text:
# Spin Relaxation Anisotropy in Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Systems

## I Introduction

Spin dynamics in semiconductors has been investigated for more than four decades. During this period, effects leading to creation and disappearance of equilibrium and non-equilibrium microscopic magnetic moments have been discovered. The non-equilibrium spin is known to appear in III–V and II–VI compounds upon absorption of circularly polarized light. This way to create non-equilibrium spins is named the method of Optical orientation of electrons and nuclei, which proved to be the most effective in investigating the optical and kinetic properties of bulk semiconductor samples and heterostructures. The problem of the loss of the average microscopic spin is very important in analysis of experimental data and device applications.

In bulk semiconductors, mechanisms of electron and hole spin relaxation have been studied in ample detail both theoretically and experimentally . It is known that the main mechanism for electrons in crystals lacking inversion symmetry is, in a wide range of temperatures, the kinetic mechanism proposed by D’yakonov and Perel’. Carriers lose their spin orientation owing to precession in the effective magnetic field caused by those terms which are cubic in wavevector. For holes in the valence band, where the spin–orbit interaction affects the energy spectrum to a greater extent, the loss of spin is mainly associated with spin-flip in each scattering act (Elliot–Yafet mechanism). However, the corresponding spin relaxation rate is of the same order as the momentum relaxation rate, which makes studying this kind of spin relaxation complicated.

In two-dimensional (2D) semiconductor structures, the relative importance of the above mechanisms changes dramatically because of the appearance of new forms of energy spectrum and spin–orbit interaction. The size-quantization effect suppresses the spin–orbit interaction for holes and increases its strength for electrons. Therefore, it becomes possible to study spin relaxation in p-type structures, and in n-type samples it is fundamentally different from that in the bulk case.

The spin dynamics processes in 2D systems may exhibit natural, ‘intrinsic’ anisotropy owing to presence of the growth axis. Analysis shows that in the conventional heterostructures this anisotropy is not large, being only 50%. However, the authors of the present study have shown theoretically that the in-plane anisotropy of spin relaxation appears in III–V asymmetrical heterostructures . This anisotropy may be controlled by external parameters, and the spin relaxation times differ by several orders of magnitude . This opens up broad possibilities for spin engineering.

We consider two most important carrier spin relaxation scenarios: the D’yakonov–Perel’ and Elliot–Yafet mechanisms. The Bir–Aronov–Pikus mechanism, associated with exchange electron–hole interaction, is essential only in p-doped samples, which are beyond the scope of this review, together with the excitonic spin relaxation.

In general, spin relaxation equation can be written in the form

$$\dot{S}_i=\frac{S_j}{\tau _{ij}},$$
(1)
where $`S_i`$ is the spin density, and $`(1/\tau _{ij})`$ is the component of a second rank tensor. The concrete form of the tensor $`(1/\tau _{ij})`$ depends on the symmetry of the system under study. Since in a 2D structure the special direction exists (the growth axis), spin relaxation processes are anisotropic. Symmetry of a single heterointerface of a semiconductor with zinc-blende lattice is $`C_{2v}`$. This leads to three different spin relaxation times. However if two interfaces of a quantum well are equivalent, then the structure symmetry increases up to $`D_{2d}`$ and in-plane spin relaxes isotropically. In semiconductors, spin relaxation processes are caused firstly not by external magnetic field, but due to peculiarities of a band structure and scattering mechanisms. These are processes which are considered in the present Review.

We write the electron or hole Hamiltonian in the form

$$H=H_0+V,$$
(2)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of a system without weak spin–orbit interaction and scattering, and these two are described by small perturbation $`V`$. Let $`|n𝒌`$ and $`E_{n𝐤}`$ be the eigenstates and eigenvalues of $`H_0`$:

$$n𝒌|H_0|n^{}𝒌^{}=E_{n𝐤}\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}.$$
(3)
Here $`n`$ is the index of a 2D electron or hole subband, and $`𝒌`$ is the wavevector characterizing the motion in the heterostructure plane. In what follows, we assume that only the first subband of size quantization is populated and the energy dispersion is isotropic. Therefore, we omit the subband index and denote the energies as $`E_k`$. It is convenient to extract the diagonal in the $`𝒌`$ part of the spin–orbit interaction:

$$H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)=V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}}$$
(4)
(small spin-independent corrections from $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}}`$ are assumed to be included into $`E_k`$).

The dynamics of the electron spin density and that of the hole angular momentum density are determined by the time evolution of the respective density matrices. The diagonal in the $`𝒌`$ part of the density matrix, $`\rho _𝐤`$, obeys the equation

$$\frac{\rho _𝐤}{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌),\rho _𝐤]\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}\underset{𝐤^{}𝐤}{}\left(\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}\rho _𝐤+\rho _𝐤V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}}{2}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}\rho _𝐤^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}\right)\delta (E_kE_k^{}).$$
(5)
This equation is valid for any type of spin-orbit interaction and scattering. Below we analyse it in the cases of electrons and holes separately.

The review is organized as follows. Section II is concerned with 2D electron systems. Section III is devoted to p-type quantum wells. Conclusion discusses the possible ways to measure spin relaxation rates and to observe the spin relaxation anisotropy.

## II Electron spin relaxation

A specific feature of electron systems is that the spin–orbit interaction is weaker than the momentum scattering. Therefore, it is convenient to represent the scattering amplitude as

$$V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}+V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{},$$
(6)
where $``$ is $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix and $`\mathrm{Tr}(V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{})=0`$. Since the spin–orbit interaction is weak, $`uV^{}`$.

In the following, we assume a central elastic scattering. In this case, $`u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ is real and dependent on the electron energy $`E_k`$ and the absolute value of the scattering angle $`\theta =\phi _𝐤^{}\phi _𝐤`$, where $`\phi _𝐤`$ is the angular co-ordinate of $`𝒌`$ in the heterostructure plane.

Since $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}`$ are small perturbations, the spin relaxation times are much longer than the times in which the electron momentum distribution becomes isotropic. For this reason, it is convenient to represent the density matrix as a sum :

$`\rho =\overline{\rho }+\rho ^{},\overline{\rho ^{}}=0.`$

Here the bar means averaging over $`\phi _𝐤`$, and, hence, $`\overline{\rho }`$ depends only on $`E_k`$. The anisotropic part of the density matrix is due to $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ and $`V^{}`$ and, therefore, $`\rho ^{}`$ is small as compared with $`\overline{\rho }`$.

