text:
# Rho meson properties from combining QCD-based models

## I Introduction

Two of the most interesting non-perturbative aspects of the strong interaction are chiral symmetry breaking ($`\chi `$SB) and confinement. It is neither fully settled how they come about in QCD nor how important they are for the properties of a given hadronic species. In the following we will consider the $`\rho `$-meson which is made of light quarks. The aim is to determine its mass as well as its coupling to pions and (virtual) photons. To describe the properties of mesons purely made out of heavy quarks it is quite clear that confinement is essential while chiral symmetry is unimportant. One may speculate whether it is (more or less) the other way round for mesons purely made out of light quarks. This is supported by the following considerations: Quark models show that the mechanism of $`\chi `$SB causes large constituent quark masses of the order of 300 – 400 MeV. Hence even without confinement the creation of a quark-antiquark pair is rather expensive. Therefore the role of confinement for the description of light hadrons is at least diminished by the appearance of $`\chi `$SB Diakonov (1996). This suggests that the properties of light hadrons are quantitatively determined by the effect of $`\chi `$SB. In such a scenario confinement enters only qualitatively by excluding non-white states and quark-antiquark thresholds. It is well known that such a picture works very well for pions Vogl and Weise (1991); Hatsuda and Kunihiro (1994); Klevansky (1992). One reason why one does not need confinement to describe the properties of pions can be found in the fact that the mass of these quasi-Goldstone bosons is much below the (constituent!) quark-antiquark threshold. This is of course different for other types of mesons. At first glance it seems that this messes up the line of reasoning given above. The point however is that mesonic resonances — most prominently the $`\rho `$-meson — leave a trace also in the low-energy region much below their pole masses by mediating e.g. pion-pion interactions Donoghue et al. (1989). Hence the key idea is that on the one hand side ($`\chi `$SB aspect) one can describe the low-energy region reliably by a (chiral!) quark model (without confinement) — as this region is far away from the quark-antiquark production threshold. On the other hand side (confinement aspect) mesonic resonances are supposed to mediate the interactions in this low-energy regime. By combining these informations it should be possible to determine masses and coupling constants of mesonic resonances in terms of quark model expressions. It is the purpose of the present work to apply that picture to $`\rho `$-mesons. Note that the presented idea resembles to some extent the way in which the masses of $`Z`$\- and $`W`$-bosons are related to the low-energy(!) Fermi theory of weak interactions Peskin and Schroeder (1995).

It is nowadays common wisdom that the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry leads to the appearance of a Goldstone boson octet. This causes a large gap in the excitation spectrum of the observed hadrons. The lowest pseudoscalar octet appears to be light111The meson masses deviate from zero on account of the (small) current quark masses which explicitly break the chiral symmetry. while all other hadrons are heavy. Therefore at low energies QCD reduces to an effective theory where only the pseudoscalar mesons appear which interact with each other and with external sources. Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking also demands that the meson self-interaction vanishes with vanishing energy. Therefore a systematic expansion in terms of the derivatives of the meson fields is possible. These considerations lead to the effective lagrangian of chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) Gasser and Leutwyler (1984, 1985) presented in the following for three light flavors:

$$_{\chi \mathrm{PT}}=_1+_2+\text{higher order derivatives}$$
(1)
with

$$_1=\frac{1}{4}F_\pi ^2\mathrm{tr}(_\mu U^{}^\mu U)+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
$$_2=L_1[\mathrm{tr}(_\mu U^{}^\mu U)]^2+L_2\mathrm{tr}(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\mathrm{tr}(^\mu U^{}^\nu U)+L_3\mathrm{tr}(_\mu U^{}^\mu U_\nu U^{}^\nu U)+\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where we have only displayed the terms which are relevant for later use, i.e. the ones which remain present once all external fields and explicit chiral symmetry breaking terms are put to zero. In $`U`$ the pseudoscalar meson fields are encoded. $`F_\pi `$ denotes the pion decay constant (in the chiral limit). We refer to Gasser and Leutwyler (1985) for further details.

At low energies $`\chi `$PT yields an excellent description of the hadron phenomenology (see e.g. the reviews Ecker (1995); Pich (1995); Scherer (2002)). However, the approach is limited to the low-energy regime. The reason for this limitation are just the resonances which appear in the meson-meson scattering amplitudes. A derivative expansion like the one present in the $`\chi `$PT lagrangian (1) can only give polynomials in the kinematic variables while a resonance appears as a pole. Therefore to extend the applicability of $`\chi `$PT to the region of mesonic resonances non-perturbative methods (resummations) are needed — which, of course, introduce some model dependence (see Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) and references therein). The demand for exact unitarity is a key element of such non-perturbative methods to keep the model dependence as small as possible. In the following we use the inverse amplitude method (IAM) to unitarize $`\chi `$PT Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002). In this way we extend its applicability to the resonance region. The word “extension” implies that one only uses the information obtained from the $`\chi `$PT lagrangian to describe the meson-meson scattering data up to (including) the resonance region. This information, however, is already determined from the low-energy data. This fits exactly to our philosophy that the low-energy regime can be used to learn something about the resonances. As shown in Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) the application of the IAM to $`\chi `$PT yields very good results for the meson-meson scattering data up to 1.2 GeV especially also reproducing seven mesonic resonances (including the $`\rho `$-meson we are interested in). The low-energy coefficients $`L_i`$ where used as fit parameters to describe the data. It turned out that the values for the $`L_i`$ obtained in that fit agreed very well with the corresponding values obtained from the scattering lengths, i.e. from pure low-energy data.

Concerning our resonance of interest, the IAM connects the properties of the $`\rho `$-meson to the low-energy coefficients of $`\chi `$PT. However, we are aiming at a connection of the $`\rho `$-meson properties to the underlying quark (and gluon) structure. As a purely hadronic model the IAM has the same limitation as pure $`\chi `$PT: While the general structure of the $`\chi `$PT lagrangian is dictated by QCD, the low-energy coefficients are pure fit parameters. Their connection to QCD is not settled yet. To proceed we have to involve models with quark degrees of freedom. This, of course, brings in a higher degree of model dependence. To some extent we will relax that problem by using two independent approaches to cross-check our results. In addition, we will choose methods which are not pure guesses but can be obtained within well-defined approximations from QCD. To become specific we will use the chiral constituent quark model proposed e.g. in Diakonov and Petrov (1986); Espriu et al. (1990) and the QCD sum rule approach Shifman et al. (1979). In the following we shall briefly comment on their merits but especially also on their short-comings (as we have done for unitarized $`\chi `$PT). Actually the latter are very specific for the respective method. Therefore a key idea of the present work is to overcome the short-comings by combining all the approaches, i.e. the IAM, the quark model and the sum rule approach.

The QCD sum rule method makes contact between the hadronic and the quark-gluon world Shifman et al. (1979). Two expressions for a correlation function are matched in the regime of deeply space-like momenta: the operator product expansion and a dispersion integral utilizing the (hadronic) spectral representation of the correlation function. The coefficients of the operator product expansion are given in terms of QCD perturbation theory and quark and gluonic condensates, i.e. by quark and gluon degrees of freedom. On the other hand, the spectral representation is given (at least in principle) in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom. Concerning the quark-gluon side, there are condensates which are not or not fully known. They constitute a source of uncertainties for the sum rule method. One much debated issue is the question whether the four-quark condensate is (approximately) given by the product of two-quark condensates (see e.g. Leupold et al. (1998) and references therein). Concerning the hadronic side, there are ambiguities and model dependences in the spectral representation. In principle, several hadronic states contribute to a given correlation function. Typically one wants to learn something about the lowest lying state. This can only be achieved if the higher lying ones are replaced by a simple expression with a minimal number of free parameters Shifman et al. (1979). We will come back to that problem below. But even for the lowest lying state several parameters are necessary to characterize it, like peak position, peak height and peak width. As pointed out in Klingl et al. (1997); Leupold et al. (1998) one cannot pin down all of these hadronic parameters from the QCD sum rule method alone. As we will see below the combination of the sum rule technique with other methods will allow for simplifications which diminish some of the mentioned uncertainties.

Quark models provide a microscopic approach to calculate hadronic properties in terms of quark degrees of freedom. One rather generic feature of quark models, which we also use in the following, is the expansion in terms of $`1/N_c`$ (see e.g. Klevansky (1992)) where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors. A severe short-coming of quark models which do not include confining forces is the appearance of unphysical decay channels (concerning the $`\rho `$-meson cf. e.g. He et al. (1998)). On the other hand, confining quark models usually have non-local lagrangians or contain non-relativistic parts. Since we want to study in the present work how far we can get without a quantitative influence of confinement (cf. discussion above) we will not comment on confining quark models any more. A further problem of most quark models is the appearance of a couple of free parameters which have to be fitted to some hadronic observables. This clearly limits the predictive power. Finally we note as a further short-coming that the connection of some quark models to QCD is not clear.

In the present work we will utilize a chiral constituent quark model which can be deduced Diakonov and Petrov (1986) from the instanton model of QCD Schäfer and Shuryak (1998) using large-$`N_c`$ arguments. It is actually the simplest chiral model one can write down which couples quarks and Goldstone bosons. Therefore it has a minimal number of free parameters. Even more, for the quantities we will need in the following the results are parameter-free.

All the methods discussed above which we will use in the following constitute well-established techniques. The basic new idea of the present work is the combination of these methods. The purpose is to avoid some of the short-comings which appear if only one the methods is used alone. Especially the use of the quark model is restricted to the low-energy region where the unphysical quark-antiquark decay channel is far away. Low-energy coefficients of $`\chi `$PT are calculated from the quark model. The applicability of the obtained $`\chi `$PT lagrangian is extended to higher energies using the IAM. At this stage the model is purely hadronic, i.e. no unphysical thresholds appear. The IAM generates the $`\rho `$-meson, i.e. connects the $`\rho `$-meson properties to the low-energy coefficients. The latter in turn have been connected to quark degrees of freedom by the quark model. Finally the QCD sum rule method is used to further justify the obtained results and to get an error estimate especially for the quark model calculations. We want to note here that we will not try to estimate the error induced by the use of the IAM. This would require the knowledge of higher order terms in the $`\chi `$PT lagrangian which are not fully available at present.

As already pointed out the quark model we will use works in leading order in a $`1/N_c`$-expansion. Therefore to be consistent we will have to analyze and use also the other methods in that large-$`N_c`$ limit. As we will see below this apparent restriction will actually induce very welcome simplifications for the IAM and the sum rule approach. We will also work in the chiral limit for simplicity. For the $`\rho `$-meson made out of light up- and down-quarks we do not expect drastic deviations by that simplification. In addition, it is actually in this limit where the quark model calculations yield parameter-free results. We will come back to that point below.

