text:
# Fano resonances in the overlapping regime

## Abstract

The line shape of resonances in the overlapping regime is studied by using the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the effective Hamiltonian of an open quantum system. A generalized expression $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ for the Fano parameter of the resonance state $`k`$ is derived that contains the interaction of the state $`k`$ with neighboured states $`lk`$ via the continuum. It is energy dependent since the coupling coefficients between the state $`k`$ and the continuum show a resonance-like behaviour at the energies of the neighboured states $`lk`$. Under certain conditions, the energy dependent $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ are equivalent to the generalized complex energy independent Fano parameters that are introduced by Kobayashi et al. in analyzing experimental data. Long-lived states appear mostly isolated from one another in the cross section, also when they are overlapped by short-lived resonance states. The $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ of narrow resonances allow therefore to study the complicated interplay between different time scales in the regime of overlapping resonance states by controlling them as a function of an external parameter.

The line shape of resonances is studied in many different physical systems. A resonance has a symmetrical Breit-Wigner line shape when it is far in energy from other resonances and from particle decay thresholds, and when there is no interference with any smooth background. Such a situation is seldom met in realistic systems. The interference with an energy independent background is taken into account in the approach suggested by Fano  for the description of autoionizing atomic states. The parametrization of the cross section can explain the asymmetry of the line shape of isolated resonances. This method was extended later to the many-channel problem and to the overlapping between broad and narrow resonances, see  and the recent papers .

Deviations from the Breit-Wigner resonance form appear also when the width of the resonance state itself is energy dependent. This happens, above all, in the neighbourhood of particle decay thresholds. Under certain conditions, the Breit-Wigner resonance shape turns over even into a cusp . Furthermore, the tail of bound states (with position below the first decay threshold) can be seen in the cross section at positive energy and may even interfere with resonance states lying at these positive energies .

Energy dependent effects may appear, however, also far from thresholds when the individual resonance states start to overlap . Here, interferences between the different resonance states having different lifetimes, as well as with a smooth background may cause altogether a complicated behaviour of the cross section in the neighbourhood of the narrow resonance states. Experimental studies are performed on microwave cavities as a function of the degree of opening of the cavity . In atoms, laser-induced structures are studied theoretically in the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian approach . In these cases, the line shape can be controlled by means of the parameters of the laser field. A systematic experimental study is not performed, up to now.

The situation is especially complicated when the narrow resonance states are well separated from one another in the cross section and, nevertheless, overlapped by one or more broad ones and, furthermore, the cross section contains a smooth (energy-independent) part. The line shape of these resonances is studied in detail experimentally and theoretically in atoms with Rydberg series overlapped by an intruder, e.g.  and the textbook .

Another example are the neutron resonances in heavy nuclei the line shape of which is not studied, up to now. They represent a realistic example of a Gaussian orthogonal ensemble. These resonances do not decay according to an exponential law as shown theoretically  as well as experimentally . Thus, their line shape cannot be of Breit-Wigner or Fano type with energy-independent coupling coefficients between resonance states and continuum although the resonances are well separated in energy from one another.

Recently, the line shape of resonances as well as phase jumps of the transmission amplitudes have been discussed in experiments on electron transport through mesoscopic systems . The advantage of these experiments consists in the fact that the key parameters are tuned, and the interference leading to Fano resonances is studied in greater detail. In , the conductance through a quantum dot in an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer is controlled by varying the strength of the magnetic field. The authors claim that the Fano parameter $`q`$ has to be extended to a complex number. The physical meaning of this result remains an open problem.

In order to understand the phase jumps, the effects of the signs of the dot-lead matrix elements onto the appearance of transmission zeros and the phases of the transmission amplitudes have been studied theoretically, e.g. . These studies do not use the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian of the system in calculating the coupling matrix elements. Such a study is justified by the fact that the profile of the Fano resonances is independent of the special properties of the system, indeed . However, the simple relation between the standard Fano parameters and the coupling coefficients between system and environment holds only in the regime of non-overlapping resonances. In the overlapping regime, the coupling coefficients are energy dependent .

The line shape of resonances in the overlapping regime is studied in  for laser-induced structures in atoms. The formalism used is the effective Hamiltonian describing open quantum systems. It can be applied to the study of the resonance phenomena in the non-overlapping regime as well as in the overlapping regime . The formalism of the effective Hamiltonian can be used also for the description of quantum dots. It gives reliable results not only when the dot-lead matrix elements are small but also when they are large . An interesting feature, proven experimentally , is that narrow resonances appear for both small and large dot-lead (or cavity-lead) coupling coefficients. In the last case, they coexist with broad resonances and appear mostly as dips in the transmission .

It is the aim of the present paper to study the line shape of resonances in the overlapping regime on the basis of the formalism of the effective Hamiltonian $``$. This Hamiltonian appears in the subspace of discrete states after embedding it into the continuum (subspace of scattering states). It contains the Hamiltonian of the corresponding closed system as well as the coupling matrix elements between system and environment. It is non-Hermitian and its eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{}_k`$ and eigenfunctions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_k`$ are complex and energy dependent. The eigenvalues provide the poles of the $`S`$ matrix and the eigenfunctions are used for the calculation of the coupling matrix elements between system and environment, i.e. for the numerators of the $`S`$ matrix in pole representation. The formalism is described in detail in the recent review .

In the overlapping regime, different time scales exist simultaneously due to the different crossings of the resonance states in the complex plane that are avoided, as a rule . The avoided crossings can be traced, as a function of a certain parameter, in the trajectories of the eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{}_k=\stackrel{~}{E}_k\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k`$ of the non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian $``$. Characteristic of the motion of the poles of the $`S`$ matrix are the following generic results obtained for very different systems in the overlapping regime: the trajectories of the $`S`$ matrix poles avoid crossing with the only exception of exact crossing when the $`S`$ matrix has a double (or multiple) pole. At the avoided crossing, either level repulsion or level attraction occurs. The first case is caused by a predominantly real interaction between the crossing states and is accompanied by the tendency to form a uniform time scale of the system. Level attraction occurs, however, when the interaction is dominated by its imaginary part arising from the coupling via the continuum. It is accompanied by the formation of different time scales in the system: while some of the states decouple (partly) from the continuum and become long-lived (trapped), a few of the states become short-lived and wrap the long-lived ones in the cross section. The dynamics of quantum systems at high level density is determined by the interplay of these two opposite tendencies . The Fano parameters reflect this interplay as will be shown in the following.

Let us recall the $`S`$ matrix for an isolated resonance state $`k=1`$ in the one-channel case,

$`S(E)=1i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}{E\stackrel{~}{}_1}}.`$ (1)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{}_1=\stackrel{~}{E}_1\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$ is the complex energy of the resonance state (eigenvalue of the effective Hamiltonian) and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$ are its position in energy and width, respectively. The $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ are related to the coupling matrix elements between the resonance state and the continuum that are calculated by means of the eigenfunctions of the effective Hamiltonian. From the unitarity of the $`S`$ matrix follows $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$ for an isolated resonance state, since Eq. (1) can, in the one-resonance-one-channel case, then be written as

$`S(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E\stackrel{~}{}_1^{}}{E\stackrel{~}{}_1}}.`$ (2)
The $`S`$ matrix (2) is unitar. In the following, we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is nearly constant inside the energy range of interest.

The unitar representation of the $`S`$ matrix in the one-channel case with two resonance states ($`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) and a smooth reaction part can be written as

$`S(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta ){\displaystyle \frac{E\stackrel{~}{}_1^{}}{E\stackrel{~}{}_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{E\stackrel{~}{}_2^{}}{E\stackrel{~}{}_2}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{2i\left(\delta +\delta _1(E)+\delta _2(E)\right)\}.`$ (4)
Here, $`\delta `$ is the phase shift related to the smooth part, and

$`\delta _k(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arccot}\epsilon _k`$ (5)
with

$`\epsilon _k={\displaystyle \frac{2(E\stackrel{~}{E}_k)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k}}.`$ (6)
Using these expressions, the cross section reads

$`\sigma (E)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(1\mathrm{Re}S(E)\right)=2\left[1\mathrm{cos}(2\delta +2\delta _1(E)+2\delta _2(E))\right]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\delta +\delta _1(E)+\delta _2(E)\right).`$ (8)
In the vicinity of the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ of the resonance state 1 one gets from (8)

$`\sigma (E)`$ $`=`$ $`4\left[\mathrm{sin}\eta (E)\mathrm{cos}\delta _1(E)+\mathrm{sin}\delta _1(E)\mathrm{cos}\eta (E)\right]^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{sin}^2\eta (E){\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{cot}\eta (E)+\mathrm{cot}\delta _1(E)]^2}{\mathrm{sec}^2\delta _1(E)}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{sin}^2\eta (E){\displaystyle \frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{q}_1(E)+\epsilon _1\right)^2}{\epsilon _1^2+1}}`$ (11)
where $`\eta (E)\delta +\delta _2(E)`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{q}_1(E)=\mathrm{cot}\eta (E)={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _2\mathrm{cot}\delta +1}{\mathrm{cot}\delta \epsilon _2}}.`$ (12)
Eq. (11) is the Fano representation of the cross section in the neighbourhood of the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ of the resonance state 1 with interference contributions from the resonance state 2 and the smooth reaction part. The Fano parameter $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ is an energy dependent function. It is $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1(E)=\epsilon _2`$ when $`\delta 0`$, and the energy dependence plays a role only for overlapping resonance states. For non-overlapping resonance states 1 and 2 (i.e., $`\epsilon _2\pm \mathrm{}`$ at the energy $`E`$ of the resonance state 1) follows $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1=\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ independently of $`E`$ in agreement with . In the other extreme case of a very broad resonance state 2 ($`\epsilon _20`$) $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1=\mathrm{tan}\delta `$ is also independent of $`E`$ but differs from the foregoing case by the additional phase $`\pi /2`$. It is easy to generalize (11) to include the contributions from additional resonance states ($`\eta (E)=\delta +_{k>1}\delta _k(E)`$).