To second order in $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ and $`V^{}`$, equation (5) has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _𝐤^{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌),\overline{\rho }]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌),\rho _𝐤^{}]`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }|u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}|^2(\rho _𝐤^{}\rho _𝐤^{}^{})}`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\left(\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}}{2}\overline{\rho }+\overline{\rho }\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}}{2}\right)}`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\left(\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}+V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}}{2}\rho _𝐤^{}+\rho _𝐤^{}\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}+V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}}{2}V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}\rho _𝐤^{}^{}\rho _𝐤^{}^{}V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}\right)}`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }\left(\frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}\overline{\rho }+\overline{\rho }V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}}{2}V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}\overline{\rho }V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}\right)},`$ (11)
where $`g`$ is the 2D density of electron states. It is noteworthy that the first two integrals in (7) are of first order in spin–orbit interaction, and the two last, of second order.

The electron spin density is given by

$$𝑺_e=g\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{\rho }\frac{𝝈}{2}\right).$$
(12)
Therefore, to analyze the spin dynamics, we have to find $`\overline{\rho }`$. Since $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}`$ are anisotropic in $`𝒌`$-space, the equations for $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ are coupled and can be solved only for concrete interactions $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ and $`V^{}`$.

In semiconductor heterostructures, spin relaxation can be caused by both $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ and $`V^{}`$. The first scenario is known as the D’yakonov–Perel’ mechanism, and the second, as the Elliot–Yafet mechanism. Even in the same heterostructure, the relative contributions of the mechanism may vary with such parameters as temperature or electron concentration. Since any of the spin relaxation mechanisms may be dominant, we investigate them separately.

### A D’yakonov-Perel’ mechanism

Let us consider a system with spin–orbit interaction described by the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$. It is equivalent to a Zeeman term with effective magnetic field dependent on $`𝒌`$. In the presence of scattering, the wavevector changes and, hence, the effective magnetic field changes too. Therefore, in the case of frequent scattering, electrons are subjected to a chaotically changing magnetic field. The spin dynamics in such a system has diffusion character, which leads to loss of specific spin orientation. This is the D’yakonov–Perel’ spin relaxation mechanism , and it is the main spin relaxation mechanism in many III–V bulk semiconductors and heterostructures. It takes place even in the case of spin-independent scattering, when

$`V^{}=0.`$

In this case, in a time of the order of the transport time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, the density matrix becomes isotropic, but the spin relaxation processes do not onset. One can obtain a kinetic equation for the spin density at times longer than $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ :

$$\dot{S}_{e,i}(t)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k(F_+F_{})\tau _n\mathrm{Tr}\left([H_n,[H_n,\sigma _j]]\sigma _i\right)}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k(F_+F_{})}S_{e,j}(t).$$
(13)
Here

$$H_n=\frac{d\phi _𝐤}{2\pi }H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)\mathrm{exp}(in\phi _𝐤)$$
(14)
are the Fourier-harmonics of the spin-orbit Hamiltonian,

$$\frac{1}{\tau _n}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }|u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}n\theta )$$
(15)
are the transport scattering rates, and $`F_\pm (E_k)`$ are the distribution functions of particles with spin projection equal to $`\pm 1/2`$.

Equation (13) is valid for 2D electrons with any spin–orbit interaction $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$. Let us consider an asymmetrical zincblende heterostructure. There are two contributions to $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$. The first, the so-called bulk inversion asymmetry (BIA) term, is due to the lack of inversion symmetry in the bulk of the material of which the heterostructure is made. To calculate this term, one has to average the corresponding bulk expression over the size-quantized motion . We investigate the heterostructure with growth direction  coinciding with the $`z`$-axis and assume that only the first electron subband is populated. The BIA term has the form

$$H_{\mathrm{BIA}}(𝒌)=\gamma [k_z^2(\sigma _yk_y\sigma _xk_x)+\sigma _xk_xk_y^2\sigma _yk_yk_x^2)],$$
(16)
where we choose the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions aligned with the principal axes in the heterostructure plane. Here $`k_z^2`$ is squared operator $`(i/z)`$ averaged over the ground state, and $`\gamma `$ is the bulk spin–orbit interaction constant. It is seen that $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$ contains terms that are both linear and cubic in $`k`$.

In asymmetrical heterostructures, there is an additional contribution to the spin–orbit Hamiltonian, which is absent in the bulk. It is caused by structure inversion asymmetry (SIA) and can be written as

$$H_{\mathrm{SIA}}(𝒌)=\alpha (\sigma _xk_y\sigma _yk_x),$$
(17)
where $`\alpha `$ is proportional to the electric field, $`E`$, acting on an electron:

$$\alpha =\alpha _0eE.$$
(18)
Here $`e`$ is the elementary charge and $`\alpha _0`$ is a second spin-orbit constant determined by both bulk spin-orbit interaction parameters and properties of heterointerfaces. It should be stressed that, in asymmetrical heterostructures, $`E`$ is caused mainly by the difference of the wave function and band parameters at the interfaces, rather than by average electric field .

$`H_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ contains terms linear in $`k`$, as also does $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$. From equation (13) follows that the harmonics with the same $`n`$ are coupled in the spin dynamics equations. This leads to interference of BIA and SIA terms linear in wavevector in the spin relaxation equations .

For $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}=H_{\mathrm{BIA}}+H_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$, the system has $`C_{2v}`$-symmetry. Therefore, equations (13) can be rewritten as follows:

$$\dot{S}_z=\frac{S_z}{\tau _z},\dot{S}_x\pm \dot{S}_y=\frac{S_x\pm S_y}{\tau _\pm }.$$
(19)
The times $`\tau _z`$, $`\tau _+`$ and $`\tau _{}`$ are the relaxation times of a spin parallel to the axes ,  and \[1$`\overline{1}`$0\], respectively.

If both the spin subsystems attain equilibrium before the onset of spin relaxation, then

$$F_\pm (E_k)=F_0(\mu _\pm E_k),$$
(20)
where $`F_0`$ is the Fermi–Dirac distribution function and $`\mu _\pm `$ are the chemical potentials of the electron spin subsystems. If the spin splitting is small, i. e.

$$|\mu _+\mu _{}||\mu _+|,|\mu _{}|$$

then the expressions for the spin relaxation rates $`1/\tau _i`$ ($`i=z,+,`$) have the form

$$\frac{1}{\tau _i}=\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k(F_0/E_k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(k)}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k(F_0/E_k)},$$
(21)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z(k)={\displaystyle \frac{4\tau _1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[(\gamma ^2k_z^2^2+\alpha ^2)k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^2k_z^2k^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3/\tau _1}{16}}\gamma ^2k^6\right],`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[(\alpha \gamma k_z^2)^2k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma (\alpha \gamma k_z^2)k^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3/\tau _1}{16}}\gamma ^2k^6\right],`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[(\alpha +\gamma k_z^2)^2k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma (\alpha +\gamma k_z^2)k^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3/\tau _1}{16}}\gamma ^2k^6\right].`$ (24)
Equations (21), (22) are valid for any electron energy distribution. If the electron gas is degenerate, then the spin relaxation times are given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _i}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(k_\mathrm{F}),$$
(25)
where $`k_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi wavevector determined by the total 2D electron concentration $`N`$:

$$k_\mathrm{F}=\sqrt{2\pi N}.$$
(26)
In this case, the scattering time $`\tau _1`$ in equations (22) coincides with the transport relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, which can be determined from the electron mobility.

