text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0307285 DFPD/03/TH/29

The Affine Connection of Supersymmetric $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ Theories

Marco Matone

Dipartimento di Fisica “G. Galilei”, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,

Università di Padova, Via Marzolo, 8 – 35131 Padova, Italy

We study the covariance properties of the equations satisfied by the generating functions of the chiral operators $`R`$ and $`T`$ of supersymmetric $`SO\left(N\right)/Sp\left(N\right)`$ theories with symmetric/antisymmetric tensors. It turns out that $`T`$ is an affine connection. As such it cannot be integrated along cycles on Riemann surfaces. This explains the discrepancies observed by Kraus and Shigemori. Furthermore, by means of the polynomial defining the Riemann surface, seen as quadratic–differential, one can construct an affine connection that added to $`T`$ leads to a new generating function which can be consistently integrated. Remarkably, thanks to an identity, the original equations are equivalent to equations involving only one–differentials. This provides a geometrical explanation of the map recently derived by Cachazo in the case of $`Sp\left(N\right)`$ with antisymmetric tensor. Finally, we suggest a relation between the Riemann surfaces with rational periods which arise in studying the Laplacian on special Riemann surfaces and the integrality condition for the periods of $`T`$.

July 2003

In this note we consider the problem of the contributions to the free energy at order $`h`$, with $`h`$ the dual Coxeter number, which arises in the case of supersymmetric $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ theories with symmetric/antisymmetric tensors . Recently, in , Cachazo derived a map from $`Sp(N)`$ to a $`U(N+2n)`$ theory with one adjoint and a degree $`n+1`$ tree level superpotential. In his construction he observed interesting geometrical questions, such as the unusual phenomenon that vanishing of the period of $`T`$ through a given cut does not imply that the cut closes on–shell. There are also other unusual properties.

Here we show that the chiral operator $`T`$ of supersymmetric $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ theories with symmetric/antisymmetric tensors is an affine connection and so it cannot be consistently integrated along cycles on the Riemann surface. This is the geometrical origin of the discrepancies observed by Kraus and Shigemori. In our construction we will see that covariance forces us to consider the polynomial defining the Riemann surface as a quadratic–differential. By means of such a differential we construct an affine connection that added to $`T`$ leads to a new generating function $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ which is now a true one–differential and can be consistently integrated. We then show that, thanks to a remarkable identity, the original equations are equivalent to equations involving only one–differentials. We will conclude by suggesting a relation between the special Riemann surfaces with rational periods introduced in  and the integrality condition for the periods of $`T`$.

Let us start by considering the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory with gauge group $`Sp(N)`$ with a chiral superfield in the antisymmetric representation. The classical superpotential is

$$W_{tree}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{g_j}{j+1}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{j+1}.$$

The generating functions of chiral operators

$$T(z)=\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }},R(z)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{W_\alpha W^\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }},$$

satisfy the equations

$$[W^{}R]_{}=\frac{1}{2}R^2,[W^{}T]_{}=TR+2R^{}.$$

Usually, both $`T`$ and $`R`$ are integrated over cycles on the Riemann surface. It follows that both $`R`$ and $`T`$ should be one–differentials. Let us show that this is not the case. More precisely, we show that the unique consistent geometric interpretation of (1) is that $`R`$ be a one–differential and $`T`$ an affine connection. Actually, note that the unique interpretation consistent with the first equation in (1) is that $`R`$ be a one–differential. Let us now consider the right hand side of the second equation in (1). This contains the first derivative of the one–differential $`R`$. In the intersection between two patches we have

$$R_\alpha (z_\alpha )=\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }R_\beta (z_\beta ),$$

so that the transformation of $`R^{}`$ is

$$\frac{d}{dz_\alpha }R_\alpha (z_\alpha )=\left(\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }\right)^2\frac{d}{dz_\beta }R_\beta (z_\beta )+\frac{d^2z_\beta }{dz_\alpha ^2}R_\beta (z_\beta ).$$

In order that $`[W^{}T]_{}=TR+2R^{}`$ be covariantly defined, we should relax the condition that $`T`$ be a one–differential. Actually, we should require that $`TR+2R^{}`$ be a quadratic differential, that is

$$T_\alpha (z_\alpha )R_\alpha (z_\alpha )+2\frac{d}{dz_\alpha }R_\alpha (z_\alpha )=\left(\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }\right)^2\left[T_\beta (z_\beta )R_\beta (z_\beta )+2\frac{d}{dz_\beta }R_\beta (z_\beta )\right].$$

Eqs.(1) and (1) give

$$T_\beta (z_\beta )\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }=T_\alpha (z_\alpha )+2\frac{dz_\alpha }{dz_\beta }\frac{d^2z_\beta }{dz_\alpha ^2}.$$

Recalling that an affine connection on a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of functions $`𝒜`$, each one defined on a patch, such that in the non–empty intersection $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$

$$𝒜_\beta (z_\beta )\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }=𝒜_\alpha (z_\alpha )+\frac{d}{dz_\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha },$$

we see that $`T`$ turns out to be twice an affine connection. As such it cannot be consistently integrated on cycles on the Riemann surface. This explains the discrepancies found between the gauge theory calculations and the ones obtained by the loop equation formulations. This also explains why one obtains the geometrical strange effect that the vanishing of the period of $`T(z)dz`$ is non zero but the cut closes up on–shell.

In order to write a covariantized version of Eq.(1) we can use the procedure introduced in  in formulating the KdV equation on a Riemann surface, leading to $`W`$–algebras, and further developed in  to introduce higher order cocycles on Riemann surfaces. Furthermore, it has been shown in  that this covariantization is strictly related to uniformization and Liouville theories. Let us shortly review it. Let us consider the negative power of the Poincaré metric

$$e^{k\phi }=|J_{H}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}|^{2k}\left(\frac{J_H^1\overline{J_H^1}}{2i}\right)^{2k},$$

where $`J_H^1`$ is the inverse of the uniformizing map from the upper half plane to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. One can easily check that the negative powers of the Poincaré metric satisfy the higher order generalization of nullvector equations, that is

$$𝒮_{J_H^1}^{(2k+1)}e^{k\phi }=0,k=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{},$$

with $`𝒮_h^{(2k+1)}`$ the higher order covariant Schwarzian operator

$$𝒮_h^{(2k+1)}=(2k+1)(h^{})^k_z(h^{})^1_z(h^{})^1\mathrm{}_z(h^{})^1_z(h^{})^k,$$

where the number of derivatives is $`2k+1`$. The univalence of $`J_H^1`$ implies holomorphicity of the $`𝒮_{J_H^1}^{(2k+1)}`$ operators. Eq.(1) is manifestly covariant and singlevalued on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Furthermore it can be proved that the dependence of $`𝒮_h^{(2k+1)}`$ on $`h`$ appears only through $`𝒮_h^{(2)}1=\{h,z\}`$ and its derivatives; for example

$$𝒮_{J_H^1}^{(3)}=3\left(_z^3+2T^F_z+T_{}^{F}{}_{}{}^{}\right),$$

which is the second symplectic structure of the KdV equation, where now $`T^F`$ is the Fuchsian projective connection .

In the above derivation we used the polymorphic vector fields $`1/J_{H}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ to construct the covariant operators $`𝒮_{J_H^1}^{(2k+1)}`$ mapping $`(k,n)`$–differentials, to $`(k+1,n)`$–differentials. In the present situation we should covariantize the quantity $`R^{}`$. However, note that we cannot use the inverse map of uniformization. The reason is that covariant operators constructed in terms of $`J_H^1`$ are singlevalued only in the case in which the operator is of order greater than $`2`$. So we need a vector field which also encodes the geometrical information of the underlying Riemann surfaces. To solve this question we notice that $`y^2=W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f`$ contains all the geometrical data. Also, note that covariance forces us to consider $`f`$ as quadratic differential and so $`y^2`$ itself is a quadratic differential. It follows that the natural candidate to covariantize the $`R^{}`$ is to use the vector field $`\frac{1}{y}`$. As in the covariantization reviewed above, the covariantized derivative should be homogeneous in $`y`$ and map the one–differential $`R`$ to a quadratic differential. This unequivocally leads to

$$𝒟_zy\frac{d}{dz}y^1=\frac{d}{dz}\frac{y^{}}{y},$$

so that

$$\frac{d}{dz}R𝒟_zR.$$

Let us now rewrite the right hand side of the second equation in (1) in the following form

$$TR+2R^{}=(T+\delta T)R+2𝒟_zR.$$

It follows that

$$\delta T=\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{ln}y^2.$$

Now note that since both $`TR+2R^{}`$ and $`𝒟_zR`$ are quadratic differentials, and $`R`$ is a one–differential, it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{T}=T+\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{ln}y^2,$$

is a well–defined one–differential and can be consistently integrated along cycles on the Riemann surface.

