text:
# Future 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ Colliders Sensitivity to 𝐻𝑏𝑏̄ Coupling and CP Violation

## I Introduction

The origin of fermion masses and mixings is one of most important issues in particle physics. In the Standard Model (SM), the Higgs field alone is responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking and mass generation. The SM, however, is incomplete and a thorough study of the coupling of the remnant Higgs boson (or in fact the lightest (pseudo)scalar boson) to fermions can provide hints on the actual mechanism of mass generation.

In a recent paper, we have investigated the possibility of detecting deviations from the SM in the Higgs couplings to $`\tau `$-leptons  at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. In this letter, we expand our analysis to the case of the Higgs couplings to $`b`$-quarks, which has a better potential in principle due to the larger Yukawa coupling.

For definiteness, we concentrate on the determination of the (pseudo)scalar-$`b`$-$`\overline{b}`$ coupling at a Linear Collider with a center-of-mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and accumulated luminosity of 1 ab-1, based on the TESLA design . We will assume that this particle has already been discovered at the Large Hadron Collider but a detailed study of its couplings is missing.

We take into account all relevant contributions to the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, where $`\nu `$ can be an electron, muon or tau neutrino. In particular, weak gauge boson fusion is the dominant contribution to the subset of diagrams containing the Higgs boson for $`M_H<180`$ GeV at $`\sqrt{s}500`$ GeV.

In extensions of the SM with extra scalars and pseudoscalars, the lightest spin-0 particle can be an admixture of states without a definite parity. Hence, we parametrize the general $`Hb\overline{b}`$ coupling as:

$$\frac{m_b}{v}(a+i\gamma _5b),$$
(1)
where $`v=246`$ GeV, $`m_b`$ is the $`b`$quark mass and $`a=1`$, $`b=0`$ in the SM.

We will present results considering $`a`$ and $`b`$ as independent parameters and also for the cases of fixed $`a=1`$, free $`b`$ and fixed $`b=0`$, free $`a`$. We will see that there is a region of insensivity around circles in the $`ab`$ plane since we can’t at this level of analysis disentangle the effects of $`a`$ and $`b`$.

The cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is sensitive to terms proportional to $`a`$, which comes from the interference with non-Higgs contributions, and $`a^2`$ and $`b^2`$ from pure Higgs contributions. Therefore, we can search for deviations from the SM prediction which could arise, for instance, in supersymmetric models.

The total SM cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is of the order of $`180`$ fb for $`M_H=120`$ GeV and at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, being dominated by the $`\nu _e`$ final state, because of the many additional diagrams allowed in this case. In particular, only in this channel the weak gauge boson fusion diagram is allowed and it provides an important contribution. For comparison, the process $`e^+e^{}H\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ is of the order of $`100`$ fb at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV.

In Fig. 1 we show the dependence of the total cross section, summed over the three neutrino species, on the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }aa1`$ and $`b`$. The dependence in $`b`$ is symmetric since only terms proportional to $`b^2`$ contribute to the cross section. On the other hand, the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ is asymmetric due to interference with Standard Model processes, which leads to the presence of linear terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$. We should point out that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ dependence is more prominent in the $`b\overline{b}`$ case than in the previously studied $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ . Our goal is to see how sensitive the experiments performed at the next generation of $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders will be in the determination of these parameters.

## II Analysis and Results

We performed our Monte Carlo simulation by generating observables represented as series in the $`a`$ and $`b`$ couplings multiplied by kinematical factors:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d𝒪}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_0+aA_1+a^2A_2+abA_3+`$ (3)
$`bA_4+b^2A_5\text{}`$
where $`𝒪`$ is any observable and the $`A_i`$ terms are purely kinematical structures which do not contain any $`a`$ and $`b`$ dependence and results from the amplitude squaring and phase space integration. These $`A_i`$ structures are the subject of the Monte Carlo simulation and the $`a`$ and $`b`$ couplings can be varied without the necessity to re-simulating the data for each $`(a,b)`$ point. In our particular case, $`A_3=A_4=0`$.

The event sample reproducing the expected statistics at TESLA was generated using our Monte Carlo package while the detector response was simulated with the code SIMDET version 3.01. We assume an efficiency for $`b`$jet pair reconstruction of $`\epsilon _{bb}=56`$ %, which is based on the $`b`$-tag algorithm, as assumed in ref. . In our simulations we used $`M_H=120`$ GeV.

In Figure 2 we show, for comparison purposes, the differential distribution in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{eb}`$, where $`\theta _{eb}`$ is the scattering angle between the $`b`$-jet and initial beam directions, for the total SM contribution and for the Higgs contribution only (including interference with SM). To illustrate the importance of the $`\nu _e`$ final state, we plot both the contribution of only the $`\nu _\mu `$ final state (which is basically the same as $`\nu _\tau `$ final state) and the total contribution from the three neutrinos. We can see that in the first case the Higgs contribution is small but in the total contribution it is comparable to the full SM result.

In order to demonstrate the effect of different values of the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, we show in Figure 3 the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{eb}`$ distribution arising from the Higgs contribution for the SM ($`a=1`$, $`b=0`$) compared to the case with $`a=b=0.5`$, with only $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos and with the three neutrinos. We see that the shapes are very similar, as expected, but the levels can be noticeable different.

As for the possible contribution from background processes, like $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}ZZe^+e^{}b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ (with $`e`$-pair lost), $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }W^+W^{}\nu \overline{\nu }b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`e^+e^{}ZZZb\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }\nu \overline{\nu }`$, etc., the cross sections of these processes are either small, or they can be significantly supressed down to levels of $`0.2`$ fb .

Another important aspect is the assumption about the detector performance and possible sources of the systematic uncertaintes. We include the anticipated systematic errors of 0.5% in the luminosity measurement, 1% in the acceptance determination, 1% in the branching ratios, and 1% in the background substraction, and assume the Gaussian nature of the sytematics. To place bounds on the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ couplings, we use a standard $`\chi ^2`$-criterion to analyse the events. After various kinematical distributions were examined, we found that the most strict bounds are achieved from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{eb}`$ distribution by dividing the distribution event samples into 10 bins. The experimental error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i^{exp}`$ for the $`i^{th}`$ bin is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i^{exp}=\sigma _i^{SM}\sqrt{\delta _{syst}^2+\delta _{stat}^2}$$
(4)
where

$$\delta _{stat}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma _i^{SM}\epsilon _{bb}𝑑t}}$$
(5)
and $`\delta _{syst}^2`$ is the sum in quadrature of the systematic uncertainties mentioned above.

In Fig. 4, we present our final results for a TESLA-like environment  with a center-of-mass energy of 500 GeV and for $`M_H=120`$ GeV.

We investigated three possible scenarios for the luminosities: 100 fb-1, 1 ab-1 and 10 ab-1. The allowed region for independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ and $`b`$ parameters at 95% confidence level is the area between the circles. The horizontal bands are the allowed region for the $`b`$ parameter keeping $`a=1`$. The vertical bands are the allowed region for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ parameter keeping $`b=0`$.

The bounds that can be obtained at 95% confidence level are:

$`0.041`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }a0.039\text{ for }=100\text{ fb}\text{-1};`$ (6)
$`0.026`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }a0.027\text{ for }=1\text{ ab}\text{-1};`$ (7)
$`0.024`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }a0.024\text{ for }=10\text{ ab}\text{-1}.`$ (8)
for the case of $`b=0`$ and free $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ and

$`0.28`$ $``$ $`b0.28\text{ for }=100\text{ fb}\text{-1};`$ (9)
$`0.23`$ $``$ $`b0.23\text{ for }=1\text{ ab}\text{-1};`$ (10)
$`0.22`$ $``$ $`b0.22\text{ for }=10\text{ ab}\text{-1}.`$ (11)
for the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a=0`$ and free $`b`$.

These results are up to an order of magnitude better than the limits obtained in a similar manner for $`\tau `$leptons, mainly because of the larger Yukawa coupling in case of $`b`$quarks and higher sensitivity of the process.

These results can be roughly scaled for moderate variations in the Higgs boson mass around $`120`$ GeV by multiplying the bounds by a factor $`(M_H/120\text{ GeV})^2`$.

## III Conclusions

We have performed a complete analysis of the sensitivity to new $`Hb\overline{b}`$ couplings from the process $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ at the next generation of linear colliders. These new couplings are predicted by many extensions of the Standard Model. We showed that forthcoming experiments will be able to probe deviations of $`Hb\overline{b}`$ coupling. The weak gauge boson fusion process is instrumental for achieving such a precision. For a TESLA-like environment, we are able to constrain the couplings at the level of a few percent for the $`a`$ parameter (for fixed $`b`$) and tens of percent for the $`b`$ parameter (for fixed $`a`$). These results are comparable to the study performed in , where a global fit analysis for $`=500`$ fb-1 and $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV has resulted in a relative accuracy of $`2.2`$% in the $`g_{Hbb}`$ Yukawa coupling.

We would like to comment some aspects of the future measurements. Let us assume that the Higgs data anticipated from the new collider experiments will reveal a deviation from the SM predictions. In addition, suppose that one has an independent measurement of the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Hb\overline{b}}`$ (for instance, from on-mass-shell Higgs production in a muonic collider). It easy to see that, in our parametrization, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Hb\overline{b}}(a^2+b^2)`$, while the observables we studied have the following parameter dependence

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d𝒪}=A_0+aA_1+a^2A_2+b^2A_3.$$

Combining our results and those from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Hb\overline{b}}`$ one can separate $`a`$ and $`b`$ contributions and obtain an explicit indication of CP violation in the Higgs sector.

## Acknowledgments

The work of A. Likhoded was partially funded by a Fapesp grant 2001/06391-4. The work of A. Chalov and V.Braguta is partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants 99-02-16558 and 00-15-96645, Russian Education Ministry, grant RF E00-33-062, and CRDF grant MO-011-0. R. Rosenfeld would like to thank Fapesp and CNPq for partial financial support. The authors would like to thank A. Belyaev for valuable remarks.


format: text

text:
# Testing Factorization in 𝐵→𝐷^(∗)𝑋 Decays

## I Introduction

There are two limits of QCD in which factorization in $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ (and related) decays can be proven rigorously. In the large $`N_c`$ limit, in which one takes the limit of infinite number of colors, one can show that all nonfactorizable contributions are suppressed by $`1/N_c^2`$. In the large energy limit, $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, where $`Q`$ denotes any one of the large scales $`m_b`$, $`m_c`$ or $`E_\pi `$, factorization has been proven rigorously bpsfact  using a soft-collinear effective theory scet . In this case the corrections to factorization are suppressed by powers of $`1/Q`$ Dugan:1990de .

