text:
# Color Dynamics In Phase Space: The Balescu-Lenard-Vlasov Approach

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the open problems in theoretical nuclear and particle physics is how to obtain the well known nuclear properties starting from the quark degrees of freedom . This also includes the possibility of understanding the basic free nucleon-nucleon interaction from quark and gluon dynamics. Some kind of solution to this problem is becoming more and more needed with the new experiments done or planned using ultra-relativistic heavy ions (rhic) at CERN and at RHIC. The search for a quark-gluon plasma (QGP) in such collisions is in fact one of the new and most exciting directions in physics at the border between nuclear and particle physics . Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) because of its difficulties (numerical and conceptual), has been applied so far to some limited cases such as quark matter at zero baryon ($`\rho _B`$) density and high temperature (T) . Furthermore in rhic dynamics plays surely an important role and accordingly the theory should be dynamical.

Recently , we have proposed a dynamical approach based on the Vlasov equation  to reproduce hadron masses and the properties of nuclear matter at finite $`\rho _B`$. Some works in the same spirit are discussed in . Our approach needs as inputs the interaction potential among quarks, which was borrowed from phenomenology i.e. the Richardson’s potential, and the quark masses which were fitted to reproduce known meson masses such as the $`\pi `$, the $`\varphi `$, the $`\eta _c`$ etc. When the particles are embedded in a dense medium such as in nuclear matter (NM) the potential becomes screened in a similar fashion as ions and electrons in condensed matter do, i.e. Debye screening (DS).

Here we refine that approach in two important aspects which are the treatment of the color degrees of freedom and the inclusion of the collision term. In the previous works  color degrees of freedom were implicitly taken into account through the use of a Debye radius that effectively screens the $`qq`$ interaction potential. In the present paper we give to the quarks explicitly a color (using the Gell-Mann matrices) and follow their dynamics in phase space solving the Vlasov equation (VE). Thus screening will be dynamically obtained. In general the self screening obtained in Vlasov dynamics is inadequate, which is the reason why it was not adopted in the earlier attempts . In fact we will show explicitly that the Vlasov approach alone gives a good description of the system at large densities only,i.e. in the QGP region. In order to overcome this problem we adopted the following strategy. We first prepare the initial conditions using molecular dynamics (MD) with frictional cooling for many events. The events are averaged and care is taken of antisymmetrization. These are the initial conditions for the Vlasov evolution. Since the VE fulfills the Liouville theorem, the initial phase space density remains constant in time. Thus the initial antisymmetrization and eventual clustering obtained in the cooling process are maintained. When simulating a nucleus-nucleus collision, inter quark correlations and particle production become very important. We have included this feature using the most general form of the collision term which is the Balescu-Lenard type. This is very crucial since we are dealing with particles which are interacting through long range forces.

## 2 The Balescu Lenard Vlasov equation

We outline our approach on purely classical grounds, however the same results can be obtained within the Wigner transform formalism  of the quantum BBGKY-hierarchy in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$.

The exact (classical) one-body distribution function $`f_1(r,p,t)`$ satisfies the equation (BBGKY hierarchy):

$$_tf_1+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E}_rf_1=d(2)_rV(𝐫,𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})_pf_2(𝐫,𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐩,𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐},t)$$
(1)
$`E=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}`$ is the energy and $`m_i=10MeV`$ is the (u,d) quark mass. Here we assume the potential to be dependent on the relative coordinates only. A generalization to include a momentum dependent part is straightforward. $`f_2`$ is the two-body distribution function, which in the classical limit reads:

$$f_2(r,r_2,p,p_2,t)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^Q\delta (𝐫𝐫_\alpha )\delta (𝐩𝐩_\alpha )\times \delta (𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\beta )\delta (𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐩_\beta )$$
(2)
where $`Q=q+\overline{q}`$ is the total number of quarks and anti quarks . Inserting this equation into Eq.(1) gives:

$$_tf_1+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E}_rf_1_rU_pf_1=0$$
(3)
Where $`U=\mathrm{\Sigma }_jV(𝐫,𝐫_𝐣)`$ is the exact potential. Let us now define $`f_1`$ and $`U`$ as sums of an ensemble averaged quantity plus the deviation from this average:

$$f_1=\overline{f}_1+\delta f_1;U=\overline{U}+\delta U$$
(4)
Substituting these equations in Eq.(3) and ensemble averaging gives:

$$_t\overline{f}_1+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E}_r\overline{f}_1_r\overline{U}_p\overline{f}_1=<_r\delta U_p\delta f_1>$$
(5)
where one recognizes in the lhs the Vlasov term and in the rhs the Balescu-Lennard collision term . The mean-field is given by:

$$\overline{U}(𝐫)=\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝐍_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯}}}𝚺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯}}𝚺_𝐣𝐕(𝐫,𝐫_𝐣)$$
(6)
In agreement to LQCD calculations the interacting potential $`V(r)`$ for quarks is ($`\mathrm{}=1`$):

$`V(r_{i,j})=3\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a=1}^8{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _i^a}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^a}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{332n_f}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }r_{ij}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{9}}\overline{\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{<\sigma _q\sigma _{\overline{q}}>}{m_qm_{\overline{q}}}}\delta (𝐫_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}})]`$ (7)
and

$`f(t)=14{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{q}\frac{e^{qt}}{[ln(q^21)]^2+\pi ^2}}`$ (8)
We fix the number of flavors $`n_f=2`$ and the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.25GeV`$ . In Eq.(7) we have added to the Richardson’s potential the chromomagnetic term (ct), very important to reproduce the masses of the hadrons in vacuum. Since in this work we will be dealing with finite nuclei, the ct can be neglected, we only notice that with the parameters choice discussed here, the hadron masses can be reproduced by suitably tuning the ct term .

The $`\lambda ^a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices. From lattice calculations we expect that there is no color transport for distances of the order of $`0.20.3fm`$, which are distances much shorter than the ones we will be dealing with in this paper. Thus we will use the $`\lambda _{3,8}`$ only commuting diagonal Gell-Mann matrices (Abelian approximation).

Numerically the BLV equation(5) is solved by writing the one body distribution function as:

$$\overline{f}_1(r,p,t)=\frac{1}{n_{tp}}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i(t)\delta (rr_i(t))\delta (pp_i(t))$$
(9)
$`N=Qn_{tp}`$ is the number of such terms. Actually, N is much larger than the total quark number Q, so that we can say that each quark is represented by $`n_{tp}=N_{ev}`$ terms called test particles(tp). Inserting Eq.(9) in the BLV equation gives the Hamilton equations of motion (eom) for the tp . The weight factor fulfills the equation $`_t\sigma _i(t)=_{r_i}\delta U_{k_i}\delta f_1`$ . Initially the weight factor is equal to 1 for the tp. When for a particular tp the weight factor becomes larger than 2 a new tp (quark) is created in the same phase space region. In the same way if the weight becomes less than zero for a given tp another tp with negative sign ( an anti-quark) is created. Notice that on average over time and ensembles the number of newly created quarks is equal to the number of anti quarks. Particular care is taken in order to have specific color conservation as well. We would like to stress now that in our picture the mean field and the collision term are calculated in a consistent way starting from a two body potential. This is indeed a quite general method which can be applied to other physical systems.

Initially, we distribute randomly the tp in a sphere of radius $`R=r_{0B}A^{1/3}`$ (the radius of the nucleus) in coordinate space and $`p_f`$ in momentum space. $`r_{0B}=(\frac{3}{4\pi \rho _B})^{1/3}`$, $`A=Q/3`$ and $`\rho _B`$ is the baryon density. $`p_f`$ is the Fermi momentum estimated in a simple Fermi gas model by imposing that a cell in phase space of size $`h=2\pi `$ can accommodate at most two identical quarks of different spins, flavors and colors. A simple estimate gives the following relation between the quark density , $`n_q`$, and the Fermi momentum:

$`n_q={\displaystyle \frac{g_q}{6\pi ^2}}p_f^3`$ (10)
The degeneracy number $`g_q=n_f\times n_c\times n_s`$, where $`n_c`$ is the number of colors and $`n_s`$ is the number of spins. For quarks and anti quarks 3 different colors are used red, green and blue (r,g,b) .

## 3 Results

In figure(1), we plot the total energy per nucleon (top) and energy density (in units of the Fermi gas energy density) vs. baryon density. The full triangles give the results obtained by randomly distributing the tp as described above. We notice that a minimum at about $`\rho _c=2.08fm^3`$ is found with $`E_t/A=2GeV/A`$. Such a minimum is at much higher density and energy than expected for the ground state (gs) of a nucleus ($`\rho _0=0.16fm^3`$ and $`E_t/A=0.9380.016GeV/A`$). An important property of the system that we have described above is the following. If we rotate the quarks in color space, regardless of their position in r-space, the total energy will remain the same. This is indeed a ”pure” Vlasov solution and demonstrates explicitly the in-capability of the Vlasov approach to give clustering of quarks into nucleons. However this result is already instructive since it gives us an hint on where the quark and nuclear matter are located, i.e. above and below $`\rho _c`$ respectively. This result is qualitatively in agreement with the Hartree-Fock(HF) calculations of refs. (compare to fig.1 in ). For a discussion on why the $`E_t/A`$ increases at low densities in the HF/VE approaches we also refer to .