The paper is organized in the following way. In the next section we review briefly the calculation of the chiral low-energy coefficients from the chiral constituent quark model. Sec. III contains a pedagogical example which introduces the IAM. We also present there the application of the IAM to $`\chi `$PT in the combined large-$`N_c`$ and chiral limit. Combined with the quark model results from Sec. II the $`\rho `$-meson properties are calculated. Sec. IV presents the QCD sum rule method. Together with the IAM results an error estimate for the previous calculations are obtained. In Sec. V the results are compared to experiments and to other approaches in the literature. Finally we summarize in Sec. VI and give an outlook how the presented method can be extended.

## II Chiral constituent quark model

The chiral constituent quark model is defined by the lagrangian Diakonov and Petrov (1986); Espriu et al. (1990)

$$_{\mathrm{quark}}=\overline{q}(\gamma _\mu _\mu MU^{\gamma _5}+\mathrm{})q$$
(4)
with the matrix for the Goldstone meson fields

$$U^{\gamma _5}=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}U+\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}U^{}$$
(5)
and the constituent quark mass $`M`$. The dots in (4) denote couplings to external sources and explicit chiral symmetry breaking terms which we do not need here.222The latter we do not need as we work in the chiral limit. As shown in Diakonov and Petrov (1986) the lagrangian (4) can be derived as the low energy limit of the instanton model. It is correct up to corrections which are suppressed by the number of colors $`N_c`$ and/or by the ratio of size and mean distance of instantons. In Espriu et al. (1990) the same lagrangian is derived on different grounds from the QCD lagrangian by symmetry considerations concerning the axial anomaly, large-$`N_c`$ arguments and neglecting gluonic contributions. In any case, (4) is the simplest model with Goldstone boson and constituent quark degrees of freedom. We note in passing that this lagrangian is also used for the description of nucleons as non-topological solitons (cf. Christov et al. (1996) and references therein).

The lagrangian in (4) is given in Euclidean space. As instantons are classical solutions of the Euclidean Yang-Mills equations Schäfer and Shuryak (1998) the lagrangian (4) is derived from the Euclidean QCD action using the instanton model Diakonov and Petrov (1986). We hesitate to transform (4) to Minkowski space as it would introduce the already mentioned unphysical quark-antiquark production thresholds due to the lack of confinement. We will come back to that point below. By integrating out the quarks, expanding the obtained effective action in terms of meson field derivatives and finally transforming the result to Minkowski space one arrives at the $`\chi `$PT lagrangian (1) with predictions for the low-energy constants. This procedure is shown schematically in Fig. 1. For the low-energy constants one obtains Diakonov and Petrov (1986); Espriu et al. (1990)

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}},`$ (6a)
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}},`$ (6b)
$`L_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}.`$ (6c)
We note again that these expressions are correct in leading order of a $`1/N_c`$ expansion. We also note that the coefficients $`L_i`$ are in general scale dependent quantities Gasser and Leutwyler (1984, 1985). This dependence, however, is subleading in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion and therefore of no relevance for our purposes. In addition, as we will see in the next section, we shall be merely interested in $`L_3`$. This specific quantity is scale independent.

It is an important aspect of the used quark model that the results (6) are parameter-free. This, of course, it not true for all low-energy constants. In principle, the lagrangian (4) explicitly contains the constituent quark mass as an input parameter and in addition a UV-cutoff prescription as the model is not renormalizable. If the quark model is derived from the instanton vacuum model both mass and UV-cutoff can be related to the instanton properties Diakonov and Petrov (1986). The reason why $`L_1`$$`L_3`$ are pure numbers lies in the fact that the sum of the box diagrams depicted in Fig. 1 is UV-finite, i.e. insensitive to the UV-cutoff. On the other hand, being dimensionless quantities the $`L_i`$’s cannot depend solely on the constituent quark mass which presents the only other dimensionful scale in the model. This is the deeper reason for the parameter-free results obtained in (6). Of course, also the constant $`F_\pi `$ which appears in (2) can be obtained by integrating out the quarks from (4). This low-energy constant, however, is sensitive to the UV-cutoff Diakonov and Petrov (1986); Espriu et al. (1990). Instead of specifying the UV-cutoff prescription such that the desired physical result for $`F_\pi `$ is obtained we simply will use the physical value for $`F_\pi `$ as an input.

Since the presented quark model is restricted to the leading order in $`1/N_c`$ we have to enforce this restriction also upon the other methods we are using subsequently. At first sight one might regard that as a short-coming. On the other hand, this restriction has also a positive aspect: As we shall see below it keeps the utilized methods rather simple. Anyway we can study how far we can get within that restriction. For arguments involving $`N_c`$-counting it is important to note that $`F_\pi ^2`$ is of order $`N_c`$ Espriu et al. (1990).

## III Inverse amplitude method

The application of the inverse amplitude method (IAM) to $`\chi `$PT is discussed in detail in Dobado and Pelaez (1997); Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) (see also earlier references cited therein). Nonetheless, to keep our work selfcontained we will present here a very general introduction to the IAM. The purpose is to show how a resonance leaves its trace in the low-energy region much below its pole mass (cf. the discussion in the introduction and e.g. Donoghue et al. (1989)) and how in turn the low-energy scattering amplitude can be used to “(re)generate” the resonance. A pedagogical example Oller et al. (1999) will serve to introduce the general idea of the IAM before we come back to our specific application of this technique. A central aspect of the whole method is unitarity, i.e. the condition $`SS^{}=1`$ for the $`S`$-matrix. In the following we only need one channel. In this case, $`S`$ is related to the scattering amplitude via Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002)

$$S=1+2i\sigma T.$$
(7)
Here $`\sigma =2k/\sqrt{s}`$ where $`k`$ is the momentum of the involved particles in the center-of-mass system. From the unitarity requirement one can deduce

$$\mathrm{Im}T=\sigma |T|^2\mathrm{Im}T^1=\sigma ,$$
(8)
i.e. the imaginary part of the inverse scattering amplitude is completely fixed by unitarity.

Next we introduce the following pedagogical example Oller et al. (1999): Suppose the scattering of two particles (for simplicity with the same mass $`m`$) is mediated by a resonance (with mass $`M`$) in the p-wave channel. Hence the scattering amplitude in our toy model is given by (we neglect the real part of the resonance self energy)

$$T=\frac{g^2k^2}{12\pi }\frac{1}{sM^2+i\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)}$$
(9)
with the center-of-mass momentum of the scattering particles

$$k=\sqrt{\frac{s}{4}m^2}$$
(10)
and a coupling constant $`g`$. For the (imaginary part of the) self energy of the resonance one gets (we restrict ourselves to a single channel problem)

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)=\frac{g^2}{6\pi }\frac{k^3}{\sqrt{s}}.$$
(11)
We note that this scattering amplitude fulfills the unitarity relation (8) with the available phase space $`\sigma =2k/\sqrt{s}`$.

For energies (much) below the resonance mass $`M`$ one can expand the scattering amplitude as a Taylor series in powers of $`1/M^2`$. The lowest order contribution is given by

$$T_2=\frac{g^2k^2}{12\pi M^2}.$$
(12)
This is a valid approximation for the scattering amplitude $`T`$ for very low energies. For somewhat higher energies (but still in the low-energy region much below the resonance mass) one can improve this approximation by calculating the $`o(1/M^4)`$-contribution:

$$T_4=\frac{g^2k^2}{12\pi M^4}(s+i\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s))$$
(13)
especially

$$\mathrm{Re}T_4=T_2\frac{s}{M^2}$$
(14)
where the last expression is suitable for later use. It is important to note that the Taylor series has a finite radius of convergence. E.g. for a sharp resonance (Im$`\mathrm{\Pi }0`$) the series converges for $`sM^2`$. Therefore the low-energy approximation

$$TT_2+T_4$$
(15)
cannot give a reliable estimate for higher energies as the Taylor expansion breaks down for energies around the resonance mass. The reason for this breakdown simply is the appearance of the resonance pole in the scattering amplitude (9) which cannot be described by a polynomial in $`1/M^2`$. The basic assumption of the IAM is that the inverse amplitude has a larger radius of convergence as compared to the amplitude itself. We recall that due to unitarity the imaginary part of the inverse amplitude is always fixed by (8). Hence what remains to be done is to calculate the real part of the inverse amplitude. Again we perform that calculation at low energies, but expect that the range of application for this approximate inverse scattering amplitude is larger than the range of application for the original low-energy scattering amplitude. For our toy model we get

$$T^1=(T_2+T_4+o(1/M^6))^1=T_2^1(T_2T_4+o(1/M^6))T_2^1.$$
(16)
As $`T_2`$ is purely real we get for the real part

$$\mathrm{Re}T^1T_2^1(T_2\mathrm{Re}T_4)T_2^1.$$
(17)
Finally we obtain the following relation which is actually not restricted to our toy model but generally valid Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002):

$$TT_2(T_2\mathrm{Re}T_4iT_2\sigma T_2)^1T_2.$$
(18)
For our case at hand we get

$$T(s)=T_2\left(1\frac{s}{M^2}iT_2\sigma \right)^1=\frac{T_2M^2}{sM^2+iT_2M^2\sigma }$$
(19)
which completely agrees with the resonant amplitude (9). In general, (18) is (only) an approximation for the true scattering amplitude as higher order terms $`T_6,\mathrm{}`$ were neglected. The simplicity of the chosen toy model (9) allowed for a complete reconstruction via the first two low energy amplitudes. In general, realistic scattering amplitudes are not as simple as the presented toy model. In particular, crossing symmetry typically yields additional contributions besides the $`s`$-channel resonance of (9). For a discussion of these issues we refer to Dobado and Pelaez (1997); Boglione and Pennington (1997); Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002).

It is important to note that the input for the result (18) solely comes from the low-energy amplitudes (12) and (14) which are only valid below the resonance region. In practice the situation is such that one knows the low-energy amplitudes but does not know the amplitude in the resonance region. Using (18) one obtains an expression which is supposed to be valid also in the resonance region. We conclude that the IAM is capable of determining resonance properties from the low-energy appearance of the resonance. Hence this technique fits exactly to our philosophy outlined in the introduction: The quark model should only be trusted in the low-energy region far away from the unphysical quark-antiquark thresholds. This region, however, can also be used to learn something about hadronic resonances. The IAM provides a tool to translate this idea into a quantitative calculation.

Now we turn to the resonance we are actually interested in. The $`\rho `$-meson appears as a resonant state in pion-pion scattering. Indeed one can construct the $`\rho `$ from the low-energy pion scattering amplitude in the vector–iso-vector channel using the IAM (cf. Dobado and Pelaez (1997); Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) and references therein). Strictly speaking concerning the scattering of members of the Goldstone boson octet the vector–iso-vector channel constitutes a two-state problem, namely $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ appear in that channel. For realistic masses the $`K\overline{K}`$-production threshold is above the $`\rho `$-meson mass. Therefore, it should be possible to discuss the $`\rho `$-properties by studying only elastic pion-pion scattering. Indeed, this is what we will do in the following. On the other hand, however, since we work in the chiral limit for the whole octet, the decay of a $`\rho `$-meson into massless kaons is of course possible in our approach. We have checked that the treatment of the two-state problem within the IAM yields the same result as the one-state problem which we will present in the following.333Of course, the total width of the $`\rho `$ is larger for the two-state approach as it accounts for decays both into pions and kaons. The partial decay width into pions agrees with the one presented here.