The large $`Q`$ proof of factorization has its roots in a non-rigorous argument by Bjorken that justifies factorization using color transparency. Here the requirement is that the pion velocity in the $`B`$ rest frame be ultrarelativistic, so that the small color dipole of quarks that forms the $`\pi ^{}`$ grows to hadronic size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only after a time delayed hadronization time $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ much larger than the hadronic size of the $`B`$ meson. Although not systematic, color transparency therefore seems to suggest that violations to factorization are order $`1/\gamma `$. While both large $`N_c`$ and large $`Q`$ lead to factorization in a particular limit of QCD, it is not clear which is the most important for the phenomenologically observed factorization in real QCD, in which neither large $`N_c`$, large $`Q`$, nor large $`\gamma `$ are exactly realized. Each method gives similar predictions for the decay $`B^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ and, while none predict the decay $`B^0\overline{D}^0\pi ^0`$, they all render it suppressed. Hence these decays are not very useful for distinguishing among these arguments for factorization.

If large $`N_c`$ were the only requirement for factorization, one would expect factorization to hold equally well in $`D`$ decays and $`K`$ decays. Factorization does not work very well in $`D`$ decays BSW ; NeSt  and is even more strongly violated in $`K`$ decays. Clearly large $`N_c`$ by itself does not explain phenomenological factorization. A great deal of effort has been devoted to explaining this aparent puzzle factor1 ; factor2 ; factor3 .

On the other hand, if the large energy limit was solely responsible for explaining factorization in $`B`$ decays, one would expect Dugan:1990de  corrections to grow as $`m_X/Q`$, where $`m_X`$ is the hadronic mass produced by the $`(\overline{d}u)_{VA}`$ current. Recently, an analysis of the decays $`BD^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`BD^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$ was performed, investigating the applicability of factorization as a function of the invariant mass of the light hadrons Ligeti:2001dk . Using information from $`\tau `$ decays it was shown that up to $`m_X1.7`$ GeV there is no indication of violations to factorization, which indicates that the large $`Q`$ limit can not be solely responsible for explaining factorization. However, this data can not be explained solely from the large $`N_c`$ limit of QCD either. In order to calculate the predictions from factorization, Ref. Ligeti:2001dk  used the factorized form

$`XD^{()}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}u)_{VA}|B=D^{()}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}|BX|(\overline{d}u)_{VA}|0.`$ (1)
This neglects the possibility that part of the hadronic state containing the light particles can be created from the $`bc`$ current. In fact, large $`N_c`$ only gives

$`XD^{()}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}u)_{VA}|\overline{B}={\displaystyle \underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}}D^{()}X^{}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}|BX^{\prime \prime }|(\overline{d}u)_{VA}|0,`$ (2)
with $`X^{}`$ and $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ adding to give the final light hadron state $`X`$. The authors of Ref. Ligeti:2001dk  addressed this issue by arguing that the contributions from non-zero $`X^{}`$ may be numerically small and that for $`BD^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$ this can be tested using data from semileptonic $`BD\omega \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays. These effects can also be tested in the decay $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ for which $`X^{}=\{\pi ^+,\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\}`$ and $`X^{\prime \prime }=\{\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{},\pi ^{}\}`$. The CLEO measurement CLEO4pi  finds a small but nonvanishing branching ratio for this mode $`Br(\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=(0.30\pm 0.07\pm 0.06)\%`$.

It is interesting to note that factorization in Eq. (1) is justified in the small velocity (SV) limit, $`m_b,m_cm_bm_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ SV . As shown in Ref. Boyd:1995ht , in the SV limit the inclusive $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ branching ratio is saturated by $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ final states. Therefore, in the SV limit

$`X^{}D^{()}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}|B=D^{()}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}|B\delta _{X^{},0}.`$ (3)
Thus, Eq. (2) reduces to Eq. (1) in the simultaneous limit of large $`N_c`$ and SV and this combined limit is therefore capable of explaining the results of Ligeti:2001dk .

Although more stringent than the large $`Q`$ limit, the $`SV`$ limit implies large $`Q`$ and is therefore fully consistent with it and also gives additional predictive power. For $`BD^{()}`$ transitions the relevant kinematic limits can be summarized as

HQET: $`m_b,m_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},`$
Large $`Q`$: $`m_b,m_c,m_bm_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},`$
$`SV`$ limit: $`m_b,m_cm_bm_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},`$ (4)
each of which is a subset of the one above. The requirement that the light degrees of freedom in the $`D^{()}`$ can be described by HQET requires that $`E_Dm_c`$ or equivalently that the $`B`$ and $`D`$ velocities have $`vv^{}`$ of order one. This implies that $`m_bm_c\sqrt{m_bm_c}`$ or $`m_bm_c\sqrt{m_bm_c}`$, which are allowed scalings in the large $`Q`$ and SV limits respectively.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. In section II we show that even the more generally factorized form of the amplitude in Eq. (2) leads to experimentally testable predictions which are distinct from those following from large $`Q`$ factorization. The $`BD^{()}X_u`$ decays with charge eigenstates are parameterized by four independent isospin amplitudes. In the large $`N_c`$ limit, they are given in terms of only two reduced matrix elements, compared with just one in large $`Q`$ factorization. A similar result holds for $`BD\overline{D}X`$ decays, for which we prove a similar reduction in isospin amplitudes from 7 to 5, in contrast with two in the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV factorization. In section III we consider the simultaneous limit of large $`N_c`$ and $`SV`$ and calculate the inclusive differential decay rate $`BD^{}X`$ in this limit. The results obtained are compared with data available from the CLEO collaboration Gibbons:1997ag .

## II Large $`N_c`$ relations for $`BDX`$

The final state $`X`$ in the decay $`\overline{B}DX`$ may have charm number $`1`$ or 0, depending on whether the underlying weak decay is $`bc\overline{c}s`$ or $`bc\overline{u}d`$. We analyze these separately, correspondingly labeling the final states $`X_c`$ and $`X_u`$. Taking into account the fact that the $`B`$ and $`D`$ states belong to isospin doublets and that the weak Hamiltonian

$`_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}\left[C_1(\mu )(\overline{c}u)_{VA}(\overline{d}b)_{VA}+C_2(\mu )(\overline{c}b)_{VA}(\overline{d}u)_{VA}\right]`$ (5)
transforms as an isotriplet with $`(I,I_3)=(1,+1)`$, one obtains that the final light state $`X_u`$ can have isospin $`I_{X_u}=0,1,2`$. Specifying the isospin of the $`X_u`$ system together with the total isospin of the final hadronic system gives rise to four isospin states: $`[DX_0]_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`[DX_1]_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`[DX_1]_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ and $`[DX_2]_{\frac{3}{2}}`$. The corresponding reduced isospin amplitudes are

$`a_{\frac{1}{2}}=[DX_0]_{\frac{1}{2}}_W\overline{B},b_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}=[DX_1]_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}_W\overline{B},c_{\frac{3}{2}}=[DX_2]_{\frac{3}{2}}_W\overline{B}.`$ (6)
The isospin amplitudes depend on $`X`$ through its hadronic content and particle momenta. Squaring the amplitudes and summing over the isospin of the $`X_u`$ state one finds for the rates with $`B`$ and $`D`$ charge eigenstates

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b_{1/2}(X)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}b_{3/2}(X)\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}|c_{3/2}(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0X_u^0)={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|a_{1/2}(X)|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left|b_{1/2}(X)+b_{3/2}(X)\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}|c_{3/2}(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^0X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\left|b_{3/2}(X)\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}|c_{3/2}(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}|c_{3/2}(X)|^2.`$ (7)
The phase space factors are implied. The corresponding sums over $`X`$ in the rate formulas include summation over the final states and integration over the phase space.

In the large $`N_c`$ limit these amplitudes simplify considerably. We assign the usual $`N_c`$ power counting to the Wilson coefficients $`C_1(m_b)1/N_c`$, $`C_2(m_b)1`$, in agreement with their perturbative expansion in $`\alpha _s`$ NeSt . This gives that to leading order in $`1/N_c`$ the $`\overline{B}DX`$ amplitude factors as

$`A_{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{c}^0}(\overline{B}DX_u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}C_2{\displaystyle \underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}}DX^{}|\overline{c}b|\overline{B}X^{\prime \prime }|\overline{d}u|0+O(1/N_c)`$ (8)
with $`X_u=X^{}+X^{\prime \prime }`$. Since the state $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ has to be in a state of isospin $`|I,I_3=|1,1`$ and the state $`X^{}`$ can only have isospin $`I=0`$ or 1, all possible decays $`\overline{B}DX_u`$ are determined in the large $`N_c`$ limit by two amplitudes $`F_I`$ defined as

$`F_0(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X^{}X^{\prime \prime }}{}}[DX_0^{}]_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{c}b\overline{B}X_1^{\prime \prime }\overline{d}u0,`$ (9)
$`F_1(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{X^{}X^{\prime \prime }}{}}[DX_1^{}]_{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{c}b\overline{B}X_1^{\prime \prime }\overline{d}u0.`$
The four isospin amplitudes (6) can be written now in terms of $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$ as555Although in general $`F_{0,1}(X)O(N_c^0)`$, for special states $`X`$ some of these amplitudes may vanish. For example, taking $`X=\pi `$ gives $`F_1(\pi )=0`$.