Note that $`y=W^{}R`$ is covariantly constant, that is the analogue of (1) is

$$𝒟_z(W^{}R)=0.$$

It follows that the second equation in (1) can be equivalently written in the form

$$[W^{}(\stackrel{~}{T}\delta T)]_{}=\stackrel{~}{T}R+2𝒟_zW^{}.$$

We now show that

$$[W^{}\delta T]_{}=2𝒟_zW^{},$$

so that the original equation $`[W^{}T]_{}=TR+2R^{}`$ is equivalent to

$$[W^{}\stackrel{~}{T}]_{}=\stackrel{~}{T}R,$$

which is covariant and involves only one–differentials. Let us give a closer look to Eq.(1). It expresses the fact that the covariant derivative of $`W^{}`$ is obtained by the negative frequencies of $`W^{}\delta T`$. It can be also written in the form

$$[W^{}\frac{y^{}}{y}]_{}=W^{}\frac{y^{}}{y}W^{\prime \prime },$$

that is

$$W^{\prime \prime }=[W^{}\frac{y^{}}{y}]_+.$$

On the other hand, differentiating $`y^2=W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f`$, we have

$$W^{}\frac{y^{}}{y}=W^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{W^{}f^{}2W^{\prime \prime }f}{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f}.$$

The second term in the right hand side has the form $`P_{2n2}/P_{2n}`$, with $`P_j`$ denoting a polynomial of order $`j`$. Expanding in powers of $`1/z`$, we see that

$$\left[\frac{W^{}f^{}2W^{\prime \prime }f}{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f}\right]_+=0,$$

so that (1) is satisfied and the original equation is equivalent to its covariant form Eq.(1).

Let us now consider the case of gauge group $`SO(N)`$ with a symmetric tensor. In this case we have

$$[W^{}R]_{}=\frac{1}{2}R^2,[W^{}T]_{}=TR2R^{}.$$

Repeating the above derivation, we now see that consistency implies that in this case $`T`$ transforms as $`2`$ times an affine connection, that is

$$T_\beta (z_\beta )\frac{dz_\beta }{dz_\alpha }=T_\alpha (z_\alpha )2\frac{dz_\alpha }{dz_\beta }\frac{d^2z_\beta }{dz_\alpha ^2}.$$

It follows that the correct one–differential to integrate is

$$\stackrel{~}{T}=T\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{ln}y^2,$$

whereas the Eqs.(1) and (1) become

$$[W^{}(\stackrel{~}{T}\delta T)]_{}=\stackrel{~}{T}R2𝒟_zW^{},$$

and

$$[W^{}\delta T]_{}=2𝒟_zW^{},$$

which is satisfied because now $`\delta T=\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{ln}y^2`$. It follows that also in this case we have

$$[W^{}\stackrel{~}{T}]_{}=\stackrel{~}{T}R.$$

We saw that while classically one has $`f=0`$, so that $`R=0`$ and $`T`$ is a one–form on the Riemann sphere, quantum mechanically $`T`$ has anomalous transformations. This can be modified to a one–form $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ that can be integrated along cycles. However, since the original $`T`$ cannot be integrated, one should understand whether the conditions $`_{A_i}T=N_i`$ and $`_{B_i}T=b_i`$ in  are essential. Actually, it seems that Cachazo’s results can be obtained by imposing the weaker conditions1 We follow the notation in .

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}=\mathrm{Tr}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_U2n,$$

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{A_i}T_U=N_i+2,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

that do not imply $`T`$ to be a one–form. So, essentially, the results in  do not use the integrality condition on the cycles of the original $`T`$. This is different with respect to the previous investigations based on the loop equation . Understanding how the results in  can be obtained in the original formulation of Kraus and Shigemori  remains an interesting open question. Even if a detailed and clarifying investigation of the ambiguities has been given in , it seems that there are still interesting aspects to be fully understood. In this respect it is interesting to observe that besides the appearance of the affine connection, $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ theories have another distinguished, perhaps related, feature concerning the algebraic relations satisfied by $`S`$. In the case of $`SU(N)`$ one has

$$S^N=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N}+\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},X^{\dot{\alpha }}\}.$$

In  it was suggested that such kind of relations may be at the origin of the observed discrepancy. However in  it was pointed out that the identity (1) of the microscopic $`SU(N)`$ theory corresponds to the field equation $`S^N=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N}`$ one obtains as stationary points of the superpotential. This dual description is similar to the magnetic description of free electrodynamics where the Bianchi identity arises only on–shell. In this respect, as observed by Cachazo , if this picture holds, since the effect of the field equation is not directly visible in the off–shell low energy effective superpotential, it follows that the identity should not be at the origin of the discrepancy observed in . However, there is another identity besides Eq.(1), that is

$$(S^N\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N})^N=0.$$

It is interesting to find this relation in the case of a generic simple group $`G`$. First recall that since $`S`$ is a bilinear in fermionic fields, classically we have

$$S^{\mathrm{dim}(G)+1}=0.$$

On the other hand

$$S^h=\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},X^{\dot{\alpha }}\},$$

where $`h`$ is the dual Coxeter number of $`G`$. This relation gets instantonic corrections

$$S^h=c(G)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}+\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},X^{\dot{\alpha }}\}.$$

Now note that the $`X^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ in (1) and (1) can differ only by a chiral operator: dimensional analysis and $`R`$–symmetry forbid the existence of terms $`\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\delta X^{\dot{\alpha }}\}`$ that vanish as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. However, while how observed in  in the case of $`SU(N)`$ the last two identities imply $`\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},X^{\dot{\alpha }}\}^N=0`$, that is Eq.(1), for other groups there is an interesting new phenomenon. Namely, for general groups we have

$$\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},X^{\dot{\alpha }}\}^M=0,$$

where $`M`$ is the lowest integer such that $`hM\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$. Eq.(1) implies

$$(S^hc(G)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h})^M=0,$$

that in the classical limit reduces to

$$S^{hM}=0.$$

Of course, since $`S^{\mathrm{dim}(G)+1}=0`$ implies $`S^{hM}=0`$ even in the case in which $`hM>\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$, it follows that Eqs.(1) and (1) are consistent. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that in general, as in the case of $`Sp(N)`$ where $`h=N/2+1`$, one has2 Since $`N(N+1)/2+1=h(N+3)+4`$, we see that only for $`Sp(10)`$ one has $`hM=\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$. This special case is the first of the ones not explicitly investigated in  and . It is interesting to observe that since for $`h(SO(N))=N2`$, so that $`N(N+1)/2+1=h(N+3)/2+4`$, we have that also in this case $`N=10`$ is the unique solution of $`hM=\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$. $`hM>\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$. Therefore, if $`[\mathrm{dim}(G)+1]/h`$ is not an integer, then the quantum and classical exponents $`hM`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}(G)+1`$ do not coincide. It would be interesting to understand how this information is encoded in the dual description. Apparently, while on–shell we get the analogue of (1), there is no information about the relation (1). In particular, in the case of $`Sp(N)`$ the matrix model effective theory does not seem to recognize the difference between the two critical exponents. We also note that whereas in chiral correlators Eqs.(1) and (1) may lead to the same result, this is not the case of correlators which also contain non–chiral fields: according to (1) these would be identically vanishing.

Let us conclude this note by observing that the above geometrical structure may help in understanding the nature of the integrality condition on the periods of $`T`$. In this respect, we note that integrality condition emerged in studying the eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on a Riemann surface. In particular, in  it has been shown that eigenvalues with a nontrivial dependence on the complex structure can be obtained as solutions of the equation

$$\omega _{n^{},m^{}}=c\omega _{n,m}.$$

This equation is equivalent to

$$m_j^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{h}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}n_k^{}=\overline{c}\left(m_j\underset{k=1}{\overset{h}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}n_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},h,$$

where $`m_j,n_j,m_j^{},n_j^{}`$ are integers and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}`$ is the Riemann period matrix. In  it has been derived a set of solutions of such an equation. The general problem involved in Eq.(1) concerns the properties of the Riemann period matrix and its number theoretical structure leading to periods with rational entries. It can bee shown that such surfaces correspond to branched covering of the torus. It would be interesting whether this is also the case of the Riemann surfaces having integer period for $`T`$. In this respect we note that holomorphic affine connections exist only on the torus. In the case of branched covering of the torus this connection has poles but if this originated from the holomorphic one of the base torus, this should reflect in peculiar properties related to the integrality condition.

Acknowledgements. Work partially supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime.