Within the IAM the scattering amplitude is given by (18). In the combined chiral and large-$`N_c`$ limit the relevant expressions Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) for the calculation of the pion scattering amplitude in the vector–iso-vector channel become rather simple:

$$\sigma =1,$$
(20)
$$T_2(s)=\frac{s}{96\pi F_\pi ^2},$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{Re}T_4(s)=\frac{L_3s^2}{24\pi F_\pi ^4}+o(1/N_c^2)=\frac{4L_3s}{F_\pi ^2}T_2(s)+o(1/N_c^2).$$
(22)
Thus we get for the (resonant) scattering amplitude

$$T(s)=T_2(s)\left[1+\frac{4L_3s}{F_\pi ^2}iT_2(s)\right]^1=\frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)}{sM_V^2+i\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)}$$
(23)
with the resonance mass (squared)

$$M_V^2:=\frac{F_\pi ^2}{4L_3}$$
(24)
and the imaginary part of the resonance self energy

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s):=\frac{s}{2416\pi L_3}$$
(25)
Note that $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is of order $`1/N_c`$, i.e. vanishes in the large-$`N_c`$ limit as it should be, as mesonic (quark-antiquark) resonances become stable in that limit Witten (1979). Hence also the real part of the self energy is of order $`1/N_c`$, i.e. subleading as compared to $`M_V^2`$. As we have only presented the leading order for $`\mathrm{Re}T_4`$ in (22) we have consequently not displayed the real part of the self energy in (23). The imaginary part $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ contains the information about the coupling of the generated resonance to the pions. To extract a coupling constant (i.e. a number) we need a model lagrangian for $`\rho `$-mesons and pions. We take the standard $`\rho \pi \pi `$-lagrangian Klingl et al. (1996)

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{ig}{4}\mathrm{tr}(V^\mu [_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }])\frac{g^2}{16}\mathrm{tr}([V^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]^2)$$
(26)
where $`V^\mu `$ denotes the $`\rho `$-meson and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the pion field. Calculating $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ from (26) in the chiral limit in the one-loop approximation one obtains444Note that our convention for the self-energy differs from the one in Klingl et al. (1996) by a sign, cf. also (71) below.

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)=\frac{g^2s}{48\pi }.$$
(27)
Comparing (25) with (27) yields

$$g^2=\frac{1}{8L_3}.$$
(28)
Finally we can determine the coupling $`g_\gamma `$ of the $`\rho `$-meson to an electromagnetic current, i.e. to (virtual) photons. Chiral symmetry demands the KSFR relation Kawarabayashi and Suzuki (1966); Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin (1966) to hold:

$$M_V^2=2gg_\gamma F_\pi ^2.$$
(29)
Using (24) and (28) we get

$$g_\gamma =\frac{M_V^2}{2gF_\pi ^2}=\frac{M_V^2}{2g^2F_\pi ^2}g=g,$$
(30)
i.e. we have obtained the universality of the $`\rho `$-meson coupling. We note in passing that this strict universality does not hold any longer once we leave the chiral limit. This, however, is beyond the scope of the present work. The fact that the $`\rho `$-meson couples (at least approximately) with the same strength to pions and photons constitutes one important aspect of the vector meson dominance picture (e.g. Klingl et al. (1996); Herrmann et al. (1993); Dung and Truong (1996), see also comment in Ecker et al. (1989a)).

Note that so far we have not used any input from the quark model calculations of Sec. II except that we considered only the leading order of the large-$`N_c`$ expansion. Hence, the obtained universality of the $`\rho `$-meson coupling is not a result of a specific quark model but of the IAM treated in the large-$`N_c`$ approximation and in the chiral limit.

In view of the results (24), (28) and (30) the only missing piece is an expression for $`L_3`$. Clearly this cannot be obtained from the IAM as a purely hadronic approach. Next we use the results of Sec. II to determine $`L_3`$ and fix in that way mass and coupling constant of the $`\rho `$-meson. Alternatively we will use in the next section the QCD sum rule approach to determine $`L_3`$. We will see that we obtain a rather consistent picture within the two approaches (quark model and QCD sum rules). Using (6c), (24), (28) and (30) yields the following results obtained from a combination of the quark model with the IAM:

$`M_V`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c}}}\sqrt{8}\pi F_\pi ,`$ (31a)
$`g=g_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi .`$ (31b)
We will confront these results with experimental findings in Sec. V after an alternative determination of $`L_3`$, $`M_V`$ and $`g`$ using QCD sum rules in the next section.

## IV QCD sum rules

The starting point of this method is the covariant time ordered current-current correlator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)=id^4xe^{iqx}Tj_\mu (x)j_\nu (0).$$
(32)
For the $`\rho `$-meson channel, $`j_\mu `$ is the isospin-1 part of the electromagnetic current,

$$j_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d\right).$$
(33)
Due to Lorentz invariance and charge conservation the correlator (32) has the following decomposition Shifman et al. (1979)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)=\left(q_\mu q_\nu g_{\mu \nu }q^2\right)R(q^2).$$
(34)
In the time-like region, $`q^2>0`$, the quantity $`R`$ is related to the cross section $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons with isospin 1 via Pascual and Tarrach (1984)

$$\frac{\sigma ^{I=1}(e^+e^{}\text{hadrons})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}=12\pi \mathrm{Im}R.$$
(35)
At least for low energies the time-like region is determined by hadronic degrees of freedom. We denote the result for $`R`$ in the time-like region by $`R^{\mathrm{HAD}}`$. On the other hand, the current-current correlator (32) can be calculated for $`q^20`$ using Wilson’s operator product expansion (OPE) Wilson (1969) for quark and gluonic degrees of freedom Shifman et al. (1979). In the following we shall call the result of that calculation $`R^{\mathrm{OPE}}`$. A second representation in the space-like region which has to match $`R^{\mathrm{OPE}}`$ can be obtained from $`R^{\mathrm{HAD}}`$ by utilizing a subtracted dispersion relation. We find

$`R^{\mathrm{OPE}}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{HAD}}(s)}{(s+Q^2)s}}`$ (36)
with $`Q^2:=q^20`$ and a subtraction constant $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$.

For the l.h.s. of (36) the OPE yields in the combined chiral and large-$`N_c`$ limit555Note that only in the large-$`N_c`$ limit there is a strict connection between the four-quark condensate appearing in the OPE and the two-quark condensate Novikov et al. (1984). Shifman et al. (1979)

$$R^{\mathrm{OPE}}(Q^2)=c_0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}\right)+\frac{c_1}{Q^2}+\frac{c_2}{Q^4}+\frac{c_3}{Q^6}+o(1/Q^8,\alpha _s^2)$$
(37)
with

$`c_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{24\pi ^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}\right),`$ (38a)
$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38b)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2,`$ (38c)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{112}{81}}\pi \overline{\alpha }_s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c}}\overline{q}q^2.`$ (38d)
The actual values we use for the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$, the gluon condensate $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2`$ and the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ will be discussed in Sec. V. We have introduced a quantity $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ which becomes identical to $`\alpha _s`$ for three colors but remains finite for $`N_c\mathrm{}`$:

$$\overline{\alpha }_s=\frac{N_c^21}{N_c}\frac{3}{8}\alpha _s.$$
(39)
Note that in the spirit of the $`1/N_c`$-expansion the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is $`o(1/N_c)`$.

Concerning the r.h.s. of (36) we note that in the large-$`N_c`$ approximation $`\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{HAD}}`$ is given by the spectral representation of (infinitely many) stable mesons Witten (1979):

$$\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{HAD}}(s)=\pi \frac{M_V^2}{g_\gamma ^2}\delta (sM_V^2)+\underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi \frac{M_i^2}{g_i^2}\delta (sM_i^2)$$
(40)
where we have isolated the lowest-lying meson we are actually interested in. $`g_i`$ denotes the coupling constant between the photon field and the respective meson. Clearly with such a representation with infinitely many mesons, i.e. infinitely many a priori unknown parameters, we cannot learn anything about the $`\rho `$-meson properties. To simplify the expression we invoke a duality argument: For high energies the quark structure of the current-current correlator is resolved. QCD perturbation theory becomes applicable yielding Shifman et al. (1979)

$$\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{HAD}}(s)=\pi c_0\text{for large }s\text{,}$$
(41)
where the constant $`c_0`$ is given in (38a). These considerations suggest to approximate the sum of higher-lying resonances by a continuum starting at some threshold $`s_0`$ which separates the low- from the high-energy region:

$`\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{HAD}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_0s)\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)+\mathrm{\Theta }(ss_0)\pi c_0.`$ (42)
The mesons below the threshold are now collected in $`\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}`$. Later we will use only the $`\rho `$-meson, i.e. the lowest-lying one, here. For the moment we want to keep the expression more general. Of course, the high-energy behavior given in (42) is only an approximation on the true spectral distribution for the current-current correlator. Duality states that taking appropriate energy integrals yields the same results no matter whether one takes (40) or (42) to represent the current-current correlator. The phrase “appropriate energy integrals” will be further qualified below. We note that the duality argument becomes even more convincing when changing from large-$`N_c`$ considerations to the real world of three colors. There the mesons really become resonances with sizable widths. The higher-lying resonances more or less dissolve into a continuum which indeed has the height as predicted by perturbative QCD (cf. e.g. Fig. 1 in Klingl et al. (1997)).

Next we insert the simplified representation (42) in the dispersion relation (36) and expand also the r.h.s. in powers of $`1/Q^2`$. In this way one can compare the coefficients of this expansion with the respective ones in the series on the l.h.s. given by (37). This yields the finite energy sum rules666This derivation is actually oversimplified since it neglects the running of the coupling constant. For a rigorous derivation cf. Maltman (1998) and references therein.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{s_0}{}}}𝑑s\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)c_0s_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (43a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{s_0}{}}}𝑑ss\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)+c_0{\displaystyle \frac{s_0^2}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2,`$ (43b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{s_0}{}}}𝑑ss^2\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)c_0{\displaystyle \frac{s_0^3}{3}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_3,`$ (43c)
where the coefficients of the OPE are given in (38). Note that the powers of $`s`$ in the respective integrand rise from (43a) to (43c). Hence the higher-order sum rules become more sensitive to details of the parametrization in the high-energy region. In view of our simplified representation (42) as compared to the exact one (40), one has to be aware of the fact that the finite energy sum rules become less reliable from (43a) to (43c). We will come back to that point below. Obviously the sum rules which (approximately) hold constitute a set of “appropriate energy integrals” in the sense of the duality picture discussed above.