The energy dependence of the $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is caused by the energy dependence of the coupling coefficients between system and continuum as will be shown in the following. Assuming $`\delta 0`$, two resonance states and one common channel, the pole representation

$`S(E)=1i{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_k}{E\stackrel{~}{}_k}}`$ (13)
of the $`S`$ matrix can be derived from (4) in different ways.

(i) $`U_k=W_k`$ are energy independent,

$`W_k`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k\left(1i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lk}}{\stackrel{~}{}_{lk}\stackrel{~}{}_k}}\right).`$ (14)
In deriving (14) from (3), the standard representation of the term

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_1)(E\stackrel{~}{}_2)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_1)(\stackrel{~}{}_2\stackrel{~}{}_1)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_2)(\stackrel{~}{}_2\stackrel{~}{}_1)}$$

is used. The cross section reads

$`\sigma (E)=\sigma _{a1}{\displaystyle \frac{(q+\epsilon _1)^2+A_1}{\epsilon _1^2+1}}+\sigma _{a2}{\displaystyle \frac{(q+\epsilon _2)^2+A_2}{\epsilon _2^2+1}}+\sigma _b`$ (15)
with the parameters

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{12}={\displaystyle \frac{2(\stackrel{~}{E}_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}}A_k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lk}}}(\epsilon _{12}^2+1)+2(1\epsilon _{12}^2)`$ (16)
and

$`\sigma _{ak}={\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lk}}{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_l)(\epsilon _{12}^2+1)}}\sigma _b={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\epsilon _{12}^2+1}}`$ (17)
that are all energy independent. The parametric expression (15) for the cross section is similar to that given in  for the case of one resonance state coupled to several decaying channels. The parameter $`q`$ can be considered as Fano parameter. In our case of one resonance state coupled to another one, the contributions to each resonance state in (15) are modified by the additional term $`A_k`$. According to (17), it is $`\sigma _{a1}+\sigma _{a2}+\sigma _b=0`$, and at least one of the parameters $`\sigma _{ak}`$ is negative. This parameter has no physical meaning at all. The two parameters $`q`$ and $`A_k`$ are not defined at a double pole of the $`S`$ matrix since they are singular when the double pole is approached along the real energy axis. That means also the $`W_k`$ have, in this case, no physical meaning. The singularities in (16) and (17) appearing in approaching a double pole of the $`S`$ matrix cancel each other in the expression for the cross section.

For overlapping resonance states with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{E}_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2|<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2/2`$, it holds $`\epsilon _{12}^2<1`$. In this case, the $`A_k`$ are positive and it is possible to introduce complex energy independent Fano parameters

$`q_kq+iA_k^{1/2}`$ (18)
in the equation (15) for the cross section,

$`\sigma (E)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}\sigma _{ak}{\displaystyle \frac{|q_k+\epsilon _k|^2}{\epsilon _k^2+1}}+\sigma _b.`$ (19)
This is in analogy to the result obtained in  from the analysis of experimental data. It is also similar to an expression for the Fano parameter obtained in a completely different approach .

(ii) $`U_k=\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ are energy dependent,

$`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k\left(1i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lk}}{2E\stackrel{~}{}_k\stackrel{~}{}_{lk}}}\right).`$ (20)
In deriving (20), the non-standard representation of the term

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_1)(E\stackrel{~}{}_2)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_1)(2E\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{~}{}_2)}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}{(E\stackrel{~}{}_2)(2E\stackrel{~}{}_1\stackrel{~}{}_2)}$$

is used. The $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ have a physical meaning also in the overlapping regime. They are the coupling coefficients between the states of the system and the continuum that are calculated for realistic systems in the framework of a unified description of structure and reaction aspects , i.e. by means of the eigenfunctions of the effective Hamiltonian. As can be seen from (20), the energy dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ appears due to its resonance behaviour at the energy of another resonance state $`lk`$. This is in complete agreement with (12) for the energy dependent Fano parameter $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$: near the energy of the resonance state 1, the cross section is given by (11) with the Fano parameter (12). Furthermore, the $`S`$ matrix goes over smoothly in

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`12i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d}{E\stackrel{~}{E}_d+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d^2}{(E\stackrel{~}{E}_d+\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d)^2}}`$ (21)
when $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_d`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d`$ (double pole of the $`S`$ matrix, see ). The second term corresponds to the usual linear term while the third term is quadratic. The interference between these two parts is illustrated in Fig. 1 where the cross section is shown for the case of two resonance states with equal positions $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d`$ and widths $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_d`$, coupled to one channel, for different $`\delta `$. The asymmetry of the line shape of both peaks is, in the case $`\delta =0`$ (Fig. 1.a), caused solely by the overlapping of the two resonance states. For comparison, the cross section with the two resonance states without any coupling between them is also shown in Fig. 1 (dashed curves).

The energy independent coupling coefficients $`W_k`$, Eq. (14), lose their physical meaning in the overlapping regime, since here the energy dependence of the coupling coefficients of the resonance states to the continuum can not be neglected (see  and  for numerical examples). It is different from that of the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k`$ even in the one-channel case due to the biorthogonality of the wave functions of the resonance states . Nevertheless, the two representations of the $`S`$ matrix (13) with energy independent $`W_k`$ and energy dependent $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ are equivalent in almost all cases. At the double pole of the $`S`$ matrix, however, the $`W_k`$ have a singularity while the $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$ behave smoothly. Since $`\sigma (E)=|1S(E)|^2`$, the energy independent Fano parameters can be expressed by $`W_k`$ and the energy dependent ones by $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k`$. That means, also the energy independent Fano parameters lose their physical meaning in the overlapping regime.

As can be seen from (12), the energy dependent Fano parameter $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ contains the influence from other resonance states and the background without any contribution from its own $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k`$. Also $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k`$ is not directly involved in the expression for the $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ allows therefore to analyze, in a very transparent manner, the mutial influence of resonance states in the overlapping region in the neighbourhood of the resonance state $`k`$. This is in contrast to the energy independent Fano parameters $`q`$ that are more complicated for an interpretation of the data. According to (16), they contain the contributions from neighbouring resonance states together with their own parameters.

In the multi-channel case, the matrix elements $`S_{cc^{}}`$ are of the same structure as those given in (13) for the one-channel case. The coupling coefficients

$`U_k^{cc^{}}=\stackrel{~}{W}_k^{cc^{}}(\stackrel{~}{W}_k^c)^{1/2}(\stackrel{~}{W}_k^c^{})^{1/2}`$ (22)
in $`S_{cc^{}}`$ are, generally, complex and energy dependent . In the two-resonance case, the $`S`$ matrix elements (with $`\delta =0`$) are

$`S_{cc^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{cc^{}}i{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{W}_k^c)^{1/2}(\stackrel{~}{W}_k^c^{})^{1/2}}{E\stackrel{~}{}_k}}iX_{12}^{cc^{}}.`$ (23)
Here, the $`X_{12}^{cc^{}}1/\left((E\stackrel{~}{}_1)(E\stackrel{~}{}_2)\right)`$ can be parametrized by means of energy dependent as well as by energy independent parameters in the same manner as in the one-channel case. The energy independent parameters have, however, no physical meaning at all in the overlapping regime.