For nondegenerate electrons, the spin relaxation times are determined, in particular, by the energy dependences of the scattering times $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _3`$. If $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _3E_k^\nu `$, then $`\tau _3/\tau _1=\mathrm{const}`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[(\gamma ^2k_z^2^2+\alpha ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu +2}{2}}\gamma ^2k_z^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2+(\nu +2)(\nu +3){\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3/\tau _1}{16}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^3\right],`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _\pm }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left[(\pm \alpha \gamma k_z^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu +2}{2}}\gamma (\pm \alpha \gamma k_z^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^2+(\nu +2)(\nu +3){\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau _3/\tau _1}{16}}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2mk_\mathrm{B}T}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)^3\right].`$ (28)
Here $`T`$ is the electron temperature and $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant. In the particular case of short-range scattering, $`\nu =0`$, and $`\tau _1=\tau _3`$ are equal to $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, which is independent of temperature.

The spin relaxation times are very sensitive to the relationship between two spin–orbit interaction strengths, $`\gamma k_z^2`$ and $`\alpha `$. From equations (25), (27) follows that at low concentration or temperature, $`1/\tau _z`$, $`1/\tau _{}`$ and $`1/\tau _+`$ are determined by respectively, the sum of squared $`\gamma k_z^2`$ and $`\alpha `$, their squared sum, and their squared difference. This may lead to a considerable difference between the three rates, i. e. to a total spin relaxation anisotropy if $`\gamma k_z^2`$ and $`\alpha `$ are close in magnitude. In real III–V systems, the relations between $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ may vary, with $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$ or $`H_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ dominant  or these two terms comparable . In the last case, a giant spin relaxation anisotropy is predicted .

The value of $`k_z^2`$ depends on the heteropotential and can be calculated for concrete asymmetrical heterostructures . The constant $`\gamma `$ is known for GaAs from optical orientation experiments . Correct theoretical expressions for $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _0`$ have been derived in terms of the three-band $`𝒌𝒑`$ model . The heterointerfaces make a contribution to $`\alpha _0`$ in addition to that from the bulk . At large wavevectors, $`\alpha _0`$ starts to depend on $`k`$ . Here we assume that the concentrations and temperatures are sufficiently low, allowing us to ignore this effect.

In Ref. , the spin relaxation times were calculated for a III–V heterojunction and a triangular quantum well (QW). The observance of spin relaxation anisotropy in all the three directions is predicted in a wide range of structure parameters and temperatures.

It has been shown  that inclusion of both the BIA and SIA terms, (16) and (17), into $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ leads to a spin-splitting anisotropy of the conduction band in $`𝒌`$-space in III–V semiconductor heterojunctions. However, the spin relaxation analysis performed in  ignored this effect. The authors of Ref.  demonstrated that the BIA and SIA terms interfere in weak localization but are additive in spin relaxation. It was shown in Ref.  that those terms in $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ which are linear in the wavevector cancel out in spin relaxation as well.

In a recent study , the spin relaxation anisotropy was observed for uncommon (110) GaAs QWs. In this experiment, the spin relaxation in the growth direction was suppressed because of the ‘built-in’ anisotropy of the sample, resulting from the presence of heterointerfaces. By contrast, suppression of spin relaxation in the heterostructure plane was predicted in Ref. . Moreover, all the three spin relaxation times are different in the last case, and this effect takes place in ordinary (001) heterostructures.

We demonstrate that the terms in the spin–orbit Hamiltonian, which are linear in the wavevector interfere, and this leads to a huge anisotropy of the spin relaxation times. At high concentration or temperature, this effect starts to disappear owing to the predominance of the cubic in $`k`$ terms in $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$, which are only present in $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$. However, the higher-order terms in $`H_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ are not forbidden by symmetry, either. These terms can also interfere with those in $`H_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$, and cause additional non-monotonic features in the dependences of the spin relaxation times on the structure parameters.

### B Elliot-Yafet mechanism

Let consider a 2D electron system without spin splitting of the spectrum. In this case, there is no $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝒌)`$ term in the Hamiltonian, and the spin–orbit interaction occurs due to scattering only.

In the heterostructures based on III–V semiconductors, the spin-flip scattering can be obtained in the Kane model taking into account a mixture of conduction- and valence-band states. The electron wave function has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{s𝐤}(𝒓)=c_k\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌𝝆)\left[u_s(z)S+𝒗_{s𝐤}(z)𝐑\right].$$
(29)
Here $`s=+,`$ enumerates two spin states at a given $`𝒌`$; $`S`$ and $`𝑹=(X,Y,Z)`$ are, respectively, $`s`$\- and $`p`$-like Bloch functions, and $`c_k`$ is the normalization factor. The functions $`u_s`$ and $`𝒗_{s𝐤}`$ are eight envelopes corresponding to the conduction and valence band, respectively, related by

$$𝒗_{s𝐤}(z)=i\left(A𝑲iB𝝈\times 𝑲\right)u_s(z).$$
(30)
Here we introduce a 3D vector $`𝑲=(𝒌,k_z)`$ with $`k_z=i/z`$, and two constants:

$$A=\frac{P}{3}\left(\frac{2}{E_g}+\frac{1}{E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),B=\frac{P}{3}\left(\frac{1}{E_g}\frac{1}{E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(31)
where $`E_\mathrm{g}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the energy gaps between the bands $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$, respectively, and $`P`$ is the Kane matrix element. The envelope function for the conduction band is

$$u_s(z)=\phi (z)w_s,$$
(32)
where $`\phi (z)`$ is the wave function of size-quantization, and $`w_+=`$, $`w_{}=`$ are the spin functions. The normalization factor is given to second order in $`AK`$ and $`BK`$ by

$$c_k=1(A^2+2B^2)(k^2+k_z^2),$$
(33)
where $`k_z^2=𝑑z(d\phi /dz)^2`$.