In the large-$`N_c`$ approximation the parametrization of the spectral information for the $`\rho `$-meson is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)=\pi \frac{M_V^2}{g_\gamma ^2}\delta (sM_V^2).$$
(44)
From the results (24), (28) and (30) of Sec. III we deduce

$$\mathrm{Im}R^{\mathrm{RES}}(s)=2\pi F_\pi ^2\delta (sM_V^2).$$
(45)
We can use the first sum rule (43a) to fix $`s_0`$:

$$s_0=\frac{2F_\pi ^2}{c_0}=\frac{3}{N_c}\frac{(4\pi F_\pi )^2}{1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}$$
(46)
and the second one (43b) to determine $`M_V^2`$:

$$M_V^2=\frac{c_0s_0^2}{4F_\pi ^2}\frac{c_2}{2F_\pi ^2}=\frac{3}{N_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi ^2F_\pi ^2\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}\frac{2\pi ^2N_c}{9}\frac{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{(4\pi F_\pi )^4}\right).$$
(47)
Using (24) and (28) we finally find

$$L_3=\frac{F_\pi ^2}{4M_V^2}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}\frac{2\pi ^2N_c}{9}\frac{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{(4\pi F_\pi )^4}\right)^1$$
(48)
and

$$g^2=\frac{1}{8L_3}=\frac{3}{N_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi ^2\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}\frac{2\pi ^2N_c}{9}\frac{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{(4\pi F_\pi )^4}\right).$$
(49)
Before comparing these results with the corresponding ones of the previous section we should take a look at the third finite energy sum rule (43c): Using (38) and (45)-(47) one obtains

$$\left(\frac{3}{N_c}\right)^2\frac{128}{3}\pi ^4F_\pi ^6\left[3\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }}\frac{2\pi ^2N_c}{9}\frac{\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2}{(4\pi F_\pi )^4}\right)^2+\frac{4}{\left(1+\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\pi }\right)^2}\right]\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\frac{112}{81}\pi \overline{\alpha }_s\frac{3}{N_c}\overline{q}q^2.$$
(50)
At first glance this looks like a clever way to express the quark condensate in terms of the pion decay constant and gluonic corrections. However, we have already expressed our doubts concerning the use of higher finite energy sum rules. The reason for this concern is their higher sensitivity to the high-energy behavior which we have accounted for in an approximate way only. Indeed, plugging in reasonable numbers — which will be specified in the next section — for the quantities appearing in (50) we get $`0.0026`$ GeV6 for the l.h.s. and $`0.00033`$ GeV6 for the r.h.s., i.e. almost a factor of ten difference. This indicates that at least the third finite energy sum rule (43c) should not be trusted. An argument why the other two sum rules are supposed to give more reliable results can only come from outside of the sum rule method, e.g. by comparing the obtained results to the quark model predictions of the previous section. This shows again the power of our approach: We combine various methods to overcome the short-comings which appear if only one method is used on its own.

The results (47)-(49) — obtained from IAM + QCD sum rules — can be compared to the results (31a), (6c) and (31b) — obtained from IAM + quark model: Obviously the results agree up to gluonic corrections which are neglected in the constituent quark model (cf. the discussion of that issue in Espriu et al. (1990)). Due to the intrinsic uncertainties of the QCD sum rule method discussed above we hesitate to take the results obtained in this section as an improvement of the results (31) obtained in the last section. We merely adopt the following point of view: Both approaches IAM + quark model and IAM + QCD sum rules yield identical results up to gluonic corrections. We regard this as the intrinsic uncertainty of the whole method. Hence the difference between the two approaches should be taken as a rough error estimate for the obtained results. As we shall see in the next section this error turns out to be rather small. We note in passing that the gluonic corrections in (48) have the same sign as the one given in Espriu et al. (1990).

We would like to mention that the finite energy sum rules are not the only way to use the dispersion relation (36) in practice. The inventors of the QCD sum rule method Shifman et al. (1979) used Borel sum rules instead due to their lower sensitivity to the high-energy parametrization (cf. discussion above). We have checked that the use of a Borel sum rule in the way described in Leupold et al. (1998); Leupold (2001a) leads to quantitatively similar results as compared to the ones presented here. We prefer to use the finite energy sum rules here since in this case the results can be presented in a closed analytic form.

## V Comparing results with experiment and other models

We have obtained expressions for the mass of the $`\rho `$-meson, for its coupling to pions and photons, for the low-energy coefficient $`L_3`$ and — within the sum rule approach — for the continuum threshold $`s_0`$. Next we have to specify our input to allow for a comparison of the calculated quantities with experiment. For the predictions from IAM + quark model we only need the pion decay constant which we take as $`F_\pi 92`$MeV Hagiwara et al. (2002). The calculations from IAM + sum rules require in addition the strong coupling constant, the gluon condensate and the quark condensate. The latter we need only to show that the third finite energy sum rule is invalid. The typical scale which appears in the finite energy sum rules (43) is set by the continuum threshold $`s_0`$. Consequently we evaluate the QCD running coupling constant at $`\mu \sqrt{s_0}4\pi F_\pi 1`$GeV: In the following we use $`\alpha _s(1\mathrm{GeV})0.39`$ Glück et al. (1998). For the gluon condensate we use a canonical value Shifman et al. (1979) of $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2(330\text{MeV})^4`$. The quark condensate is determined from the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation Gell-Mann et al. (1968)

$$m_q\overline{q}q=\frac{1}{2}F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2.$$
(51)
We use a value of $`m_q(1\mathrm{GeV})6`$MeV for the average of up- and down-quark mass Narison (1999). This yields $`\overline{q}q(240\mathrm{MeV})^3`$.

With these input values we find from quark model + IAM in the combined large-$`N_c`$ and chiral limit:

$$M_V820\mathrm{MeV},g6.3,L_33.210^3.$$
(52)
While from sum rules + IAM (in the same limit) we get:

$$M_V760\mathrm{MeV},g5.8,L_33.710^3,$$
(53)
and

$$s_01.2\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(54)
We point out again that we do not regard the differences of the results (52) and (53) as contradicting, but merely as an estimate for the respective intrinsic uncertainties of both approaches. Therefore we finally present the average values of corresponding results and attribute as an error the difference of the average to the original results. Of course this error can only be regarded as a rough estimate. We end up with

$$M_V790\pm 30\mathrm{MeV},g6.0\pm 0.3,L_3(3.4\pm 0.3)10^3.$$
(55)
This has to be compared with the experimental results

$$M_V771\mathrm{MeV},g6.05,L_3(2.79\pm 0.14)10^3.$$
(56)
where the $`\rho `$-meson mass is taken from Hagiwara et al. (2002), the $`\rho `$-pion coupling from Klingl et al. (1996) and the low-energy coefficient from the IAM fit to the scattering data Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002). We observe a very good agreement between (55) and (56). In addition, we find an error of 10% for $`M_V^2`$, $`g^2`$ and $`L_3`$, and consequently a 5% error for $`M_V`$ and $`g`$. The smallness of this error gives us further confidence that our approach is reasonable. Finally we note that $`s_0`$ has to be between the masses (squared) of the $`\rho `$-meson and the next resonance in this channel, the $`\rho ^{}`$. The experimental average $`(M_V^2+M_\rho ^{}^2)/21.4`$GeV2 Hagiwara et al. (2002) is reasonably close to the sum rule result (54).

The rest of this section is devoted to the comparison with related approaches. As already pointed out in the introduction the new aspect of the work presented here is the combination of various (already known) QCD related methods. Therefore it is hardly surprising that parts of the presented techniques and results can be found also in other works. We shall comment here on the respective similarities and differences.

In Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000) a simplified version of the finite energy sum rules (43a) and (43b) was used by neglecting all gluonic corrections, i.e. perturbative corrections as well as the gluon condensate. As an input it was assumed that the continuum threshold $`s_0`$ is given by the typical scale of chiral symmetry breaking,

$$s_0=(4\pi F_\pi )^2.$$
(57)
Using the parametrization (44) for the spectral information and assuming the universality of the vector meson coupling the obtained results agree with (31). Had we used the same simplification for the sum rules, i.e. neglected gluonic corrections, the results of Sec. III and IV indeed would have been in complete agreement with each other and with the ones of Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000). For the threshold we would have obtained (57) instead of (46). Hence the results of Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000) are rather similar to ours. We note, however, that input and output are exchanged to some extent: In Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000) two sum rules are used (in a simplified version) together with the input (57) and $`g=g_\gamma `$ to obtain as an output the determination of $`M_V`$ and $`g`$. The input choice are (plausible) assumptions. In the approach presented here we used the IAM in the large-$`N_c`$ limit to determine our input for the sum rules, namely (45). The output are expressions for $`s_0`$ and $`M_V`$ as given in (46) and (47), respectively. The fact, that our output for $`s_0`$ is so plausible that it is used as an input in Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000) demonstrates again the intrinsic consistency of our approach.

In Marco et al. (2002) the approach of Klingl and Weise (1999); Marco and Weise (2000) was extended to a simultaneous treatment of vector and axial-vector channel and by including more resonances (cf. (40)). Two results of that analysis — which agreed reasonably well with recent data of $`\tau `$-decay — should be mentioned here: (i) the continuum thresholds for vector and axial-vector channel do not agree with each other, (ii) a meson which decays into $`n`$ pions couples (approximately) with a strength of $`n\pi F_\pi ^2`$ to the (axial-)vector current. The latter rule is fulfilled by our spectral information (45) as the $`\rho `$-meson couples to two pions.777Note that the normalization conventions differ to some extent. We have translated the results to be in line with our conventions. From the same rule one obtains the result that the $`a_1`$-meson couples with a strength of $`3\pi F_\pi ^2`$ to the axial-vector current.888The author thanks E. Marco for pointing that out to him. We shall use these results to comment on another approach to determine the $`\rho `$-meson properties and the low-energy coefficients.