We discuss now the behaviour of the $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ in more detail. It follows immediately from (12) that $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1(E)=0`$ at the energy

$`E=\stackrel{~}{E}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2\mathrm{tan}\delta .`$ (24)
When this condition is fulfilled in the neighbourhood of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2`$, then the narrow resonance state appears as a window-type resonance (dip) in the cross section ($`q`$ reversal ), see Fig. 2.a, full curve. It occurs, however, as a Breit-Wigner type resonance when

$`E=\stackrel{~}{E}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2\mathrm{cot}\delta `$ (25)
is fulfilled near $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$, see Fig. 2.b, full curve. In Fig. 2, the narrow resonance 1 is overlapped by the broad resonance 2 ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1=0.1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_1=0.5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2=1.1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2`$) and interferes with the smooth reaction part. Fig. 2 remains almost unchanged by varying $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2`$ and correspondingly $`\delta _0`$, as long as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$. We underline that the narrow resonance 1 appears in the cross section as an isolated peak in spite of the overlapping of the resonance state 1 with the broad resonance state 2. The reason is that Eq. (25) is fulfilled near the energy of the narrow resonance, but not Eq. (24), due to the interference with the smooth part.

The contour plot of the cross section (Fig. 2 bottom) shows that its resonance structure varies periodically with the phase $`\delta `$ of the background for fixed energies $`E`$. Accordingly, the asymmetry of the line shape varies between $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1\mathrm{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1+\mathrm{}`$ periodically (as can be seen also directly from the analytical expression (12) for $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$). Such a behaviour is observed experimentally in the conductance peaks through a quantum dot as a function of the strength of the magnetic field  (that has obviously a small influence on the position and width of the narrow resonances). The complex Fano parameters introduced in  from a fit of the data, simulate the overlapping of the studied narrow resonance state by a broad resonance state and the phase dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ in the overlapping regime. This conclusion follows from the numerical study shown in Fig. 2 as well as from the analytical study resulting in Eqs. (18) and (19) for this case.

In both representations, Eqs. (12) and (18), the Fano parameter is generalized when applied to resonances in the overlapping regime. Both representations are equivalent in most cases. The difference between both generalizations can be seen best when applied to an analysis of the data in the vicinity of the energy of one of the resonance states. The energy independent complex parameter (18) contains the energies and widths of both resonance states, so that it is difficult to receive spectroscopic information. The energy dependent value (12), however, contains the influence of only the other resonance state allowing an analysis in a very transparent manner. This property qualifies the energy dependent Fano parameter (12) for the description of resonances in the overlapping regime. We underline, however, that the $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k(E)`$ are not suitable for the parametrization of the cross section around a double pole of the $`S`$ matrix due to the quadratic term appearing in (21). Here, the cross section can be parametrized as $`\sigma (E)=16\mathrm{cos}^2\delta [(\stackrel{~}{q}_d(E)+\epsilon _d)^2/(\epsilon _d^2+1)^2]`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{q}_d(E)=\frac{1}{2}(1\epsilon _d^2)\mathrm{tan}\delta `$ and $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _d`$.

It would be interesting to look for the broad resonance state(s) and to study its (their) influence on other narrow resonances in detail. According to our study, the broad resonance may exist in the arm or it may coexist with the narrow resonances in the quantum dot itself. The last possibility can not be excluded theoretically. Quite on the contrary, it corresponds to the results obtained for other small quantum systems where resonance states (eigenstates of the effective Hamiltonian) of very different lifetimes are known to coexist . An experimental study of this question would allow to see generic features of open quantum systems also in quantum dots. Furthermore, results from the interference between two resonance states in the very neighbourhood of a double pole of the $`S`$ matrix (that can be studied in a symmetrical device with two quantum dots) will prove the resonance scenario described by an effective Hamiltonian as discussed in the present paper.

Summarizing, we conclude that the line shape of narrow resonances in the overlapping regime contains information on generic properties of open quantum systems. One of these properties is the existence of different time scales that are involved in the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the effective Hamiltonian of the system. A control by external parameters allows to trace their formation by opening the system and to study their interesting interplay. A direct experimental study of the generic resonance features in, e.g., atomic nuclei is difficult due to the strong residual interaction between the participating particles in nuclei. Quantum dots are much more suitable for such a study due to the flexibility in controlling the system by means of different external parameters. Further experimental as well as theoretical studies are highly desirable for both a better understanding of generic properties of open quantum systems and the construction of quantum dots with special properties.

We are indebted to J.M. Rost for valuable discussions. A.I.M. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Modern few-nucleon calculations are in principle a rich source of information about the nuclear force, provided that numerical results can be obtained with sufficient precision. The required level of precision depends sensitively on the observable being calculated. That level ranges from modest in the case of unpolarized observables such as the differential cross section to high in the case of some polarization observables, since the latter often depend on delicate cancellations between partial waves. One of the strengths of the few-nucleon field is that accurate calculations for realistic potentials are now routine.

One of the consequences of this numerical precision requirement is that a substantial number of partial waves may be required. This is not such a dire problem for momentum-space techniques, many of which generate a Born series for the T-matrix as the preferred method of solution. Such a series should converge faster as the angular momentum increases. That is not the case, however, in configuration space, where each partial wave is solved in its entirety. Because more and more partial waves of the potential contribute as the angular momentum increases, this significantly increasing effort is rewarded by decreasing return as the size of higher-partial-wave T-matrix elements becomes smaller and smaller. One way to increase efficiency in the process is to use the Born approximation for higher partial waves, which significantly reduces the effort.

We detail below several pitfalls that arise in defining the Born approximation using configuration-space Faddeev techniques. While none of these difficulties are very important in practical calculations (although this is not a priori obvious), it is nevertheless worthwhile to avoid them altogether. These problems are derived in Section 2 for the Born approximation (BA) and in Section 3 for the distorted-wave Born approximation (DWBA), and a few numerical results are given and discussed in Section 4, which is followed by our summary and conclusions. We restrict ourselves to energies below the deuteron-breakup threshold, and we ignore three-nucleon forces, which are an inessential complication.

## 2 Faddeev Equations and the Born Approximation

The Faddeev decomposition in configuration space can be pictured most easily as dividing the wave function into parts corresponding to different asymptotic processes. For three (identical) particles this leads to three equations

$$(ETV_i)\psi _i=V_i(\psi _j+\psi _k),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`i,j,k`$ take on the values of the cyclic permutations of 1, 2, and 3, and $`V_iV(𝐱_i)`$. The Schrödinger wave function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _1(𝐱_1,𝐲_1)+\psi _2(𝐱_2,𝐲_2)+\psi _3(𝐱_3,𝐲_3),$$
$`(2)`$
with arguments fashioned from the coordinates, $`𝐫_i`$, of all $`i`$ particles:

$$𝐱_i𝐫_j𝐫_k,$$
$`(3a)`$
and

$$𝐲_i\frac{1}{2}(𝐫_j+𝐫_k)𝐫_i.$$
$`(3b)`$
The coordinate $`𝐱_i`$ is the distance between particles $`j`$ and $`k`$, while $`𝐲_i`$ is the distance between particle $`i`$ and the center of cluster $`j+k`$. Depending on the desired application a normalization factor of $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ may be used in the definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. With these definitions the sum of the three independent Eqns. (1) yields the original Schrödinger equation

$$(ETV_1V_2V_3)\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
$`(4)`$
The coordinates (3) used in the Faddeev wave functions in Eqn. (4) generate different asymptotic configurations (or channels) that facilitate the appropriate boundary conditions for this partial-differential equation. Used in this way the Faddeev equations are merely another (equivalent) form of the original Schrödinger equation.

The appropriate boundary conditions for elastic scattering (below breakup threshold) are easily seen from Eqn. (1). For large $`|𝐲_i|`$ the scattered wave function factorizes into the product of a deuteron wave function $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}(𝐱_i)`$ and an outgoing wave, $`\chi (𝐲_i)`$, which guarantees that the right-hand side of Eqn. (1) vanishes in this limit. This product of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ and a plane wave (or a Coulomb wave in case of p-d scattering), $`\chi (𝐲_i)`$, defines the “free” channel wave function, $`\varphi _i`$:

$$\varphi _i(𝐱_i,𝐲_i)=\varphi _d(𝐱_i)\chi (𝐲_i),$$
$`(5a)`$
satisfying

$$(ETV_i)\varphi _i=0,$$
$`(5b)`$
which we can use to construct the exact T-matrix and its Born approximation.

The Faddeev T-matrix is most easily developed by projecting Eqn. (1) with $`\varphi _i|`$. The resulting left-hand-side integral vanishes because of Eqn. (5b), except for surface terms that constitute the T-matrix (just like the two-body case)

$$t_\mathrm{F}=\varphi _1|V_1|\psi _2+\psi _3,$$
$`(6)`$
and any other permutation of Eqn. (1) yields the same result. This can be converted to a more recognizable form by rearranging Eqn. (5b) to $`\varphi _1|V_1=\varphi _1|(ET)`$, making use of the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian for these wave functions below breakup threshold, and employing Eqn. (1) to produce the Schrödinger form of the T-matrix

$$t_\mathrm{S}=\varphi _1|V_2+V_3|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
$`(7)`$
The potential $`V_2+V_3`$ is the usual “inter-cluster” potential between the nucleon projectile and the deuteron target that generates the scattering T-matrix. The two forms of the T-matrix given in Eqns. (6) and (7) are exactly equivalent if the wave functions are exact.

