $`d_{lc}=2z=d_{uc}2`$.

We first consider EDMFT. In a crude way one can estimate:

$`d>2,`$ $`D_\omega {\displaystyle d^dq(|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2)^1}(d2)^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^{(d2)}|\omega |^{\frac{d2}{z}})`$ (C11)
$`d<2,`$ $`D_\omega (d2)^1|\omega |^{\frac{d2}{z}}`$ (C12)
and

$`d>2,`$ $`\chi _\omega {\displaystyle 𝑑\nu D_\nu D_{\nu +\omega }}(d2)^2|\omega |^{\frac{d2}{z}+1}`$ (C13)
$`d<2,`$ $`\chi _\omega (d2)^2(2{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{z}}+1)^1|\omega |^{2\frac{d2}{z}+1}`$ (C14)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_q`$ is a momentum cutoff. We see from Eq. (C14) that for $`d<d_{uc}/2`$ the susceptibility $`\chi _\omega `$ is divergent at low frequency, it leads to a universal critical behavior for $`d<d_{uc}/2`$, as follows from the self energy calculation below. The self energy in large $`N`$ limit is $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }2\mathrm{\Gamma }D`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{uc}}{2}}<d<d_{uc},`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(d2)^1u|\omega |^{\frac{d2}{z}+1}`$ (C15)
$`d_{lc}<d<{\displaystyle \frac{d_{uc}}{2}},`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\nu \chi _\nu ^1D_{\nu +\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(d2)(2{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{z}}+1)|\omega |^{\frac{d2}{z}}`$ (C16)
In a similar way we can calculate a contribution from $`m`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta D`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{uc}}{2}}<d<d_{uc},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(d2)^1um^{d2+z}`$ (C17)
$`d_{lc}<d<{\displaystyle \frac{d_{uc}}{2}},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(d2)(2{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{z}}+1)m^{d+2}`$ (C18)
This result together with Eq. (C7) suggests that the transition is the first order for $`\frac{1}{2}d_{uc}<d<2`$.

Now we consider the lattice model.

$$\chi _{\omega ,q}𝑑\nu d^dp(|\nu +\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+(p+q)^2)^1(|\nu |^{\frac{2}{z}}+p^2)^1(d+z4)^1(|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2)^{\frac{d+z}{2}2}$$
(C19)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\omega ,q}\frac{1}{N}𝑑\nu 𝑑p\chi _{\nu ,p}^1D_{\nu +\omega ,p+q}\frac{1}{N}(d+z4)(|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}\mathrm{ln}|\omega |+q^2\mathrm{ln}q)$$
(C20)
In this case the frequency dependent part of the self energy can be conveniently exponentiated to yield: $`D[|\omega |^{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{z}}}+q^{2\eta }]^1`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{z}=2N^1(dd_{uc})c_1(d)`$ and $`\eta =N^1(dd_{uc})c_2(d)`$, where $`c_1(d)`$ and $`c_2(d)`$ are some smooth functions of $`d`$.

We also calculate a contribution from $`m`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta DN^1(dd_{uc})m^2\mathrm{ln}m`$. It yields $`\delta rm^{\frac{1}{\beta }}`$ with $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}+(dd_{uc})\frac{1}{N}c_3(d)`$. The transition is the second order in this case.

## D Instability analysis

Let us consider a very general electron phonon Hamiltonian which describes an electron phonon system with electron-electron interaction (local or long range), electron-phonon interaction and phonon-phonon interaction (phonon unharmonicity). We can always use a Hubbard Stratonovich decoupling on electron-electron interaction, so we assume that information about long range electron-electron interaction is stored in the phonon dispersion and we will not write the long range interaction explicitly. We can introduce a source dependent action $`S`$ where the sources are coupled to different fields. The free energy $`W=\mathrm{ln}e^S`$ is the generating functional for expectation values of those fields.