In Golterman and Peris (2000) all three finite energy sum rules (43) are used in the combined large-$`N_c`$ and chiral limit together with the corresponding ones for the axial-vector channel. Following Weinberg (1967) it was assumed in addition that the continuum thresholds for vector and axial-vector channel are the same — in contrast to the analysis of Marco et al. (2002) — and that $`g=g_\gamma `$ holds. Using in total six sum rules together with the KSFR relation (29) and the mentioned assumptions the authors of Golterman and Peris (2000) consequently determined seven quantities, namely the $`\rho `$-meson mass (squared) (cf. (31a)),

$$M_V^2=\frac{2\sqrt{6}}{5}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi ^2F_\pi ^20.988\pi ^2F_\pi ^2,$$
(58)
the strength of the $`\rho `$-meson contribution to the vector current (cf. prefactor of $`\delta `$-function in (45)),

$$2\pi F_\pi ^2,$$
(59)
the $`a_1`$-meson mass (squared),

$$M_A^2=2M_V^2,$$
(60)
the strength of the $`a_1`$-meson contribution to the axial-vector current,

$$\pi F_\pi ^2,$$
(61)
the continuum threshold common for both channels,

$$s_0=(4\pi F_\pi )^2,$$
(62)
the gluon condensate,

$$\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2=\frac{384}{5}\pi ^2(52\sqrt{6})F_\pi ^4,$$
(63)
and the quark condensate,

$$\pi \overline{\alpha }_s\frac{3}{N_c}\overline{q}q^2=\frac{864}{25}\pi ^4F_\pi ^6.$$
(64)
Note that the only scale which entered this analysis was provided by the strength of the pion contribution to the axial-vector current, i.e. $`\pi F_\pi ^2`$. Therefore all dimensionful quantities where determined as multiples of appropriate powers of $`F_\pi `$. In spite of the fact that this approach Golterman and Peris (2000) is close in spirit to the one presented here and that some of the results are identical or close to our results we have the following concerns about the work presented in Golterman and Peris (2000): First of all, we do not trust in the use of the third finite energy sum rule (43c) as already pointed out above. It is actually the use of this sum rule together with the corresponding one for the axial-vector channel which allows for the determination of the condensates in terms of $`F_\pi `$. We doubt that such a simple relation as (63) can be true, since two different physical phenomena come into play here: The gluon condensate is caused by the scale anomaly while the pion decay constant signals chiral symmetry breaking. Even if both phenomena have a common origin, as e.g. stated in the instanton model Diakonov and Petrov (1986), it is hard to believe that the relation between the gluon condensate and the pion decay constant is as simple as (63). Concerning actual numbers the value for the quark condensate obtained from (64) is rather high. In other words, the corresponding value for the quark mass obtained successively from (51) would be very low. Also the value for the $`a_1`$-strength (61) is questionable. It is a consequence of the assumption that the continuum threshold is the same in both the vector and the axial-vector channel Weinberg (1967). According to the recent analysis Marco et al. (2002) the experimentally obtained strength is about three times higher (cf. discussion above). To summarize, the work presented in Golterman and Peris (2000) is technically similar to the one presented here but there are important aspects where the two approaches differ: (i) We regard the continuum with its threshold parameter in (42) as an approximation to the true large-$`N_c`$ representation (40). The corresponding statement holds for the axial-vector channel. There is no reason why the two thresholds should be the same. (ii) We think that the parametrization (42) is too crude to fulfill the third sum rule (43c) which is more sensitive to the high-energy behavior as compared to the first two sum rules (43a) and (43b). To utilize the third sum rule higher resonances should be taken into account. (iii) We do not use the sum rules to relate the condensates to the pion decay constant. In principle, this could be done also in our approach e.g. by equating (31a) and (47). From our point of view, however, both results are approximations. Therefore we use the gluon condensate to estimate the error in the determination of the $`\rho `$-meson properties.

In Ecker et al. (1989b, a) low-energy coefficients and mesonic resonances are connected in a way different from the IAM presented here. There a chiral lagrangian with Goldstone boson and resonance fields is proposed Ecker et al. (1989b, a):

$$=_1+_{\mathrm{kin}}+_{\mathrm{int}}$$
(65)
where $`_1`$ is given in (2), $`_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ denotes the kinetic part for the resonance fields and $`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ the interaction part between resonances and Goldstone bosons (and external sources). By integrating out the resonances one arrives at the lagrangian of $`\chi `$PT (1) with predictions for the low-energy constants $`L_i`$ in terms of resonance parameters, schematically

$$_{\mathrm{kin}}+_{\mathrm{int}}_2$$
(66)
where $`_2`$ is given in (3). We refer to this scheme as “resonance saturation” in the following. A reggeized version of that approach was presented in Polyakov and Vereshagin (1996). A connection to a quark model is addressed in Peris et al. (1998). Note that the lagrangian $`_1`$ which mediates the lowest-order interaction between the Goldstone bosons is already present in (65), i.e. it is not generated by resonance exchange. This is in contrast to the IAM where the resonance properties are calculated from a combination of $`T_2`$ and $`T_4`$. The former comes from a tree level calculation using the lagrangian $`_1`$ while the latter obtains contributions from the tree level of $`_2`$ and from the one-loop level of $`_1`$. Therefore within the IAM both lagrangians $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are connected to the resonance properties while in the approach presented in Ecker et al. (1989b, a) this is only the case for $`_2`$. In spite of these differences it is interesting to compare the results in the light of our analysis: Using scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector mesonic resonances it was shown in Ecker et al. (1989b) that only (flavor octet) vector mesons contribute to $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ while $`L_3`$ is additionally influenced by the exchange of scalar mesons. The results for $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are

$$L_1=\frac{1}{2}L_2=\frac{G_V^2}{8M_V^2}$$
(67)
where $`G_V`$ denotes the coupling between vector mesons and Goldstone bosons. In our language $`G_V`$ translates to

$$G_V=\frac{gF_\pi ^2}{M_V}.$$
(68)
Relation (68) can be obtained by calculating the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \pi )`$ in both approaches (65) and (26). Inserting (68) in (67) and using the KSFR relation (29) one gets

$$L_1=\frac{1}{2}L_2=\frac{g^2F_\pi ^4}{8M_V^4}=\frac{1}{32g_\gamma ^2}.$$
(69)
Finally we can use the quark model expression for $`L_1`$ or $`L_2`$ given in (6a) and (6b), respectively. This yields again the relation (31b) for $`g_\gamma `$. Assuming in addition $`g=g_\gamma `$ finally allows to rederive all relations given in (31) Pich (1995). Hence the combination of IAM and quark model on the one hand side and the combination of resonance saturation, quark model and universality of the vector meson coupling on the other hand side yield identical results for the $`\rho `$-meson properties.999This consistency has also been used in a preliminary version of the present work Leupold (2001b) to derive (31). In spite of this internal consistency it remains unclear how a method which uses $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ (IAM) can be reconciled with a method which uses only $`_2`$ (resonance saturation) to derive the same results. In that context it is also interesting albeit unclear why it is $`L_3`$ which is connected to the $`\rho `$-meson properties in the approach IAM + quark model, while it is $`L_1=L_2/2`$ for the approach resonance saturation + quark model. Clearly further work is needed to figure out the relation between the IAM and the resonance saturation scheme.

We have used a very specific quark model in Sec. II and we will comment now on other related models. The lagrangian (4) can be regarded as the non-linear version of the standard Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model Vogl and Weise (1991); Hatsuda and Kunihiro (1994); Klevansky (1992) (cf. e.g. discussion in Christov et al. (1996)). While the quark model used here has only pions (in the SU(2) sector), the standard NJL model generates pions and $`\sigma `$-mesons as bound quark-antiquark states. In contrast to that it is easy to check that the IAM does not yield $`\sigma `$-mesons in the large-$`N_c`$ approximation.101010The full IAM as treated in Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002) without further approximations reproduces the phase shifts of meson-meson scattering rather well also in the scalar–iso-scalar channel. The fact that there is no pole in the scattering amplitude in the large-$`N_c`$ approximation of the IAM indicates that the $`\sigma `$-meson is not a bound quark-antiquark state (see also the corresponding discussion in Oller and Oset (1999)). Therefore we prefer to use the non-linear version of the NJL model together with the IAM.

Extended versions of the NJL model with additional quark-antiquark interactions in the vector channel have been used to generate the $`\rho `$-meson in an RPA-type calculation Polleri et al. (1997); He et al. (1998). This resembles the way how the pion is generated from the standard NJL interaction term Vogl and Weise (1991); Hatsuda and Kunihiro (1994); Klevansky (1992). However, in contrast to the pion the $`\rho `$-meson mass is close to the production threshold for a constituent quark-antiquark pair. Therefore the spectral function of the $`\rho `$-meson and correspondingly the scattering amplitude for pion-pion scattering is poisoned by an unphysical inelasticity He et al. (1998). This is in contrast to the approach presented here where the quark model is only used in the low-energy regime much below the unphysical production threshold. There the quarks are integrated out to obtain the purely hadronic lagrangian of $`\chi `$PT with predictions for the chiral low-energy coefficients. Hence the input for the IAM — which extends the applicability to the resonance region — is purely hadronic. No unphysical quark-antiquark production thresholds appear in the approach presented here. In addition we note that the extended versions of the NJL model introduce an additional a priori unknown coupling constant which is chosen such that the physical value for the $`\rho `$-meson mass is reproduced. In contrast, our approach yields a parameter-free determination of the $`\rho `$-meson properties. No additional interaction beyond the non-linear version of the standard NJL interaction is required.

In Donoghue and Holstein (1992) the calculation of the low-energy coefficient $`L_{10}`$ is addressed. It is shown that $`L_{10}`$ can be obtained — up to scale corrections — as an integral over the difference of vector and axial-vector spectral functions

$$L_{10}(\mu )=\frac{1}{4}\frac{ds}{s}[\rho _V(s)\rho _A(s)]\frac{1}{144\pi ^2}[\mathrm{log}(m_\pi ^2/\mu ^2)+1].$$
(70)
The authors compare two ways to obtain these spectral functions: (i) from the Minkowski space version of the constituent quark model (4) and (ii) from the experimental results of $`\tau `$ decays. In the latter approach $`\rho `$\- and $`a_1`$-peaks are clearly seen in the spectral functions. The approach (i) of Donoghue and Holstein (1992) seems to be rather similar to the one presented here. However, there is a subtle difference in the two approaches which has led the authors of Donoghue and Holstein (1992) to the rather negative conclusion that the constituent quark model is unreliable for the calculation of the low-energy coefficients. In their approach they compared not only the results for $`L_{10}`$ but already the spectral input, i.e. the integrands of (70) in both models (i) and (ii). Of course, in the quark model the spectral functions are completely structureless showing no signs of $`\rho `$\- and $`a_1`$-peaks in contrast to the experimental data. Therefore the authors of Donoghue and Holstein (1992) concluded that the quark model should not be used to calculate $`L_{10}`$. This conclusion might be valid for the Minkowski space version of the constituent quark model treated up to arbitrarily high energies. Our way of using the quark model is however different. As already discussed above, we prefer to use the quark model (a) in Euclidean space and (b) for low momenta only. Point (a) is more than pure semantics. There are approaches which are only meaningful in the Euclidean region and one specific example is the instanton model and all effective lagrangians derived from it. Another example is the QCD sum rule approach discussed above. There, two expressions for a correlation function are matched for Euclidean (space-like) momenta. One expression is provided by an integral over a spectral function(!) while the other one is obtained from an operator product expansion (OPE). It is formally possible albeit completely misleading to calculate in Minkowski space the imaginary part of the OPE expression and compare it to the spectral function. Both expressions look completely different. The matching has to be performed in the Euclidean region. In this way it provides a powerful tool to learn something about the spectral function. Basically the same is true for the case at hand. (70) can be used for a model with hadronic degrees of freedom. However, according to our philosophy we would never use (70) for the quark model. Of course, also point (b) — the restriction to low energies — forbids the use of the quark model in the region of the hadronic resonances. Therefore the negative conclusion drawn in Donoghue and Holstein (1992) does not apply to the way in which we use the quark model.