References

relax P. Kraus and M. Shigemori, JHEP 0304, 052 (2003), hep-th/0303104. relax L. F. Alday and M. Cirafici, JHEP 0305, 041 (2003), hep-th/0304119. P. Kraus, A. V. Ryzhov and M. Shigemori, JHEP 0305, 059 (2003), hep-th/0304138. relax M. Aganagic, K. Intriligator, C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, hep-th/0304271. relax F. Cachazo, hep-th/0307063. relax M. Matone, math.ag/0105051. relax L. Bonora and M. Matone, Nucl. Phys. B 327, 415 (1989). relax M. Matone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 289 (1995) hep-th/9306150. relax F. Cachazo, M. R. Douglas, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 0212, 071 (2002), hep-th/0211170. relax M. Matone and L. Mazzucato, JHEP 0310, 011 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0307130. relax E. Witten, hep-th/0302194.


format: text

text:
# Veneziano-Yankielowicz Superpotential Terms in 𝒩=1 SUSY Gauge Theories

## 1 Introduction

Recent work following a conjecture by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  has shown that non-perturbative information about the vacuum structure of $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY gauge theories with arbitrary matter can be obtained via perturbative planar diagram computations in a matrix model.

The gauge theory/matrix model correspondence, originally established via a chain of dualities in string theory (in which the gauge theory is embedded)  is ultimately purely field-theoretic. A diagrammatic proof has been supplied in ; a proof based on demonstrating the equivalence between Ward identities following from a generalized Konishi  anomaly of the gauge theory (on the one side) and the loop equations of the matrix model (on the other) was given in .

To be precise, only a part of the contributions to the glueball superpotential have been calculated (thus far) using the matrix model correspondence; there is an additional non-perturbative contribution coming from Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms . Previously, these have been included ‘by hand’, though in the original matrix model approach, it was noted that these terms can come from the matrix model measure ; in the Konishi anomaly approach, they correspond to an undetermined constant of integration .

It is shown here that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms, which are non-perturbative contributions coming from the gauge fields, can in fact be derived in the Dijkgraaf-Vafa context (thus rendering the approach self-contained) by the following argument. One considers the case with a classical gauge group and flavours of matter in the fundamental representation. The vacuum structure of such theories has been known for some time , and indeed it is re-derived below. If the matter fields have non-zero expectation values in the vacuum, then the gauge group is spontaneously broken at low energies via the Higgs mechanism.

The tree-level matter superpotential is such that, classically, there are vacuum branches in which some matter fields have zero *vevs*, whilst others have non-zero *vevs*. This allows the gauge symmetry breaking to be engineered. However, as shown in , the tree-level matter superpotential is sufficiently simple that the effective glueball superpotential can be determined exactly from the standard Konishi anomaly Ward identity (up to some constant of integration independent of the the matter couplings in the tree-level superpotential). By considering two different vacua, with two different low energy gauge groups, a difference equation is obtained whose solution yields the Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential for the low energy pure gauge theory.

In the next section, this is performed for the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. Once the low energy effective superpotential for the pure gauge theory (the Veneziano-Yankielowicz part) has been obtained, the full superpotential (with the constant of integration determined) can be obtained  by matching it to any one of its low energy pure gauge theory limits (in which all the matter is integrated out). The vacuum structure is then determined by finding the critical points of the glueball superpotential; the expected pattern of gaugino condensation and chiral symmetry breaking is observed. In section 3, the extension to other classical gauge groups is performed. Again, the results are as expected. In section 4, the connection with the matrix model is outlined and in section 5, the results and various possible extensions are discussed.

## 2 Special Unitary Groups

Consider the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory in four dimensions with glueball chiral superfield $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha `$. With chiral matter superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ added, the theory has the Konishi anomaly. For the chiral change of variables $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, one has

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_I^{}\frac{W_{\mathrm{tree}}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}+\left(\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}W_{\alpha J}^KW_I^{\alpha J}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_K^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_I}=0,$$
(1)
where the indices carry the representation of the gauge group and the tree-level matter superpotential $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}=g_k\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ is some (gauge- and flavour-invariant) polynomial in the matter superfields. The set of such Ward identities can be solved for the vacuum expectation values of the matter superfields in a background consisting of the light degrees of freedom. The matter is assumed to be massive and so the only light degrees of freedom are the massless gauge superfields. One can then determine the effective superpotential for the massless gauge superfields by solving the partial differential equations

$$\frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{g_k}=\mathrm{\Phi }^k,$$
(2)
which follow by holomorphy and supersymmetry.

This paper considers the case where the matter sector consists of $`F`$ ‘quark’ flavours, viz. $`F`$ chiral superfields $`Q_I^i`$ in the fundamental representation and $`F`$ chiral superfields $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^J`$ in the anti-fundamental, where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are flavour indices and $`I`$ and $`J`$ are colour indices. The tree-level matter superpotential (for $`F<N`$) is written in terms of the $`F\times F`$ gauge-invariant meson matrix $`M_j^i=Q_I^i\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^I`$ as

$$W_{\mathrm{tree}}=m\mathrm{tr}M\lambda \mathrm{tr}M^2.$$
(3)
This superpotential is non-renormalizable, but this is irrelevant. It can be obtained from a renormalizable superpotential with an additional adjoint matter superfield by integrating out the extra matter. The classical equations of motion for the matter fields are

$$mM_i^j2\lambda M_i^kM_k^j=0.$$
(4)
The meson matrix $`M`$ can be brought to diagonal form via a global flavour transformation; then the classical vacua have $`F_{}`$ eigenvalues at $`M_i^i=0`$ and $`F_+=FF_{}`$ eigenvalues at $`M_i^i=m/2\lambda `$ (no sum on $`i`$), with the low energy gauge group broken down to $`SU(NF_+)`$.

The classical dynamics is modified by quantum effects. Consider the transformation $`\delta Q_I^i=ϵQ_I^j`$. From (1), this yields the anomalous Ward identity

$$mM_i^j2\lambda M_i^kM_k^j+\delta _i^j\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}W_{\alpha J}^IW_I^{\alpha J}=0.$$
(5)
This is to be evaluated in a background consisting of the massless gauge superfields. At the classical level, it was seen that the gauge group is broken via the Higgs mechanism, with gauge superfields corresponding to broken generators becoming massive. The background should only contain the superfields corresponding to the unbroken generators.

Let the corresponding background glueball superfield be denoted $`S^{}`$. The third term in the vacuum expectation value in (5) splits into two parts. The part tracing over the unbroken gauge group is by definition $`S^{}`$. The other part traces over the broken part of the gauge group. The associated superfields are massive, and their potential is (classically) quadratic and centred at the origin, such that their vevs are zero.111This is certainly true at the classical level, but it is possible that quantum corrections will modify this. However, the limit will be taken later later on in which the masses of the gauge bosons go to infinity and they decouple. In this limit, their vevs certainly are zero, and so the possibility of quantum corrections will not affect the argument below. Furthermore, the matter expectation values factorise and so (5) becomes

$$mM_i^j2\lambda M_i^kM_k^j=\delta _i^jS^{},$$
(6)
which represents quantum corrections to the equation of motion (4). Up to a global flavour rotation, (6) has the solution

$$M_i^j=\delta _i^j\frac{m}{4\lambda }\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right),$$
(7)
where the solution with the plus sign corresponds to the Higgsed vacuum in the classical limit and conversely. The eigenvalues of $`M`$ can be distributed as before, so that

$$\mathrm{tr}M=F_{}\frac{m}{4\lambda }\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)+F_+\frac{m}{4\lambda }\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right),$$
(8)
and similarly for $`\mathrm{tr}M^2`$. The partial differential equations for the effective glueball superpotential with respect to the matter sector couplings are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m}}`$ $`=\mathrm{tr}M,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\lambda }}`$ $`=\mathrm{tr}M^2,`$ (9)
or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m}}`$ $`=F_{}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\lambda }}\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}}\right)+F_+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\lambda }}\left(1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\lambda }}`$ $`=F_{}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{16\lambda ^2}}\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}}\right)^2F_+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{16\lambda ^2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}}\right)^2,`$ (10)
which have the solution

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{\mathrm{eff}}=F\frac{m^2}{8\lambda }+(F_+F_{})\frac{m^2}{8\lambda }\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}+FS^{}\mathrm{log}m\hfill \\ \hfill +S^{}\mathrm{log}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^F_{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^{F_+}\right]+c(S^{}).\end{array}$$
(11)
Here, $`c`$ is a constant of integration which must be independent of the matter sector couplings, but may depend on other parameters, such as $`S^{}`$. In order to fully specify $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ it is necessary to determine $`c`$. In , this has been done by mapping on to the known Veneziano-Yankielowicz  form of the effective action for the low energy gauge degrees of freedom; thus the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms are introduced by hand. In what follows, it is shown that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz effective superpotential can in fact be derived from (11).

