text:
# Computing Igusa’s Local Zeta Functions of Univariate Polynomials, and Linear Feedback Shift Registers

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f(x)[x]`$, $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ be a non-constant polynomial, and $`p`$ a fixed prime number. We put $`N_m(f,p)=N_m(f)`$ for the number of solutions of the congruence $`f(x)0`$ mod $`p^m`$ in $`(/p^m)^n`$, $`m1`$, and $`H(t,f)`$ for the Poincaré series

$$H(t,f)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_m(f)(p^nt)^m\text{,}$$

with $`t`$, $`t<1`$, and $`N_0(f)=1`$. This paper is dedicated to the computation of the sequence $`\left\{N_m(f)\right\}_{m0}`$ when $`f`$ is an univariate polynomial with splitting field $``$.

Igusa showed that the Poincaré series $`H(t,f)`$ admits a meromorphic continuation to the complex plane as a rational function of $`t`$ , . In this paper we make a first step towards the solution of the following problem: given a polynomial $`f(x)`$ as above, how difficult is to compute the meromorphic continuation of the Poincaré series $`H(t,f)`$?

The computation of the Poincaré series $`H(t,f)`$ is equivalent to the computation of Igusa’s local zeta function $`Z(s,f)`$, attached to $`f`$ and $`p`$, defined as follows. We denote by $`_p`$ the field of $`p`$adic numbers, and by $`_p`$ the ring of $`p`$adic integers. For $`x_p`$, $`v_p(x)`$ denotes the $`p`$adic order of $`x`$, and $`|x|_p=p^{v_p(x)}`$ its absolute value. The Igusa local zeta function associated to $`f`$ and $`p`$ is defined as follows:

$$Z(s,f)=_{_p^n}|f(x)|_p^sdx,s,$$

where $`\mathrm{R}e(s)>0`$, and $`dx`$ denotes the Haar measure on $`_p^n`$ so normalized that $`_p^n`$ has measure $`1`$. The following relation between $`Z(s,f)`$ and $`H(t,f)`$ holds (see , theorem 8.2.2):

$$H(t,f)=\frac{1tZ(s,f)}{1t},\text{ }t=p^s.$$

Thus, the rationality of $`Z(s,f)`$ implies the rationality of the Poincaré series $`H(t,f)`$, and the computation of $`H(t,f)`$ is equivalent to the computation of$`Z(s,f)`$. Igusa \[14, theorem 8.2.1\] showed that the local zeta function $`Z(s,f)`$ admits a meromorphic continuation to the complex plane as a rational function of $`p^s`$.

The first result of this paper is a polynomial time algorithm for computing the local zeta function $`Z(s,f)`$ attached to a polynomial $`f(x)[x]`$, in one variable, with splitting field $``$, and a prime number $`p`$. We also give an explicit estimate for its complexity (see algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$ in section 2, and theorem 7.1).

Many authors have found explicit formulas for $`Z(s,f)`$, or $`H(f,t)`$, for several classes of polynomials, among them , , , , \[ and the references therein\], , , . In all these works the computation of $`Z(s,f)`$, or $`H(f,t)`$, is reduced to the computation of other problems, as the computation of the number of solutions of polynomial equations with coefficients in a finite field. Currently, there is no polynomial time algorithm solving this problem , . Moreover, none of the above mentioned works include complexity estimates for the computation of Igusa’s local zeta functions.

Of particular importance is Denef’s explicit formula for $`Z(s,f)`$, when $`f`$ satisfies some generic conditions . This formula involves the numerical data associated to a resolution of singularities of the divisor $`f=0`$, and the number of rational points of certain non-singular varieties over finite fields. Thus the computation of $`Z(s,f),`$ for a generic polynomial $`f`$, is reduced to the computation of the numerical data associated to a resolution of singularities of the divisor $`f=0`$, and the number of solutions of non-singular polynomials over finite fields. Currently, it is unknown if these problems can be solved in polynomial time on a Turing machine. However, during the last few years important achievements have been obtained in the computation of resolution of singularities of polynomials , , , .

The computation of the Igusa local zeta function for an arbitrary polynomial seems to be an intractable problem on a Turing machine. For example, for $`p=2`$, the computation of the number of solutions of a polynomial equation with coefficients in $`/2`$ is an $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$complete problem on a Turing Machine \[9, page 251, problem AN9\]. Then in the case of $`2`$adic numbers, the computation of the Igusa local zeta function is an $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$complete problem.

Recently, Anshel and Goldfeld have shown the existence of a strong connection between the computation of zeta functions and cryptography . Indeed, they proposed a new class of candidates for one-way functions based on global zeta functions. A one-way function is a function $`F`$ such that for each $`x`$ in the domain of $`F`$, it is easy to compute $`F(x)`$; but for essentially all $`y`$ in the range of $`F`$, it is an intractable problem to find an $`x`$ such that $`y=F(x)`$. These functions play a central role, from a practical and theoretical point of view, in modern cryptography. Currently, there is no guarantee that one-way functions exist even if $`𝐏\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$. Most of the present candidates for one-way functions are constructed on the intractability of problems like integer factorization and discrete logarithms . Recently, P. Shor has introduced a new approach to attack these problems . Indeed, Shor have shown that on a quantum computer the integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems can be computed in polynomial time.

We set

$$=\{H(t,f)f(x)[x]\text{, in  one variable, with splitting field }\},$$

and $`N^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\left(\right)`$ for the set of finite sequences of integers. For each positive integer $`u`$ and a prime number $`p`$, we define

$$\begin{array}{cccc}F_{u,p}:& & & ^{\mathrm{}}\left(\right)\\ & H(t,f)& & \{N_0(f,p),N_1(f,p),\mathrm{},N_u(f,p)\}\text{.}\end{array}$$

Our second result asserts that $`F_{u,p}(H(t,f))`$ can be computed in polynomial time, for every $`H(t,f)`$ in $``$ (see theorem 8.1). It seems interesting to study the complexity on a Turing machine of the following problem: given a list of positive integers $`\{a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_u\}`$, how difficult is it to determine whether or not there exists a Poincaré series $`H(t,f)=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}N_m(f)(p^1t)^m`$, such that $`a_i=N_i(f)`$, $`i=1`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, $`u`$?

Currently, the author does not have any result about the complexity of the above problem, however the mappings $`F_{u,p}`$ can be considered as new class of stream ciphers (see section 8).

## 2. The Algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$

In this section we present a polynomial time algorithm, Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$, that solves the following problem: given a polynomial $`f(x)[x]`$, in one variable, whose splitting field is $``$, find an explicit expression for the meromorphic continuation of $`Z(s,f)`$. The algorithm is as follows.

Algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$

Input : A polynomial $`f(x)[x],`$ in one variable, whose splitting field is $``$.

Output : A rational function of $`p^s`$ that is the meromorphic continuation of $`Z(s,f)`$.

1. Factorize $`f(x)`$ in $`[x]`$: $`f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x].`$
2. Compute

$$l_f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\mathrm{max}\{v_p(\alpha _i\alpha _j)ij\text{}1i\text{}jr\}\text{,}& \text{ if }r2\text{;}\\ 1\text{}& \text{ if }r=1\text{.}\end{array}$$
3. Compute the $`p`$adic expansions of the numbers $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$ modulo $`p^{l_f+1}`$.
4. Compute the tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ associated to $`f(x)`$ and $`p`$ (for the definition of $`T(f,l_f)`$ see (4.2)).
5. Compute the generating function $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$ attached to $`T(f,l_f)`$ (for the definition of $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$ see (5.1)).
6. Return $`Z(s,f)=G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$.
7. End

In section 6, we shall give a proof of the correctness and a complexity estimate for the algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$. The first step in our algorithm is accomplished by means of the factoring algorithm by A.K. Lenstra, H. Lenstra and L. Lovász . If $`d_f`$ denotes the degree of $`f(x)=_ia_ix^i`$, and

$$f=\sqrt{\underset{i}{}a_i^2},$$

then the mentioned factoring algorithm needs $`O(d_f^6+d_f^9(\mathrm{log}f))`$ arithmetic operations, and the integers on which these operations are performed each have a binary length $`O(d_f^3+d_f^2(\mathrm{log}f))`$ \[17, theorem 3.6\].

The steps $`2`$, $`3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$ reduce in polynomial time the computation of $`Z(s,f)`$ to the computation of a factorization of $`f(x)`$ over $``$. This reduction is accomplished by constructing a weighted tree from the $`p`$adic expansion of the roots of $`f(x)`$ modulo a certain power of $`p`$ (see section 4), and then associating a generating function to this tree (see section 5). Finally, we shall prove that the generating function constructed in this way coincides with the local zeta function of $`f(x)`$ (see section 5).

## 3. $`p`$-adic Stationary Phase Formula

Our main tool in the effective computing of Igusa’s local zeta function of a polynomial in one variable will be the $`p`$adic stationary phase formula, abbreviated SPF . This formula is a recursive procedure for computing local zeta functions. By using this procedure it is possible to compute the local zeta functions for many classes of polynomials \[ and the references therein\], , , , .