$`a_{1/2}=F_1,b_{1/2}=F_0+\sqrt{2}F_1,b_{3/2}=F_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}F_1,c_{3/2}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}}F_1.`$ (10)
Using these expressions in the rate formulas, one finds the large $`N_c`$ predictions

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{c}^0}(\overline{B}_dD^+X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|F_0(X)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}F_1(X)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|F_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{c}^0}(\overline{B}_dD^0X_u^0)={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}2|F_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{c}^0}(B^{}D^0X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|F_0(X){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}F_1(X)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|F_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{c}^0}(B^{}D^+X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}2|F_1(X)|^2.`$ (11)
The two independent amplitudes can be extracted from the combinations of rates

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+X_u^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^0X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}2|F_1(X)|^2+2|F_0(X)|^2`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0X_u^0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+X_u^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}2|F_1(X)|^2.`$ (13)
The corrections to the predictions in Eq. (10) come at order $`1/N_c`$ and are parameterized by the subleading term in Eq. (8). This can be written again in a factorized form as

$`A_{1/N_c}(\overline{B}DX_u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}\left(C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{N_c}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}}DX^{}|\overline{c}u|0X^{\prime \prime }|\overline{d}b|\overline{B}+O(1/N_c^2).`$ (14)
For this case both $`X^{}`$ and $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ can have isospin $`I=0,1`$. Thus four isospin amplitudes are required to describe all matrix elements (14), which shows that in general no reduction in the number of isospin amplitudes persists beyond leading order in $`1/N_c`$.

The large energy limit can be applied to these decays if the final state $`X`$ contains only particles which form a jet with energy much larger than its invariant mass (this includes the case of just a single light particle with large energy). In this case, the amplitude can be factored in a way similar to the large $`N_c`$ limit as

$`A_\mathrm{E}(\overline{B}DX_u)={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}\left(C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{N_c}}\right)D|\overline{c}b|\overline{B}X|\overline{d}u|0+𝒪(\alpha _s(Q),\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_X}{Q}}\right)^n)`$ (15)
where $`m_X`$ is the invariant mass of the state $`X`$ and $`n>0`$. Since the isospin of $`X`$ is constrained to be $`I=1`$, the only nonvanishing isospin amplitudes in this limit are $`b_{1/2},b_{3/2}`$. This prediction can be tested for example by measuring the decay $`B^{}D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ as a function of the angle between the two energetic pions, which should vanish as this angle decreases.

The above analysis can be carried through in an identical manner for $`BD^{}X`$ decays. In the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limit the amplitude $`D^{()}X|\overline{c}b|\overline{B}`$ vanishes for $`X0`$. Thus, $`F_1(X)=0`$ for all final states $`X`$. This prediction is similar to the one from large energy factorization, but without the kinematic requirement on the light hadronic system $`X`$. Separate measurements of the 4 rates with $`B,D`$ charge eigenstates would allow a test of these predictions, and distinguish between large $`N_c`$ factorization, large energy factorization or the combined limit of large $`N_c`$ and $`SV`$. In the next section we discuss a partial test along these lines, making use of the present limited experimental information on $`BD^{()}X`$ available from CLEO Gibbons:1997ag .

We stress that the large $`N_c`$ relations hold not only for the inclusive mode, but also for states $`X`$ with fixed hadronic content. For example, taking $`X=\pi \pi `$ gives that in the large $`N_c`$ limit, the amplitudes for the two pions in $`\overline{B}D^{()}(\pi \pi )_I`$ to be emitted in states of isospin $`I=0`$ and 2 are related. Eq. (13) gives a relation among rates to leading order in $`1/N_c`$ (note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^{()0}\pi ^0\pi ^0)O(1/N_c^2)`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^{()0}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^{()+}\pi ^{}\pi ^{})+O(1/N_c).`$ (16)
The branching ratios of these modes have been recently reported by the BELLE Collaboration BelleICHEP . For the $`D`$ modes they are $`Br(\overline{B}_dD^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(7.5\pm 0.7\pm 1.5)\times 10^4`$ and $`Br(B^{}D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=(1.07\pm 0.04\pm 0.16)\times 10^3`$, and for the $`D^{}`$ modes $`Br(\overline{B}_dD^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=(6.2\pm 1.2\pm 1.7)\times 10^4`$, $`Br(B^{}D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=(1.24\pm 0.07\pm 0.22)\times 10^3`$.

The data agrees fairly well with the large $`N_c`$ prediction for the $`D`$ modes and suggests larger $`1/N_c`$ corrections for the $`D^{}`$ modes. This agreement permits a determination of $`|F_1(\pi \pi )|^2`$ (integrated over phase space) using Eq. (13). A subtraction can then be performed to extract $`|F_0(\pi \pi )|^2`$ using (12). The widths on the left side of Eq. (12) are dominated by the two-body $`BD\rho `$ modeAlam:bi . One finds (in units of $`Br`$)

$`2|F_0(\pi \pi )|^2=(20.4\pm 2.3)\times 10^3,2|F_1(\pi \pi )|^2=(9.1\pm 1.1)\times 10^4.`$ (17)
The large observed enhancement of $`F_0`$ over $`F_1`$ is a consequence of the inequality among two-body modes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{}\pi )`$. Factorization for these two body modes can be explained either in large $`N_c`$ or in the large $`Q`$ limit. The suppression of $`F_1`$ over $`F_0`$ is in agreement with the SV limit.

Another test of the large $`N_c`$ relations is obtained by taking $`X=K\overline{K}`$, for which data is available from BELLE BELLE2K . The isospin of the kaon pair can be only 0 and 1, which gives $`c_{3/2}(K\overline{K})=0`$. The large $`N_c`$ relations (10) imply $`F_1(K\overline{K})=0`$, which shows that in this limit the $`BD(K\overline{K})_{I=0}`$ amplitude is suppressed, and the decay rates satisfy

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+K^{}\overline{K}^0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^0K^{}\overline{K}^0)+O(1/N_c)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0K^0\overline{K}^0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0K^+K^{})=O(1/N_c^2).`$ (18)
The first prediction agrees well with the BELLE results BELLE2K  $`Br(\overline{B}_dD^+K^{}\overline{K}^0)=(8.8\pm 1.1\pm 1.5)\times 10^4`$, $`Br(B^{}D^0K^{}\overline{K}^0)=(7.5\pm 1.3\pm 1.1)\times 10^4`$ and $`Br(\overline{B}_dD^+K^{}\overline{K}^0)=(12.9\pm 2.2\pm 2.5)\times 10^4`$, $`Br(B^{}D^0K^{}\overline{K}^0)=(15.3\pm 3.1\pm 2.9)\times 10^4`$.

Next we turn our attention to the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ process. For this case, large $`Q`$ arguments can not be used to justify factorization, which leaves large $`N_c`$ as the sole possible explanation. The Hamiltonian $`_W^{cs}`$ responsible for these decays is identical to (5) with the substitution $`uc`$. We neglect the penguin operators because of their small CKM factors and Wilson coefficients. We first consider the case in which experiments may tag the $`B`$ meson and distinguish the charm from anti-charm. There are two isospin amplitudes $`h_0,h_1`$ corresponding to the two possible values of the isospin $`I`$ of the state $`X_c`$

$`h_0(X)=[DX_{c0}]_{\frac{1}{2}}_W^{cs}\overline{B},h_1(X)=[DX_{c1}]_{\frac{1}{2}}_W^{cs}\overline{B}.`$ (19)
The corresponding rates are given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+X_c^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|h_0(X)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|h_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0X_c^0)={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|h_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+X_c^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|h_1(X)|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^0X_c^{})={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|h_0(X)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|h_1(X)|^2.`$ (20)
No simplifications are expected for these modes in the large $`N_c`$ limit. Due to the identical isospin structure of their Hamiltonian, similar relations can be written down for the semi-inclusive semileptonic decays $`\overline{B}DXe\overline{\nu }`$, in terms of another two amplitudes $`g_{0,1}(X)`$.

The definition of the SV limit for decays containing two charm quarks in the final state is somewhat different from the one introduced in Eq. (I). Requiring that both charmed hadrons move slowly gives factor3

Generalized $`SV`$ limit: $`m_b,m_cm_b2m_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}.`$ (21)
In this combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limit, the state $`X_c`$ is produced by the $`(\overline{s}c)`$ current and must have isospin 0, which requires the amplitude $`h_1(X)`$ to vanish $`h_1(X)0`$.

Making explicit the charm and anticharm in the final states gives many more modes. This type of analysis is necessary if the experimental inclusive measurement relies on the presence of a charmed meson and separates them only according to whether they are charged or neutral. Taking into account the fact that the Hamiltonian responsible for these decays is an isospin singlet $`I=0`$, one finds seven independent isospin amplitudes describing these decays. Three reduced amplitudes describe decays into nonstrange $`D`$ mesons

$`a_1=D(\overline{D}X_{1/2})_0_W^{cs}\overline{B}a_2=D(\overline{D}X_{1/2})_1_W^{cs}\overline{B}a_3=D(\overline{D}X_{3/2})_1_W^{cs}\overline{B}`$ (35)
and another four reduced amplitudes parameterize decays into $`D_s`$

$`b_1=D(D_s^{}X_0)_0_W^{cs}\overline{B}b_2=D(D_s^{}X_1)_1_W^{cs}\overline{B}`$
$`c_1=\overline{D}(D_s^+X_0)_0_W^{cs}\overline{B}c_2=\overline{D}(D_s^+X_1)_1_W^{cs}\overline{B}.`$ (36)
Finally, another amplitude $`d`$ describes $`\overline{B}D_s^+D_s^{}X_{1/2}`$ decays. The isospin decomposition of the most general $`BD\overline{D}X`$ decay amplitude is shown in Table I.

