text:
# Faddeev-Yakubovsky calculations for light ΛΛ hypernuclei

## I Introduction

Data on strangeness $`S=2`$ hypernuclear systems is rather scarce, and no data exist for systems with higher strangeness content of hyperons ($`Y`$). Multistrange hadronic matter in finite systems and in bulk is predicted on general grounds to be stable, up to strangeness violating weak decays (see Ref.  for a recent review). Until recently only three candidates existed for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei which fit events seen in emulsion experiments . The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energies deduced from these events indicated that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction is strongly attractive in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel , although it had been realized  that the binding energies of the two older events, $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He and $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be, are inconsistent with each other. This outlook is perhaps undergoing an important change following the very recent report from the KEK hybrid-emulsion experiment E373 on a new candidate  for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He, with binding energy substantially lower than that deduced from the older event . Furthermore, there are also indications from the AGS experiment E906 for the production of light $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei , perhaps as light even as $`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H, in the $`(K^{},K^+)`$ reaction on 9Be.

The study of multistrange systems can provide rather stringent tests of microscopic models for the baryon-baryon interaction. Over the years, the Nijmegen group has constructed a number of one-boson-exchange (OBE) models for the baryon-baryon interaction ($`NN`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }N\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) using SU(3)-flavor symmetry to relate baryon-baryon-meson coupling constants and phenomenological hard or soft cores at short distances (for a recent review, see Ref. ). In addition, the Jülich group has constructed OBE models for the $`YN`$ interaction along the lines of the Bonn Model for the $`NN`$ interaction, using SU(6) symmetry to relate coupling constants and short-range form factors . The SU(6) quark model has also been used to derive baryon-baryon interactions within a unified framework of a $`(3q)(3q)`$ resonating group method, augmented by a few effective meson exchange potentials of scalar and pseudoscalar meson nonets directly coupled to quarks . In all of these rather different baryon-baryon interaction models only 35 $`YN`$ low-energy, generally imprecise data points serve for the purpose of steering phenomenologically the extrapolation from the $`NN`$ sector, which relies on thousands of data points, into the strange $`YN`$ and $`YY`$ sectors. It is therefore of utmost importance to confront these models with the new $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear data in order to provide meaningful constraints on the extrapolation to $`S=2`$ and beyond.

In this paper we report on Faddeev-Yakubovsky three-body and four-body calculations of light $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei, using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`s`$-wave potentials which simulate the low-energy $`s`$-wave scattering parameters produced by several Nijmegen OBE models. Our own work is compared to other recent variational calculations . The advantage of the Faddeev-Yakubovsky method is that it accounts properly for $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙𝑙}`$ the relevant rearrangement channels. The purpose of our calculations is twofold: to check the self consistency of the data, particularly for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He and $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be  which are treated here as clusters of $`\alpha `$’s and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s; and to find out which of the recent Nijmegen Soft-Core (NSC97) models , or the Extended Soft-Core (ESC00) interaction model , is the most appropriate one for describing well $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. The paper is organized as follows. The Faddeev-Yakubovsky approach, its restriction to $`s`$ waves for light hypernuclei, and some computational aspects are described briefly in Sect. II. We specify the input potentials, fitting as much as possible known binding energies of given hypernuclear subsystems. The results of our Faddeev-Yakubovsky calculations for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He and $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be in terms of clusters of $`\alpha `$’s and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s, using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`s`$-wave potentials motivated by several Nijmegen model interactions, are reported and discussed in Sect. III. Faddeev calculations for $`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H and $`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He are also reported. A preliminary, partial report of these results has just appeared as a Rapid Communication . In the Summary section we briefly discuss the implications of our work on the stability of $`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H, for which our Faddeev-Yakubovsky calculations at present are in progress.

## II Methodology

### A Faddeev equations

The bound states of the three-body systems considered in this work are obtained by solving the differential Faddeev equations

$$(H_0+V_\beta ^c+V_\beta ^sE)U_\beta =V_\beta ^s\underset{\gamma =1,\gamma \beta }{\overset{3}{}}U_\gamma ,\beta =1,2,3,$$
(1)
where $`V_\beta ^c`$ and $`V_\beta ^s`$ are Coulomb and short-range pairwise interactions respectively in the channel $`\beta `$, $`H_0`$ is the kinetic energy operator, $`E`$ is the total energy and the wavefunction of the three-body system is given as a sum over the three Faddeev components, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_{\beta =1}^3U_\beta `$, corresponding to the two-body breakup channals. The Faddeev components are functions of spin-isospin variables and of relative Jacobi coordinates. When two constituents of the three-body system are identical, for example $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) generically of the form $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`C`$ = core), the coupled set of Faddeev equations simplifies as follows:

$$(H_0+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}E)U=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(WP_{23}W),(H_0+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}E)W=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}(UP_{23}W),$$
(2)
where $`P_{23}`$ is the permutation operator for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons (particles 2,3). $`U`$ is the Faddeev component corresponding to the rearrangement channel $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`W`$ corresponds to the rearrangement channel $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })}=U,\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(1P_{23})W;\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(3)
The probability weights for the various rearrangement channels $`\beta `$ in the total wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He are defined by

$$P_\beta =\frac{<\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta >}{<\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }>}.$$
(4)
For $`{}_{}{}^{9}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be, here considered as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ system, a similar simplification occurs, but where the minus sign in Eqs. (2) in front of $`P_{23}`$ arising from the Fermi-Dirac statistics for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s is replaced by a plus sign owing to the Bose-Einstein statistics for the $`\alpha `$’s, and $`V^c`$ is added on the l.h.s. of the first Faddeev equation. These Faddeev equations, for $`{}_{}{}^{9}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be($`\frac{1}{2}^+`$) and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He($`0^+`$) ground states, were solved in Ref.  using an $`s`$-wave approximation in which only the $`\mathrm{}_\alpha =0`$, $`\lambda _\alpha =0`$ partial waves were retained for the Jacobi-coordinate $`𝐱_\alpha `$, $`𝐲_\alpha `$ degrees of freedom, respectively, where

$$𝐱_\alpha =𝐫_\beta 𝐫_\gamma ,𝐲_\alpha =\frac{m_\beta 𝐫_\beta +m_\gamma 𝐫_\gamma }{m_\beta +m_\gamma }𝐫_\alpha ,\beta >\gamma \alpha ,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1,2,3,$$
(5)
where $`m_\alpha `$ and $`𝐫_\alpha `$, $`\alpha `$=1,2,3, are the mass and the position vector of the $`\alpha `$-th constituent, respectively. (The total orbital angular momentum is given here by $`𝐋=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_\alpha +\stackrel{}{\lambda }_\alpha `$). The present calculation extends and updates the previous one. We comment in Sections III and IV on the validity of the $`s`$-wave approximation.