Of course distributing randomly the quarks in a sphere in r and p-space is not the most economical way to find the real gs of the system. In MD one searches for a minimum energy by introducing a friction term. The friction acts in such a way to lead the particles to a configuration for which the potential energy is a minimum. We cannot use this technique for our system since we are dealing with fermions and the friction term will destroy the initial antisymmetrization. In order to overcome this difficulty we adopt the following strategy. First we prepare $`N_{ev}`$ events as above, and we evolve them numerically solving the eom but with friction included. Because of the large number of particles interacting with attractive and repulsive forces, the quarks will slowly evolve to new positions where the potential is lower while keeping the initial root mean square radius approximately constant. When the averaged potential (over events) reaches a given value $`V_{min}`$, we look for the two closest particles $`(j,k)`$ to a quark $`i`$ in the same event. For these three quarks we know what the local density and the number of colors are. For instance if in a certain region we find two red and one blue quark, we use $`n_c=2`$ in Eq.(10) and calculate the local density from the knowledge of the distances of the 3 quarks. In this way the Fermi momentum is defined locally similar to the procedure used in nuclear or atomic physics (Thomas-Fermi approximation). We repeat this for all quarks $`i`$ in all events and calculate the total energy for this state . We let the system evolve again with friction included to a lower potential energy $`V_{min}=V_{min}\delta V`$, where $`\delta V`$ is a constant. We calculate the local density and local color numbers again and apply the Thomas-Fermi approximation to obtain the new total energy. We stop the procedure when the total energy is a minimum. The initial conditions so obtained are then propagated in time using the VE in order to maintain the initial antisymmetrization.

The open triangles in fig.(1) are the result of the minimization. Notice especially at low densities the large decrease of the total energy of the system as compared to the Vlasov result. Now the calculated total energy at the nuclear gs is very close to the experimental value indicated by the full circle. However, we find slightly lower energies at lower densities, i.e. the gs of the nucleus is shifted in our calculations at about 1/10 of the experimental one. This should not be surprising in view of the simple potential that we have used. Also we have not tried to look for a best set of fitting parameters in these exploratory studies. At low $`\rho _B`$, the global invariance for rotations in color space is lost, i.e. if we exchange the colors of two $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡}`$ quarks, the total energy of the system will change. At high densities (larger than $`2fm^3`$) the Vlasov and MD solutions are the same. This can be also seen in the bottom part of the figure where energy densities are given. We would like to stress again the qualitative agreement to ref. where a stochastic method had been used to calculate the g.s. energy of the system. This is quite evident if one compares our fig.1 to fig.1 of .

The energy density displayed in fig.1 (bottom) is a smooth function apart some fluctuations around $`2fm^3`$ density. From this result we can exclude a first order phase transition but a second order phase transition might be possible, see the discussion in .

Once we have devised a method to find a (approximate) nucleus ground state starting from quark degrees of freedom we can perform nucleus-nucleus collision simulations. In figure (2) we plot snapshots of a simulation for Ne+Ne collision at 100 GeV/A. Initially the quarks are distributed randomly in a sphere of radius R and the minimization procedure is applied. Such an initial condition is Lorentz boosted and the dynamics is followed in time. In this simulation $`N_{ev}=9`$ for numerical reasons and one event only is displayed in the figure (2). Because of the large fluctuations from event to event, the collision term is very important and new quarks and anti quarks are created. These are displayed in the figure with different colors. The newly created quarks are strongly sensitive to the parameters entering the two body force and especially to the linear term. This might have some connection with the Schwinger particle production mechanism  but more studies are needed to find a precise link (if any).

## 4 Summary

In conclusion in this work we have discussed microscopic Vlasov/MD approaches to finite nuclei starting from quark degrees of freedom with colors. In order to obtain the correct initial conditions we have introduced a method based on MD with frictional cooling plus a Thomas-Fermi approximation for the Fermi motion. We have shown that the method is able to describe at least qualitatively the well known features of nuclei near the ground state. At high densities a second order phase transition from nuclear to quark matter is predicted. Such a transition is due to the restoration of global color invariance at high densities and we have defined an order parameter accordingly. We have used the initial conditions for the nucleus ground state to simulate heavy ion collisions at ultra-relativistic energies with the Balescu Lenard collision term. The mean field and the collision term are calculated starting from the same elementary interactions. Collisions are connected to deviations from the average mean field. This gives also large fluctuations in the distribution function which results in new particles creation. Our approach can be very useful for the understanding of the quark gluon plasma formation and its signatures.

I thank Toshiki Maruyama for useful discussions, suggestions and the use of drawing subroutines.


format: text

text:
# Charmed baryons from lattice QCD

## Abstract

The results of a recent quenched lattice QCD simulation for charmed baryons are presented. In contrast to a previous calculation, it is found that hyperfine splittings are in agreement with quark model expectations and comparable to experimental values. Preliminary calculations using lattice NRQCD yield results which are compatible with those obtained using a Dirac-Wilson action of the D234 type for the charm quark.

TRI–PP–00-58

Oct 2000

Charmed baryons from lattice QCD
R.M. Woloshyn

TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada

Presented at the IVth International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons, Valencia, Spain, 27th to 30th, June, 2000.

There have been many applications of lattice QCD to heavy-flavoured hadrons but most of the work has been restricted to the meson sector. The most complete study of heavy baryons in a relativistic framework is the one done in the UKQCD collaboration using an $`O(a)`$ improved fermion action in quenched approximation. In that work the overall features of the baryon spectrum were found to be in agreement with experiment but hyperfine splittings in both charm and bottom baryons were found to be considerably smaller than those predicted by phenomenological models and observed experimentally. In fact, the central values for hyperfine splittings found in  were negative. Such a result is difficult to understand and would pose a severe problem for lattice QCD. Therefore further investigation seems justified.

Due to limitations in computing resources it was not possible in this work to use the same lattice spacing and volume as used in the UKQCD calculation. Rather, a special strategy had to be adopted. We work on a more coarse lattice ($``$0.2fm) with a highly improved action. Past experience has shown that results of reasonable accuracy may be obtained with such lattices. In order to check the calculation, the spectrum of baryons in the light quark (u,d,s) sector was calculated at the same time. As well, meson masses for both heavy and light quarks were calculated. The results of all these calculations (see  for details) are in reasonable agreement with experimental values and with the results obtained at small lattice spacing.

The explicit form of the gluon and fermion action may be found in . The fermion action is of the D234 type with tadpole improvement implemented using the Landau link. The lattice was anisotropic with a bare aspect ratio $`a_s/a_t`$ of 2. A total of 420 quenched configurations on a $`10^3\times 30`$ lattice were analyzed.

The results for singly charmed baryons are given in Table 1. In contrast to  the hyperfine splittings are positive and large in magnitude. Figure 1 shows the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ as well as the results for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-hyperon and nucleon - delta compared to experimental values. Also shown are the results of lattice calculations done with different actions on lattices with much smaller lattice spacing than used here. The results of our simulation are seen to been quite compatible.

The masses of doubly charmed baryons have also been calculated. The results are 3.598(13)GeV and 3.682(20)GeV for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{cc}^{}`$ respectively. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}^{}`$ we get masses of 3.697(10)GeV and 3.775(12)GeV. The hyperfine splittings are only slightly smaller than for singly charmed baryons.

In lattice QCD masses are extracted from correlation functions of hadron operators. One difference between the present calculation and that of Ref. is in the choice of baryon operators. In  calculations are done with interpolating operators of the form:

$$O_5=ϵ^{abc}(l_a^TC\gamma _5l_b^{})h_c,O_\mu =ϵ^{abc}(l_a^TC\gamma _\mu l_b^{})h_c$$
(1)
where $`l,l^{}`$ are light quark fields and $`h`$ is a heavy field (for $`O_\mu `$, $`l^{}`$ may be the same flavour as $`l`$). This choice of operators is motivated by heavy quark symmetry where baryons are classified according to the total spin (0 or 1) of the light flavours.

Our approach is different. The aim is to do a unified analysis, incorporating all flavours (quark masses) in a common framework. We therefore start with the nucleon operator for which a common choice is

$$ϵ^{abc}(u_a^TC\gamma _5d_b)u_c$$
(2)
where $`u`$ and $`d`$ are up and down quark fields. It can be shown that this operator contains the component

$$ϵ^{abc}(u_a^TC\gamma _\mu u_b)\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu d_c$$
(3)
which is expected to survive in the limit where the mass of the unlike quark ($`d`$ in this case) is taken to be very heavy. Therefore the familiar operators used in light baryon spectroscopy should also be applicable, with appropriate substitution of fields, in the heavy baryon sector. The forms used may be found in .