The scattering matrix element $`s𝒌|V|s^{}𝒌^{}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with respect to the indices $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$. Therefore, in the notation (6) we obtain

$`u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`u_0(𝒌𝒌^{})[1+(A^2+2B^2)(𝒌𝒌^{}k^2)]+(A^2+2B^2)\left[u_0(𝒌𝒌^{})k_z^2{\displaystyle 𝑑zu_0(𝒌𝒌^{},z)(k_z\phi )^2}\right],`$ (34)
$`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2AB+B^2)\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑zu_0(𝒌𝒌^{},z)\phi ik_z\phi [𝝈\times (𝒌+𝒌^{})]_z}+iu_0(𝒌𝒌^{})𝝈(𝒌\times 𝒌^{})\right\}.`$ (35)
Here

$$u_0(𝒒,z)=𝑑𝝆V(𝝆,z)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒒𝝆),$$
(36)
with $`V(𝝆,z)`$ being the scattering potential, and

$$u_0(𝒒)=𝑑zu_0(𝒒,z)\phi ^2(z).$$
(37)
The difference between $`u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ and $`u_0(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ is due to the spin–orbit interaction, similarly to the 3D case .

The two terms in $`V^{}`$ are different: the part containing $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ is linear in $`k`$, but the term with $`\sigma _z`$ is $`k^2`$. Hence, at $`k^2k_z^2`$, the first part is dominant, and $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}`$ can be represented as

$$V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}=v(𝒌𝒌^{})[𝝈\times (𝒌+𝒌^{})]_z,$$
(38)
where

$$v(𝒒)=(2AB+B^2)𝑑zu_0(𝒒,z)\phi ik_z\phi .$$
(39)
It is noteworthy that a nonzero contribution at $`𝒌=𝒌^{}`$ is the impurity-induced SIA term physically meaning the force exerted on electrons by scatterers. This term is to be added to $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$, and it manifests itself in the D’yakonov–Perel’ mechanism only.

It is seen from equation (38) that

$`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}=V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}^{}`$

for central scattering, whereas $`v(𝒌𝒌^{})=v(E_k,|\phi _𝐤\phi _𝐤^{}|)`$. Therefore, averaging of Eq. (7) over $`\phi _𝐤`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _𝐤}{2\pi }\frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }}`$ $`\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}_{}{}^{}2\overline{\rho }+\overline{\rho }V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}}V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}\overline{\rho }V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}u_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}[(\rho _𝐤^{}^{}\rho _𝐤^{})V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}+V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}^{}(\rho _𝐤^{}^{}\rho _𝐤^{})]\}.`$ (40)
It can be shown that the term in square brackets is proportional to the integral

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta u(\theta )v(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }`$

which is zero for central scattering.

Using Eq. (12), we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{zz}}=\frac{2}{\tau _{xx}}=\frac{2}{\tau _{yy}}=\frac{16\pi m}{\mathrm{}^3}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kE_k[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]𝑑\theta v^2(E_k,\theta )(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_k[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]}.$$
(41)
It can be seen that the Elliot–Yafet mechanism results in a 50 % anisotropy of spin relaxation times.

To second order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_\mathrm{g}`$, we have for a Boltzmann gas:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{zz}}=\frac{32}{9}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_g}\right)^2\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{E_g}r\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}},$$
(42)
with

$$r=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{mE_g}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kE_k\mathrm{exp}(E_k/k_\mathrm{B}T)𝑑\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left[𝑑zu_0(q,z)\phi (z)ik_z\phi (z)\right]^2}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kE_k\mathrm{exp}(E_k/k_\mathrm{B}T)𝑑\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left[𝑑zu_0(q,z)\phi ^2(z)\right]^2}.$$
(43)
Here the wavevector transfer in the case of elastic scattering is described by

$`q=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8mE_k}{\mathrm{}^2}}}\left|\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right|,`$

and account was taken of the fact that, at a given accuracy,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{E_g}}.`$

The factor $`r`$ is on the order of $`E_1/E_\mathrm{g}`$, where $`E_1`$ is the energy of the first level of size-quantization. For an infinitely deep rectangular QW of width 100 Å, $`E_\mathrm{g}=1.5`$ eV, and for randomly distributed $`\delta `$-scatterers, $`r=1.2\times 10^2`$. Hence, for the parameters of GaAs ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.34`$ eV, $`m=0.067m_0`$) and $`T=77`$ K, we have $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}/\tau _{zz}10^5`$.

In addition to the scattering processes leading to spin relaxation considered above, there is a short-range interaction making possible scattering of electrons from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6`$ band to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ band . The same mechanism takes place in the 2D systems as well .

## III Hole spin relaxation

A specific feature of p-type QWs is a strong spin–orbit interaction: the states at the top of the valence size-quantized subbands have a certain projection of the angular momentum on the growth axis. Therefore, ordinary spin-independent scattering leads to hole angular momentum relaxation even in a symmetrical QW, when there are no additional spin–orbit terms: $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}=0`$. In other words, the Elliot–Yafet mechanism is very important for holes.

In a symmetrical $`p`$-type QW, each hole level is doubly degenerate. The wave functions have the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{s𝐤}=\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌𝝆)F_s(𝒌,z),$$
(44)
where $`s=1,2`$ enumerates the degenerate states, and $`Oz`$ is the growth direction.

In a QW based on a III–V semiconductor, the hole wave function is a superposition of those four states of the valence band top, which correspond to the angular momentum projections on $`Oz`$ equal to $`3/2`$, $`1/2`$, $`1/2`$ and $`3/2`$. In the basis of these states, $`F_s(𝒌,z)`$ are four-component columns which can be represented as

$$F_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}v_0C(z)\\ iv_1S(z)e^{i\phi _k}\\ v_2C(z)e^{2i\phi _k}\\ iv_3S(z)e^{3i\phi _k}\end{array}\right],F_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}iv_3S(z)e^{3i\phi _k}\\ v_2C(z)e^{2i\phi _k}\\ iv_1S(z)e^{i\phi _k}\\ v_0C(z)\end{array}\right].$$
(45)
Here $`C(z)`$ and $`S(z)`$ are, respectively, symmetrical and asymmetrical functions of the coordinate $`z`$, and the real coefficients $`v_m`$ ($`m=0\mathrm{}3`$) for the ground subband are given by

$$v_mk^m,k0.$$
(46)
An analog of the electron spin density in experiments on circular polarization of the luminescence in low magnetic fields is the pseudospin of holes, $`𝑺_h`$. Its value is proportional to the degree of circular polarization of radiation at relatively weak hole orientation. The hole pseudospin density is given by

$$𝑺_h=\underset{𝐤}{}\mathrm{Tr}[\rho _𝐤𝑱(𝒌)],$$
(47)
where $`𝑱(𝒌)`$ is the pseudospin operator for the first hole level of size-quantization. In the basis (45), $`J^i(𝒌)`$ has a form of $`2\times 2`$ matrix with the elements

$$J_{ss^{}}^i(𝒌)=𝑑zF_s^{}(𝒌,z)𝒥^iF_s^{}(𝒌,z),$$
(48)
where $`𝒥^i`$ are $`4\times 4`$ matrices in the basis of the four states of the valence band top . Calculation yields