Given a polynomial $`f(x)`$ $`_p[x]`$ $`p_p[x]`$, we denote by $`\overline{f(x)}`$ its reduction modulo $`p_p`$, i.e., the polynomial obtained by reducing the coefficients of $`f(x)`$ modulo $`p_p`$. We define for each $`x_0`$ $`_p`$,

$$f_{x_0}(x)=p^{e_{x_0}}f(x_0+px)\text{,}$$

where $`e_{x_0}`$ is the minimum order of $`p`$ in the coefficients of $`f(x_0+px)`$. Thus $`f_{x_0}(x)_p[x]`$ $`p_p[x]`$. We shall call the polynomial $`f_{x_0}(x)`$ the dilatation of $`f(x)`$ at $`x_0`$. We also define

$$\nu (\overline{f})=\text{Card}\{\overline{z}𝔽_p\overline{f}(\overline{z})0\},$$

$$\delta (\overline{f})=\text{Card}\{\overline{z}𝔽_p\overline{z}\text{ is a simple root of }\overline{f}(\overline{z})=0\}.$$

We shall use $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}_p`$ as a set of representatives of the elements of $`𝔽_p=/`$ $`p=\{\overline{0},\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{p1}\}`$. Let $`S=S(f)`$ denote the subset of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}_p`$ which is mapped bijectively by the canonical homomorphism $`_p_p/p_p`$ to the set of roots of $`\overline{f}(\overline{z})=0`$ with multiplicity greater than or equal to two.

With all the above notation we are able to state the $`p`$adic stationary phase formula for polynomials in one variable.

###### Proposition 3.1 (\[14, theorem 10.2.1\]).

Let $`f(x)`$ $`_p[x]`$ $`p_p[x]`$ be a non-constant polynomial. Then

$$Z(s,f)=p^1\nu (\overline{f})+\delta (\overline{f})\frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}+\underset{\xi S}{}p^{1e_\xi s}\underset{_p}{}f_\xi (x)_p^s𝑑x.$$

The following example illustrates the use of the $`p`$adic stationary phase formula, and also the basic aspects of our algorithm for computing $`Z(s,f)`$.

### 3.1. Example

Let $`f(x)=(x\alpha _1)(x\alpha _2)^3(x\alpha _3)(x\alpha _4)^2(x\alpha _5)`$ be a polynomial such that $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ , $`\alpha _3`$, $`\alpha _4`$ , $`\alpha _5`$ are integers having the following $`p`$adic expansions:

$$\alpha _1=a+dp+kp^2,$$

$$\alpha _2=a+dp+lp^2,$$

$$\alpha _3=b+gp+mp^2,$$

$$\alpha _4=c+hp+np^2,$$

$$\alpha _5=c+hp+rp^2,$$

where the $`p`$-adic digits $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`g`$, $`h`$, $`l`$, $`m`$, $`n`$, $`r`$ belong to $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$. We assume the $`p`$-adic digits to be different by pairs. The local zeta function $`Z(s,f)`$ will be computed by using SPF iteratively.

By applying SPF with $`\overline{f(x)}=(x\overline{a})^4(x\overline{b})(x\overline{c})^3`$, $`\nu (\overline{f})=p3`$, $`\delta (\overline{f})=1,S=\{a,c\}`$, $`f_a(x)=p^4f(a+px)`$, and $`f_c(x)=p^3f(c+px)`$, we obtain that

(3.1) $`Z(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1(p3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{1p^{1s}}}+p^{14s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_a(x)|_p^sdx`$
$`+p^{13s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_c(x)|_p^sdx\text{.}`$
We apply SPF to the integrals involving $`f_a(x)`$ and $`f_c(x)`$ in (3.1). First, we consider the integral corresponding to $`f_a(x)`$. Since $`\overline{f_a(x)}=(x\overline{d})^4(\overline{a}\overline{b})(\overline{a}\overline{c})^3`$, $`S=\{d\}`$, $`f_{a,d}(x)=p^4f_a(d+px)`$, $`\nu (\overline{f_a})=p1`$, and $`\delta (\overline{f_a})=0`$, it follows from (3.1) using SPF that

(3.2) $`Z(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1(p3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{1p^{1s}}}+p^1(p1)p^{14s}`$
$`+p^{28s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_{a,d}(x)|_p^sdx+p^{13s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_c(x)|_p^sdx\text{.}`$
Now, we apply SPF to the integral involving $`f_c(x)`$ in (3.2). Since $`\overline{f_c(x)}`$ $`=(\overline{c}\overline{a})^4(\overline{c}\overline{b})(x\overline{h})^3`$, $`S=\{h\},f_{c,h}(x)=p^3f_c(h+px)`$, $`\nu (\overline{f_c})=p1`$, and $`\delta (\overline{f_c})=0`$, it follows from (3.2) using SPF that

(3.3) $`Z(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1(p3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{1p^{1s}}}+p^1(p1)p^{14s}`$
$`+p^{28s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_{a,d}(x)|_p^sdx+p^1(p1)p^{13s}`$
$`+p^{26s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_{c,h}(x)|_p^sdx\text{.}`$
By applying SPF to the integral involving $`f_{a,d}(x)`$ in (3.3), with $`\overline{f_{a,d}(x)}=(x\overline{k})(x\overline{l})^3(\overline{d}\overline{b})(\overline{d}\overline{c})^3`$, $`S=\{k,l\}`$, $`f_{a,d,k}(x)=p^1f_{a,d}(k+px)`$, $`|f_{a,d,k}(x)|_p^s=|x|_p^s`$, $`f_{a,d,l}(x)=p^3f_{a,d}(l+px)`$, $`|f_{a,d,l}(x)|_p^s=|x|_p^{3s}`$,$`\nu (\overline{f_{a,d}})=p2`$, and $`\delta (\overline{f_{a,d}})=1`$, we obtain that

(3.4) $`Z(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1(p3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{1p^{1s}}}+p^1(p1)p^{14s}`$
$`+p^1(p1)p^{13s}+p^1(p2)p^{28s}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{39s}}{1p^{1s}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{311s}}{1p^{13s}}}+p^{26s}{\displaystyle __p}|f_{c,h}(x)|_p^sdx\text{.}`$
Finally, by applying SPF to the integral involving $`f_{c,h}(x)`$ in (3.4), we obtain that

(3.5) $`Z(s,f)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1(p3)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{1p^{1s}}}+p^1(p1)p^{14s}`$
$`+p^1(p1)p^{13s}+p^1(p2)p^{28s}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{39s}}{1p^{1s}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{311s}}{1p^{13s}}}+p^1(p2)p^{26s}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{37s}}{1p^{1s}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{38s}}{1p^{12s}}}\text{.}`$
###### Remark 3.1.

If $`\alpha =\frac{a}{b}`$, and $`v_p(\alpha )<0`$, then

(3.6)
$$x\alpha _p=\alpha _p,\text{ for every }x_p.$$

On the other hand, a polynomial of the form

$$f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x],$$

can be decomposed as $`f(x)=\alpha _0f_{}(x)f_+(x)`$, where

(3.7)
$$f_{}(x)=\underset{\{\alpha _iv_p(\alpha _i)<0\}}{}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i},\text{ and }f_+(x)=\underset{\{\alpha _iv_p(\alpha _i)0\}}{}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}.$$

From (3.6) and (3.7) follow that

$$Z(s,f)=\alpha _0\underset{\{\alpha _iv_p(\alpha _i)<0\}}{}\alpha _i{}_{}{}^{e_i}_{p}^{s}Z(s,f_+).$$

Thus, from a computational point of view, we may assume without loss of generality that all roots of $`f(x)`$ are $`p`$adic integers.

## 4. Trees and $`p`$-adic Numbers

The tree $`U=U(p)`$ of residue classes modulo powers of a given prime number $`p`$ is defined as follows. Consider the diagram

$$\{0\}=/p^0\underset{}{\text{ }\varphi _1}\text{ }/p^1\text{ }\underset{}{\varphi _2}\text{ }/p^2\text{ }\underset{}{\varphi _3}\mathrm{}$$

where $`\varphi _l`$ the are the natural homomorphisms. The vertices of $`U`$ are the elements of $`/p^l`$, for $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and the directed edges are $`uv`$ where $`u/p^l`$ and $`\varphi _l(u)=v`$, for some $`l>0`$. Thus $`U`$ is a rooted tree with root $`\{0\}`$. Exactly one directed edge emanates from each vertex of $`U`$; except from the vertex $`\{0\}`$, from which no edge emanates. In addition, every vertex is the end point of exactly $`p`$ directed edges.

Given two vertices $`u`$, $`v`$ the notation $`u>v`$ will mean that there is a sequence of vertices and edges of the form

$$uu^{(1)}\mathrm{}u^{(m)}=v\text{.}$$

The notation $`uv`$ will mean that $`u=v`$ or $`u>v`$. The level $`l(u)`$ of a vertex $`u`$ is $`m`$ if $`u/p^m`$. The valence $`Val(u)`$ of a vertex $`u`$ is defined as the number of directed edges whose end point is $`u`$.

A subtree, or simply a tree, is defined as a nonempty subset $`T`$ of vertices of $`U`$, such that when $`uT`$ and $`u>v`$, then $`vT`$. Thus $`T`$ together with the directed edges $`uv`$, where $`u,vT`$ , is again a tree with root $`\{0\}`$.

A tree $`T`$ is named a weighted tree, if there exists a weight function $`W:T`$. The value $`W(u)`$ is called the weight of vertex $`u`$.