$`S={\displaystyle }`$ $`dxdx^{}`$ (D1)
$`c_\sigma ^{}(x)`$ $`G_{0\sigma }^1(xx^{})c_\sigma (x^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (x)D_0^1(xx^{})\varphi (x^{})`$ (D4)
$`+\delta (xx^{})\left(Un_{}(x)n_{}(x)+V_4\varphi ^4(x)+\lambda \varphi (x)c_\sigma ^{}(x)c_\sigma (x)\right)`$
$`J_\sigma (x,x^{})c_\sigma ^{}(x)c_\sigma (x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (x)K(x,x^{})\varphi (x^{})\delta (xx^{})L(x)\varphi (x)`$
$`x`$ variable includes both space and time in the above formula and repeated indices imply summation. Expectation values of the fields coupled to the sources are given by:

$$G=\frac{\delta W}{\delta J},K=2\frac{\delta W}{\delta K},m=\frac{\delta W}{\delta L},$$
(D5)
Exact Green’s functions correspond to the limit of zero sources. To study phase transitions, like the transition when the phonon field acquires non zero expectation value, one needs to have the free energy as a functional of correlation functions only. Such functional can be derived as a Legendre transform of the free energy: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=WJGK/2DLm`$. The sources $`J`$,$`K`$ and $`L`$ have to be solved for $`G`$,$`D`$ and $`m`$. The functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a Baym Kadanoff functional and its stationarity yields equations for zero source correlation functions. We present the functional without derivation:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}[G,D,m]`$ $`=`$ (D6)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}G`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Tr}(G_0^1G^1)G{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{log}D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}D_0^1D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mD_0^1m+\mathrm{\Phi }[G,D,m]`$ (D7)
$`G_0`$ and $`D_0`$ are free fields of the action, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ functional is the sum of all two particle irreducible graphs constructed from the original bare interaction vertices, from vertices generated by shifting the phonon field by $`m`$ and from full correlation functions $`G`$ and $`D`$.

The charge ordering instability can be studied by looking at the zero frequency-momentum phonon propagator behavior: the propagator diverges in a charge density wave (CDW) transition. Alternatively one can study the transition from the ordered side, by observing the order parameter vanishing ($`m`$ in our case). The two approaches should give consistent results. We will first show that this is indeed the case in the exact theory, then we explain how a similar approach can be applied in the EDMF theory.

Let us introduce some compact notations we are going to use. $`o_\alpha ^a`$ is a field operator of $`a`$ kind at $`\alpha `$ space-time point. $`a=G`$ specifies an electron field operator and $`a=D`$ specifies a phonon field operator. $`O_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{ab}`$ is a four point function, which is a subset of all connected diagrams in the perturbative expansion of $`o_\alpha ^ao_\beta ^ao_\delta ^bo_\gamma ^b`$, rules for selecting the subset of diagrams depends on a particular operator. Multiplication of two operators is defined by: $`[O^{(1)}O^{(2)}]_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }=_{\mu \nu }O_{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }^{(1)}O_{\mu \nu ,\gamma \delta }^{(2)}`$. We are introducing three four point operators:1) $`\chi _0`$ includes all graphs which enter skeleton graphs without interaction vertices. 2) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ includes all 1D irreducible diagrams; 3) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ includes all 2P irreducible diagrams. In our case reducibility of $`O_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ is understood as disconnecting $`\alpha \beta `$ part from $`\gamma \delta `$ part. “1D irreducible” means “one particle irreducible with respect to cutting a phonon line”. “2P irreducible” means “two particle irreducible”. $`\chi _0`$ is trivially expressed in terms of correlation functions: $`\chi _0^{GD}=\chi _0^{DG}=0`$, $`\chi _{0\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{GG}=G_{\alpha \gamma }G_{\beta \delta }`$ and $`\chi _{0\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{DD}=D_{\alpha \gamma }D_{\beta \delta }+D_{\alpha \delta }D_{\beta \gamma }`$.

