text:
# The back reaction and the effective Einstein’s equation for the Universe with ideal fluid cosmological perturbations

## I introduction

Owing to the nonlinear nature of Einstein’s equation, fluctuations of the metric affect the evolution of the background space time. In cosmology, this effect is expected to be important when we consider the evolution of large scale nonlinear structures and the evolution of the early Universe. This is cosmological the back reaction problem and has been studied by several authorsIssacson (1968); Futamase (1989, 1996); Russ et al. (1997); Boersma (1998); Mukhanov et al. (1997); Abramo et al. (1997); Abramo (1997, 1999); Nambu (2000, 2001).

One of the main difficulty in the cosmological back reaction problem is connected with the gauge freedom of perturbation variables. The back reaction effect appears from the second order quantities in a perturbation expansion and we must use the second order gauge invariant quantities to avoid the gauge ambiguity of the back reaction problem. Abramo and co-workersMukhanov et al. (1997); Abramo et al. (1997); Abramo (1997, 1999) derived the gauge-invariant effective energy momentum tensor of cosmological perturbations and applied their formalism to the inflationary universe. They discussed the effect of the inhomogeneity on the background Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe, but did not derive solutions of an effective scale factor for the FRW universe with the back reaction.

In our previous papersNambu (2000, 2001), the renormalization group methodChen et al. (1996); Kunihiro (1995); Goto et al. (1999); Nambu and Yamaguchi (1999) was applied to the cosmological back reaction problem. We start from the following perturbation expansion of the metric

$$g_{ab}=\stackrel{(0)}{g}_{ab}+\stackrel{(1)}{g}_{ab}+\stackrel{(2)}{g}_{ab}+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{(0)}{g}_{ab}`$ is the background FRW metric and represents a homogeneous and isotropic space. $`\stackrel{(1)}{g}_{ab}`$ is the metric of the first order linear perturbation with $`\stackrel{(1)}{g}_{ab}=0`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the spatial average with respect to the background FRW metric. $`\stackrel{(2)}{g}_{ab}`$ is the second order metric and this part contains nonlinear effects caused by the first order linear perturbation. This nonlinearity produces homogeneous and isotropic zero modes as part of the second order metric. That is,

$$\stackrel{(2)}{g}_{ab}0.$$
(2)
As the zero mode part of the metric has the same symmetry as the background FRW universe, it must be interpreted as a part of FRW metric. Hence we redefine the background metric as follows:

$$\stackrel{(B)}{g}_{ab}=\stackrel{(0)}{g}_{ab}+\stackrel{(2)}{g}_{ab}.$$
(3)
We used the renormalization group method to define the new background metric $`\stackrel{(B)}{g}_{ab}`$ which includes the back reaction effect. In previous papersNambu (2000, 2001), we first solved perturbation equations and obtained $`\stackrel{(1)}{g}_{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{(2)}{g}_{ab}`$. Then the renormalized effective scale factor with the back reaction effect was obtained.

But it is more convenient to obtain the renormalized Einstein’s equation for the zero mode variables from the first to investigate the back reaction effect. This is equivalent to average Einstein’s equation and derive the evolution equation for the effective FRW universe with the back reaction effect. In this paper, we apply the renormalization group method directly to the perturbed Einstein’s equation. We does not use an explicit form of the first and the second order solutions of perturbations. All that we need is how constants of integration enter in the solution of perturbations.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the gauge ready formalism of cosmological perturbations and derive the second order Einstein’s equation for gauge invariant variables. In Sec. III, the renormalization group method is applied to the zero mode part of the Einstein’s equation and the evolution equation for the renormalized scale factor is derived. In Sec. IV, we investigate the solution of the back reaction equation. Sec. V is devoted for summary and discussion. We use units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=8\pi G=1`$ throughout the paper.

## II the second order perturbation for the Universe with ideal fluid

To circumvent the gauge ambiguity of cosmological perturbations and to obtain a gauge independent interpretation of the cosmological back reaction problem, we must use gauge invariant description of cosmological perturbationsKodama and Sasaki (1984); Mukhanov et al. (1992). Abramo and co-workers obtained the gauge invariant effective energy-momentum tensor for cosmological perturbationsMukhanov et al. (1997); Abramo et al. (1997); Abramo (1997, 1999) which is quadratic with respect to the first order variables. To apply the renormalization group method to the back reaction problem, we must obtain the second order zero mode perturbation in a gauge invariant mannerNambu (2000, 2001). In this section, we introduce the gauge ready formalismHwang (1991) and derive the evolution equation for the second order zero mode perturbation which is invariant under the first order gauge transformation.

### II.1 the gauge ready form of cosmological perturbations

We consider a spatially flat FRW universe with perfect fluid of which equation of state is given by $`p=w\rho `$, where $`w`$ is assumed to be constant. The background scale factor of the Universe and the energy density are given by

$$a(t)=Ct^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}},\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }=\frac{c_0}{a^{3(1+w)}},$$
(4)
where $`C`$ and $`c_0`$ are constants of integration. The energy density of the fluid $`\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }`$ is obtained from the zeroth order of the following mass conservation equation

$$\left(\rho ^{\frac{1}{1+w}}\sqrt{g}u^a\right)_{,a}=0,$$
(5)
where $`u^a`$ is four velocity of the fluid. We restrict our attention only to the scalar type perturbation and the metric of the first order perturbation can be written as

$$\stackrel{(1)}{g}_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\varphi \hfill & a(t)B_{,i}\hfill \\ a(t)B_{,i}\hfill & a^2(t)\left[(12\psi )\delta _{ij}+2E_{,ij}\right]\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Let us consider the infinitesimal coordinate transformation

$$x^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=x^0+\xi ^0,x^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=x^i+\frac{1}{a^2}\delta ^{ij}\xi _{,j}$$
(7)
Under this transformation, the perturbation variables receive the following gauge transformations:

$`\varphi ^{}=\varphi \dot{\xi }{}_{}{}^{0},`$ $`B^{}=Ba\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{a^2}}\right)^\dot{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^0}{a}},`$
$`\psi ^{}=\psi +H\xi ^0,`$ $`E^{}=E{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{a^2}}.`$ (8)
The comoving three velocity $`v_i=v_{,i}`$ of the fluid transforms as

$$v^{}=v+a^2\left(\frac{\xi }{a^2}\right)^\dot{},$$
(9)
and the velocity potential defined by $`\chi v+aB`$ transforms as

$$\chi ^{}=\chi +\xi ^0.$$
(10)
From these transformations, we can make the following gauge invariant combination of perturbation variables:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi +\left[a(Ba\dot{E})\right]^\dot{},`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\psi aH(Ba\dot{E}),`$
$`X\chi a(Ba\dot{E}),`$ $`\psi H\chi .`$ (11)
Now the vector

$$\xi _\text{C}^\mu (\chi ,\delta ^{ij}E_{,j})$$
(12)
transforms as four vector under the coordinate transformation. The gauge transformation induced by the coordinate transformation using the vector (12) is

$`\varphi ^{}=\varphi +\dot{\chi }=\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{X},`$ $`B^{}=Ba\dot{E}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{X}{a}},`$
$`E^{}=EE=0,`$ $`\psi ^{}=\psi H\chi =,`$ (13)
$`\chi ^{}=\chi \chi =0.`$
Hence in this gauge, each components of the metric correspond to the gauge invariant variables and a comoving gauge condition $`\chi =0`$ is satisfied. The choice of the vector (12) is not unique. The vector

$$\xi _\text{L}^\mu =(a(Ba\dot{E}),\delta ^{ij}E_{,j})$$
(14)
also transforms as a four vector and the gauge transformation using this vector is

$`\varphi ^{}=\varphi +\left[a(Ba\dot{E})\right]^\dot{}=\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`B^{}=0,`$ $`E^{}=0,`$ (15)
$`\psi ^{}=\psi aH(Ba\dot{E})=\mathrm{\Psi },`$ $`\chi ^{}=\chi a(Ba\dot{E})=X.`$ (16)
This gauge corresponds to the longitudinal gauge and components of the metric coincide with gauge invariant variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This gauge is often used to investigate cosmological perturbationsMukhanov et al. (1992), and Abramo and co-workerMukhanov et al. (1997); Abramo et al. (1997); Abramo (1997, 1999) also used this gauge to evaluate the gauge invariant energy momentum tensor of cosmological perturbations. But for the purpose of the back reaction problem, this gauge is not suitable because the contribution of long wavelength limit mode of the perturbations to the effective energy momentum tensor does not vanish automaticallyNambu (2001). The perturbation of which wavelength is infinite cannot be distinguished from the background and has nothing to do with the back reaction effect. But in the longitudinal gauge, we have contribution of the long wavelength limit perturbation to the second order quantities. We must subtract this to obtain correct back reaction effect. On the other hand, in comoving gauge, the second order perturbation becomes zero in the long wavelength limit. In this paper, therefore, we adopt the gauge ready form in the comoving gauge to investigate the back reaction problem.

To simplify the calculation, we choose $`B=0`$ and the metric up to the second order in the gauge (13) is given by

$$ds^2=(1+2\varphi +2\varphi _2)dt^22a^2\dot{E}_{,i}dx^idt+a^2(t)(12\psi 2\psi _2)d𝒙^2.$$
(17)
As the each component of the first order metric perturbation corresponds to the gauge invariant variable in this gauge, the second order zero mode variables $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\psi _2`$ determined by the first order quantities are also invariant under the first order gauge transformation up to the second order.

Using the metric (17) with the comoving condition $`\chi =0`$, the first order Einstein equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}^2\psi +H^2\dot{E}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{(1)}{\rho },`$ (18a)
$`\dot{\psi }+H\varphi =0,`$ (18b)
$`\ddot{\psi }+3H\dot{\psi }+H\dot{\varphi }3wH^2\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}\stackrel{(1)}{\rho },`$ (18c)
$`\ddot{E}+3H\dot{E}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}(\psi \varphi )=0.`$ (18d)
We can obtain the following evolution equation for the spatial curvature perturbation $`\psi `$

$$\ddot{\psi }+3H\dot{\psi }\frac{w}{a^2}^2\psi =0.$$
(19)
### II.2 the evolution equations for the second order zero mode perturbation

The second order Einstein equations for the zero mode variables $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are

$`6H(\dot{\psi }_2+H\varphi _2)=\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})\stackrel{(2)}{\rho },`$ (20a)
$`2[\ddot{\psi }_2+H(3\dot{\psi }_2+\dot{\varphi }_2)3H^2w\varphi _2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})+w\stackrel{(2)}{\rho },`$ (20b)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})=3\dot{\psi }^2+12H\psi \dot{\psi }\frac{5}{a^2}\psi ^2\psi 6H\psi ^2\dot{E}\hfill \\ \hfill 3H^2a^2\dot{E}^2\dot{E}2H\varphi (^2\dot{E}+6\dot{\psi })12H^2\varphi ^2,\end{array}$$
(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})=\frac{5}{a^2}\psi ^2\psi +\dot{\psi }^2+4\psi (\ddot{\psi }+3H\dot{\psi })2^2\dot{E}(3H\psi +\frac{2}{3}\dot{\psi })\hfill \\ \hfill 2\psi ^2\ddot{E}2a^2H\dot{E}^2\ddot{E}(2\dot{H}+5H^2)a^2\dot{E}^2\dot{E}+\frac{2}{3}\dot{E}^2\dot{\varphi }2\dot{\varphi }\dot{\psi }\\ \hfill 4\varphi \left(\ddot{\psi }+3H\dot{\psi }\frac{1}{2a^2}^2\psi \frac{1}{3}\left(^2\ddot{E}+2H^2\dot{E}\right)+2H\dot{\varphi }\right)\\ \hfill \frac{2}{3a^2}\varphi ^2\varphi 4\varphi ^2(3H^2+2\dot{H})\delta ^i_j.\end{array}$$
(22)
Eq.(20a) is a time-time component and Eq.(20b) is a space-space component of the spatially averaged Einstein’s equation $`G^a{}_{b}{}^{}=T^a{}_{b}{}^{}`$. The spatial average is defined by

$$A=\frac{1}{V}d^3xA,$$

where $`V`$ is the volume of a sufficiently large compact domain and periodic boundary conditions for perturbations are assumed. The second order energy density $`\stackrel{(2)}{\rho }`$ is determined by the mass conservation (5) and given by

$$\stackrel{(2)}{\rho }=(1+w)\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }(3\psi _2\varphi _2)+3\psi \stackrel{(1)}{\rho }+\frac{w}{2(1+w)}\frac{\stackrel{(1)}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{2}}{\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }}+c_2(1+w)\stackrel{(0)}{\rho },$$
(23)
where $`c_2`$ is a constant.