In principle, masses should be independent of the interpolating operators used as long as the quantum numbers are the same. In view of the difference between the results of the present calculation and Ref. it is worthwhile to check if this independence of operator is obtained in practice. We have therefore analyzed a subset of our configurations using operators of the form (1) and compared the results with those obtained using the operators given in . Typical comparisons are shown in figure 2. The quantity shown in the figure is $`M(t)=ln(G(t)/G(t+1))`$ where $`G(t)`$ is the hadron correlator and for large times $`t`$ it is equal to the mass. It is seen that the mass is indeed the same for the two different choices of interpolating operator.

In the continuum limit the D234 action describes Dirac fermions. For heavy quarks on the lattice, it can be advantageous to use a nonrelativistic approach. For b-quarks this seems to work well but for charmed quarks it is less clear whether lattice NRQCD is adequate. A particular concern is that hyperfine splittings in the meson sector seem to be underestimated compared to experimental values. Therefore it is of interest to investigate the baryon sector.

We have carried out a preliminary analysis of charmed baryons using lattice NRQCD, instead of the D234 action, for the charmed quark. The result for the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ is plotted in Figure 3 and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cc}`$ in Figure 4. For comparison, the results obtained using the D234 action for the charmed quark are also shown. Calculations were done for two different values of the nonrelativistic charm quark mass which should be tuned to reproduce the charmed baryon mass (indicated by the vertical cross hatched area in the figures). Interpolating between the two points calculated using NRQCD, one sees that the result for the spin splitting using NRQCD is compatible with that using the D234 (”relativistic”) action.

To summarize, we have calculated the spectrum of singly and doubly charmed baryons in quenched lattice QCD. In contrast to a previous calculation, it was found that hyperfine splittings are positive as expected, for example, from the quark model and are comparable in magnitude to experimental values. This result is quite robust. It is independent of the choice of interpolating operators for the baryons. Preliminary results also indicate that use of an NRQCD description for the charmed quark yields values for the spin splittings compatible with those obtained using the D234 action.

It is a pleasure to thank R. Lewis for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Semileptonic form factors – a model-independent approach

## I Outline

We obtain a nearly model-independent description of the Isgur-Wise (IW) function , $`\xi (w)`$, in terms of a single measurable parameter — the slope at zero-recoil, $`\rho ^2`$. Only modest assumptions about the shape of the heavy-light wavefuction are required, and these are consistent with an established lattice result. We obtain a simple functional form for the IW function in terms of $`\rho ^2`$:

$$\xi (w,\rho ^2)=\frac{2(w+1)}{[w+1+(\rho ^2\frac{1}{2})(w1)]^2}.$$
(1)
We also demonstrate that the effect of radiative QCD corrections and $`\frac{1}{m}`$ corrections can be described as the product of a term linear in $`w`$ and the IW function. The resulting function is also approximately an IW function of shifted slope. Thus, fitting the above functional form to the measured form factors provides an accurate description of the extrapolation to zero-recoil. Over the range of expected slopes, our result is in good agreement with the work of  which is based on dispersion relations.

Recent analyses  of $`BDl\nu `$ and $`BD^{}l\nu `$ decays extract two physical form factors and two ratios of physical form factors. We show that this information can be directly related to QCD predictions.

In Section II we provide some background formalism behind form factors for semileptonic $`B`$-decay and the Isgur-Wise function. We present our description of the IW function in terms of the slope parameter, $`\rho ^2`$, in Section III. In Section IV we discuss the effects of corrections to the heavy-quark limit and their equivalence to slope-shifted IW functions. The relationship of HQET and QCD lattice simulation to semileptonic data is explored in Section V.

## II Introduction

As the observed sample of semileptonic $`B`$ decays accumulates, the need for a rigorous method of analysis becomes more pressing. Even in the heavy quark limit, a universal form factor is required for each light degree of freedom state of the meson. To compute the Isgur-Wise (IW) functions $`\xi (w)`$, where $`w=v^\mu v_\mu ^{}`$, requires considerable knowledge of the heavy-light meson dynamics. For this reason, the IW function is usually thought of as “model-dependent” and not susceptible to reliable calculation. In the first portion of this paper we seek a balance between rigorous constraints and phenomenological usefulness. We will demonstrate, from heavy quark symmetry and some qualitative lattice results, that the IW function is accurately determined by specifying only the slope parameter, $`\rho ^2`$.

Experimentalists commonly adopt the straightforward procedure of expanding form factors about the meson zero-recoil point ($`w=1`$),

$$\xi (w)=1\rho ^2(w1)+c(w1)^2+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
Burdman  has pointed out that the effect of the curvature term $`c`$ is significant but that, for statistical reasons, much predictive power is lost when it is a free parameter. A “model-independent” relation between $`c`$ and the slope parameter $`\rho ^2`$ has been proposed by Boyd, Grinstein and Lebed . This method has been modified by Caprini and Neubert  and by Caprini, Lellouch, and Neubert in expanded form . This result has been criticized however by Boyd, Grinstein, and Lebed . These latter authors propose a similar but weaker relation between $`c`$ and $`\rho ^2`$. In Section III, we propose a rigorous one-parameter expression for the IW function.

The second observation we make here concerns the relation of the IW function to the actual (physical) form factors with $`\frac{1}{m_Q}`$ and QCD radiative corrections. We show in section IV that all of these corrections can be distilled into a new effective IW function with a shift in slope. The analysis of experimental data is thereby greatly simplified. The slopes appearing in $`BD`$ and $`BD^{}`$ will be different and this difference can be compared to the theoretical predictions.

The decay rate for $`BD^{()}l\overline{\nu }`$ can be written  as,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dw}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{48\pi ^3}m_B^2m_{D^{()}}^3\sqrt{w^21}f^{()}|F^{()}|^2,$$
(3)
where for $`BDl\overline{\nu }`$

$`f=(w^21)(1r)^2,`$

$$r=\frac{m_D}{m_B}0.35,$$
(4)
and for $`BD^{}l\overline{\nu }`$

$`f^{}=(w+1)[(w+1)(1r^{})^2+4w(12wr^{}+r^2)],`$

$$r^{}=\frac{m_D^{}}{m_B}0.38.$$
(5)
The two form factors $`F(w)`$ and $`F^{}(w)`$ can be expressed  in terms of the fundamental form factors $`h_+`$, $`h_{}`$, $`h_V`$, $`h_{A_1}`$, $`h_{A_2}`$, and $`h_{A_3}`$. These form factors can in turn be related to the Isgur-Wise function through

$$h_i(w)=[\alpha _i+\beta _i(w)+\gamma _i(w)]\xi (w).$$
(6)
where $`\alpha _+=\alpha _V=\alpha _{A_1}=\alpha _{A_3}=1`$ and $`\alpha _{}=\alpha _{A_2}=0`$. The $`\beta _i(w)`$ describe perturbative radiative corrections and are in principle predictable within the heavy quark effective theory. The $`\gamma _i(w)`$ represent the power ($`\frac{1}{m_Q}`$) deviations from heavy quark symmetry and require further theoretical assumptions . In Section IV we will point out that, for those form factors which do not vanish in the heavy quark limit, the pre-factors in (6) can nevertheless be approximately absorbed into an effective IW function which has a flavor and spin-dependent slope

$$h_i(w)h_i(1)\xi (w,\rho _i^2)$$
(7)
## III Model independent parametrization of the Isgur-Wise function

The IW function appears to require detailed information on the nature of heavy-light dynamics. In this section, we propose a method to distill most of this knowledge into a single parameter — the slope $`\rho ^2`$. Almost all model dependence will be seen to vanish once the slope is specified.

In the heavy-light limit, heavy quark symmetry provides a unique prescription  relating the IW function to the wavefunction and light degrees of freedom energy E,

$$\xi (w)=\frac{2}{w+1}j_0\left(2Er\sqrt{\frac{w1}{w+1}}\right).$$
(8)
The expectation value may involve a multi-component wavefunction such as from the Dirac equation. For simplicity of notation, we assume a single component wavefunction $`\psi (𝐫)=R(r)Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. The expectation value is consequently defined by

$$A(r)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑rr^2R^2(r)A(r).$$
(9)
Using $`lim_{y1}j_0(y)=1\frac{1}{6}y^2+\mathrm{}`$, we may expand (8) about the zero recoil point $`w=1`$ to yield:

$`\xi (w)`$ $``$ $`[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(w1)+\mathrm{}][<1>{\displaystyle \frac{4E^2}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}})<r^2>+\mathrm{}]`$ (10)
$`\xi (w)`$ $``$ $`1\rho ^2(w1)+\mathrm{}`$ (11)
where

$$\rho ^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{E^2}{3}r^2.$$
(12)
We now use (12) to eliminate the energy $`E`$ in the general expression (8) to obtain:

$$\xi (w)=\frac{2}{w+1}<j_o\left(\frac{r}{r_{rms}}\sqrt{\frac{12(\rho ^2\frac{1}{2})(w1)}{w+1}}\right)>,$$
(13)
where $`r_{rms}=\sqrt{r^2}`$.