Born approximations can be obtained from Eqns. (6) and (7) by replacing the $`\psi _i`$ by $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3`$:

$$t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{BA}}=\varphi _1|V_1|\varphi _2+\varphi _3,$$
$`(8a)`$
and

$$t_\mathrm{S}^{\mathrm{BA}}=\varphi _1|V_2+V_3|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
$`(8b)`$
In order to facilitate the comparison of the two Born approximations in Eqns. (8) it is convenient to introduce the compact notation

$$(ijk)\varphi _i|V_j|\varphi _k.$$
$`(9)`$
Interchanging the labels of pairs of variables leads to (132)$``$(123), etc., while the trick used to convert Eqn. (6) to Eqn. (7) leads to (122)$``$(112), etc. We thus arrive at

$$t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{BA}}=2(112),$$
$`(10a)`$
and

$$t_\mathrm{S}^{\mathrm{BA}}=2(112)+2(121)+2(123),$$
$`(10b)`$
which are distinctly different. One can also use these tricks to demonstrate that the Faddeev form of the Born-approximation T-matrix is channel symmetric:

$$t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{ab}}=\varphi _1^\mathrm{a}|V_1|\varphi _2^\mathrm{b}+\varphi _3^\mathrm{b}=\varphi _2^\mathrm{a}+\varphi _3^\mathrm{a}|V_1|\varphi _1^\mathrm{b}=t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{ba}},$$
$`(10c)`$
where we have attached channel labels that were previously suppressed. In other words the “post” and“prior” forms of the Born approximation are identical, a result long known for $`t_\mathrm{S}`$. The numerical significance of the difference of Eqns. (10a) and (10b) will be discussed in Section (4).

An important point concerning the Born approximation has been made by Kievsky et al. The Kohn variational functional can be written as

$$I(\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{\Psi }|HE|\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _1|HE|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
$`(11)`$
where the last step follows by interchange of variables and by removing the normalization factor $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ from each wave function. Varying $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (and $`\psi _1`$) about the plane-wave limit leads to

$$t_{\mathrm{Kohn}}=\varphi _1|V_2+V_3|\mathrm{\Phi }+𝒪(V^2),$$
$`(12)`$
since any change in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ beyond the plane-wave part must be proportional to the potential, and the Kohn error is proportional to the square of that change in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. For this reason $`t_\mathrm{S}^{\mathrm{BA}}`$ in Eqn. (8b) gives the optimal Born approximation. The two terms missing in $`t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{BA}}`$ are “hidden” in $`\psi _2+\psi _3`$. Even though $`t_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{BA}}`$ is linear in the potential $`V_1`$, that potential serves partly to drive the dynamics (since Eqn. (6) is exact) and partly to bind the deuteron; the latter terms do not directly contribute to the T-matrix, and serve to “hide” $`V_2`$ and $`V_3`$ terms residing in $`\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _3`$. Thus the Faddeev Born approximation has first-order (in $`V`$) errors, unlike the Schrödinger result.

## 3 Faddeev Equations and the DWBA

The remaining task is to compare distorted-wave Born approximations from the Faddeev and the Schrödinger equations. This is complicated by the fact that long-range forces (such as Coulomb) have been treated in the Faddeev formalism in a variety of ways, reflecting the non-unique character of the Faddeev equations themselves. A powerful formal device is the introduction of Faddeev distortion potentials, $`X_i`$. We can replace Eqn. (1) by

$$[ETV_iX_jX_k]\psi _i=(V_iX_i)(\psi _j+\psi _k).$$
$`(13)`$
If one sums the three independent (cyclic-permutation) members of this set, one obtains the original Schrödinger equation in Eqn. (4) (i.e., the $`X_i`$ cancel), and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is free of the arbitrary $`X_i`$, as well, although individual $`\psi _i`$ are not free. It is effective to choose the $`X_i`$ so that long-range distortions are built into the wave functions $`\psi _i`$. As a specific example we treat the important case of long-range Coulomb distortions, and write $`V_i=V_i^{\mathrm{st}}+V_i^\mathrm{C}`$, where $`V_i^{\mathrm{st}}`$ and $`V_i^\mathrm{C}`$ are the strong-interaction and Coulomb parts of the nuclear force. In this case we have found it most efficient numerically to choose $`X_i=V_i^\mathrm{C}`$, which places all of the Coulomb interaction on the left-hand side of Eqn. (13). Other choices are possible and have been used by others.

We begin our treatment of DWBA by noting that if a long-range force modifies the asymptotic form of the inter-cluster scattering wave function, $`\chi (𝐲_i)`$, our basis wave functions (i.e., the “free” scattering wave functions) are modified and correspond to

$$(ETV_1U_1)\varphi _1=0,$$
$`(14)`$
where $`U_1`$ is an appropriate long-range interaction potential (e.g., $`Z\alpha /y`$ for p-d Coulomb scattering). We next rearrange Eqn. (13) (choosing $`i=1`$) by moving all $`X`$-terms to the right-hand side, and then adding and subtracting a potential $`U_1`$:

$$(ETV_1U_1)\psi _1=(X_2+X_3U_1)\psi _1+(V_1X_1)(\psi _2+\psi _3).$$
$`(15)`$
Projecting this equation on the left with $`\varphi _1|`$ gives a left-hand-side that vanishes because of Eqn. (14) except for surface terms (that comprise the T-matrix, as before)

$$\overline{t}_\mathrm{F}=\varphi _1|X_2+X_3U_1|\psi _1+\varphi _1|V_1X_1|\psi _2+\psi _3,$$
$`(16)`$
where we ignore here (and hereafter) the T-matrix coming solely from the potential $`U_1`$ (e.g., the point-Coulomb T-matrix), which is important but peripheral to our discussion. The barred-t indicates asymptotic states modified by $`U_1`$. Choosing $`X_i=V_i^\mathrm{C}`$ in the Coulomb case leads to our preferred form of the Coulomb-distorted-wave Faddeev T-matrix, $`\overline{t}_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{C}`$:

$$\overline{t}_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{C}=\varphi _1|V_1^{\mathrm{st}}|\psi _2+\psi _3+\varphi _1|V^\mathrm{C}U_1|\psi _1,$$
$`(17)`$
where $`V^\mathrm{C}`$ is $`V_2^\mathrm{C}+V_3^\mathrm{C}`$, and we have used the fact that $`V_1^\mathrm{C}`$ vanishes. If we again use $`\varphi _1|V_1=\varphi _1|(ET)`$ in Eqn. (16), we obtain after some algebra

$$\overline{t}_\mathrm{S}=\varphi _1|V_2+V_3U_1|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
$`(18)`$
a remarkably different-looking, but equivalent, result. Equation (18) is the usual Schrödinger form of the distorted-wave T-matrix, and differs from Eqn. (7) only by the $`U_1`$ term.

Although the two forms of the T-matrix in Eqns. (16) and (18) are formally identical, they lead to very different DWBAs. Replacing $`\psi _i`$ by $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eqn. (16) leads to a formally unacceptable DWBA, because it would depend on the unphysical (i.e., artificial) $`X_i`$

$$\overline{t}_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{DWBA}}=\varphi _1|X_2+X_3U_1|\varphi _1+\varphi _1|V_1X_1|\varphi _2+\varphi _3,$$
$`(19)`$
although the choice of $`X_i`$ leading to Eqn. (17) obscures this fact. The DWBA obtained from Eqn. (18)

$$\overline{t}_\mathrm{S}^{\mathrm{DWBA}}=\varphi _1|V_2+V_3U_1|\mathrm{\Phi },$$
$`(20)`$
is free of that disease because Eqn. (18) depends only on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and not the individual $`\psi _i`$. The Schrödinger DWBA is the optimal one in the sense that corrections to it are second order in the potential. The techniques that led to Eqn. (10c) also demonstrate that the distorted-wave T-matrix in Eqn. (19) is not symmetric under interchange of incoming and outgoing channels (post and prior forms), because of terms involving $`X_1`$ and $`U_1`$. This is a serious disease, since it violates a symmetry, although we shall see in the next section that the effect is sufficiently small that it is not a significant practical problem. Equation (20) can be shown by the same techniques to be channel symmetric.

In summary the “Faddeev” form of the DWBA has three formally serious problems: (1) it leads to a non-symmetric T-matrix; (2) it leads to manifestly non-unique results (viz., the $`X`$-terms); (3) it leads to errors linear in the potential. How important these flaws are in a numerical sense is discussed next.