We can write out the following Dyson equations for the components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ operator:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GG}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0^{GG}+\chi _0^{GG}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{GG}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GG}+\chi _0^{GG}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{GD}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DG}`$ (D8)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GD}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0^{GG}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{GG}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GD}+\chi _0^{GG}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{GD}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DD}`$ (D9)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DG}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0^{DD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{DD}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DG}+\chi _0^{DD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{DG}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GG}`$ (D10)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DD}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0^{DD}+\chi _0^{DD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{DD}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{DD}+\chi _0^{DD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{DG}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{GD}`$ (D11)
or we could simply write:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\chi _0+\chi _0\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(D12)
Solving for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we find: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=[\chi _0^1\mathrm{\Gamma }]^1=(^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK})^1`$. Second derivative $`^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}`$ is 2 x 2 matrix defined by:

$$(^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK})_{ab}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{C_aC_b}$$
(D13)
where $`C`$ is a two component vector: $`C_G=G,C_D=D`$.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ matrix is related to the phonon self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}`$ in a simple way, as can be seen from the diagrammatic series in Fig.16.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ comprises all four legged 1PI graphs, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}`$ comprises all two legged 1PI graphs. 2PI four legged block is nothing but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Two horizontal lines represent a couple of correlation functions of the same kind, $`GG`$ or $`DD`$, we assume that a summation runs over each couple of horizontal lines, while 2PI four legged blocks are understood as 2 x 2 matrices. The first line is a diagrammatic analog of Eq. (D12). The second line provides connection between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}`$. That can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{mm}+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{mC_a}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{C_bm}$$
(D14)
or in a slightly different way:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{mm}+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{mC}\left(\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{CC^{}}\right)^1\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{C^{}m}$$
(D15)
The condition for the CDW instability at wave vector $`q`$ is: $`D_{0q}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=0`$.

We will reproduce the above result studying CDW transition from the ordered phase. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}`$ is the free energy, so in the transition point

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{dmdm}=0$$
(D16)
From the way $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}`$ is constructed it follows $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}/C=0`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}/dm=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}/m`$. If we use $`d(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}/C)/dm=0`$ and Eq. (D16) we find:

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{mm}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{mC}\left(\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{CC^{}}\right)^1\frac{^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}}{C^{}m}=0$$
(D17)
This equation is identical to Eq. (D15) as should be in exact theory. In EDMFT approach we take the local approximation for the two particle irreducible graphs. All 2PI graphs in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}`$ are contained by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So the condition for $`m`$ vanishing is still given by Eq. (D17) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ being local. Alternatively we can use Eqs. (D12) where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{C_aC_b}`$ is local, in which case these two methods are equivalent. Let us consider the second method, when the transition is approached from the disordered phase.

The local $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}`$ can be computed using the impurity action of EDMF theory. For simplicity we consider electron phonon interaction only, with the coupling $`\lambda =1`$. Equations similar to Eqs. (D11) can be written for the susceptibility $`\chi ^{ab}=o^ao^ao^bo^b`$. In short notations it reads:

$$\chi =\chi _0+\chi _0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\chi $$
(D18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is different from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Eq. (D12), because now it includes 1D reducible diagrams. The relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is simple:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\widehat{D}_0$$
(D19)
where $`\widehat{D}_0`$ is 2 x 2 matrix, $`\widehat{D}_0^{GG}=D_0`$ and $`\widehat{D}_0^{DG}=\widehat{D}_0^{GD}=\widehat{D}_0^{DD}=0`$. Using Eq. (D12), Eq. (D18) and Eq. (D19) we can express the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ through the quantities which are directly computed from the impurity action:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=[[\chi _{imp}]^1[\chi _{0imp}]^1+\widehat{D}_{0imp}+[\chi _0]^1]^1$$
(D20)
where $`\chi _{imp}^{ab}=o_a^{}o_ao_b^{}o_b_{imp}`$, $`\chi _{0imp}^{ab}=\delta _{ab}C_a^2`$ and $`D_{0imp}`$ is the Weiss field of the impurity action:

$`S_{imp}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}}`$ (D22)
$`c_\sigma ^{}(\tau )G_{0imp,\sigma }^1(\tau \tau ^{})c_\sigma (\tau ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi (\tau )D_{0imp}^1(\tau \tau ^{})\varphi (\tau ^{})+\delta (\tau \tau ^{})\varphi (\tau )c_\sigma ^{}(\tau )c_\sigma (\tau )`$
The described method is exact in the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$. At finite $`d`$ it yields a higher $`T_c`$ than a naive local approximation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\delta D`$. Assuming $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ph}=\delta \mathrm{\Phi }/\delta D`$ would be equivalent to taking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BK}`$ as being local in Eq. (D15), while the correct approach is to take a local approximation on the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ functional only, not on the whole Baym Kadanoff functional.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This research was supported by the Division of Materials Science of the National Science Foundation under Grant DMR 89-15895-01.