$$J^z(E_k)=\sigma _zj_z,$$
(49)
$$\frac{J^x+iJ^y}{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ae^{2i\phi _k}\\ be^{4i\phi _k}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(50)
$$\frac{J^xiJ^y}{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& be^{4i\phi _k}\\ ae^{2i\phi _k}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(51)
where

$$j_z(E_k)=\left(\frac{3}{2}v_0^2\frac{1}{2}v_2^2\right)𝑑zC^2(z)+\left(\frac{1}{2}v_1^2\frac{3}{2}v_3^2\right)𝑑zS^2(z),$$
(52)
$$a(E_k)=v_1^2𝑑zS^2(z)\sqrt{3}v_0v_2𝑑zC^2(z),$$
(53)
$$b(E_k)=\sqrt{3}v_1v_3𝑑zS^2(z)v_2^2𝑑zC^2(z).$$
(54)
It can be seen that $`J^z`$ depends on the energy $`E_k`$, whereas $`J^x`$ and $`J^y`$ depend on both $`E_k`$ and the direction of $`𝒌`$. Therefore, we have to find not only the isotropic part of the density matrix, $`\overline{\rho }`$, but also the 2nd and 4th Fourier-harmonics.

$`J^i`$ have complicated energy dependences. For instance, $`j_z(E_k=0)=3/2`$ for the first heavy-hole subband of size-quantization. The dependence $`j_z`$ on $`k`$ is given in  for different size-quantization subbands. It follows from equation (46) that $`ak^2`$ and $`bk^4`$ for small $`k`$, i. e. $`J^x`$, $`J^y`$ are nonzero owing to nonparabolicity effects only.

### A Elliot-Yafet mechanism

Let us consider scattering from randomly distributed short-range impurities

$$V(𝒓)=\underset{i}{}V_0\delta (𝒓𝑹_i).$$
(55)
Calculating the scattering amplitude $`V_{ss^{}}(𝒌,𝒌^{})`$ and using Eq. (5), we obtain the following equation for the hole density matrix

$$\frac{\rho _𝐤}{t}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g(E_k)\frac{d\phi _𝐤^{}}{2\pi }\left(|V_{11}|^2+|V_{12}|^2\rho _𝐤V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\rho _𝐤^{}V_{𝐤^{}𝐤}\right).$$
(56)
Here, the angular brackets denote averaging over $`𝑹_i`$, and account is taken of the fact that, for (45) and (55),

$`V_{11}V_{12}=V_{22}V_{12}=0`$

and $`|V_{ss^{}}|`$ depends on $`\theta =\phi _𝐤\phi _𝐤^{}`$. Note that the spin–orbit interaction in $`p`$-type QWs is strong and, therefore, the division (6) makes no sense, and we use the total scattering amplitude $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$.

We expand the density matrix in a series

$$\rho _𝐤=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[f_n(E_k)+𝝈\mathit{\ae }_n(E_k)\right]\mathrm{exp}(in\phi _𝐤).$$
(57)
The spin-independent part obeys the equation

$$\frac{f_n}{t}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g(E_k)\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }|V_{11}|^2+|V_{12}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}n\theta )f_n.$$
(58)
It is seen that the total number of particles with a given energy $`f_0(E_k)`$ is conserved, which is correct for the elastic scattering under study. The Fourier-harmonics $`f_n`$ with $`n1`$ relax with the corresponding transport times.

For the $`z`$-component of $`\mathit{\ae }_n`$ we have

$$\frac{\ae _n^z}{t}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g(E_k)\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[|V_{11}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}n\theta )+|V_{12}|^2(1+\mathrm{cos}n\theta )\right]\ae _n^z.$$
(59)
It is important that for small $`k`$,

$`\mathrm{}V_{11}\mathrm{}V_{11}|V_{12}|.`$

Therefore, the first term in square brackets is close to the inverse transport time, and the second is much smaller and describes spin relaxation. It is seen that the average pseudo-spin with energy $`E_k`$, $`\ae _0^z`$, relaxes with time much longer that $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. However, higher Fourier-harmonics change much faster.

The same is true for $`\ae ^{x,y}`$. This can be readily shown for small $`k`$, when we can neglect $`V_{12}`$ compared with $`V_{11}`$. In this limit

$$\frac{(\ae _n^x\pm i\ae _n^y)}{t}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^\pm (\ae _n^x\pm i\ae _n^y),$$
(60)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^\pm =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g(E_k)\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\left[|V_{11}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}n\theta )+2(\mathrm{}V_{11})^2\mathrm{cos}n\theta 2\mathrm{}V_{11}\mathrm{}V_{11}\mathrm{sin}n\theta \right].$$
(61)
This means that all harmonics relax with time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ except that with $`n=0`$. The zero harmonic determines the hole Cooperon, important in the weak localization effect. Its relaxation is caused by the small term $`|V_{12}|`$ . However, the in-plane pseudospin components $`J^x`$, $`J^y`$ are determined by the non-zero harmonics $`\ae _{2,4}^{x,y}`$ \[see equations (50), (51)\] and, hence, their relaxation is fast. Therefore, one can investigate only the dynamics of $`S_{h,z}`$ in optical experiments. The corresponding equation is

$$\frac{S_{h,z}}{t}=\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kg^2(E_k)[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]j_z(E_k)\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }|V_{12}|^2}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kg(E_k)[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]j_z(E_k)}S_{h,z}.$$
(62)
In Ref. , the value $`(2\pi /\mathrm{})g(E_k)d\theta /2\pi |V_{12}|^2`$ was calculated as a function of $`k`$ for different scattering potentials.

### B D’yakonov-Perel’ mechanism

If we take into account the splitting between the pseudospin states in the valence subbands, which may be caused by both BIA and SIA (in asymmetrical heterostructures), then the operator $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}0`$ for holes. For the ground subband, in the basis of the two degenerate states, it is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Therefore, the problem is equivalent to that for electrons, and we can obtain the equation for the density matrix dynamics. Expanding the density matrix in Fourier series (57), we obtain expressions for $`f_n`$ and $`\mathit{\ae }_n`$. The former coincides with equation (58), and the latter is as follows

$$\frac{\ae _n^i}{t}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}g(E_k)\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\tau _n\mathrm{Tr}([H_n,[H_n,\sigma _i]]\sigma _i)\ae _n^i.$$
(63)
According to equations (49)-(51), in order to investigate the hole pseudospin dynamics, we have to average over $`E_k`$ the equations with $`n=0,\pm 2`$ and $`\pm 4`$. It can be seen that, similarly to the Elliot–Yafet mechanism, relaxation of $`S_{h,x}`$ and $`S_{h,y}`$ is fast, taking a time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. This is due to the anisotropic nature of the operators $`J^x`$ and $`J^y`$. The only slowly relaxing component is $`S_{h,z}`$. The corresponding equation has the form

$$\frac{S_{h,z}}{t}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}^2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kg(E_k)[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]j_z(E_k)\tau _n\mathrm{Tr}([H_n,[H_n,\sigma _z]]\sigma _z)}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑E_kg(E_k)[F_+(E_k)F_{}(E_k)]j_z(E_k)}S_{h,z}.$$
(64)
In , correct equations were obtained for relaxation of the zero harmonics of the density matrix (for $`f_0`$ and $`\mathit{\ae }_0`$). Therefore, the slow time calculated there describes the relaxation of $`S_{h,z}`$ only. The relaxation time of $`\ae _0^{x,y}`$ was incorrectly associated with that of $`S_{h,x}`$ and $`S_{h,y}`$.