If $`x_p`$, and $`x_l`$ denotes its residue class modulo $`p^l`$, then every vertex of $`U`$ is of the type $`x_l`$ with $`l`$.

A stalk is defined as a tree $`K`$ having at most one vertex at each level. Thus a stalk is either finite, of the type

$$\{0\}u^{(1)}\mathrm{}u^{(l)},$$

or infinite, of the type

$$\{0\}u^{(1)}\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

Clearly a finite stalk may be written as

$$\{0\}x_1\mathrm{}x_l,$$

with $`x`$, and infinite stalks as

$$\{0\}x_1x_2\mathrm{},$$

with $`x_p`$. Thus there is a $`11`$ correspondence between infinite stalks and $`p`$adic integers.

### 4.1. Tree Attached to a Polynomial

Let

(4.1)
$$f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x]$$

be a non-constant polynomial, in one variable, of degree $`d_f`$, such that $`v_p(\alpha _i)0`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$. We associate to $`f(x)`$ and a prime number $`p`$ the integer

$$l_f=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\mathrm{max}\{v_p(\alpha _i\alpha _j)ij\text{}1i\text{}jr\}\text{,}& \text{if }r2\text{;}\\ 1\text{}& \text{if }r=1\text{.}\end{array}$$

We set

$$\alpha _i=a_{0,i}+a_{1,i\text{ }}p+\mathrm{}+a_{j,i}\text{ }p^j+\mathrm{}+a_{l_f,i}\text{ }p^{l_f}\text{ mod }p^{l_f+1}\text{}$$

$`a_{j,i}\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$, $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},l_f`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$, for the $`p`$adic expansion modulo $`p^{l_f+1}`$ of $`\alpha _i`$. We attach a weighted tree $`T(f`$, $`l_f)`$ to $`f`$ as follows:

(4.2)
$$T(f,l_f,p)=T(f,l_f)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}K(\alpha _i,l_f),$$

where $`K(\alpha _i,l_f)`$ denotes the stalk corresponding to the $`p`$adic expansion of $`\alpha _i`$ modulo $`p^{l_f+1}`$. Thus $`T(f`$, $`l_f)`$ is a rooted tree. We introduce a weight function on $`T(f`$, $`l_f),`$ by defining the weight of a vertex $`u`$ of level $`m`$ as

(4.3)
$$W(u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\{i\alpha _iu\text{ mod }p^m\}}{}e_i,& \text{if }m1\text{;}\\ 0,& \text{if }m=0\text{.}\end{array}$$

Given a vertex $`uT(f,l_f)`$, we define the stalk generated by $`u`$ to be

$$B_u=\{vT(f,l_f)uv\}.$$

We associate a weight $`W^{}(B_u)`$ to $`B_u`$ as follows:

(4.4)
$$W^{}(B_u)=\underset{vB_u}{}W(v).$$

### 4.2. Computation of Trees Attached to Polynomials

Our next step is to show that a tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ attached to a polynomial $`f(x)`$, of type (4.1), can be computed in polynomial time. There are well known programming techniques to construct and manipulate trees and forests (see e.g. \[8, Volume 1\]), for this reason, we shall focus on showing that such computations can be carry out in polynomial time, and set aside the implementation details of a particular algorithm for this task. We shall include in the computation of $`T(f,l_f)`$, the computation of the weights of the stalks generated by its vertices; because all these data will be used in the computation of the local zeta function of $`f`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The computation of a tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ attached to a polynomial $`f(x)`$, of type (4.1), from the $`p`$adic expansions modulo $`p^{l_f+1}`$ of its roots

$$\alpha _i=a_{0,i}+a_{1,i\text{ }}p+\mathrm{}+a_{l_f,i}p^{l_f}\text{ mod }p^{l_f+1}\text{ }$$

and multiplicities $`e_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$, involves $`O(l_{f\text{ }}^2d_f^3)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}(l_fd_f)\}).$$

###### Proof.

We assume that $`T(f,l_f)`$ is finite set of the form

(4.5)
$$T=\{\text{Level}_0\text{,}\mathrm{}\text{,Level}_j\text{,}\mathrm{}\text{,Level}_{l_f+1}\}\text{,}$$

where Level<sub>j</sub> represents the set of all vertices with level $`j`$. Each Level<sub>j</sub> is a set of the form

$$Level_j=\{u_{j,1},\mathrm{},u_{j,i},\mathrm{},u_{j,m_j}\},$$

and each $`u_{j,i}`$ is a weighted vertex for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},m_j`$. A weighted vertex $`u_{j,i}`$ is a set of the form

$$u_{j,i}=\{\text{ }W(u_{j,i})\text{}Val(u_{j,i}),W^{}(B_{u_{j,i}})\}\text{,}$$

where $`W(u_{j,i})`$ is the weight of $`u_{j,i}`$, $`Val(u_{j,i})`$ is its valence, and $`W^{}(B_{ui})`$ is the weight of stalk $`B_{u_{j,i}}`$. The weight of the stalk generated by $`u_{j,i}`$ can be written as

$$W^{}(B_{u_{j,i}})=\underset{vB_{u_{j,i}}}{}W(v).$$

For the computation of a vertex $`u_{j,i}`$ of level $`j`$, we proceed as follows. We put $`I=\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\},`$ and

$$M_j=\{\alpha _i\text{ mod }p^jiI\}.$$

For each $`0jl_f+1`$, we compute a partition of $`I`$ of type

(4.6)
$$I=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l_j}{}}I_{j,i},$$

such that

$$\alpha _t\text{ mod }p^j=\alpha _s\text{ mod }p^j,$$

for every $`t,sI_{j,i}`$. Each subset $`I_{j,i}`$ corresponds to a vertex $`u_{j,i}`$ of level $`j`$. This computation requires $`O(l_fr^2)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}p)`$. Indeed, the cost of computing a “yes or no” answer for the question: $`\alpha _t`$ mod $`p^j=\alpha _s`$ mod $`p^j\mathrm{?}`$ is $`O(j)`$ comparisons of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}p)`$. In the worst case, there are $`r`$ vectors $`M_j`$, and the computation of partition (4.6), for a fixed $`j`$, involves the comparison of $`\alpha _t`$ with $`\alpha _l`$ for $`l=t+1,t+2,\mathrm{},r`$. This computation requires $`O(jr^2)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}p)`$. Since $`jl_f+1`$, the computation of partition (4.6) requires $`O(l_fr^2)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}p)`$.

The weight of the vertex $`u_{j,i}`$ is given by the expression

$$W(u_{j,i})=\underset{kI_{j,i}}{}e_k.$$

Thus the computation of the weight of a vertex requires $`O(r)`$ additions of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}d_fr)`$.

For the computation of the valence of $`u_{j,i}`$, we proceed as follows. The valence of $`u_{j,i}`$ can be expressed as

$$Val(u_{j,i})=\text{Card}\{I_{j+1,l}I_{j+1,l}I_{j,i}\},$$

where $`I_{j+1,l}`$ runs through all possible sets that correspond to the vertices $`u_{j+1,l}`$, with level $`j+1`$. Thus the computation of $`Val(u_{j,m})`$ involves the computation of a “yes or no” answer for the question $`I_{j+1,l}I_{j,i}`$? The computation of a “yes or no” answer involves $`O(r)`$ comparisons of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}r)`$. Therefore the computation of $`Val(u_{j,i})`$ involves $`O(r)`$ comparisons and $`O(r)`$ additions of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}r)`$.

For the computation of the weight of $`B_{u_{j,i}}`$, we observe that $`W^{}(B_{u_{j,i}})`$ is given by the formula

$$W^{}(B_{u_{j,i}})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\underset{I_{j,i}I_{l,k}}{}W(I_{l,k}),$$

where $`W(I_{l,k})=W(v_{l,k})`$, and $`v_{l,k}`$ is the vertex corresponding to $`I_{l,k}`$. Thus the computation of $`W^{}(B_{u_{j,i}})`$ involves $`O(l_f)`$ additions of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}(l_f`$ $`d_f))`$, and $`O(l_f`$ $`r)`$ comparisons of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{log}r)`$.

From the above reasoning follows that the computation of a vertex of a tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ involves at most $`O(l_f`$ $`r^2)`$ arithmetic operations (additions and comparisons) on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p,`$ $`\mathrm{log}(`$ $`l_f`$ $`d_f)\})`$. Finally, since the number of vertices of $`T(f,l_f)`$ is at most $`O(l_f`$ $`d_f)`$, it follows that the computation of a tree of type $`T(f,l_f)`$ involves $`O(l_f^2`$ $`d_f^3)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p,`$ $`\mathrm{log}(`$ $`l_f`$ $`d_f)\})`$.

## 5. Generating Functions and Trees

In this section we attach to a weighted tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ and a prime $`p`$ a generating function $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)(p^s)`$ defined as follows.