To do this, first take the limit in which both the quark mass $`m`$ and the gauge boson mass $`\sqrt{m/2\lambda }`$ become large. The effective potential (11) becomes

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}=F_+\frac{m^2}{4\lambda }F_+S^{}+F_+S^{}\mathrm{log}\frac{S^{}}{m^2/2\lambda }+F\frac{S^{}}{2}+FS^{}\mathrm{log}m+c(S^{}).$$
(12)
What is the meaning of this expression? In this limit, the massive degrees of freedom decouple; the effective superpotential should consist of the superpotential for the massless gauge degrees of freedom plus terms representing the contribution of the decoupled matter which has been integrated out. This decoupled matter consists of the quarks and the massive gauge bosons corresponding to the broken generators of $`SU(N)`$ (and their superpartners). One can calculate the contribution of the quarks to the effective superpotential as follows. The non-renormalization theorem applies to the decoupled matter sector, and the contribution is found by replacing the quark fields in the tree-level superpotential (3) by their vacuum expectation values. The contribution to $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is thus

$$F_+\frac{m^2}{4\lambda },$$
(13)
reproducing the first term in (12). The contribution of the massive gauge superfields to vevs (and therefore to the effective superpotential) was earlier seen to be zero. Discarding the term independent of $`S^{}`$ (the contribution of the quark superfields), what is left must represent the contribution of the massless gauge fields alone, that is, a pure gauge theory contribution. This contains the as yet unknown constant $`c`$, which can be removed by considering the superpotentials for two distinct vacua in which the number of Higgsed quarks, $`F_+`$, takes the values $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, but the argument $`S^{}`$ takes the same value, $`T`$ say, in both.222Of course the physical interpretation of $`T`$ is different in the two vacua. Here however one simply wants to determine the functional form of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is an unconstrained function of its arguments and so the arguments may be chosen arbitrarily. If one then subtracts the two effective superpotential functions, the unknown constant $`c`$ cancels, giving

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W_{\mathrm{eff}}=(F_1F_2)T+(F_1F_2)T\mathrm{log}\frac{T}{m^2/2\lambda }.$$
(14)
This expression still involves the matter sector couplings $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$. These account for the required matching of the scales of the low energy $`SU(NF_{1,2})`$ gauge theories (with $`F_{1,2}`$ Higgsed quarks and $`FF_{1,2}`$ massive quarks integrated out) to the UV scale of the original $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with $`F`$ flavours. Indeed, one has

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_1,0}^{3(NF_1)}\left(\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right)^{F_1}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}^{3NF}m^F=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_2,0}^{3(NF_2)}\left(\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right)^{F_2},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}`$ denotes the scale for the gauge group $`SU(N)`$ with $`F`$ flavours. Using this relation, one can eliminate the matter sector couplings $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$ altogether from (14) to obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{\mathrm{eff}}(NF_1,T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_1,0})W_{\mathrm{eff}}(NF_2,T,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_2,0})=\hfill \\ \hfill (NF_1)\left(T\mathrm{log}\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_1,0}^3}+T\right)(NF_2)\left(T\mathrm{log}\frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_2,0}^3}+T\right),\end{array}$$
(16)
where the functional dependence of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has been indicated explicitly. This difference equation has the solution

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(N,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0})=N\left(S\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^3}+S\right)+f(S),$$
(17)
where the full glueball superfield has been re-instated and $`f(S)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`S`$ alone: it cannot depend on any of the other parameters present. Furthermore, on dimensional grounds, $`f`$ must be proportional to $`S`$. Thus

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(N,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0})=\left(S\mathrm{log}\frac{S^N}{a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^{3N}}+NS\right),$$
(18)
where $`a`$ is a pure number. The arbitrariness observed in $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, parameterised by $`a`$, corresponds precisely to the renormalisation group scheme dependence, in which one is free to shift $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^{3N}a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^{3N}`$. In a scheme in which $`f`$ vanishes or $`a=1`$, the glueball superpotential for the pure $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory is

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(N,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0})=N\left(S\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^3}+S\right),$$
(19)
which has precisely the form suggested by Veneziano and Yankielowicz on the basis of extended $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry considerations.

Now that the effective superpotential for the low energy gauge theory has been derived, one can determine $`c`$ as in  by demanding that $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in (11) reproduces the correct limit as $`m^2/\lambda \mathrm{}`$ for the vacuum with $`F_+`$ Higgsed quarks and low energy gauge group $`SU(NF_+)`$.333The arguments above show that if the correct low energy limit is obtained for one value of $`F_+`$, then the correct low energy limit will also be obtained for all values of $`F_+`$. It is not difficult to show that the correct form is

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{\mathrm{eff}}=S^{}\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{N}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}^{3NF}m^F}+N\right)F\frac{S^{}}{2}+F\frac{m^2}{8\lambda }+(F_+F_{})\frac{m^2}{8\lambda }\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\hfill \\ \hfill +S^{}\mathrm{log}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^F_{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^{F_+}\right].\end{array}$$
(20)
Finally, one can show that the expected quantum vacuum structure is reproduced. Minimising $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with respect to $`S^{}`$, one finds that

$$\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}^{3NF}m^F}{S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{N}}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^F_{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{8\lambda S^{}}{m^2}}\right)^{F_+}\right]=0.$$
(21)
The solution is in general non-trivial. In the limit in which quark masses and Higgs *vevs* become large however, it reduces to

$$\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}^{3NF}m^F}{S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{N}}\left(\frac{2\lambda S^{}}{m^2}\right)^{F_+}\right]=0,$$
(22)
implying

$$S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{NF_+}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_+,0}^{3(NF_+)}.$$
(23)
There are precisely $`NF_+`$ vacua with gluino condensation and chiral symmetry breaking .

## 3 Orthogonal and Symplectic Groups

The extension to the other classical Lie groups is straightforward. The only differences are that *i.* the fundamental representation of $`SO(N)`$($`Sp(2N)`$) is (pseudo-)real, and *ii.* the one-loop beta-function coefficients (and thus the scale matching relations (15)) are modified.

Because the representations are (pseudo-)real, the meson flavour matrix can be written as $`M_{ij}=Q_iQ_j`$, where the colour indices are implicitly contracted using the appropriate invariant tensor. The Konishi anomaly equation is thus modified to

$$2mM_{ij}4\lambda M_{ik}M_{kj}=\delta _{ij}S^{},$$
(24)
and so all equations written in section 2 up to and including eq. 14 remain valid upon making the replacement $`S^{}S^{}/2`$.

For the $`SO(N)`$ gauge theory with $`F<N4`$ quarks in the fundamental (vector) representation , the one-loop coefficient of the beta-function is $`3(N2)F`$ . The scale matching relation (15) is modified to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_1,0}^{3(NF_12)}\left(\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right)^{F_1}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,F}^{3(N2)F}m^F=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NF_2,0}^{3(NF_22)}\left(\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right)^{F_2}$$
(25)
and the low energy glueball superpotential is

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(N,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0})=\left(\frac{N2}{2}\right)\left(S\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^3}+S\right).$$
(26)
The only difference from the standard form is the factor of two in the logarithm. This is however renormalisation scheme dependent.

For the $`Sp(2N)`$ gauge theory with $`F<N+1`$ flavours ($`2F`$ quarks) , the one-loop coefficient of the beta-function is $`3(2N+2)2F`$, whence

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(N,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0})=(N+1)\left(S\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N,0}^3}+S\right).$$
(27)
Again there is an additional factor of two in the logarithm, which is renormalisation scheme dependent.

## 4 Connection with the Matrix Model

In this section, the connection is made with the matrix model. The first point to note is that, in the case with $`F`$ fundamental flavours, the matrices $`Q`$ and (for $`SU(N)`$) $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are $`F\times \stackrel{~}{N}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is taken to be large. Formally, the partition function for the matrix model is

$$Z=𝑑Q𝑑\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{g_m}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})$$
(28)
and the required Ward Identity (6) can be obtained directly from

$$𝑑Q𝑑\stackrel{~}{Q}\frac{d}{dQ_i}\left[Q_j\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{g_m}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(Q,\stackrel{~}{Q})\right]=0,$$
(29)
upon making the replacement $`g_mS^{}`$ and noting the factorisation of correlation functions in the large $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ limit.

## 5 Discussion

In the above, the Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential terms for pure $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories with classical gauge group have been derived, and all results are in accord with others obtained previously.

One can now look at possible extensions of the work presented here. A first remark is that the pathological cases where the number of flavours is close to the number of colours  were deliberately excluded. This was initially sufficient, since one sought only to derive the superpotentials for the pure gauge theory - the matter sector served only to engineer the symmetry breaking. However, one went on to determine the superpotentials and vacuum structure of the full theory (with matter), and it would be desirable to extend this analysis to the pathological cases. Presumably this can be done, and would necessitate adding baryonic terms to the tree-level matter superpotential and so on. See  for work already attempted along these lines.