To calculate the hole pseudospin relaxation time, a knowledge is necessary of the concrete form of $`H_{\mathrm{SO}}`$ for a structure studied. The BIA contributions can be obtained by averaging the corresponding bulk terms . Moreover, the SIA contributions exist in asymmetrical heterostructures . All of them lead to hole pseudospin relaxation in accordance with equation (64).

## IV Conclusion

The predicted spin relaxation anisotropy can be observed in time-resolved measurements similar to those in Ref. . In steady-state experiments, the in-plane electron spin relaxation anisotropy can be investigated by means of the Hanle effect. To obtain the spin relaxation times, account should be taken of the fact that the Landé $`g`$-factor has not only diagonal in-plane components ($`g_{xx}`$), but also off-diagonal ones ($`g_{xy}`$. The degree of photoluminescence polarization in a magnetic field $`𝑩z`$ is described by the following expression

$$P(𝑩)=\frac{P(0)}{1+[\mu _B(g_{xx}\pm g_{xy})B/\mathrm{}]^2\tau _z\tau _{}},$$
(65)
where the upper and lower signs correspond, respectively, to the experimental arrangements with $`𝑩||[110]`$ and $`𝑩||[1\overline{1}0]`$ ($`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton). By changing the structure asymmetry (e. g., by applying a gate voltage), one can modify the Hanle curves owing to the in-plane spin relaxation anisotropy.

## Acknowledgements

We thank V. V. Bel’kov for fruitful discussions. This study was supported by the RFBR (projects 00-02-17011, 00-02-16894, 01-02-17528 and 01-02-06354), by the Programms of Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, by the Programme of Presidium of RAS “Quantum low-dimensional structures”, and by INTAS.


format: text

text:
# March 2002JLAB-THY-02-07SUNY-NTG-02-4SU-4252-755 Vector Meson Dominance Model for Radiative Decays Involving Light Scalar Mesons

## Abstract

We study a vector dominance model which predicts a fairly large number of currently interesting decay amplitudes of the types $`S\gamma \gamma `$, $`VS\gamma `$ and $`SV\gamma `$, where $`S`$ and $`V`$ denote scalar and vector mesons, in terms of three parameters. As an application, the model makes it easy to study in detail a recent proposal to boost the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f_0\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi a_0^0\gamma )`$ by including the isospin violating $`a_0^0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing. However we find that this effect is actually small in our model.

There is increasing interest in a possible nonet of light scalar mesons (all of mass $`<1\text{GeV}`$). In addition to the well established $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ evidence of both experimental and theoretical nature for a very broad $`\sigma `$ ($`560`$) and a very broad $`\kappa `$ ($`900`$) has been presented kyotoconf . The latter two resonances are difficult to identify cleanly because they appear to be of non Breit-Wigner type, signaling strong interference with the non-resonant background.

Such a nonet would most likely represent meson states more complicated than quark-anti quark type and hence would be of great importance for a full understanding of QCD in its non-perturbative low energy regime.

Clearly it is important to study the properties of the $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ from the point of view of how they fit into a putative nonet family. In particular, the reactions $`\varphi f_0\gamma `$ and $`\varphi a_0\gamma `$ have recently been observed recentexpts  with good accuracy and are considered as useful probes of scalar properties. The theoretical analysis was initiated by Achasov and Ivanchenko Achasov-Ivanchenko  and followed up by many others radiative . The models employed are essentially variants of the single $`K`$ meson loop diagram to which a $`\varphi `$-type vector meson, a photon and two pseudoscalars or a scalar are attached.

In the present note we introduce a complementary approach which emphasizes the “family” or symmetry aspects of the analysis. This enables us to study the correlations among a fairly large number of related radiative amplitudes in terms of a few parameters, without making a commitment to a particular quark structure for the scalars.

Our framework is that of a standard non-linear chiral Lagrangian containing, in addition to the pseudoscalar nonet matrix field $`\varphi `$, the vector meson nonet matrix $`\rho _\mu `$ and a scalar nonet matrix field denoted $`N`$. Under chiral unitary transformations of the three light quarks; $`q_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}U_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}q_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}`$, the chiral matrix $`U=\mathrm{exp}(2i\varphi /F_\pi )`$, where $`F_\pi 0.131\text{GeV}`$, transforms as $`UU_\mathrm{L}UU_\mathrm{R}^{}`$. The convenient matrix $`K(U_\mathrm{L},U_\mathrm{R},\varphi )`$ CCWZ  is defined by the following transformation property of $`\xi `$ ($`U=\xi ^2`$): $`\xi U_\mathrm{L}\xi K^{}=K\xi U_\mathrm{R}^{}`$, and specifies the transformations of “constituent-type” objects. The fields we need transform as

$`NKNK^{},`$
$`\rho _\mu K\rho _\mu K^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\stackrel{~}{g}}}K_\mu K^{},`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )=_\mu \rho _\nu _\nu \rho _\mu i\stackrel{~}{g}[\rho _\mu ,\rho _\nu ]KF_{\mu \nu }K^{},`$ (1)
where the coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is about $`4.04`$. One may refer to Ref. Harada-Schechter  for our treatment of the pseudoscalar-vector Lagrangian and to Ref. Black-Fariborz-Sannino-Schechter:99  for the scalar addition. The entire Lagrangian is chiral invariant (modulo the quark mass term induced symmetry breaking pieces) and, when electromagnetism is added, gauge invariant.

It should be remarked that the effect of adding vectors to the chiral Lagrangian of pseudoscalars only is to replace the photon coupling to the charged pseudoscalars as,

$`ie𝒜_\mu \text{Tr}\left(Q\varphi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi \right)`$
$`e𝒜_\mu [k\stackrel{~}{g}F_\pi ^2\text{Tr}\left(Q\rho _\mu \right)`$
$`+i(1{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}})\text{Tr}\left(Q\varphi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi \right)]+\mathrm{},`$ (2)
where $`𝒜_\mu `$ is the photon field, $`Q=\text{diag}(2/3,1/3,1/3)`$ and $`k=\left(\frac{m_v}{\stackrel{~}{g}F_\pi }\right)^2`$ with $`m_v0.76\text{GeV}`$. The ellipses stand for symmetry breaking corrections. We see that in this model, Sakurai’s vector meson dominance Sakurai  simply amounts to the statement that $`k=2`$ (the KSRF relation KSRF ). This is a reasonable numerical approximation which is essentially stable to the addition of symmetry breakers Harada-Schechter ; foot:VD  and we employ it here by neglecting the last term in Eq. (2). Although vector meson dominance must be somewhat modified in cases where the axial anomaly plays a role BKY:88 , it generally works quite well for processes such as those we study here.