$``$ Current address Institute of Materials Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.


format: text

text:
# Global duality in heavy flavor hadronic decays

(December, 2001)

## Abstract

We show that heavy meson hadronic decay widths satisfy quark-hadron duality when smeared over the heavy quark mass, $`M`$, to an accuracy of order $`1/M^2`$.

preprint:   UCSD/PTH 01–24 hep-ph/0112323

Quark-hadron duality has been part of the lore of strong interactions for three decades. Bloom and GilmanBloom:1971ye ; Bloom:1970xb  (BG) discovered duality in electron-proton inelastic scattering. There, the cross section is given in terms of two Lorentz invariant form factors $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ which are functions of the invariant mass of the virtual photon, $`q^2`$, and the energy transfer to the electron, $`\nu `$. Considering the form factors as functions of the scaling variable $`\omega q^2/2M\nu `$, they compared the scaling regime of large $`q^2`$ (and large $`\nu `$) with the region of fixed, low $`q^2`$. They determined that, for each form factor, the low $`q^2`$ curves oscillate about the scaling curve, that identifiable nucleon resonances are responsible for these oscillations and that the amplitude of a resonant oscillation relative to the scaling curve is independent of $`q^2`$. Moreover, they introduced sum rules whereby integrals of the form factors at low and large $`q^2`$ agree and noticed that the agreement was quite good even when the integration involved only a region that spans a few resonances.

Poggio, Quinn and WeinbergPoggio:1976af  (PQW) applied these ideas to electron-positron annihilation. While BG compared experimental curves among themselves, PQW compared the experimental cross section to a scaling curve calculated in QCD. They noticed that the weighted average of the cross section $`\sigma (s)`$,

$$\sigma (s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s^{}\frac{\sigma (s^{})}{(s^{}s)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}$$
(1)
is given in terms of the vacuum polarization of the electromagnetic current with complex argument,

$$\sigma (s)=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }(s+i\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Pi }(si\mathrm{\Delta })\right),$$
(2)
and argued that one can safely use perturbation theory to compute this provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is large enough. This procedure was better understood with the advent of Wilson’sWilson:1969  Operator Product Expansion (OPE). It is interesting to point out that the prediction of PQW based on the two generations of quarks and leptons known at the time did not successfully match the experimental results. When PQW allowed for additional matter they found a best match if they supplemented the model with a heavy lepton and a charge $`1/3`$ heavy quark, anticipating the discoveries of the tau-lepton and b-quark.

In an attempt to understand the origin of quark-hadron duality we have computed both the actual rate and its “scaling limit” from first principles in special situations. In Ref. Boyd:1996ht  we computed the semi-leptonic decay rate and spectrum for a heavy hadron in the small velocity (SV) limit. We showed that two channels, $`BDe\nu `$ and $`BD^{}e\nu `$, give the decay rate to first two orders in an expansion in $`1/m_b`$ and that to that order the result is identical to the inclusive rate obtained using a heavy quark OPE as introduced in Ref. Chay:1990da . The equality holds for the double differential decay rate if it is averaged over a large enough interval of hadronic energies. The computation demonstrates explicitly quark-hadron duality in semi-leptonic $`B`$-meson decays in the SV limit, but really sheds no light into the mechanism for duality. In particular, it is puzzling that duality holds even if the rate is dominated by only two channels.