## III the renormalization and the effective Einstein’s equation

In this section, we derive the effective Einstein’s equation which describes the evolution of the effective FRW universe with the back reaction effect using the renormalization group method. The spatially averaged Einstein’s equation up to the second order is

$`3H^2+\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }+6H(\dot{\psi }_2+H\varphi _2)+(1+w)\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }(3\psi _2\varphi _2+c_2)=\rho _{\text{BR}},`$ (24a)
$`2\dot{H}3H^2w\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }+2\left[\ddot{\psi }_2+H(3\dot{\psi }_2+\dot{\varphi }_2)3H^2w\varphi _2\right]`$
$`w(1+w)\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }(3\psi _2\varphi _2+c_2)=p_{\text{BR}},`$ (24b)
where

$`\rho _{\text{BR}}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})+3\psi \stackrel{(1)}{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2(1+w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{(1)}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{2}}{\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }}},`$ (25a)
$`p_{\text{BR}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g})+3w\psi \stackrel{(1)}{\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{2(1+w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{(1)}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{2}}{\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }}}.`$ (25b)
By introducing a new time variable $`d\tau (1+\varphi _2)dt`$, the Einstein equations (24a) and (24b) become

$`3H^2+6H\dot{\psi }_2+\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }\left[1+(1+w)(3\psi _2\varphi _2+c_2)\right]=\rho _{\text{BR}},`$ (26a)
$`2\dot{H}3H^2+2(\ddot{\psi }_2+3H\dot{\psi }_2)w\stackrel{(0)}{\rho }\left[1+(1+w)(3\psi _2\varphi _2+c_2)\right]=p_{\text{BR}},`$ (26b)
where $`\dot{}=\frac{d}{d\tau }`$.

The spatially averaged line element up to the second order perturbation is

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )\left[12\psi _2(\tau )+2\psi _2(\tau _0)\right]d𝒙^2,a(\tau )=C\tau ^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}},$$
(27)
where $`\tau _0`$ is a time at which the initial condition is set, and it is always possible to write the zero mode metric as Eq.(27) by choosing a constant of integration $`c_2`$ contained in $`\stackrel{(2)}{\rho }`$ as $`c_2=3\psi _2(\tau _0)`$. From this form of the line element, we can observe that the effective scale factor for the FRW universe is

$$a_{\text{eff}}(\tau )=\tau ^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}C\left[1\psi _2(\tau )+\psi _2(\tau _0)\right].$$
(28)
We regard the second order perturbation $`\psi _2`$ as a secular term and apply the renormalization group methodChen et al. (1996); Kunihiro (1995); Goto et al. (1999); Nambu and Yamaguchi (1999) to absorb it to the zeroth order constant of integration $`C`$. We redefine the zeroth order integration constant $`C`$ as

$$C=C(\mu )+\delta C(\mu ;\tau _0),$$

where $`\mu `$ is a renormalization point and $`\delta C`$ is a counterterm which absorbs the secular divergence of the solution. We assume that $`\delta C`$ is the second order quantity. The effective scale factor (28) up to the second order of the perturbation can be written

$`a_{\text{eff}}(\tau )`$ $`=\tau ^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}(C(\mu )+\delta C(\mu ;\tau _0))(1\psi _2(\tau )+\psi _2(\mu )\psi _2(\mu )+\psi _2(\tau _0))`$
$`=\tau ^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}C(\mu )(1\psi _2(\tau )+\psi _2(\mu )),`$
where we have chosen the counterterm $`\delta C`$ so as to absorb the $`(\psi _2(\mu )\psi _2(\tau _0))`$-dependent term:

$$\delta C(\mu ;\tau _0)+C(\mu )(\psi _2(\mu )+\psi _2(\tau _0))=0.$$
(29)
This defines the renormalization transformation

$$_{\mu \tau _0}:C(\tau _0)C(\mu )=C(\tau _0)C(\mu )\left[\psi _2(\mu )\psi _2(\tau _0)\right],$$
(30)
and this transformation forms Lie group. The renormalization group equation is obtained by differentiating the both side of the transformation with respect to $`\mu `$ and setting $`\tau _0=\mu `$:

$$\frac{dC(\mu )}{d\mu }=C(\mu )\frac{d\psi _2(\mu )}{d\mu },$$
(31)
and its solution is

$$C(\mu )=C(\tau _0)e^{\psi _2(\mu )+\psi _2(\tau _0)}.$$
(32)
By equating $`\mu =\tau `$ in the effective scale factor, the renormalized scale factor is given by

$$a_R(\tau )=\tau ^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}C(\tau )=a(\tau )e^{\psi _2(\tau )+\psi _2(\tau _0)}.$$
(33)
By substituting the relation $`a(\tau )=a_R(\tau )e^{\psi _2(\tau )\psi _2(\tau _0)}`$ into (26a) and (26b), and keeping terms up to the second order of the perturbation, we obtain the following equations for the renormalized scale factor $`a_R`$:

$`3H^2+\rho _0=\rho _{\text{BR}},`$ (34a)
$`2\dot{H}3H^2w\rho _0=p_{\text{BR}},`$ (34b)
where $`H=\frac{\dot{a}_R}{a_R}`$ and

$$\rho _0\left[1(1+w)\varphi _2\right]\frac{c_0}{(a_R)^{3(1+w)}}=\frac{c_0}{\left[(1+\varphi _2)a_R^3\right]^{1+w}}.$$

(34a) and (34b) are the main result of this paper. The second order curvature variable $`\psi _2`$ disappears in the evolution equation by the procedure of the renormalization. The second order lapse function $`\varphi _2`$ remains in the expression $`\rho _0`$, but this variable corresponds to the second order gauge freedom to parameterize time and we can freely choose the form of this function. Eqs.(34a) and (34b) have the same form as the standard FRW equations. On the right-hand side, the back reaction effect appears as source terms $`\rho _{\text{BR}}`$ and $`p_{\text{BR}}`$, and their explicit form is determined by solving the first order perturbation.

## IV solutions of the effective Einstein’s equation

In this section, we solve the effective Einstein equations (34a) and (34b), and investigate how the inhomogeneity affects the expansion of the Universe. By eliminating the variable $`\rho _0`$, we have

$$2\dot{H}3(1+w)H^2=w\rho _{\text{BR}}+p_{\text{BR}}.$$
(35)
For $`w1`$, by using a new variable $`x\left(a_R\right)^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w)}`$,

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{3}{4}(1+w)(w\rho _{\text{BR}}+p_{\text{BR}})x.$$
(36)
We solve this equation for various value of $`w`$.

### IV.1 vacuum energy case $`w=1`$

The universe expands exponentially $`ae^{Ht},H=\text{const.}`$, and we must treat this case separately. In this case, the perturbation of energy density is zero and the effective Einstein’s equation becomes

$`3H^2+\rho _0=\rho _{\text{BR}}=\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g}),`$
$`2\dot{H}3H^2+\rho _0=p_{\text{BR}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{(2)}{G}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}(\stackrel{(1)}{g}),\rho _0=\text{const.}`$ (37)
For long wavelength perturbation $`kaH`$, the first order growing mode solution is given by

$$\psi \underset{𝒌}{}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},\varphi 0,\dot{E}\frac{1}{Ha^2}\underset{𝒌}{}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},$$

where $`C_𝒌`$ is a constant in time. The source terms of the effective Einstein’s equation are

$$\rho _{\text{BR}}\frac{2}{a_R^2}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2,p_{\text{BR}}\frac{2}{3a_R^2}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{\text{BR}}.$$

This is equivalent to a negative spatial curvature term. For the slow roll inflationary phase driven by a scalar field, it was shown that the back reaction effect by the long wavelength perturbation is equivalent to positive spatial curvatureNambu (2001). For vacuum energy case, fluctuation of the energy density becomes identically zero and this leads to the different back reaction effect compared to the inflation with a scalar field.

For short wavelength mode $`kaH`$, the first order curvature perturbation is given by

$$\psi \underset{𝒌}{}\frac{C_𝒌}{ka}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)e^{i𝒌𝒙}$$

and

$$\rho _{\text{BR}}\frac{7}{2}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^4},p_{\text{BR}}\frac{7}{6}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^4}.$$

The back reaction effect is equivalent to a radiation fluid and this result is the same as the inflation with a scalar field.

### IV.2 dust case $`w=0`$

The exact solution of the first order growing mode is

$$\psi =\underset{𝒌}{}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},\varphi =0,\dot{E}=\frac{3}{5}\tau ^{1/3}\underset{𝒌}{}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},\stackrel{(1)}{\rho }=\frac{6}{5}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{k^2}{a^2}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},$$
(38)
where $`C_𝒌`$ is a constant in time. Using this solution, the source terms of the effective Einstein equation are

$$\rho _{\text{BR}}=\frac{13}{25}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{k^2|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^2},p_{\text{BR}}=\frac{13}{325}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{k^2|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^2}=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{\text{BR}}.$$
(39)
This is the same equation of state as a positive spatial curvature term. The equation (36) becomes

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{3A}{4}x^{1/3},A=\frac{13}{325}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2,$$
(40)
and the solution is

$$a_R=\frac{4E}{9A}(1\mathrm{cos}\eta ),t=\frac{4E}{9A^{3/2}}(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta ),$$
(41)
where $`E`$ is a constant of integration. This solution is the same as a closed FRW universe with dust. Therefore, the inhomogeneity works as a positive spatial curvature in the dust dominated universeRuss et al. (1997); Nambu (2000) and the Universe will recollapse.

### IV.3 $`w0`$ case

For long wavelength perturbations $`kaH`$, using the long wavelength expansion, the first order solution up to $`O(k^2)`$ is given by

$`\psi {\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},\varphi 0,\dot{E}{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w)}{3w+5}}\tau ^{\frac{3w1}{3(1+w)}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},`$
$`\stackrel{(1)}{\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{6(1+w)}{3w+5}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}C_𝒌e^{i𝒌𝒙},`$ (42)
and

$`\rho _{\text{BR}}{\displaystyle \frac{9w^2+30w+13}{(3w+5)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a_R^2}}|C_𝒌|^2,`$
$`p_{\text{BR}}{\displaystyle \frac{162w^3+423w^2+276w13}{3(3w+5)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a_R^2}}|C_𝒌|^2.`$ (43)
The effective Einstein equation (36) becomes

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{3}{4}(1+w)(wAB)x^{\frac{3w1}{3(w+1)}},$$
(44)
where

$$A=\frac{9w^2+30w+13}{(3w+5)^2}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2,B=\frac{162w^3+423w^2+240w13}{3(3w+5)^2}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2.$$
(45)
By integrating the equation with respect to $`\tau `$, we obtain

$$\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2}+V_{\text{eff}}(x)=E,V_{\text{eff}}=\frac{3}{8}\frac{(w+1)^2(135w^3+333w^2+201w13)}{(3w+1)(3w+5)^2}\underset{𝒌}{}k^2|C_𝒌|^2x^{\frac{2(3w+1)}{3(w+1)}},$$
(46)
where $`E`$ is a constant of integration. If there is no inhomogeneity, $`V_{\text{eff}}=0`$ and the solution of the effective Einstein’s equation reduces to that of the background FRW solution. The condition $`E>0`$ is necessary to reproduce the background the solution when the inhomogeneity vanishes. We can obtain qualitative behavior of the effective scale factor by observing the shape of the effective potential $`V_{\text{eff}}(x)`$ (FIG. 1).

We can summarize the back reaction effect of the long wavelength perturbation on the expansion of the Universe as follows:

* $`1<w<1/3`$ : the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. The inhomogeneity reduces the expansion rate.
* $`w=1/3`$ : $`V_{\text{eff}}\mathrm{ln}x`$. The expansion of the Universe is decelerating. The inhomogeneity reduces the expansion rate and the universe will recollapse due to the back reaction effect.
* $`1/3<w<w_{}`$ : $`w_{}`$ is a real root of the equation $`135w^3+333w^2+201w13=0`$ and $`w_{}0.06`$. The expansion of the Universe is decelerating. The inhomogeneity reduces the expansion rate and the universe will recollapse.
* $`w=w_{}`$ : $`V_{\text{eff}}=0`$ and there is no back reaction.
* $`w_{}<w<1`$ : the expansion of the Universe is decelerating. The inhomogeneity increases the expansion rate.