Other three-body systems studied in the present work are the isodoublet $`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H, $`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He charge-symmetric hypernuclei, here considered as 3H$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and 3He$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ respectively. For the ground state ($`\frac{1}{2}^+`$) of this system, the $`s`$-wave Faddeev equations assume the form

$$(H_0^u(x_1,y_1)+v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^s(x_1)E)𝒰(x_1,y_1)=v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^s(x_1)\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑v_1\frac{x_1y_1}{x_1^{}y_1^{}}A𝒲(x_1^{},y_1^{}),$$

$$(H_0^w(x_2,y_2)+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}(x_2)E)𝒲(x_2,y_2)=\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}(x_2)[\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}dv_2\frac{x_2y_2}{x_2^{}y_2^{}}A^T𝒰(x_2^{},y_2^{})$$
(6)
$$+\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}dv_2\frac{x_2y_2}{x_2^{\prime \prime }y_2^{\prime \prime }}B𝒲(x_2^{\prime \prime },y_2^{\prime \prime })],$$

where $`v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^s(x)`$ is the singlet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}=diag\{v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}^s,v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}^t\}`$ with $`v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}^s`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{\Lambda }C}^t`$ the singlet and triplet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }C`$ interaction potentials, respectively,

$$H_0^u(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M_1}_y^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _1}_x^2,H_0^w(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M_2}_y^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _2}_x^2,$$

$$A=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}),B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right),$$

$$𝒲(x,y)=(𝒲^s(x,y),𝒲^t(x,y))^T.$$

The appropriate reduced masses are given by

$$M_1=2\frac{m_Cm_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_C+2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }},M_2=\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_C+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })}{m_C+2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mu _1=\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2},\mu _2=\frac{m_Cm_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_C+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$

The appropriate transformation of coordinates is given by

$$x_1^{}=((\frac{\mu _1}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_1)^2+y_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{\mu _1}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_1y_1v_1)^{1/2},y_1^{}=\frac{m_C}{m_C+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}((\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_1}x_1)^2+y_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_1}x_1y_1v_1)^{1/2},$$

$$x_1^{\prime \prime }=((\frac{\mu _1}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_1)^2+y_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\frac{\mu _1}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_1y_1v_1)^{1/2},y_1^{\prime \prime }=\frac{m_C}{m_C+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}((\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_1}x_1)^2+y_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_1}x_1y_1v_1)^{1/2},$$

$$x_2^{}=((\frac{\mu _2}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_2)^2+y_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{\mu _2}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}x_2y_2v_2)^{1/2},y_2^{}=\frac{1}{2}((\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_2}x_2)^2+y_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_2}x_2y_2v_2)^{1/2},$$

$$x_2^{\prime \prime }=((\frac{\mu _2}{m_C}x_2)^2+y_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\frac{\mu _2}{m_C}x_2y_2v_2)^{1/2},y_2^{\prime \prime }=\frac{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_C+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}((\frac{m_C}{M_2}x_2)^2+y_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{m_C}{M_2}x_2y_2v_2)^{1/2}.$$

Here $`v_j`$ is the cosine of angle between $`𝐱_𝐣`$ and $`𝐲_𝐣`$. The $`s`$-wave total wavefunction then assumes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,y_1,v_1)=𝒰(x_1,y_1)/(x_1y_1)+A𝒲(x_1^{},y_1^{})/(x_1^{}y_1^{})+A𝒲(x_1^{\prime \prime },y_1^{\prime \prime })/(x_1^{\prime \prime }y_1^{\prime \prime }),$$
(7)
where the product $`A𝒲`$ ensures that the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s are in a $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state as required by the Pauli principle. Note that the squares of elements of $`A`$ correspond then to a $`(2J+1)`$ average over the $`J=0,1`$ (singlet and triplet, respectively) $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He states. We also note in passing that the $`s`$-wave Faddeev equations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$) are obtained from Eqs. (6) by setting $`A=B=1`$ with obvious changes in the notation for the masses and the total wavefunction (and adding the Coulomb potential between the two $`\alpha `$’s in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be).

### B Yakubovsky equations

The four-particle wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is decomposed, in the Faddeev-Yakubovsky method , into components which are in a one to one correspondence with all chains of partitions. The chains consist of two-cluster partitions $`a_2`$ (e.g., $`(ijk)l`$ or $`(ij)(kl)`$) and three-cluster partitions $`a_3`$ (e.g., $`(ij)kl`$) obeying the relation $`a_3a_2`$. The latter means that the partition $`a_3`$ can be obtained from the partition $`a_2`$ by splitting up one subsystem. Any three-cluster partition $`a_3`$ may be obtained in this way from three different two-cluster partitions $`b_2`$, $`c_2`$ and $`d_2`$. It is easy to see that there exist generally $`18`$ chains of partitions for a four-particle system. The components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_3a_2}`$ obey the differential Yakubovsky equations

$$(H_0+V_{a_3}E)\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_3a_2}+V_{a_3}\underset{(c_3a_3)}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{c_3a_2}=V_{a_3}\underset{d_2a_2}{}\underset{(d_3a_3)a_2}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{d_3d_2}.$$
(8)
Here $`H_0`$ is the kinetic-energy operator and $`V_{a_3}`$ stands for the two-body potential acting within the two-particle subsystem of a partition $`a_3`$ (e.g., $`V_{a_3}`$ = $`V_{ij}`$ with $`a_3`$ = $`(ij)kl`$).

We demonstrate the Yakubovsky equations for the case of two pairs, each consisting of identical constituents. To be more specific we consider the pair (1,2) to consist of two identical fermions, and the pair (3,4) to consist of two identical bosons, altogether simulating the four-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ system. This results in a reduction of the number of Faddeev-Yakubovsky components into seven independent components satisfying the following Yakubovsky differential equations:

$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\alpha \alpha }E)U_1+V_{\alpha \alpha }(I+P_{34})U_2=V_{\alpha \alpha }\left((I+P_{34})U_4P_{12}(I+P_{34})W_3\right),$$
(9)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }E)U_2+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(U_1+P_{34}U_2)=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }\left(P_{34}U_4P_{12}U_1+W_2P_{12}W_3\right),$$
(10)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}E)U_3+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(IP_{12})U_4=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left((IP_{12})U_2+(IP_{12})P_{34}W_3\right),$$
(11)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }E)U_4+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(U_3P_{12}U_4)=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }\left(P_{34}U_3P_{12}U_2+W_1+P_{34}W_3\right),$$
(12)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}E)W_1+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}W_2=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(IP_{12})U_1,$$
(13)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\alpha \alpha }E)W_2+V_{\alpha \alpha }W_1=V_{\alpha \alpha }(I+P_{34})U_3,$$
(14)
$$(H_0+V^c+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }E)W_3V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }P_{12}P_{34}W_3=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(U_4+U_2),$$
(15)
where $`U_\beta `$ ($`\beta `$=1,2,3,4) are Yakubovsky components corresponding to three-cluster partitions evolving from 3+1 type breakup into two-cluster partitions, $`W_\gamma `$ ($`\gamma `$=1,2,3) are Yakubovsky components corresponding to three-cluster partitions evolving from 2+2 type breakup into two-cluster partitions:

$$U_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(34)2,1},U_2=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(24)3,1},U_3=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(12)4,3},U_4=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(24)1,3},$$
(16)
$$W_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(12),34},W_2=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(34),12},W_3=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(13),24},$$
(17)
in the shorthand notation of Ref.  for the ($`a_3`$,$`a_2`$) chains of partitions. For each Yakubovsky component the natural Jacobi relative coordinates are employed. For the particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ problem under consideration, $`V^c`$ stands for the Coulomb interaction between particles 3 and 4, expressed in terms of the coresponding Jacobi coordinates. There are four rearrangement channels altogether, defined in terms of the following wavefunctions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(IP_{12})U_1+(I+P_{34}P_{12}P_{34}P_{12})U_2,$$
(18)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })\alpha }=(I+P_{34})U_3+(I+P_{34}P_{12}P_{34}P_{12})U_4,$$
(19)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \alpha )(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })}=W_1+W_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })}=(I+P_{34}P_{12}P_{34}P_{12})W_3.$$
(20)
The total wavefunction can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })\alpha }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \alpha )(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })}.$$
(21)
The probability weights for the various rearrangement channels $`\beta `$ in the total wavefunction of $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be are given by Eq. (4) of the previous subsection.