More recently we attempted to verify duality in hadronic heavy meson decays. In Ref. Grinstein:1998xk  we considered the width of a heavy meson in a soluble model that in many ways mimics the dynamics of QCD, namely an $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory in $`1+1`$ dimensions in the large $`N_c`$ limit. This model, first studied by ’t Hooft'tHooft:1974hx , exhibits a rich spectrum with an infinite tower of narrow resonances for each internal quantum number, making the study of duality viable. We considered a ‘$`B`$-meson’ with a heavy quark $`Q`$ and a light (anti-)quark $`q`$ of masses $`M_Q`$ and $`m`$, respectively, which decays via a weak interaction into light $`\overline{q}q`$ mesons. To leading order in $`1/N_c`$ the decay rate is dominated by two body final states: if $`\pi _j`$ denote the tower of $`\overline{q}q`$-mesons, the total width is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\pi _j\pi _k)`$, where the sum extends over all pairing of mesons such that the sum of their masses does not exceed the $`B`$ mass, $`\mu _j+\mu _k<M_B`$. The main result of that investigation was that there is rough agreement between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)`$ and the decay rate of a free heavy quark, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$. When considered as functions of $`M_Q`$ the quark rate is smooth but the meson rate exhibits sharp peaks whenever a threshold for production of a light pair opens up. This is due to the peculiar behavior of phase space in $`1+1`$ dimensions, which is inversely proportional to the momentum of the final state mesons. Nevertheless, in between such peaks it was found that the relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)(1+0.14/M_Q)`$, in units of $`g^2N_c/\pi =1`$, holds fairly accurately.

RecentlyGrinstein:2001zq  we considered the effect of local averaging on the results of Ref. Grinstein:1998xk . The main result is that when averaged locally over the heavy mass $`M_Q`$ the agreement between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$ is parametrically improved. In fact, for the averaged widths we found

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)\left[1+\frac{0.4}{M_Q^2}+\frac{5.5}{M_Q^3}\right]$$
(3)
Remarkably, the correction of order $`1/M_Q`$ has disappeared.

In this paper we demonstrate that when averaging over $`M_Q`$ the corrections of order $`1/M_Q`$ are absent. The argument we present is very general and applies both to the ’t Hooft model, explaining the numerical observations of Grinstein:2001zq , and the phenomenological relevant case of four dimensional QCD. The central idea is simple. In a heavy quark effective theory the four quark operator describing a weak $`B`$-meson hadronic decay, is

$$e^{iMvx}(\overline{u}_L\gamma ^\mu h_v\overline{d}_L\gamma _\mu u_L)(x),$$
(4)
where $`h_v`$ is the heavy quark field with velocity $`v`$. The exponential factor, which accounts for the large momentum carried by the heavy quark, plays the same role as an insertion of external momentum $`\mathrm{exp}(iqx)`$ with the specific choice $`q=Mv`$. Thus one can use dispersion relations to relate the decay amplitude to Green functions with complex momentum where an OPE is valid, much like the procedure for semileptonic decays in Ref. Chay:1990da . The resulting relation has then the form of a mass averaged amplitude in terms of a systematic OPE.

Consider the Green function

$$T(q,p)=id^4xe^{iqx}\overline{B}(p)|T(^{}(x)(0))|\overline{B}(p)$$
(5)
where the $`B`$ momentum is $`p=Mv`$ and $``$ is the term in the weak Hamiltonian density responsible for hadronic $`B`$ decay:

$$=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}^{}\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b\overline{d}_L\gamma _\mu u_L.$$
(6)
A simple calculation gives

$`\text{Im}T={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta ^4(q+pp_X)|X|(0)|\overline{B}|^2`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta ^4(qp+p_X)|X|^{}(0)|\overline{B}|^2`$ (8)
Hence, the analytic structure of $`T(Q)T(Mv,Qv)`$ is as shown in Fig. 1. The two real axis cuts are associated with the two time orderings of $``$ and $`^{}`$. The discontinuity across the first cut, which runs from $`Q=Q_1=m_D+m_\pi m_B`$ to infinity, is related to the inclusive decay rate of the $`\overline{B}`$ meson. For $`Q>m_B`$ there is also a contribution from states with two $`\overline{B}`$ mesons. The discontinuity across the second cut, running from $`Q=Q_2=m_Bm_D`$ to negative infinity, is related to a process with two units of $`B`$-number in the final state. In addition, a pole at $`m_{B_c}`$ is not shown. The decay rate is obtained as the discontinuity at $`q=0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)=\frac{1}{m_B}\text{Im}T|_{q=0}.$$
(9)
While $`T`$ may be computed perturbatively when the complex momentum $`q^0`$ is sufficiently away from the real cut, the computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)`$ requires $`T`$ at one point on the cut itself. This has been the main impediment to computing the decay width. In processes such as $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons or in semileptonic $`B`$ decays, an integration over $`q`$ allows one to use a dispersion relation that relates an integral of the discontinuity of $`T`$ on the real axis to the value of $`T`$ in the complex plane. But in this process $`q`$ is fixed.