In the large $`N_c`$ limit, the amplitudes for $`BD\overline{D}X`$ factor in a similar way as for $`\overline{B}DX_u`$ (8), (14). Keeping terms up to $`O(1/N_c)`$, the factorizable terms read

$`A(\overline{B}D\overline{D}X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}C_2{\displaystyle \underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}}DX^{}|\overline{c}b|\overline{B}\overline{D}X^{\prime \prime }|\overline{s}c|0`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}\left(C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{N_c}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}}D\overline{D}X^{}|\overline{c}c|0X^{\prime \prime }|\overline{s}b|\overline{B}+O(1/N_c^2)`$
Taking into account isospin constraints on the intermediate states $`X^{},X^{\prime \prime }`$, one finds that the 3 amplitudes $`a_{13}`$ are given by 2 independent amplitudes $`A_{0,1}`$ at $`O(N_c^0)`$ (corresponding to $`X^{}`$ in the first term having isospins $`I=0,1`$) and another 2 amplitudes $`B_{0,1}`$ at $`O(1/N_c)`$ (corresponding to $`X^{}`$ in the second term having isospins $`I=0,1`$)

$`a_1=\sqrt{2}A_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_c}}(B_0+B_1),a_2=A_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2N_c}}(B_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}B_1),a_3=\sqrt{2}A_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}B_1.`$ (38)
At leading order in $`1/N_c`$ there are 2 relations among amplitudes

$`a_3(X)=\sqrt{2}a_2(X),c_1(X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}c_2(X).`$ (39)
No such relations exist among the coefficients $`b_i`$. These predictions imply the large $`N_c`$ rate relations (separately for each of the four channels $`\overline{B}D^{()}\overline{D}^{()}X`$ and summed over the isospin of $`X`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0\overline{D}^0X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0D^{}X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+\overline{D}^0X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+D^{}X)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD_s^+\overline{D}^0X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD_s^+D^{}X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D_s^+\overline{D}^0X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D_s^+D^{}X).`$
No data exists at present on any of these inclusive modes. It is possible to test the large $`N_c`$ predictions on the exclusive modes $`\overline{B}D^{()}\overline{D}^{()}K^{()}`$ using data recently available from Babar BabarDDK . Taking $`X=K^{()}`$ requires $`a_3(K)=0`$ since the isospin $`3/2`$ is not allowed. The large $`N_c`$ relation (39) predicts $`a_2(K)=O(1/N_c)`$, which implies the rate relations shown in Table II. Comparing these predictions from large $`N_c`$ with the data one finds reasonable good agreement within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties.

The large $`N_c`$ predictions (39) can be again contrasted with the more constraining results obtained in the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limits, according to which, among the isospin amplitudes $`a_i,b_i,c_i,d`$, the only nonvanishing ones are $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$. For the modes in Table II the SV limit predicts a vanishing $`B_0`$. However, since this amplitude is subleading in $`1/N_c`$, these modes can not be used to test the SV limit. Therefore separate measurements of other modes in Table I are needed to distinguish which of these limits (if any) are actually realized in nature.

## III Factorization for $`\overline{B}D^{}X`$

As a further test of factorization we propose studying the inclusive hadronic decay $`BD^{}X`$ as a function of the invariant mass of the state $`X`$, $`q^2=m_X^2`$. CLEO has measured this decay spectrum from $`m_X^20`$ out to the maximum hadronic mass $`m_X^2=(m_Bm_D^{})^210.7\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ Gibbons:1997ag . Thus, the inclusive spectrum allows for a test of factorization over a much larger range than the $`m_X^20`$ to $`3.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ region considered in Ref. Ligeti:2001dk .

As explained in the introduction, the inclusive $`BD^{}X`$ amplitude in the large $`N_c`$ limit is given by

$$𝒜(\overline{B}D^{}X)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}\underset{X^{},X^{\prime \prime }}{}C_2(\mu )D^{}X^{}|(\overline{c}b)_{VA}|BX^{\prime \prime }|(\overline{d}u)_{VA}|0,$$
(58)
with a sum over $`X=X^{}+X^{\prime \prime }`$ in the rate, plus additional analogous contributions involving the $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ current and Cabibbo suppressed terms. Imposing the SV limit as well gives rise to two important simplifications to Eq. (58). First, as in Eq. (3), the contributions from hadrons $`X^{}`$ produced together with the $`D^{}`$ from the $`(\overline{c}b)_{VA}`$ current are suppressed. Second, the contributions from non-prompt $`D^{}`$, that is, $`D^{}`$ that arise from production of higher resonances which decay into $`D^{}`$, are suppressed.

Before proceeding to a more detailed test, we note that some evidence for the validity of the SV limit can be obtained by comparing the inclusive branching ratios measured by CLEO

$`Br(BD^0X)=(0.247\pm 0.028),Br(BD^\pm X)=(0.239\pm 0.019).`$ (59)
These numbers are summed over both charged and neutral $`B`$ decays, and include semileptonic and $`cd\overline{u},c\overline{c}s`$ final states. Both semileptonic and $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decay mechanisms are isospin symmetric, so they can not produce an asymmetry between the rates (59). (Although this is manifest from (20), it holds also for the charge-averaged rates, with multiplicity factors added to account for identical particles in the final state.) The only source for such an asymmetry is the $`bcd\overline{u}`$ decay mechanism. The large $`N_c`$ predictions (11) together with (20) imply

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+X^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^+X^{})`$ (60)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|F_0(X)|^2+3|F_1(X)|^2+\sqrt{2}\text{Re}(F_0(X)F_1^{}(X))+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,1}{}}(|h_i|^2+|g_i|^2)+O(1/N_c)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^0X^0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}D^0X^{})`$ (61)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}|F_0(X)|^2+3|F_1(X)|^2\sqrt{2}\text{Re}(F_0(X)F_1^{}(X))+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,1}{}}(|h_i|^2+|g_i|^2)+O(1/N_c).`$
Neglecting the $`1/N_c`$ corrections, the approximate equality of the measured rates (59) can be interpreted as evidence for a small ratio $`F_1/F_0`$, which coincides with the expectation from the SV limit666We neglected for this argument the non-prompt $`D^{}`$ production, which is itself justified in the SV limit. Therefore the equality of the rates (59) provides only a consistency check on the validity of the SV limit.. Therefore we will neglect $`F_1`$ and compare the measured decay spectra against the theoretical prediction from factorization for $`F_0`$.

We note a subtlety in applying the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limits to inclusive decays. It is well knowncoleman  that in the large $`N_c`$ limit widths are dominated by states with the minimum possible number of final state mesons. Each additional meson comes at the price of a $`1/N_c`$ suppression factor. Thus, naively one should include in Eq. (58) only states in which $`X`$ is a single meson. However, in the SV limit the energy available for the decay becomes arbitrarily large and phase space effects invaliate the naive conclusion. To see this, consider large but fixed $`b`$ and $`c`$ masses, and let $`n`$ be the number of single resonances $`X`$ kinematicaly allowed in the decay, that is, lighter than about $`m_bm_c`$. The number of combinations of $`m`$ mesons in the final state scales as $`n^{am}`$, where $`a`$ is a fixed constant777For example, $`a=1/2`$ in the ’t Hooft model in the case of decays of a heavy meson into light mesonsGrinstein:1998gc ; Blok:1997hs .. So we see that, in relation to the width into one light meson, the width into $`m`$ light mesons roughly scales as $`(n/N_c)^m`$. Thus, there is no suppression of multimeson states for $`m_bm_c`$ large enough so that, roughly, $`n>N_c`$.

Hence in the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limits the ratio of the inclusive and semileptonic $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ rates can be predicted in terms of the spectral functions $`v_1`$ and $`a_1`$ for the vector and axial currents. The spectral functions are defined through

$`(q_\mu q_\nu q^2g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Pi }_1^J(q^2)+q_\mu q_\nu \mathrm{\Pi }_0^J=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|TJ_\mu ^{}(x)J_\nu (0)|0},`$ (62)
$`v_1(q^2)=2\pi \text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{J=V}(q^2),a_1(q^2)=2\pi \text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{J=A}(q^2),`$
and have been measured Barate:1998uf  by the ALEPH collaboration in $`\tau `$-decays up to $`q^2=3.0`$ GeV2. Above the resonant region the $`v_1+a_1`$ data displays a plateau, in excellent agreement with the operator product expansion prediction. Therefore one can safely extrapolate the data for $`q^2>3.0`$ GeV2 using perturbative QCD, $`(v_1+a_1)=1.1`$. This extrapolation is independent of the mechanism responsible for factorization and therefore does not bias our analysis in any way.

For hadronic states $`X_u`$ not including charmed hadrons the prediction from factorization is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}q^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D^{}X_u)}{{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}q^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}D^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })}}=3C_2^2|V_{ud}|^2\left[v_1(q^2)+a_1(q^2)\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (63)
where the ellipses denote terms suppressed by $`1/N_c`$ or two powers of the SV expansion parameter. Note that although the numerical results for $`BD^{}e\nu `$ in the SV limit are distorted by the modification in the kinematical factors, such modifications occur in a similar way for the inclusive and exclusive decays and therefore cancel out in the ratio. We emphasize that Eq. (63) can be used to give a very clean factorization prediction for the $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(BD^{}X_u)/\text{d}q^2`$ decay rate with input from the $`\tau `$-spectral functions888The $`\tau `$ decay data in this context was also used in Aneesh  for a test of duality in nonleptonic $`B`$ decays. and from the measured $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ form factor.

The CLEO data is presented as a function of the rescaled lab momentum of the $`D^{}`$ meson $`x=|\stackrel{}{p}|/(4.95\mathrm{GeV})`$. In Fig. 1 we show the boosted999In Ref. Mannel  an analysis of the CLEO data was performed using factorization as in Eq. (8) plus a model for the $`X^{}`$ contributions. Our approach differs from this by the use of the SV limit, $`\tau `$-decay data, and the inclusion of the boost to the lab frame. spectrum assuming that the $`B`$ mesons are produced monochromatically and isotropically, with velocity $`\beta =0.06`$ in the lab frame, and using

$$\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{lab}}}{\text{d}|\stackrel{}{p}|}=\frac{1}{2\beta \gamma ^2}\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{E}_{s_{min}}^{s_{max}}\text{d}s\frac{1}{P(s)}\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CM}}}{\text{d}s}.$$
(64)
Here $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ and $`E=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m_D^{}^2}`$, and $`P(s)`$ and $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CM}}/\text{d}s`$ are the momentum of the $`D^{}`$ and the decay rate in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson, respectively. The limits of integration are $`s_{\mathrm{max}}=m_B^2+m_D^{}^22m_B\gamma (E\beta |\stackrel{}{p}|)`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{min}}=\text{max}(0,m_B^2+m_D^{}^22m_B\gamma (E+\beta |\stackrel{}{p}|))`$. Fig. 1 shows our result for the $`x`$ spectrum as a continuous curve. The CLEO data is shown as data points. The semileptonic rate was taken from the BELLE fit Abe:2001np  to a form factor using a unitarity constrained parametrization Boyd:1995sq . The available data is in good agreement with the factorization prediction.