### C Computation

The $`s`$-wave Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations are solved using the cluster reduction method (CRM) which was developed by Yakovlev and Filikhin  and has been recently applied to calculate bound states and low-energy scattering for systems of three and four nucleons . In this method, the Faddeev-Yakubovsky components are decomposed in terms of the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonians of the two- or three-particle subsystems. Due to the projection onto elements of an orthogonal basis, one obtains a set of equations with effective interactions corresponding to the relative motion of the various clusters. Thus, the Faddeev components $`𝒰_\alpha `$, $`\alpha `$=1,2,3 are written in the following form:

$$𝒰_\alpha (x,y)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(x)f_{\alpha ,l}(y).$$
(22)
Here, the basic functions $`\varphi _{\alpha ,l}`$ are the solutions of the two-body Schrödinger equation for the subsystem $`\alpha `$:

$$(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _\alpha }_x^2+v_\alpha (x))\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(x)=\epsilon _{\alpha ,l}\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(x),\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(0)=\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(R_{\mathrm{cutoff}})=0,$$
(23)
where $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the reduced mass of the subsystem $`\alpha `$, and $`v_\alpha (x)`$ is the $`s`$-wave projected potential $`V_\alpha `$. Substituting (22) into (1) and projecting onto the orthogonal basis $`\varphi _{\alpha ,l}(x)`$ one obtains a set of integro-differential equations for the functions $`f_{\alpha ,l}(y)`$. A fairly small number of terms is sufficient, using limited computer resources , to generate a stable and precise numerical solution independently of the value adopted for $`R_{\mathrm{cutoff}}`$, provided the latter was chosen sufficiently large. The convergence of a typical $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He Faddeev calculation, and of a typical $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be Yakubovsky calculation, as function of the number of terms $`N`$ retained in Eq. (22) above is demonstrated in Fig. 1. Such calculations usually require less than 10 terms to reach good convergence. The CRM has been recently used by one of us to study $`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H as a three-body $`pn\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system , and $`{}_{}{}^{9}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be and $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He in terms of three-cluster systems $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively . Here we update and extend that calculation, while applying the CRM for the first time to the solution of the $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ four-body problem in terms of Yakubovsky equations.

### D Potentials

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction potentials in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel which are used as input to the Faddeev equations are of the three-range Gaussian form

$$V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}v^{(i)}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\beta _i^2),$$
(24)
following the work of Hiyama et al.  where a phase-equivalent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential of this soft-core form was fitted to the Nijmegen model D (ND) hard-core interaction  assuming the same hard core for the $`NN`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potentials in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel. Our simulation of the ND interaction potential is specified, for $`\gamma =1`$, in Table I. For other interactions we have renormalized the strength of the medium-range attractive component ($`i=2`$) of this potential such that, using values of $`\gamma 1`$, it yields values for the scattering length and for the effective range as close to values prescribed by us. In Table II we list the low-energy parameters for several Nijmegen potentials, particularly the soft-core NSC97 model $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potentials , and in parentheses the corresponding values for potentials of the form (24) using the listed values of $`\gamma `$. Three of these fitted $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ potentials are shown in Fig. 2. The strongest $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential is the one with the largest absolute value of scattering length, due to the ESC00 model , and the weakest one is associated with the smallest absolute value of scattering length, due to one of the NSC97 model potentials. The difference between the various NSC97 potentials $`(a)`$-$`(f)`$ is of second order, all of them being only fairly weakly attractive.

The $`\alpha \alpha `$ short-range interaction and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ interaction are given in terms of two-range Gaussian (Isle) potentials

$$V^{(j)}=V_{\mathrm{rep}}^{(j)}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\beta _{\mathrm{rep}}^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2})V_{\mathrm{att}}^{(j)}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\beta _{\mathrm{att}}^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(25)
where the superscript $`j`$ specifies the interacting system. For the $`\alpha \alpha `$ short-range interaction potential we used the $`s`$-wave component of the Ali-Bodmer potential . A Comment about the validity of using this phenomenological potential, which does not reflect at short $`\alpha \alpha `$ distance the underlying inner structure of the $`\alpha `$ clusters, is made below in Sect. III. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ interaction potential is due to Ref.  where the binding energy and mesonic weak decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He were studied. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon density distribution has been shown very recently  to closely resemble that due to a microscopic calculation of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He using $`YN`$ interactions which simulate those of model NSC97 . The parameters of these potentials are listed in Table III. Similar potentials were constructed by us for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$H and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$He singlet and triplet interactions by refitting the range parameter $`\beta _{\mathrm{rep}}`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ Isle potential (25) to reproduce the known binding energies of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He, respectively. These fitted range parameters and the binding energies calculated using this procedure are shown in Table IV, in comparison with the experimentally known values . The $`{}_{}{}^{9}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be calculation is discussed below in the next section.

## III Results and Discussion

We first applied the $`\alpha \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ potentials, specified by Eq. (25) and in Table III, to the solution of the $`s`$-wave Faddeev equations for the $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. The calculated ground-state binding energy of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be in this three-body model is given in Table IV and is in close agreement with the measured $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value, with no need for renormalization or for introducing three-body interactions. Had we used a purely attractive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ interaction potential such as the single-Gaussian form due to Bando et al. , the calculated ground-state binding energy of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be would have come out too low by about 1 MeV . On the other hand the calculations by Motoba et al. , using an Isle potential (similar to ours) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ interaction, overbind $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be by about 0.9 MeV, part of which must arise from going beyond the $`s`$-wave dominant ($`\mathrm{},\lambda `$)=(0,0) component (98.0% probability weight). This overbinding of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be was subsequently cured phenomenologically by Hiyama et al.  by weakening the $`p`$-wave component of the underlying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ interaction; alternatively it can be cured introducing a repulsive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ interaction potential to simulate a likely contribution due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NN`$ three-body forces . Since our interest in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be in this work is mostly for using it as a subsystem input to calculating $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, we should strive to use a model that reproduces as closely as possible the binding energies of such subsystems. The significance of this requirement, in the framework of a Faddeev calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$H, was emphasized in Ref. . Indeed, our $`s`$-wave Faddeev calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be nearly reproduces the observed binding energy. The effect of the higher partial waves ($`\mathrm{},\lambda `$)=(2,2),(4,4) ignored by us must be largely cancelled out in the evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}`$Be) as defined later on.

Having thus gained confidence in the appropriateness of the $`\alpha \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ input potentials, we then applied these potentials to the solution of the Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, using different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions generically of the form (24).