Secondly, it would be desirable to extend the argument to the exceptional Lie groups. At first it would seem that an analogous argument may work: starting with an exceptional gauge group with fundamental matter, one can engineer a situation in which the gauge symmetry is broken to a classical gauge group (or product thereof), for which the Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential terms are known. One could then match the full superpotential onto the known Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms in the appropriate low energy limit. However, there is a problem, in that the pure gauge theory superpotentials derived herein, viz. (19,26,27) do not hold for the lowest-lying classical Lie groups. The reason for this is clear from : the gauge group one considers in the Dijkgraaf-Vafa framework is really the supergroup $`lim_k\mathrm{}SU(N+k|k)`$, for which the superpotentials derived in the present work are correct for all $`N`$. However, instanton effects mean that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms for $`SU(N)`$ and its supergroup extension are different for low-lying $`N`$ (consider for example $`SU(1)`$). Thus, in order to derive the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms for the exceptional groups, one would need to fix the results for the low-lying classical gauge groups by hand first.

Thirdly, and more speculatively, it is noted that the simple case with fundamental matter discussed above may shed some light on the remarkable observation that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms can be obtained from the measure in the corresponding matrix model for adjoint matter. At first thought, this seems nonsensical. The Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms pertain to the pure gauge theory, so how can it be that they come from the matter sector?

Take instead the viewpoint that the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms come from non-perturbative contributions in the pure gauge theory. Now add matter in the adjoint representation. Just as in the case with fundamental matter considered above, it is then possible to break the gauge symmetry to some smaller gauge group at low energy via the Higgs mechanism. Indeed, one can even go so far as to break the non-Abelian part of the gauge symmetry completely using the matter sector. But if one does this, the would-be Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms in the low energy glueball superpotential must somehow be removed. In order to achieve this, the matter sector must contain terms which cancel the Veneziano-Yankielowicz terms coming from the pure gauge sector. If the correspondence between the matter sector of the gauge theory and the matrix model is indeed complete, then these terms ought to come from the non-perturbative part of the matrix model, viz. the measure factor.

All of this is pure conjecture however. In order to show it, one would like to see how the argument presented here generalizes to matter in other representations (in particular the adjoint) and other superpotentials. In these more general cases, one must solve the generalized Konishi anomaly equations in closed form. Moreover, in the adjoint case, the spontaneous symmetry breaking cannot be engineered in the same way: the pattern of symmetry breaking is fixed once the form of the tree-level matter superpotential is chosen.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank John March-Russell and the late Ian Kogan for discussions. BMG is supported by a PPARC studentship. The related works  appeared during the final stages of preparation of the manuscript.


text:
# Observation of 𝐵^±→𝐷_{𝐶𝑃}𝐾^{∗±} Decays

on leave from \]Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510 on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

We report preliminary results on the decay $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$, $`B^{}D_{CP}K^{}`$ and its charge conjugate using a data sample of 95.8 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring. We find the branching fraction for $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ to be $`=(5.2\pm 0.5(stat)\pm 0.6(sys))\times 10^4`$ and the partial-rate charge asymmetries for $`B^{}D_{CP}K^{}`$ to be $`𝒜_1=0.02\pm 0.33(stat)\pm 0.07(sys)`$ and $`𝒜_2=0.19\pm 0.50(stat)\pm 0.04(sys)`$ where the indices 1 and 2 represent the CP=+1 and CP=$``$1 eigenstates of the $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ system, respectively.

preprint:
BELLE-CONF-0316 EPS Parallel Sessions: 3, 10, 12 EPS-ID 534

The extraction of $`\varphi _3`$ gamma , an angle in one of the unitarity triangles of the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) quark mixing matrix KM , is a challenging measurement even with modern high luminosity $`B`$ factories. Recent theoretical work on $`B`$ meson dynamics has demonstrated the direct accessibility of $`\varphi _3`$ using the process $`B^{}DK^{}`$ ADS . If the $`D^0`$ is reconstructed as a CP eigenstate, the $`bc`$ and $`bu`$ processes interfere. This interference leads to direct CP violation as well as a characteristic pattern of branching fractions. However, the branching fractions for $`D`$ meson decay modes to CP eigenstates are only of order 1 %. Since CP violation through interference is expected to be small, a large number of $`B`$ decays is needed to extract $`\varphi _3`$. Assuming the absence of $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ mixing, the observables sensitive to CP violation that are used to extract the angle $`\varphi _3`$ are

$`𝒜_{1,2}{\displaystyle \frac{(B^{}D_{1,2}K^{})(B^+D_{1,2}K^+)}{(B^{}D_{1,2}K^{})+(B^+D_{1,2}K^+)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2r\mathrm{sin}\delta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3}{1+r^2+2r\mathrm{cos}\delta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3}}`$
$`\delta ^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta \hfill & \text{for }D_1\hfill \\ \delta +\pi \hfill & \text{for }D_2\hfill \end{array},`$
where $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are CP-even and CP-odd eigenstates of the neutral $`D`$ meson, $`r`$ denotes a ratio of amplitudes, $`r|A(B^{}\overline{D}^0K^{})/A(B^{}D^0K^{})|`$, and $`\delta `$ is the strong interaction phase difference. The ratio $`r`$ corresponds to the magnitude of CP asymmetry and is suppressed to the level of $`0.1`$ due to the CKM factor $`(0.4)`$ and a color suppression factor $`(0.25)`$.

This measurement of the branching fraction for $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ and CP asymmetries for $`B^{}D_{CP}K^{}`$ is based on a data sample of 95.8 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ (3.5 on 8 GeV) collider KEKB  operating at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. At KEKB, the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is produced with a Lorentz boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.425`$ nearly along the electron beamline.

The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of silica aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL) comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals located inside a super-conducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. The iron flux-return located outside the coil is instrumented to detect $`K_L^0`$ mesons and to identify muons (KLM). The detector is described in detail elsewhere Belle .

We reconstruct $`D^0`$ mesons in the following decay channels. For the flavor specific mode (denoted by $`D_f`$), we use $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ CC . For CP =+1 modes, we use $`D_1K^{}K^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ while, for $`\mathrm{CP}=1`$ modes, we use $`D_2K_S^0\pi ^0`$, $`K_S^0\varphi `$, and $`K_S^0\omega `$. We reconstruct $`K^{}`$ candidates from $`K_S^0\pi ^{}`$ combinations where the $`K_S^0`$ candidate is formed from two oppositely charged pions having a vertex displaced from the interaction point in the direction of the $`K_S^0`$ momentum. The $`K_S^0`$ candidates are selected in the mass window of $`0.492\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})<0.505\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The candidate tracks are then kinematically constrained to its nominal mass value. The $`K^{}`$ is required to have a mass within $`\pm 75\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of its nominal mass value. For the $`\pi ^0`$ from the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ decays, we require the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center-of-mass(c.m.) frame be greater than $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and the energy of each photon from the $`\pi ^0`$ be greater than $`30\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Well constrained reconstructed tracks that are not identified as electrons or muons are used as charged hadrons. For each charged track, information from the ACC, TOF and specific ionization measurements from the CDC are used to determine a $`K/\pi `$ likelihood ratio $`P(K/\pi )`$ = $`L_K/(L_K+L_\pi )`$, where $`L_K`$ and $`L_\pi `$ are kaon and pion likelihoods. For kaons (pions) from the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mode we used the particle identification requirement of $`P(K/\pi )>0.4(<0.7)`$. For kaons from the $`D^0K^{}K^+`$ mode we require $`P(K/\pi )>0.7`$ while for pions from $`D^0\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ mode we require $`P(K/\pi )<0.7`$.

The $`\omega `$ mesons are reconstructed from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ combinations in the mass window $`0.732\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)<0.82\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ with the charged pion particle identification requirement $`P(K/\pi )<0.8`$. To reduce the contribution from the non-resonant background, a helicity angle requirement $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}|>0.4`$ is applied, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}`$ is the angle between the normal to the $`\omega `$ decay plane in the $`\omega `$ rest frame and the $`\omega `$ momentum in the $`D^0`$ frame. To remove the contribution from $`D^0K^{}\rho ^+`$, we require the $`K_S^0\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass to be greater than $`75\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ from the $`K^{}`$ nominal mass.

The $`\varphi `$ mesons are reconstructed from two oppositely charged kaons in the mass window of $`1.008\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M(K^+K^{})<1.032\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ with $`P(K/\pi )>0.2`$. We also apply the $`\varphi `$ helicity angle cut $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}|>0.4`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}`$ is the angle between one of the $`\varphi `$ daughters in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame and the $`\varphi `$ momentum in the $`D^0`$ frame. The $`D^0`$ candidates are required to have masses within $`\pm `$2.5$`\sigma `$ of their nominal masses, where $`\sigma `$ is the measured mass resolution that ranges from $`5\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ to $`18\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ depending on the decay channel. A $`D^0`$ mass and (wherever possible) vertex constrained fit is then performed on the remaining candidates.