We set

$$_{T(f,l_f)}=\{uT(f,l_f)|\begin{array}{c}W(u)=1\text{, and there no exists }vT(f,l_f)\\ \text{with }W(v)=1\text{, such that }u>v.\end{array}\},$$

and

$$L_u(p^s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(1p^1)p^{l(u)W^{}(B_u)s}}{(1p^{1W(u)s})}\text{,  if}& l(u)=1+l_f\text{, and }W(u)2\text{;}\\ & \\ p^1(pVal(u))p^{l(u)W^{}(B_u)s}\text{,  if}& 0l(u)l_f\text{, and }W(u)1\text{;}\\ & \\ \frac{(1p^1)p^{l(u)W^{}(B_u)s}}{1p^{1s}}\text{,   if}& u_{T(f,l_f)}\text{;}\\ & \\ 0\text{,   if}& W(u)=1\text{, and }u_{T(f,l_f)}\text{.}\end{array}$$

With all the above notation, we define the generating function attached to $`T(f,l_f)`$ and $`p`$ as

(5.1)
$$G(s,T(f,l_f),p)=\underset{uT(f,l_f)}{}L_u(p^s)\text{.}$$

Our next goal is to show that $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)=Z(s,f)`$. The proof of this fact requires the following preliminary result.

###### Proposition 5.1.

The generating function attached to a tree $`T(f,l_f)`$ and a prime $`p`$ satisfies

(5.2) $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1\nu (\overline{f})+\delta (\overline{f}){\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\xi S}{}}p^{1e_\xi s}G(s,T(f_\xi ,l_f1),p).`$
###### Proof.

Let $`A_f=\{uT(f,l_f)l(u)=1`$, $`W(u)=1\},`$ and $`B_f=\{uT(f,l_f)l(u)=1`$, $`W(u)2\}`$. We have the following partition for $`T(f,l_f):`$

(5.3)
$$T(f,l_f)=\{0\}A_f\left(\underset{uB_f}{}T_u\right)\text{,}$$

with

$$T_u=\{vT(f,l_f)vu\}.$$

Each $`T_u`$ is a rooted tree with root $`\{u\}`$. From partition (5.3) and the definition of $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$, it follows that

(5.4) $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$ $`=`$ $`p^1\left(pVal(\{0\})\right)+\text{Card}\{A_f\}{\displaystyle \frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{uB_f}{}}G(s,T_u),`$
with $`G(s,T_u)=\underset{vT_u}{}L_v(p^s)`$.

Since there exists a bijective correspondence between the roots of $`\overline{f}(x)0`$ mod $`p`$ and the vertices of $`T(f,l_f)`$ with level $`1`$,

(5.5)
$$pVal(\{0\})=\nu (\overline{f})\text{, and  Card}\{A_f\}=\delta (\overline{f}).$$

Now, if the vertex $`u`$ corresponds to the root $`\overline{f}(\xi )0`$ mod $`p`$, then

(5.6)
$$T_u=\left(\underset{\{\alpha _i\alpha _i\xi \text{ mod }p\}}{}K(\alpha _i,l_f)\right)\{0\}.$$

On the other hand, we have that

(5.7)
$$T(f_\xi ,l_f1)=\underset{\{\alpha _i\alpha _i\xi \text{ mod }p\}}{}K(\frac{\alpha _{i\xi }}{p},l_f1).$$

Now we remark that the map $`\alpha _i\frac{\alpha _i\xi }{p}`$ induces a isomorphism between the trees $`T_u`$ and $`T(f_\xi ,l_f1)`$, that preserves the weights of the vertices; and thus we may suppose that $`T_u`$ $`=`$ $`T(f_\xi ,l_f1)`$. The level function $`l_T`$ of $`T(f_\xi ,l_f1)`$ is related to the level function $`l_{T_u}`$ of $`T_u`$ by means of the equality $`l_T`$ $`l_{T_u}=1`$. In addition, $`B_f=`$ $`S`$, where $`S`$ is the subset of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}_p`$ whose reduction modulo $`pZ_p`$ is equal to the set of roots of $`\overline{f}(\xi )=0`$ with multiplicity greater or equal than two. Therefore, it holds that

(5.8)
$$G(s,T_u)=p^{1e_\xi s}G(s,T(f_\xi ,l_f1),p).$$

The result follows from (5.4) by the identities (5.5) and (5.8).

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`p`$ be a fixed prime number and $`v_p`$ the corresponding $`p`$adic valuation, and

$$f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x],$$

a polynomial such that $`v_p(\alpha _i)0`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Then

$$Z(s,f)=G(s,T(f,l_f),p).$$

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`l_f`$.

Case $`l_f=1`$

If $`r=1`$ the proof follows immediately, thus we may assume that $`r2`$. Since $`l_f=1`$, it holds that $`v_p(\alpha _i\alpha _j)=0`$, for every $`i`$, $`j`$, satisfying $`ij`$, and thus $`\overline{\alpha _i}\overline{\alpha _j}`$, if $`ij`$. By applying SPF, we have that

(5.9)
$$Z(s,f)=p^1\nu (\overline{f})+\delta (\overline{f})\frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}+\underset{\xi S}{}p^{1e_\xi s}\frac{(1p^1)}{(1p^{1e_\xi s})},$$

where each $`e_\xi =e_j2`$, for some $`j`$, and $`\alpha _j=\xi +p\beta _j`$.

On the other hand, $`T(f,l_f)`$ is a rooted tree with $`r`$ vertices $`v_j`$, satisfying $`l(v_j)=1`$, and $`W(v_j)=e_j`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$. These observations allow one to deduce that $`Z(s,f)=G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$.

By induction hypothesis, we may assume that $`Z(s,f)=G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$, for every polynomial $`f`$ satisfying both the hypothesis of the lemma, and the condition $`1l_fk`$, $`k`$.

Case $`l_f=k+1`$, $`k`$

Let $`f(x)`$ be a polynomial satisfying the lemma’s hypothesis, and $`l_f=k+1`$, $`k1`$. By applying SPF, we obtain that

(5.10)
$$Z(s,f)=p^1\nu (\overline{f})+\delta (\overline{f})\frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}+\underset{\xi S}{}p^{1e_\xi s}f_\xi (x)_p^s𝑑x.$$

Now, since $`l_{f_\xi }=l_f1`$, for every $`\xi S`$, it follows from the induction hypothesis applied to each $`f_\xi (x)`$ in (5.10), that

(5.11)
$$Z(s,f)=p^1\nu (\overline{f})+\delta (\overline{f})\frac{(1p^1)p^{1s}}{(1p^{1s})}+\underset{\xi S}{}p^{1e_\xi s}G(s,T(f_\xi ,l_f1),\text{ }p).$$

Finally, from identity (5.2), and (5.11), we conclude that

(5.12)
$$Z(s,f)=G(s,T(f,l_f),p).$$

The following proposition gives a complexity estimate for the computation of $`G(s,T(f,l_f),p)`$.

###### Proposition 5.2.

The computation of the generating function

$$G(s,T(f,l_f),p)$$

from $`T(f,l_f)`$, involves $`O(l_f`$ $`d_f)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p,`$ $`\mathrm{log}(`$ $`l_f`$ $`d_f)\})`$.

###### Proof.

This is a consequence of proposition 4.1, and the definition of generating function.

## 6. Computation of $`p`$-adic Expansions

In this section we estimate the complexity of the steps $`2`$ and $`3`$ in the algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let

$$B=\underset{\begin{array}{c}1i,\text{ }jr\\ ij\end{array}}{\mathrm{max}}\{c_{j,i}\text{,}d_{j,i}\text{ }\text{ }\alpha _j\alpha _i=\frac{c_{j,i}}{d_{j,i}}\text{}c_{j,i}\text{}d_{j,i}\{0\}\}.$$

The computation of the integer $`l_f`$ involves $`O(d_f^2\frac{\mathrm{log}B}{\mathrm{log}p})`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}B,\mathrm{log}p\})`$.

###### Proof.

First, we observe that for $`c\{0\}`$, the computation of $`v_p(c)`$ involves $`O(\frac{\mathrm{log}c}{\mathrm{log}p})`$ divisions of integers of binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}c,`$ $`\mathrm{log}p\})`$. Thus the computation of $`v_p(\frac{c}{d})=v_p(c)v_p(d),`$ involves $`O(\frac{\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}c,\text{ }\mathrm{log}d\}}{\mathrm{log}p})`$ divisions and subtractions of integers with binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}c,\mathrm{log}d,\mathrm{log}p\}).$$

From these observations follow that the computation of $`v_p(\alpha _j\alpha _i)`$, $`ij`$, $`1i`$, $`jr`$, involves $`O(r^2\frac{\mathrm{log}B}{\mathrm{log}p})`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}B,\mathrm{log}p\})`$. Finally, the computation of the maximum of the $`v_p(\alpha _j\alpha _i)`$, $`ij`$, $`1i`$, $`jr`$, involves $`O(\mathrm{log}r)`$ comparisons of integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}B,\mathrm{log}p\})`$. Therefore the computation of the integer $`l_f`$ involves at most $`O(d_f^2\frac{\mathrm{log}B}{\mathrm{log}p})`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}B,\mathrm{log}p\})`$.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`p`$ be a fixed prime and $`\gamma =\frac{c}{b}`$, with $`c,b\{0\}`$, and $`v_p(\gamma )0`$. The $`p`$adic expansion

$$\gamma =a_0+a_{1\text{ }}p+\mathrm{}+a_jp^j+\mathrm{}+a_mp^m,$$

modulo $`p^{m+1}`$ involves $`O(m+\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{max}\{b,`$ $`p\}))`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}c,\mathrm{log}b,\mathrm{log}p\})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`y\{1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$ be an integer such that $`yb1`$ mod $`p`$. This integer can be computed by means of the Euclidean algorithm in $`O(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{max}\{b,p\}))`$ arithmetic operations involving integers of binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}b,\mathrm{log}p\})`$ (cf. \[8, Volume 2, section 4.5.2\]).