### A $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be

The ground-state energies $`E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ obtained by solving the $`s`$-wave three-body $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ Faddeev equations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and the $`s`$-wave four-body $`(\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ Yakubovsky equations for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be are given in Table V for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potentials ordered according to their degree of attraction. The corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding energies $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are given by $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He and $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}+0.1`$ MeV) for $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be. The strongest $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attraction is provided by the potential of the uppermost row, simulating the very recent ESC00 model  which was partly motivated by wishing to get a $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ value for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He as close to that reported by Prowse ; indeed our calculation reproduces it. Significantly lower $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values are obtained for our simulation of model ND which, however, reproduces well the $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ value reported for $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be . These calculated $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values were obtained using a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential of the form (24), very similar to but not identical with the one (also marked ND) used in the cluster calculation  which is listed separately in the table. The appropriate low-energy parameters, also shown in Table V, are very close to each other, and the variation thereby induced in the calculated $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^6`$He) is merely 0.03 MeV within our own $`s`$-wave calculation. Furthermore, our calculation essentially agrees with that of Ref.  for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He, whereas for $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be our calculation provides about 0.5 MeV more binding. In view of the restriction of our calculation to $`s`$ waves, its rough agreement with that of Ref.  for $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be should be considered satisfactory. We note that the variation within the various calculations of Ref.  for $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}`$Be), as function of the microscopically-motivated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha `$ interactions used by these authors, exceeds 0.5 MeV. We feel that typical errors due to limiting our calculations to $`s`$ waves are a fraction of 0.5 MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He (as discussed in Sect. IV) and about 0.5 MeV for $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be. In addition to the simulation of the bare $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ND interaction discussed above, we also listed in Table V binding energies calculated for a simulation of the $`G`$-matrix constructed in Ref.  out of the ND bare interaction. This was done for the sole purpose of comparing below our calculation to those of Refs. ; of course, using a $`G`$-matrix interaction rather than a bare interaction within a full-space calculation is fraught with double counting and should be avoided as properly acknowledged in the subsequent work of Ref. . Down the list in Table V, the NSC97 models are seen to give yet lower $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values, which for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He are close to the very recent experimental report . In between the rows pertaining to model ND and those for model NSC97, just for interpolation, we also listed results for two intermediate-strength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction potentials specified by their low-energy parameters.

In Tables VI and VII we list information on the geometrical sizes of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, respectively. As expected, the stronger the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction is – the smaller are the geometrical sizes of these few-body systems. We note, without offering any explanation for it, that almost all of our calculated sizes, particularly for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, are significantly larger than those calculated in Ref.  which is the only comprehensive calculation accounting for all rearrangement channels to compare with. An interesting exception is provided by the r.m.s. distance between the two $`\alpha `$ clusters in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be: $`R_{\alpha \alpha }=3.4`$ fm in both calculations for model ND, in spite of the radically different $`\alpha \alpha `$ potentials used in these calculations. With such a large value of $`R_{\alpha \alpha }`$, the two $`\alpha `$ clusters apparently are little affected by the inner part of their potential, which for a more compressed configuration would require a better theoretical guidance than provided by the Ali-Bodmer potential  used by us. This insensitivity to the inner structure of the $`\alpha `$ clusters, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s are added, no longer holds when nucleons are added; for example, for the $`3\alpha `$ system, where $`R_{\alpha \alpha }=3.0`$ fm in typical 12C 0+ ground-state calculations. Thus, Fedorov and Jensen , using the Ali-Bodmer $`\alpha \alpha `$ potential, had to introduce a strongly attractive $`3\alpha `$ potential in order to nearly reproduce the energies of the two lowest 0+ states in 12C, whereas Hiyama et al. , excluding Pauli-forbidden $`\alpha \alpha `$ states from their $`\alpha \alpha `$ potential, had to introduce a strongly repulsive $`3\alpha `$ potential.

For $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He we also listed in Table VI the probability (4) of having it as a two-body $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cluster. This probability goes to one as $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ approaches zero; the structure of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He is then well approximated by a $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cluster, and the r.m.s. distance $`R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }`$ between one of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons and the $`\alpha `$ cluster is only slightly smaller than the value $`R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha }(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^5\mathrm{He})=3.16`$ fm. On the other hand, the value of the analogous r.m.s. distance between one of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons and the c.m. of the $`\alpha \alpha `$ clusters in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, $`R_{(\alpha \alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }}=3.26`$ fm as shown in Table VII for $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$, is considerably larger than the value $`R_{(\alpha \alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^9\mathrm{Be})=2.88`$ fm, indicating that the two-body clustering $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is far from saturating the structure of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be in this limit. This point, as well as the information given in parentheses in Table VII, will be discussed in more detail towards the end of the subsection. A final point in discussing Tables VI and VII concerns the ground-state energies $`E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ calculated for the $`G`$-matrix interaction ND(G) based on the bare ND interaction. Our calculated binding energy for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He is higher by about 0.8 MeV than that calculated in Refs. . Given the fact that our calculation for the ND interaction comes very close within that of the complete calculation of Hiyama et al. , we conclude that the calculations of Refs.  are far from being complete.

It has been shown in previous cluster calculations  that the calculated $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be are correlated nearly linearly with each other. Our calculations also indicate such a correlation, as demonstrated in Fig. 3 by the dotted line. This line precludes any joint theoretical explanation of the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be experimental candidates listed in Table V. If $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}`$Be) = 17.7 $`\pm `$ 0.4 MeV , then the theoretically implied $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ value for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He is about 9.1 $`\pm `$ 0.4 MeV, considerably below the value reported by Prowse  but considerably above the value reported very recently by Takahashi et al. . If $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}`$Be) = 14.6 $`\pm `$ 0.4 MeV, on the assumption that the $`\pi ^{}`$ weak decay of $`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$Be ground state occurred to the first excited doublet levels of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be at 3.1 MeV , then the theoretically implied $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ value for $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He is 6.1 $`\pm `$ 0.4 MeV, no longer in such a spectacular disagreement with experiment but still significantly below the value reported by the recent observation  of $`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He.

For $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ = 0, the lower-left point on the dotted line marked ‘4-body model’ in Fig. 3 corresponds to approximately zero incremental binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^AZ)=B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^AZ)2B_\mathrm{\Lambda }(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(A1)}Z).$$
(26)
This is also explicitly listed in Table VIII and is anticipated owing to the rigidity of the $`\alpha `$ core. However, the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ value for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be is fairly substantial, about 1.5 MeV, reflecting a basic difference between the four-body $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ calculation and any three-body approximation in terms of a nuclear core and two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s as in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He. To demonstrate this point we show by the dot-dash line marked ‘3-body model’ in Fig. 3 the results of a three-body calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be in which the 8Be core is not assigned an $`\alpha \alpha `$ structure. In this calculation, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^8`$Be potential was chosen in a Woods-Saxon form, with depth $`V_0=18.12`$ MeV, radius $`R=3.24`$ fm and diffusivity $`a=0.60`$ fm. The geometry and depth were fixed by requiring (i) that the ground-state binding energy of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^8`$Be system agrees with that calculated in the $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model calculation for $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }(_\mathrm{\Lambda }^9`$Be) (see Table IV); and (ii) that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^8`$Be r.m.s. distance in the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be ground state agrees with that between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the c.m. of the two $`\alpha `$’s in the $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be (2.85 fm $`\mathrm{𝑣𝑠}.`$ 2.88 fm, respectively). This three-body calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, as is evident from the values given in parentheses in Table VII, gives smaller $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values by about 1.7 MeV and also smaller geometrical sizes than those given by the four-body calculation. The difference is due to the $`\alpha \alpha `$ correlations which are absent in the three-body calculation, and which are built in within the Yakubovsky equations of the four-body calculation. By breaking up 8Be into two $`\alpha `$’s in the four-body calculation, substantial attraction is gained due to several additional bound subsystems such as for the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He - $`\alpha `$ and the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He - $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He clusters which almost saturate the corresponding rearrangement channels ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) - $`\alpha `$ and ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$) - ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$), respectively. The prominence of these channels is exhibited in Table IX where the probability weights of the various rearrangement-channel components of the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be ground-state wavefunction are listed, using the generic expression (4). It is striking how little the ($`\alpha \alpha `$) - ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) rearrangement channel contributes to the four-body calculation. Other calculations  which pointed out the linear relationship discussed above did not account for the full range of ‘attractive’ rearrangement channels and consequently found smaller values, not exceeding 0.5 MeV, for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}`$Be) gain as $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$.