Unfortunately, for large $`q^2`$ it is necessary to include charmed hadrons in $`X`$ to enable a comparison with the experimental data that is currently available from CLEO Gibbons:1997ag . If we include charmed hadrons in the $`X`$ produced through a $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ current then it becomes harder to test factorization in a clean way. One problem is that no data for the $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ spectral functions is available. To make predictions for the $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ current we model the spectral functions using perturbative QCD. This neglects the resonant structures in the region above $`q^2m_{D_s}^2`$, but should be fine for testing factorization at large invariant masses. A second potential problem is that the $`(\overline{c}s)`$ and $`(\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ contributions require $`bc`$ form factors which are not accessible in $`BD^{()}e\overline{\nu }`$ decay. However, since the SV limit implies heavy quark symmetry, this can be used to predict these form factors. Finally, an additional source of uncertainty is introduced by the value of the charm quark mass. We choose $`m_c=1.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ in our calculations. Note that since the $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ current is phase space suppressed it only contributes roughly half as much to the decay rate relative to $`(\overline{d}u)_{VA}`$ current. This helps to reduce the model dependence of our $`BD^{}X`$ predictions.

In Fig. 2 we show a breakdown of the lepton and quark contributions to the total $`BD^{}X`$ rate in the $`B`$ rest frame. The prediction from factorization is in moderate agreement with the data. The disagreement does not seem to scale with the invariant mass of the system, however due to the large theoretical uncertainties in our calculation, the results in the region above the $`c\overline{c}s`$ threshold are inconclusive. Improved measurements of the energy spectrum in Fig. 1 which disentangle the states with different charm quark numbers would help to clarify this issue.

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

Data suggests that the amplitude for $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ factorizes. This can be understood via large $`N_c`$ counting or via large $`Q`$ as an expansion in powers of $`1/Q`$, the inverse of the energy released. Thus, deviations from factorization in this process are doubly suppressed. However, data also suggests factorization in the exclusive processes $`BD^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`BD^{}\omega \pi ^{}`$ as well as in the inclusive $`BD^{}X`$. Neither large $`N_c`$ nor large $`Q`$ explain by themselves these results. Indeed, large $`N_c`$ predicts instead a sum of factorizable terms. On the other hand the corrections to factorization in large $`Q`$ are order $`m_X/Q`$, and in these decays, particularly in $`BD^{}X`$, this ratio can be comparable with unity.

We have pointed out that the condition for large energy release in $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ can be understood as a consequence of the SV limit, $`m_b,m_cm_bm_c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the combined large $`N_c`$ and SV limits we can justify factorization in $`BD^{}X`$ out to arbitrary invariant hadronic mass.

We suggest the following physical picture. The corrections to factorization are parametrically small, of order $`1/N_c`$, but depend on kinematic variables in a way that can amplify the magnitude of the corrections if the recoiling particle is not moving fast. The SV limit ensures that this kinematic enhancement is absent: for cases for which we have control like $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$, the correction term is $`1/Q`$ so it depends on the kinematics but in such a way as to further suppress the correction to factorization.

This picture is additionally supported by $`D`$ and $`K`$ decay data. When two body $`D`$ decay amplitudes are written in terms of weak transitions into definite isospin states, $`A_I`$, and final state interaction phases, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _I)`$, it is found that the amplitudes $`A_I`$ do factorize, provided one uses a modified $`N_c`$ counting $`C_1(m_c)C_2(m_c)O(1)`$ BSW . The strong phases, taken from experiment, are not small but should vanish in the large $`N_c`$ limit. We interpret this as the expected kinematic enhancement of the correction to factorization, and it suggests that factorization fails precisely because the kinematic enhancement shows up mostly in $`\delta _I1/N_c`$ rather than in $`A_I(1/N_c)^0`$.

Is this kinematic suppression due to large velocity of the products or large energy of the products? In the first case, which corresponds to the color transparency argument, the suppression is expected to behave as $`1/\gamma `$. In the second the suppression should be given by the larger of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q`$ or $`m_X/Q`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a typical hadronic scale, $`m_X`$ is the invariant mass of state produced from the current by the factorizing current, and $`Q`$ is its energy. We see that in $`K\pi \pi `$ decays one is bound to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q1`$, while $`1/\gamma =2m_\pi /m_K1/2`$ and is parametrically suppressed in the chiral limit. Unfortunately, the actual pion mass is too far from the chiral limit to distinguish between the two alternatives.

We studied in this paper the factorization predictions for $`BD^{()}X`$, focusing on methods which can distinguish among the various possible explanations for factorization. In Sec. II we derived large $`N_c`$ relations among isospin amplitudes, which lead to observable predictions among decay rates. Imposing additionally the $`SV`$ limit gives even more relations, since certain amplitudes allowed in the pure $`N_c`$ limit are suppressed. The large $`Q`$ limit by itself gives predictions similar to the combined limit of large $`N_c`$ and $`SV`$, however these predictions should fail outside of a limited kinematical range. We presented several such predictions that can be tested experimentally. Using available data from BELLE and Babar we discussed such predictions for the modes $`BD^{()}\pi \pi `$, $`BD^{()}K\overline{K}`$ and $`BD^{()}\overline{D}^{()}K`$.

In Sec. III we calculated the inclusive decay rate $`BD^{}X`$ in the combined limit of large $`N_c`$ and $`SV`$. In this limit, factorization is expected to work out to arbitrary invariant hadronic mass, in contrast to the predictions from large $`Q`$ factorization in which factorization breaking corrections should scale as $`m_X/Q`$. The cleanest theoretical prediction is for the $`BD^{}X_u`$ decay, for which we can use $`\tau `$-decay data to extract the spectral function in the resonance region101010We take this opportunity to comment on the recent measurement by BELLE BelleICHEP  of the ratio $`Br(B^{}D_2^0\pi ^{})/BR(B^{}D_1^0\pi ^{})=0.89\pm 0.14`$, which has been interpreted as a test of factorization. However, as pointed out in Ref. Leibovitch  this ratio depends sensitively on unknown subleading Isgur-Wise functions, which can accomodate values in the range $`01.5`$ within factorization.. The comparison of the prediction with the CLEO data is shown in Fig. 1 and shows good agreement. Inclusive data for this process is available over a much larger kinematic range, however the data then includes contributions from the $`(\overline{s}c)_{VA}`$ part of the current. No data is available for the spectral function of this current, and we therefore have to rely on perturbative calculations. The result is shown in Fig. 2, however the large theoretical uncertainties preclude us from drawing definite conclusions.

We emphasize that it would be desirable to separate the $`bcd\overline{u}`$ and $`bc\overline{c}s`$ final states in the $`BD^{()}X`$ data, including separate measurements for $`B`$ and $`D`$ charge eigenstates. The methods described in this paper would then allow a more detailed study of factorization in this decay, and should help shed light on the mechanism underlying the observed factorization in $`B`$ decays.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Vivek Sharma for many useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Department of Energy under contracts No. DOE-FG03-97ER40546 and DE-FG03-00-ER-41132.


text:
# Ward identities for disordered metals and superconductors

## I Introduction

Interplay of interaction and disorder remains one of the central topics in condensed matter physics. Given the complexity of the problem, constraints imposed by symmetries acquire particular importance. An example of such a constraint is given by Ward identities. In the early days of many-body theory, Ward identities were used to establish key properties of the Fermi liquid theory.  In the context of the CPA approximation for a disordered non-interacting metal, similar identities were derived by Velický.  In the theory of superconductivity, Ward identities were used early on to establish gauge invariance of the electromagnetic response.  Subsequently, they were employed by D. Vollhardt and P. Wölfle  in a self-consistent theory of the Anderson transition, by F. Wegner,  A. J. McKane and M. Stone  in the sigma model approach to localization, and by C. Castellani *et al.*  in an early treatment of an interacting disordered metal. Very recently, T. R. Kirkpatrick and D. Belitz  invoked the Ward identities in an attempt to resolve the issue of decoherence at zero temperature.

This paper revisits the Ward identities for disordered interacting normal metals and superconductors. Using gauge invariance, it derives the identities in a new form that makes quasiparticle charge conservation (as e.g. in a normal metal) or absence thereof (as e.g. in a d-wave superconductor) explicit. In a normal metal, the identity takes a particularly simple form:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}(\omega ,\omega ^{};p,p)={\displaystyle \frac{2i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)}{\omega \omega ^{}}},`$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}`$ is the disorder average of the retarded-advanced charge density vertex correction at zero momentum transfer $`Q=pp=0`$ and small frequency transfer $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \omega ^{}\omega ,\omega ^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)`$ is the imaginary part of the retarded quasiparticle self energy, which is proportional to the quasiparticle scattering rate. The vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}`$ is closely related to the correlation function of the quasiparticle charge density, and the $`1/(\omega \omega ^{})`$ behavior of the vertex at low frequency transfer and zero momentum transfer points to quasiparticle charge conservation and its diffusive propagation. By contrast, in a d-wave superconductor, the Ward identity reflects the fact that impurity scattering causes exchange of charge between the quasiparticle subsystem and the condensate, which leads to non-conservation of the quasiparticle charge.

The structure of the paper is as follows. Section II gives a detailed derivation of the Ward identities for a disordered interacting normal metal. Section III briefly discusses the Ward identities for an s-wave superconductor in the approximation of a spatially uniform gap. Section IV derives the Ward identifies for a disordered d-wave superconductor in the same approximation, and Section V illustrates the meaning of the identity by explaining how, in a d-wave superconductor, the impurity scattering leads to exchange of charge between the quasiparticle subsystem and the condensate. Section VI presents a summary and a brief discussion of the results.

## II Ward identities for a normal metal

Consider a disordered interacting normal metal with the Matsubara action

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑r\psi ^+(r,\tau )\left[i\mathrm{}_\tau \xi (i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A})+e\varphi (r,\tau )u(r)\right]\psi (r,\tau )}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑r𝑑\tau ^{}𝑑r^{}\psi _\alpha ^+(r,\tau )\psi _\beta (r,\tau )V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(\tau \tau ^{},rr^{})\psi _\gamma ^+(r^{},\tau ^{})\psi _\delta (r^{},\tau ^{})},`$
where $`\psi ^+`$ ($`\psi `$) are the electron creation (annihilation) operators, $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential, $`\varphi (r,\tau )`$ is the scalar potential and $`u(r)`$ is the impurity potential. This action respects the continuous gauge symmetry

$`\psi e^{i\chi (r,\tau )}\psi ;\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{e}}\stackrel{}{}\chi ;\varphi \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{e}}_\tau \chi ,`$

of which the sought Ward identities are a consequence. To establish the scheme used throughout the rest of this article, I present below a detailed derivation.