In the above (13), if we know the slope ($`\rho ^2`$) and the radial ground state heavy quark wavefunction, we can compute the IW function for all $`w`$. We can make the wavefunction dependence more explicit by introducing the dimensionless quantities

$`x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}},`$ (14)
$`R(r)`$ $`=`$ $`R_0f({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}})=R_0f(x),`$ (15)
where $`r_0`$ is a hadronic scale factor. We define the $`n^{th}`$ moment of $`f^2`$ as

$$N_n\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx^{n+2}f^2(x)$$
(16)
so that wave function normalization and $`r^2`$ become:

$`r_0^3R_0^2N_0`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (17)
$`<r^2>`$ $`=`$ $`r_0^5R_0^2N_2=r_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{N_0}}.`$ (18)
The IW function (13) is then

$$\xi (w)=\frac{2}{w+1}\frac{1}{N_0}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx^2f^2(x)j_0\left(x\sqrt{\frac{12(\rho ^2\frac{1}{2})(w1)N_0}{(w+1)N_2}}\right).$$
(19)
It should be noted that both the normalization constant $`R_0`$ and the hadronic scale parameter $`r_0`$ do not appear in the above expression for the IW function. The IW function thus depends only on the dimensionless slope parameter $`\rho ^2`$ and one dimensionless function $`f(x)`$ which is essentially the heavy-light wavefunction.

A few years ago, the heavy-light wavefunction was evaluated in quenched lattice simulation . The result for the ground state is shown in Fig. 1. One may observe that the lattice wavefunction closely resembles a simple exponential. We use this lattice result as a guide and parametrize the wavefunction as :

$$f(x)=e^{x^k}.$$
(20)
When $`k=1`$ the wavefunction is a simple exponential and the lattice simulation is closely reproduced. In Fig. 1, we also show that by choosing $`k=0.5`$ and $`k=2`$ we very conservatively bracket the observed wavefunction. Assuming the heavy-light wavefunction is given by (20) with

$$0.5k2,$$
(21)
the IW function is determined for all $`w`$ once the slope is specified. In Fig. 2 we show the predicted IW function with $`\rho ^2=0.9`$. The central curve corresponds to $`k=1`$ with a corridor implied by the limits of (21). We note that at $`w=1.5`$, which is approximately the largest allowed for $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decay, the corridor width is only about 0.02, or 3%. This small uncertainty shows that most of the IW shape is well-determined by the slope alone.

A particularly important special case is when $`k=1`$. Straightforward evaluation of (19) with $`k=1`$ in (20) yields the IW function

$$\xi (w,\rho ^2)=\frac{2(w+1)}{[w+1+(\rho ^2\frac{1}{2})(w1)]^2}.$$
(22)
The above Isgur-Wise function will be accurate within the corridor shown in Fig. 2.

## IV The Physical Form Factors

An important observation from specific theoretical models  is that the subleading Isgur-Wise form factors which characterize the $`\frac{1}{m_Q}`$ corrections are to a good approximation linear in $`w`$. In addition, the radiative QCD corrections are monotonic and vary slowly with $`w`$, so that they too can be approximated linearly. Hence each of the $`h_i(w)`$ form factors (6) can be written as

$$h_i(w)[\alpha _i+\lambda _i+\mu _i(w1)]\xi (w),$$
(23)
where both $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$ are small, dimensionless constants. The advantage of this observation is that an analysis of the experimental form factor can now be carried out without a priori knowledge of the $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$ coefficients.

To take advantage of the above, we start with the expansion (10) and note that for small $`(w1)`$, IW functions of slopes $`\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2`$ and $`\rho ^2`$ are related by

$$\xi (w,\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2)\xi (w,\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2(w1).$$
(24)
Over a wider range of $`w`$ a more accurate expansion is

$$\xi (w,\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2)\xi (w,\rho ^2)[1\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2(w1)].$$
(25)
To illustrate the above approximation, we show in Fig. 3 a simple physical form factor (with $`\mu =0.1`$),

$$h(w)=\xi (w,1.0)[1+0.1(w1)].$$
(26)
Also on Fig. 3 is a shifted IW function $`\xi (w,0.9)`$ with slope chosen by the above prescription. We note that the two form factors differ by less than 2% at $`w=1.5`$. We now apply this result to the form factors $`h_i(w)`$. Comparing (25) to (23) in the case where $`\alpha _i=1`$ we see that

$`h_i(w)`$ $``$ $`\xi (w,\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2)+\lambda _i\xi (w,\rho ^2),`$ (27)
$``$ $`\xi (w,\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2)+\lambda _i\xi (w,\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2)[1+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2(w1)];.`$ (28)
We drop the small product $`\lambda _i\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^2`$ to obtain

$$h_i(w)h_i(1)\xi (w,\rho _i^2),$$
(29)
with

$`\rho _i^2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^2\mu _i,`$ (30)
$`h_i(1)`$ $`=`$ $`1+\lambda _i.`$ (31)
We may therefore conclude that the physical form factors are nearly equivalent to IW form factors with shifted slopes and normalizations.

As pointed out by Neubert , the sub-leading from factor $`\chi _1`$ contributes identically to all of the $`h_i`$ which remain in the heavy quark limit. We therefore simplify the analysis by absorbing this $`\chi _1`$ contribution into a new IW type function which maintains spin-symmetry, but now has flavor dependence. It is this slope $`\rho ^2`$ which we refer to as the IW slope in the following.

The absorption of $`\chi _1`$ into the IW function is allowed as long as $`\chi _1`$ remains small. The evidence for this is ambiguous. A QCD sum rule evaluation  gives a wide range of possible values for $`\chi _1`$, some of which are large. Evidence that $`\chi _1`$ is small comes, indirectly, from the dispersive analysis of Caprini, Lellouch and Neubert  where the $`BDl\nu `$ is found for a given slope. In Fig. 4 we show the CLN prediction for $`\rho ^2=1`$ compared to our $`k=1`$ prediction (22) for the same slope. The two curves are nearly identical, which is expected if $`\chi _1`$ and other corrections are small and can be absorbed into an effective IW function.

## V What Can We Learn from Experimental Form Factors?

The semileptonic $`B`$ decays yield definite but limited information about QCD corrections. It is important to understand exactly what in a theoretical framework is being tested by experiment. In this section, we examine each observable quantity to see which aspect of QCD is being tested. We consider the semileptonic decays separately.

### A  $`BDl\nu `$

For $`BDl\overline{\nu }`$, the form factor is

$`F(w)V_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`h_+(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{1+r}}h_{}(w)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\xi (w,\rho ^2)[1+\lambda _D+\mu _D(w1)+\mathrm{}]`$ (33)
where

$`\lambda _D`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{h_+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{1+r}}\lambda _h_{}`$ (34)
$`\mu _D`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{h_+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{1+r}}\mu _h_{}`$ (35)
and hence

$$\rho _D^2=\rho ^2\mu _D.$$
(36)
The only measurable parameter here is the physical form factor slope, $`\rho _D^2`$, which has been investigated at CLEO . If the data improves sufficiently, the difference between $`\rho _D^2`$ and the slope of a different physical form factor (such as $`F^{}`$) could provide information about QCD. To gain a rough idea of the sizes of $`\lambda _D`$ and $`\mu _D`$ we compute the Wilson coefficients and substitute the QCD sum rule approximations for the actual values of the subleading IW form factors. The results are included in the Table II of Appendix A.

There are some directly applicable tests of HQET provided by QCD lattice simulations. Accurate lattice simulations are currently possible at the zero recoil point ($`w=1`$). A recent calculation  obtains:

$`\lambda _{h_+}`$ $`=`$ $`0.01,`$ (37)
$`\lambda _h_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.11.`$ (38)
In HQET, these coefficients are due to the radiative corrections and $`1/m`$ corrections . These are enumerated in Appendix A. We observe that $`\lambda _{h_+}`$ has no $`1/m`$ corrections as required by Luke’s Theorem . The result from the Wilson coefficients alone of $`\lambda _{h_+}=0.02`$ is consistent with the lattice result (37).