## VI Summary and outlook

To summarize we have calculated the mass of the $`\rho `$-meson and its coupling to pions and photons in the chiral limit in leading order of the large-$`N_c`$ expansion. To get these results we have combined three methods which can be derived from QCD within well-defined approximations, namely the chiral constituent quark model Diakonov and Petrov (1986); Espriu et al. (1990), chiral perturbation theory Gasser and Leutwyler (1984, 1985) unitarized by the inverse amplitude method (IAM) Dobado and Pelaez (1997); Gomez Nicola and Pelaez (2002), and QCD sum rules Shifman et al. (1979). Each of these methods has specific short-comings which are avoided by combining the methods. The obtained results are in very good agreement with the corresponding experimental values. It is interesting to note that the result for the $`\rho `$-meson mass contains only $`F_\pi `$ (up to gluonic corrections). Therefore our approach suggests that the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry does not only determine the properties of the quasi-Goldstone modes but also of the $`\rho `$-meson as the lightest non-Goldstone boson. While chiral symmetry breaking quantitatively determines the $`\rho `$-meson properties, confinement enters in a qualitative way: Using a quark model which does not have an explicit confinement mechanism we have to work in the low-energy region which is sufficiently far away from the unphysical constituent quark-antiquark production threshold. Confinement demands to get rid off, i.e. integrate out the quarks to obtain a purely hadronic effective lagrangian. Here the influence of quarks only appears in the coupling constants of the hadronic degrees of freedom. According to the confinement restriction only such a purely hadronic lagrangian can be extended — via the IAM — to the region of interest, i.e. the resonance region.

As we have seen the combined chiral and large-$`N_c`$ limit works rather well for the determination of hadronic parameters. These parameters can be taken as an input for a purely hadronic model with pion and explicit resonance fields. Within that model one can take finite pion masses and calculate e.g. effects of the pionic cloud on the $`\rho `$-meson. Strictly speaking these effects are suppressed by $`1/N_c`$, i.e. of the same order as contributions which were neglected for the derivation of the hadronic parameters. For the full $`\rho `$-meson propagator this looks as following:

$$D_\rho ^1(s)=sM_V^2\delta M_V^2(s)+\mathrm{\Pi }(s),$$
(71)
where $`M_V^2`$ is of order $`N_c^0`$ and determined in the present work while $`\delta M_V^2`$ is of order $`N_c^1`$ and neglected in the present work. Both $`M_V^2`$ and $`\delta M_V^2`$ come from the quark-antiquark core of the physical $`\rho `$-meson, whereas $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the self-energy of the $`\rho `$-meson caused by the pion cloud. $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is also of order $`N_c^1`$ but its physical origin makes it different from $`\delta M_V^2`$. In view of the promising results obtained in this work the appearing picture is that $`1/N_c`$-corrections can be neglected at the quark level but should be considered at the hadronic level, e.g. to obtain a finite width for the resonance. Obviously, at the present stage there is no deeper justification for that point of view.

In principle, the same reasoning holds for the chiral limit. There, however, it is more straightforward how to relax that restriction. E.g. one might treat up- and down-quarks in the chiral limit but consider finite strange-quark masses. In such an approach one can try to determine the properties of the $`K^{}`$-resonances along the lines presented here. Keeping finite quark masses, however, involves low-energy constants beyond the ones presented in (6). While the latter are parameter-free, this fortunate feature does not hold for the former. Hence a stronger model dependence will appear in the calculation of $`K^{}`$ properties. Of course, one can take the argument around and pretend to learn something more about the quark model. In any case, this is beyond the scope of the present work.

Another possible extension of the work presented here concerns the in-medium modifications of the $`\rho `$-meson properties. At finite temperature the thermally excited pions change the properties of the $`\rho `$-meson. In the framework of the IAM this has been addressed in Dobado et al. (2002). However, in addition the underlying quark structure might change at finite temperature. In other words, the IAM can deal with a $`\chi `$PT lagrangian also at finite temperature. But whether the low-energy coefficients of this lagrangian have an intrinsic temperature dependence cannot be decided in a purely hadronic model. Again one can start with the chiral constituent quark model and integrate out the quarks for the finite temperature case. In this way one obtains a $`\chi `$PT lagrangian with temperature dependent coefficients. This can serve as an input for the IAM to obtain the properties of $`\rho `$-mesons at finite temperature. Work in this direction is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Ulrich Mosel for discussions and continuous support. He also acknowledges stimulating discussions with Carsten Greiner, Eugenio Marco and Stefan Scherer.


format: text

text:
# Observation of two relaxation mechanisms in transport between spin split edge states at high imbalance

## I introduction

In a quantizing magnetic field, energy levels in a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) bend up near the edges of the sample, forming edge states (ES) at the lines of intersection with the Fermi level. According to the picture of Büttiker buttiker , transport in two dimensional electron systems takes place mostly in ES because of a zero bulk dissipative conductivity in the quantum Hall effect regime. This single-particle picture was modified by Shklovskii et al. shklovsky , taking into account electrostatic interactions between electrons. This leads to the appearance of a set of incompressible and compressible strips near the 2DEG edge. This ES picture is nowadays widely accepted and in good agreement with experimental results haug .

Several experiments were performed, investigating not only transport along the 2DEG edge but also inter-edge-state charge transfer haug . In charge transfer between the two spin-split ES of the lowest Landau level, the necessity for spin-flips diminishes the tunneling probability. For this reason, the equilibration length between spin-split edge states can be as high as 1 mm at low temperatures, despite the large spatial overlap of electron wave functions gusev ; muller .

Formerly, the electron spin-flip was attributed to spin-orbit coupling muller ; khaetskii  while today it is known that the electron spin-flip can be accompanied by the spin-flop of a nucleus (so-called dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP)) near the edge dixon ; komiyama ; komiyama2 . A key feature of this effect is a pronounced hysteresis of the $`IV`$ traces due to the high nuclear-spin-lattice relaxation time $`T_1`$, which was also reported for the bulk dobers ; berg ; kane ; portal .

Most experiments on the charge transfer between ES were performed using the so-called cross-gate technique haug1  where current is injected into one outer ES. The resistance of this outer ES reflects the current redistribution among all participating ES. To see a significant effect, the size of the interaction region has to be comparable with the equilibration length muller . For this reason the cross-gate method is not suitable to study electron transport at high imbalance between ES with a negligible current between them. On the other hand, new physical effects such as a hysteresis due to the switching of the positions of two ES bauer , are predicted in the regime of high imbalance.

Here we apply a quasi-Corbino geometryalida  to study electron transport between spin-resolved ES at high imbalance. We find a pronounced hysteresis in the $`IV`$ curves, originating from slow relaxation processes. We determine characteristic relaxation times to be 25 s and 200 s which points to the presence of two different relaxation mechanisms. These results are discussed in terms of the dynamic nuclear polarization of the edge region via the hyperfine interaction.

## II Samples and experimental technique

The samples are fabricated from two molecular beam epitaxial-grown GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures with different carrier concentrations and mobilities. One of them (A) contains a 2DEG located 70 nm below the surface. The mobility at 4K is 800 000 cm2/Vs and the carrier density 3.7 $`10^{11}`$cm-2. For heterostructure B the corresponding parameters are 110 nm, 2.2 $`10^6`$cm2/Vs and 1.35$`10^{11}`$cm-2. We obtain similar results on samples of both materials. For this reason we restrict the discussion here to results obtained from samples of wafer A.

Samples are patterned in a quasi-Corbino geometry alida  (see Fig. 1). The square-shaped mesa has a rectangular etched region inside. Ohmic contacts are made to the inner and outer edges of the mesa. The top gate does not completely encircle the inner etched region but leaves uncovered a narrow ($`3\mu `$m) strip (gate-gap) of 2DEG at the outer edge of the sample.

In a quantizing magnetic field at integer filling factors (e.g. $`\nu =2`$, see Fig. 1) edge channels are running along the etched edges of the sample. Depleting the 2DEG under the gate to a smaller integer filling factor (e.g. $`g=1`$, as shown in the figure) some channels ($`\nu g`$) are reflected at the gate edge and redirected to the outer edge of the sample. In the gate-gap region, edge channels originating from different contacts run in parallel along the outer (etched) edge of the sample, on a distance determined by the gate-gap width. Thus, the applied geometry allows us to separately contact edge states and bring them into an interaction on a controllable length. A voltage applied between inner and outer ohmic contacts makes it possible to produce a significant imbalance between edge channels because the gate-gap width of a few microns is much smaller than the typical equilibration length between ES (more than $`100\mu `$m at low temperatures muller ; haug ; alida ).

In our experimental set-up, a positive bias $`V>0`$ moves the outer ES down in energy with respect to the inner one (see Fig. 2 b)) (one inner ohmic contact is grounded). Therefore, a small positive bias flattens the edge potential profile between outer and inner edge states. At voltages close to the energy which separates the involved edge states, the potential barrier between edge states disappears and a significant current starts to flow dixon ; alida . In contrast, a negative bias steepens the potential relief (see Fig. 2 c)), so that electrons at any negative bias have to tunnel through the magnetic-field induced barrier. Experimental $`IV`$ traces are expected to be nonlinear and asymmetric with a characteristic onset voltage on the positive branch, roughly equal to the corresponding energy gap (for a more thorough discussion see alida ). A current in this case directly reflects a charge transfer between edge channels in the gate-gap in contrast to the conventional Hall-bar geometry with crossing gates muller . Whereas, no clear onset behaviour can be seen for negative applied voltages.

Adjusting both, magnetic field $`B`$ and gate voltage $`V_g`$, it is possible to change the number of ES in the gate-gap region (equal to the bulk filling factor $`\nu `$) and - independently - the number $`g`$ of ES transmitted under the gate. Thus the applied geometry allows us to study transport between spin-split or cyclotron-split edge channels depending on the adjusted filling factors $`\nu `$ and $`g`$.

We obtain $`IV`$ curves from dc four-point measurements at a temperature of 30 mK in magnetic fields up to 16 T. The measured voltages $`V`$ are always much smaller than the gate voltage, so the electron density under the gate is unchanged during the $`IV`$ sweeps. The results presented in the paper are temperature independent below 0.5 K.