Our solution to this problem makes use of the observation above that when computing $`T`$ in an effective theory for the static heavy quark the momentum of the heavy quark, $`Mv`$, and the external insertion of momentum, $`q`$, enter all expressions in the precise combination $`q+Mv`$. Therefore, one may still use a dispersion relation integrating over $`q`$, and this will have the same effect as an integral over $`M`$. The result is a perturbative expression for an integral over the mass of the decay width.

We define a Green function in the effective theory similarly,

$$\widehat{T}(q,v)=id^4xe^{i(q+Mv)x}H(v)|T(\widehat{}^{}(x)\widehat{}(0))|H(v)$$
(10)
Here $`H(v)`$ is the state corresponding to the static quark with four velocity $`v`$, with a non-standard normalization (independent of $`M`$) as is appropriate in the effective theory. To this order, the weak Hamiltonian in the effective theory, $`\widehat{}`$, is the weak Hamiltonian $``$ with the quark $`b`$ replaced by the effective theory static field $`h_v`$. It follows that

$$\text{Im}\widehat{T}=\underset{X}{}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta ^4(q+Mvp_X)|X|\widehat{}(0)|H|^2.$$
(11)
A second term, of the form

$$\underset{X}{}\pi (2\pi )^3\delta ^4(q+Mv+p_X)|X|\widehat{}^{}(0)|H|^2,$$
(12)
is absent because the intermediate state $`X`$ is required to have two units of $`B`$-number, which is excluded from the effective theory. This also means that the left cut in Fig. 1 is absent for $`\widehat{T}`$. The effective theory, while unable to properly reproduce the full Green function $`T(p,q)`$, does provide a systematic approximation to physical quantities like the hadronic decay width, thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B)\text{Im}\widehat{T}|_{q=0}`$.

To leading order in $`1/M`$ one has an additional result: since the mass enters only in the combination $`q+Mv`$, the decay rate for a heavy meson of heavy quark mass $`M+\delta M`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M+\delta M)\text{Im}\widehat{T}|_{q=\delta Mv}`$. If we define $`\widehat{T}(Q)=T(Qv,v)`$, which depends implicitly on $`M`$, then to leading order in $`M`$ the dependence on $`M`$ and $`Q`$ is only through the combination $`M+Q`$. It is straightforward now to use standard methods of analysis to relate an integral of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the Green function of complex argument. Using the contour in Fig. 2, we have

$$\frac{1}{(n1)!}\frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}\frac{\widehat{T}(z)}{(z+i\mathrm{\Delta })^n}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{1}{(n1)!}\frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}\frac{\widehat{T}(z)}{(zi\mathrm{\Delta })^n}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑z\frac{\widehat{T}(z)}{(z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^n}.$$
(13)
The right hand side of this equation is the width calculated to leading order in $`1/M`$ in the effective theory, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0`$, averaged over masses with a particular weight. We have introduced a parameter $`n`$, the power of the denominator in (13), to guarantee vanishing of the integral on the circle at infinity. It needs to be adjusted depending on the number of spacetime dimensions. Defining

$$f(M)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xw(x)f(x)$$
(14)
with the weight function defined by

$$w(x)=\frac{(n1)!}{(2n3)!!}\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(xM)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)^n,$$
(15)
and recalling that the width vanishes when $`m_B<m_D+m_\pi `$, we have obtained