### B The $`A=5`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei

The $`A=5`$ isodoublet hypernuclei $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$H and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He were considered by us as three-cluster systems 3H $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and 3He $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively. The results of Faddeev calculations for these species were included in Table VIII, in terms of the incremental binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (26), together with results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be. We note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He is slightly larger than for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$H, owing to the tighter binding of the core $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernucleus $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He as compared to $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H. The $`A=5`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei are found to be particle stable for all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attractive potentials used in the present calculation. As the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction strength goes to zero, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A=5)`$ approaches approximately zero, similarly to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A=6)`$, provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$($`A`$=5) is defined with respect to the (2J+1) average of the ($`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H, $`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He) levels of Table IV (this is a physically meaningful definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ when several spin-flip nuclear core levels contribute to the Faddeev calculation; see also the comment made following Eq. (7) for the wavefunction of these $`A=5`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei). We recall that both of the $`A=5,6`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear systems are treated here as three-body clusters. A nearly linear correlation appears between $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A=6)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(A=5)`$, as shown in Fig. 4. Judging by the slope of the straight lines prevailing over most of the interval shown in the figure, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction is more effective in binding $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He than binding either one of the $`A=5`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. For this range of mass values, the heavier the nuclear core is – the larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is (except for a vanishingly weak $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ where the trend is opposite), implying that no saturation is yet reached. Within such three-body models $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ appears to get saturated already about $`A=10`$, judging by the slope of the three-body calculation straight line of Fig. 3. However, the special four-body cluster structure of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be reverses this trend of saturation, apparently delaying it into somewhat heavier species (for considerably heavier nuclear cores $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ should start occasionally decreasing slowly to zero with $`A`$).

We have already compared our calculations, discussing Tables V,VI,VII, with those of Ref. . In Table VIII we also added a comparison with the calculations of Ref. . Their $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values are incredibly higher everywhere than ours, and this holds also for their ND-type calculation of $`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He.

## IV Summary

In this work we studied light $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear systems which may be described in terms of few-cluster systems and treated by solving the three-body Faddeev and four-body Faddeev-Yakubovsky $`s`$-wave differential equations. For $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be, the Faddeev-Yakubovsky solution of the $`\alpha \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ problem given here is the first one of its kind. We estimate an error of about 0.5 MeV due to limiting the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be calculation to $`s`$ waves. Our calculation yields more binding for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be than that produced by most of the previous calculations, wherever comparison is meaningful. In particular, a fairly large value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}1.5`$ MeV survives in the limit $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$ owing to the $`\alpha \alpha `$ structure of the 8Be core. Our calculation confirms, if not aggravates, the incompatibility of the ‘old’ experimental determination of the binding energy of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He  with that of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be  in accordance with previous cluster calculations, irrespective of whether or not three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \alpha `$ interactions are included (see e.g. Refs.  respectively). The ‘new’ experimental determination of the binding energy of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He  is found to be even more incompatible with that of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be. Assuming that the determination of $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{10}\mathrm{Be})`$ was plagued by an unobserved $`\gamma `$ deexcitation involving either $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be or $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}`$Be, somewhere along the sequence of tracks observed in the emulsion event carefully reanalyzed in Ref. , does not satisfactorily resolve this incompatibility. Adding $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$B  as input does not alleviate it either, since the possibility of unobserved $`\gamma `$ deexcitation cannot be dismissed also for this species, while on the theoretical side the analysis of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$B in terms of a few-cluster system is more dubious than for the lighter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ species. Our conclusion differs radically from the recent claim of compatibility by Albertus et al.  who used a different methodology, largely untested in studies of very light nuclear species.

Discarding the past history of emulsion experimentation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear events identified as heavier than $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He, because of the ambiguities mentioned here, one remains with the very recent report from the KEK E373 experiment  which claims to have identified uniquely $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}1`$ MeV. No particle-stable excited states are possible for this species or for its $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear core $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He, so this event - if confirmed by adding more events of its kind - should be taken as the most directly relevant constraint on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction. Moreover, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He is ideally suited for three-body cluster calculations such as the Faddeev equations here solved for the $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. Using $`s`$-wave soft-core $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potentials that simulate several of the Nijmegen $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction models, we have shown that such simulations of model NSC97, versions $`e`$ and $`f`$ of which have been shown recently to agree quantitatively with data on light $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei , are capable of nearly reproducing the new value  of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^6`$He), short by about 0.5 MeV of the mean value.***in order to precisely reproduce this mean value, the parameter $`\gamma `$ needs to be increased from its values listed in Table II for model NSC97 to 0.6598, yielding the following low-energy parameters: $`a_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.77`$ fm, $`r_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=6.59`$ fm. In fact, we estimate the theoretical uncertainty of our Faddeev calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He as a fraction of 0.5 MeV. Two approximations give rise to this theoretical uncertainty, one is the restriction to $`s`$-waves in the partial-wave expansion of the Faddeev equations, excluding higher $`\mathrm{}`$ values; the other one is ignoring the off-diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ interaction which admixes $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ components into the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He wavefunction. The following estimates may be given for the errors incurred in these approximations. As for the $`s`$-wave approximation, the calculations by Ikeda et al.  give 99.7% probability weight for the ($`\mathrm{},\lambda `$)=(0,0) channel, with higher partial waves adding only 0.3 MeV binding energy, well within the error bars of the measured energies. As for including explicitly the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ coupling, a recent work by Yamada and Nakamoto  using model ND(G) (another model) finds an increase of 0.4 (0.1) MeV in the calculated $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^6`$He) value due to including explicitly the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ coupling, resulting in a 0.3% (0.1%) probability $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ component. Carr et al.  found a similar increase of 0.2 MeV due to explicitly including this coupling, for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction comparable to those used in the present work. However, these authors pointed out that, with respect to a calculation using an effective single-channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction which implicitly includes the effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ coupling in free space, an explicit two-channel calculation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He yields a reduction of $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^6`$He) by about 0.3 MeV. This reduction is expected due to the tight binding of the $`\alpha `$ cluster which inhibits the effectiveness of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ coupling. Therefore, the effects of the two approximations here discussed tend to cancel each other almost completely. This conclusion should also hold qualitatively for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be due to the fairly large energy which the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ coupling requires in order to break an $`\alpha `$ constituent.

If model NSC97, as our few-body calculations suggest, provides for the right SU(3) extrapolation from fits to $`NN`$ and $`YN`$ data, then it is questionable whether $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H is particle stable. The subtlties involved in estimating whether or not this species provides for the onset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ binding in nuclei were clearly demonstrated in Ref. . Its $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, at any rate, should not exceed 0.5 MeV for considerably stronger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions . If the AGS E906 events conjectured in Ref.  as evidence for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H are confirmed as such in a future extension of this experiment, this four-body system $`pn\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would play as a fundamental role for studying theoretically the hyperon-hyperon forces as $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$H $`(pn\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ has played for studying theoretically the hyperon-nucleon forces . Our preliminary results, studying the solutions of the Faddeev-Yakubovsky equations for the $`pn\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, indicate that $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H is unstable against $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ emission.

A.G. would like to acknowledge useful discussions and correspondence with Toshio Motoba. This work was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 131/01). I.N.F. is also partly supported by the Russian Ministry of Education (grant E00-3.1-133).


format: text

text:
# Analytic continuations of de Sitter thick domain wall solutions

## I Introduction

The solitonic objects in string theory play major roles in the understanding of its non-perturbative properties such as dualities. In string theory the solitons couples necessarily with gravity. In view of the universality of the gravitational interaction, the understanding of the gravitational aspects of solitons may provide deeper understanding of the variety of the dynamics contained in string theory.