The new feature of the present work is the inclusion of strong trilinear scalar-vector-vector terms in the effective Lagrangian:

$`_{SVV}=\beta _Aϵ_{abc}ϵ^{a^{}b^{}c^{}}\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]_a^{}^a\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]_b^{}^bN_c^{}^c`$
$`+\beta _B\text{Tr}\left[N\right]\text{Tr}\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]`$
$`+\beta _C\text{Tr}\left[NF_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]\text{Tr}\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]`$
$`+\beta _D\text{Tr}\left[N\right]\text{Tr}\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right]\text{Tr}\left[F_{\mu \nu }(\rho )\right].`$ (3)
Chiral invariance is evident from (1) and the four flavor-invariants are needed for generality. (A term $`\text{Tr}(FFN)`$ is linearly dependent on the four shown). Actually the $`\beta _D`$ term will not contribute in our model so there are only three relevant parameters $`\beta _A`$, $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$. Equation (3) is analogous to the $`PVV`$ interaction which was originally introduced as a $`\pi \rho \omega `$ coupling a long time ago GSW . It is intended to be a leading point-like nna  description of the production mechanism. With (2) one can now compute the amplitudes for $`S\gamma \gamma `$ and $`VS\gamma `$ according to the diagrams of Fig. 1.

The decay matrix element for $`S\gamma \gamma `$ is written as $`(e^2/\stackrel{~}{g}^2)X_S\times \left(k_1k_2ϵ_1ϵ_2k_1ϵ_2k_2ϵ_1\right)`$ where $`ϵ_\mu `$ stands for the photon polarization vector. It is related to the width by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(S\gamma \gamma \right)=\alpha ^2\frac{\pi }{4}m_S^3\left|\frac{X_S}{\stackrel{~}{g}^2}\right|^2,$$
(4)
and $`X_S`$ takes on the specific forms:

$`X_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\beta _A\left(\sqrt{2}s4c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\beta _B\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right),`$
$`X_{f_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\beta _A\left(\sqrt{2}c+4s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\beta _B\left(\sqrt{2}c+s\right),`$
$`X_{a_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _A.`$ (5)
Here $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi )`$, $`s=\mathrm{sin}\theta _S`$ and $`c=\mathrm{cos}\theta _S`$ where the scalar mixing angle, $`\theta _S`$ is defined from

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma \\ f_0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c& s\\ s& c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}N_3^3\\ (N_1^1+N_2^2)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Furthermore ideal mixing for the vectors, with $`\rho ^0=(\rho _1^1\rho _2^2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\omega =(\rho _1^1+\rho _2^2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\varphi =\rho _3^3`$, was assumed for simplicity.

Similarly, the decay matrix element for $`VS\gamma `$ is written as $`(e/\stackrel{~}{g})C_V^S\times \left[pkϵ_Vϵpϵkϵ_V\right]`$. It is related to the width by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(VS\gamma )=\frac{\alpha }{3}\left|k_V^S\right|^3\left|\frac{C_V^S}{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right|^2,$$
(7)
where $`k_V^S=(m_V^2m_S^2)/(2m_V)`$ is the photon momentum in the $`V`$ rest frame. For the energetically allowed $`VS\gamma `$ processes we have

$`C_\varphi ^{f_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _Ac{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\beta _B\left(\sqrt{2}c+s\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _C\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right),`$
$`C_\varphi ^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _As{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\beta _B\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _C\left(c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}s\right),`$
$`C_\varphi ^{a_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left(\beta _C2\beta _A\right),`$
$`C_\omega ^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _A\left(c+\sqrt{2}s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\beta _B\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _C\left(\sqrt{2}c+s\right),`$
$`C_{\rho ^0}^\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\beta _Ac+2\sqrt{2}\beta _B\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right).`$ (8)
In addition, the same model predicts amplitudes for the energetically allowed $`SV\gamma `$ processes: $`f_0\omega \gamma `$, $`f_0\rho ^0\gamma `$, $`a_0^0\omega \gamma `$, $`a_0^0\rho ^0\gamma `$ and, if $`\kappa ^0`$ is sufficiently heavy $`\kappa ^0K^0\gamma `$. The corresponding width is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(SV\gamma )=\alpha \left|k_S^V\right|^3\left|\frac{D_S^V}{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right|^2,$$
(9)
where $`k_S^V=(m_S^2m_V^2)/(2m_S)`$ and

$`D_{f_0}^\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _A\left(2c+\sqrt{2}s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _B\left(2c+\sqrt{2}s\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _C\left(c\sqrt{2}s\right),`$
$`D_{f_0}^{\rho ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\beta _As+2\beta _B\left(2c+\sqrt{2}s\right),`$
$`D_{a_0}^\omega `$ $`=`$ $`2\beta _C,`$
$`D_{a_0}^{\rho ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\beta _A,`$
$`D_{\kappa ^0}^{K^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\beta _A.`$ (10)
All the different decay amplitudes are described by the parameters $`\beta _A`$, $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$. The reason $`\beta _D`$ does not appear at all and $`\beta _C`$ does not appear for $`S\gamma \gamma `$ is that, noting Eq. (2), the $`\text{Tr}(F_{\mu \nu })`$ factor is seen to give zero when coupled to an external photon line. Because the $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ are so broad, the simple two body final state approximation in decays like $`\omega `$, $`\varphi \sigma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is not accurate. It is better to consider these decays as having three body final states with the terms in Eq. (3) giving the vertices and to take into account large width corrections in the scalar propagators as well as non resonant background.

These formulas can be used for different choices of the quark structure of the scalar nonet $`N_a^b`$ (e.g. the usual $`q_a\overline{q}^b`$ scenario or the “dual” scenario $`Q_a\overline{Q}^b`$ where $`Q_aϵ_{abc}\overline{q}^b\overline{q}^c`$). The characteristic mixing angle $`\theta _S`$ is expected to differ, depending on the scheme. In the literature, besides conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ models, $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ models Jaffe , meson-meson “molecule” models IW  and unitarized meson-meson umm  models have been investigated. Recently models featuring mixing between a $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ nonet and a heavier $`q\overline{q}`$ nonet have been proposed mixing ; in this case two sets of interactions like Eq. (3) should be included.