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0(M)=\frac{2^{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }^{2n1}}{(2n3)!!}\left\{\frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}\frac{\widehat{T}(z)}{(z+i\mathrm{\Delta })^n}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}\frac{\widehat{T}(z)}{(zi\mathrm{\Delta })^n}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}\right\}.$$
(16)
This is of the form of our main result, but is not quite complete. It gives a peculiar average over heavy quark mass of the decay width to leading order in $`1/M`$ in terms of the off-shell effective theory Green function with complex momentum. The right hand side can be evaluated using an operator product expansion if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is large enough. As in the case of semileptonic decaysChay:1990da  the leading operator in the expansion is of the form $`\overline{h}_v\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v`$ and has a normalized matrix element in the state $`H(v)`$. Since its coefficient is computed perturbatively, one has, to leading order in $`1/M`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0(M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q(M)$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q(M)`$ is the perturbative width of the heavy quark.

The next term in the operator product expansion of $`\widehat{T}(i\mathrm{\Delta })`$ involves an operator with one derivative, $`\overline{h}_v\mathrm{\Gamma }D_\mu h_v`$, which has vanishing expectation value in the state $`H(v)`$. Therefore, the leading correction to Eq. (17) from the OPE is of order $`1/M^2`$. However, the Hamiltonian $``$ itself has an expansion in $`1/M`$ so we have yet to establish the validity of quark-hadron duality for the decay width to order $`1/M^2`$. Moreover, the relation between the weak Hamiltonian and its representation in the HQET involves Wilson coefficients that have explicit mass dependence. Both types of correction spoil the invariance $`MM+\delta M`$, $`QQ\delta M`$. We address these issues next.

The effective Hamiltonian $``$ has an HQET expansion in powers of $`1/M`$,

$$=C_0\widehat{}_0+\frac{1}{M}C_1\widehat{}_1+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
A sum over several possible operators at each order in $`1/M`$ is implicit. The coefficients $`C_k`$ are functions of $`M/\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is a renormalization point which we chose to be a fixed number, large enough that the coefficients can be computed perturbatively. We do not set $`\mu =M`$ since this would introduce additional $`M`$ dependence into the operators (which are also renormalized at the scale $`\mu `$). There is a corresponding expansion of the Green function in Eq. (10),

$$T=C_0\widehat{T}_0+\frac{1}{M}C_1\widehat{T}_1+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
and of the width,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_0+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1+\mathrm{}$$
(20)
Consider the individual averages

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k(M)=𝑑Qw(Q)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k(Q)$$
(21)
where the weight function $`w`$ is given in Eq. (15). In order to use a dispersion relation like in (13) we note that the explicit inverse powers of mass give poles at $`z=M`$ and the Wilson coefficients, with typical $`\mathrm{ln}(M)`$ behavior, give cuts extending from $`z=M`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. Using the contour in Fig. 3, which excludes these cut and pole, we are led to consider

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{C_k(z+M)\widehat{T}_k(z)}{(z+M)^k(z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^n}}=`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_k(z+M)\widehat{T}_k(z)}{(z+M)^k(z+i\mathrm{\Delta })^n}}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_k(z+M)\widehat{T}_k(z)}{(z+M)^k(zi\mathrm{\Delta })^n}}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$
On the other hand, the integral can be written as a sum of two terms, namely, the width average we want and the integral over a contour below and above the cut on the negative real axis. The latter is suppressed by powers of $`M`$. To estimate it we note that since the Green function $`\widehat{T}`$ is analytic in this region we may simply replace it by a power of the mass given by dimensional analysis, $`\widehat{T}(z)(z+M)^p`$ where $`p=5`$ in four dimensions ($`p=2D3`$ in the general case of $`D`$ dimensions). Also, we may take the Wilson coefficient to be a simple $`\mathrm{log}`$ for this estimate. Then the integral around the cut is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle }`$ $`dz`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(z+M)(z+M)^{pk}}{(z^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^n}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{n1}}{dz^{n1}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(z+M)(z+M)^{pk}}{(z+i\mathrm{\Delta })^n}}|_{z=i\mathrm{\Delta }}+(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta })\right]`$
$`=`$ $`𝒪(M^{pk+12n}\mathrm{ln}(M))`$
For comparison, a similar estimate of the average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(M)`$ using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(x)x^{pk}`$ gives