We combine the $`D^0`$ and $`K^{}`$ candidates to form $`B`$ candidates. The signal is identified by two kinematic variables: the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_D+E_K^{}E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ and the beam energy constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2|\stackrel{}{p}_D+\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}|^2}`$. Here $`E_D`$ is the energy of the $`D^0`$ candidate, $`E_K^{}`$ is the energy of the $`K^{}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy, and $`\stackrel{}{p_D}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_K^{}`$ are the momenta of the $`D^0`$ and $`K^{}`$ candidates, respectively, all calculated in the c.m. frame. Event candidates are accepted if they have $`5.2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.3\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$. In case of multiple candidates from a single event, we choose the best candidate on the basis of a $`\chi ^2`$ determined from the differences between the measured and nominal values of $`M_D`$ and $`M_\mathrm{K}^{}`$. Since $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ is a pseudoscalar to pseudoscalar-vector decay, the $`K^{}`$ is polarized. We define the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}`$ as the angle between one of the $`K^{}`$ decay products in the $`K^{}`$ rest frame and the $`K^{}`$ momentum in the $`B`$ rest frame. The $`K^{}`$ helicity angle follows a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}`$ distribution. We require $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}|>0.4`$.

To suppress the large combinatorial background from the two-jet-like $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ ($`q=u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$ or $`c`$) continuum processes, variables that characterize the event topology are used. We use a Fisher discriminant $`F`$, constructed from six modified Fox Wolfram moments SFW  and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$, the cosine of the angle of the $`B`$ flight direction with respect to the beam axis, in a single likelihood ratio variable ($`LR`$) that distinguishes signal from continuum background. We apply a different requirement for each sub-mode based on the expected signal yield and the backgrounds in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ sideband data. To give an example of the performance of this selection, the $`LR>0.4`$ requirement keeps 89.4 % of the $`B^{}D^0[K^{}K^+]K^{}`$signal while removing 69.2 % of the continuum background.

The signal yields are extracted by a fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in the region $`5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.29\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The signal is parameterized as a Gaussian with parameters determined from MC simulation. The continuum background function is modeled as a first order polynomial function with parameters determined from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for the events in the sideband region $`5.2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.26\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Backgrounds from other $`B`$ decays such as $`B^{}D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}K^{}`$, where $`D^0D^0\pi ^0`$ and $`D^0D^0\gamma `$, are modeled as a smoothed histogram obtained from the MC simulation. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions are shown in Figs.1(a) and (b), respectively. We observe a signal of 169.5$`\pm `$15.4 events with 15.4$`\sigma `$ statistical significance. The fit results are given in Table I. Statistically significant signals are observed for the $`B^{}D_fK^{}`$ decay in all three $`D^0`$ decay channels. The final branching fraction is calculated from a weighted average of the results from these three channels.

We remove the $`K_S^0\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass requirement and fit the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in bins of $`K_S^0\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass and plot the signal yield from the fit for each bin. The result is shown in Fig.1(c) and is consistent with a pure $`DK^{}`$ signal MC simulation. We see no indication for non-resonant $`D^0K_S^0\pi ^{}`$ production. Similarly, we remove the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle requirement and fit the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in bins of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{hel}}`$. We then plot the signal yield from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ fit for each bin. The result is shown in Fig.1(d) and is consistent with the expectation for a pseudoscalar to pseudoscalar-vector decay.

The following sources of systematic error are found to be sizeable: the tracking efficiency (1% per track), $`\pi ^0`$ efficiency (4.8%), $`K_S^0`$ efficiency (4.5%), fitting of the $`B\overline{B}`$ background (5–7%) and particle identification (6–12 %). Other backgrounds including rare decays that could contribute to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region, are estimated from the $`D^0`$ sideband data (1 %). The uncertainty in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal shape parametrization is determined by varying the mean and width of the signal Gaussian parameters within their errors. The uncertainty from the slope of the background is determined by changing its value by its error. Both of the resulting changes are included in the systematic error from fitting. The combined systematic errors from these sources are $`9.5\%`$ for $`B^{}D^0[K^{}\pi ^+]K^{}`$, $`11.8\%`$ for $`B^{}D^0[K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0]K^{}`$ and $`15.5\%`$ for $`B^{}D^0[K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}]K^{}`$. The systematic error in the final branching fraction is calculated by weighting according to the efficiency times branching fraction of the three $`D^0`$ decay channels PDG .

For $`B^{}D_{CP}K^{}`$ decay the signal yields are extracted by a fit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution in the region $`5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.29\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ where $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ is excluded. The signal is parameterized as a Gaussian with parameters determined from MC simulation. The continuum background function is modeled as a first order polynomial function with parameters determined from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for the events in the sideband region $`5.2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mathrm{bc}}<5.26\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions are shown in Fig.2. We observe a signal of 13.1$`\pm `$4.3 events for $`B^{}D_1K^{}`$ and 7.2$`\pm `$3.6 events for $`B^{}D_2K^{}`$ with 4.3$`\sigma `$ and 2.4$`\sigma `$ statistical significances, respectively. The partial-rate asymmetries $`𝒜_{1,2}`$ are evaluated using signal yields obtained from separate fits to the $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ samples. The results are given in Table II. The systematic uncertainty is from the intrinsic detector charge asymmetry (1 %), the $`B^{}`$ and $`B^+`$ yield extractions (4–7 %), and the asymmetry in particle identification efficiency of pions (1 %). The systematic error from yield extraction is calculated by changing the fitting parameters by $`\pm 1\sigma `$. At $`90\%`$ C.L intervals, we find

$`0.57<𝒜_1<0.53,`$
$`0.63<𝒜_2<1.00`$
In summary, using $`88\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of data collected with the Belle detector, we report a measurement of the exclusive decay mode $`B^{}D_fK^{}`$. This mode has been observed previously CLEO . In this paper, we report a new measurement of the branching fraction $`(B^{}D_fK^{})`$. We also report the partial-rate charge asymmetries for the decay $`B^{}D_{CP}K^{}`$, where $`D_{CP}`$ are the neutral $`D`$ meson CP eigenstates. The measured partial-rate charge asymmetries $`𝒜_{1,2}`$ are consistent with zero.

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Effects of nuclear fragmentation on single particle and collective motions at low energy1footnote 11footnote 1Proceedings of the “10th international conference on nuclear reaction mechanisms”, Varenna, 9-13 June 2003.

## I Introduction

The studies of spectral distribution in nuclei during the last decade has made available the best information to date regarding correlations in nuclear systems Sick97 . Experimentally, $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reactions have provided precise information for spectroscopic factors of states close to the Fermi energy Louk ; leus  in finite nuclei. Moreover, information on the tail of the spectral distribution at high missing energies and momenta, generated by short-range correlations (SRC), has recently become available DanielaLund . The observed spectroscopic factors have been reproduced for selected nuclei, such as $`{}_{}{}^{48}\mathrm{Ca}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{90}\mathrm{Zr}`$ CaZr , and a particularly successful comparison between theory and experiment has been obtained for $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ LapLi7 . In all these calculations, the effects of configuration mixing at low energy was taken properly into account. Besides, the effects of SRC have been investigated for different systems and are known to give a constant reduction of the spectroscopic strength of 10-15%, for the fragments close to the Fermi energy pmd94-95 ; jastO16 ; bv91 .

For the case of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$, there still exists a substantial disagreement between experiment leus  and theory pmd94-95 ; jastO16 ; muether2h1pO16 ; GeurtsO16 ; FaddRPAO16 . The latter has been able to explain only a part of the quenching of spectroscopic factors for proton knockout from the $`p`$-shell. The results of Refs. GeurtsO16 ; muether2h1pO16  show that the reasons for this discrepancy have to be looked for in terms of long-range correlations (LRC) and in particular in the couplings of single-particle (sp) motion to low-energy collective excitations.

In this paper we report about the work done along this line in Refs. FaddRPAO16 ; 2phERPAO16  in order to approach the above issues for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$. Sec. II describes the formalism employed to describe the coupling of particle-hole (ph), particle-particle (pp) and hole-hole (hh) collective excitation to the sp propagator. This is done by embedding the technique of Faddeev equations into the self-consistent Green’s function formalism FaddRPA1 ; BaDLund . The results of this calculation are given in Sec. III, where the effects of nuclear fragmentations and the random phase approximation (RPA) in the description of phonons are discussed. These calculations show that a proper description of the experimental spectral strength requires an improvement of the spectrum, that goes beyond the RPA approach. A first step in this direction is reported in Sec. IV, where the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) is employed to pursue the improvement of the ph-RPA approach.