The simplest system of solitons and gravity would be domain walls of scalar field theory interacting with gravity. In field theory, domain walls appear when there are more than one vacua in a scalar field potential, and it is a straightforward matter to obtain static domain wall configurations. On the other hand, with gravitational interactions, their non-linearity and instability make it a non-trivial issue to study the dynamics of domain walls. As for a supersymmetric domain wall configuration, it can be analyzed by BPS first order differential equations Cvetic . These solutions are static and it was shown that a generic static and flat domain wall configuration can be analyzed in the same manner Csaki ; Skenderis ; Chamblin ; DeWolfe . The procedure to obtain such a solution is mathematically well-defined, but an obtained solution is not necessarily physically meaningful. In fact, the scalar field potential must be fine-tuned to avoid naked curvature singularities DeWolfe ; Gremm:2000dj ; Flanagan:2001dy ; Sasakura . This situation is quite unsatisfactory, since a scalar field potential will change its form from a supersymmetric one by possible low energy dynamics such as supersymmetry breaking and instanton corrections, even if we assume some high energy supersymmetries. The non-supersymmetric string theories also suffer from a similar pathological behavior that the background solutions have naked singularities where the dilaton field diverges Dudas:2000ff ; Blumenhagen:2001dc .

One of the possible resolutions to these singularities is to introduce time-dependences of domain walls. The use of a de-Sitter expansion to turn a curvature singularity of a static soliton to a horizon has appeared in the context of global $`U(1)`$ vortex solutions Gregory:1996dd  and in a codimension two non-supersymmetric soliton solution in IIB string theory Berglund:2001aj . This is also used in constructing background solutions of non-supersymmetric string theories Charmousis:2002nq . As for time-dependent domain walls, perturbative analyses have been performed for the system of gravity and a scalar field in Bonjour:1999kz ; Bonjour:2000ca . The constructions of analytic de Sitter thick domain wall solutions with horizons were done in Wang:2002pk ; Sasakura .

In our previous paper Sasakura , the scalar field potential takes an axion-like form and its two parameters are restricted to a certain region for the analytic solutions to exist. The motivation of this paper is to find analytical solutions for the outside of this region of these parameters. It is a well known trick that, starting from a domain wall solution, analytic continuations generate domain wall solutions with flipped curvatures and cosmological solutions Cvetic:1997vr . We will show that the new solutions cover the missing parameter regions. They are anti-de Sitter domain walls, finite lifetime universes with a big-bang and a big-crunch and cyclic universes.

## II De Sitter domain wall solutions

In our previous paper Sasakura , we have obtained a class of analytic solutions of thick domain walls with de Sitter expansions in the system of five-dimensional gravity and a scalar field with an axion-like potential. Let us start our discussions by extending our previous results to a general space-time dimension $`n`$.

The action of our system is given by

$$S=𝑑t𝑑x^{n2}𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi )\right).$$
(1)
The metric ansatz we use is the warped geometry

$$ds^2=a(y)^2\left(dt^2+e^{2Ht}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}(dx^i)^2\right)+dy^2,$$
(2)
where $`H`$ denotes the Hubble constant of the $`(n1)`$-dimensional de Sitter space-time. Under the assumption that the scalar field depends only on the coordinate $`y`$, the Einstein equations are

$`(\varphi ^{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(n2)\left((a^{})^2aa^{\prime \prime }H^2\right)}{a^2}},`$ (3)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)\left(aa^{\prime \prime }(n2)(a^{})^2+(n2)H^2\right)}{a^2}},`$ (4)
where  denotes the derivation with respect to $`y`$. The equation of motion of the scalar field is automatically satisfied by the solutions of (3) because of a Bianchi identity. By repeating the same procedure done in our previous paper Sasakura , we find that the first equation of (3) is satisfied by the solution

$`a(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sn}(Hy,i\beta ^1),`$ (5)
$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2(n2)}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cn}(Hy,i\beta ^1)}{\beta \mathrm{dn}(Hy,i\beta ^1)}}\right),`$ (6)
where the elliptic functions are defined by

$$\mathrm{sn}^1(z,k)=_0^z\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(1x^2)(1k^2x^2)}},$$
(7)
$`\mathrm{cn}(u,k)=(1\mathrm{sn}^2(u,k))^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{dn}(u,k)=(1k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(u,k))^{1/2}`$. Here the parameter $`\beta `$ is a free real parameter. In the expression (5), the normalization of the scale factor $`a(y)`$ merely defines the unit of length scale and we have normalized it by imposing $`a=1`$ at the domain wall peak defined by $`a^{}=0`$, and the constant shift ambiguity of $`\varphi (y)`$ is fixed by imposing $`\varphi =0`$ at the domain wall peak. A peculiar property of the solution (3) is that the scale factor behaves near its vanishing point $`y=0`$ as

$$a(y)=Hy+O(y^3).$$
(8)
As discussed in our previous paper Sasakura , this behavior is required for the vanishing point to be regular. The factor $`H`$ of the linear term can be also understood from the physical consistency of the geometry that the temperature associated to the Rindler space-time near $`y=0`$ should agree with that of the de Sitter domain wall space-time $`\frac{H}{2\pi }`$. We will show in section III that the vanishing point is actually a horizon and that a regular extended space-time can be obtained by taking an appropriate coordinate system.

The scalar field potential is determined by the second equation of (3), and we obtain

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^2(n2)^2(1\beta ^2)}{2}}`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{H^2n(n2)(1+\beta ^2)}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n2}}}\varphi \right),`$
which is similar to that of an axion with an instanton correction. In this paper we consider the two-dimensional parameter space $`(v_0,v_1)`$ of the scalar field potential,

$$V(\varphi )=v_0+v_1\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{n2}}\varphi \right).$$
(11)
We may assume $`v_1`$ to be a positive parameter by shifting $`\varphi `$, appropriately. In this parameterization the result (10) shows that the parameter region for the existence of a regular de Sitter domain wall solution is given by

$$(n2)v_1<nv_0<(n2)v_1.$$
(12)
## III  Extension of the de Sitter domain wall space-time

The vanishing points $`a=0`$ are actually horizons. To show this we will extend the solutions (5). The extended space-time is essentially equivalent to the $`n=1/2`$ case of Wang:2002pk , and we will follow their discussions. We first change to a conformal coordinate $`dz=dy/a`$. Integrating the solution (5), we obtain

$$zz_0=\frac{1}{H}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sn}(Hy,i\beta ^1)}{\mathrm{dn}(Hy,i\beta ^1)+\mathrm{cn}(Hy,i\beta ^1)}\right),$$
(13)
where $`z_0`$ is an integration constant. Using (13) and taking a proper value of $`z_0`$, the metric for a de Sitter domain wall solution becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1+\beta ^2)\mathrm{cosh}(2Hz)+1\beta ^2}}`$ (15)
$`\times \left(d\tau ^2+dz^2+H^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(H\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }^{n2}\right),`$
where we have changed to a global coordinate of a de Sitter space-time instead of a flat one appearing in (2), and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^{n2}`$ denotes the metric on an $`(n2)`$-dimensional unit sphere. By a further transformation of $`u=\mathrm{exp}(H(\tau z))`$ and $`v=\mathrm{exp}(H(\tau +z))`$, we obtain

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{4H^2}{(1+\beta ^2)(1+u^2v^2)+2(1\beta ^2)uv}}`$ (16)
$`\times \left(dudv+\left({\displaystyle \frac{u+v}{2}}\right)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^{n2}\right).`$ (17)
Note that the allover factor of the metric (17) is non-singular for all the real values of $`u`$ and $`v`$. After the change of variables $`u=T+R,v=T+R`$, the metric in the parentheses becomes $`dT^2+dR^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^{n2}`$ and is free of a conical singularity. As pointed out in Wang:2002pk , the domain wall peak at $`T^2+R^2=uv=1`$ is a bubble with a constant acceleration in the coordinate $`(T,R,\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

As for the scalar field, we obtain

$$\varphi =\sqrt{2(n2)}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{uv1}{\beta (uv+1)}\right),$$
(18)
which is also well-defined for any real values of $`u`$ and $`v`$.