## 4 Numerical Results

We briefly report two numerical results on: (1) differences between the Faddeev and Schrödinger forms of the Born approximation, together with the magnitude of the lack of symmetry of the post and prior forms of the T-matrix; (2) the fractional errors in the difference of the exact Faddeev and Born approximation results for both p-d and n-d scattering below deuteron-breakup threshold.

The form of the Born approximations given by Eqns. (10a) and (10b) suggests that numerical differences should be small. Below the threshold for deuteron breakup the region of configuration space where scattering can occur is very limited. The deuteron bound-state wave function has a finite extent, $`R_d`$, while the nuclear force has a significantly smaller range, $`R_V`$. For this reason the integrand of the configuration (123), for example, is important only in the very small region where the nuclear potential in variable $`𝐱_2`$ overlaps with a deuteron wave function in variable $`𝐱_1`$ and another in variable $`𝐱_3`$. This occurs only for very small $`|𝐲_1|`$, where the wave function is suppressed for large values of the angular momentum. By far the largest configuration will be (112), since $`V_1`$ overlaps easily with $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}(𝐱_1)`$, and this result has a much larger overlap with the deuteron wave function in variable $`𝐱_2`$. Numerical results bear this out; the (112) matrix element completely dominates. This immediately suggests that the lack of symmetry between (off-diagonal) T-matrix elements is also numerically small.

The importance of the Born amplitudes for higher partial waves (in $`J`$, the total angular momentum of the channel states) is indicated in Table I, where both the differential cross section, $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and analyzing power, $`A_y`$, have been computed using the AV18 potential. These observables were computed in two ways: exact calculations through $`J=11/2`$ (supplemented by Born approximation results for higher waves where needed) and various comparison calculations described below. The maximum value of the magnitude of the fractional difference between the exact and comparison calculations was computed for the angular range $`\theta =30^{}150^{}`$. The restricted angular range was used because the analyzing power gets small outside that range, and relatively large fractional errors in that regime would be meaningless. In the small table labelled Truncation the comparison calculation had its partial-wave series truncated at the labelled $`J`$ (i.e., that $`J`$-wave and all higher ones were omitted), leading to some very large errors. If one adopts the criterion that observables should be calculated to 1% accuracy, one needs to keep all matrix elements through $`J=9/2`$ for the differential cross section, and through $`J=15/2`$ for the analyzing power for 3 MeV p-d scattering.

In the tables labelled Born Substitution the comparison case involved substituting the (Schrödinger) Born amplitude for the labelled wave and all higher ones through the maximum value of $`J=15/2`$. The differential cross sections are accurately computed (using the 1% criterion) by keeping exact matrix elements through $`J=5/2`$, while the analyzing power requires exact $`J=9/2`$ matrix elements. Exact configuration-space Faddeev calculations for large values of $`J`$ (such as 11/2) require significant computational resources, and should be avoided if possible.

The difference between the Faddeev Born approximation and the Schrödinger Born approximation depends on the particular matrix element, but typically is only a few per cent, and this is not likely to be very important. The Schrödinger form of the BA and DWBA is nevertheless demonstrably closer to the exact matrix elements for higher partial waves than is the Faddeev form of those matrix elements. The channel asymmetry in p-d scattering matrix elements at 3 MeV is typically a few times $`10^3`$, and hence is numerically unimportant for the Coulomb DWBA problem.

In summary, we have shown that the most natural Born approximation for the Faddeev T-matrix differs from that of the Schrödinger equation. We have shown that the Faddeev DWBA has three formally serious properties: (1) it leads to a non-symmetric T-matrix; (2) it leads to manifestly non-unique results; (3) it leads to errors linear in the potential. In practical (i.e., numerical) terms these defects are not very important. Our analysis demonstrates that the dominant part of the Born approximation is contained in both approaches, and they differ only in much smaller contributions.

Acknowledgments

The work of JLF was performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy, while that of GLP was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Separation of Soft and Hard Physics in Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

## I Introduction

Our knowledge about the partonic content of baryons has for several decades been obtained from experiments in the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) region. At sufficiently high momentum transfer, the inclusive $`epe^{}X`$ reaction is very efficiently described in terms of parton distributions satisfying Bjorken scaling. The main reason for applicability of DIS to studies of hadron structure is that the process is factorizable into a hard part, calculable from perturbative quantum chromodynamics, and a soft part describing the quark-parton content of the hadron. This soft part gives the probability of finding a parton inside a proton with a certain fraction of the proton momentum. The soft part is usually parametrized in terms of parton distribution functions.

In recent years, exclusive reactions like $`epe^{}p^{}\gamma `$ (deeply virtual Compton scattering or DVCS) or $`epe^{}p^{}M`$ (hard electroproduction of mesons), have been explored experimentally and theoretically, since they promise to provide further insight into the parton distributions of hadrons. It turns out that even in certain exclusive reactions there is a factorization theorem that separates a hard, calculable part from a soft part factor . It is customary to define the soft interaction by introducing generalized parton distributions (GPD’s) ji ; vdH ; RadI ; KrollDVCS , that describe the transition amplitude for removing a parton with a certain momentum fraction and then putting it back with a different momentum fraction. The GPD’s contain information about correlations between different parts of the proton wave function, or, equivalently, between partons at different locations inside the proton. This geometrical view has been explored by Burkardt, Diehl, Ralston and Pire, and others Burkardt . The calculations of DVCS have recently been extended to include twist-three effects tt . The factorization of DVCS is conveniently represented by the handbag diagrams (Fig. 1), where the lower blobs are parametrized in terms of generalized parton distributions. The same diagrams have also been applied to wide angle Compton scattering and photon annihilation into hadron–anti-hadron pairs KrollOCS .

In the Bjorken limit ($`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, $`x_B=Q^2/2pq`$ constant), there are four independent GPD’s; $`H(x,\zeta ,t),E(x,\zeta ,t),\stackrel{~}{H}(x,\zeta ,t)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{E}(x,\zeta ,t)`$, where $`x`$ and $`\zeta `$ are respectively the light-cone momentum fractions of the struck quark and real photon, while $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ is the momentum transfer squared. Three physically different regions can be distinguished for $`x`$ and $`\zeta `$. The domain $`0<\zeta <x<1`$ ($`\zeta 1<x<0`$) corresponds to the removal and return of a quark (antiquark) with momentum fractions $`x`$ ($`\zeta x`$) and $`x\zeta `$ ($`x`$), respectively. In the remaining region $`0<x<\zeta `$, the photon scatters on a virtual quark-antiquark pair, extracted from the proton. The latter situation could be described as a meson exchange, but is usually incorporated into the general parametrization of the GPD’s vdH ; tt . An alternative interpretation is to use light-cone perturbation theory LB  and regard the meson exchange as a higher Fock state of the proton splitting of a quark–anti-quark pair BDH . With this notation, $`\zeta x_B`$ (Bjorken $`x`$) in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ fixed). In the limit of forward scattering (DIS), the $`H`$’s reduce to the quark density and quark helicity distributions, e.g. $`H(x,0,0)=q(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}(x,0,0)=\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$. The $`E`$’s do not appear in DIS. They are unique to the off-forward exclusive processes and provide information not accessible through other means. Finally the $`x`$-integrated GPD’s are related to the nucleon form factors ji .

An alternative approach to DVCS using light-cone quark wave functions LB  was suggested in Refs. Krolllcwf ; BDH . The authors have used this idea to calculate DVCS on an electron in QED for large $`Q^2`$, assuming that the electron temporarily splits into a virtual electron-meson pair.

There are ambitious efforts under way to measure DVCS (and the hard exclusive meson photo-production) at a number of facilities, in particular at DESY HERMES  and JLab CLAS . Experiments using high-energy muon beams are planned for the COMPASS facility at CERN COMPASS . At JLab energies, the competing Bremsstrahlung or Bethe-Heitler (BH) BH  process is larger than DVCS. However, by carrying out interference measurements ($`e^+/e^{}`$ beam charge asymmetry and various spin asymmetries), the BH amplitude cancels out and only a BH$`\times `$DVCS interference remains. At DESY the energy is sufficiently large that DVCS becomes larger than BH, though the measurements have low statistics, insufficient to extract differential cross sections. However, both facilities are able to measure asymmetries for relatively low beam energies and momentum transfers. In this paper we will investigate to what extent the ‘leading’ amplitude actually dominates in this kinematic region. In order to address this question, we employ a model using effective analytic quark-diquark wave functions. This model allows us to study the dynamics of the amplitudes excited at these low energies. Some preliminary results were reported in Ref. GSL . This model is similar to the one presented in Ref. BDH , but we calculate DVCS on a proton and focus especially on the features at low $`Q^2`$, and we keep higher-twist terms.