For short wavelength perturbations $`kaH`$, WKB type solution for the curvature perturbation $`\psi `$ is given by

$$\psi \{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{C_𝒌}{k\sqrt{w}a}\mathrm{cos}\left(k\sqrt{w}\frac{d\tau }{a}\right)e^{i𝒌𝒙}\hfill & \text{for}w>0,\hfill \\ \underset{𝒌}{}\frac{C_𝒌}{k\sqrt{w}a}\mathrm{cosh}\left(k\sqrt{w}\frac{d\tau }{a}\right)e^{i𝒌𝒙}\hfill & \text{for}w<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
and using this solution, we have

$$\rho _{\text{BR}}\mathrm{sign}(w)\frac{59w}{4w}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^4},p_{\text{BR}}\mathrm{sign}(w)\frac{59w}{12w}\underset{𝒌}{}\frac{|C_𝒌|^2}{a_R^4}.$$
(48)
The equation of state for the back reaction term becomes

$$p_{\text{BR}}\frac{1}{3}\rho _{\text{BR}}$$
(49)
which is independent of the value $`w`$. For $`w<5/9`$, $`\rho _{\text{BR}}`$ is positive and this is equivalent to a radiation fluid. The effective Einstein’s equation becomes

$$\frac{\dot{x}^2}{2}+V_{\text{eff}}(x)=E,V_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{sign}(w)\frac{3}{32}\frac{(w+1)^2(59w)}{w}\underset{𝒌}{}|C_𝒌|^2x^{\frac{2(3w1)}{3(w+1)}},E>0.$$
(50)
The back reaction effect of the short wavelength perturbation on the expansion of the Universe is summarized as follows (FIG. 2):

* $`1<w<1/3`$ : The inhomogeneity reduces the expansion rate.
* $`w=1/3`$ : $`V_{\text{eff}}=0`$. The equation of state of the back reaction term is the same as the back ground matter field and we have no back reaction from inhomogeneity.
* $`1/3<w<5/9`$ : The inhomogeneity increases the expansion rate.
* $`w=5/9`$ : $`V_{\text{eff}}=0`$. There is no back reaction.
* $`5/9<w<1`$ : The inhomogeneity reduces the expansion rate and the Universe will recollapse.

## V summary and discussion

In this paper, we applied the renormalization group method to the perturbed Einstein’s equation and derived the evolution equation for the renormalized scale factor. The renormalized scale factor includes the back reaction effect caused by the inhomogeneity of the first order perturbation. The resulting equation has the same form as the standard FRW equation with the back reaction effect appears as the effective energy density and pressure on the right hand side of the equation. For the long wavelength perturbation, the equation of the state of the back reaction terms depends on the value $`w`$. We have $`p_{\text{BR}}=\rho _{\text{BR}}/3,\rho _{\text{BR}}>0`$ for $`w=1`$ and this is equivalent to a negative spatial curvature. For $`w=0`$, we have $`p_{\text{BR}}=\rho _{\text{BR}}/3,\rho _{\text{BR}}<0`$ and this is equivalent to a positive spatial curvature. On the other hand, for the short wavelength perturbation, the equation of state of the back reaction term becomes independent of $`w`$ and $`p_{\text{BR}}\rho _{\text{BR}}/3`$. For $`w<5/9`$, $`\rho _{\text{BR}}>0`$ and the equation of state is the same as a radiation fluid.

We derived the effective FRW equation (34a) and (34b) without using the explicit form of the background solution and the perturbation solution. Usually, the renormalization group method is utilized to obtain the globally valid approximated solution of the differential equation and we must prepare naive perturbative solution of the original equation before applying the procedure of renormalization. In this paper, we could obtain the evolution equation for the renormalized scale factor without solving the perturbation equations. Once the effective FRW equation is obtained, it is possible to investigate the evolution of the effective scale factor and the back reaction effect by numerical method. Hence this approach is useful for the cosmological model with the scalar field in which case obtaining the solution of the perturbation is not easy in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by a Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (11640270).


format: text

text:
# Inclusion-exclusion and Segre classes, II

## 1. Introduction

Recent work on relations between the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class of a hypersurface $`X`$ in a nonsingular ambient variety $`M`$ and the class of its virtual tangent bundle has revealed a tight connection between the former and the Segre class of the Jacobian subscheme of $`X`$ (cf. \[Alu94\] and \[Alu99\], §1.1). A strong motivation to pursue this connection is the important rôle played by Segre classes in intersection theory—the hope is that functoriality properties of Segre classes (such as those that may be inherited via the connection with Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson’s classes) would lead to new computational tools for Segre classes, or at least point in the right direction to look for such tools. In this paper we discuss an ‘inclusion-exclusion principle’ for Segre classes, inspired by this connection.

This article is a counterpoint to \[Alu\], where we have imposed an inclusion-exclusion principle on a Segre class-type notion. The resulting SM-Segre class satisfies a number of remarkable properties, which must be a reflection of unknown and potentially useful properties of ordinary Segre classes. This leads us in this article to search for other instances where an inclusion-exclusion principle may be at work in the theory of Segre classes.

By inclusion-exclusion we refer to the familiar counting principle according to which the number of elements in the intersection of a family of finite sets may be computed by adding the cardinalities of the sets, subtracting the cardinalities of their pairwise unions, adding back the cardinalities of triple unions, etc. An analog of this principle is trivially satisfied by the topological Euler characteristic, and the simplest form of the functoriality property of the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson is an expression of the same principle. This is the observation leading to the definition of SM-Segre classes in \[Alu\].

We can now abstract away from Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes for a moment, and look for other situations where Segre classes express a behavior reminiscent of inclusion-exclusion. Our candidate in this paper is proposed in §2. We show that with a suitable definition of the union Segre class, which unfortunately is not quite the Segre class of the union, a straightforward inclusion-exclusion formula computes the (conventional) Segre class of the intersection $`Y`$ of closed subschemes $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ in an ambient irreducible scheme $`M`$. In fact we give a rather broad statement (Theorem 2.5), which specializes to inclusion-exclusion but encompasses a substantially more general situation; indeed, some information can be obtained as soon as $`Y`$ is contained in the intersection of the $`X_i`$, provided (maybe surprisingly) that enough $`X_i`$ are considered.

After the fact, we go back to Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes: in our main application of Theorem 2.5, we observe that the union Segre class in fact equals the SM-Segre class studied in \[Alu\], in a particularly well-behaved class of examples (Theorem 3.5, Corollary 3.6). This recovers immediately the main result of \[Alu99\] in a very particular, but representative case (cf. Example 3.7). Our hope, and our main motivation in this paper, is that applying Theorem 3.5 to similarly representative situations may suggest how to extend \[Alu99\] to a wider class of varieties, e.g., complete intersections. However, this issue is not further explored here.

We also include in §3 comments meant to illustrate the inclusion-exclusion principle in action as the number of loci $`X_i`$ increases, and a few explicit examples. Acknowledgments I thank the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in Bonn, Germany, for the hospitality and support.

## 2. Union Segre classes and the inclusion-exclusion formula

We work in a fixed ambient variety $`M`$.

As we are aiming for an inclusion-exclusion formula, we first recall the familiar counting analog for finite sets. Assume a set $`Y`$ is the intersection of a finite number of finite sets $`X_i`$:

$$Y=X_1\mathrm{}X_r.$$

Let $`X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}`$ denote the union $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}`$; then the cardinality of $`Y`$ can be computed in terms of the cardinalities of these unions by the formula

$$\mathrm{\#}Y=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}\mathrm{\#}X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_s},$$

as is proved immediately by induction on $`r`$.

Using the same notations in the algebro–geometric situation, assume $`Y`$ and the $`X_i`$ are proper subschemes of the ambient $`M`$; then we can aim to a similar formula for the Segre class $`s(Y,M)`$:

(1)
$$s(Y,M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M);$$

such an equality could be sought, for example, in the Chow group of the union $`X_i`$ (and we will be omitting evident push-forward notations). The question we explore is how to define the class

$$s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M)$$

so that such a formula may hold.

###### Remark 2.1.

Counter to the first possible guess, this should not be the class of the ‘union’: for example, take $`Y=p`$, a point in $`M=^2`$, and $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ two lines meeting at the point; then

$$s(X_1,^2)+s(X_2,^2)s(X_1X_2,^2)=2[p]$$

rather than $`[p]`$.

On the basis of a few such simple examples, one may reach the conclusion that we have no right to expect a formula such as (1) to hold. The surprise is that on the contrary there is a straightforward way to define a Segre–like class $`s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M)`$ so that inclusion–exclusion works; this class is defined on $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}`$, as it should, but it is not (defined as) the Segre class of a subscheme in $`M`$ (unless $`s=1`$, cf. Proposition 2.4 below).

In fact, the class will depend on the specific choice of $`X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s}`$ and on $`Y`$, and not only on the scheme $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}`$; this seems an undesirable feature, but we don’t see any way around it at this moment. On the other hand, we will see in §3 that the class is effectively computable in several representative situations.

We will give the definition for proper closed subschemes $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_s`$ of $`M`$, all containing a closed subscheme $`Y`$ in fact this requirement could be dropped, but at the expense of any geometric interpretation of the classes arising in the process. Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ be a proper birational morphism such that $`Y`$ and all the $`X_i`$ pull–back to Cartier divisors $`\overline{Y},\overline{X}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{X}_s`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$; we say then that $`\pi `$ is a ‘resolving’ morphism. By construction, all the $`\overline{X}_i`$ contain $`\overline{Y}`$ as a component, so that we can write

$$\overline{X}_i=\overline{Y}+R_i$$

for well–defined residual divisors $`R_i`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

With notations as above, we define the union Segre class of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_s`$ in $`M`$, w.r.t. $`Y`$, to be the class

$$s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_s;M)=\pi _{}\frac{[R_1+\mathrm{}+R_s+\overline{Y}]}{1+R_1+\mathrm{}+R_s+\overline{Y}}$$

in $`A_{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_s)`$.

Of course a resolving morphism $`\pi `$ exists (blow-up everything in sight). However we must prove that the result is independent of the choice of $`\pi `$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

The definition of $`s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_s;M)`$ is independent of the chosen resolving morphism $`\pi `$.

###### Proof.

If $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$, $`\pi ^{}:\stackrel{~}{M}^{}M`$ are two proper birational morphisms for which $`Y`$ and the $`X_i`$ pull-back to Cartier divisors, then so is $`(\stackrel{~}{M}\times _M\stackrel{~}{M}^{})^{}M`$, where $`(\stackrel{~}{M}\times _M\stackrel{~}{M}^{})^{}`$ is the component of the fiber product dominating $`M`$. So we may assume $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ dominates $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$:

$$\text{}.$$

Denoting by a  the corresponding subschemes in $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$, we have then

$$\overline{Y}^{}=p^{}\overline{Y},\overline{X}_i^{}=p^{}\overline{X}_i,R_i^{}=p^{}R_i,$$

and the stated independence follows immediately. ∎

Before proving our inclusion-exclusion formula, we comment on relations between the class we introduced and ordinary Segre classes.

###### Proposition 2.4.

1. For $`r=1`$: $`s(Y;X;M)=s(X,M)`$ is the Segre class of $`X`$ in $`M`$ (in particular, it is independent of $`Y`$).
2. If $`Y=\mathrm{}`$, then $`s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_s;M)=s(X_1\mathrm{}X_s,M)`$, where $`X_1\mathrm{}X_s`$ denotes the subscheme with ideal given by the product of the ideals of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_s`$.
3. $`s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_s;M)`$ is a birational invariant: if $`f:M^{}M`$ is a proper birational morphism, and $`Y^{}=f^1(Y)`$, $`X_i^{}=f^1(X_i)`$ (scheme-theoretically) then

$$f_{}s(Y^{};X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_s^{};M^{})=s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_s;M).$$

###### Proof.

The first two statements follow immediately from the definition. For the third: if $`\pi ^{}:\stackrel{~}{M}^{}M^{}`$ is a resolving morphism for $`Y^{}`$ and $`X_1^{}`$, …, $`X_s^{}`$, then $`\pi ^{}f`$ is resolving for $`Y`$ and $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_s`$, and the result follows easily. ∎

The second statement of Proposition 2.4 is a property shared with conventional Segre classes, cf. Proposition 4.2 in \[Ful84\]; it can be useful for concrete computations.