The comparison with $`\lambda _h_{}`$ of (38) is more interesting. The $`1/m`$ correction here contains the subleading form factor $`\eta `$. This form factor has been estimated by QCD sum rules , by ISGW2 , and by a Salpeter equation method . While these various calculations yield reasonably consistent results for the subleading form factor $`\chi _2(w)`$, the expectations for $`\eta (w)`$ vary widely. From Appendix A we see that

$$\lambda _h_{}=h_{}(1)=(C_2C_3)+\left(\frac{1}{2m_b}+\frac{1}{2m_c}\right)(2\eta 1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(39)
Using the calculated Wilson coefficients and the parameters $`m_b=4.80`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.45`$ GeV, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.5`$ GeV we can evaluate the previous expression to yield

$$\lambda _h_{}=0.07+0.12(2\eta 1).$$
(40)
The lattice result in (38) suggests that the second term above is negative, i.e. $`\eta <0.5`$. This prediction is not completely rigorous as the size of the effect is of order a few percent and second-order $`1/m`$ corrections could be of that order. In addition, the lattice calculation for $`h_{}(1)`$ has currently been calculated only to tree level, but a 1-loop calculation is underway . However, the preliminary indication is that $`\eta `$ is less than the central value of 0.62 which comes from QCD sum rules. At the same time however, the much smaller values of $`\eta `$ which come from ISGW2 and the Salpeter model are also disfavored because they produce a result for $`h_{}(1)`$ which is too negative.

### B  $`BD^{}l\nu `$

In this case, there is additional information provided by the $`D^{}D\pi `$ decay distribution . As suggested by CLN  and followed by CLEO  this decay can be analyzed in terms of the $`h_{A_1}`$ form factor and two ratios of form factors.

The CLEO experiment, which to date has the best measurements of the $`BD^{}`$ form factor paramaters, has adopted the convention of fitting the slope of $`h_{A_1}`$, $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$ and two form factor ratios:

$`R_1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_V(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)}},`$ (41)
$`R_2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{A_3}(w)+r^{}h_{A_2}(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)}},`$ (42)
where $`r^{}=\frac{m_D^{}}{m_B}0.38`$. These ratios are expected to be nearly independent of $`w`$ so they are treated as constants in the fit. The form factor $`F^{}`$ can be expressed in terms of these parameters by combining Equation (A6) from Appendix A and the definitions (42). We would also like to write $`F^{}(w)`$ as a shifted IW function,

$$F^{}(w)=\xi (w,\rho ^2)[1+\lambda _D^{}+\mu _D^{}(w1)+\mathrm{}],$$
(43)
and hence

$$F^{}(w)=F^{}(1)\xi (w,\rho _D^{}^2),$$
(44)
where $`\rho _D^{}^2=\rho ^2\mu _D^{}`$. Since $`|F^{}|^2`$ is the sum of $`h_i`$ contributions and kinematical factors, the $`\lambda _D^{}`$ and $`\mu _D^{}`$ are the result of an expansion about $`w=1`$. The result is

$`\lambda _D^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{A_1},`$ (45)
$`\mu _D^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{A_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\lambda _V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1r^{})}}[\lambda _{A_3}+r^{}\lambda _{A_2}r^{}\lambda _{A_1}].`$ (46)
As in the $`BDl\nu `$ case, we can obtain rough approximations of $`\mu _D^{}`$, $`\lambda _D^{}`$, $`\mu _{A_1}`$ and $`\lambda _{A_1}`$. The results are included in Table II of Appendix A.

The above expression (46) has a remarkable consequence. The slope difference $`\rho _D^{}^2\rho _{A_1}^2=\mu _{A_1}\mu _D^{}`$ can be related to the zero-recoil quantities, $`\lambda _i`$ above. It is therefore possible in the near future to test (for the first time) the “intercept” quantities $`\lambda _i`$ by direct comparison to experiment. At this point only $`\lambda _{A_1}`$ has been computed in lattice simulation , but the corresponding values of $`\lambda _{A_2}`$, $`\lambda _{A_3}`$, and $`\lambda _V`$ could be evaluated. At present the experimental situation  is also not precise enough:

$$\rho _D^{}^2\rho _{A_1}^2=0.08\pm 0.15,$$
(47)
but this result can also be considerably sharpened. We emphasize that the above prediction (46) is an important check of the values of the intercepts, $`\lambda _i`$, which are in turn of critical importance in the extraction of the CKM parameter $`V_{cb}`$.

In the heavy quark limit, $`R_1=R_2=1`$. These ratios’ deviation from unity, experimentally and theoretically, indicates deviation from heavy quark symmetry and, consequently, can test theoretical predictions for the symmetry-breaking corrections. The measurements of $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ (currently with large error bars) agree with theoretical predictions, and thus roughly confirm the predictions of HQET. Here we investigate the exact nature of the predictions and their value as tests of HQET.

Treating the form factor ratios as constants, while reasonable theoretically and necessary for the fit, makes the tests of symmetry-breaking corrections less informative. $`R_1(w)`$ and $`R_2(w)`$ are essentially reduced to $`R_1(1)`$ and $`R_2(1)`$, and because many of the corrections vanish at $`w=1`$, they cannot be tested. For example, the subleading Isgur-Wise function $`\chi _3(w)`$ which has only been calculated up to the errors inherent to QCD sum rules is completely lost in this procedure. If we apply the expressions given in Appendix A to the various form factors at $`w=1`$, eliminate those corrections which vanish at zero-recoil, and express the results in terms of the Wilson coefficients and subleading IW form factors, we obtain:

$`R_1(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(1)+\frac{1}{2m_c}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{1}{2m_b}(2\eta 1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{C_1^5(1)}}`$ (48)
$`R_2(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^5(1)+C_2^5(1)+r^{}C_2^5(1)\eta \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\frac{1}{m_b}+\frac{(1+r^{})}{2m_c}]+\frac{4\chi _2(1)}{2m_c}(r^{}1)+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\frac{1}{2m_b}\frac{r^{}}{2m_c})}{C_1^5(1)}}`$ (49)
If we use the theoretical estimates as rough guides to the size of each term, we can determine what predictions are actually being tested.

#### 1 What Do We Learn From $`R_1`$?

The subleading combination $`2\eta 1`$ is expected to be small on the basis of the $`\lambda _h_{}`$ considerations and is further reduced by $`\frac{1}{m_b}`$. Consequently, after evaluating the Wilson coefficients $`C_i`$ (see Table I of Appendix A), $`R_1`$ must be greater than unity and provides a fairly direct probe of the HQET parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, which is the light degrees of freedom energy to this order.

#### 2 What Do We Learn From $`R_2`$?

In the expression for $`R_2`$, $`\chi _2`$ is generally agreed to be quite small and $`\frac{1}{2m_b}\frac{r^{}}{2m_c}0.03`$. Thus after calculating the Wilson coefficients, a measurement of $`R_2`$ provides an additional probe of the value of the subleading form factor $`\eta `$. Using the Wilson coefficients in Appendix A, as well as $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.45`$ GeV, $`r^{}=0.38`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.5`$ GeV, the expression for $`R_2`$ becomes

$$R_2=1.000.34\eta (1)0.84\chi _2(1).$$
(50)
The term containing $`\eta `$ is the dominant correction as $`\chi _2`$ is small, so a precise measurement of $`R_2`$ effectively measures $`\eta `$.

## VI Conclusions

We have addressed the question of how to analyze semileptonic $`B`$ decay while minimizing both the amount of theoretical assumption and the number of parameters. We first establish that specifying the slope parameter $`\rho ^2`$ accurately determines the entire Isgur-Wise function. To do so, we need only an approximation to the light degrees of freedom wavefunction provided by a QCD simulation. Our result (1) is

$$\xi (w,\rho ^2)=\frac{2(w+1)}{[w+1+(\rho ^2\frac{1}{2})(w1)]^2}.$$
(51)
The form factors $`h_i(w)`$ either vanish or approach the IW function in the heavy quark limit. These amplitudes can be accurately written as

$$h_i(w)=[\alpha _i+\lambda _i+\mu _i(w1)+\mathrm{}]\xi (w,\rho ^2),$$
(52)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is 0 or 1 and $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$ are small dimensionless constants. We observe that by altering the IW slope $`\rho ^2`$ to $`\rho _i^2=\rho ^2\mu _i`$ the physical form factors can be expressed as

$$h_i(w)=(\alpha _i+\lambda _i)\xi (w,\rho _i^2),$$
(53)
where $`\rho _i^2=\rho ^2\mu _i`$. That this works well is shown by Fig. 3.

From the above we conclude that semileptonic data are parametrized by an intercept value $`V_{cb}(1+\lambda _i)`$ and an effective Isgur-Wise slope parameter $`\rho _i^2`$. To find the CKM element $`V_{cb}`$ one must use a theoretical estimate of $`\lambda _i`$.

For $`BD^{}l\nu `$ decay the parameters are $`V_{cb}(1+\lambda _{A_1})`$, $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$, $`R_1`$, and $`R_2`$. In this case one has a consistency condition (46) relating the $`\lambda _i`$ and the difference between actual $`D^{}`$ slope and $`\rho _{A_1}^2`$. We further point out that $`R_1`$ is nearly model-independent while $`R_2`$ depends sensitively on various estimates of the subleading from factor $`\eta (1)`$. Also, the value of the form factor $`h_{}(w)`$ at zero-recoil, $`\lambda _h_{}`$, appears to offer an additional probe of the value $`\eta (1)`$.