## II Formalism

In this paper, we treat the proton as a quark-diquark state. For simplicity, we drop the proton spin degrees of freedom. Furthermore we will only consider the valence quark flavors, i.e., we ignore any sea quark or higher Fock state contributions to the proton wave function. Thus, for a proton, the $`SU(3)`$ operator $`\lambda /\sqrt{2}`$ is replaced by the $`SU(2)`$ (isospin) operator $`\tau /\sqrt{2}`$. In future articles we will relax these constraints on our model, but this simplified model will suffice for the present purpose of studying the $`Q^2`$ dependence and analytic structure of the DVCS amplitudes. Our model proton state has the form

$`|p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1d^2𝐤_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{16\pi ^3}\frac{dx_2d^2𝐤_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{16\pi ^3}\frac{16\pi ^3\delta (xx_1x_2)\delta ^2(𝐤_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝐤_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}{\sqrt{x_1x_2}}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{f_1f_2}^j}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_{c_1c_2}}{\sqrt{3}}}\varphi (x_i,𝐤_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{})b^{}(x_1,𝐤_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})d^{}(x_2,𝐤_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})|0,`$
where $`\lambda _i`$, $`f_i`$, and $`c_i`$ are the quark spin (helicity), flavor (isospin), and color indices. The proton state normalization is

$$p^{}|p=16\pi ^3\delta (x^{}x)\delta ^2(𝐩_{}^{}𝐩_{}).$$
(2)
We start from the Fourier transform of the $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p^{}`$ amplitude (in light-cone coordinates)

$$T^{++}=id^4ye^{iq^{}y}p^{}|TJ^+(y)J^+(0)|p,$$
(3)
where $`J^+(y)=\overline{\psi }(y)\gamma ^+\gamma _5\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{2}}\psi (y)`$ is the electromagnetic current, and $`p(p^{})`$ and $`q(q^{})`$ are respectively the four-momenta of the initial (final) hadron and photon. In light-cone time-ordered perturbation theory this expression can be expanded to give the five different one-loop diagrams (assuming light-cone gauge $`q^+=0`$) shown in Fig. 2.

These diagrams are essentially the same as those used in Brodsky et al. BDH  for DVCS on an electron. The two approaches differ in that Brodsky et al. include the electron spin and treat the system as a fermion-vector composite, while we assume the diquark to be a fermion and approximate the proton as a scalar. In addition, we employ soft Gaussian form factors for our proton wave functions. The time-ordered diagrams of Fig. 2 are represented by the integrals

$`T_a^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p^+)^2{\displaystyle _{\zeta <x<1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}(z,\text{l}_{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})}{\left[M^2+\left(\frac{1}{x_B}1\right)Q^2\frac{m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{2}}{x}\frac{m_R^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{2}}{1x}+iϵ\right]}},`$ (4)
$`T_b^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p^+)^2{\displaystyle _{0<x<\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_R^2\frac{m^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{z^{}}\frac{M^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1z^{}}\right)\phi (z^{},\text{l}_{}^{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})}{\left(\frac{\zeta (m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{2})}{x(\zeta x)}\right)}}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[M^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_B}}1\right)Q^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{2}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_R^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{2}}{1x}}+iϵ\right]^1,`$
$`T_c^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p^+)^2{\displaystyle _{0<x<\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_R^2\frac{m^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{z^{}}\frac{M^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1z^{}}\right)\phi (z^{},\text{l}_{}^{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})}{\left(\frac{\zeta (m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{2})}{x(\zeta x)}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\zeta }\frac{\zeta (m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{2})}{x(\zeta x)}\right)}},`$ (6)
$`T_d^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p^+)^2{\displaystyle _{\zeta <x<1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}(z,\text{l}_{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})}{\left(\frac{1}{1\zeta }\left(M^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{Q^2}{x_B}\right)\frac{(1\zeta )\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{d}{}^{2}}{(x\zeta )(1x)}\frac{m^2}{x\zeta }\frac{m_R^2}{1x}\right)}},`$ (7)
$`T_e^{++}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p^+)^2{\displaystyle _{0<x<\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_R^2\frac{m^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{z^{}}\frac{M^2+\text{l}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{1z^{}}\right)\phi (z^{},\text{l}_{}^{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})}{\left(\frac{\zeta (m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{e}{}^{2})}{x(\zeta x)}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\zeta }\frac{\zeta (m^2+\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{2})}{x(\zeta x)}\right)}}.`$ (8)
In Eqs. 4-8 we define the kinematic variables $`z=(x\zeta )/(1\zeta ),z^{}=(\zeta x)/(1x)`$, and the relative momenta are defined as

$`\text{l}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}+(1z)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$
$`\text{l}_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1z^{})\text{k}_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$
$`\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}+(1x)\text{q}_{}`$
$`\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}+\text{q}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\zeta }}\text{q}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$
$`\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{d}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}(1z)\text{q}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`\text{m}_{}^{}{}_{e}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{k}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\zeta }}\text{q}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ (9)
Here $`x=k^+/p^+>0`$ and $`\zeta =q^+/p^+`$ are the longitudinal momentum fractions of the struck quark and the real photon, the quantities $`m,m_R`$, and $`M`$ are respectively the quark, remnant (diquark), and hadron masses, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=qq^{}`$.

In the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, the denominators of Eqs. (4) and (7) are proportional to $`x\zeta +iϵ`$ and $`x+\zeta iϵ`$. These are the leading twist expressions of Ji ji . In our model these leading-twist diagrams ($`a`$ and $`d`$ of Fig. 2) are integrated over $`\zeta <x<1`$ for which the Compton scattering occurs on a quark extracted from the proton. In principle, scattering on an anti-quark would have the same form, but it would require a different (higher Fock state) wave function. For the skew diagrams $`b,c`$, and $`e`$ of Fig. 2, the photon scatters on a quark-antiquark pair split off from the proton. The proton wave function is represented by the analytic form

$$\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})=N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\left(\frac{m^2}{x}+\frac{m_R^2}{1x}+\frac{\text{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{x(1x)}\right)\right],$$
(10)
where $`\beta =0.6911`$ GeV is chosen such that

$$F(q^2)=\frac{dxd^2\text{k}_{}}{16\pi ^3}\varphi (x,(1x)\text{q}_{}+\text{k}_{})\varphi (x,\text{k}_{})$$
(11)
agrees with the dipole form factor dipole  for $`Q^2<1`$ GeV2. The skew diagrams require knowledge of the wave function $`\varphi (z^{},\text{l}_{}^{})`$ for the diquark splitting into a hadron and quark (the lower right-hand corner of diagrams $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`e`$ of Fig. 2). The form of this wave function will eventually be restricted by exclusive data, but in this paper is arbitrarily chosen to be of the form of Eq. (10), with $`m_R`$ and $`x`$ replaced by $`M`$ and $`z^{}`$. Since the relative phase of the two wave functions is not known, an arbitrary complex phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ is introduced between the regular and skew diagrams.

The full $`T`$ matrix could be related to the purely kinematic $`T^{++}`$ component by the Lorentz structure $`T^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{n}^\nu +\stackrel{~}{n}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu g^{\mu \nu }`$, derived by Ji ji . In this expression $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ are two lightlike four-vectors that project out the $`+`$ and $``$ components of Ji’s formalism, and have been Lorentz transformed into our reference system. The Bethe-Heitler cross section is calculated from standard methods, using the dipole parametrization dipole  of both the electric and magnetic proton form factors. Since we do not include the proton spin, the BH$`\times `$DVCS interferences are not calculated.

## III Results

The $`T^{++}`$ matrix elements have been calculated for present JLab and DESY kinematics, using standard Monte Carlo techniques. These calculations incorporate both the principal value ($`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}T^{++}`$) and $`\delta `$-function ($`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}T^{++}`$) parts. The angular distribution and $`Q^2`$ evolution of the real parts are plotted in Fig. 3. The laboratory angle $`\theta _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}`$ between the virtual and real photons is defined for in-plane kinematics such that it is positive for $`\varphi =0`$ and negative for $`\varphi =180^{}`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuth angle between the final electron and the real photon, with $`\widehat{𝐪}`$ as the polar axis. Note that this angle convention is the reverse of the one in Ref. GSL .

The leading twist diagram ($`a`$ of Fig. 2) is the largest for most scattering angles, with diagrams $`c`$ and $`e`$ giving contributions of roughly the same order. In our calculations, the contribution from the crossed diagram $`d`$ is generally related to the leading-twist term by $`da/10`$. This situation is quite different from DIS, where in general $`da`$. This difference can be understood by realizing that DVCS is an exclusive process with an on-shell off-forward final photon ($`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}T_d=0`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}T_d0`$), while DIS has an off-shell photon ($`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}T_d0`$), so that the imaginary part of the cut diagram is the only contribution to the DIS cross section. Since we are interested in the real part of diagram $`d`$ (which is absent in DIS), and DIS uses the (negligible) imaginary part (which is absent in DVCS), the two reactions turn out to be quite different and do not measure the same physics.