Here is the promised inclusion-exclusion principle:

###### Theorem 2.5 (Inclusion–Exclusion formula).

With notations as above, let
$`YX_1\mathrm{}X_r`$, and assume $`R_1\mathrm{}R_r=0`$. Then

$$s(Y,M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M)$$

in $`A_{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_r)`$.

###### Remark 2.6.

The condition on the $`R_i`$ seems hard to check, but it is automatically verified in at least two situations:

1. if $`Y`$ in fact equals $`X_1\mathrm{}X_r`$ (scheme–theoretically); and
2. if $`r>dimM`$.

The first case is the one which best agrees with the set–theoretic analogy; the second says (maybe surprisingly) that we could, if we want, choose all $`X_i`$ to be the same; so long as they contain $`Y`$, and we are choosing enough of them, then the formula must hold. We will illustrate this point in the beginning of §3.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.4, we can replace $`M`$ by a birational variety obtained by a resolving morphism. Thus we may assume that $`Y`$ and the $`X_i`$ are Cartier divisors, and we are reduced to proving that

$$\frac{[Y]}{1+Y}\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}\frac{[R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y]}{1+R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y}$$

is zero under the stated conditions; that is, that

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^s\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}\frac{[R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y]}{1+R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y}$$

is 0 if $`R_1\mathrm{}R_r=0`$. But for this it is enough to show that this last expression, as a formal power series in the $`R_i`$’s and $`Y`$, is divisible by $`R_1\mathrm{}R_r`$; and in turn for this it is enough to show that it is divisible by $`R_r`$; and finally, for this it suffices to show that the expression vanishes when $`R_r`$ is set to 0. Rewriting the expression by separating the part which contains $`R_r`$ transforms it into

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s+1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s<r}{}\frac{[R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+R_r+Y]}{1+R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+R_r+Y}$$

plus

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^s\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s<r}{}\frac{[R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y]}{1+R_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+R_{i_s}+Y}.$$

Setting $`R_r=0`$ in the first summands makes it equal and opposite in sign to the second; so the sum is 0 when $`R_r=0`$, as needed. ∎

Without hypotheses on the residual $`R_i`$ (via a resolving morphism $`\pi `$) and if $`rn=dimM`$, it is not hard to still say something rather precise regarding the right-hand-side of our inclusion-exclusion formula. As an illustration, consider the case $`r=n`$; then the proof of the theorem shows that the difference between the inclusion–exclusion formula and the Segre class of $`Y`$ is a multiple of $`\pi _{}(R_1\mathrm{}R_n)`$. This multiple can be evaluated easily.

###### Proposition 2.7.

With notations as above, let $`YX_1\mathrm{}X_n`$, with $`n=dimM`$; then

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M)=s(Y,M)+n!\pi _{}(R_1\mathrm{}R_n)$$

in $`A_{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_r)`$.

###### Proof.

Again replace $`M`$ by a resolving variety. The coefficient of $`R_1\mathrm{}R_n`$ can be computed after assuming $`Y=0`$ and all $`R_i`$ are equal to a fixed class $`R`$.

With these positions the left-hand-side becomes

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{s1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)\frac{s[R]}{1+sR};$$

the coefficient of $`R^n`$ in this expression is

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{ns}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)s^n.$$

So the result is implied by the combinatorial identity which follows. ∎

###### Lemma 2.8.

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{ns}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)s^n=n!$$

This is easily verified: $`n^n`$ counts the number of $`n`$–digit strings from $`n`$ objects; $`n(n1)^n`$ takes away those which only use $`n1`$ objects; but those that used $`n2`$ or less have been taken away twice, so $`+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)(n2)^n`$ evens out the count; except that those that used $`n3`$ or less have been counted too many times; etc. etc. The conclusion is that the formula in the lemma computes the number of strings of length $`n`$ using exactly $`n`$ objects, that is, $`n!`$.

As a side remark, we note that the argument in the proof of the theorem shows, by the same token, that

$$\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{rs}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{s}\right)s^r=0\text{for }0r<n;$$

which is also immediate from the counting argument just provided, since there are no strings of length $`n`$ using fewer than $`n`$ objects.

## 3. Applications and examples

There are two main situations in which Theorem 2.5 applies (cf. Remark 2.6): when the schemes $`X_i`$ cut out $`Y`$, and when there simply are enough of them.

To illustrate the second situation, let

$$s(Y;X^{(r)};M):=s(Y;\stackrel{r}{\stackrel{}{X,\mathrm{},X}};M)$$

where $`X`$ is any scheme containing $`Y`$. The classes

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{s}\right)s(Y;X^{(s)};M)$$

may be seen as ‘successive approximations’ of $`s(Y,M)`$: indeed, by Proposition 2.4, part 1., and Theorem 2.5, this class equals $`s(X,M)`$ for $`r=1`$, and $`s(Y,M)`$ for $`r0`$.

###### Example 3.1.

Let $`M=^5`$, $`X=^4M`$, and $`Y=`$ a quadric surface in a $`^3`$ contained in $`X`$. The successive approximations of $`s(Y,M)`$ are (after push-forward to $`M=^5`$):

$`s(X,M)=`$ $`[^4]`$ $``$ $`[^3]`$ $`+`$ $`[^2]`$ $``$ $`[^1]`$ $`+`$ $`[^0]`$
$`s(Y;X^{(2)};M)=`$ $`2`$ $`[^3]`$ $`4`$ $`[^2]`$ $`+6`$ $`[^1]`$ $`8`$ $`[^0]`$
$`s(Y;X^{(3)};M)=`$ $`4`$ $`[^2]`$ $`+4`$ $`[^1]`$ $`8`$ $`[^0]`$
$`s(Y;X^{(4)};M)=`$ $`2`$ $`[^2]`$ $`+16`$ $`[^1]`$ $`+22`$ $`[^0]`$
$`s(Y;X^{(5)};M)=`$ $`2`$ $`[^2]`$ $`8`$ $`[^1]`$ $`98`$ $`[^0]`$
$`s(Y;X^{(6)};M)=`$ $`2`$ $`[^2]`$ $`8`$ $`[^1]`$ $`+22`$ $`[^0]`$
and they stabilize from this point on, having reached $`s(Y,M)`$.

Since successive approximations must eventually agree, we obtain a relation recursively computing $`s(Y;X^{(r)};M)`$ for large $`r`$. Explicitly:

$$s(Y;X^{(r+1)};M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{rs}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{s1}\right)s(Y;X^{(s)};M)\text{for }r>dimM\text{.}$$

More generally, Theorem 2.5 could be used to obtain a recursion to compute the class $`s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M)`$ for large $`r`$, in terms of classes involving fewer of the $`X_i`$’s.

For $`Y=\mathrm{}`$ and all $`X_i`$ equal to a fixed hypersurface $`X`$, the recursion says the following. Let $`M`$ be a nonsingular variety, and let $``$ be a line bundle on $`M`$. Denote by $`c(rX)A_{}M`$ the total Chern class of a nonsingular section of $`^r`$ (if any exists). Then

* For $`r>dimM`$:

$$c(rX)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r1}{}}(1)^{rs1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{s}\right)c(sX)$$
* For $`r=dimM`$:

$$c(rX)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r1}{}}(1)^{rs1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{s}\right)c(sX)(dimM)!c_1(^{})^{dimM}[M]$$

The first formula is immediate from the above considerations and Proposition 2.4, part 2; the second one follows likewise by using Proposition 2.7.

These facts are essentially obvious independently of the results in this paper (exercise), but may deserve to be better known then they seem to be. For instance, this recursive behavior applies to the Euler characteristic of nonsingular sections of higher and higher powers of a line-bundle.

###### Example 3.2.

The simplest possible example of this phenomenon has to be the case of curves in $`^2`$, where it can of course be immediately verified from the genus formula. Even in this case, however, the recursive recipe seems rather pretty: taking $`=𝒪(1)`$, the successive Euler characteristics of degree $`r`$ curves, for $`r=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ are

$$\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏𝟖},\mathrm{𝟐𝟖},\mathrm{𝟒𝟎},\mathrm{};$$

in this case, the observation amounts to the fact that

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}\right)\mathrm{𝟐}2!1=\mathrm{𝟐}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3}{1}\right)2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3}{2}\right)\mathrm{𝟐}=\mathrm{𝟎}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{1}\right)2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{2}\right)2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{3}\right)\mathrm{𝟎}=\mathrm{𝟒}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5}{1}\right)2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5}{2}\right)2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5}{3}\right)0+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{5}{4}\right)(\mathrm{𝟒})=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{1}\right)2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{2}\right)2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{3}\right)0\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{4}\right)(4)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{6}{5}\right)(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})=\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\end{array}$$

etc.

By the above considerations, the same structure governs all sequences of Euler characteristics of successive powers of a line bundle over every variety; if the dimension of $`M`$ is $`n`$, the structure is visible from the $`n`$-th row of Pascal’s triangle onward. The same applies to the terms in all dimensions of the classes $`c(rX)`$.

A more substantial application of Theorem 2.5 is to the computation of SM-Segre classes, that is (equivalently) of Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes. The reader is addressed to \[Alu\] and references therein for more thorough discussions of these notions. As a quick reminder, the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes are classes defined in the Chow group of a possibly singular variety $`V`$, agreeing with $`c(TV)[V]`$ when $`V`$ is nonsingular, and fitting a functorial prescription (originally envisioned by Deligne and Grothendieck; see \[Ken90\] for a nice treatment). There has been substantial activity in recent years, comparing these classes to other classes generalizing the classes of the tangent bundle. These other classes are typically defined in terms of a Segre class; thus it is natural to ask whether the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes admit a description in terms of Segre classes.

This is indeed the case for hypersurfaces (\[Alu99\]): the difference between Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson classes and the classes of the virtual tangent bundle of a hypersurface $`X`$ can be measured effectively in terms of the Segre classes of the singularity subscheme of $`X`$. This difference has been named Milnor class, and studied in a different context; see \[PP01\] for the hypersurface case, and \[Sch\] for the state of the art on this point of view (now embracing a substantially more general class of varieties).

This otherwise substantial progress does not seem to yield a general expression for the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class in terms of Segre classes. Theorem 3.5 below is a (small) step in this direction.

Let $`M`$ be a nonsingular ambient variety.

###### Definition 3.3.

We say that a reduced subscheme $`XM`$ is almost nonsingular if its irreducible components $`X_i`$ are nonsingular, and $`X_iX_j=Y`$ (as schemes) for all $`ij`$, where $`Y`$ is a nonsingular variety independent of $`i`$, $`j`$.

###### Example 3.4.

The simplest example of an almost nonsingular variety is the transversal union of two nonsingular hypersurfaces in $`M`$. Another typical example would be the union of any number of lines through a point in a projective space, or more generally the union of a collection of general subspaces of dimension $`\frac{n}{2}`$ containing a fixed subspace $`Y`$ in $`^n`$.

In particular, note that almost nonsingular varieties are not necessarily pure-dimensional, Cohen-Macaulay, complete intersections…

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`XM`$ be almost nonsingular, let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_r`$ be its components, and let $`Y`$ be the common pairwise intersection of the components of $`X`$. Then

$$c_{\text{SM}}(X)=c(TM)s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M).$$

###### Proof.

Induction on the number $`r`$ of components of $`X`$. If $`r=1`$, then $`X`$ is nonsingular, so $`c_{\text{SM}}(X)=c(TX)[X]=c(TM)s(X,M)`$; so the formula holds, by Proposition 2.4, part 1.

For $`r>1`$, observe that since $`c_{\text{SM}}`$ itself satifies inclusion-exclusion (as a particular instance of functoriality) then

$$c_{\text{SM}}(Y)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r1}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}c_{\text{SM}}(X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s})+(1)^{r1}c_{\text{SM}}(X).$$

Capping by $`c(TM)^1`$, and using the induction hypothesis:

$$s(Y,M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r1}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s(Y;X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s};M)+(1)^{r1}c(TM)^1c_{\text{SM}}(X)$$

The result follows by comparing this formula with Theorem 2.5. ∎

Using the definition of SM-Segre class $`s^{}(X,M)`$ introduced in \[Alu\]:

###### Corollary 3.6.

With notations as in Theorem 3.5,

$$s^{}(X,M)=s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M).$$

###### Proof.

This now follows from Theorem 3.5 and \[Alu\], Theorem 3.1. ∎

Corollary 3.6 gives a suprisingly straightforward computation of $`s^{}(X,M)`$ in the particular case of almost nonsingular varieties. The definition of $`s^{}(X,M)`$ given in \[Alu\] is a certain combination of the Segre classes of hypersurfaces cutting out $`X`$ in $`M`$ and of their singularity subschemes; it would seem very difficult to have any control over it in that form. The expression in terms of a union Segre class is by contrast very direct, and matches well the intuition (from the case of a hypersurface, cf. \[Alu94\], §1) that the right class should be obtained by ‘removing’ a copy of the singularity subscheme.