## III Experimental results

A typical $`IV`$ curve is shown in Fig 3 a) for the filling factor combination $`\nu =3,g=2`$. The $`IV`$ trace reflects transport in the gate-gap between cyclotron-split edge states. It is strongly non-linear and asymmetric with a positive onset voltage close to the value of the cyclotron energy alida . The negative branch of the trace changes its slope at a voltage also comparable to $`\mathrm{}\omega _c/e`$, due to the crossing of the outer (partially filled) ES with the excited (empty) level in the inner one.

Figure 3 b) shows an $`IV`$ curve for the filling factor combination $`\nu =3,g=1`$ which corresponds to transport between spin-split ES. The onset voltage on the positive branch is much smaller in this case, because of the smaller value of the spin gap in comparison to the cyclotron gap. However, the most important difference from Fig. 3 a) is a large hysteresis for the negative branch of the $`IV`$ curve.

The curves in Fig. 3 are obtained by continuous sweep from positive to negative currents and vice versa. Increasing the sweep rate increases the hysteresis effect. This indicates that the hysteresis is the result of a long-time relaxation process with a characteristic time comparable to the sweep time of about ten minutes.

The described behaviour is contrary to the one observed for transport through the cyclotron splitting (see Fig. 3 a)) where there is no hysteresis effect discernible. Because of the much smaller bulk 2DEG dissipative conductivity under the gate for cyclotron split filling factors, the obtained hysteresis can not be caused by the charging of the bulk 2DEG. This fact was checked for different filling factor combinations on samples from two different wafers: the hysteresis is present only for transport between spin-split edge channels and there is no hysteresis in the $`IV`$ curves corresponding to cyclotron splitting.

The zero-bias region of the $`IV`$ trace is shown in Fig. 4 for the filling factor combination $`\nu =2,g=1`$. A small hysteresis can also be observed for the positive branch. The asymmetry of the $`IV`$ curve is also reflected in the hysteresis: at negative biases it is more pronounced, while for the positive branch there is only a small hysteresis observable at very small currents.

To directly investigate the time dependence of the relaxation, we measure the change of the voltage drop at different fixed currents. To prepare a stable state of the system, a dwelling current $`I_{dwell}`$ is applied for a time long enough (about 10 minutes) to observe a stable voltage drop. This procedure provides a reproducible initial state of the system. Directly switching to a current $`I`$ after the dwell, we measure the time-dependent voltage drop $`V(t)`$. The resulting $`V(t)`$ curves are well reproducible.

Examples of these $`V(t)`$ dependencies are shown in the insets of Fig. 4. For both, positive and negative branches of the $`IV`$ trace, time-dependent relaxation is measured after dwelling at two different currents $`I_{dwell}^+=111`$ nA (circles) and $`I_{dwell}^{}=222`$ nA (solid curves). It can be seen that both branches of the $`IV`$ traces differ not only in the size of the relaxation (by two orders of magnitude), but also in the dependence on the sign of the dwelling current. For the positive branch ($`I>0`$) $`V(t)`$ curves are qualitatively independent of the sign of $`I_{dwell}`$ and the relaxation always appears as a rising of the resistance. For the negative branch ($`I<0`$), on the other hand, the resistance is increasing with time for negative $`I_{dwell}^{}<0`$ and decreasing for a positive one $`I_{dwell}^+>0`$. Thus, for the negative branch of the $`IV`$ trace the character of the relaxation as well as it s starting value are very sensitive to the sign of $`I_{dwell}`$.

The experimental $`V(t)`$ curves seem to obey an exponential law of relaxation but clearly consist of two different regions. We find that the relaxation curves for transport between two spin-split edge channels at negative currents can well be fitted by a double-exponential decay

$$V(t)=V_0+V_1exp(\frac{t}{\tau _1})+V_2exp(\frac{t}{\tau _2}),$$
(1)
as shown in Fig. 5 (solid curve). For a comparison, a single-exponential fit (dashed curve in Fig. 5) is given, which cannot describe adequately the experimental data, especially for $`t>50`$ s. The inset in semilogarithmic axes demonstrates clearly the presence of the second exponential dependence which especially dominates the long-time behavior.

The decay times obtained from the double-exponential fit are of the order of $`\tau _125s`$ and $`\tau _2200s`$. They are practically independent of the dwelling current and the measurement current. Measurements of the relaxation in tilted fields show that the time constants $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are also independent of the in-plane magnetic field. For positive currents (positive branch of the $`IV`$ trace) the accuracy of the determination of $`\tau _2`$ is smaller than for negative ones because of the smaller value of the relaxation (see inset to Fig. 4).

From the $`V(t)`$ curves the time-independent, steady state of the system can be extrapolated. It can be obtained either from $`V_0`$ as a fitting parameter (see Eq. (1)) or as the last value of the relaxation curve at $`t=600`$ s. The difference is negligible. The resulting steady state $`IV`$ traces are presented in Fig. 6 for two different spin-split filling factor combinations for normal and tilted magnetic fields. It can be seen that the stationary $`IV`$ curves for $`\nu =2,g=1`$ (Fig. 6 a)) are independent of the in-plane-component of the magnetic field. The deviations are of the same order as the difference between two different cooling cycles at zero tilt angle.

For other spin-split filling factor combinations (such as $`\nu =3,g=1`$) a larger number of edge channels is involved in the transport. Besides charge transfer among spin-split ES in the gate-gap, transport between cyclotron-split edge channels has to be taken into account. The cyclotron-splitting is well known cycltilt  to be dependent on the in-plane magnetic field, which is also verified for this sample.

Therefore, there is some influence of the in-plane magnetic field observable on the steady-state $`IV`$ traces (see Fig. 6 b)) for these filling factor combinations. The resistance is decreasing with increasing in-plane magnetic field because of the reduction of the cyclotron gap.

## IV Discussion

For electron transfer between spin-resolved ES it is necessary to change both the spin and the spatial position of the electron. For this reason, we consider three possible mechanisms for the electron transfer: (i) magnetic impurities, (ii) spin-orbit interaction, and (iii) hyperfine interaction. An influence of the magnetic impurities can be excluded because of the high quality of the MBE process for GaAs/AlGaAs and taking into account the fact that our samples, which are grown in two different MBE systems, exhibit similar behavior.

The spin-orbit interaction is well known to be responsible for electron transfer between ES at small imbalance muller ; khaetskii .It should also be taken into account for our samples, that some part of the electrons will relax in this way. However, spin-orbit coupling cannot explain a voltage relaxation on the macroscopic time scale of the order of $`\tau _125s`$. The observed voltage relaxation is also independent of the in-plane magnetic field component, as both the relaxation times $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ and the steady-state of the system are insensitive to the in-plane magnetic field. This is very unusual for the spin-orbit coupling and indicates a different origin of the relaxation for the transport between spin-resolved edge channels. On the other hand, the obtained relaxation time $`\tau _125`$ s is close to the nuclear spin relaxation times in GaAs (of the order of 30 s dixon ; komiyama ). For this reason, the relaxation can be attributed to the hyperfine interaction.

It is a well known fact that the hyperfine interaction in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures is strong enough to have an influence on transport experiments dobers ; berg ; portal . A Hamiltonian of the hyperfine interaction can be written as

$$A𝑰\mathbf{}𝑺=\frac{1}{2}(I^+S^{}+I^{}S^+)+AS_zI_z,$$
(2)
where $`A>0`$ is the hyperfine constant, $`𝑰`$ is the nuclear spin and $`𝑺`$ is the electron spin.

At the temperature of the experiment (30 mK) in a magnetic field (below 16 T) the static nuclear polarization $`I_z`$ by the external magnetic field is negligible. Nevertheless, a significant dynamic polarization of the nuclei is possible: an electron spin-flip causes the spin-flop of a nucleus in the GaAs lattice as described by the first term in Eq. 2 (the so called flip-flop process). Thus, a current flow between spin-resolved edge channels produces a dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) $`I_z`$ in the edge region of the sample dixon ; komiyama . This polarization affects the electron energy through the second term in the Eq. 2 (the Overhauser shift). The influence of the nuclear polarization on the electron energy can be conveniently described by the effective Overhauser field $`B_{Ov}=AI_z/g^{}\mu _B`$ which affects the Zeeman splitting $`g^{}\mu _B(B+B_{Ov})`$.

A different relaxation behavior for positive and negative currents in our experiment can be qualitatively understood in terms of DNP. Let us discuss the filling factor combination $`\nu =2,g=1`$ (Fig. 2). Because of the negative effective $`g`$-factor ($`g^{}=0.44`$ in bulk GaAs), electron spins in the outer ES are polarized in the field direction (”up”-polarization) while in the inner ES they are polarized ”down”.

A negative applied bias shifts the outer ES up in energy with respect to the inner one (see Fig. 2 c)). Electrons tunnel through the incompressible strip between outer and inner ES with a spin-flip from up to down. Some of these electrons relax due to the spin-orbit coupling, changing their energy by phonon emission. Nevertheless, inside the incompressible strip horizontal (in energy) transitions from the filled to empty states are possible due to the flip-flop process. The electron spin-flip from up to down leads to a nuclear spin-flop from down to up. Thus, a current persisting for a long time induces a DNP $`I_z>0`$ in the gate-gap. Because of the negative $`g^{}`$-factor in GaAs, the effective Overhauser field is antiparallel to the external field $`B_{Ov}<0`$ and decreases the value of the Zeeman splitting $`g^{}\mu _B(B+B_{Ov})`$.

For a positive bias exceeding the onset voltage $`V_{on}g^{}\mu B`$, there is no more potential barrier for electrons between edge states (see Fig. 2 b) ). Electrons are flowing from the inner state to the outer ES and rotate the spin in vertical transitions afterwards (e.g. by emitting a photon), possibly far from the gate-gap region. Nevertheless, for a bias $`V>2V_{on}`$ electrons can also tunnel from the filled (spin up) state to the empty one (spin down) in the incompressible strip due to the flip-flop mechanism, relaxing later to the ground state vertically. This flip-flop also produces an ”up” nuclear polarization $`I_z>0`$ in the gate-gap accompanied by an Overhauser field $`B_{Ov}<0`$ antiparallel to the external magnetic field, which diminishes the Zeeman splitting.

The value of the net nuclear polarization $`I_z`$ is therefore determined by the current connected with flip-flop processes which in turn is controlled by the applied bias $`V`$ (see Fig. 2 c) ). Thus, after dwelling at a positive current and switching to a negative one the nuclear polarization (i.e. the Overhauser field) is increasing significantly during the relaxation process, diminishing the Zeeman splitting. As the Zeeman splitting determines the spatial distance between spin-split ES, the tunneling length for the electrons decreases during the relaxation process komiyama . For this reason, in the described situation, the relaxation goes along with a decrease of the resistance, as seen in the experiment (left inset to Fig. 4 (dots)).

Dwelling at a high negative current and switching to a lower one (i.e. closer to the zero), the nuclear polarization is diminishing in value. The corresponding change in the Overhauser field increases the Zeeman splitting. As a result, the tunneling length is rising, leading to an increase of the resistance, as depicted by the solid curve in the left inset to Fig. 4.