Now we shall illustrate the procedure for the model of a single putative scalar nonet Black-Fariborz-Sannino-Schechter:99  with a mixing angle, $`\theta _S20^{}`$ (characteristic of $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ type scalars).

The parameters $`\beta _A`$ and $`\beta _B`$ may be estimated from the $`S\gamma \gamma `$ processes. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(a_0\gamma \gamma )=(0.28\pm 0.09)\text{keV}`$ (obtained using PDG  $`B(a_0K\overline{K})/B(a_0\eta \pi )=0.177\pm 0.024`$) into Eqs. (4) and (5) yields $`\beta _A=(0.72\pm 0.12)\text{GeV}`$ (assumed positive in sign). Of course, this value is independent of the value of $`\theta _S`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(f_0\gamma \gamma )=0.39\pm 0.13\text{keV}`$ yields either $`\beta _B=(0.61\pm 0.10)\text{GeV}^1`$ or $`\beta _B=(0.62\pm 0.10)\text{GeV}^1`$. In turn we formally predict $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma \gamma \gamma )`$ to be either $`(0.024\pm 0.023)\text{keV}`$ or $`(0.38\pm 0.09)\text{keV}`$ respectively.

Next consider the $`\varphi `$ radiative decays. Assuming $`\varphi \eta \pi ^0\gamma `$ is dominated by $`\varphi a_0\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(\varphi a_0\gamma )=(0.47\pm 0.07)\text{keV}`$ and Eq. (8) determines $`\beta _C`$ as either $`(7.7\pm 0.5)\text{GeV}^1`$ or $`(4.8\pm 0.5)\text{GeV}^1`$. Note that $`|\beta _A|`$ and $`|\beta _B|`$ are almost an order of magnitude smaller than $`|\beta _C|`$. Thus, the $`\varphi `$ radiative decay rates are mainly determined by $`|\beta _C|`$. Knowing $`\beta _A`$, $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$ we can predict $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f_0\gamma )`$ using Eq. (8). There are four possibilities due to the two possibilities each for $`\beta _B`$ and $`\beta _C`$. The largest number, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f_0\gamma )=(0.21\pm 0.03)\text{keV}`$ corresponds explainphasespace  to the choice $`\beta _B=(0.62\pm 0.10)\text{GeV}^1`$ and $`\beta _C=(7.7\pm 0.5)\text{GeV}^1`$.

Unfortunately this is still considerably smaller than the listed value PDG : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{exp}}(\varphi f_0\gamma )=(1.51\pm 0.41)\text{keV}`$ foot:phif0gam . Recently Close and Kirk Close-Kirk  proposed that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f_0\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi a_0\gamma )`$ could be boosted by considering the effects of the isospin violating $`a_0^0(980)`$-$`f_0(980)`$ mixing. We will now see that these effects are small in our model. One may simply introduce the mixing by a term in the effective Lagrangian: $`_{af}=A_{af}a_0^0f_0`$. A recent calculation ABFS  for the purpose of finding the effect of the scalar mesons in the $`\eta 3\pi `$ process obtained the value $`A_{af}=4.66\times 10^3\text{GeV}^2`$. It is convenient to treat this term as a perturbation. Then the amplitude for $`\varphi f_0\gamma `$ includes a correction term consisting of the $`\varphi a_0^0\gamma `$ amplitude given in Eq. (8) multiplied by $`A_{af}`$ and by the $`a_0`$ propagator. The $`\varphi a_0^0\gamma `$ amplitude has a similar correction. In terms of the amplitudes in Eq.(8) the desired ratio is then,

$$\frac{amp(\varphi f_0\gamma )}{amp(\varphi a_0^0\gamma )}=\frac{C_\varphi ^f+A_{af}C_\varphi ^a/D_a(m_f^2)}{C_\varphi ^a+A_{af}C_\varphi ^f/D_f(m_a^2)},$$
(11)
where $`D_a(m_f^2)=m_f^2+m_a^2im_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`D_f(m_a^2)=m_a^2+m_f^2im_f\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. In this approach the propagators are diagonal in the isospin basis. The numerical values of these resonance widths and masses are, according to the Review of Particle Physics PDG  $`m_{a_0}=(984.7\pm 1.3)\text{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=50`$$`100`$ MeV, $`m_{f_0}=980\pm 10\text{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}=40`$$`100`$ MeV. For definiteness, from column 1 of Table II in Ref. Harada-Sannino-Schechter  we take $`m_{f_0}=987\text{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}=65\text{MeV}`$ while in Eq. (4.2) of Ref. FS  we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_0}=70\text{MeV}`$. In fact the main conclusion does not depend on these precise values. It is easy to see that the mixing factors are approximately given by

$$\frac{A_{af}}{D_a(m_f^2)}\frac{A_{af}}{D_f(m_a^2)}\frac{iA_{af}}{m_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a}0.07i.$$
(12)
Noting that $`C_\varphi ^f/C_\varphi ^a0.75`$ in the present model, the ratio in Eq.(11) is roughly $`(0.750.07i)/(10.05i)`$. Clearly, the correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi f_0\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi a_0\gamma )`$ due to $`a_0`$-$`f_0^0`$ mixing only amounts to a few per cent, nowhere near the huge effect suggested in Close-Kirk . It may be remarked that Eq.(11) is practically accurate to all orders in $`A_{af}`$, corresponding to iterating any number of $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ transitions. Then, after summing a geometric series, the numerator picks up a correction factor $`[1A_{af}^2/(D_a(m_f^2)D_f(m_f^2))]^1`$ and the denominator, the similar factor $`[1A_{af}^2/(D_a(m_a^2)D_f(m_a^2))]^1`$.

Vector meson dominance, together with the assumptions of $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry and a single nonet of scalar mesons makes many more predictions. These are listed in Table I for two of the allowed $`(\beta _A,\beta _B,\beta _C)`$ parameter sets, neglecting $`a_0`$-$`f_0`$ mixing. It will be interesting to see if future experiments confirm the pattern of predicted widths.

We have given a leading order correlation of many radiative decays involving scalars, based on flavor symmetry and vector meson dominance. Clearly further improvements can be made. Elsewhere, we will study flavor symmetry breaking effects, higher drivative interaction terms, treatment of the $`S\gamma `$ final states as $`PP\gamma `$, and the case of mixed $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ scalar nonets.

We are happy to thank N. N. Achasov for a suggested correction to the first version of this note and with A. Abdel-Rahiem and A. H. Fariborz for very helpful discussions. D.B. wishes to acknowledge support from the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) under DOE contract number DE-AC05-84ER40150. The work of M.H. is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)#12740144 and USDOE Grant Number DE-FG02-88ER40388. The work of J.S. is supported in part by DOE contract DE-FG-02-85ER40231.