We set $`\gamma =\gamma _0=\frac{c}{b}`$, $`c_0=c`$, and define $`a_0yc`$ mod $`p`$. With this notation, the $`p`$adic digits $`a_i,i=1`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, $`m`$, can be computed recursively as follows:

$$\gamma _i=\frac{\frac{\left(c_{i1}a_{i1}b\right)}{p}}{b}=\frac{c_i}{b},$$

$$a_i=yc_i\text{ mod }p.$$

Thus the computation of the $`p`$adic expansion of $`\gamma `$ needs $`O(m+\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{max}\{b,p\}))`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}c,\text{ }\mathrm{log}b,\text{ }\mathrm{log}p\}).$$

###### Corollary 6.1.

Let $`p`$ be a fixed prime number and $`v_p`$ the corresponding $`p`$adic valuation, and

$$f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x],$$

a non-constant polynomial such that $`v_p(\alpha _i)0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. The computation of the $`p`$adic expansions modulo $`p^{l_f+1}`$ of the roots $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$, of $`f(x)`$ involves $`O(d_f`$ $`l_f+d_f`$ $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{max}\{B,p\}))`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}B,\mathrm{log}p\})`$.

###### Proof.

The corollary follows directly from the two previous propositions.

## 7. Computing local zeta functions of polynomials with splitting $``$

In this section we prove the correctness of the algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$ and estimate its complexity.

###### Theorem 7.1.

The algorithm Compute\_$`Z(s,f)`$ outputs the meromorphic continuation of the Igusa local zeta function $`Z(s,f)`$ of a polynomial $`f(x)[x]`$, in one variable, with splitting field $``$. The number of arithmetic operations needed by the algorithm is

$$O(d_f^6+d_f^9\mathrm{log}(f)+l_f^2d_f^3+d_f^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{max}\{B,p\}\right)),$$

and the integers on which these operations are performed have a binary length

$$O\left(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p\text{}\mathrm{log}l_fd_f\text{}\mathrm{log}B\text{}d_f^3+d_f^2\mathrm{log}(f)\}\right)\text{.}$$

###### Proof.

By remark (3.1), we may assume without loss of generality that

$$f(x)=\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x\alpha _i)^{e_i}[x],$$

with $`v_p(\alpha _i)0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. The correctness of the algorithm follows from lemma 5.1. The complexity estimates are obtained as follows: the number of arithmetic operations needed in the steps 2 (cf. proposition 6.1), 3 (cf. corollary 6.1), 4 (cf. proposition 4.1), 5 (proposition 5.2), and 6 is at most

$$O\left(l_f^2d_f^3+d_f^2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{max}\{B,p\}\right)\right)\text{;}$$

and these operations are performed on integers whose binary length is at most

$$O\left(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p\text{}\mathrm{log}l_fd_f\text{,}\mathrm{log}B\}\right).$$

The estimates for the whole algorithm follow from the above estimates and those of the factoring algorithm by A. K. Lenstra, H. Lenstra and L. Lovász (see theorem 3.6 of ).

## 8. Stream Ciphers and Poincaré series

There is a natural connection between Poincaré series and stream ciphers. In order to explain this relation, we recall some basic facts about stream ciphers . Let $`𝔽_{p^n}`$ be a finite field with $`p^n`$ elements, with $`p`$ a prime number. For any integer $`r>0`$ and $`r`$ fixed elements $`q_i𝔽_{p^n}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$ (called taps), a Linear Feedback Shift Register, abbreviated LFSR, of length $`r`$ consists of $`r`$ cells with initial contents $`\{a_i𝔽_{p^n}i=1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. For any $`nr`$, if the current state is $`(a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_{nr})`$, then $`a_n`$ is determined by the linear recurrence relation

$$a_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_{ni}q_i.$$

The device outputs the rightmost element $`a_{nr}`$, shifts all the cells one unit right, and feeds $`a_n`$ back to the leftmost cell.

Any configuration of the $`r`$ cells forms a state of the LSFR. If $`q_r0`$, the following polynomial $`q(x)𝔽_{p^n}[x]`$ of degree $`r`$ appears in the analysis of LFSRs:

$$q(x)=q_0+q_1x+\mathrm{}.+q_rx^r\text{ with }q_0=1\text{.}$$

This polynomial is called the connection polynomial. An infinite sequence $`A=\{a_i𝔽_{p^n}i\}`$ has period $`T`$ if for any $`i0`$, $`a_{i+T}=a_i`$. Such a sequence is called periodic. If this is only true for $`i`$ greater than some index $`i_0`$, then the sequence is called eventually periodic. The following facts about an LFSR of length $`r`$ are well-known .

1. There are only finitely many possible states, and the state with all the cells zero will produce a $`0`$sequence. The output sequence is eventually periodic and the maximal period is $`p^{nr}1`$.
2. The Poincaré series $`g(x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ix^i`$ associated with the output sequence is called the generating function of the sequence. It is a rational function over $`𝔽_{p^n}`$ of the form $`g(x)=\frac{L(x)}{R(x)}`$, with $`L(x)`$, $`R(X)`$ $`𝔽_{p^n}[x]`$, $`deg(R(X))<r`$. The output sequence is strictly periodic if and only if $`deg(L(X))<deg(R(X))`$.
3. There is a one-to-one correspondence between LFSRs of length $`r`$ with $`q_r0`$ and rational functions $`\frac{L(x)}{R(x)}`$ with $`deg(R(X))=r`$ and $`deg(L(X))<r`$.

We set $`𝔽_{p^n}(x)`$ for the field of rational functions over $`𝔽_{p^n}`$, and $`N^{\mathrm{}}(𝔽_{p^n})`$ for the set of sequences of the form $`\{b_0,\mathrm{},b_u\}`$, $`b_i𝔽_{p^n}`$, $`0iu`$, $`u`$. From the above considerations, it is possible to identify an LFSR with a function $`F_u`$, $`u`$, defined as follows:

(8.1)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}F_u:& 𝔽_{p^n}(x)& & N^{\mathrm{}}(𝔽_{p^n})\\ & \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ix^i& & \{a_0,\mathrm{},a_u\}.\end{array}$$

We set

$$=\{H(t,f)f(x)[x]\text{, in  one variable, with splitting field }\},$$

and $`N^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\left(\right)`$ for the set of finite sequences of integers. Also, for each $`u`$, and a prime number $`p`$, we define

(8.2)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}F_{u,p}:& & & ^{\mathrm{}}\left(\right)\\ & H(t,f)& & \{N_0(f,p),N_1(f,p),\mathrm{},N_u(f,p)\}\text{.}\end{array}$$

Thus the mappings $`F_{u,p}`$ can be seen as LFSRs, or stream ciphers, over $``$. If we replace each $`N_u(f,p)`$ by its binary representation, then the $`F_{u,p}`$ are LFSRs. For practical purposes it is necessary that $`F_{u,p}`$ can be computed efficiently, i.e., in polynomial time. With the above notation our second result is the following.

###### Theorem 8.1.

For every $`H(t,f)`$ $``$ $``$, the computation of $`F_{u,p}(H(t,f))`$ involves $`O(u^2d_fl_f)`$ arithmetic operations, and the integers on which these operations are performed have binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{\text{ }(l_f+u)\mathrm{log}p,\text{ }\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\}).$$

The proof of this theorem will be given at the end of this section. This proof requires some preliminary results. We set $`t=q^s`$, and

$$Z(s,f)=Z(t,f)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_m(f,p)t^m,$$

with $`c_m(f,p)=vol(\{x_pv_p(f(x))=m\})`$.