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x^{pk}}{[(xM)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2]^n}=\frac{2\pi }{(2\mathrm{\Delta })^{2n1}}\frac{(2n2)!}{[(n1)!]^2}M^{pk}\left(1+𝒪(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{M})\right)$$
(24)
Thus, we can express the width average in terms of the off-shell Green function and derivatives in Eq. (22) up to corrections suppressed by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/M)^{2n1}\mathrm{ln}(M)`$.

As in the case of semileptonic decaysChay:1990da , we can now calculate the width average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)`$ by computing the off-shell Green functions using an OPE. But we can do better: we can show that there are no corrections of order $`1/M`$. As in the case of semileptonic decays, the OPE is an expansion in operators of the form $`\overline{h}_v\mathrm{\Gamma }D^lh_v`$ where $`D`$ is a covariant derivative. The central observations are that the operator $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}h_vD_\mu h_v`$ has vanishing expectation valueChay:1990da  and the expansion for $`\widehat{T}_k`$ starts at order $`\overline{h}_v\mathrm{\Gamma }D^kh_v`$. The latter statement is non-trivial. Consider the case of semileptonic decays. In the original work of Ref. Chay:1990da  this question is sidestepped by doing a simultaneous expansion in large momentum transfer (the OPE) and the HQET. But, following Ref. Mannel:1993su , one could first express the Green function in the HQET and only then do the OPE. Although Ref. Mannel:1993su  does not consider the effect of subleading operators, it is clear that the two approaches yield the same result only if the OPE of products of subleading operators starts at the corresponding order in $`\overline{h}_vD^lh_v`$. Clearly, a similar indirect argument applies here, but we know of no direct proof of the statement.

Our main result is then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q(M)\left(1+𝒪(\frac{1}{M^2})\right).$$
(25)
It should be noted that the corrections that have been omitted are parametrically small at large $`M`$, but can be quantitatively large, depending on the values of $`M`$, $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In the ’t Hooft model our result is in agreement with the empirical observations of Ref. Grinstein:2001zq  where the averaged widths agree to order $`1/M^2`$ while the un-averaged ones agree at best to order $`1/M`$. The weight functions used for averages in Ref. Grinstein:2001zq  were Gaussian, $`w(x)x^n\mathrm{exp}((xM)^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$. We have checked that the results still hold for the weight function in Eq. (15). It is interesting that substantial duality violation is found if the power $`n=1`$ is used. In the realistic case of QCD in four dimensions one is left with the very realistic possibility that the physical hadronic width of a heavy meson exhibits oscillations of magnitude $`1/M`$ about the partonic width which are erased out when performing unphysical mass averages. Some evidence for this was presented in Ref. Altarelli:1996gt  where it was observed that the $`b`$-quark width agrees better with experimental hadronic widths if the quark mass is replaced by the $`B`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ masses, respectively, and in Ref. Nussinov:2001zc  which argues that the $`D^0D_s`$ lifetime difference is also primarily a phase space effect. In a similar vein, Ref. Colangelo:1997ni  shows how $`1/M`$ violations to local, but not global, duality may occur in $`B`$-meson correlations.

To summarize, we have shown that the hadronic width of a heavy meson averaged over the heavy quark mass as in Eq. (14) is correctly given by the corresponding average of a perturbative heavy quark width up to corrections of order $`1/M^2`$. This result can be applied to the decay widths of heavy mesons in the ’t Hooft model, and explains the numerical observations of Ref. Grinstein:2001zq . The result, however, is not of direct phenomenological significance since it is impossible to perform mass averages of observed decay widths of $`B`$ mesons. However, our result adds to the body of evidence that heavy meson widths cannot be reliably computed using perturbation theory, at least not with a precision of order $`1/M^2`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the Department of Energy under contract No. DOE-FG03-97ER40546.


text:
# Untitled Document

This paper has been withdrawn by the author,due a immature idea.