## II Faddeev approach the calculation of the single-particle Green’s function

We consider the calculation of the sp Green’s function

$$g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)=\underset{n}{}\frac{\left(𝒳_\alpha ^n\right)^{}𝒳_\beta ^n}{\omega \epsilon _n^++i\eta }+\underset{k}{}\frac{𝒴_\alpha ^k\left(𝒴_\beta ^k\right)^{}}{\omega \epsilon _k^{}i\eta },$$
(1)
from which both the one-hole and one-particle spectral functions, for the removal and addition of a nucleon, can be extracted. In Eq. (1), $`𝒳_\alpha ^n=\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A+1}|c_\alpha ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$ ($`𝒴_\alpha ^k=\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{A1}|c_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$) are the spectroscopic amplitudes for the excited states of a system with $`A+1`$ ($`A1`$) particles and the poles $`\epsilon _n^+=E_n^{A+1}E_0^A`$ ($`\epsilon _k^{}=E_0^AE_k^{A1}`$) correspond to the excitation energies with respect to the $`A`$-body ground state. The one-body Green’s function can be computed by solving the Dyson equation

$$g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)=g_{\alpha \beta }^0\left(\omega \right)+\underset{\gamma \delta }{}g_{\alpha \gamma }^0\left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \delta }^{}\left(\omega \right)g_{\delta \beta }\left(\omega \right),$$
(2)
where the irreducible self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \delta }^{}\left(\omega \right)`$ acts as an effective, energy-dependent, potential. The latter can be expanded in a Feynman-Dyson series fetwa ; AAA  in terms the exact propagator $`g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)`$, which itself is a solution of Eq. (2). In this expansion, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \delta }^{}\left(\omega \right)`$ can be represented as the sum of a one-body Hartree-Fock potential and terms that describe the coupling between the sp motion and more complex excitations Win72 . This separation is depicted by the diagrams of Fig. 1, where the last two diagrams are expressed in terms of the three-line irreducible propagator $`R\left(\omega \right)`$ which describes the propagation of at least 2h1p or 2p1h at the same time. It is at the level of $`R\left(\omega \right)`$ that the correlations involving interactions between different collective modes have to be included.

The SCGF approach consist of first solving the self-energy and the Dyson Eq. (2) in terms of a mean-field IPM propagator $`g_{\alpha ,\beta }^0\left(\omega \right)`$. The (dressed) solution $`g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)`$ is then used to evaluate the an improved self-energy, which then contains the effects of fragmentation. The whole procedure is iterated until self-consistency is reached. Baym and Kadanoff showed that a self-consistent solution of the above equation guarantees the fulfillment of the principal conservation laws bk61 .

### II.1 Faddeev approach to the self-energy

In the following we are interested in describing the coupling of sp motion to ph and pp(hh) collective excitations of the system. All the relevant information regarding the latter are included in the Lehmann representations of the polarization propagator

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }\left(\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A|c_\beta ^{}c_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_n^A\mathrm{\Psi }_n^A|c_\gamma ^{}c_\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A}{\omega \left(E_n^AE_0^A\right)+i\eta }}`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A|c_\gamma ^{}c_\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_n^A\mathrm{\Psi }_n^A|c_\beta ^{}c_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A}{\omega \left(E_0^AE_n^A\right)i\eta }},`$
that describes the excited states in the system with $`A`$ particles, and of the two-particle propagator that is relevant for the $`A\pm 2`$ excitations

$`g_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{II}\left(\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A|c_\beta c_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A+2}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A+2}|c_\gamma ^{}c_\delta ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A}{\omega \left(E_n^{A+2}E_0^A\right)+i\eta }}`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A|c_\gamma ^{}c_\delta ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{A2}\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{A2}|c_\beta c_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A}{\omega \left(E_0^AE_k^{A2}\right)i\eta }}.`$
In the calculation of Sec. III, these quantities have been evaluated by solving the dressed TDA/RPA (DTDA/DRPA) equations schuckbook ; DRPAg\_papers  for the ph and pp case, respectively. The fact that a dressed sp propagator is used brings in to the calculation the effects of the strength distribution for particle and hole fragments. One must notice that the propagators (3) and (4) are in fact the solution of more general Bethe-Salpeter equations, that also include correlations beyond the RPA level. One of these is the mixing of many-phonons in the kernel of the BSE. A first calculation in this direction has been done for the ph propagator $`\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\omega \right)`$ 2phERPAO16  and is reported in Sec. IV.

Once one has obtained the ph (3) and pp(hh) (4) propagators, their coupling to the sp motion has to be accounted for in the nuclear self-energy. To do this the 2p1h and 2h1p propagators of Fig. 1 are computed by solving a set of Faddeev equations Fadd1 ; gloeck . The details of the formalism employed in this calculation have been discussed in Ref. FaddRPA1  and will not be shown here. For the present discussion it is sufficient to note that this approach computes the motion of three-quasiparticle excitations in the same way it is normally done to solve the three-body problem. This allows to include the effects of ph and pp(hh) motion not only at the TDA level but also with more collective RPA phonons and beyond. Such excitations are coupled to each other by the Faddeev equations, generating an infinite series of diagrams like the one shown in Fig. 2. Moreover, Pauli correlations are properly taken into account at the 2p1h/2h1p level.

## III Results for the single-particle spectral function of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$

In the calculations described below, the Dyson equation was solved within a model space consisting of harmonic oscillator sp states. An oscillator parameter $`b=`$ 1.76 fm was chosen (corresponding to $`\mathrm{}\omega =`$ 13.4 MeV) and all the first four major shells (from $`1s`$ to $`2p1f`$) plus the $`1g_{9/2}`$ where included. Inside this model space, the interaction used was a Brueckner G-matrix CALGM  derived from the Bonn-C potential bonnc . The results of Refs. CaZr ; 2phERPAO16 , suggest that this model space is large enough to properly account for the low-energy collective states in which we are mainly interested in, the SRC being accounted for through the G-matrix effective interaction. We note that energy dependence of the G-matrix also contributes to the normalization of the spectral strength. In Ref. GeurtsO16 , it was shown that this accounts for the extra depletion of spectroscopic factors that is induced by SRC, at least for the normally occupied shells in the IPM.

We mention that the solution of RPA equations may lead to collective instabilities whenever the iteration becomes too attractive. A particular sensitivity to the strength of the G-matrix interaction was found in the calculation of FaddRPAO16 , only for the lowest isoscalar $`0^+`$ solution. For this reason it was chosen to artificially shift its eigenvalue to the experimental energy of first excited state, 6.05 MeV, during the successive iterations. Note that the screening due the redistribution of the sp strength tends to reduce the instability problem in DRPA. Moreover, the origin of the instability for this particular solution has been identified and corrected later, in Ref. 2phERPAO16 .

### III.1 Effects of RPA correlations and fragmentation

For an IPM ansatz the TDA calculation is equivalent to the one of Ref. GeurtsO16  and yields the same result for the spectroscopic factors of the main particle and hole shells close to the Fermi energy. These correspond to 0.775 for $`p_{1/2}`$ and 0.766 for $`p_{3/2}`$ and are reported in Table 1. The introduction of RPA correlations reduces these values and brings them down to 0.745 and 0.725, respectively. This result reduces the discrepancy with the experiment by about 4% and shows that collectivity beyond the TDA level is relevant to explain the quenching of spectroscopic factors. Since the present formalism does not account for center-of-mass effects, the above quantities need to be increased by about 7% before they are compared with the experiment O16com .

The RPA results were iterated a few times, with the aim of studying the effects of fragmentation on the RPA phonons and, subsequently, on the spectral strength. Since we are looking at low-energy excitations, it is sufficient to keep track only of the most occupied fragments that appear —close to the Fermi energy— in the (dressed) sp propagator, Eq. (1), while the residual strength is collected in a effective pole jyuan ; FaddRPAO16 . As shown in Table 1, only a few iterations are required to reach convergence. The converged distribution of one-hole strength is compared in with the experimental one in Fig. 3. The main difference between these results and the one obtained by using an IPM input is the appearance of a second smaller $`p_{3/2}`$ fragment at -26.3 MeV. This peak arises in the first two iterations and appears to become stable in the last one, with a spectroscopic factor of 2.6%. This can be interpreted as a peak that describes the fragments seen experimentally at slightly higher missing energy. This is the first time that such a fragment is obtained in calculations of the spectral strength. Further insight into the appearance of this strength is discussed in Sec. III.2.

A second effect of including fragmentation in the construction of the RPA phonons is to increase the strength of the main hole peaks. The $`p_{1/2}`$ strength increases from the 0.745 obtained with IPM input to 0.776, essentially canceling the improvement gained by the introduction of RPA correlations over the TDA ones. The main peak of the $`p_{3/2}`$ remains at 0.722 but the appearance of the secondary fragment slightly increases the overall strength at low energy as well. This behavior is due to the fact that redistribution of the strength (and principally, the reduction of the main spectroscopic factors) tends to screen the nuclear interaction, with respect to the IPM case. Obviously, this makes the disagreement with experiments a little worse and additional work is needed to resolve the disagreement with the data. Nevertheless it is clear that fragmentation is a relevant feature of nuclear systems and that it has to be properly taken into account.