In the physical region of the DVCS process, diagrams $`a`$ and $`b`$ possess a cut on the real axis, while the other diagrams never get vanishing denominators for a massless final photon. Thus the imaginary part of the DVCS amplitude, which arises from the $`\delta `$-function part of the propagators, has contributions from the first two diagrams ($`a`$ and $`b`$) only. These imaginary parts are not plotted in Fig. 3 but are included in the calculation of the cross section.

Because of its two hard propagators, diagram $`b`$ is suppressed in the high $`Q^2`$ limit BDH , and in our calculation this suppression does becomes significant, but only for large $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2, i.e., well above present JLab energies. On the other hand, diagrams $`c`$ and $`e`$ remain important at all energies and could be interpreted as contributing to meson exchange mechanisms, since the quark-antiquark pair could form an intermediate (off-shell) meson. The skew diagrams $`b,c`$, and $`e`$ yield non-symmetric angular distributions, reflecting the shifted denominators in these cases.

The difference in analytic structure also explains why diagram $`d`$ gives a smaller contribution than diagram $`a`$, since the $`Q^2`$ terms add up in the denominator of $`d`$, while they have opposite signs for $`a`$. This feature is closely related to the behavior of the two leading-twist propagators of Ji ji . These two terms have the form $`1/(x\xi +iϵ)`$ and $`1/(x+\xi iϵ)`$, where $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ are momentum fractions related to $`\frac{1}{2}(p^++p^+)`$ instead of $`p^+`$. In this notation there is a cancellation for $`x=\xi `$ (scattering on quark) or $`x=\xi `$ (antiquark). The important difference between the two approaches is that Ji neglects four-vector components, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ that do not give large scalars in the Bjorken limit, while we explicitly keep them since we are interested in the behavior at low and moderate $`Q^2`$.

In Fig. 4 our predictions for the differential cross sections for DVCS and BH are shown for a range of beam energies, and for various choices of the relative phase between the regular and skew diagrams. These plots are comparable to those published in vdH  for the kinematics corresponding to the JLab CLAS , DESY HERMES , and CERN COMPASS  experiments. Only for very large $`Q^2`$ is it possible to separate DVCS from BH when only unpolarized cross sections are available. The dip in the DVCS cross section at $`2^{}`$ for zero phase angle reflects the fact that the real parts add up to zero there. If such a structure would be observed (at large beam energies), it could help constrain the phase between the regular and skew diagrams.

The effect of the skew diagrams on the cross section is seen Fig. 5. When they are removed (lower graph, solid line), the dip in the cross section disappears, but the cross section for backward angles also decreases by roughly an order of magnitude. However, the cross section is still asymmetric. If in the remaining leading twist diagrams $`a`$ and $`d`$ we set $`\text{k}_{}=0`$ in the energy denominators (lower graph, dashed line), we end up with a narrower, almost symmetric distribution. At small angles this shift increases the cross section by 30–40% and for backward angles it decreases it by a factor of about two.

The skewed behavior of the angular distribution is hence caused by a combination of two effects; the backward shifted meson exchange (skew) diagrams, and the presence of perpendicular components in the propagators.

## IV Conclusions and outlook

We have introduced a model for DVCS, using simple analytic quark wave functions and retaining all components of every four-vector in the scattering process. This model enables us to investigate the five single-loop diagrams and their relative importance for DVCS at JLab and HERA energies. Our results indicate that at present JLab energies ($`Q^2<4`$ GeV2), all of the diagrams of Fig. 2 (except possibly the crossed diagram $`d`$) contribute to the DVCS cross sections. In particular it is necessary to include diagram $`b`$, despite its two hard propagators, since the suppression of this amplitude is significant only for very large $`Q^2`$. Even at kinematics appropriate for the upgraded (12 GeV) JLab, the maximal $`Q^26`$ GeV2 is too small to suppress diagram $`b`$. Other higher-order diagrams might need to be considered as well. At higher values $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2, the process is completely dominated by the handbag diagrams with one hard propagator. The crossed, $`u`$-channel diagram $`d`$ of Fig. 2 contributes on the 10% level. This should be contrasted with DIS, where this amplitude is very small and negligible. In our calculations the skew diagrams $`c`$ and $`e`$ are of the same order as the regular handbag $`a`$ for all $`Q^2`$. Consequently, meson exchange mechanisms are likely to be important for the understanding of DVCS.

In the case of DIS, where cross sections are given by the imaginary part of the forward $`\gamma ^{}N\gamma ^{}N`$ amplitude, in the scaling region the $`t`$-channel meson exchange is relevant only at small $`x_B`$. In the limit of large $`s`$ and low $`t`$, where $`s=Q^2(1x_B)/x_B`$, the amplitude is expected to be dominated by the right-most singularity in the complex-$`l`$ plane. This leads to an amplitude proportional to $`\beta _n(Q^2)(Q/x_Bm_N)^{\alpha _n(0)}`$. Due to the large photon virtuality, however, the Regge residues $`\beta _n(Q^2)`$ are suppressed for high spin states $`\beta _n(Q^2)(1/Q)^{\alpha _n(0)}`$. This simply follows from the $`t`$-channel sub-process amplitudes, $`\gamma ^{}(q)\gamma ^{}(q^{})n_l`$, where $`l=\alpha (m_n^2)`$

$$\beta _n(Q)A(\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}n_l)d^3𝐤P_l(\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐪})\frac{\varphi _n(𝐤)}{(k(q+q^{})/2)^2}\left(\frac{1}{Q}\right)^l.$$
(12)
Thus, for DIS processes the Regge limit only applies at low $`x_B`$, while at finite $`x_B`$ an alternative (parton) description becomes more efficient. In the case of DVCS, however, the presence of the real photon in the exit channel invalidates the above argument, since the residue functions, $`\beta _n(Q)A(\gamma ^{}\gamma n_l)1/Q^2`$ are not suppressed for high spin states CZ . In other words, the presence of the soft $`qNq`$ fragmentation described by the bottom-right part of diagrams $`c`$ and $`e`$ masks the simple interpretation of the DVCS process in terms of partons originating from the nucleon alone.

We have shown that the perpendicular components of four vectors significantly alters the angular distribution of DVCS, and makes it skew toward backward angles. This effect is further enhanced by the inclusion of the skew diagrams.

This work will be extended to include a full treatment of the proton spin. This will allow us to calculate the interference of DVCS with the Bethe-Heitler process and hence to calculate spin asymmetries, which are needed for a thorough comparison with data. With this extended model, we will again test the validity of commonly applied approximations, and we will evaluate the effectiveness of various proton wave functions. We also intend to calculate meson photoproduction, with special consideration of the meson poles that appear in the skew diagrams.

In conclusion, our calculations show that higher twist effects should be important in DVCS processes particularly at the relatively low energies currently accessible at JLab. In this kinematic region, higher twist amplitudes need to be carefully studied and calculated. In addition, a substantial part of the intuition we bring from DIS processes may no longer be valid in evaluating DVCS processes.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (A.P.S.) would like to thank M. Burkardt for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grant NSF-PHY0070368 and DOE grant DE-FG02-87ER40365.


text:
# Multiplier ideals and filtered D-modules

## 1. Introduction

Let $`D`$ be an effective $`𝐐`$-divisor on a nonsingular complex variety $`X`$ of dimension $`n`$. The multiplier ideal $`𝒥(D)`$ is a subsheaf of ideals of $`𝒪_X`$ and measures in a subtle way the singularities of $`D`$, see \[La01\]. The singularities of $`D`$ get ”worse” if $`𝒥(D)`$ is smaller. The main goal of this note is to give a Hodge-theoretic interpretation of multiplier ideals. That such an interpretation is possible was hinted by \[Bu03\] where we proved a local relation at a point $`xX`$ between $`𝒥(D)`$ and the mixed Hodge structure on the cohomology the Milnor fiber of an integral divisor $`D`$ at $`x`$.

The natural setting for our result is the theory of mixed Hodge modules due to M. Saito (\[Sa88\], \[Sa90\]). Since we restrict our attention to the Hodge filtration only and disregard the weight filtration and the rational structure, we end up working with filtered $`𝒟_X`$-modules $`(M,F)`$. Here $`𝒟_X`$ is the sheaf of non-commutative rings of linear algebraic differential operators (see \[Bo87\]). The Hodge filtration $`F`$ is always assumed here to be increasing. By the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, $`M`$ corresponds to a perverse sheaf on $`X`$. For example, the trivial mixed Hodge module $`𝐐_X^H[n]`$ is represented by the filtered left $`𝒟_X`$-module $`(𝒪_X,F)`$, where $`\text{Gr}_p^F=0`$ for $`p0`$. The corresponding perverse sheaf is the shifted trivial complex $`𝐐_X[n]`$.