Finally, one might ask, what is the essential advantage of the slope shift scheme described here? The answer is, economy of parameters and a decoupling from theoretical assumptions. As seen in Fig. 3, one of the effective IW function slopes is equivalent to an (unknown) IW slope with subleading corrections. If these corrections were securely known our scheme offers no advantage. On the other hand, if one tried to fit both the IW slope and HQET $`\mu `$ parameters, a hopeless parameter correlation would arise.

We believe that it is best to rely as little as possible on theory and to use a direct phenomenological approach. As pointed out previously, one must have some theoretical constraint on the curvature term in (2). We show here that the shape of the form factor is specified once the slope parameter is given. Later, after the decay distributions have been parametrized, the fitted parameters can be compared to predictions.

## Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

## A

The fundamental form factors $`h_i`$ are defined  by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{D(v^{})|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_Bm_D}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(v+v^{})^\mu h_+(w)+(vv^{})^\mu h_{}(w),`$ (A1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}(v^{},ϵ)|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_Bm_D^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_\nu ^{}v_\alpha ^{}v_\beta h_V(w),`$ (A2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D^{}(v^{},ϵ)|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5b|B(v)}{\sqrt{m_Bm_D^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(w+1)ϵ^\mu h_{A_1}(w)ϵ^{}v(v^\mu h_{A_2}+v^\mu h_{A_3})`$ (A3)
The matrix elements for $`BDl\overline{\nu }`$ in (5) can be expressed in terms of {$`h_i`$} as

$$F(w)=h_+(w)\left(\frac{1r}{1+r}\right)h_{}(w)$$
(A4)
and the squared matrix element for $`BD^{}l\overline{\nu }`$ in (5) as

$`f^{}|F^{}(w)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`2(w+1)(12wr^{}+r^2)[(w+1)h_{A_1}^2+(w1)h_V^2]`$ (A6)
$`+(w+1)^2[(wr^{})h_{A_1}(w1)(r^{}h_{A_2}+h_{A_3})]^2.`$
The $`h_i`$ can, as indicated in (6), be expressed by the short-range corrections $`\beta _i`$ and the $`\frac{1}{m_Q}`$ corrections $`\gamma _i`$ together as

$`h_V(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[C_1+\epsilon _c(L_2L_5)+\epsilon _b(L_1L_4)]`$ (A7)
$`h_{A_3}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[C_1^5+C_3^5+\epsilon _c(L_2L_3L_5+L_6)+\epsilon _b(L_1L_4)]`$ (A8)
$`h_{A_2}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[C_2^5+\epsilon _c(L_3+L_6)]`$ (A9)
$`h_{A_1}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[C_1^5+\epsilon _c(L_2{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}L_5)+\epsilon _b(L_1{\displaystyle \frac{w1}{w+1}}L_4)]`$ (A10)
$`h_+(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{w+1}{2}}(C_2+C_3)+(\epsilon _c+\epsilon _b)L_1]`$ (A11)
$`h_{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (w)[{\displaystyle \frac{w+1}{2}}(C_2C_3)+(\epsilon _c+\epsilon _b)L_4]`$ (A12)
where $`\epsilon _{c,b}=(2m_{c,b})^1`$, the $`C_i`$ are the Wilson coefficients — which are discussed extensively in  — and the $`L_i`$ are combinations of the sub-leading Isgur Wise form factors and have been approximated by QCD sum rules :

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`4(w1){\displaystyle \frac{\chi _2}{\xi }}+12{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3}{\xi }}0.72(w1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A13)
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3}{\xi }}0.16(w1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A14)
$`L_3`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _2}{\xi }}0.24\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A15)
$`L_4`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta 1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.24\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A16)
$`L_5`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A17)
$`L_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}(\eta +1)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{3.24}{w+1}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (A18)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the “binding energy” of a heavy meson.

Using the detailed expressions given in  and  and the expressions above, we can extract $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$ for each form factor $`h_i`$ which appears in (23). They appear in the following table. We use the values $`m_b=4.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_c=1.45\mathrm{GeV}`$ and calculate the Wilson coefficients at the scale $`\alpha _s(\mu )=0.12\pi `$.


text:
# A magnetic barrier in confined two-dimensional electron gases: Nanomagnetometers and magnetic switches

## Abstract

We investigate the conductance properties of a hybrid ferromagnet-semiconductor structure consisting of a confined two-dimensional electron gas and a transverse ferromagnetic strip on top. Within the framework of the Landauer-Büttiker model, we develop an alternative way to consider magnetic fields. Our method describes devices ranging from a recently realized nanomagnetometer down to quasi one-dimensional quantum wires. We provide a rigorous way to relate the measured resistance to the actual magnetization of the strip. Regarding the quasi one-dimensional wires we propose a new device application, a tunable magnetic switch.

Hybrid ferromagnet-semiconductor structures recently have attracted much attention. Such a combination for instance would allow to probe magnetic properties on a nanometer scale, or to build devices such as spin-valves or nanomagnetometers. In this letter we are interested in the latter class of structures, where the spin of the electron plays a minor role. After a brief review of the experimental situation we present the model and the method used to describe the full quantum mechanical problem. We then discuss the results obtained and compare them with the experiment. A possible device application is discussed at the end.

A device that has been experimentally realized consists of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) which flows through a lateral constriction, i.e. a quantum wire, with a ferromagnetic strip placed on top of it (see Fig. 1). The linear conductance along the longitudinal direction acts as a probe for magnetic fields. As the $`g`$-factor for the 2DEG is relatively small the spin degree of freedom enters only as a factor of $`2`$ in the conductance. Only the perpendicular component of the magnetic field $`B_z`$ can affect the transport properties of the system. However an external magnetic field $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ in the longitudinal direction can be applied in order to rotate the strip’s magnetization $`𝐌`$. For $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}=0`$, $`𝐌`$ is assumed to point into the transverse direction, due to symmetry this results in zero perpendicular magnetic field $`B_z`$. As soon as $`𝐌`$ acquires a non-zero $`x`$-component, a finite $`B_z`$ appears which acts as a magnetic barrier in the wire. A typical profile of $`B_z`$ is shown in Fig. 2. It is obvious that the the presence of such a barrier strongly alters the conductance properties. Kubrak et al. measured the change in the longitudinal conductance as a function of $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. They observed a decrease in the conductance with increasing $`|H_{\mathrm{ext}}|`$ until it saturates at a finite value. Moreover they could measure a hysteresis, from which one can conclude that the saturation is reached when $`𝐌`$ points entirely into the longitudinal direction.

In order to explain their experimental findings Kubrak et al. applied a semi-classical theory developed for periodic structures. Although some comparison could be done, we think a more rigorous calculation should be performed. Moreover in our model we take into account the transverse confinement and this allows us to go from a quasi 1D quantum wire (few propagating channels) to the Hall-bar situation of the experiment (many propagating channels). The work presented in this letter is therefore more applicable than full 2D theories and describes more realistic electro-magnetic fields than previous quantum wire model calculations.

Our approach is based on the Landauer-Büttiker model which is appropriate if electron-electron interactions are negligible. The conductance is given by the sum over the transmission probabilities of all propagating channels

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}T_{nm}.$$
(1)
Usually the magnetic field is introduced by choosing a gauge in which the vector potential has only a non-vanishing component along the direction of current flow. This leads to a dependence of the transverse wave function on the longitudinal $`k`$-vectors, which in addition are complex. On the contrary we choose a gauge where the vector potential is all along the transverse direction:

$$𝐀(x,y)=𝐀(x)=𝑑xB_z(x)\widehat{𝐲}.$$
(2)
We now introduce a discretization grid $`\{x_i\}`$ for the longitudinal direction. Thus we cut the wire into thin slices bounded by the grid points and assign a constant vector potential to each slice. In every slice the Hamiltonian can be decomposed in a longitudinal (free motion) and a transverse part, that contains all the information on the magnetic field:

$`H^{\mathrm{long}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_x^2`$ (3)
$`H_{x_i}^{\mathrm{trans}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(i\mathrm{}_y+eA_{x_i}\right)^2+V_{x_i}(y),`$ (4)
where $`A_{x_i}=A(x_i)`$ and $`V_{x_i}(y)`$ is the transverse confining potential in the $`i`$-th slice. The presence of the gauge field changes the transverse solution in every slice like

$`\chi _{n,x_i}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _n^0(y)e^{ie/\mathrm{}A_{x_i}y}`$ (5)
$`E_{n,x_i}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{n,x_i}^0,`$ (6)
where quantities with a $`0`$ superscript refer to zero magnetic field. Hence the vector potential leaves the transverse eigenenergies unchanged and manifests itself only in a local phase of the wave function. Finally we use a scattering matrix method to compute the transmission through the entire structure. One big advantage of our method is that an increase in complexity of the device’ or barrier’s structure does not affect the simulation setup, due to its modular architecture.