Everywhere hereafter, only infinitesimal time dependent spatially uniform transformations $`\psi _\alpha (r,\tau )e^{i\chi (\tau )}\psi _\alpha (r,\tau )`$ will be considered. Under such a transformation, the Green function changes according to

$`G_{\alpha \beta }(r,r^{},\tau \tau ^{})e^{i\chi (\tau )}G_{\alpha \beta }(r,r^{},\tau \tau ^{})e^{i\chi (\tau ^{})}`$

and thus, to first order in $`\chi `$, its variation equals

$`\delta G_{\alpha \beta }(r,r^{},\tau \tau ^{})i[\chi (\tau )\chi (\tau ^{})]G_{\alpha \beta }(r,r^{},\tau \tau ^{}).`$

On the other hand, the same transformation induces extra terms in the action due to the presence of the temporal derivative. Hence, the very same variation of the Green function can also be calculated by perturbation theory. The crucial point is that the four-fermion interaction term in the action is invariant under the gauge transformation and, therefore, does not contribute to the perturbative correction to the Green function. Thus, to first order in infinitesimal $`\chi `$, the same correction to $`G`$ is equal to

$`\delta G_{\alpha \beta }(x,x^{},\tau \tau ^{})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑r\psi _\alpha (x,\tau )\psi _\gamma ^+(r,t)\psi _\gamma (r,t)\psi _\beta ^+(x^{},\tau ^{})_t\chi (t)}.`$

Equating the two expressions leads to the identity

$`[\chi (\tau )\chi (\tau ^{})]G_{\alpha \beta }(x,x^{},\tau \tau ^{})={\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑r\psi _\alpha (x,\tau )\psi _\gamma ^+(r,t)\psi _\gamma (r,t)\psi _\beta ^+(x^{},\tau ^{})_t\chi (t)}`$

for a given disorder configuration. Disorder averaging replaces the exact Green function on the left hand side by its translationally invariant average. The average on the right hand side can be presented as the product of the two average Green functions plus the vertex correction term and, for $`\chi =\chi _0e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, the Fourier transformed identity takes the form

$`G(i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega },p)G(i\omega ,p)=i\mathrm{\Omega }G(i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega },p)\left[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }(i\omega ,i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega };p,p)\right]G(i\omega ,p),`$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(i\omega ,i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega };p,p)`$ is the disorder average of the scalar vertex correction. At this point, two different types of identities can be derived: one for the retarded-advanced vertex correction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}(\omega ,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega };p,p)`$, and another one for the retarded-retarded vertex correction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RR}(\omega ,\omega +\mathrm{\Omega };p,p)`$.

### A The identity for the retarded-advanced (RA) vertex

To obtain the identities for the retarded-advanced vertex, choose $`i\omega `$ to be in the lower half-plane and $`i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the upper half-plane. Then, upon analytic continuation $`i\omega \omega \pm i0`$, $`G(i\omega )`$ transforms into $`G_A(\omega i0)`$, whereas $`G(i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega })`$ transforms into $`G_R(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+i0)`$. The identity then takes the form

$`G_R^1(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+i0,p)G_A^1(\omega i0,p)=\mathrm{\Omega }[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega },\omega ;p,p)].`$

The disorder averaged Green function reads $`G_{A/R}^1(\omega ,p)=\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_{A/R}(\omega ,p)\xi (p),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{A/R}(\omega ,p)`$ is the advanced/retarded self energy. Using the relation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(\omega ,p)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^{}(\omega ,p)`$ and assuming that the derivative $`_\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_{R/A}(\omega ,p)`$ is non-singular, for small $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \omega ^{}0`$ one finds

$$2i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)=[\omega \omega ^{}]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}(\omega ,\omega ^{};p,p).$$
(1)
Identifying $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ with the scattering rate $`1/\tau `$, one immediately recognizes in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}`$ the zero momentum transfer ($`Q=0`$) limit of the charge density vertex $`D(\omega \omega ^{},Q)`$

$`D(\omega \omega ^{},Q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i(\omega \omega ^{})\tau +DQ^2\tau }}.`$

where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient. For a non-interacting disordered metal, $`D(\omega \omega ^{},Q)`$ is commonly obtained by a direct calculation,  first finding self-consistently the impurity self energy, and then summing the ladder series for the vertex. In the presence of interactions, diagrammatic treatment becomes much more involved, while the present derivation appeals only to gauge invariance and is insensitive to turning on the interaction.

### B The identity for the retarded-retarded (RR) vertex

By contrast with the identity just derived, the identity for the retarded-retarded vertex can be found in textbooks, and I present its derivation here only for completeness. In this case, it is convenient to choose both $`i\omega `$ and $`i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the same (say, the upper) half-plane. Upon analytic continuation and multiplication by $`G^1(i\omega )`$ and $`G^1(i\omega +i\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the identity takes the form

$`G_R^1(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+i0,p)G_R^1(\omega +i0,p)=\mathrm{\Omega }[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RR}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega },\omega ;p,p)],`$

which, to first order in $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, leads to the standard relation between the energy derivative of the retarded self energy and the retarded-retarded vertex  :

$$_\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_R(\omega )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RR}(\omega ,\omega ;p,p).$$
(2)
## III Ward identity for an s-wave superconductor

In the Nambu notations, the BCS Hamiltonian of an s-wave superconductor reads

$`H={\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left[\tau _3\xi (\stackrel{}{p}\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\tau _3)+\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }(r)+\tau _3e\varphi +\tau _3u\right]\mathrm{\Psi }}.`$

Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\psi _{}^{},\psi _{})`$ is the Nambu spinor, $`\tau _i`$ are the Nambu matrices, and $`r`$ denotes the center of mass coordinate of a Cooper pair. The pair field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ has been chosen real for the sake of simplicity.

A gauge transformation takes the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}\left[i\tau _3\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}\chi \right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and, in addition to the standard change of potentials $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\varphi `$, has to be accompanied by the pair field transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left[2i\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}\chi \right]`$. One then proceeds the same way as for a normal metal, with two important points to note. The first point amounts to the approximation of a spatially uniform gap which, along with the frequency, gets renormalized by disorder. The second point stems from the Nambu matrix structure of the theory: the vertices, that appear after disorder averaging of the perturbative expression for the Green function variation, are defined in the Nambu space and thus carry a Nambu index. For instance, the disorder averaged term arising from the temporal derivative of $`\chi =\chi _0\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau ]`$ has the form

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑y\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _3\psi (y)\overline{\psi }(x^{})}{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑z𝑑z^{}G(x,z)i\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\tau _3\delta (zy)\delta (yz^{})+\tau _3(z,y,z^{})\right]G(z^{},x^{})},`$

where the vertex correction $`\tau _3(z,y,z^{})`$ appears as a result of disorder dressing of the corresponding bare vertex, the latter being simply the Nambu matrix $`\tau _3`$. The disorder averaged Green function has the form

$`G(p,\omega )=[i\stackrel{~}{\omega }\tau _0\xi (p)\tau _3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\tau _1]^1,`$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are the renormalized frequency and the gap amplitude, which yields the Ward identity

$`\left[i\stackrel{~}{\omega }i\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\right]\tau _3i\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\omega ^{}\right]\tau _2=[i\omega i\omega ^{}][\tau _3+\tau _3]2i\mathrm{\Delta }[\tau _2+\tau _2].`$

This, in turn, indicates a diffusion pole in the quasiparticle charge density vertex correction $`\tau _3_{RA}`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)}{\omega \omega ^{}}}\tau _3=\tau _3_{RA},`$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)`$ is the imaginary part of the retarded self energy renormalization of the frequency, the notation is chosen to coincide with the normal metal limit.

## IV Ward identity for a d-wave superconductor:

In a d-wave superconductor, the situation turns out to be quite different. The BCS Hamiltonian of a d-wave superconductor reads

$`H={\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left[\tau _3\xi (\stackrel{}{p}\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}\tau _3)+\tau _3e\varphi +\tau _3u\right]\mathrm{\Psi }}+{\displaystyle 𝑑R𝑑r\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(R+\frac{r}{2})\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }(R,r)\mathrm{\Psi }(R\frac{r}{2})},`$

where the pair field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(R,r)`$ has been chosen real and having d-wave angular dependence on the relative coordinate $`r`$, and $`R`$ denotes the center of mass coordinate of a Cooper pair.

As in the s-wave case, the Hamiltonian respects the gauge symmetry, and the identities can be obtained similarly, with one important difference: because of the d-wave symmetry of the gap and its oscillating angular dependence, the gap amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$, although suppressed by impurities, does not acquire a frequency dependent renormalization. Hence the disorder average of the quasiparticle Green function is

$`G(i\omega ,p)=\left[i\stackrel{~}{\omega }\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }_p\tau _3\xi _p\right]^1.`$

Another important point is that the angular dependence of the gap leads to the appearance of a vertex correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p\tau _2`$ on the right hand side of the Ward identity, which assumes the form

$$2i\tau _3\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)=[\omega \omega ^{}]\tau _3_{RA}+2i\mathrm{\Delta }_p\tau _2_{RA}.$$
(3)
As for an s-wave superconductor, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,p)`$ is the retarded self-energy renormalization of the frequency: $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Due to the d-wave symmetry of the gap and its oscillatory angular dependence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p\tau _2_{RA}\tau _3_{RA}`$, which leads one to conclude that the vertex correction $`\tau _3_{RA}`$ has to remain finite as $`\omega \omega ^{}0`$. Hence, in a disordered d-wave superconductor, the quasiparticle charge is not conserved. Note that, upon transition to the normal state, the quasiparticle charge diffusion mode re-appears, as can be seen seen by sending $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ to zero in Eq. (3) and identifying $`\tau _3_{RA}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{RA}(\omega ,\omega ^{};p,p)`$ of Section II.