For a non-constant regular function $`f:X𝐂`$, one has the vanishing cycles functor $`\psi _f`$ which can be defined on the abelian category of mixed Hodge modules. By definition, $`\psi _f`$ corresponds to $`{}_{}{}^{p}\psi _{f}^{}=\psi _f[1]`$ on the category of perverse sheaves on $`X`$. For $`\alpha (0,1]𝐐`$, let $`\psi _f^\alpha 𝒪_X`$ correspond to the eigenspace of the semisimple part of monodromy for the eigenvalue $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\alpha )`$. M. Saito’s theory provides us with a canonical filtration $`F`$ on $`\psi _f^\alpha 𝒪_X`$ (for definitions, see the introduction of \[Sa88\]).

###### Theorem.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth complex variety of dimension $`n`$. Let $`f:X𝐂`$ be a non-constant regular function and $`D=f^1(0)`$ the corresponding effective divisor. Then for $`\alpha (0,1]`$,

(1) $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒥((\alpha ϵ)D)}{𝒥(\alpha D)}}=F_1\psi _f^\alpha 𝒪_X,`$
where $`0<ϵ1`$.

Here, $`F_1`$ is the smallest piece of the Hodge filtration of the left $`𝒟_X`$-module $`\psi _f𝒪_X`$. The values $`\alpha (0,1]`$ for which the left-hand side of (1) is nonzero are called jumping numbers (see \[Bu03\], \[La01\], \[ELSV\]). The values $`\alpha (0,1]`$ for which the right-hand side of (1) is nonzero were considered in \[Sa93\]. Thus the Theorem answers a question in \[ELSV\] regarding the relation between the two sets of values and reproves their theorem that the jumping numbers of $`D`$ are roots of the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of $`f`$ up to a sign.

I thank Professor L. Ein for several discussions and comments on this work.

Acknowledgement. Professor M. Saito has also proved the Theorem of this note, see \[Sa03\]. Moreover, he proves that the multiplier ideals $`𝒥(\alpha D)`$ give the $`V`$-filtration of Malgrange and Kashiwara corresponding to $`f`$ on the left $`𝒟_X`$-module $`𝒪_X`$.

## 2. Proof of the Theorem

We used left $`𝒟`$-modules only for the introduction. We will work, as our references do, with right $`𝒟_X`$-modules. The trivial right $`𝒟_X`$-module is $`\omega _X=^n\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$, the sheaf of regular $`n`$-forms. Locally, the action of a vector field $`\xi `$ on $`w\omega _X`$ is given by $`w\xi =\text{Lie}_\xi w`$, the Lie derivative. $`𝐐_X^H[n]`$ is represented by the filtered right $`𝒟_X`$-module $`(\omega _X,F)`$, where $`\text{Gr}_p^F=0`$ for $`pn`$. In general, the transformation from left to right $`𝒟_X`$-modules is given by

$`(M,F)`$ $`(\omega _XM,F_p=\omega _XF_{p+n}),`$
$`(wu)\xi =w\xi uw\xi u.`$
Hence (1) is equivalent to

(2) $`\omega _X_{𝒪_X}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒥((\alpha ϵ)D)}{𝒥(\alpha D)}}=F_{1n}\psi _f^\alpha \omega _X.`$
Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a log resolution of $`(X,D)`$. Recall that the multiplier ideal $`𝒥(\alpha D)`$ is defined for all $`\alpha >0`$ by

$$𝒥(\alpha D)=\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}),$$

where $`K_{Y/X}=K_Y\mu ^{}K_X`$ and $`\mathrm{}.\mathrm{}`$ means rounding down the coefficients in a $`𝐐`$-divisor. Put

$$𝒦_\alpha (X,D)=\frac{𝒥((\alpha ϵ)D)}{𝒥(\alpha D)},$$

where $`0<ϵ1`$. Then $`𝒥(\alpha D)`$ and $`𝒦_\alpha (X,D)`$ are independent of the choice of $`\mu `$ and

(3) $`𝒦_\alpha (X,D)=\mu _{}\left(𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X})𝒦_\alpha (Y,\mu ^{}D)\right).`$
Put $`g=f\mu `$. Let $`=(\omega _Y,F)`$ be the filtered $`𝒟_Y`$-module with $`Gr_p^F=0`$ for $`pn`$. By Theorem 2.14 of \[Sa90\], for $`\alpha (0,1]`$,

$$\psi _f^\alpha H^j\mu _{}=H^j\mu _{}\psi _g^\alpha ,$$

for all $`j𝐙`$. Here $`\mu _{}:D^bMHM(Y)D^bMHM(X)`$ is the direct image functor on the bounded derived categories of mixed Hodge modules (we care only about the complexes of filtered $`𝒟`$-modules), and $`H^j`$ is the $`j`$-th cohomology of a complex. In particular, we have an equality of filtered $`𝒟_X`$-modules

(4) $`\psi _f^\alpha H^0\mu _{}=H^0\mu _{}\psi _g^\alpha .`$
We will show that (2), hence the Theorem, follows by taking $`F_{1n}`$ of both sides of (4).

###### Lemma 2.1.

$`F_{1n}\psi _f^\alpha H^0\mu _{}=F_{1n}\psi _f^\alpha (\omega _X,F)`$, for $`\alpha (0,1]`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from $`H^0\mu _{}𝐐_Y^H[n]=𝐐_X^H[n]`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`F_{1n}H^0\mu _{}\psi _g^\alpha =\omega _X_{𝒪_X}𝒦_\alpha (X,D),`$ for $`\alpha (0,1]`$.

###### Proof.

Recall the definition of $`\mu _{}(M,F)`$. Let $`i_\mu :YY\times X`$ be the graph of $`\mu `$. Let $`p:Y\times XX`$ be the natural projection. Then

$$\mu _{}(M,F)=Rp_.DR_{X\times Y/X}(i_\mu )_{}(M,F).$$

where $`Rp_.`$ is the usual derived direct image for sheaves. We put from now $`p_.=H^0(Rp_.)`$ for the usual direct image of sheaves. Recall that $`DR_{X\times Y/X}(M^{},F)`$ is defined by

$$F_pDR_{X\times Y/X}(M^{},F)=\left[F_{pn}M^{}\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_Y\mathrm{}F_pM^{}\right],$$

where $`F_pM^{}`$ sits in degree zero in the last complex, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_Y=(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1)^{}`$. The definition of $`(i_\mu )_{}(M,F)=(M^{},F)`$ is the same as for $`𝒟_Y`$-modules, and all we need to know about the Hodge filtration is that $`F_qM^{}=(i_\mu )_.F_qM`$ if $`q=\mathrm{min}\{p|F_pM0\}`$. In this case, also $`q=\mathrm{min}\{p|F_pM^{}0\}`$.

If $`(M,F)=\psi _g^\alpha (\omega _Y,F)`$ and $`\alpha (0,1]`$ is such that $`M0`$, then $`q=1n`$. Hence,

$`F_{1n}H^0\mu _{}\psi _g^\alpha (M,F)`$ $`=p_.(i_\mu )_.F_{1n}M`$
$`=\mu _.F_{1n}M,`$
where the last $`\mu _.`$ is the usual sheaf direct image. By Lemma 2.3, $`F_{1n}M=\omega _Y𝒦_\alpha (Y,\mu ^{}D)`$. By (3), this proves the claim. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

The Theorem is true if $`D`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor.

###### Proof.

By definition, for $`\alpha (0,1]`$,

$$\psi _f^\alpha \omega _X=\text{Gr}_V^\alpha (i_f)_{}\omega _X,$$

where $`i_f:XX\times 𝐂`$ is the graph of $`f`$, $`(i_f)_{}`$ is the direct image for (filtered) $`𝒟_X`$-modules, and $`V`$ is the decreasing filtration of Malgrange and Kashiwara. The Hodge filtration on $`\psi _f^\alpha `$ is the filtration $`F[1]`$, where $`F`$ is induced by $`(i_f)_{}`$. Here $`F[i]_p=F_{pi}`$. In particular,

$$F_{1n}\psi _f^\alpha \omega _X=F_n\text{Gr}_V^\alpha (i_f)_{}\omega _X.$$

By Proposition 3.5-(3.5.1) of \[Sa90\] applied to $`(\omega _X,F[n])`$, one has that

$`F_nV^\alpha (i_f)_{}\omega _X`$ $`=\omega _X𝒪_X(\mathrm{}(\alpha ϵ)D\mathrm{})`$
$`=\omega _X𝒥((\alpha ϵ)D),`$
where $`0<ϵ1`$. Indeed, to apply that Proposition one only has to check locally, where $`X`$ has coordinates $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, that $`\omega (x_i_i+1)=0`$, for $`\omega =dx_1\mathrm{}dx_n`$, and $`_i=_{x_i}`$. This follows from $`\text{Lie}__i(x_i\omega )=\omega `$. Hence it gives $`\mu =(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ in the above-mentioned Proposition. ∎