###### Proposition 8.1.

Let $`f(x)[x]`$ be a polynomial in one variable and $`p`$ a prime number. The following formula holds for $`N_n(f,p)`$:

(8.3)
$$N_n(f,p)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1\text{,}& \text{if}& n=0\text{;}\\ p^n\left(1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{j1}(f,p)\right)\text{,}& \text{if}& n1\text{.}\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The result follows by comparing the coefficient of $`t^n`$ of the series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{N_n(f,p)}{p^n}t^n\text{ and }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_nt^n\text{,}$$

in the following equality :

$$H(t,f)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{N_n(f,p)}{p^n}t^n=\frac{1t\left(\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_m(f,p)t^m\right)}{1t}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_nt^n.$$

We associate to each $`uT(f,l_f)`$, and $`j`$, a rational integer $`a_j(u)`$ defined as follows:

(8.4)
$$a_j(u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(p1)}{p^{l(u)+1+y(u)}}\text{,  if}& \begin{array}{c}l(u)=1+l_f\text{}W(u)2\text{}j=W^{}(B_u)+y(u)W(u)\text{,}\\ \text{for some }y(u)\text{;}\end{array}\\ & \\ \frac{(pVal(u))}{p^{l(u)+1}}\text{,  if}& 0l(u)l_f\text{}W(u)1\text{}j=W^{}(B_u)\text{;}\\ & \\ \frac{(p1)}{p^{l(u)+1+y(u)}}\text{,  if}& \begin{array}{c}u_{T(f,l_f)},j=W^{}(B_u)+y(u)\text{,}\\ \text{for some }y(u)\text{;}\end{array}\\ & \\ 0\text{,            if}& W(u)=1\text{, and }u_{T(f,l_f)}\text{;}\\ & \\ 0\text{}& \text{in other cases.}\end{array}$$

###### Proposition 8.2.

Let $`f(x)[x]`$ be a polynomial in one variable, with splitting field $``$, and $`p`$ a prime number. The following formula holds:

(8.5)
$$c_j(f,p)=\underset{uT(f,l_f)}{}a_j(u),\text{ }j0.$$

###### Proof.

As a consequence of lemma (5.1), we have the following identity:

(8.6)
$$Z(t,f)=\underset{uT(f,l_f)}{}L_u(t),$$

with

(8.7)
$$L_u(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(p1)t^{W^{}(B_u)}}{p^{l(u)+1}(1p^1t^{\text{ }W(u)})}\text{,  if}& l(u)=1+l_f\text{}W(u)2\text{;}\\ & \\ \frac{(pVal(u))}{p^{l(u)+1}}t^{W^{}(B_u)}\text{,  if}& 0l(u)l_f\text{}W(u)1\text{;}\\ & \\ \frac{(p1)t^{W^{}(B_u)}}{p^{l(u)+1}(1p^1t)}\text{,  if}& u_{T(f,l_f)}\text{;}\\ & \\ 0\text{,      if}& W(u)=1\text{, and }u_{T(f,l_f)}.\end{array}$$

The result follows by comparing the coefficient of $`t^j`$ in the series $`Z(t,f)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_m(f,p)t^m`$, and $`Z(t,f)=\underset{uT(f,l_f)}{}L_u(t)`$.

###### Proposition 8.3.

Let $`f(x)[x]`$ be a polynomial in one variable, with splitting field $``$, and $`p`$ a prime number.

1. The computation of $`N_n(f,p)`$, $`n1`$, from the $`c_{j1}(f,p)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, involves $`O(n)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(n\mathrm{log}p)`$.
2. The computation of $`c_j(f,p)`$, $`j0`$, from $`Z(t,f)`$, involves $`O(d_fl_f)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{(j+l_f)\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\}).$$
3. The computation of any $`N_n(f,p)`$, $`n1`$, from $`Z(t,f)`$, involves $`O(nd_fl_f)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length

$$O(\mathrm{max}\{(n+l_f)\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\}).$$

###### Proof.

(1) By (8.4) and (8.5), $`c_j(f,p)=\frac{v_j}{p^{m_j}}`$, $`v_j,m_j`$. In addition,

$$c_{j1}(f,p)=p^{j+1}N_{j1}(f,p)p^jN_j(f,p).$$

Thus $`p^nc_{j1}(f,p)`$, for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`m_j`$ $`n,`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. From (8.3), it follows that

(8.8)
$$N_n(f,p)=p^n\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p^nc_{j1}(f,p),\text{ }n1.$$

The above formula implies that the computation of $`N_n(f,p)`$, $`n1`$, from the $`c_{j1}(f,p)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, involves $`O(n)`$ arithmetic operations on integers with binary length $`O(n\mathrm{log}p)`$.

(2) The computation of $`a_j(u)`$ from $`L_u(t)`$ (i.e. from $`Z(t,f)`$, cf. (8.6)) involves $`O(1)`$ arithmetic operations (cf. (8.4), (8.7)) on integers of binary length $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p`$, $`\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\})`$. Indeed, since the numbers $`l(u)`$, $`W^{}(B_u)`$, $`W(u)`$, $`uT(f,l_f)`$ are involved in this computation, we know by proposition 4.1 that their binary length is bounded by $`O(\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{log}p`$, $`\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\})`$.

The cost of computing $`c_j(f,p)`$ from $`L_u(t)`$, $`uT(f,l_f)`$ (i.e. from $`Z(t,f)`$) is bounded by the number of vertices of $`T(f,l_f)`$ multiplied by an upper bound for the cost of computing $`a_j(u)`$ from $`L_u(t)`$, for any $`j`$, and $`u`$ (cf. (8.5)). Therefore, from the previous discussion the cost of computing $`c_j(f,p)`$ from $`Z(t,f)`$ is bounded by $`O(d_f`$ $`l_f)`$ arithmetic operations. These arithmetic operations are performed on integers of binary length bounded by $`O(\mathrm{max}\{(j+l_f)\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}p,`$ $`\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\}).`$ Indeed, the binary lengths of the numerator and the denominator of $`a_j(u)+a_j(u^{^{}})`$, $`u`$, $`u^{^{}}T(f,l_f)`$ are bounded by $`(l_f+1+j)\mathrm{log}p`$ (cf. (8.4)). Thus, the mentioned arithmetic operations for calculating $`c_j(f,p)`$ from $`L_u(t)`$ are performed on integers whose binary length is bounded by $`O(\mathrm{max}\{(j+l_f)\mathrm{log}p,\mathrm{log}p,`$ $`\mathrm{log}(d_fl_f)\})`$.

(3) The third part follows the first and second parts by (8.8).

### 8.1. Proof of Theorem 8.1

The theorem follows from proposition 8.3 (3).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that (non-orthogonal) pure states cannot be cloned  i.e. if $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ is a set of pure states containing at least one non-orthogonal pair then no physical operation can achieve the transformation $`|\psi _i|\psi _i|\psi _i`$. Evidently two copies of a quantum state contain strictly more “information” about the state than is available from just one copy so in view of the impossibility of cloning one may ask: what additional information is needed to supplement one copy $`|\psi _i`$ in order to be able to produce two copies $`|\psi _i|\psi _i`$? For classical information, no supplementary information at all is needed and one might guess that as the set $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ becomes “more classical” the necessary supplementary information should decrease in some suitable way. However we prove below that this is not the case: we show (for mutually non-orthogonal states) that the supplementary information must always be as large as it can possibly be i.e. the second copy $`|\psi _i`$ can always be generated from the supplementary information alone, independently of the first (given) copy. Thus in effect, cloning of $`|\psi _i`$ is possible only if the second copy is fully provided as an additional input.

Using our techniques we will also give simple proof of the Pati-Braunstein no-deleting principle  (for the mutually non-orthogonal states) and discuss its relation to cloning.

## 2 No cloning

We now give a precise formulation of our main result. By a physical operation we will mean a trace preserving completely positive map. Note that this definition excludes the collapse of wavefunction in a quantum measurement, as a valid physical process. (This will be relevant to our later discussion of the no-deleting principle.)

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ be any finite set of pure states containing no orthogonal pairs of states. Let $`\{\rho _i\}`$ be any other set of (generally mixed) states indexed by the same labels. Then there is a physical operation

$$|\psi _i\rho _i|\psi _i|\psi _i$$

if and only if there is a physical operation

$$\rho _i|\psi _i$$

i.e. the full information of the clone must already be provided in the ancilla state $`\rho _i`$ alone.

Remark. If the set $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ contains some orthogonal pairs then the unassisted clonability of orthogonal states spoils the simplicity of the statement of theorem 1. As an example consider

$$\begin{array}{cc}|\psi _1=|0\hfill & |\alpha _1=|a\hfill \\ |\psi _2=|1\hfill & |\alpha _2=|a\hfill \\ |\psi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)\hfill & |\alpha _3=|b\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`|a`$ and $`|b`$ are orthogonal. Then clearly $`|\psi _i|\alpha _i|\psi _i|\psi _i`$ is possible (as $`\{|\psi _i|\alpha _i\}`$ is an orthonormal set) but $`|\alpha _i|\psi _i`$ is not possible (as $`|\alpha _1=|\alpha _2`$ but $`|\psi _1|\psi _2`$). Indeed the $`|\alpha _i`$ states here provide reliable distinguishability of $`i`$ values in the case that this is not already provided by the $`|\psi _i`$’s themselves. $`QED`$.

To prove the theorem we will use the following lemma which is proved as lemma 1 of .

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\{|\alpha _i\}`$ and $`\{|\beta _i\}`$ be two sets of pure states (indexed by the same labels). Then the two sets have equal matrices of inner products (i.e. $`\alpha _i|\alpha _j=\beta _i|\beta _j`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$) if and only if the two sets are unitarily equivalent (i.e. there exists a unitary operation $`U`$ on the direct sum of the state spaces of the two sets with $`U|\alpha _i=|\beta _i`$ for all $`i`$).

Proof of theorem 1 Suppose that there is a physical operation $`\rho _i|\psi _i`$. Then clearly $`|\psi _i\rho _i|\psi _i|\psi _i`$ is allowed.