In the present work we consider a hard wall confining potential of width $`W`$. The transport problem is fully described by the transverse eigenenergies in each slice $`E_{n,x_i}`$, and the overlap integrals between transverse wave functions belonging to neighboring slices $`S_{nm}=\chi _{n,x_i}|\chi _{m,x_{i+1}}`$. The vector potential appears in the expressions for the overlap integrals only as $`eW/\mathrm{}\left(A_{x_{i+1}}A_{x_i}\right)=eW/\mathrm{}_{x_i}^{x_{i+1}}𝑑x^{}B(x^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_i}/\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_i}`$ is the magnetic flux in the slice that goes from $`x_i`$ to $`x_{i+1}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is the flux quantum. The previous remark assures us that the method is not affected by the problems that may arise in discretizing a gauge field, as the results manifestly depend only on the spatial distribution of magnetic flux. The overlap integrals also contain the information of how much mode-mixing occurs at the interfaces between the slices; we use this property to obtain a criterion for selecting the longitudinal discretization mesh. In particular, we require magnetic induced mode-mixing to be small, and this condition translates into $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{x_i}/\mathrm{\Phi }^{}<1`$. Thus the discretization grid has to be chosen so that each transverse slice contains less than a flux quantum. In our numerical calculation this is assured by an adaptive procedure for selecting the longitudinal mesh. The magnetic field used for the calculations is computed from the equivalent surface pole densities of $`M_x`$  with the approximation that the height of the strip $`h_z`$ is much smaller than the distance of the 2DEG from the strip’s center $`z_0`$. The width of the strip shall be denoted as $`d`$. In Fig. 2 we show the magnetic field profile, computed making use of the afore mentioned approximation and without it. Although there is a small deviation for the peak values, the approximation is a good one even for strip heights that are of the same order of $`z_0`$.

The first results we show regard a wide wire and its potential application as a nanomagnetometer. In Fig. 3 we show the longitudinal resistance change $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ of a two-point measurement as a function of the longitudinal magnetization. This plot allows to extract $`M_x`$ from the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, which then can be used to derive the $`M_x`$ vs $`H_{\mathrm{e}xt}`$ characteristics (hysteresis curve) for the real experimental situation. The solid line corresponds to the experimental setup. The inset shows the sensitivity of the resistance to the magnetic field. Decreasing the width of the wire leads to lower values of the sensitivity, due to the fact that the wire picks up less magnetic flux. In addition little bumps appear, caused by the increasing influence of the lateral confinement. The computed $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$-$`M_x`$ relation is in good agreement with the experimental findings.

From now on we will present results for the case of narrow wires, where the quantization along the transverse direction becomes crucial. In Fig. 4 we show the linear conductance vs the Fermi Energy. For small $`M_x`$ the conductance resembles the zero field case, but it shows little oscillations around channel openings. These oscillations develop into well-defined resonances, that only manifest themselves in the highest propagating mode. For large magnetization values one clearly can identify the shift of the conductance plateaus towards higher energies. This depletion of the conducting channels by the magnetic field becomes more obvious in Fig. 5, where we plot the conductance as a function of the magnetization for three different Fermi energies (indicated by arrows in Fig. 4). Although we have increased the magnetization to values that are higher than experimentally achievable with ferromagnetic materials (e.g. the saturation value for cobalt is $`\mu _0M_s1.8`$T), this is interesting not only for theoretical reasons, but also because high-field situations could be realized by different experimental setups. However we wish to point out that the abrupt drop of the conductance for the one mode case occurs when the magnetization exceeds an experimentally accessible threshold value.

In virtue of the previous remark we propose that this device, in the few conducting channel regime, can be used as a tunable magnetic switch. The switch is open if the component of the external magnetic field along the longitudinal direction is large enough to rotate the magnetization $`𝐌`$ such that it magnetically depletes the wire. The field value at which the switching occurs can be tuned by varying the Fermi Energy (or the width) of the wire, or the geometrical parameters of the ferromagnetic strip. We would like to remark that all the key building blocks for such a device (shallow 2DEG, few modes quantum wire and ferromagnetic strip deposition) have been experimentally realized.

In conclusion we developed a method to describe transport through a confined 2DEG with a magnetic barrier. We performed calculations which will allow to relate the experimentally measured resistance to the properties of the ferromagnetic strip (hysteresis curve). We also investigated much smaller systems. Based on our findings we propose to use these quantum wires-ferromagnet hybrid structure as tunable magnetic switches.

The authors acknowledge financial support from the EU-Project ”Dynamics of nano-fabricated superconducting circuits” (M. G.) and the DFG Graduiertenkolleg ”Kollektive Phänomene im Festkörper” (D. B.).


text:
# Multifractal Measures Characterized by the Iterative Map with Two Control Parameters

## 1 Introduction

Recently, increasing interest has been paid to the behavior of the disorder system in a variety of contexts in condensed matter physics.1-5 The stochastic process for the anomalous diffusion on fractal structure and L$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$vy fleights has extensively been the subject of several literatures.6-8 It provides a dynamic framework for a precise connection between fractional diffusion equations and fractal walks,9,10 while the transport phenomena for the motion of a test particle have largely been extended to the reaction kinetics5,11 and the strange kinetics.12
One of the well-known problems associated mainly with the theory of the random walk is the mean first passage time that defines the average time arrivng at the absorbing barrier for the first time after a walker initially starts from an arbitrary lattice point. Particularly, this theoretical framework has extensively been applied in the Sinai model related intimately to the random barrier with the absorbing and reflecting barriers. In previous work, the Sinai model with asymmetric transition probabilities was studied for the mean and mean square displacements dependent anomalously on time.2-5 The transport process for the mean first passage time has been addressed by Noskowicz et al.13 who obtained the upper and lower bounds using the recursion - relation procedure.14-17 In a one - dimensional lattice with the periodic boundary condition, Kozak et al.18 have been treated with the first passage time, for the specific case of using the logistic map as a pseudorandom number generator.19 On the other hand, there have recently been a few heuristical and intuitive investigations exhibited for one - dimensional iterative maps. In this paper we will focus on the so - called Kim - Kong map which takes the form of a new map with two control parameters. Such a map is meant to be a well - defined dissipative map of the interval $`(0,1)`$, and it can be applied to present the transition of a test particle from the chaotic sequences of our map. In particular, the Kim - Kong map proposed may be very useful to extensively research the transport of quantum excitations, directed polymer problems, and the electron localization in quantum mechanics.20-22 Interestingly, it may be expected that our iterative map will be relevant to a nonlinear map on simple models of spatial - temporal chaos in a nonconserving coupling map lattice.23-26
Since the multifractals is directly related to rigorously analyzed statistical property of the normalized first passage time, the multifractal quantites have been intensively studied in connection with the random walk problem in a one -dimensional lattice with both absorbing and reflecting barriers.15,27 In general, multifractal investigations for chaotic disorder systems have essentially discussed the transport phenomena28,29 and the random fractal structure with the time - dependent random potential in a diffusive motion.30-33 Very recently Kim et al.34 argued on multifractal behavior of the normalized first passage time for the case where both absorbing and reflecting barriers exist in a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket. To our knowledge, it is of fundamental importance for the multifractals to be dealt with the transport process described by the transition probability such as the Kim - Kong map. In reality, the Sinai, logistic, and Kim - Kong models studied in this paper have not been fully explored up to now, as we will see.
In this study, we present the transport process of a given particle executed on random walk with symmetric and asymmetric transition probabilities on a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket existing with both absorbing and reflecting barriers. Especially, the distribution of the normalized first passage time arriving at absorbing barrier is investigated primarily on the Kim - Kong model performing a random walk by the transition probability such as the Kim - Kong map. In Sec.2, we discuss, in great detail, the characteristic feature of the Kim - Kong map. The convenient formula of the normalized first passage time and the multifractals are also introduced. In Sec.3, we use the statistical value of the normalized first passage time to relate the generalized dimension and the spectra. The numerical results of the Monte Carlo simulation for the generalized dimension and the spectra are compared with those reported earlier.27,34 Finally, we end with some results and conclusions.