## V Qualitative argument for a d-wave superconductor

The absence of quasiparticle charge conservation in a d-wave superconductor can be understood based on a simple argument going back to the studies of charge imbalance relaxation in superconductors.  I reproduce the argument here for the sake of completeness. Consider the Bogolyubov quasiparticle creation operator:

$`\gamma _p^+=u_pc_p^++v_pc_p,u_p^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _p}{\sqrt{\xi _p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}}],u_p^2+v_p^2=1.`$

Impurity scattering is elastic, i.e. it conserves the quasiparticle energy $`E_p=\sqrt{\xi _p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}`$ . In an s-wave superconductor with uniform gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ is a constant and, in the absence of the Andreev scattering that turns $`\xi _p`$ into $`\xi _p`$, the energy conservation implies conservation of $`u_p`$ and $`v_p`$ . Hence the impurity scattering conserves the particle-hole content of a quasiparticle, and this leads to the effective charge conservation – even though a Bogolyubov quasiparticle, being a superposition of a particle and a hole, does not have a well defined charge quantum number. The same conclusion can be reached by considering directly the expectation value of the quasiparticle charge $`Q_p`$ :

$`Q_p=u_p^2(+1)+v_p^2(1)={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _p}{\sqrt{\xi _p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2}}}.`$

In an isotropic s-wave superconductor, the gap does not vary around the Fermi surface and hence, in the absence of the Andreev processes, $`Q_p`$ is conserved by the impurity scattering, which leads to the charge diffusion pole.

By contrast, in a d-wave superconductor, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ is strongly anisotropic. Thus, even in the absence of the Andreev scattering processes, neither $`Q_p`$ nor the moduli of the Bogolyubov factors $`u_p`$ and $`v_p`$ are conserved: impurity scattering changes the particle-hole content of a quasiparticle. Physically, this means that the impurity scattering induces exchange of charge between the quasiparticle subsystem and the condensate.

Indeed, this quasiparticle charge non-conservation is not a consequence of the d-wave symmetry of the gap, but rather of the gap anisotropy around the Fermi surface, and is present not only in other superconductors with non-trivial symmetry, but even in s-wave superconductors with anisotropic gap. However, in the latter case, the effect is small in the measure of the relative gap anisotropy, which is itself reduced by disorder. As a result, the quasiparticle charge non-conservation appears only at time scales that are long compared with the scattering time. By contrast, in a d-wave superconductor, the gap anisotropy is large, and the quasiparticle charge changes at the time scale of order the impurity scattering time, which eliminates quasiparticle charge conservation at any time scale beyond the elastic scattering time.

## VI Summary and discussion

In this article, I revisited the Ward identities for superconductors and disordered interacting normal metals, and presented a simple derivation based solely on gauge invariance. The identities were recast in a new form that made quasiparticle charge conservation (as in a normal metal or an isotropic s-wave superconductor) or absence thereof (as in a d-wave superconductor) explicit. Using the Ward identities, I showed how, in a d-wave superconductor, impurity scattering causes exchange of charge between the quasiparticle subsystem and the condensate, thus leading to the quasiparticle charge non-conservation.

Transparency of the Ward identities is particularly appealing in comparison with microscopic approaches. The simplicity of the identities is insensitive to the strength of the impurity potential or to whether disorder has to be treated in the Born or in the unitary limit – or to the presence of interaction. By contrast, to achieve a controllable approximation even in the Born limit, microscopic calculations, e.g. for a d-wave superconductor, have to resort to rather complex methods and/or unrealistic approximations, such as expansion in the inverse number of gap nodes.

It is my pleasure to thank A. J. Leggett, M. R. Norman and especially Yu. M. Galperin for helpful discussions. Work supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Division of Basic Energy Science-Material Science under contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.


text:
# Possible Kondo resonance in PrFe4P12 studied by bulk-sensitive photoemission

## Abstract

Pr $`4f`$ electronic states in Pr-based filled skutterudites $`\mathrm{Pr}T_4X_{12}`$ ($`T`$=Fe and Ru; $`X`$=P and Sb) have been studied by high-resolution bulk-sensitive Pr $`3d4f`$ resonance photoemission. A very strong spectral intensity is observed just below the Fermi level in the heavy-fermion system PrFe4P12. The increase of its intensity at lower temperatures is observed. We speculate that this is the Kondo resonance of Pr, the origin of which is attributed to the strong hybridization between the Pr $`4f`$ and the conduction electrons.

preprint: submitted to Physical Review Letter

Heavy-fermion properties observed in many Ce and U compounds and compounds of some other rare-earth elements emerge when the hybridization between the conduction band in the vicinity of the Fermi level and the $`f`$ state ($`cf`$ hybridization) is moderate. The $`4f`$ electrons in Pr are more localized and less hybridized with conduction electrons than in Ce. No heavy-fermion Pr compound was known until the discovery of $`\mathrm{PrInAg}_2`$ with a large Sommerfeld coefficient reaching $``$6.5 J/mol K2Yatskar\_PrInAg2  Recently, the heavy electron mass has been found in $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ under high magnetic field. Sugawara\_dHvA  In both PrInAg2 and $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$, the crystal-electric field ground state is suggested to be a non-Kramers doublet, Yatskar\_PrInAg2 ; Nakanishi\_PFP ; Aoki\_PFP  which is nonmagnetic but has an electric quadrupolar degree of freedom. Therefore, the heavy-fermion behaviors in these Pr compounds may result from the quadrupolar Kondo effect, Cox\_Kondo ; Kelley\_PrInAg2  which was first applied to U compounds and is in contrast to the usual spin Kondo effect applied to Ce and Yb compounds.

PrFe4P12 is one of the Pr-based filled skutterudites $`\mathrm{Pr}T_4X_{12}`$. Among them are $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ known to show the metal-insulator transition at $`64`$ K, Sekine\_MI  $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrOs}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$ known as a conventional Takeda\_Sb  and heavy-fermion Bauer\_POS  superconductor, respectively. PrFe4P12 is particularly interesting due to the phase transition at around 6.5 K Torikachvili\_PFP  and the Kondo-like behaviors. Recent studies suggest that the phase transition is associated with the ordering of quadrupolar moments. Keller ; Iwasa\_PFP  In the high-temperature phase, Kondo anomalies are found in the transport properties. Sato\_PFP  When the low-temperature ordered phase is destroyed by high magnetic field, enormously enhanced cyclotron effective mass ($`m_\mathrm{c}^{}81m_0`$) is observed in the de Haas-van Alphen measurement. Sugawara\_dHvA  A large electronic specific heat coefficient of $`C_{\mathrm{el}}/T1.2\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{K}^2\mathrm{mol}`$ is found under 6 T, Sugawara\_dHvA  which suggests the Kondo temperature $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ of the order of 10 K. These facts suggest the following scenario; quadrupolar degree of freedom of the Pr $`4f`$ state due to the non-Kramers twofold degeneracy leads to the quadrupolar Kondo effect, and the phase transition at 6.5K resulting in the antiquadrupolar ordering is driven by the lifting of the quadrupolar degeneracy. In order for the quadrupolar Kondo effect to take place, $`c`$$`f`$ hybridization must be appreciably strong.

It has recently been demonstrated that high-resolution photoemission (PE) with use of the soft x-ray can reveal bulk electronic states. Sekiyama\_nature  The bulk sensitivity owes to the long mean free paths of the high-energy photoelectrons. Bulk-sensitive measurement must be crucial in the study of Pr $`4f`$ states since the $`c`$$`f`$ hybridization in Ce, Sm, and Yb compounds is known to be much weaker at the surface than in the bulk. Sekiyama\_nature ; Iwasaki\_CeMX  In addition, as in the case of Ce systems, one needs to enhance the Pr $`4f`$ contribution in the PE spectrum by means of resonance photoemission (RPE), otherwise the Pr $`4f`$ state cannot be accurately distinguished from other states. Parks\_PES ; Suga\_PES ; Kucherenko\_PES

In this paper, we report the results of the bulk-sensitive Pr 3$`d4f`$ RPE measurments for $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$, $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$, and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$. It is shown that the Pr $`3d4f`$ RPE spectrum of $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ has much larger spectral weight just below the Fermi level ($`E_\mathrm{F}`$) than other systems. We speculate that this spectral weight, which increases at lower temperatures, comes from the Kondo resonance (KR) due to the $`cf`$ hybridization. If so, to our knowledge, this is the first observation of the KR in PE of Pr systems.

Single crystals of $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$, and polycrystals of $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ were fractured in situ for the soft x-ray absorption (XA) and PE measurements at the BL25SU of SPring-8. Saitoh\_BL25SU  The total energy resolution of the PE measurement was set to $``$ 80 meV in the high-resolution mode and $``$ 130 meV, otherwise. The samples were cooled and kept at 20K except for the temperature dependence measurement.

The Pr $`3d4f`$ XA spectrum for $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ is shown in the inset of Fig.1(a). This spectrum reflects the predominant $`\mathrm{Pr}^{3+}`$ ($`4f^2`$) character in the initial state. Thole\_XAS  Spectra of $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$ were also quite similar to this spectrum. Valence-band PE spectra were measured at three photon energies. On-RPE spectra were taken at 929.4 eV, around XA maximum. Off-RPE spectra were taken at 921 and 825 eV, which were quite similar in shape. The on- and off- (921.0 eV) RPE spectra are compared in the main panel of Fig.1(a). We consider that mainly Pr $`4f`$ contribution is enhanced in the on-RPE spectra, PrOn-Off  and therefore that the difference between the on- and off-RPE spectra mainly reflects the Pr $`4f`$ spectrum.

The off-RPE spectra taken at 825 eV with better statistics are shown in Fig.1(b) in a magnified intensity scale. The valence band between $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ and binding energy ($`E_\mathrm{B}`$) of $`7`$ eV is expected to be composed of Pr $`5d`$ and $`4f`$, $`T`$ $`d`$, and $`X`$ $`p`$ orbitals. Among these, main contribution to the off-RPE spectrum (more than 60 %) comes from the $`T`$ $`d`$ states according to the photoionization cross-section. Lindau  The off-RPE spectral features are reproduced in the theoretical off-RPE spectra based on the FLAPW and LDA+U band structure calculation (see Fig.2(b)), Harima\_MI  where the parameter for the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$ of Pr $`4f`$ electron is set as 0.4 Ry (5.4 eV).