After a dwell at a negative or large positive current and switching to a small positive one, the nuclear polarization is always diminishing in value, leading to an increase of the resistance, as can be seen in the right inset to Fig. 4.

The proposed picture is thus in qualitative agreement with the experimental data. The relaxation should take place on a time scale determined by the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation time $`T_1`$ and obey an exponential law.

The presence of the two different relaxation times in the experimental traces can result directly from the injection of spin-polarized electrons in the gate-gap region of the applied experimental geometry (Fig. 2, for a model calculation of a similar problem see pershin ). The characteristic time scale for establishing the Overhauser field in the gate-gap is governed by the applied current and the diffusion of the nuclear polarization from the gate-gap region because of nuclear spin-spin interactions. A combination of these two processes should be responsible for the first relaxation with the characteristic time $`\tau _125`$ s. However, diffusion takes place on length scales much larger than the gate-gap width but smaller than the sample size. The second relaxation process with the characteristic time $`\tau _2`$ of the order of the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation time $`T_1`$ is therefore attributed to the establishing of a stable nuclear polarization outside the gate-gap.

For measurements at constant current the relaxation in voltage reflects not only the change of the spatial positions of spin-split ES, but also directly the Overhauser shift. The latter is negligible for the strong relaxation at negative biases, but becomes significant for positive ones. From the value of the relaxation in this case we can estimate the Overhauser shift $`AI_zS_z\mathrm{\Delta }V^+100\mu `$ V, which gives a value of the Overhauser field $`B_{Ov}=\mathrm{\Delta }V^+/(g^{}\mu _B)4`$ T. This value is smaller than the highest Overhauser field (5.3 T) reported for GaAs safarov  and close to the value reported for DNP in heterostructures dixon . On the other hand, $`B_{Ov}=4`$ T is strong enough to significantly change the Zeeman splitting in the external field of 7.7 T (which corresponds to $`\nu =2`$ in the bulk) which gives further support for the proposed picture.

## V Conclusion

Performing direct measurements of the electron transport between spin-split edge states at high imbalance, we found a long-time relaxation in contrast to charge transfer between cyclotron-split edge states. The determined characteristic times are of the order of 25 s and 200 s which points to the presence of two different relaxation mechanisms. We attribute this relaxation to the formation of a dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) near the sample edge. The presence of the two relaxation mechanisms is interpreted as the formation of a DNP inside the gate-gap region due to flip-flop processes and outside it as a consequence of the diffusion of nuclear spins. We also found that an in-plane magnetic field has no influence both on the relaxation between two spin-split edge channels and on the steady-state of the system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Dr. A.A. Shashkin for help during the experiments and discussions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SPP ”Quantum Hall Systems”, under grant LO 705/1-1. The part of the work performed in Russia was supported by RFBR, the programs ”Nanostructures” and ”Mesoscopics” from the Russian Ministry of Sciences. V.T.D. acknowledges support by A. von Humboldt foundation.


text:
# Three particle states and 𝑡-exchanges

## 1 Introduction

The handling of $`t`$-exchanges in scattering experiments requires serious consideration. It is the first and dominant process involving multi-particle states, which is relevant for the study of hadronic resonances at energies of the second resonance region ($`1.5`$ GeV and above). In most approaches three and more particle states are handled as effective two-particle states. The state with one nucleon and two pions is often modeled as a rho-nucleon or a sigma-nucleon state. However, if the higher resonances are to be understood in a model-independent way, the three-particle states, and the non-resonant production processes, such as the $`t`$-exchange processes should be handled in their full glory. Fundamentally, this is not a big problem; the theory is well understood. However, practically it is a different story. Central to the computational problems lie the singularities associated with the three-particle states going on-shell. It should be noted that in a simplistic Yukawa treatment of the $`t`$-exchange, ignoring the energy dependence of the exchange diagram, such a problem does not occur. However, if the three-particle states and the singularities are treated seriously, they should be regulated and integrated over which requires three scales: the regulation scale $`ϵ`$ $``$ the integration scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $``$ the physical scale $`\mu `$. Every problem is big in numerical sense, because the handling of triple scales. Furthermore, if one works with momentum variables, the singularities form curves in the kinematical domain, so extra care is required to locate the singularities and extrema on the curve with respect to the chosen grid. In terms of energy variables the position of the singularity is obvious; when the scattering energy equals the three-particle energy, however, the numerical integration still requires great care. In recent years some methods, such as the Lorentz transform, have been developed, which essentially takes one away from the real axis and the singularities, however, they are rather complicated.

In this paper another approach is investigated. Central is the expansion of the amplitudes and relevant function in an orthogonal basis with known dispersion integrals, which absolves one from doing any singular integration. In terms of bookkeeping it does require a serious effort, as one should keep track of the real and imaginary parts of both the two-particle and the three-particle thresholds and amplitudes. The threshold of the three-particle state depends on the two-particle states from which it originates; if the two-particle state has zero momentum, i.e., $`E=m_a+m_b`$, the three-particle state it produces can have zero momentum for all particles too, and its threshold lies at $`E=m_a+m_b+\mu `$, while if the two-particle state has a higher momentum, the threshold of the three-particle states it can produces will lie appropriately higher. Furthermore, given the energies of the initial and final two-particle state $`\omega _i`$ and $`\omega _f`$, there is an upper bound to the energy of the three-particle state it can produce in the $`t`$-exchange where the exchange particle is emitted from particle $`a`$:

$$E_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}=\sqrt{(k_i\pm k_f)^2+\mu ^2}+\sqrt{k_i^2+m_b^2}+\sqrt{k_f^2+m_a^2},$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is the momentum associated with the energy $`\omega `$:

$$k=\frac{\sqrt{(\omega ^2m_a^2m_b^2)^24m_a^2m_b^2}}{2\omega }.$$
(2)
Eventually, the kinematical restrictions on a two-particle state in a given partial wave will lead to a set of three-particle states, which can be labeled by the angle between the momentum of the exchange particle and the momentum of the two-particle state. This integration can be performed analytically and leads in the case of a two-particle $`s`$-wave to a second-order transition amplitude:

$$T^{(0)}(E,\omega _i,\omega _f)=\frac{g^2}{k_ik_f}\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{EE_{\mathrm{min}}}{EE_{\mathrm{max}}}\right],$$
(3)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant, and numerical factors are ignored. The three-particle state in now implicitly defined through the imaginary part of the two-particle to two-particle transition, which saves one from constructing a basis for the three-particle states. As every three-particle state follows from the emission of an exchange particle from the two-particle state, the three-particle amplitude is given by the two-particle amplitude times the imaginary part of the elementary transition amplitude $`T^{(0)}`$. The two-particle amplitude is determined from solving the Lipmann-Schwinger equation with the elementary transition amplitudes like $`T^{(0)}`$ in the kernel.

The real part of the amplitude is dominant. The leading order imaginary part is the first order process given by the imaginary part of $`T^{(0)}`$. However, as with most problems, the qualitative changes in the results through the imaginary parts, i.e., on-shell three-particle states, can only be understood properly if they are included in the calculation.

Making a separable expansion of the amplitude lies at the basis of an effective method to sum the processes to all order to yield a unitary and analytic transition amplitude:

$$T^{(0)}(E,\omega _i,\omega _f)=\underset{lm}{}\alpha _{lm}\varphi _l^{(E)}(\omega _i)\varphi _m^{(E)}(\omega _f),$$
(4)
where one should take care the the basis $`\varphi _a^{(E)}(\omega )`$ is orthogonal (or band-diagonal, such as splines) for a well defined expansion, and it has known dispersion integrals:

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{lm}^{(E)}(E^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }𝑑\omega \frac{\varphi _l^{(E)}(\omega )\varphi _m^{(E)}(\omega )}{E^{}\omega }$$
(5)
The real part of the amplitude spans the full kinematical domain $`m_a+m_b<\omega `$, hence an expansion in $`\xi =(\omega ^2(m_a+m_b)^2)/\omega ^2[0,1]`$ can serve as a basis $`\varphi _l(\omega )`$:

$$\varphi _l(\omega )=\sqrt{4l+2}\frac{(m_a+m_b)}{\omega ^{3/2}}P_l\left(2\xi 1\right),$$
(6)
for products of which a closed form dispersion integral can be calculated. Therefore, for the expansion of the real part of $`T^{(0)}`$ the suffix “$`E`$” is not necessary.

However, the imaginary part of $`T^{(0)}`$ is only non-zero in a restricted but infinite domain of $`E\omega _i\omega _f`$; when the scattering energy $`E`$ lies in between $`E_{\mathrm{min}}(\omega _i,\omega _f)`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}(\omega _i,\omega _f)`$. The domain in the $`\omega _i\omega _f`$ space given a scattering energy $`E`$ is the energy equivalent of the smooth triangular kinematical region of a Dalitz plot, where the each of the corners is sharper if the energy is larger compared to the mass $`m_a`$, $`m_b`$, or $`\mu `$. As the energies $`E`$, $`\omega _i`$, and $`\omega _f`$ increase, the domain approaches the triangular area:

$$E<\omega _i+\omega _f\mathrm{and}E>\omega _i\mathrm{and}E>\omega _f.$$
(7)
This correlation between the variables does not allow for a separable expansion of the imaginary part of $`T^{(0)}`$.

It seems that a useful parametrization of Dalitz plot amplitudes and it generalization to more particles and more dimensions does not yet exist. In the massless case, the domain is a simplex on which Appell polynomials and generalized mappings of orthogonal polynomials from the $`n`$-ball to the $`n`$-simplex form a multi-dimensional basis. In the massive case a system of a weight function that serves also as domain definition times polynomials $`P_I`$ in the single particle energies $`ϵ`$ of the three or more particle state might serve many needs:

$$\varphi _I=\theta \left(EE_{\mathrm{edge}}\right)\left(EE_{\mathrm{edge}}\right)^\beta P_I^{(\beta )}(ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_{n1}),$$
(8)
such that

$$_{\mathrm{domain}E}𝑑ϵ_1\mathrm{}𝑑ϵ_{n1}\varphi _I\varphi _J=\delta _{IJ}.$$
(9)
For each case of different masses ($`\pi \pi N,\pi \rho N`$, etc) the coefficients of the orthogonal polynomials $`P_I`$ must be determined. Furthermore, the dispersion integrals must be calculated for both:

$$\frac{1}{\pi }𝑑\omega \frac{\varphi _I\varphi _J}{E\omega }\mathrm{and}\frac{1}{\pi }𝑑\omega \frac{\varphi _I}{E\omega }.$$
(10)
However, after this preliminary work, the calculation of analytic and unitarity transition amplitudes that incorporate resonant and $`t`$-exchange contributions, and three-particle final states will be a straighforward problem. This work is under investigation.