Together with the main fragments, the Dyson equation produces also a large number of solutions with small spectroscopic factors. This strength extends down to about -130 MeV for the one-hole spectral function and up to about 100 MeV for the one-particle case. This background represents the strength that is removed from the main peaks and shifted up to medium missing energies. Another 10% of strength is moved to very high energies due to SRC bv91 . Its location cannot be explicitly calculated in the present approach but the effects on the reduction of spectroscopic factors at low energy is accounted through the energy dependence of the G-matrix. Accordingly the total number of nucleons deduced from the fully self-consistent spectral function is about a 10% lower than $`A=`$ 16, as reported in Table 1.

We note that the present approach gives predictions also for the strength distribution of quasiparticle excitations. Although little experimental information is available for the addition of a nucleon (as well as for the removal of a neutron). Recently, knockout and nucleon transfer reactions, employing nuclear probes, have been applied to measure the hole spectroscopic factors of both stable and exotic nuclei loukd3He ; Hansen . These tools can now reach better accuracies than in the past and may, in principle, be used to extract information on the one-particle spectral distribution.

### III.2 Role of $`0^+`$ and $`3^{}`$ excited states in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$

A deeper insight into the mechanisms that generate the fragmentation pattern can be gained by investigating directly the connection between the spectral function and some specific collective states. To clarify this point we repeated the third iteration using exactly the same input but without keeping the troublesome ph $`0^+`$ state at its experimental energy, it was discarded instead. The resulting $`p`$ hole spectral function is shown in the lower-left panel of Fig. 3. In this calculation no breaking of the $`p_{3/2}`$ strength is obtained but only a single peak is found with a spectroscopic factor equal to 0.75, which is the sum of the two fragments that are obtained when the $`0_2^+`$ state is taken into account. This result can be interpreted by considering the $`p_{3/2}`$ fragments as a hole in the ground state and in the first excited $`0^+`$ state of the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ core, respectively. The correct fragmentation pattern can be reproduced only when latter two levels are close enough, in energy, to one another.

The other two low-lying states of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ that may be of some relevance are the isoscalar $`1^{}`$ and $`3^{}`$. These excitations are reproduced reasonably well by RPA type calculations czer  but are typically found at $``$3 MeV above the experimental results. The lower panels of Fig. 3 show the results for the even parity spectral functions that are obtained when both the $`3^{}`$ and the $`1^{}`$ ph-DRPA solutions are shifted to match their experimental values. In this case, a $`d_{5/2}`$ hole peak is obtained at a missing energy -17.7 MeV, in agreement with experiment, and with a spectroscopic strength of 0.5%.

It should be noted that many weak fragments (i.e. relative to the addition or knockout for a nucleon with a small spectroscopic factor) are seen throughout the nuclear table of isotopes. Most of these have no direct explanation in terms of mean-field sp states and contain more complicated components, involving 2p1h/2h1p configurations and beyond. Jennings and Escher have shown that different definitions of the overlap wave function can be given that completely describe the sp motion inside the nuclear medium. Although, each of them sample the Pauli correlations in a different way, resulting in very different normalizations of the amplitudes of weak states Byron02 . This may have important consequences for the reliability of spectroscopic factors extracted from proton emission and pick-up/stripping reactions Jim .

## IV Extension of RPA and spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$

The above results suggest that the main impediment for further improvements of the description of the experimental spectral strength is associated with the deficiencies of the RPA (DRPA) description of the excited states. One important problem is the appearance of at most one collective phonon for a given $`J^\pi ,T`$ combination while several low-lying isoscalar $`0^+`$ and $`2^+`$ excited states are observed at low energy in $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$, as well as additional $`3^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ states. A possible way to proceed would be to first concentrate on an improved description of the collective phonons by extending the RPA to explicitly include the coupling to two-particle$``$two-hole (2p2h) states. Such an extended RPA procedure has been applied in heavier nuclei with considerable success CaZr . In order to be relevant for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$, this approach requires an extension in which the coherence of the 2p2h states is included in the form of the presence of two-phonon excitations wim2ph . This correspond to adding two-phonon configurations to the kernel of the BSE for the ph propagator (3), as shown in Fig. 4 2phERPAO16 .

We note that there has been a tremendous progress in recent years in the microscopic description of p shell nuclei using Green’s Function Monte Carlo and no-core shell model methods GFMC ; NoCshell . A possible application of the no-core shell model to $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ would properly include the 4p4h effects relevant for describing the spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ O16\_0+ . However the description of spectroscopic factors will require the construction of effective operators to include the effects of short-range correlations on these quantities whereas they are automatically included in the SCGF method. Whence the interest in studying the spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ with the present method.

The formalism to include two-phonon configurations has been presented in Ref. 2phERPAO16 , where it is referred as two-phonon extended RPA (ERPA). In this work the ph-DRPA equation has been solved first, using the self-consistent sp propagator derived in Sec. III. The lowest DRPA solutions for both the $`0^+`$, $`3^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ channels were shifted down to their relative experimental energies and then they were employed to generate the two-phonon contributions for the ERPA calculation. The spectrum obtained for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ is displayed in Fig. 5 and Table 2 together the total ph strength $`Z_{n_\pi }`$ of each state,

$$Z_{n_\pi }=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{n_\pi }^A|c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A\right|^2.$$
(5)
Table 2 also reposts the relative occupation of ph and two-phonon admixtures in the wave function for each solution of the ERPA equation.

The results yield an isoscalar $`0^+`$ state with a predominant ph character at $``$17 MeV, as it was found in DRPA. Although this solution is now characterized by a partial mixing with two-phonon configurations. Table 2 shows that this is the result of mixing with the lowest solution in the same channel, which ends up at $``$11 MeV. The latter is predominately a two-phonon state. It is also seen that in both cases the relevant configuration comes from the coupling of two $`0^+`$ phonons themselves. The calculations of Ref. iach1  have shown that the bulk of the 4p4h contributions to the first excited state of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ may come from the coupling of four different phonons with negative parity ($`3^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$). However, the self-consistent role of coupling positive parity states was not considered in that work. Both this effect, the RPA correlations and the inclusion of the nuclear fragmentation allow for the –at least partial– inclusion of configurations beyond the 2p2h case even when no more than two-phonon coupling is considered, as in this paper. A study of the importance of three- and four-phonon configurations will be addressed in the future.

The low-lying negative parity isoscalar states ($`3^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$) are only slightly affected by two-phonon contributions and remain substantially above the experimental energy at 9.23 and 10.90 MeV, respectively, and more correlations will be needed in order to lower their energy. We note that these wave functions contain a two-phonon admixture obtained by coupling the low-lying $`0^+`$ excitation to either the $`3^{}`$ or $`1^{}`$ phonons. According to the above interpretation of the first $`0^+`$ excited state this corresponds to the inclusion of 3p3h and beyond. At the same time two additional negative parity solutions, with two-phonon character, are found at higher energy in accordance with experiment.

The two-phonon ERPA approach also generates a triplet of states at about 12 MeV, with quantum numbers $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$ and $`4^+`$. A similar triplet is found experimentally at 12.05, 11.52 and 11.10 MeV, which also corresponds to twice the experimental energy of the first $`3^{}`$ phonon. The ERPA solutions for this triplet are almost exclusively obtained by $`3^{}3^{}`$ states and therefore have a 2p2h character, in accordance with Refs. O16ph86 ; O162p2h . Further interaction in the pp and hh channels will be needed in order to reproduce the correct experimental splitting and experimental strength iach1 .

## V Conclusions

In the present paper the Faddeev technique, combined with self-consistent Green’s Function theory, has been applied to study 2h1p correlations at small missing energies for the nucleus of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$. The application of the Faddeev method allows for the first time the treatment of the coupling of ph and pp(hh) collective modes within a RPA framework, while the effects of fragmentation are included through the dressing of the sp propagator. The present approach allows to further identify the important role played by the low-lying excited states of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$. These are seen to be essential to generate many of the fragments with small spectrocopic factors that are seen experimentally, like the $`s_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{3/2}`$ states of $`{}_{}{}^{15}\mathrm{N}`$ at 5.20 MeV and $``$9 MeV. .

The main impediment in obtaining a good theoretical description of the single particle spectral function of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ has been identified in the poor description of the excitation spectrum, as obtained by solving the standard (D)RPA equations. We have improved on this by computing the effects of mixing of ph states with two-phonon configurations in the kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equations. Moreover, configurations beyond the 2p2h level were also partially included by means of improved RPA and self-consistency effects. The results show that these contributions explain the formation of several excited states observed at low energy which are not obtained by RPA calculations. Still it appears that a full solution of the spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ with this method requires to consider the mixing of up to four phonons and the interaction in the pp and hh channels iach1 . The inclusion of such effects will be the topic of future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (C.B.) acknowledges useful discussions with J.-M. Sparenberg and B. Jennings. This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-9900713 and PHY-0140316 and in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).