Conversely suppose that there is a physical operation

$$|\psi _i\rho _i|\psi _i|\psi _i.$$
(1)
Consider first the case that $`\rho _i`$ are pure states, $`|\alpha _i`$ say. The physical operation eq. (1) may be expressed as a unitary operation if we include an environment space, initially in a fixed state denoted $`|A`$. For clarity we include an extra register, initially in a fixed state $`|0`$, that is to receive the clone of $`|\psi _i`$. Then eq. (1) may be written as a unitary transformation

$$|\psi _i|0|\alpha _i|A|\psi _i|\psi _i|C_i$$

where $`|C_i`$ (generally depending on $`i`$) is the output state of the two registers that initially contained $`|\alpha _i|A`$. Hence by unitarity, the two sets $`\{|\psi _i|\alpha _i\}`$ and $`\{|\psi _i|\psi _i|C_i\}`$ have equal matrices of inner products and then, so do the sets $`\{|\alpha _i\}`$ and $`\{|\psi _i|C_i\}`$ (by a simple cancellation of $`\psi _i|\psi _j`$ from the two initial matrices). Thus by lemma 1 these two sets are unitarily equivalent so $`|\psi _i`$ can be generated from $`|\alpha _i`$ alone (by applying the unitary equivalence and discarding the $`|C_i`$ register).

If $`\rho _i`$ are mixed we express them as probabilistic mixtures of pure states

$$\rho _i=\underset{k}{}p_k^{(i)}|\alpha _k^{(i)}\alpha _k^{(i)}|.$$

Then a physical operation achieves

$$|\psi _i\rho _i|\psi _i|\psi _i\text{for all }i$$

iff it achieves

$$|\psi _i|\alpha _k^{(i)}|\psi _i|\psi _i\text{for all }i\text{ and }k\text{.}$$
(2)
By the pure state analysis above, a physical operation effecting eq. (2) exists iff there is a physical operation effecting

$$|\alpha _k^{(i)}|\psi _i\text{for all }i\text{ and }k$$

and then we get $`\rho _i|\psi _i`$ too. $`QED`$.

In the particular case of cloning assisted by classical information (i.e. the states $`\rho _i`$ are required to be mutually commuting) we deduce that this supplementary data must contain the full identity of the states as classical information (rather than just quantum information). Indeed if the $`\rho _i`$ are classical then they can be copied any number of times so if we can make one clone of $`|\psi _i`$ from $`\rho _i`$, we can make arbitrarily many clones and hence determine the the identity of $`|\psi _i`$ i.e. the classical information of the label $`i`$ must be contained in the supplementary classical information.

## 3 No deleting

Our techniques may also be used to give a simple proof of the Pati-Braunstein no-deleting principle  for sets $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ that contain no orthogonal pairs. The issue here is the following. Suppose we have two copies $`|\psi _i|\psi _i`$ of a state and we wish to delete one copy by a physical operation:

$$|\psi _i|\psi _i|\psi _i|0$$
(3)
(where $`|0`$ is any fixed state of the second register). As before, any such physical operation may be expressed as a unitary operation if we include an environment space, initially in a fixed state $`|A`$ say. Then eq. (3) is equivalent to the unitary transformation

$$|\psi _i|\psi _i|A|\psi _i|0|A_i$$
(4)
where the final state $`|A_i`$ of the environment may depend on $`|\psi _i`$ in general. One way of achieving this is to simply swap (a constant) part of the environment into the second register but then the second copy of $`|\psi _i`$ remains in existence (albeit in the environment now). The no-deleting principle states that the second copy of $`|\psi _i`$ can never be “deleted” in the sense that $`|\psi _i`$ can always be resurrected from $`|A_i`$. Note however, that if wavefunction collapse is also allowed as a valid physical process then deletion is possible. (We perform a complete measurement on $`|\psi _i`$ and rotate the seen post-measurement state to $`|0`$ by a unitary transformation that depends on the measurement outcome.)

To see the no-deleting principle with our methods, note that the unitarity of eq. (4) implies that the sets $`\{|\psi _i|\psi _i|A\}`$ and $`\{|\psi _i|0|A_i\}`$ have equal matrices of inner products and then as before, so do the sets $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ and $`\{|A_i\}`$. Thus lemma 1 states that these sets are unitarily equivalent, which is just the no-deleting principle.

## 4 Further remarks

Deleting and cloning have a common feature: in cloning we saw that the existence of the first copy $`|\psi _i`$ provided no assistance in constructing the second copy from the supplementary information. Similarly for deletion, the existence of the first copy provides no assistance in deleting the second copy – in effect the only way to delete the second copy is to transform it out into the environment (i.e. $`|0|A_i`$ in eq. (4) is a unitary transform of $`|\psi _i|A`$ alone) and this again makes no use of the first copy. Considering no-cloning and no-deleting together (and excluding wavefunction collapse as a valid physical process) we see that quantum information (of non-orthogonal states) has a quality of “permanence”: creation of copies can only be achieved by importing the information from some other part of the world where it had already existed; destruction (deletion of a copy) can only be achieved by exporting the information out to some other part of the world where it must continue to exist. This property is different from the preservation of information by any reversible dynamics. For example the classical reversible C-NOT operation can imprint copies of a bit $`b`$ into a standard state via $`|b|0|b|b`$ and also delete copies via $`|b|b|b|0`$ but in both cases the first copy is used in an essential way in the process and the information content of one copy is the same as that of two copies. In contrast, in the quantum (non-orthogonal) case, copying and deleting can only occur independently of the first copy and then reversibility of dynamics implies that the information of the second copy must have already separately existed in the environment (for cloning) or continue to exist separately in the environment (for deletion). But in any reasonable intuitive sense, $`|\psi _i|\psi _i`$ does not have double the information content of $`|\psi _i`$ and one might interpret this as an overlap of information content of the two copies. Then curiously, this common part cannot be taken from a single copy and merely extended, to give the second copy.

Acknowledgements

RJ is supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.


text:
# Nonmesonic Weak Decay of Light Hypernuclei with Coherent Σ Mixing

## 1 Introduction

Recent progress in experimental studies of hypernuclei has opened a new era of hypernuclear physics that challenges high precision understanding of hypernuclear structures and interactions. Weak decays of hyperons especially provide us with rich phenomena in which nuclear many-body dynamics and nonperturbative QCD effects on hadronic weak interaction are important.

Nonmesonic weak decay of hypernucleus is unique as a new type of weak interaction process, which involves only baryons. In weak decays of heavy hypernuclei, pion emissions via $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{},n\pi ^0`$ are hindered due to the Pauli blocking on the final state nucleon. Instead, the decay is mainly induced by a two-body transition, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$, and does not emit pions. This nonmesonic weak baryon-baryon interaction is analogous to the parity violating part of the nuclear force $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ sector.

The mechanism of nonmesonic decay of hypernuclei is a long standing problem due to some disagreements between theory and experiment. One of them is the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio, i.e., the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }nnn)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }ppn)`$ transitions. Another, to the validity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. Many studies have been done. The one-pion-exchange (OPE) is the simplest to describe the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition. It has a similar structure as the OPE in nuclear force and in both of them the tensor transition is strong. As it enhances $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio is suppressed. Typical prediction for OPE is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}0.1`$, while most experimental data indicate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}1`$ or larger .

In the nonmesonic decay, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`N`$ mass difference is reflected in a high momentum transfer between the baryons, and therefore, short range interaction effects must be important. The lifetime measurements of heavy hypernuclei show saturation at large $`A`$ and therefore suggest importance of short range interactions .

An attempt was made in refs.  by considering the effect of the polarization of the pion propagator, which seems to enhance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ slightly. The $`\rho `$ meson contribution was calculated in refs. , but it could not reproduce the experimental data. The two-pion exchange and the effective $`\sigma `$ meson exchanges  may play an important role because it increases the central attraction which enhances the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio through the enhancement of the $`J=0`$ channels. The pseudoscalar and vector mesons ($`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, and $`K^{}`$) are considered in . The contribution of each meson comes out large, especially for kaon exchange, and significant cancellations between the different contributions are found . The final result is 4-6 times larger than the OPE one .

Apart from the meson exchange model, several authors pointed out the importance of quark degrees of freedom in baryons . Recently we proposed to treat the short range part using the valence quark picture of the baryon and the effective four quark weak hamiltonian. We found that the weak quark transition, called the direct quark (DQ) process, gives significantly large contribution and shows qualitatively different features from the meson exchange mechanism, especially in its isospin structure . In this process the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ contribution is naturally involved, which is found to be important in the $`J=0`$ decay channels. We think that DQ is a key process to solve the puzzle of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio and to reveal the mechanisms of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule for the weak $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ decay.

In a previous paper , we proposed a quark-meson hybrid model, which includes the DQ transition potential supplemented by the long-range part that comes from one-pion (OPE) and one-kaon (OKE) exchanges. It was shown that the model predicts fairly large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ for the decay of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in nuclear matter. In this report, we apply this model to the weak decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{H}`$, and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$. We especially concentrate on the effect of virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing in $`A=4`$ system.

In Sect.2, we discuss the basic ingredients of the calculation, and the weak transition potential is explained in Sect.3. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing contributions are considered in Sect.4. We show our results in Sect.5, and give the conclusions in Sect.6.

## 2 Light hypernuclei

Light hypernuclei have advantages in order to extract pure information of the elementary process, as the emitted nucleons are less distorted than in medium and heavy hypernuclei, as $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, where final state deformations seem to be significant according to the recent data from KEK . Observables of the weak decay of light hypernuclei give us a clue to clear up some puzzles concerning the nonmesonic decay, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance. Block and Dalitz  performed an analysis based on the lifetime data of light hypernuclei, which were updated by some other authors . They tried to confirm the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance in medium, but they were unsuccessful so far due to large uncertainties in the data. Another advantage of the light hypernuclei is that the decay observables may give us evidence of virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ excitation in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. This is the main interest of this paper.