## IV Anti-de Sitter domain wall solutions

In the following we will study the other parameter regions of the potential (11) than (12). Looking at the expression (10), one notices that all the other parameter regions of $`v_0`$ and $`v_1`$ can be covered by the analytic continuations of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`H`$ to pure imaginary values. However, under an analytic continuation of only one of $`\beta `$ or $`H`$ to a pure imaginary value, one of $`\varphi (y)`$ or $`a(y)`$ becomes imaginary and physically meaningless. This cannot be resolved even by using the constant shift ambiguity of $`y`$ of the solution. To obtain a physically meaningful expression from (5), both of $`\beta `$ and $`H`$ must be analytically continued to imaginary values, and, after some trials, it turns out that the analytic continuation should contain a simultaneous shift of $`y`$ as 111The other available choices of the shift of $`y`$ do not give any other independent solutions.

$`1/\beta `$ $``$ $`i\delta ,`$ (19)
$`H`$ $``$ $`ih,`$ (20)
$`Hy`$ $``$ $`ihy+K(\delta ),`$ (21)
where $`\delta `$ and $`h`$ are real constants and $`K(\delta )`$ is the elliptic integral of the first kind,

$$K(\delta )=_0^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(1x^2)(1\delta ^2x^2)}}.$$
(22)
Substituting the analytic continuation (19) into the de Sitter solution (5), we obtain new solutions

$`a(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{dn}(hy,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}},`$ (23)
$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2(n2)}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{sn}(hy,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}{\mathrm{cn}(hy,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}}\right),`$ (24)
and

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2(n2)^2(1+\delta ^2)}{2}}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2n(n2)(1\delta ^2)}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n2}}}\varphi \right).`$
By the parameterization (11), the scalar potential (26) is in the region

$$nv_0<(n2)v_1.$$
(27)
To make the warped metric (2) meaningful under the analytic continuation (19), we perform a simultaneous continuation $`tir`$ and $`x^1ix^0`$. Then (2) becomes an anti-de Sitter domain wall metric

$$ds^2=a(y)^2\left(dr^2+e^{2hr}\left((dx^0)^2+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n2}{}}(dx^i)^2\right)\right)+dy^2.$$
(28)
Thus in the region (27), there exist regular AdS domain wall solutions, which are given by (23) and (26).

The stability of the AdS solutions can be checked as follows. We restrict our attention to the five dimensional case ($`n=5`$). Presumably the extension to a general dimension will be straightforward. As discussed in DeWolfe ; Gremm:2000dj ; DeWolfe:2000xi ; Kobayashi:2001jd , the problem of obtaining the mass spectra of the linear perturbations around a solution boils down to solving Schrodinger equations. As for the tensor perturbation,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`a^2((\gamma _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2),`$ (29)
$`h_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{|\nu }=0,`$ (30)
the Schrodinger equation has a supersymmetric form

$$Q^{}Q\phi =m^2\phi ,$$
(31)
where

$$Q=\frac{d}{dz}\frac{3}{2a}\frac{da}{dz}.$$
(32)
Thus the eigenvalues $`m^2`$ is non-negative, and hence the stability under the tensor perturbations is satisfied. As for the scalar perturbation,

$$ds^2=a^2((1+\psi _1)\gamma _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +(1+\psi _2)dz^2),$$
(33)
the Schrodinger equation becomes DeWolfe:2000xi ; Kobayashi:2001jd ; Sasakura

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}+\frac{a^2(\varphi ^{})^2}{3}+4h^2\right)\phi =m^2\phi ,$$
(34)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\frac{d}{dz}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(a^{3/2}\varphi ^{})}{dz}.$$
(35)
This Schrodinger equation is obtained by the substitution $`Hih`$ in the corresponding expression in Sasakura . The $`m^2`$ is obviously positive, and the AdS solutions are stable under the scalar perturbations. However there remains one thing to check before this conclusion. If there existed points with $`\varphi ^{}=0`$, the operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ would become singular at these points and the above naive discussion of the positivity would be in danger. Moreover, in the derivation of the Schrodinger equation for the scalar perturbations in Kobayashi:2001jd , the linear perturbation is redefined by a multiplication of a factor which is singular if $`\varphi ^{}=0`$. But, in the solution (23), $`\varphi ^{}`$ is always non-zero, and the above discussion is safe.

## V  The region without regular solutions

We cannot find a physically meaningful analytic continuation to the parameter region

$$(n2)v_1<nv_0.$$
(36)
Thus it is suspected that there are no regular domain wall solutions of the form of the warped metric (2) in this parameter region. To see whether this is the case, we will use a numerical computation.

Since, in this parameter region, the constant part $`v_0`$ of the scalar potential is larger than that of the parameter region of de Sitter analytic solutions (12), we may assume the solution to be a de Sitter domain wall rather than an anti-de Sitter one. As generally discussed in our previous paper Sasakura , a regular de Sitter domain wall solution is sandwiched between two horizons. The initial values of the differential equations (3) can be provided by the three values $`a`$, $`a^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ at a certain initial location of $`y`$. For the solution to be regular at a horizon, the scale factor must behave in the form (8), and therefore the freedom to choose the initial values is reduced to the only free parameter $`\varphi =\varphi _c`$ at the horizon. Thus, to search for a regular solution, we take one of the horizons as the initial location, and integrate numerically the differential equations (3) for each value of $`\varphi _c`$ at the horizon. Then the question of the existence of a regular solution is translated to whether there exists an initial value $`\varphi _c`$ for which the numerical solution of the differential equations is regular between the initial horizon and the other horizon of a domain wall.

This search procedure gives a numerical regular solution for each choice of $`(v_0,v_1,H)`$. Studying in this three-dimensional space would be too much, and in fact, we can reduce the dimension to one by rescaling the differential equations (3). By the rescaling of $`y`$ and $`a`$, we can normalize the scalar potential and the Hubble constant so that $`v_1=1`$ and $`H=1`$. Thus it is enough to check the question for each choice of $`v_0`$.

It would be a reasonable assumption that a domain wall contains the peak of the potential energy $`\varphi =0`$. Then, since the potential (11) is $`Z_2`$ invariant222Namely, invariant under $`\varphi \varphi `$., it is enough for us to solve the equations in the region $`\varphi >0`$. We take an initial value $`\varphi =\varphi _c>0`$ and solve the differential equations (3) taking the branch $`\varphi ^{}<0`$, until the solution reaches the value $`\varphi =0`$. By sweeping the initial value $`\varphi _c`$, we obtain the range of $`a^{}/a`$ at $`\varphi =0`$. If the obtained range of $`a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}`$ contains both positive and negative values, one can construct a regular solution by gluing a numerical solution with a certain value of $`p=a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}`$ to the $`Z_2`$ image of the solution with $`a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}=p`$. If the range does not contain both signs, one cannot construct a regular solution.

We performed the above procedure in five space-time dimensions $`(n=5)`$. From (12), the maximum value for the existence of an analytic solution is $`v_0=3/5=9/15`$. In fact, for $`v_0=7/15`$, we obtained $`a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}0.0023,0.015`$ for $`\varphi _c=0.2\sqrt{3/2}\pi ,0.3\sqrt{3/2}\pi `$, respectively, and the existence of a regular solution is numerically supported. For $`v_0=11/15`$, however, the plotted values of $`a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}`$ in fig.4 indicate that $`a^{}/a|_{\varphi =0}`$ takes only negative values. Thus it is numerically supported that there do not exist any regular de Sitter domain wall solutions in the parameter region (36).

Qualitatively, in this parameter region, the constant part of the scalar field potential is so large that the expansion rate at the core is too large for a domain wall to keep its shape. Similar phenomena are discussed in the context of topological inflation in Vilenkin:1994pv ; Linde:1994hy ; Bonjour:1999kz . In Bonjour:1999kz , a perturbative analysis of the phase boundary between the existence and non-existence of domain wall solutions for the four-dimensional system of gravity and a scalar field was performed, including the present case with an axion-like scalar field potential333Denoted as a sine-Gordon potential in Bonjour:1999kz .. According to the paper, the phase boundary is generally characterized by the equation

$$\frac{3}{2}|V^{\prime \prime }(0)|V(0)=0$$
(37)
in our present notation for $`n=4`$. Substituting the parameterization (11), this becomes $`2v_0v_1=0`$, which agrees with (36) for $`n=4`$.

Thus, in the region (36), the rapid expansion will ultimately sweep away the spatial dependence of the scalar field, and the dynamics will be mainly described by its time-dependence. This will be the subject of section VI.

## VI  Cosmological solutions

It is well known that, starting from a domain wall solution, a cosmological solution can be obtained by an analytic continuation which exchanges the transverse coordinate and the time coordinate Cvetic:1997vr . An appropriate analytic continuation is given by

$`t`$ $``$ $`iy,`$ (38)
$`y`$ $``$ $`it,`$ (39)
$`H`$ $``$ $`ih,`$ (40)
by which, a de Sitter domain wall solution (5) changes to a new solution with the substitution $`yt`$ and $`Hh`$. This analytic continuation turns the de Sitter domain wall metric (2) into

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2\left(dy^2+e^{2hy}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}(dx^i)^2\right),$$
(41)
which describes a FRW cosmology of an open universe. Hence the new solution represents a finite lifetime open universe with a big-bang and a big-crunch.

Under the analytic continuation (38), the equations of motion (3) remain the same with the identification of  with the time derivative $`\dot{}`$ and $`H`$ with $`h`$ and changing the sign of the scalar potential. Under the change of the sign of the potential, the region of the de Sitter solutions (12) is transformed to the identical region. Thus the parameter region for the open universe solution is the same as that of the de Sitter wall solutions (12).

As for the anti-de Sitter solution, the analytic continuation (38) turns it into a cosmological solution of a closed universe. Because of the flip of the sign of the scalar potential, the parameter region of the closed universe solution is obtained by flipping (27) into

$$(n2)v_1<nv_0.$$
(42)
This agrees with the region where there are no regular domain wall solutions. The corresponding cosmological solutions are obtained by the substitution $`yt`$ and $`Hh`$ in the AdS domain wall solutions (23). The periodic behavior of the AdS domain wall solutions is now interpreted as representing a cyclic universe.

It would be interesting to see the behavior of the energy density and the pressure. In a five-dimensional space-time, they are

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\dot{\varphi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V(\varphi )`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`6h^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2(1\delta ^2)\mathrm{sn}^2(ht,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}{\mathrm{dn}^2(ht,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}}\right),`$ (44)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\dot{\varphi })^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V(\varphi )`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`h^2\delta ^2\left(6{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\delta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{\mathrm{dn}^2(ht,\sqrt{1\delta ^2})}}\right).`$ (46)
In fig.7, we plotted the time evolution of the energy density and the pressure for the cyclic universe solution with $`h=1`$ and $`\delta =0.1`$.

At the minimum of the scale factor the energy density takes its maximum value and the pressure is approximately the minus of the energy density. At this period the large energy density initiates a bounce and the universe is at the inflation stage. On the other hand, at the maximum of the scale factor, the energy density is nearly vanishing and the pressure dominates. The large pressure works as a negative gravitational energy and initiates a contraction of the universe.

For a flat FRW universe, if we assume the null energy condition, the Hubble parameter satisfies an inequality

$$\dot{H}0,$$
(47)
and there cannot exist a bounce. This also implies that, since our universe is expanding at present days, the universe must have started from a singularity. In the papers Khoury:2001bz ; Seiberg:2002hr , some loopholes of the above discussion are presented from string theory to support the possibility of the pre-big bang scenario Veneziano:2000pz . In our cyclic solution, the existence of the positive curvature of the space changes the equation of motion of $`H`$ into

$$\dot{H}=\frac{h^2}{a^2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2(n2)},$$
(48)
and $`\dot{H}`$ can take both signs. Considering the high energy at the big-bang of the universe, it is plausible that some fluctuations of matters and gravity generate a region with a positive spatial curvature and the bounce of the universe simply happens from a classical dynamics. In this case, even though the present model seems far from what is the real universe, it might provide a simple toy model to study the pre-big bang scenario.

The inequality (47) plays also an important role in the dS/CFT correspondence. The central charge is given by an inverse power of the Hubble parameter, and the inequality (47) supports the interpretation of the time evolution as a renormalization group flow to UV Strominger:2001gp ; Balasubramanian:2001nb . In the case of a cyclic universe, however, the time flow cannot be interpreted in this way Argurio , because reverse process exists. If we take seriously the interpretation of Strominger:2001gp ; Balasubramanian:2001nb , there should be a kind of mechanism to prevent the above situation to happen. From this point, it would be interesting to try to consistently embed our simple model into string theory.

## VII  Summary and discussions

In this paper, we have studied the analytic solutions of the system of gravity and a scalar field with an axion-like potential. They contain de Sitter thick domain walls, anti-de Sitter thick domain walls, finite lifetime universes with a big-bang and a big-crunch, and cyclic universes. These analytic solutions might be useful as toy models for the studies of the more general corresponding cases.

An obvious application of the analytic de Sitter domain wall solutions presented in this and previous papers Sasakura  would be as toy models of our world through the brane world scenario. According to the recent observations Fukugita:2000ck , our universe was in the inflation stage at the big-bang, and moreover a tiny cosmological constant might exist even at present. In our model, gravity will be confined by the mechanism of Randall:1999vf , and it would be interesting to investigate the gravitational properties in such an accelerating domain wall universe.

Another interesting direction would be to embed our model into supersymmetric theories or superstring theory. The potential (11) has a simple form of an axion, which would be easily generated by field theory or string theory instanton corrections. According to Witten:2001kn , a de Sitter space-time cannot have any supersymmetries, and hence supersymmetries must be broken on a de Sitter domain wall. In the identification of our world with the domain wall, it seems challenging to explain the large hierarchy between the observed upper bound of the cosmological constant and the supersymmetry breaking scale. Based on a similar motivation, our model may be regarded as a gravity-coupled analogy of the susy-breaking domain wall solution presented in Maru:2001gr ; Maru:2001sk .

Our cosmological solutions of cyclic universes might provide toy models for the scenario of Steinhardt:2001vw ; Felder:2002jk .

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank N. Sakai for discussions. The author was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (#12740150), and in part by Priority Area: “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” (#707), from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.