###### Example 3.7.

This is perhaps the main punch-line in the whole paper, so we expand on this point. As mentioned above, the simplest example of an almost nonsingular variety is the union $`X`$ of two transversal, nonsingular hypersurfaces $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$. If $`(F_1)`$, $`(F_2)`$ are (local) ideals for $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, then $`X`$ has ideal $`(F_1F_2)`$, and hence singularity subscheme $`Y`$ with ideal $`(F_1F_2,F_1dF_2+F_2dF_1)`$. As $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are transversal, $`dF_1`$ and $`dF_2`$ are linearly independent at every point of $`Y`$; hence the ideal of $`Y`$ is simply $`(F_1,F_2)`$: that is, $`Y=X_1X_2`$.

Now using Theorem 3.5 we get

$$c_{\text{SM}}(X)=c(TM)s(Y;X_1,X_2;M).$$

Blowing up along $`Y`$, we can write $`s(Y;X_1,X_2;M)`$ as the push-forward of

$$\frac{[X_1+X_2E]}{1+X_1+X_2E},$$

where $`E`$ denotes the exceptional divisor and we use $`X`$ for the inverse image of its namesake in $`M`$; in this sense we ‘remove one copy of $`Y`$ from $`X`$’. Simple manipulations (using the notational device from \[Alu99\], §1.4) give

$$\frac{[XE]}{1+XE}=\frac{[X]}{1+X}+\frac{1}{1+X}\frac{[E]}{1+XE}=\frac{[X]}{1+X}+\frac{1}{1+X}\left(\left(\frac{[E]}{1+E}\right)^{}𝒪(X)\right),$$

and finally pushing forward we get

$$s(Y;X_1,X_2;M)=s(X,M)+c(𝒪(X))^1\left(s(Y,M)^{}𝒪(X)\right).$$

This is precisely the formula giving $`s(XY,M)`$ (cf. Lemma I.3 in \[Alu99\]). That is, although the case of ‘almost nonsingular varieties’ is extremely special, it is representative enough to capture precisely the correct definition for the class studied in full generality in \[Alu99\].

We hope that studying union Segre classes for similarly representative cases in higher codimension may suggest extensions of the result of \[Alu99\].

Conversely, the remarkable properties of $`s^{}(X,M)`$ (see \[Alu\], Theorem 2.3) tell us something about the union Segre class, at least in the case of almost nonsingular varieties. For instance:

###### Corollary 3.8.

If $`X`$ is almost nonsingular, with components $`X_i`$, and $`Y=X_iX_j`$ for $`ij`$, and $`XM`$, $`XM^{}`$ are embeddings of $`X`$ in nonsingular varieties, then

$$s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M)=c(TM)^1c(TM^{})s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M^{}).$$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 3.5, both classes $`c(TM)s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M)`$ and $`c(TM^{})s(Y;X_1,\mathrm{},X_r;M^{})`$ compute $`c_{\text{SM}}(X_1\mathrm{}X_r)`$. ∎

Such observations indicate that union Segre classes are better behaved than one may expect. For example, they must be less sensitive to scheme structure than ordinary Segre classes.

###### Example 3.9.

The ordinary Segre class of the union $`X`$ of three distinct lines $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`L_3`$ through a point $`p`$ in $`^3`$ depends on the position of the lines.

If the three lines are not coplanar, then a direct computation shows that $`s(X,^3)=[X]10[^0]`$; if the lines are coplanar, then $`s(X,^3)=[X]12[^0]`$. Here we are taking the reduced structure on the union, and in a sense this is the problem: as one of the lines moves to become coplanar with the others, the flat limit acquires an embedded point at the origin; in other words, the reduced union of coplanar lines is not a limit of the union of configurations of noncoplanar ones.

The union Segre class does not detect this difference. Using Definition 2.2, or Theorem 3.5, one computes that

$$s(p;L_1,L_2,L_3;^3)=[X]12[^0]$$

regardless of the directions of the lines, so long as these remain distinct.

On the other hand, properties such as Corollary 3.8 do depend on rather subtle information, in that they do not extend blindly to all union Segre classes.

###### Example 3.10.

Consider the union $`X`$ of two distinct lines $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$ through a point, with ideal given by the product of the ideals of the components.

This scheme depends on the ambient variety: in $`^2`$ it is reduced, in $`^3`$ it acquires an embedded component supported at the intersection point. Computing the ordinary Segre classes, and applying Proposition 2.4, part 2., gives

$$s(\mathrm{};L_1,L_2;^2)=[X]4[^0]=s(\mathrm{};L_1,L_2;^3);$$

thus

$$s(\mathrm{};L_1,L_2;^2)c(T^2)^1c(T^3)s(\mathrm{};L_1,L_2;^3)=[X]6[^0].$$

However, by Corollary 3.8 we must have

$$s(p;L_1,L_2;^2)=c(T^2)^1c(T^3)s(p;L_1,L_2;^3),$$

where $`p`$ is the intersection point. Using Definition 2.2, the reader can check ‘by hand’ that $`s(p;L_1,L_2;^2)=[X]3[^0]`$, $`s(p;L_1,L_2;^3)=[X]5[^0]`$, in agreement with this formula.

Summarizing, the inclusion-exclusion principle draws a connection between the union Segre classes considered here and the SM-Segre classes considered in \[Alu\]. In view of applications to the study of Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson and Milnor classes, it would be very interesting to establish the precise circumstances under which union and SM-Segre classes agree.


text:
# A study of semi-inclusive charmless 𝐵→𝜋𝑋 decays

## I Introduction

The source of CP violation in the Standard Model (SM) with three generations is a phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix . A precise measurement of the CKM matrix elements is one of the key issues in the study of $`B`$mesons and $`B`$factory experiments. In particular, the accurate determination of $`V_{ub}`$ is one of the most challenging problems in $`B`$ physics. Its non-vanishing value is a necessary condition for CP violation to occur in the SM and its accurate value can put strong constraints even on the unitarity triangle: for instance, on the magnitude of the CP violating phase $`\beta (\varphi _1)`$.

Theoretical and experimental studies for probing $`V_{ub}`$ have been mostly focused on the semileptonic $`B`$meson decays. The present best experimental data for $`V_{ub}`$ come from measurements of the exclusive decay $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }`$ and the inclusive decay $`BX_ul\overline{\nu }`$, but these measurements suffer from large uncertainties due to model-dependence and other theoretical errors. For example, the CLEO result obtained using the exclusive semileptonic decay $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }`$  :

$`|V_{ub}|=(3.25\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.29}^{+0.21}(\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 0.55(\mathrm{model}))\times 10^3.`$ (1)
The OPAL data obtained using the inclusive decay $`BX_ul\overline{\nu }`$  :

$`|V_{ub}|=(4.00\pm 0.65(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.76}^{+0.67}(\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 0.19(\mathrm{HQE}))\times 10^3.`$ (2)
The method using the exclusive semileptonic decays involves hadronic form factors, such as $`F^{B\pi }`$ or $`A^{B\rho }`$, whose values are heavily model-dependent and cause large uncertainties. The difficulty of using the inclusive charmless decay $`BX_ul\overline{\nu }`$ is in discriminating this process from the dominant background $`BX_cl\nu `$ decay , whose branching ratio is more than 50 times larger than that of $`BX_ul\overline{\nu }`$.

Although traditional difficulties with the understanding of non-leptonic $`B`$ decays have prevented their use in determination of the CKM matrix elements, the possibility of measuring $`|V_{ub}|`$ via non-leptonic decays of $`B`$mesons to exclusive or inclusive final states has been also theoretically explored .

In this work we study semi-inclusive charmless decays $`B\pi X`$ and investigate the possibility of extracting $`|V_{ub}|`$ from these processes. Compared to the exclusive decays, these semi-inclusive decays are generally expected to have less hadronic uncertainties and larger branching ratios. There are several possible processes in $`B\pi X`$ type decays, such as $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, $`B^0\pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, $`B^\pm \pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, where $`X`$ does not contain a charm (anti)quark. The class of nonleptonic two-body decay modes and their advantages within general arguments were previously discussed in Ref. , and semi-inclusive two-body decays within the QCD factorization were also studied in Ref. .

In Sec. II we first classify all those $`B\pi X`$ processes, and we identify a certain mode, $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$, whose analysis is theoretically clean and which can be used for determining $`|V_{ub}|`$. Then, in Sec. III we study the mode $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ in detail and propose a method to extract $`|V_{ub}|`$. That is, we calculate the branching ratio (BR) of this mode using the full effective Hamiltonian in the framework of the generalized factorization, and present the result as a function of $`|V_{ub}|`$ with an estimation of possible uncertainties. We also consider the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing effect through $`\overline{B}^0B^0\pi ^{}X`$. The conclusions are in Sec. IV.

## II Classification of Semi-inclusive charmless $`B\pi X`$ decays

Among the semi-inclusive charmless $`B\pi X`$ decays, let us first consider the mode $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$. Contributions for the decay amplitude of this mode arise from the color-favored tree ($`bu\overline{u}d`$) diagram and the $`bd`$ penguin diagram (see Fig. 1), and the tree diagram contribution dominates.

The charged pion $`\pi ^{}`$ in the final state can be produced via $`W`$boson emission at tree level and is expected to be energetic ($`E_\pi ^{}m_B/2`$). The decay amplitude can be approximated as

$`A(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X)A(b\pi ^{}u)h(u\overline{d}X(u\overline{d}))A(b\pi ^{}u),`$ (3)
where $`h`$ denotes a hadronization function describing the combination of the $`u\overline{d}`$ pair to make the final state $`X`$. To obtain the decay rate, $`X(u\overline{d})`$ should be summed over all the possible states, such as $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ etc, so this process is effectively a *two-body* decay process of $`b\pi ^{}u`$ in the parton model approximation We notice that the dominant tree contribution (Fig. 1(a)) is diagramatically similar to the inclusive semileptonic decay, $`b[l^{}\nu ]u`$, and can be approximated to the free quark decay of $`b\pi ^{}u`$ within the HQET. . Thus, in this specific mode, no hadronic form factors (except the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$) are involved, and as a result the model-dependence does not appear to be severe. We note that the *energetic* charged pion§§§ The net electric charge of $`X`$ should be *positive* so that such energetic $`\pi ^{}`$ cannot be produced from the inclusive $`X=\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, etc. $`\pi ^{}`$ in the final state can be a characteristic signal for this mode. We will show in Fig. 3 the decay distribution, $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\pi }`$, for $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ as a function of the charged pion energy $`E_\pi `$. (For a detailed explanation, see Sec. III.) Like a two-body decay, a peak appears around $`E_\pi ^{}=m_B/2`$.

Now let us consider the mode $`B^{}\pi ^{}X`$. As shown in Fig. 2, various contributions are responsible for this process: the color-favored tree diagram, the color-suppressed tree diagram, the $`bd`$ and $`bs`$ penguin diagrams. The color-favored tree contribution (Fig. 2(a)) and $`bd`$ penguin contributions (Fig. 2(c)) are similar to those in $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$, which are effectively two-body type ($`b\pi ^{}u`$) processes. However, the color-suppressed tree (Fig. 2(b)) and other penguins (Fig. 2(d)) differ from those in $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$. In fact, these two diagrams correspond to effectively a *three-body* decay process of $`B^{}\pi ^{}u\overline{u}`$ (or $`\pi ^{}d\overline{d}`$) in the parton model approximation, with the decay amplitude

$`A(B^{}\pi ^{}X)A(B^{}\pi ^{}u\overline{u})h(u\overline{u}X(u\overline{u}))A(B^{}\pi ^{}u\overline{u}).`$ (4)
In Figs. 2(b) and 2(d), the charged pion $`\pi ^{}`$ in the final state contains the spectator antiquark $`\overline{u}`$. So the analysis involves the hadronic form factor for the $`B\pi `$ transition which is highly model-dependent. Furthermore, the $`bs`$ penguin contribution (Fig. 2(d)) is not suppressed compared to the tree contributions, but dominant in this mode. The decay distribution, $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\pi }`$, for $`B^{}\pi ^{}X`$ will be shown in Fig. 4, as a function of the charged pion energy $`E_\pi `$. The three-body type contribution from the $`bs`$ penguin is the dominant one. Therefore, compared to the case of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$, the analysis of this mode is much more complicated and involves larger uncertainties.

Other modes of the type $`B\pi X`$ can be similarly classified. For instance, in the mode $`B^0\pi ^{}X`$, the color-favored tree ($`\overline{b}\overline{u}u\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{b}\overline{u}u\overline{s}`$) diagrams and the $`bd`$ and $`bs`$ penguin diagrams are responsible for the decay process. In this case, the charged pion $`\pi ^{}`$ contains the spectator quark $`d`$ so that the process is effectively a three-body decay $`B^0\pi ^{}u\overline{d}(\overline{s})`$ and the hadronic form factor for the $`B\pi `$ transition is involved. Other processes are basically a combination of the two-body decay process ($`b\pi q`$) and the three-body decay process ($`B^{}\pi ^{}q\overline{q}^{}`$).

## III Analysis of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ decay

In the previous section, we have seen that the process $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ is particularly interesting, because it is effectively the two-body decay process $`b\pi ^{}u`$ in the parton model approximation, and no uncertainty from hadronic form factors is involved. Thus, its theoretical analysis is expected to be quite clean.

The relevant $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ effective Hamiltonian for hadronic $`B`$ decays can be written as

$`H_{eff}^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}(c_1O_{1u}^q+c_2O_{2u}^q)+V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}(c_1O_{1c}^q+c_2O_{2c}^q)`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}}(V_{ub}V_{uq}^{}c_i^u+V_{cb}V_{cq}^{}c_i^c+V_{tb}V_{tq}^{}c_i^t)O_i^q]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`H.C.,`$ (7)
where $`O_i^q`$’s are defined as

$`O_{1f}^q`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lf\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu Lb,O_{2f}^q=\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lf_\beta \overline{f}_\beta \gamma ^\mu Lb_\alpha ,`$ (8)
$`O_{3(5)}^q`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lb{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu L(R)q^{},O_{4(6)}^q=\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lb_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu L(R)q_\alpha ^{},`$ (9)
$`O_{7(9)}^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}\gamma _\mu Lb{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu R(L)q^{},O_{8(10)}^q={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{q}_\alpha \gamma _\mu Lb_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}e_q^{}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu R(L)q_\alpha ^{},`$ (10)
where $`L(R)=(1\gamma _5)`$, $`f`$ can be $`u`$ or $`c`$ quark, $`q`$ can be $`d`$ or $`s`$ quark, and $`q^{}`$ is summed over $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, and $`c`$ quarks. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the color indices. $`c_i`$’s are the Wilson coefficients (WC’s), and we use the effective WC’s for the process $`bd\overline{q}q^{}`$ from Ref.. The regularization scale is taken to be $`\mu =m_b`$. The operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ are the tree level and QCD corrected operators, $`O_{36}`$ are the gluon induced strong penguin operators, and finally $`O_{710}`$ are the electroweak penguin operators due to $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange, and the box diagrams at loop level.

Now we calculate the decay amplitude for the semi-inclusive decay $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$, where $`X`$ can contain an up quark and a down antiquark. In the generalized factorization approximation, the decay amplitude is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}X|H_{eff}|\overline{B}^0,`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}f_\pi X|\overline{u}\left[r(1+\gamma ^5)+l(1\gamma ^5)\right]b|\overline{B}^0,`$ (12)
where we have defined the followings:

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`m_bw_1,`$ (13)
$`l`$ $`=`$ $`m_uw_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_d+m_u}}w_2,`$ (14)
$`w_1`$ $`=`$ $`V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_3}{N_c}}+A_4+{\displaystyle \frac{A_9}{N_c}}+A_{10},`$ (15)
$`w_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_5}{N_c}}+A_6+{\displaystyle \frac{A_7}{N_c}}+A_8\right).`$ (16)
Here $`N_c`$ denotes the effective number of color and

$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=u,c,t}{}}V_{qb}V_{qd}^{}c_i^q.`$ (17)
We have used the relations

$`\pi ^{}|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5u|0`$ $`=`$ $`if_\pi p_\pi ^\mu ,`$ (18)
$`\pi ^{}|\overline{d}\gamma ^5u|0`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi m_\pi ^2}{m_d+m_u}},`$ (19)
where $`f_\pi `$ and $`p_\pi ^\mu `$ are the decay constant and the momentum of pion, respectively, and $`m_\pi (m_i)`$ is the mass of pion ($`i`$ quark). In Eq. (19) the free quark equation of motion has been used.

Then,

$`||^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{2}}f_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\left|X|\overline{u}\left[r(1+\gamma ^5)+l(1\gamma ^5)\right]b|\overline{B}^0\right|^2(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_\pi p_X)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{2}}f_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\overline{B}^0|J|XX|J^{}|\overline{B}^0(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_Bp_\pi p_X),`$ (21)
where

$`J^{}=\overline{u}\left[r(1+\gamma ^5)+l(1\gamma ^5)\right]b.`$ (22)
In the parton model approximation we take the leading order term in the product of the above matrix elements, which corresponds to interpretation of the above process as $`b(p_b)\pi ^{}(p_\pi )+u(p_u)`$ . Then, $`||^2`$ can be expressed as

$`||^2`$ $`=`$ $`2G_F^2f_\pi ^2\left[(|r|^2+|l|^2)(p_up_b)+2Re(rl^{})m_um_b\right]`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`|V_{ub}|^2_2+|V_{ub}|_1+_0,`$ (24)
where

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`2G_F^2f_\pi ^2|V_{ud}^{}|^2\{|c^{ut}|^2𝒳+4|\stackrel{~}{c}^{ut}|^2𝒴+2Re[(c^{ut})(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ut})^{}]𝒵\},`$ (25)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`2G_F^2f_\pi ^2|V_{ud}V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}|\{2Re[e^{i\gamma }(c^{ct})(c^{ut})^{}]𝒳+8Re[e^{i\gamma }(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ct})(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ut})^{}]𝒴`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`2Re[e^{i\gamma }(c^{ct})(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ut})^{}+e^{i\gamma }(c^{ut})(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ct})^{}]𝒵\},`$ (27)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`2G_F^2f_\pi ^2|V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}|^2\{|c^{ct}|^2𝒳+4|\stackrel{~}{c}^{ct}|^2𝒴+2Re[(c^{ct})(\stackrel{~}{c}^{ct})^{}]𝒵\},`$ (28)
and

$`𝒳`$ $`=`$ $`(m_b^2+m_u^2)(p_bp_u)2m_b^2m_u^2,`$ (29)
$`𝒴`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^4}{(m_d+m_u)^2}}(p_bp_u),`$ (30)
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_um_\pi ^2}{m_d+m_u}}(p_bp_um_b^2),`$ (31)
$`c^{ut}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_3^uc_3^t)(c_4^uc_4^t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_9^uc_9^t)(c_{10}^uc_{10}^t),`$ (32)
$`c^{ct}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_3^cc_3^t)(c_4^cc_4^t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_9^cc_9^t)(c_{10}^cc_{10}^t),`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}^{qt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_5^qc_5^t)+(c_6^qc_6^t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}(c_7^qc_7^t)+(c_8^qc_8^t)(q=u,c).`$ (34)
Here we have used the usual definition of the phase angle,

$`\gamma (\varphi _3)=Arg[(V_{ud}V_{ub}^{})/(V_{cd}V_{cb}^{})].`$ (35)
We first calculate the decay distribution in the $`b`$ quark rest frame and boost it to the $`B`$meson rest frame. In the $`b`$ quark rest frame, the decay distribution is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\pi }}|_b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}||^2{\displaystyle \frac{p_\pi }{m_bE_u}}\delta (m_bE_\pi E_u).`$ (36)
In the $`B`$meson rest frame, the $`b`$ quark is in motion and has the energy $`E_b`$ satisfying the relation: $`E_b=m_BE_u`$, where $`E_i=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}`$. $`E_i`$ and $`m_i`$ denote the energy and the mass of $`i`$ quark inside the $`B`$meson, respectively. The 3-momentum $`p`$ is defined by $`p=|\stackrel{}{p}_b|=|\stackrel{}{p}_u|`$. Thus, the $`b`$ quark mass is now a function of $`p`$ given by

$`m_b^2(p)=m_B^2+m_u^22m_B\sqrt{p^2+m_u^2}.`$ (37)
The decay distribution in the $`B`$ rest frame can be calculated by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\pi }}={\displaystyle _0^{p_{max}}}𝑑pp^2\varphi (p){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\pi }}|_b,`$ (38)
where $`p_{max}=(m_B^2m_u^2)/(2m_B)`$. We have used the ACCMM model  using the $`B`$meson wave function:

$`\varphi (p)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi p__F^3}}}e^{p^2/p__F^2},`$ (39)
with the normalization $`_0^{\mathrm{}}p^2\varphi (p)𝑑p=1`$.

The Fermi momentum $`p__F=0.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ has been used. In Figs. 3 and 4 we show the decay distributions for $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ and $`B^{}\pi ^{}X`$ as a function of the charged pion energy $`E_\pi `$. For $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ decay, the distribution has a peak at $`E_\pi m_B/2`$. This is a characteristic of a two-body decay. Because the $`b`$ quark inside the $`\overline{B}^0`$ is in motion, the distribution has some width shown in Fig. 3. For $`B^{}\pi ^{}X`$, the decay distribution is a mixture of three-body type decay distributions and a two-body type decay distribution. Figure 4 shows that the dominant contribution arises from a three-body type decay (the $`bs`$ penguin process), as explained in Sec. II.

The BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ can be expressed as a polynomial of $`|V_{ub}|`$:

$`(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X)=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{0.004}}\right|^2_2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{0.004}}\right|_1+_0,`$ (40)
where for convenience we have scaled $`|V_{ub}|`$ by the factor 0.004 (the central value of the OPAL data). Tables I and II show the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ for fixed $`\gamma (\varphi _3)=65^{}`$ and $`N_c=3`$, respectively, with a fixed input value of $`|V_{ub}|=0.004`$. We note that the term $`_2`$ is the dominant contribution ($`10^4`$) to $``$, while the contribution from the term $`_0`$ is very small ($`10^6`$). This is due to the fact (see Fig. 1) that $`_2`$ corresponds to mostly the tree contribution ($`bu\overline{u}d`$), while $`_0`$ corresponds to the pure $`bd`$ penguin contribution which is very small compared to the tree contribution, and $`_1`$ corresponds to the interference between them. We see that the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ is about $`10^4`$ for different values of $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$ and $`N_c`$.

In Fig. 5, we present the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ as a function of $`N_c`$ for three different values of $`\gamma (\varphi _3)=65^{},85^{},110^{}`$. As one can see from Eqs. (24, 28, 40) and from Table 2 and Fig. 6, $`_2`$ and $`_0`$ are independent of $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$, and only $`_1`$ depends on $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$. Three different lines for $`_1`$ correspond to the relevant values of $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$, respectively. It is clearly shown that $`_2`$ is dominant. A representative value of $``$ for $`|V_{ub}|=0.004`$ and $`\gamma (\varphi _3)=85^{}`$ is shown as the bold solid line in the figure. The value of $``$ does not vary much as $`N_c`$ varies.

Similarly, Figure 6 shows the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ as a function of $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$ for three different values of $`N_c=2,5,10`$. The solid line corresponds to the case $`N_c=2`$, and the dotted line and the dashed line are for $`N_c=5`$ and $`N_c=10`$, respectively. The $`_2`$, $`_1`$ and $`_0`$ increase as $`N_c`$ increases. However, since the dominant term $`_2`$ does not change much when $`N_c`$ is varied, the BR does not change much either. In Fig. 6, a representative value of $``$ for $`|V_{ub}|=0.004`$ and $`N_c=5`$ is shown as the bold solid line.

Finally we summarize our result in Fig. 7. The BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ is presented as a function of $`|V_{ub}|`$. For light quark masses, we use $`m_u=(1.55)`$ MeV and $`m_d=(39)`$ MeV. We also vary the value of $`N_c`$ and $`\gamma (\varphi _3)`$ in a reasonable range: from $`N_c=2`$ to $`10`$, and from $`\gamma (\varphi _3)=60^{}`$ to $`110^{}`$. The solid and the dotted lines correspond to the smallest and the largest value of $``$ in the given parameter space, respectively. For the given $`|V_{ub}|`$, the BR is estimated with a relatively small error ($`<20\%`$), as can be seen. Reversely, for the given (i.e., experimentally measured) BR, the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ can be determined with a reasonably small error ($`15\%`$). (Of course, since in practice the BR would be measured with some errors, $`|V_{ub}|`$ could be determined with larger error: e.g., for $`=(1.0\pm 0.1)\times 10^4`$, our result suggests $`|V_{ub}|=(3.7\pm 0.59)\times 10^3`$.)

In order to use the decay process $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$, one may need to consider the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing effect: $`\overline{B}^0B^0\pi ^{}X`$. The neutral $`\overline{B}^0`$ has about $`18\%`$ probability of decaying as the opposite flavor $`B^0`$ . Thus, including the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing effect, the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay to $`\pi ^{}X`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(0.82)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X)+(0.18)\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0\pi ^{}X),`$ (41)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0(B^0)\pi ^{}X)`$ denotes the decay rate for $`\overline{B}^0(B^0)`$ decay directly to $`\pi ^{}X`$. The BR of $`B^0`$ decay directly to $`\pi ^{}X`$ is about $`90\%`$ of the BR of $`\overline{B}^0`$ decay directly to $`\pi ^{}X`$ with the energy cutAs mentioned in Sec. II, the charged pion in the decay mode $`B^0\pi ^{}X`$ contains the spectator quark $`d`$, and this process is basically a three-body decay $`B^0\pi ^{}u\overline{d}(\overline{s})`$. Therefore, in order to remove this large $`s`$ quark contribution, one needs to make such a large energy cut (see Fig. 4)., $`2.32\mathrm{GeV}<E_\pi <2.56\mathrm{GeV}`$, as can be seen from Table III. Even though the theoretical estimate for the mode $`B^0\pi ^{}X`$ would include a somewhat larger uncertainty, which mainly arises from the relevant hadronic form factor, the total error of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ would not increase much. For example, if the estimate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0\pi ^{}X)`$ in Eq. (41) includes an error of $`30\%`$, then its actual contribution to the final error of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is less than $`5\%`$. Therefore, even after considering the effect from the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, our result holds with reasonable accuracy.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied semi-inclusive charmless decays of $`B`$mesons to $`\pi X`$ in the final state, such as $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, $`B^0\pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, $`B^\pm \pi ^{\pm (0)}X`$, where $`X`$ does not contain a charm (anti)quark. Among these $`B\pi X`$ decays, we have found that the mode $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ ($`B^0\pi ^+X`$) is particularly interesting and can be used to determine of the CKM matrix element $`|V_{ub}|`$ in phenomenological studies.

In $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ decay, the charged pion in the final state can be produced via $`W`$boson emission at tree level and is expected to be energetic ($`E_\pi m_B/2`$). Thus, the energetic charged pion in the final state can be a characteristic signal for this mode. This process is basically a *two*-body decay process of $`b\pi ^{}u`$. As a result, in this mode, the model-dependence does not appear to be severe.

We have calculated the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ and presented it as a function of $`|V_{ub}|`$. It is expected that its BR is an order of $`10^4`$. (In this analysis, higher-order QCD corrections have not been considered; instead we analyzed within the QCD improved general factorization framework. So, a further study on this process would be very interesting.) We have also estimated the possible uncertainty due to $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing effects via the decay chain $`\overline{B}^0B^0\pi ^{}X`$. Other theoretical uncertainties, such as those arising from the WC’s and the CKM elements, could affect our results in some extent. However, as soon as the relevant results from the experiments become available, one can use them to reduce theoretical uncertainties in turn. Thus, in the viewpoint of phenomenological studies, our results can be used to determine $`|V_{ub}|`$ with reasonable accuracy by measuring the BR of $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$. Therefore, the process $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}X`$ ($`B^0\pi ^+X`$) can play an important role in measuring $`|V_{ub}|`$ at $`B`$factories.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank F. Krueger and Y. Kwon for their valuable comments. The work of C.S.K was supported by Grant No. 2001-042-D00022 of the KRF. The work of J.L. was supported by Grant No. R03-2001-00010 of the KOSEF. The work of S.O was supported by CHEP-SRC Program, Grant No. 20015-111-02-2 and Grant No. R02-2002-000-00168-0 from BRP of the KOSEF. The work of D.Y.K., H.S.K, and J.S.H was supported by the BSRI Program of MOE, Project No. 99-015-D10032.


text:
# Low temperature superfluid stiffness of 𝑑-wave superconductor in a magnetic field

## Abstract

The temperature and field dependence of the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ in the vortex state of a $`d`$-wave superconductor are calculated using a microscopic model in the quasiclassical approximation. We show that at temperatures below $`T^{}\sqrt{H}`$, the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _s`$ crosses over to a $`T^2`$ dependence differently from the behavior of the effective penetration depth, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(T)`$. We point out that the expected dependences could be probed by a mutual-inductance technique experiment.

Introduction. While the mechanism of superconductivity and unusual nature of the normal state in high-temperature superconductors (HTSC) are not yet understood, there is a consensus that the zero field superconducting state has a $`d`$-wave superconducting energy gap, with nodes along the diagonals of the Brillouin zone Tsuei:2000:RMP . The presence of the nodes results in a density of low energy quasiparticle excitations large compared with conventional $`s`$-wave superconductors even at the temperatures much smaller than the transition temperature, $`TT_c`$. Although these excitations are reasonably well described by Landau quasiparticles their presence brings in a qualitatively new quasiparticle phenomenology not encountered in conventional superconductors. Among many aspects of this new physics a major role is played by these low energy excitations in the mixed (or vortex) state Krishana:1997:SCI ; Lee:1997:SCI ; Vekhter:2001:PRB ; Vafek:2001:PRB . Since all HTSCs are extreme type-II superconductors a huge mixed phase extends from the lower critical field, $`H_{c1}10100\text{Gauss}`$ to the upper critical field, $`H_{c2}100\text{T}`$. An important property of the vortex state was pointed out by Volovik Volovik:1993:JETPL , who predicted, that in contrast to conventional superconductors, in $`d`$-wave systems the density of states (DOS) is dominated by contribution from excited quasiparticle states rather than the bound states associated with vortex cores. It was shown that in an applied magnetic field $`H`$ the extended quasiparticles DOS, $`N(\omega =0,H)\sqrt{H}`$ rather than $`H`$ as in the conventional case. This result was confirmed by specific heat measurements on high quality single crystals Moler:1994:PRL ; Wang:2001:PRB . Subsequently the semiclassical treatment of Volovik:1993:JETPL  was incorporated into the Green’s functions formalism extended to include the effects of impurity scattering Kubert:1998:SSC . Accounting for the impurity scattering which violates a simple $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependence has improved the agreement between the theory and measurements of the electronic specific heat (see Refs. in Vekhter:2001:PRB ).

A similar to the Volovik effect, the weak ($`H<H_{c1}`$) field response was studied by Yip and Sauls Yip:1992:PRL . They predicted a direction dependent nonlinear Meissner effect also associated with quasiclassical shift of the excitation spectrum due to the superflow created by the screening currents. Although initially an experimental evidence for such an effect was reported, the subsequent experiments Carrington:1999:PRB  did not confirm this effect.

Another interesting result was obtained by the $`\mu `$SR measurements of temperature and field dependences of the effective in-plane penetration depth, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in single crystals YBa2Cu3O6.95 by Sonier et al. Sonier:1999:PRL . At high magnetic fields, they observed a flattening of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ (defined in these experiments as the width of magnetic field distribution) at low temperatures in contrast to the linear $`T`$ behavior expected in a clean $`d`$-wave superconductor. If one assumes $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ is proportional to the superfluid density, then such a flattening could, in principle, indicate an opening of a secondary gap at the nodes of a $`d`$-wave superconducting gap as was already suggested after the measurements of thermal conductivity Krishana:1997:SCI .

It was argued by Amin et al. Amin:2000:PRL  that the simple relation $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2\rho _s`$ is not valid for the penetration depth extracted in $`\mu `$SR experiments at finite fields, so that using the proper definition Amin:1998:PRB  of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which corresponds to the $`\mu `$SR measured penetration depth, the observed behavior of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ can be explained by a nonlocal London model for a $`d`$-wave superconductor. The behavior of the superfluid stiffness, defined as a second derivative of the free energy of the system with respect to a vector potential, in this case cannot be addressed by the $`\mu `$SR.

Nevertheless the superfluid density in itself could also be extracted, for example, from the measurements of the low frequency complex sheet conductance as done in two-coil mutual-inductance technique measurements on thin films Jeanneret:1989:APL ; Calame:2001:PRL . The superfluid density (stiffness) in this case is found from the inductive part $`\sigma _2(\omega )`$ of the conductivity Tinkham.book

$$\frac{\rho _s(T)}{m}\frac{c^2}{4\pi e^2\lambda _L^2(T)}=\frac{1}{e^2}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\omega \sigma _2(\omega ,T),$$
(1)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`m`$ is its mass (or, more generally, a mass of the charge carrier) and $`c`$ is the velocity of light. It is very important to make a distinction between the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ appearing in (1) and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ deduced from the $`\mu `$SR measurements Amin:1998:PRB ; Wang:1999:SSC .

Thus in this work we investigate the influence of the magnetic field directly on the superfluid stiffness in HTSC using the quasiclassical approximation at $`H_{c1}<HH_{c2}`$. Our result is that at low temperatures there is also a flattening of $`\rho _s`$ which is not related to an opening of the gap and is just the result of a Doppler shift of the quasiparticle energies in the vortex state.

Although a quantum mechanical treatment is certainly needed for a consistent treatment of the vortex state Vafek:2001:PRB , the semiclassical approximation always provides a good starting point when a new physical property of the system is involved. Furthermore, as argued in Vekhter:2001:PRB  for the parameter range relevant to the study of HTSC, this approximation reproduces the energy spectrum of the near-nodal quasiparticles in a vortex state to a high degree of accuracy allowing also to include the effect of impurity scattering into the analysis. In particular, the thermal conductivity was studied using the semiclassical approximation Kubert:1998:PRL ; Franz:1999:PRL ; Vekhter:1999:PRL .

Superfluid stiffness in the presence of impurities. Superfluid stiffness is given by Durst:2000:PRB :

$$\frac{\rho _s^{\alpha \beta }(T,H)}{m}=\frac{\rho _{s0}^{\alpha \beta }}{m}\frac{\rho _n^{\alpha \beta }(T,H)}{m}.$$
(2)
The normal fluid density, $`\rho _n`$ in (2), calculated within the “bubble approximation” with dressed fermion propagators (i.e., with self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ due to the scattering on impurities included) but neglecting the vertex and Fermi liquid corrections, is

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\rho _n^{\alpha \beta }}{m}=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{tanh}\frac{\omega }{2T}\frac{v_{F\alpha }v_{F\beta }}{4\pi i}\hfill \\ & \times \text{tr}[G_A(\omega ,𝐤)G_A(\omega ,𝐤))G_R(\omega ,𝐤)G_R(\omega ,𝐤)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
As shown in Durst:2000:PRB  the vertex corrections can be neglected if the impurity scattering potential is isotropic in $`𝐤`$-space. Likewise the Fermi liquid corrections can be taken into account along the lines of Ref.Durst:2000:PRB . In (3) $`G_{R,A}(\omega ,𝐤)`$ are the retarded and advanced Green’s functions

$$G_{R,A}(\omega ,𝐤)=\frac{(\omega \pm i\mathrm{\Gamma })\widehat{I}+\tau _3\xi (𝐤)\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}{(\omega \pm i\mathrm{\Gamma })^2\xi ^2(𝐤)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}$$
(4)
with the dispersion law $`\xi (𝐤)`$, the $`d`$-wave superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$, and the Fermi velocity is $`𝐯_F=\xi (𝐤)/𝐤|_{𝐤=𝐤_F}`$. The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ in (4) is the scattering rate due to impurities and other sources, e.g. disordered vortex lattice (see below). Following Durst:2000:PRB  we assume that around the nodes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is frequency and momentum independent, so that the presence of impurities is modeled by a widening of $`\delta `$-like quasiparticle peaks by a Lorentzian

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A(\omega ,𝐤)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}[G_A(\omega i0,𝐤)G_R(\omega +i0,𝐤)]\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\pi E}\left[\frac{E+\tau _3\xi \tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }}{(\omega E)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+\frac{E\tau _3\xi +\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }}{(\omega +E)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
with a constant width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see, however, Loktev:2001:FNT  where this assumption was not confirmed for dopants considered as impurity centers). Here $`E(𝐤)=\sqrt{\xi ^2(𝐤)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(𝐤)}`$ is the quasiparticle dispersion law.

Employing for the low temperature regime, $`TT_c`$ the nodal approximation Durst:2000:PRB  we obtain that

$$\frac{\rho _n^{\alpha \beta }(T)}{m}=\frac{v_F\delta _{\alpha \beta }}{\pi v_\mathrm{\Delta }}J,$$
(6)
where $`𝐯_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)/𝐤|_{𝐤=𝐤_F}`$ is the gap velocity and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J=& \frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{tanh}\frac{\omega }{2T}\hfill \\ \hfill \times & [\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2}{2\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2+p_0^2}{2\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }}\hfill \\ & \frac{p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(p_0+\omega )^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+\frac{p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(p_0\omega )^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
with the cutoff energy $`p_0`$ (as estimated in Vekhter:2001:PRB  $`p_01500\text{K}`$). Taking the no impurities limit, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ one can recover from (6), (7) the known linear $`T`$ dependence Durst:2000:PRB

$$\frac{\rho _n(T)}{m}=\frac{2\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi }\frac{v_F}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}T,$$
(8)
where we set $`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$. It is essential, however, to take into account the presence of impurities which modifies the low temperature $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho _n`$ from linear to $`T^2`$ Hirschfeld:1993:PRB ; Xiang:1998:IJMPB . Indeed in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T`$ we get from (6), (7) that

$$\frac{\rho _n(T)}{m}=\frac{v_F}{\pi v_\mathrm{\Delta }}\left[\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{p_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{\pi }{3}\frac{T^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}O\left(\frac{T^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3}\right)\right].$$
(9)
For clean YBCO monocrystals the estimated Ando:2000:PRB  value of the scattering due to impurities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_012\text{K}`$, but in thin films the quadratic temperature dependence of $`\rho _s(T)`$ is observed over a wide temperature range Calame:2001:PRL  implying that the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ could be bigger, so that for our estimates we use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=10\text{K}`$. However, as we will see below the obtained dependences on $`H`$ are in fact even stronger for smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

Doppler shift. In the semiclassical approach to the vortex state the presence of a superflow is accounted for by introducing the Doppler shift into the energy $`\omega \omega ϵ(𝐤,𝐫)`$ Volovik:1993:JETPL ; Kubert:1998:SSC , where $`ϵ(𝐤,𝐫)=𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤`$, and $`𝐯_s(𝐫)`$ is the supervelocity field at a position $`𝐫`$ created by all vortices. There are several ways to treat the problem depending on the assumptions we made about the vortex lattice.

1. Completely disordered vortex state. Following Franz:1999:PRL  we assume that the vortex lattice is disordered, which is not unreasonable for thin films Calame:2001:PRL . Then on the length scales large compared with the intervortex distance $`a_v=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\pi B}`$ (here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$ is the flux quantum and $`B`$ is the internal field), propagation of quasiparticles is described by the Green’s function averaged over the vortex positions $`\{𝐑_i\}`$. This averaging can be done using the probability density

$$𝒫(\eta )=\delta (\eta 𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤)_{\{𝐑_i\}},$$
(10)
so that the averaged Green’s function

$$G(\omega ,𝐤)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta 𝒫(\eta )G^0(\omega \eta ,𝐤),$$
(11)
where $`G^0(\omega ,𝐤)=G(\omega ,𝐤)`$ from Eq. (4) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$. For typical accessible fields $`H_{c1}<HH_{c2}`$ the magnetization due to the vortex lattice is small, and the internal field $`B`$ can be replaced by the applied field, $`H`$ directed along the $`c`$-axis.

Assuming that the vortex positions are random and uncorrelated, one would get Yu:1995:PRL  a Gaussian distribution $`𝒫(\eta )=(2\pi E_H^2)^{1/2}e^{\eta ^2/2E_H^2}`$ with

$$E_H^2=k_\alpha k_\beta v_s^\alpha (𝐫)v_s^\beta (𝐫)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{2a_v}\right)^2=\frac{\pi }{4}\mathrm{}^2v_F^2\frac{H}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0},$$
(12)
where we used the expression $`|𝐯_s(𝐫)|=\mathrm{}/2mr`$ (the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ is restored in these expressions) for a supervelocity field created by a single vortex and took $`r=a_v`$. In what follows we will use an estimate $`E_H[\text{K}]30\sqrt{H[\text{T}]}`$ obtained for the typical values of $`v_F(1.52.5)\times 10^7\text{cm/s}`$ in YBCO. To make an analytical calculations possible we follow Ref.Franz:1999:PRL  and replace the Gaussian probability distribution by a Lorentzian $`𝒫(\eta )=\pi ^1E_H/(\eta ^2+E_H^2)`$, so that

$$G_R(\omega ,𝐤)=G_R^0(\omega +iE_H,𝐤).$$
(13)
Thus within employed approximation the effect of quasiparticle scattering from the supervelocity field $`𝐯_s(𝐫)`$ created by a completely disordered vortex lattice also results in a widening of the quasiparticle peaks with a constant width $`E_H`$. Although this property may not be valid for other forms of the distribution functions, we find it useful for a physical insight to the problem.

We note that the used above Lorentzian distribution has another property that the average of the product of the Green’s functions is equal to the product of averaged Green’s functions, so that the individual Green’s function can be averaged over the vortex positions. For any other type of the distribution function this property is not valid and averaging should be done for the product of the Green’s functions itself (see below).

Eq. (13) may be used to calculate the field induced DOS, $`N(\omega ,H)=1/(8\pi ^2)d^2k\text{tr}A(\omega ,𝐤)`$, so that $`N(\omega =0,H)E_H\mathrm{ln}p_0^2/E_H^2\sqrt{H}\mathrm{ln}H_0/H`$ with $`H_02500\text{T}`$. This is just DOS from Durst:2000:PRB  with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ replaced by $`E_H`$. Since $`p_0E_H`$ this result agrees with the dependence $`N(\omega =0,H)\sqrt{H}`$ obtained by Volovik Volovik:1993:JETPL . Furthermore, as we will see below, the extra $`\mathrm{ln}`$ factor is caused by the assumption we made about the completely disordered vortex state. Note also, that the first temperature independent term of Eq. (9) may be identified as a DOS contribution to $`\rho _n`$.

Assuming also a Matthiessen type rule for the impurity and vortex contributions to the lifetime Yu:1995:PRL , we finally obtain that the field dependence of the normal fluid density is described by Eqs. (6), (7) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+E_H`$. and its asymptotics for $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are given by Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively.

These results are presented in Fig. 1 (we used for computation some typical values of the parameters Chiao:2000:PRB , e.g. $`v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }=15`$), where one can clearly see a crossover from $`T^2`$ dependence of $`\rho _s(T)`$ to the linear $`T`$ dependence at $`T^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+E_H`$. For a clean system ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0`$) and a single vortex averaging this crossover of $`\rho _s(T)`$ was also obtained in Vekhter:1999:PRB . Thus this behavior of $`\rho _s(T)`$ indeed differs from the effective penetration depth $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(T)`$ Amin:2000:PRL  which also crosses over from the linear $`T`$ dependence, but to a $`T^3`$ dependence at (for a clean system) $`T^{}\sqrt{H}`$. Note also that since the nodal approximation was used to arrive at Eqs. (6), (7) one cannot approach the region $`\rho _s(T,H)/\rho _s(0,0)1`$, where the dependence of the superconducting gap on temperature should be taken into account.

In Fig. 2 we show the dependence of $`\rho _s`$ on the applied field $`H`$. It appears to be not very different from $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependence obtained in Ioffe:2001  for the periodic vortex lattice at $`T=0`$. The reason for this coincidence becomes more clear after we consider a vortex liquid case.

2. Vortex liquid. To consider a more ordered vortex liquid state we adopt a method used in Vekhter:2001:PRB . In this case one introduces a Doppler shift $`ϵ_n(𝐫)=𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤_n`$ at the node $`𝐤_n`$ ($`𝐤_1=𝐤_3`$ and $`𝐤_2=𝐤_4`$ for a $`d`$-wave superconductor, so that $`ϵ_1=ϵ_3`$ and $`ϵ_2=ϵ_4`$) to approximate the Doppler shift for the entire nodal region. Then if we know how to express a physical quantity $`F`$ in terms of the Green function $`G(\omega ,𝐤)`$ we can compute its local value $`F(𝐫)`$ with the local “Doppler shifted” Green’s function, $`G(\omega ,𝐤;ϵ(𝐤,𝐫))=G(\omega ϵ_n(𝐫),𝐤)`$. We then approximate the field-dependent measured value $`F(H)`$ by the spatial average which depends on the magnetic field $`H`$ through $`ϵ_n`$ as Kubert:1998:SSC  $`A^1d^2𝐫F(ϵ_1(𝐫),ϵ_2(𝐫))=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2F(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$, where the first integral is taken over the part of a unit cell of the vortex lattice (with the area $`A`$) in real space where the Doppler shift is much smaller than the gap maximum and in the second integral we used the distribution function

$$(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=A^1d^2𝐫\delta (ϵ_1𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤_1)\delta (ϵ_2𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤_2),$$
(14)
where $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ label two nearest nodes. If $`(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ depends on a single variable $`ϵ_1^2+ϵ_2^2`$ then a more simple distribution function $`𝒫(ϵ)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_1(ϵ,ϵ_1)`$ may be used. Among several candidates for $`𝒫(ϵ)`$ suggested in Vekhter:2001:PRB  we choose $`𝒫(ϵ)=1/2E_H^2(ϵ^2+E_H^2)^{3/2}`$ which is the most convenient for analytical calculations. Using this function one can obtain the following field induced DOS: $`N(\omega =0,H)\sqrt{H}`$ in the strong field, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|ϵ_n|`$ limit and $`N(\omega =0,H)H\mathrm{ln}H_0/H`$ in the impurity dominated, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|ϵ_n|`$ regime. This shows that this distribution function which allows to reproduce the original $`\sqrt{H}`$ Volovik’s result is indeed better for the description of a more ordered vortex glass or even lattice state.

Hence the local quantity $`J`$ from Eq. (7) has to be replaced by its local value $`J(ϵ_n)`$ and

$$\frac{\rho _n}{m}=\frac{v_F}{\pi v_\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵJ(ϵ)𝒫(ϵ).$$
(15)
One can obtain that the impurity dominated limit ($`T|ϵ_n|\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$) is described by Eq. (9) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, while in the field dominated, $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }_0|ϵ_n|`$ regime

$$\frac{\rho _n}{m}=\frac{v_F}{\pi v_\mathrm{\Delta }}\left[E_H+\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{2p_0}{E_H}+\frac{\pi T^2}{3}\frac{\pi }{2E_H}\right].$$
(16)
Thus irrespectively of the vortex structure we assumed the last $`T^2`$ term of (16) differs only by a factor $`\pi /2`$ from Eq. (9) taken with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+E_HE_H`$ for the field dominated regime, $`E_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. It also agrees with Vekhter:1999:PRB , where, however, there is no second term related to impurities. The first term of (16) is already $`\sqrt{H}`$, not $`\sqrt{H}\mathrm{ln}H_0/H`$, exactly as one would expect from the DOS calculation and obtains for a single vortex averaging Vekhter:1999:PRB  and the vortex lattice as $`T=0`$ Ioffe:2001 .

To conclude we have shown using the quasiclassical approximation and the simplest form for the impurity scattering that the temperature $`T^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of the crossover from the linear to the $`T^2`$ dependence of the superfluid stiffness $`\rho _s(T,H)`$ increases in the presence of magnetic field to the temperature $`T^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+E_H`$. The dependence of $`\rho _s(T)`$ is different from the effective penetration depth, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(T)`$. The experimental measurements of $`\rho _s(T,H)`$ are necessary to check our predictions against them.

Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge V.M. Loktev and P. Martinoli for numerous fruitful discussions. S.G.Sh would also like to thank C. Panagopoulos for bringing Ref. Sonier:1999:PRL  to his attention. This work was supported by the research project 20-65045.01 and by the SCOPES-project 7UKPJ062150.00/1 of the Swiss National Science Foundation.