The on-RPE spectra shown in Fig.1(a) are characterized by two features. First, the on-RPE spectra have various multiple peak structures, where peaks (or structures) are indicated by arrows, in contrast to the calculated Pr $`f`$ PDOS (see Fig.2(a)) that has a strong peak and small structures near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ for all the three compounds. This feature will be interpreted in the next paragraph taking into account the hybridization between the valence band and the Pr $`4f`$ states ($`vf`$ hybridization) in the final states of PE. Second, the intensity near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, i.e., between $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{B}0.3`$ eV, is much stronger in PrFe4P12 than in other two systems. Such strong intensity at $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is neither found in reported Pr $`4f`$ spectra. Later in this paper, this feature will be attributed the strong $`cf`$ hybridization in the initial state of PrFe4P12.

Multiple peak structures observed for various Pr compounds have been interpreted in terms of the $`vf`$ hybridization. Parks\_PES ; Suga\_PES ; Kucherenko\_PES  We adopt the cluster model, Fujimori  i.e., the simplified version of the single impurity Anderson model (SIAM). GS  The part of the valence band that hybridizes strongly with the $`4f`$ state is expected to be similar between Pr$`T_4X_{12}`$ and La$`T_4X_{12}`$. La $`f`$ PDOS of La$`T_4X_{12}`$ at a certain energy correspond roughly to the $`vf`$ hybridization strength at that energy since La $`f`$ states below $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ comes only from the hybridization with the valence band. As a first approximation, we replace the La $`f`$ PDOS with two levels, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, the energies of which, $`E_\mathrm{B}(v_k)`$, are shown by the arrows in Fig.2(a). We now assume that the initial Pr $`4f`$ state is $`|f^2`$. Although it turns out later that deviation from this state is appreciable in PrFe4P12, this is a good approximation when discussing the overall spectral features. Then the final states of Pr $`4f`$ PE are linear combinations of $`|f^1`$, $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_1}`$, and $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_2}`$, where $`\underset{¯}{v_k}`$ denotes a hole at $`v_k`$. Since the resulting $`f^2`$ state includes all the excited states, it is denoted as $`(f^2)^{}`$ so as to distinguish it from the initial ground state $`f^2`$. The average excitation energy $`E((f^2)^{})E(f^2)`$ is $`1.4`$ eV according to the atomic multiplet calculation. Thole\_XAS  The main origin of this excitation energy is found to be the exchange interaction. The energies of the bare $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_k}`$ with respect to the initial state $`|f^2`$ are hence $`E_\mathrm{B}(v_k)+[E((f^2)^{})E(f^2)]`$ and are shown by the thin open and filled bars in the upper pannels of Figs.3 (a)-(c). We take the remaining three parameters, $`E_\mathrm{B}`$ of the bare $`|f^1`$ ($`E_0`$), the hybridization between $`|f^1`$ and $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_k}`$ ($`V_k`$), to be free parameters, and numerically solve the $`3\times 3`$ Hamiltonian matrix. When the parameters are set as in the upper pannels of Figs.3 (a)-(c), the three final states are obtained as shown in the lower pannels. At each of the three eigen-energies of the final states is placed a set of vertical bars the lengths of which are proportional to the weights of $`|f^1`$ (thick filled bar), $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_1}`$ (thin open bar), and $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_2}`$ (thin filled bar). Since we assume that the initial state is $`|f^2`$, the Pr $`4f`$ excitation intensity is proportional to the weight of the $`|f^1`$ in each final state. Therefore, the thick filled bars show the obtained line spectrum. The line spectra qualitatively well reproduce the experimentally observed system dependence in the energy positions and intensity ratios of the three-peak structures of the on-RPE spectra (see Fig.1(a)). The present analysis revealed the character of each final states. For example, the final state with the smallest $`E_\mathrm{B}`$ is the bonding state between $`|f^1`$ and $`|(f^2)^{}\underset{¯}{v_1}`$. The trend in the EB of bare $`|f^1`$ corresponds to some extent with the trend in the peak position of Pr $`f`$ PDOS in Fig.2(a). The origin of these trends could be that EB of the Pr $`4f`$ electron becomes smaller because the negative $`X`$ ion comes closer to Pr atom in the direction of PrRu4Sb12, PrRu4P12, PrFe4P12.

The present Pr $`4f`$ spectrum of $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ obtained from the bulk-sensitive $`3d4f`$ RPE is qualitatively different from that obtained from the surface-sensitive $`4d4f`$ RPE. Ishii  The surface-sensitive spectrum also has a three peak structure but the peak at $`E_\mathrm{B}`$ 4.5 eV is the strongest and the intensity at $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ is negligible. The origin of the difference is the increase of the localization of $`4f`$ electrons at the surface, in other words, the increase of the $`4f`$ binding energy and the decrease of the hybridization. By making such changes in $`E_0`$ and $`V_k`$, the surface-sensitive spectrum is reproduced (see Fig.3(d)).

We measured the Pr $`3d4f`$ RPE spectra near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ with high resolution as shown in Fig.4(a). The most prominent feature is the strong peak of $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ at $`E_\mathrm{B}100`$ meV. The Pr $`4f`$ spectra of $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$, on the other hand, decrease continuously with some humps as approaching $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. Spectral features similar to $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$ has been found for very localized Ce systems such as CePdAs, in which Ce $`4f`$ takes nearly pure $`4f^1`$ state. Iwasaki\_CeMX  This indicates that pure $`4f^2`$ state is realized in $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{PrRu}_4\mathrm{Sb}_{12}`$. On the other hand, similarity between the $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$’s and Kondo Ce compound’s spectra Sekiyama\_nature  suggests that the Pr $`4f^2`$-dominant Kondo state, with the finite contribution of $`4f^1`$ or $`4f^3`$ state, is formed in $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$.

The present energy resolution of $`80`$ meV exceeds the characteristic energy $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{K}1`$ meV for $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$. KR has been observed even in such cases, for example, for $`\mathrm{CeRu}_2\mathrm{Si}_2`$ ($`T_\mathrm{K}20`$ K) Sekiyama\_nature  and YbInCu4 ($`T_\mathrm{K}25`$ K for $`T>42`$ K) Sato\_Yb  with energy resolution of $`100`$ meV.

In the Kondo Ce (Yb) system, the KR is accompanied by the spin-orbit partner, the $`E_\mathrm{B}`$ of which corresponds to the spin-orbit excitation, $`J=5/27/2`$ ($`J=7/25/2`$), of the $`4f^1`$ ($`4f^{13}`$)-dominant state. GS  A KR in Pr would then be accompanied by satellites corresponding to the excitation from the ground state ($`{}_{}{}^{3}H_{4}^{}`$) to excited states ($`{}_{}{}^{3}H_{5}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}H_{6}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}`$, and so on) of the $`4f^2`$ states. Fig.4(a) shows that the on-RPE spectrum of $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$ have strucures at $`0.3`$ and $``$0.6 eV which correspond to the lowest few excitation energies.

KR is expected to depend upon temperature reflecting the temperature dependence of the $`4f`$ occupation number. In fact, a temperature dependence was found as the temperature approaches the suggested $`T_\mathrm{K}10`$ K as shown in Fig.4(b). The temperature dependence was reproducible in both heat-up and cool-down processes. The temperature dependence is characterized not only by the narrowing of the $``$ 0.1 eV structure but also by the increase of the weight of all the structures at $``$ 0.1, $``$ 0.3, and $``$ 0.6 eV. Although the former can be attributed at least partly to the thermal broadening, the latter should be attributed to intrisic temperature dependence of the excitation spectrum. Therefore it is quite possible that the $``$ 0.1 eV structure is the KR and the $``$ 0.3 and $``$ 0.6 structures are its satellite structures.

The temperature dependence can be a vital clue to check whether the observed structure is the Kondo peak itself or the tail of the Kondo peak centered above $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. These cases correspond respectively to the $`c_2|f^2+c_3|f^3`$ or $`d_1|f^1+d_2|f^2`$ initial states, where the hole or electron in the valence or conduction band is not denoted explicitly. The non-crossing approximation (NCA) calculation based on the SIAM for the Ce system Kasai\_NCA  shows that, as temperature is lowered, the Kondo tail is sharpened Reinert\_CeCu2Si2  but the weights of both the Kondo tail and its spin-orbit partner decrease when the spectra are normalized in a similar way as in Fig.4(b). This contradicts with the present temperature dependence for $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$. On the other hand, for Yb systems, it is well known that the intensities of both the Kondo peak itself and its spin-orbit partner increase with decreasing temperature. Tjeng\_Yb  Since this is consistent with the $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$’s temperature dependence, we tend to believe that the observed structure is the Kondo peak itself, and therefore that the initial state is dominated by $`c_2|f^2+c_3|f^3`$. We consider that the Kondo peak at around $`k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{K}1`$ meV is broadened due to the energy resolution of $`80`$ meV resulting in the observed structure at $`100`$ meV.

Microscopic origin of the $`cf`$ hybridization is considered to be the P $`3p`$Pr $`4f`$ mixing since the nearest neighbors of the Pr atom are the twelve P atoms. The large coordination number definitely enhances the effective $`pf`$ mixing. It has been pointed out that the calculated P $`p`$ PDOS of $`R`$Fe4P12 shows a sharp peak in the vicinity of $`E_\mathrm{F}`$Sugawara\_FS ; Harima\_MI  This is also the case for PrFe4P12 as shown in Fig.4(c). Therefore, the large P $`3p`$ PDOS at $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ together with the large effective P $`3p`$Pr $`4f`$ mixing is interpreted to be the origin of the Kondo state in $`\mathrm{PrFe}_4\mathrm{P}_{12}`$.

In conclusion, our analysis of the data suggests that there may be a Kondo resonance (KR) in the $`4f`$ photoemission spectrum of PrFe4P12, whereas no KR was seen in PrRu4P12 and PrRu4Sb12. The origin of the KR in PrFe4P12 is considered to be the Kondo effect caused by the strong hybridization between the Pr $`4f`$ and P $`3p`$ states in the vicinity of $`E_\mathrm{F}`$.

We would like to thank Profs. O. Sakai and K. Miyake for fruitful discussions. The research was performed at SPring-8 (Proposal Nos. 2001A0158-NS-np and 2002A0433-NS1-np) under the support of a Giant-in-Aid for COE Research (10CE2004) and Scientific Research Priority Area ”Skutterudite” (No.15072206) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan.