text:
# Tunneling of correlated electrons in ultra high magnetic field

## Abstract

Effects of the electron-electron interaction on tunneling into a metal in ultra-high magnetic field (ultra-quantum limit) are studied. The range of the interaction is found to have a decisive effect both on the nature of the field-induced instability of the ground state and on the properties of the system at energies above the corresponding gap. For a short-range repulsive interaction, tunneling is dominated by the renormalization of the coupling constant, which leads eventually to the charge-density wave instability. For a long-range interaction, there exists an intermediate energy range in which the conductance obeys a power-law scaling form, similar to that of a 1D Luttinger liquid. The exponent is magnetic-field dependent, and more surprisingly, may be positive or negative, i. e., interactions may either suppress or enhance the tunneling conductance compared to its non-interacting value. At energies near the gap, scaling breaks down and tunneling is again dominated by the instability, which in this case is an (anisotropic) Wigner crystal instability.

Low-dimensional systems exhibit “zero-bias anomalies” in tunneling (non-linearities of the current-voltage characteristics at small biases), which reflect the renormalization of the density of states by the electron-electron interaction. In particular, tunneling into a one-dimensional (1D) metal (Luttinger liquid) is characterized by a power-law suppression of the tunneling conductance, $`g_T`$. A three-dimensional metal placed in a strong magnetic field that depopulates all but one Landau levels (ultra-quantum limit, UQL) provides an example of a very special quasi-1D system. It is well-known  that repulsive interactions in the UQL lead to a charge-density wave (CDW) or a Wigner crystal instability of the ground state. This has been confirmed, for example, by experiments on graphite in high magnetic fields. The most complete analysis of this instability for the case of a short-range interaction was performed in Ref. \[ \] by solving the renormalization-group (RG) equation for the interaction vertex. On the other hand, it has recently been shown that for the case of a long-range (Coulomb) interaction $`g_T`$ exhibits a power-law, Luttinger-liquid-like behavior at sufficiently high energies. This result was obtained in two ways – via a perturbative Hartree-Fock procedure, which results in the RG equation for the transmission amplitude, and via bosonization in the coherent state basis – neither of which took into account the renormalization of the interaction vertex. In this paper, we combine the approaches of Refs. \[ \] and \[ \] to study the behavior of the tunneling conductance in the whole energy interval from the Fermi energy down to the energy associated with the instability. This is accomplished by solving a coupled system of the RG equations for both the interaction vertex and transmission amplitude. We find that for a long-range interaction there is a parametrically wide energy interval in which the flow of the transmission amplitude already results in its power-law scaling with energy, whereas the renormalization of the vertex is not yet important. In this interval, the system behaves as a Luttinger liquid and the results of Ref. \[ \] are applicable. At energies close to the gap, the power-law scaling breaks down and tunneling is dominated by the electron properties in the vicinity of the critical point. For a short-range interaction, the critical point dominates tunneling at all energies, and there is no Luttinger-liquid behavior. We also find that above a certain magnetic field, when the lowest Landau level is strongly depopulated, the interaction enhances the tunneling conductance of the Luttinger-liquid regime above its free-electron value. Such an unusual behavior receives a natural explanation in terms of electron scattering from the Friedel oscillation near the tunneling barrier.

First we review the procedure of finding the effect of the electron-electron interaction on the tunneling conductance of a metal in the UQL. Let the magnetic field be perpendicular to the contact plane ($`z=0`$) that separates two metallic sides. We consider both the symmetric configuration, where both sides are in the UQL, and the asymmetric one, where one of the sides is made of a high-carrier concentration and/or dirty metal so that, in the first approximation, the magnetic field does not affect that side. The transmission and reflection amplitudes for non-interacting electrons, $`t_0`$ and $`r_0`$, are assumed to be known. We choose the Landau basis for the free electron wavefunctions (non-interacting electrons in the UQL and in the presence of the barrier):

$`\psi _{p_z,p_x}^{(0)}(𝐫)=\psi _{p_z}(z)\chi _{p_x}(x,y),`$

where

$`\psi _{p_z}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (z)t_0e^{ip_zz}+\theta (z)(e^{ip_zz}+r_0e^{ip_zz})`$ (1)
$`\psi _{p_z}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (z)(e^{ip_zz}+r_0e^{ip_zz})+\theta (z)t_0e^{ip_zz}.`$ (2)
(Here and thereafter, we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and also define the magnetic length as our unit of length: $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}1`$).

Backscattering of magnetically quantized electrons at the barrier gives rise to a Friedel oscillation in the charge density, whose amplitude decays away from the barrier as $`z^1`$. Correspondingly, the exchange, $`V_{ex}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, and Hartree, $`V_H(𝐫)`$, potentials calculated using exact (in the presence of the barrier) but otherwise free wavefunctions, also exhibit rapid $`2k_F`$-oscillations and decay as $`z^1`$ away from the barrier. The first-order correction to the wavefunction due to interaction is given by

$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{p_z,p_x}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐫^{}{\displaystyle }d𝐫^{\prime \prime }G(𝐫,𝐫^{};E)[V_{ex}(𝐫^{},𝐫^{\prime \prime })+`$ (4)
$`\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫^{\prime \prime })V_H(𝐫^{\prime \prime })]\mathrm{\Psi }_{p_z,p_x}^{(0)}(𝐫^{\prime \prime }),`$
where $`G(𝐫,𝐫^{};E)`$ is the Green’s function in the presence of the magnetic field. When the momentum transfer ($`2p_z`$) matches the wavevector of the Friedel oscillation ($`2k_F`$), a slow ($`z^1`$) decay of the oscillations in $`V_{ex}`$ and $`V_H`$ leads to a logarithmic singularity in $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$, and consequently, in $`\delta t`$. For electron’s energy close to the Fermi energy, we have

$$t=t_0\left[1|r_0|^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{ln}\left(W/E\right)\right]$$
(5)
where $`c=1(1/2)`$ for symmetric (asymmetric) configuration, $`WE_F`$ is the effective bandwidth, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{}=0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{})`$ is expressed via the Fourier transform of the interaction potential $`U_0(q_z,𝐪_{})`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2v_F}}[`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{2\pi }e^{i𝐪_{}𝐤_{}k_{}^2/2}U_0(0,𝐤_{})}`$ (7)
$`U_0(2k_F,𝐪_{})e^{q_{}^2/2}].`$
The interaction potential, $`U_0`$, can be both of long- and short-range. The first situation corresponds to a single-band metal, in which there are no more charge carriers besides those already in the UQL. In this case, $`U_0(q_z,𝐪_{})=4\pi e^2/(q^2+\kappa ^2)`$ (for $`qk_F),`$ where $`\kappa =\omega _p/v_F`$ and $`\omega _p`$ is the plasma frequency at $`B=0.`$ The perturbation theory works if $`e^2/v_F\kappa ^21`$ , which means that the interaction is long range. As the magnetic field reduces the phase-space available for the motion along the field, $`k_F`$ and $`v_F`$ decrease with the field (in the UQL, $`k_F,v_FB^1).`$ Therefore, the perturbation theory breaks down at sufficiently strong field so that $`\kappa 1`$. The case of a short-range interaction may correspond to a situation when a small pocket of the Fermi surface is in the UQL, whereas other parts of the Fermi surface still contain many Landau levels. Screening of the interaction among the magnetically quantized carriers is then mostly due to the “external” carriers, and the interaction may be of short-range.

The first and second terms in Eq.(7) are the exchange and Hartree contributions, respectively. Due to the Pauli principle, they enter Eq.(7) with opposite signs. Note that exchange contribution involves integration over the transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$, whereas the Hartree contribution enters Eq.(7) at $`q_{}=0`$. This is due to a simple fact that the Friedel oscillation in charge density, and hence in the Hartree potential, is translationally-invariant along the barrier, whereas the exchange potential involves the density matrix and is thus non-local. If the interaction potential is peaked strongly at $`q=0`$ (e.g., Coulomb potential) the Hartree contribution is enhanced due to $`q_{}=0`$ and may in fact dominate over the exchange one. In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in Eq.(5) is negative and thus the transmisson amplitude is enhanced by the interaction. Such an unusual behavior should be contrasted, e.g., to a strictly 1D case , in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=U_0(0)U_0(2k_F)`$ and is thus positive for any “realistic” interaction potential, i.e., such that $`U_0(q)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`q`$. In our case, due to the 3D nature of the problem, the exhange and Hartree contributions are not simply given by the corresponding forward and backscattering amplitudes but also involve averaging over the transverse direction. As a result, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ can take either sign.

At the next order, $`V_{ex}`$ and $`V_H`$ are re-calculated using the corrected wavefunctions and are substituted back into Eq.(4). The higher order corrections to $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ are higher powers of logs. Similarly to tunneling through a barrier of weakly interacting electrons in 1D, summation of the most divergent corrections to $`t`$ in all orders of the perturbation theory can be performed via an RG equation

$$\frac{dt}{d\xi }=c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t(1|t|^2),$$
(8)
where $`\xi \mathrm{ln}\left(W/E\right)`$ and $`t(\xi =0)=t_0`$. The solution of (8) is

$$t=\frac{t_0(E/W)^{c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\sqrt{|r_0|^2+|t_0|^2(E/W)^{c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}}.$$
(9)
For small values of $`|`$$`t_0|`$ (high barrier), Eq.(9) reduces to a power-law form $`t=t_0\left(E/W\right)^{c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}`$. The tunneling conductance is related to the transmission amplitude via the Landauer formula.

The power-law solution for $`t`$ is obtained using the bare interaction vertex. However, the vertex is also subject to renormalization. The flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{},\xi )`$ is described by the integro-differential RG equation , which has a more transparent meaning when written for the Fourier transform of $`\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )=1/(2\pi )^2d^2q_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{},\xi )e^{i𝐪_{}𝐫_{}}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )}{d\xi }}={\displaystyle 𝑑r_{}^{}\gamma (𝐫_{}^{},\xi )\gamma (𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{},\xi )}`$ (10)
$`\times \left(1e^{i𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{}}\right),`$ (11)
where a$`𝐛=a_xb_ya_yb_x`$. The initial condition for Eq. (11) is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{},\xi =0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{})`$ is defined by Eq. (7). The flow of the vertex affects the RG equation for $`t`$, in which now the bare vertex has to be replaced by the renormalized one:

$$\frac{dt}{d\xi }=c\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{}=0,\xi )t(1|t|^2).$$
(12)
Eqs. (7), (11) and (12) provide a full description of tunneling into a three-dimensional metal in the UQL.

Few words about the general features of Eq.(11) are now in place. Physically, $`\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )`$ plays the role of an interaction potential between two electrons whose guiding centers are separated by a “distance” $`|`$$`𝐫_{}|`$ across the magnetic field. (Note however that $`\gamma (𝐫_{},0)`$ is related to the Fourier transform of the bare interaction, cf. Eq. (7).) The first and second terms in the brackets in Eq. (11) correspond to the Peierls and Cooper interaction channels, respectively. A strictly 1D case is recovered by putting all guiding centers onto the same line: $`𝐫_{}=𝐫_{}^{}.`$ In this case, $`𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{}=0`$ and the Peierls and Cooper channels cancel each other exactly. This cancellation reflects the well-known fact that there are no instabilties for 1D (spinless) electrons and the system remains in the massless phase (Luttinger liquid) down to the lowest energies. In the UQL case $`𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{}`$, Peierls and Cooper channels do not cancel each other, and an instability becomes possible.

For a short-range interaction, the $`q_{}`$-dependence of $`U_0`$ can be neglected: $`U_0(0,𝐪_{})u_0`$, $`U_0(2k_F,𝐪_{})u_{2k_F}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{})=\left(u_0u_{2k_F}\right)/(2\pi )^2v_Fe^{q_{}^2/2}`$. For repulsion, the solution of Eq. (11) with the Peierls term alone is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{},\xi )=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(𝐪_{})\xi \right)^1.$$
(13)
The vertex diverges most rapidly at $`𝐪_{}=0`$ and the equation for the pole $`\xi =\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(0)`$ yields the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=W\mathrm{exp}(1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$. As the electron density remains homogeneous across the field, the instability correspond to a CDW along the field. Inclusion of the Cooper term merely changes the magnitude of the gap . The RG equation for $`t(\xi )`$ \[Eq.(12)\] with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐪_{},\xi )`$ from Eq.(13) allows for an analytic solution:

$$t=\frac{t_0f(E)}{\sqrt{|r_0|^2+|t_0|^2f^2(E)}},$$
(14)
where $`f(E)[\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\theta (E\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{ln}E/\mathrm{\Delta }]^c`$. Near the gap ($`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$), the tunneling conductance $`g_T|t|^2`$ assumes a universal form

$$g_T(E\mathrm{\Delta })^{2c}\theta (E\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(15)
Comparing $`t`$ from Eq.(14) with Eq. (9), obtained without taking into account the flow of the interaction vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we see that the two coincide only at the lowest order in the interaction (first log-correction to $`t_0).`$ In contrast to Eq.(9), the full solution shows that the higher order logarithmic terms do not sum up into a power-law. This is already seen from the fact that the first log-correction to $`t_0`$ \[Eq.(5)\] becomes of order $`t_0`$ at $`E`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ i.e., when the renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ cannot be neglected. In other words, the CDW critical point dominates the physical properties in the entire energy interval from $`W`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$

We now turn to the case of a long-range interaction. It is instructive to consider first an example of an ultra-long interaction: $`U_0(𝐫)=const\gamma (𝐫_{},0)\delta (𝐫_{}).`$ To analyze the flow of $`\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )`$ for small $`\xi `$ it suffices to substitute $`\gamma (𝐫_{},0)`$ into the right-hand side of Eq.(11), upon which the latter vanishes. It means that the ultra-long range interaction is equivalent to a strictly 1D case, when $`\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )`$ is invariant under renormalization. The example just given is certainly not realistic: even for the Coulomb interaction the ground state is unstable with regard to the CDW formation . However, remnants of this behavior survive for the Coulomb potential in a sense that $`\gamma (𝐫_{},\xi )`$ flows slower than $`t(\xi ).`$ As a result, there exists an intermediate energy scale, $`E_{PL},`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{PL}W)`$ such that at $`EE_{PL}`$ the higher order logarithmic terms generated by Eq.(12) have already summed up into a power-law form but the renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not significant yet. $`E_{PL}`$ may be defined by the condition that the lowest-order correction to $`t_0`$ becomes equal to $`t_0`$:

$`\xi _{PL}=\mathrm{ln}\left(W/E_{PL}\right)=1/c\mathrm{\Gamma }_0.`$

For a screened Coulomb potential, Eq.(7) together with the condition $`\kappa k_F1`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(e^2/\pi v_F)[|\mathrm{ln}\kappa |(4k_F{}_{}{}^{2})^1].$$
(16)
A simple estimate for $`E_{PL}`$ can be obtained if the first (exchange) term in Eq.(16) is larger than the second (Hartree) one, in which case $`E_{PL}W\mathrm{exp}(\pi v_F/ce^2|\mathrm{ln}\kappa |).`$ At the same time, for $`k_F1,`$ the gap is estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=W\mathrm{exp}(av_F/e^2),`$ where $`a1.`$ We see that $`E_{PL}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ due to the presence of a large logarithm under the exponential.

As it has already been pointed out, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is not necessarily positive: if $`k_F`$ is sufficiently small (the lowest Landau level is strongly depleted), the Hartree (backscattering) term dominates and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<0`$. The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ on $`k_F`$ is shown in the inset of Fig. 1 for a range of $`\kappa `$. Recalling that both $`k_F`$ and $`\kappa `$ are magnetic-field dependent, one can express the field $`B_0`$ at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ changes sign in terms of the nominal field $`B_Q`$, at which the UQL is achieved, and the familiar gas parameter, $`r_s`$, as $`B_02B_Q/\mathrm{ln}^{1/3}Cr_s^1,`$ where $`C1`$. For $`r_s1`$ $`B_02B_Q`$. The gap as a function of $`k_F`$ and $`\kappa `$ was obtained by solving the RG equation (11) numerically with Eq.(7) as an initial condition. The ratio $`\xi _c/\xi _{PL}(\mathrm{ln}W/\mathrm{\Delta })/\mathrm{ln}(W/E_{PL})`$ is plotted in Fig. 1. All numerical results presented here are for a symmetric contact, i. e., $`c=1`$. For a sufficiently long-range interaction (cf. filled circles for $`\kappa =0.1`$ in Fig. 1) there is a wide range of $`k_F`$ (and thus of the magnetic field) in which $`\xi _c/\xi _{PL}>1`$. Once this condition is satisfied, there exists an energy interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_{PL}`$ ($`\xi _{PL}\xi \xi _c`$) in which the system effectively behaves as a 1D Luttinger liquid, exhibiting a characteristic power-law scaling of the tunneling conductance. (For $`E_{PL}EW`$ the power-law reduces to the first log-correction.) Near the gap ($`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$), the power-law behavior crosses over to the threshold behavior \[Eq. (15)\]. If the interaction is not sufficiently long-ranged, there is no energy interval in which $`\xi _c/\xi _{PL}>1`$ is satisfied. This is illustrated by the open circles in Fig. 1 ($`\kappa =0.6`$). (We did not plot the points corresponding to $`k_F<\kappa `$, as it would have been incosistent with our weak-coupling approximation.)

A full solution of Eqs. (7,11,12) illustrating various regimes of the $`t(E)`$-dependence for a screened Coulomb potential is represented by solid lines in Fig. 2 for $`t_0=0.1`$. Dashed lines are solutions of Eq. (12) only with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ given by its bare value \[Eq. 7\], i. e., without taking into account the renormalization of the coupling constant. In the main panel, $`k_F=0.8`$. The region of small $`\xi `$ shows a good agreement between the full solution (solid lines) and the Luttinger-liquid solution (dashed lines). As $`E`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\xi \xi _c`$), scaling breaks down and $`t(E)`$ vanishes at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In the inset of Fig. 2, $`k_F=0.4`$. The rise of $`t`$ with $`\xi `$ corresponds to the negative value of the bare vertex, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. This corresponds to an enhancement of $`g_T`$ above its non-interacting value. Had the vertex renormalization been absent, $`t`$ would have reached unity in the limit $`E0`$ ($`\xi \mathrm{}`$). However, the vertex renormalization curbs the rise in $`t`$ and eventually brings it down to zero at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. At the instability, the system becomes an insulator. For long-range interaction, we find that the vertex diverges most rapidly at finite $`q_{}`$ (for $`\kappa 0`$, $`q_{}0.7`$). This is consistent with previous work and suggests that in this case the instability is of the Wigner-crystal type, with charge modulation both along the field and in the transverse directions.

In conclusion, we found that the range of the electron-electron interaction plays a crucial role both in the nature of a field-induced instability and in tunneling at energies above the corresponding gap. For a short-range interaction, there is a CDW instability which dominates tunneling in the whole energy interval. For a long-range interaction, depending on the depletion of the lowest Landau level, tunneling may exhibit two types of characteristic behavior. For not too strong depletion, the tunneling conductance decreases as a power-law of the relevant energy scale at higher energies and vanishes in a threshold-like manner near the gap (which for the long-range case is the Wigner-crystal gap). For a stronger depletion, the conductance first increases as a power of energy, then goes through a maximum and finally vanishes at the gap. These predictions are amenable to a direct experimental verification by tunneling into low-carrier-density materials, e.g., graphite.

We are grateful to E. V. Sukhoroukov and V. M. Yakovenko for very instructive discussions. D. L. M. acknowledges support from the NHMFL In-House Research Program, NSF Grant No. DMR-9703388 and Research Corporation (RI0082). L. I. G. acknowledges support from NSF Grant No. DMR-9731756.


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

hep-ph/0203071

$`1/m_b`$ source in inclusive $`b`$-hadron decays
Huei-Shih Liao1 and Hsiang-nan Li2 1Department of Physics, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan 300, Republic of China 2Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 115, Republic of China

PACS numbers: 13.20.He, 12.38.Bx, 12.38.Cy, 14.40.Nd

Abstract

We show that threshold resummation of the end-point logarithms in inclusive $`b`$-hadron decays leads to a Sudakov factor, which introduces $`1/m_b`$ power corrections through infrared renormalons. These power corrections are strong enough to account for the observed semileptonic branching ratio, charm yield, and lifetime ratios by breaking the local quark-hadron duality.

Several puzzles in inclusive heavy hadron decays have existed for some time. The observed semileptonic branching ratio $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ and charm yield $`n_c`$ of the inclusive $`B`$ meson decays were $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}=(10.19\pm 0.37)\%`$ and $`n_c=1.12\pm 0.05`$ from CLEO , and $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}=(11.12\pm 0.20)\%`$ and $`n_c=1.20\pm 0.07`$ from LEP . For updated values, refer to . The naive parton model, which coincides with leading-power heavy quark effective theory (HQET) , gives $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}13\%`$ . The $`1/m_b^2`$ corrections are less than $`5\%`$ of the leading ones . Another puzzle is the low lifetime ratio $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)/\tau (B_d)=0.794\pm 0.053`$ . The HQET prediction up to $`O(1/m_b^2)`$ is about 0.99 . When including the $`O(1/m_b^3)`$ corrections, the ratio depends on six unknown parameters, and reduces only to around 0.95 for various model estimates .

There has been the suggestion that $`1/m_b`$ corrections might appear, i.e., the local duality might break down in nonleptonic decays . It has been observed that if $`m_b`$ was replaced by the $`b`$-hadon mass in the phase-space factor $`m_b^5`$ associated with nonleptonic decays, the predictions agree well with the above data . This modification reduces $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ by increasing the nonleptonic branching ratios, and explains the absolute $`B`$ meson decay rate . Note that HQET based on the $`b`$ quark kinematics accounts for only 80% of the decay rate. However, the mass replacement is lack of a solid theoretical base.

In this letter we shall propose possible mechanism responsible for the breakdown of the local duality, which arises from threshold resummation associated with final-state particles. It has been shown that resummation for the intial heavy hadron does not violate the duality . Define the variable $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=m_Bm_b`$ as the $`B`$ meson and $`b`$ quark mass difference. In the kinematic region with the invariant mass of the outgoing quark being $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}m_b)`$, infrared divergences in the decays are factorized into a $`B`$ meson structure function $`f(k)`$ , $`k`$ being the residual momentum carried by the $`b`$ quark. The first moment of $`f(k)`$ vanishes, implying that nonperturbative corrections start from $`O(1/m_b^2)`$. In the end-point region with the invariant mass vanishing like $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)`$, additional collinear divergences from loop momenta parallel to the energetic quark momentum occur in higher-order corrections, which demand the introduction of a jet function. Take the $`bs\gamma `$ transition as an example. The end-point logarithms $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1x)/(1x)_+`$ ($`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2N`$ in Mellin space) with $`x=2E_\gamma /m_b`$, where $`E_\gamma `$ is the photon energy, should be orgainzed into a jet function $`J(1x)`$.

Threshold resummation of the above double logarithms leads to

$`J(1x)={\displaystyle _{ci\mathrm{}}^{c+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{2\pi i}}\stackrel{~}{J}(N)x^N,\stackrel{~}{J}(N)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^{N1}1}{1z}}{\displaystyle _{(1z)^2}^{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }}\gamma _K(\alpha _s(\lambda m_b^2))\right],`$ (1)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary real constant larger than the real parts of all the poles in the Sudakov factor $`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)`$, and the anomalous dimension is given, up to one loop, by $`\gamma _K=\alpha _sC_F/\pi `$, $`C_F=4/3`$ being a color factor. Note that the physical range of $`x`$ is $`0xm_B/m_b`$. We show that infrared renormalons in Eq. (1) generate $`1/m_b`$ corrections by inserting the identity $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)=\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \mathrm{exp}[\sigma \beta _1\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)]`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)`$, with the coefficient $`\beta _1=(332n_f)/12`$, $`n_f`$ being the flavor number. Performing the integration over $`\lambda `$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{C_F{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{\sigma \beta _1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^{N1}1}{1z}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1z)^{2\sigma \beta _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1z)^{\sigma \beta _1}}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2}{m_b^2}}\right)^{\sigma \beta _1}\right\}.`$ (2)
Equation (2) can be expressed as a sum of contributions from all the infrared renormalons. It is known that the leading infrared renormalon from $`\sigma 0`$ corresponds to perturbative resummation. This can be understood by considering the $`\sigma 0`$ limit of the integrand in Eq. (2):

$`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{const}.{\displaystyle _0^1}dz{\displaystyle \frac{z^{N1}1}{1z}}\mathrm{ln}(1z)]\stackrel{~}{J}(N)|_{\alpha _s}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _K\mathrm{ln}^2N).`$ (3)
The integrand on the left-hand side has the same functional form as in $`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)`$, if $`\alpha _s`$ was fixed, except the undetermined const.. Hence, the left-hand side is equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)|_{\alpha _s}`$ at the leading-logarithm accuracy. Substitute Eq. (3) into the inverse Mellin transformation in Eq. (1), and choose the branch cut along the negative real axis in the complex $`N`$ plane. For $`0<x<1`$, we enclose the contour in Eq. (1) toward the minus real axis. The discontinuity crossing the branch cut gives, using the variable change $`w=\mathrm{ln}N`$ ,

$`\underset{x1^{}}{lim}J(1x)|_{\alpha _s}=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _K}{2}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma _K}}\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \gamma _Kw)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _Kw^2\right)=0,`$ (4)
because the integrand is an odd function of $`w`$. For $`x>1`$, we enclose the contour toward the positive real axis, where there is no cut and no pole, indicating $`J(1x)|_{\alpha _s}=0`$ for $`x>1`$. It is obvious from Eq. (1) that $`J(1x)|_{\alpha _s}`$ vanishes at $`x=0`$. Therefore, we obtain the qualitative behavior of $`J(1x)|_{\alpha _s}`$: it takes a value for $`0<x<1`$, and diminishes at $`x=0`$ and at $`x=1`$.

The next-to-leading pole from $`\sigma 1/(2\beta _1)`$ leads to

$`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{const}.{\displaystyle _0^1}dz{\displaystyle \frac{z^{N1}1}{1z}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1z}}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{m_b}}].`$ (5)
We neglect the second term in the brackets, which is not important compared to the first term, and employ the approximation $`z^{N1}=(1+z1)^{N1}1+N(z1)`$, since the integral over $`z`$ is dominated by the region $`z1`$. Equation (5) becomes $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{const}.(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)N]1+\mathrm{const}.(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)N`$, up to corrections of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_b^2)`$, where the divergent integral $`𝑑z/(1z)`$ has been absorbed into the ambigious const.. Picking up the first two renormalons, we write

$`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)=\stackrel{~}{J}(N)|_{\alpha _s}+\mathrm{const}.{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{m_b}}N\stackrel{~}{J}(N)|_{\alpha _s}.`$ (6)
Inserting the above expression into Eq. (1), the second term leads to $`\mathrm{const}.(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)xJ^{}(1x)|_{\alpha _s}`$. To have meaningful predicitons, a $`1/m_b`$ power correction must appear to cancel this ambigious term. Viewing its functional form, this $`1/m_b`$ correction can be introduced by Fourier expanding the jet function:

$`J\left(1t{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}}t\right)=J(1t){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}}tJ^{}(1t),`$ (7)
where the variable change $`x=(m_B/m_b)t`$, $`0t1`$, has been made. It can be shown that the $`\sigma 1/(2\beta _1)`$ renormalon in the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) is cancelled by the $`\sigma 0`$ renormalon in the second term under an appropriate prescription for extracting the renormalon contribution. The details will be published elsewhere. After this cancellation, we freeze the coupling constants in the above two terms, and obtain well-defined predictions for inclusive $`b`$-hadron decays.

We study the semileptonic decays $`bcl\overline{\nu }`$ for the lepton $`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$. Adopt the scaling variables $`x=2E_l/m_B`$ and $`y=q^2/m_B^2`$ for the $`b`$ quark decays, where $`E_l`$ is the lepton energy and $`qp_l+p_\nu `$ the momentum of the lepton pair. The physical bounds in the ranges,

$`2\alpha _l`$ $`x`$ $`1+\alpha _l^2\alpha _D^2,`$ (8)
$`\alpha _l^2+\left(1+\alpha _l^2\alpha _D^2x\right){\displaystyle \frac{x\sqrt{x^24\alpha _l^2}}{2x+\sqrt{x^24\alpha _l^2}}}`$ $`y`$ $`\alpha _l^2+\left(1+\alpha _l^2\alpha _D^2x\right){\displaystyle \frac{x+\sqrt{x^24\alpha _l^2}}{2x\sqrt{x^24\alpha _l^2}}},`$ (9)
can be achieved, since the $`b`$ quark carries residual momentum . The ratios are defined by $`\alpha _{l,D,c}m_{l,D,c}/m_B`$, $`m_l`$, $`m_D`$ and $`m_c`$ being the lepton mass, the $`D`$ meson mass, and the charm quark mass, respectively. $`m_D`$ appears as the minimal invariant mass of the decay product $`X_c`$.

For these modes, loop corrections do not generate double logarithms, because the $`c`$ quark is massive and collinear divergences are absent. The factorization formula for the total decay width is then as simple as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l\overline{\nu }}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{8\pi ^3}m_b^2𝑑E_l𝑑q^2H(\frac{2E_l}{m_b},\frac{q^2}{m_b^2})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left(\frac{m_B}{m_b}\right)^3𝑑x𝑑yH(\frac{m_B}{m_b}x,\frac{m_B^2}{m_b^2}y),$$
(10)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2m_b^5/(16\pi ^3)`$ and the hard part $`H(x,y)=(1+yxm_c^2/m_b^2)(xym_l^2/m_b^2)`$. Equation (10) does not involve the structure function $`f(k)`$, since the higher-power contributions it introduces start from $`O(1/m_b^2)`$. Expanding the above expression up to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m_B`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0{\displaystyle }dxdy\{(1+4{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}})(1+yx\alpha _c^2)(xy\alpha _l^2)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_B}}[(y+\alpha _l^2)(12x+3y3\alpha _c^2)x(2yx2\alpha _c^2)]\}.`$
For the nonleptonic decays $`bc\overline{c}s`$, the threshold resummation effect is associated with the energetic $`s`$ quark, and both the $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ quarks are regarded as being on-shell. The definitions of the scaling variables are modified into $`x=2E_c/m_B`$, $`y=(p_c+p_{\overline{c}})^2/m_B^2`$, and $`y_0=2(E_c+E_{\overline{c}})/m_B`$, with $`E_c`$ ($`E_{\overline{c}}`$) and $`p_c`$ ($`p_{\overline{c}}`$) being the $`c`$ ($`\overline{c}`$) quark energy and momentum, respectively. Their physical ranges are

$`2\alpha _c`$ $`x`$ $`1`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(x\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2})+2\alpha _c^2}{2(1x+\alpha _c^2)}}`$ $`y`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(x+\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2})+2\alpha _c^2}{2(1x+\alpha _c^2)}},`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _c^2}}\left[xy\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}\sqrt{y(y4\alpha _c^2)}\right]`$ $`y_0`$ $`1+y.`$ (15)
The factorization formula for the total decay width is written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}s}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left(\frac{m_B}{m_b}\right)^4𝑑x𝑑y𝑑y_0c(m_b)H(\frac{m_B}{m_b}x,\frac{m_B^2}{m_b^2}y,\frac{m_B}{m_b}y_0)J\left(1\frac{m_B}{m_b}y_0+\frac{m_B^2}{m_b^2}y\right),$$
(16)
with $`H(x,y,y_0)=(y_0x)(xy)`$. The factor $`c(m_b)`$ is given by $`c(m_b)=(N_c+1)c_+^2(m_b)/2+(N_c1)c_{}^2(m_b)/2`$ with the color number $`N_c=3`$ and $`c_\pm =c_2\pm c_1`$, where the Wilson coefficients $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ correspond to the four-fermion operators $`O_1=(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu c_L)`$ and $`O_2=(\overline{c}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu c_L)`$, respectively. We have confirmed that our predictions are insensitive to the choices of the arguments of the Wilson coefficients. Expanding $`H`$ and $`J`$ up to $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m_b)`$, Eq. (16) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{c}s}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0{\displaystyle }dxdydy_0c(m_b)\{(1+6{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}})(y_0x)(xy)\delta (1y_0+y)`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}}[(y_0x)yJ(1y_0+y)+(y_0x)(xy)(y_02y)J^{}(1y_0+y)]\}.`$
Note that the jet function for the leading term, representing part of perturbative corrections, has been set to the $`\delta `$-function. This is for consistency, because the semileptonic decays are evaluated to leading order in $`\alpha _s`$.

For the $`bc\overline{u}d`$ mode, we associate the threshold resummation effect with the energetic $`\overline{u}`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and regard the $`c`$ quark as being on-shell. The scaling variables are defined by $`w=p_{\overline{u}}^2/m_B^2`$, $`x=2E_c/m_B`$, $`y=(p_c+p_{\overline{u}})^2/m_B^2`$, and $`y_0=2(E_c+E_{\overline{u}})/m_B`$, whose ranges are

$`0`$ $`w`$ $`(1\alpha _c)^2,`$ (19)
$`2\alpha _c`$ $`x`$ $`1w+\alpha _c^2,`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x+\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}}{2(1x+\alpha _c^2)}}w`$ $`y`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x+\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2x\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}}{2(1x+\alpha _c^2)}}w,`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _c^2}}\left[x(yw+\alpha _c^2)\sqrt{x^24\alpha _c^2}\sqrt{(yw\alpha _c^2)^24\alpha _c^2w}\right]`$ $`y_0`$ $`1+y,`$ (22)
The factorization formula for the total decay width is written, up to $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m_b)`$, as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{u}d}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0{\displaystyle }dwdxdydy_0c(m_b)\{(1+8{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}})(y_0x)(w+xy\alpha _c^2)\delta (w)\delta (1y_0+y)`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_b}}[(y_0x)(yw+\alpha _c^2)J(w)J(1y_0+y)2(y_0x)(w+xy\alpha _c^2)wJ^{}(w)J(1y_0+y)`$
$`+(y_0x)(w+xy\alpha _c^2)(y_02y)J(w)J^{}(1y_0+y)]\}.`$
The prefactors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for the nonleptonic modes are the same as that for the $`bcł\overline{\nu }`$ decays with $`|V_{ud}|=|V_{cs}|=1`$.

Setting $`m_B`$ to $`m_b`$, i.e., $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$, Eqs. (12), (18) and (25) reduce to the quark-level formalism. To estimate the strength of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/m_b`$ corrections, we propose the parametrization,

$`J_p(1t)`$ $`=`$ $`(a+1)(a+2)t^a(1t),`$ (26)
where the free parameter $`a`$ is determined by fitting $`\stackrel{~}{J}_p(N)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{J}(N)|_{\alpha _s}`$ for the first few $`N`$. Equation (26) is normalized to unity, approaches the $`\delta `$-function $`\delta (1t)`$, i.e., the lowest-order expression of the jet function, as $`a\mathrm{}`$ ($`\alpha _s0`$), and obeys the boundary conditions $`J_p(0)=J_p(1)=0`$. For a fixed $`\alpha _s`$, we have the moments $`\stackrel{~}{J}(2)=\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _K)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{J}(3)=\mathrm{exp}(7\gamma _K/4)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. The fit of $`\stackrel{~}{J}_p(N)`$ to these moments implies $`a=1525`$. We have confirmed that the numerical results are insensitive to the variaton of $`a`$ within the above range, and to the parametrization form of the jet function. Below we shall choose $`a=20`$.

The above formalism applies to the $`B_u`$, $`B_s`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays simply by redefining the variable $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=m_Hm_b`$. It is observed that the increase of the $`b`$ quark mass just decreases the total decay rates, and has a small effect on the relative rates among different modes. The predictions are more sensitive to the variation of the charm mass: $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ increases, while $`n_c`$ decreases with $`m_c`$. The total decay rates also decrease with $`m_c`$. We choose $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV (correspondng to $`c(m_b)=3.24`$) and $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV as representative parameters. The results from the quark-level calculation and from the inclusion of the $`1/m_b`$ corrections are displayed in Table I, for which the masses $`m_{B_d}=m_{B_u}=5.279`$ GeV, $`m_{B_s}=5.369`$ GeV and $`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}=5.621`$ GeV have been adopted. It is found that the $`1/m_b`$ corrections enhance the $`bc\overline{u}d`$ decay rate more than the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decay rate, such that $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ is reduced without increasing $`n_c`$. The consistency with the observed lifetime ratios $`\tau (B_s)/\tau (B_d)`$ and $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)/\tau (B_d)`$ is also improved. The ratio $`\tau (B_u)/\tau (B_d)`$ remains to be unity, implying that the $`B_d`$ and $`B_u`$ meson lifetime difference may be attributed to $`1/m_b^2`$ or perturbative corrections . Note that the absolute heavy hadron lifetimes for $`|V_{cb}|=0.04`$ are still larger than the data by 30%, thought the consistency is greatly improved. This discrepancy is expected to be removed by subleading contributions.

We thank A. Falk for useful discussion. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under the Grant No. NSC-90-2112-M-001-077 and by National Center for Theoretical Sciences, R.O.C.

Table I. The predicted $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$, $`n_c`$, $`\tau (B_u)/\tau (B_d)`$, $`\tau (B_s)/\tau (B_d)`$, $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)/\tau (B_d)`$, and $`\tau (B_d)/\tau (B_d)_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ for $`\tau (B_d)_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.56\times 10^{12}s`$. The data of the lifetime ratios are $`\tau (B_u)/\tau (B_d)=1.066\pm 0.020`$ and $`\tau (B_s)/\tau (B_d)=0.945\pm 0.039`$ .

|  | $`B_{\mathrm{SL}}`$ | $`n_c`$ | $`\tau (B_u)/\tau (B_d)`$ | $`\tau (B_s)/\tau (B_d)`$ | $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)/\tau (B_d)`$ | $`\tau (B_d)/\tau (B_d)_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| quark level | 12.9% | 1.18 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.33 |
| $`1/m_b`$ correction | 10.6% | 1.19 | 1.0 | 0.93 | 0.75 | 1.32 |