## 2  Kim - Kong map and the multifractal feature for the normalized first passage time

First of all, in this section we explain in detail the characteristic properties of the Kim - Kong map and the multifractal feature of the normalized first passage time. For our case the well - known quantity which defines the motion is the transition probability of a test particle performing the symmetric or asymmetric random walk. For simplicity we assume that transition probability takes the form of a Kim - Kong map. A new map that we consider is expressed in terms of

$$x(n+1)=\gamma \mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{log}x(n))^2][1\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{log}x(n))^2]],$$
(1)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ stand for the control parameters. The transition probability can then be considered as chaotic orbits of the Kim - Kong map, i.e. a sequence of pseudorandom numbers. However, in next section we will use our map of Eq.(1) as the transition probability, when a particle performs a random walk on a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket. Specifically Eq.(1) is a well - defined dissipative map with the interval $`(0,1)`$, since it generates $`x(n+1)`$ from $`x(n)`$. As parameter $`\beta `$ varies slightly higher than $`0.2`$ at $`\gamma =3.78`$, the maximum value of $`x(n+1)`$ proceeds from the left to the right side of $`x(n)`$, as noted in the results plotted in Fig.$`1`$. It is as well obtained that the maximum value of $`x(n+1)`$ exists near $`x(n)=0.5`$ for $`\beta =1.5`$ and $`\gamma =3.78`$, although it is no longer exact. Hence we can describe higher chaotic sequences of iterated points for $`\beta =0.2`$ and $`\gamma =3.78`$ in Eq.(1), while $`x(n+1)`$ takes on smaller chaotic values for $`\beta =2.0`$ and $`\gamma =3.78`$, independent of the initial value of $`x(n)`$. As another characteristics, we now interpret the bifurcation structure, and discuss numerically the value of two convergence ratios in a one - dimensional Kim - Kong map. When the control parameter $`\gamma `$ is varied in the range $`0<\gamma <4`$, it leads to the onset of chaotic behavior, and the bifurcation diagram of the Kim - Kong map for a period - $`2^n`$ point can be shown in Fig. $`2`$. It should be noted that the $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ sequences converge to the value $`\delta =lim_n\mathrm{}\delta _n=4.66920`$ and $`\alpha =lim_n\mathrm{}\alpha _n=2.50290`$, which are really the same values as the Feigenbaum constants.35,36
Next we will assume that a test particle performs a random walk of nearest - neighboring transition on a one - dimensional lattice. Then, using the well - known results of the generating function technique, the mean first passage time2,3 $`\overline{T}`$ satisfies the following equation :

$$\overline{T}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{p_k}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{N2}{}}\frac{1}{p_k}\underset{i=k+1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=k+1}{\overset{i}{}}\frac{q_j}{p_j},$$
(2)
where it means that a given particle jumps to right site with $`p_j`$ or left site with $`q_j`$ after one step, since it starts at site $`j`$. The transition probabilities $`p_j`$ and $`q_j`$ lead us to have arbitrarily different values at the $`j`$ \- th site when a particle jumps one step from a given site to the nearest-neighbor site. The derivation of Eq.$`(2)`$ can be found in details elsewhere.14,15,19 There are $`2^N`$ realizations of the random walks possible for a chain of size N. We can explicitely calculate the mean first passage time of Eq.$`(2)`$, after enumerating all the realizations. Now let us consider the normalized first passage time $`T_n`$ defined by

$$T_n=\frac{T_iT_{min}}{T_{max}T_{min}}$$
(3)
where $`T_i`$ is the first passage time required for the $`ith`$ particle to reach an absorbing barrier starting at an arbitrary site. $`T_{max}`$ and $`T_{min}`$ are respectively the maximum and minimum values for the first passage time arrivng at the absorbing barrier. ¿From Eq.$`(3)`$ the normalized first passage time can be taken into account as the rescaled real values on $`(0,1)`$. However, we shall be interested in this nature employing multifractal formula.
In order to exhibit the multifractal feature for the normalized first passage time, we briefly repeat the definition of multifractals in the following. If we divide the normalized first passage time into a set of $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0`$, then the generalized dimension in the multifractal structure1,15 is represented as

$$D_q=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{ln_in_ip_{}^{q}{}_{i}{}^{}}{(q1)lnϵ}.$$
(4)
Here $`n_i`$ is the number of configurations of the $`i`$ \- th particle, and $`p_i`$ is the probability for the number of configurations of the $`i`$ \- th particle arriving at the absorbing barrier. Owing to Eq.(4), the explicit relations between $`D_q`$ and $`f_q`$, and between $`\alpha _q`$ and $`D_q`$ are respectively given by the following Legendre transform:

$$f_q=q\frac{d}{dq}[(q1)D_q](q1)D_q$$
(5)
and

$$\alpha _q=\frac{d}{dq}[(q1)D_q].$$
(6)
In our scheme, we will make use of Eqs.$`(4)(6)`$ to find out the multifractal behavior for the normalized first passage time in a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket, and these mathematical techniques lead us to more general results.

## 3 Result and conclusions

For the investigations of the generalized dimension and the spectrum for the normalized first passage time, we take into account the two - dimensional random walk of a given particle, where the number of sites having a stage $`n`$ in the $`d`$ \- dimensional Sierpinski gasket37 takes on only $`N_n=(d+1)(1+(d+1)^n)/2`$. Although the stage $`n`$ can be extended to large number in our compuetr simulation studies, we conveniently restrict ourselves to $`n=7`$ stages in a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket. We will assume that an absorbing barrier is at an ended site on the right side, while the reflecting barriers are on all the boundary in Fig. 3. After a particle starts at the initial point $`i_0=(11111233)`$ at $`n=7`$ stages on a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket lattice, this absorbs at a site $`(33333333)`$,where the $`n=0`$ stage is located at $`(1)`$, $`(2)`$, and $`(3)`$. By using the transition probability of Eq.(1), a particle jumps to the right site with $`p_{1j}+\theta `$ or the left site with $`q_{1j}\theta `$, and to the top site with $`p_{2j}\theta `$ or the bottom site with $`q_{2j}+\theta `$ in four directions after a particle starts at a site $`j`$ on a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket. The disorder parameter $`\theta `$ is the quantity for the biased value described by the direction of a given particle on fractal lattice model, and we have $`p_{1j}+q_{1j}+p_{2j}+q_{2j}=1`$ by using the normalized condition on two - dimensional lattice model. For this case the random walk of a particle is symmetric for the disorder parameter $`\theta =0`$, and will be a biased random walk that jumped to the direction of the absorbing barrier for $`0<\theta <\frac{1}{4}`$.
For the sake of clarity we can obtain the multifractal behavior of the normalized first passage time from our simulation because of the apparent simplicity of our models. Our simulations are performed for $`3\times 10^6`$ particles and averaged over $`10^4`$ configurations in the three models as follows. The first is the Sinai model that for Sinai disorder it has the symmetric transition probability with $`p_{1j}=q_{1j}=p_{2j}=q_{2j}=\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\theta =0`$, and the two asymmetric probabilities with $`\theta =0.05`$ and $`\theta =0.1`$. The second is the logistic model for the transition probability represented in terms of the logistic function, and the numerical simulation of logistic model can be treated in a similar way to that of the Sinai model. In this paper the logistic map is given by $`x(n+1)=Rx(n)[1x(n)]`$, where $`R=3.9999`$, and the multifractal quantities of the normalized first passage time we found was also refered to Ref.$`[34]`$, in detail. Lastly, we concentrate on the Kim - Kong model carrying out efficiently a random walk in the interesting case of a Kim - Kong map for $`\beta =0.2`$ and $`\gamma =3.78`$, where the numerical generated sequences of the Kim - Kong map appear to be wildly chaotic, as shown in Fig. $`2`$. We find in the Kim - Kong model that the three asymmetric cutoff values are $`0.026145`$, $`0.147489`$, and $`0.492946`$ with $`\theta =0.05`$, while we obtain three asymmetric cutoff values of $`0.042893`$, $`0.147489`$, and $`0.379262`$ with $`\theta =0.1`$, respectively. Here the asymmetric cutoff value is defined as the quantity used to independently determine the jumping direction of a random walker.
¿From now on we estimate numerically the generalized dimension and the spectrum after finding the normalized first passage time from Eq.$`(3)`$ via the Monte Carlo simulation. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table I. At present, of further interest is the fractal dimension among multifractal quantities. Here the fractal dimenion $`D_0`$ (i.e., the maximum value of $`D_q`$ or $`f_q`$ ) and the scaling exponent $`\alpha _\pm \mathrm{}`$, $`D_\pm \mathrm{}`$ for $`ϵ=10^2`$ are calculated in the Kim - Kong, logistic, and Sinai models29, ultimately based on the theoretical expression Eqs.$`(4)(6)`$. The normalized first passage time in the Kim - Kong model is found to be infinite for $`\theta =0`$, while the fractal dimension in the logistic model is expected to take a value near zero as $`\theta 0`$. It is also found that the fractal dimension anomalously changes as the disorder parameter $`\theta `$ increases for both the Kim - Kong and logistic models. Fig. $`4`$ is the plot of the spectrum $`f_q`$ versus $`\alpha _q`$ for the Sinai model on a two - dimensional Sierpinski gasket.
In conclusion, we have discussed in this paper the characteristic properties of the Kim - Kong map with two control parameters. We also have investigated the multifractals from the distribution of the normalized first passage time arriving at an absorbing barrier for the first time. For completeness we have also included the results for three models, as summarized in Table I. In the future, the decay process can be presented analytically and numerically from the randomness of our map in a reaction - diffusion system with multi - species reactants.38,39 It is expected that the detail description of the multifractal behavior will be used to study the higher - dimensional extensions of the fractal lattice models, for the case of the transition probability as a chaotic orbits of the Kim - Kong map.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the Academic Research Fund of Pukyong National Univ. of Korea.

## Figures