For s-shell hypernuclei, the initial $`YN`$ system can be assumed to be in the relative s-wave state, and we consider the $`YNNN`$ transition with the six $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$ combinations listed in Table 1. Note that $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ may be mixed with $`{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$, in which the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p`$ pair induces a new decay channel with the $`I_z^f=+1`$ final states, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+ppp`$. Thus in Table 1, we have extra amplitudes $`a_{pp}`$,$`b_{pp}`$, and $`f_{pp}`$, which are absent in the previous approaches. As the two proton final state does not appear without the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ state, it should give a good signature of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He.

The main observables are the decay rates. The total decay rates are the sum of the proton induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ and the neutron induced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$ decay rates. They are given by summing up the squared amplitudes of the relevant channels in Table 1. The decay rates from $`J=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J=0}`$, and $`J=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J=1}`$, channels are often useful, though they are not directly measurable. The ratio of the parity violating, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PV}`$, and the parity conserving, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PC}`$, decay rates, $`PV/PC`$, is also an interesting quantity. Among the six channels given in Table 1, $`a`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ are PC, while $`b`$, $`e`$, and $`f`$ are $`PV`$. Although this ratio is not directly observable, the asymmetry of the proton emitted from the spin polarized hypernucleus is sensitive to $`PV/PC`$. The asymmetry parameter is obtained by

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{2(\sqrt{3}[ae][bc]+\sqrt{2}[bd]+\sqrt{6}[cf]+\sqrt{3}[df])}{|a|^2+|b|^2+3\left(|c|^2+|d|^2+|e|^2+|f|^2\right)}}`$ (1)
where we define $`[ae]\mathrm{Re}(a_{pn}^{}e_{pn})`$, etc. Note that there appear interference terms between the $`J=0`$ and $`J=1`$ amplitudes, such as $`[ae]`$ and $`[bc]`$, in eq.(1). The previous calculations often neglected these interference terms, but they are important because their magnitudes are similar to the other terms.

The wave functions of the s-shell hypernuclei are rather simple. We assume that the nucleons reside in the lowest energy state of the harmonic oscillator shell model, i.e., given by $`(0s)^n`$ configuration. The size parameter is chosen so as to reproduce the size of the nucleus without $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Recent theoretical and experimental studies suggest that the size of the nucleus shrinks due to the intruded $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ , but here we take a conservative approach. Calling the $`(0s)^n`$ nucleons as the core, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-core relative motion is described by the solution of the Schrödinger equation with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-core potential obtained by the convolution of the realistic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ interaction.

It was shown that the short-range repulsion between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$ results in a repulsion at the center of the core and thus the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is pushed out from the core region. Such a wave function was shown to explain the mesonic decay rates of the light hypernuclei, which are sensitive to the overlap of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$ wave functions . When we consider the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing, we assume that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ single particle wave function is given by a Gaussian, whose $`b_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ parameter is adjusted according to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass,

$`b_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }+M_N}{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}}b_N`$ (2)
Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ resides more in the central region than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and its effect on the weak decay is enhanced. This enhancement is about 10% in magnitude, as can be shown by comparing with the calculation assuming that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ wave function is identical to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In computing the two-body decay matrix elements, it is necessary to take into account the short-range correlation. Thus we take the wave function of the Y-N two body systems in the form,

$`\varphi _Y(\stackrel{}{r}_Y)\varphi _N(\stackrel{}{r}_N)\left[\left(1e^{r^2/a^2}\right)^nbr^2e^{r^2/c^2}\right]`$ (3)
with $`r=|\stackrel{}{r}_Y\stackrel{}{r}_N|`$ and determine the parameters for the SRC so that it reproduces the realistic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ correlation , which gives $`a=0.5`$, $`b=0.25`$, $`c=1.28`$ and $`n=2`$.

The wave function of the final two nucleons emitted in the two-body weak process is assumed to be the plane wave with SRC:

$`e^{i\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{R}^{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}^{}}\left[1j_0(q_cr^{})\right]`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}=\stackrel{}{r}_{N_2}\stackrel{}{r}_{N_1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{R}^{}=(\stackrel{}{r}_{N_2}+\stackrel{}{r}_{N_1})/2`$ and $`q_c`$ = 3.93 \[fm<sup>-1</sup>\] . This approximation may be justified for light nuclei as the momenta of the emitted nucleons are relatively high ($`400`$ MeV/c).

## 3 Transition potential

We employ a hybrid model to describe the weak $`YNNN`$ transition potential . At long and medium distances, the transition is induced mainly by the one pion exchange (OPE) and one kaon exchange (OKE) mechanisms. For example the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp`$ transition potential induced by $`\pi ^0`$ exchange is given by

$`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ (5)
$`=G_Fm_\pi ^2[\overline{u}_n(A_\pi ^\mathrm{\Lambda }+B_\pi ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _5)u_\mathrm{\Lambda }]{\displaystyle \frac{I_1\times I_2}{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2}}\right)^2g_{\pi NN}[\overline{u}_p\gamma _5u_p]`$
where $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are the isospin factors and, in this case, given as

$`I_1=n|\tau _1^3|\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,I_2=p|\tau _2^3|p=1.`$ (6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is regarded as a $`|I,I_3=|1/2,1/2`$ state, called spurion. This form guarantees that this transition is purely given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ amplitude. The coupling constants $`g_{\pi NN}`$, $`G_F`$, $`A_\pi `$ and $`B_\pi `$ are determined phenomenologically so that the free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay rate is reproduced. A double pole form factor with the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ = 800 MeV is employed. As the energy transfer is significantly large we introduce the effective pion mass

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi =\sqrt{m_\pi ^2(m_\mathrm{\Lambda }m_N)^2/4}110\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.`$ (7)
The Dirac spinors and the $`\gamma `$ matrices in eq.(5) are reduced into the nonrelativistic form in the standard way. After the spin and angular momentum projections, we obtain a local potential for each transition channel in Table 1. The cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ = 800 MeV for OPE is rather soft compared to a harder cut off ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ = 1300 MeV) employed by the one-boson exchange (OBE) potential model of nuclear force . On the other hand, the soft form factor is preferred in the study of $`NNNN\pi `$ process . A reason for this discrepancy is that the OBE potential model requires reasonably strong repulsion and spin-dependent forces induced by vector meson exchange. As the vector mesons are heavy, they need a hard form factor. In our approach, however, the short distance part is described in terms of quark substructures of baryons and only the pion and kaon are employed for the meson exchange potential. We therefore believe that the soft form factor is more consistent for our calculation.

The kaon exchange potential (OKE) can be constructed similarly. Both the strong and weak coupling constants are evaluated under the assumption of the flavor SU(3) symmetry. The cut off for the kaon vertex is taken as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K`$ = 1200 MeV, according to . All the couplings used in our calculation are listed in Table 2. Note that, for OKE, it involves the strangeness transfer and thus the strong and weak vertices are exchanged.

For shorter distances, we employ the direct quark (DQ) transition potential based on the constituent quark picture of baryons. In this mechanism, a strangeness changing weak interaction between two constituent quarks induces the transition of two baryons. Here we sketch the derivation, while the details are given in .

The DQ transition potential is derived by evaluating the matrix elements,

$`V_{DQ}(k,k^{})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L_i,S_i,J}{L_f,S_f,J}}NN(k^{},L_f,S_f,J)|H_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}|YN(k,L_i,S_i,J).`$ (8)
Here the two-baryon states, $`|BB(k,L,S,J)`$, are expressed by six-quark wave functions, constructed in the quark cluster formalism. As we use nonrelativistic quark model, we employ the transition potential given by nonrelativistic reduction of the low-energy effective weak Hamiltonian for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$, consisting of 4-quark weak vertices:

$$H_{eff}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}=\frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{r=1,r4}{\overset{6}{}}K_rO_r$$
(9)
where $`O_r`$’s are the 4-quark operators whose explicit forms are given below.

This Hamiltonian is derived by the renormalization-group-improved perturbation theory of QCD from the standard electro-weak vertex,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}su+W^{}\hfill \\ u+W^{}d\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
or

$`s+uu+d.`$ (13)
Note that eq.(13) contains both $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ contributions with similar strengths. It is known that the QCD correction enhances the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ part, while it suppresses the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ part at the same time . The mechanism of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancement can be intuitively understood by considering one gluon exchange between quarks in the initial or final two quark states. The spin dependent part of the one gluon exchange interaction lowers the energy of color antisymmetric $`J=0`$ pair, which restricts the final state to $`I=0`$. Therefore the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ transition from $`I_i=1/2`$ to $`I_f=0`$ is enhanced. Further enhancement comes from the so-called penguin diagrams, which induce the $`O_5`$ and $`O_6`$ operators given below .

We employ the values of the coefficients $`K_r`$ evaluated by solving the renormalization-group equations,

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}K_1& K_2& K_3& K_5& K_6\\ & & & & \\ 0.284& 0.009& 0.026& 0.004& 0.021\end{array}`$ (16)
each of which correspond to the four-quark operators,

$`O_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}`$
$`O_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}+(\overline{u}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}`$
$`+2(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\beta d_\beta )_{VA}+2(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{s}_\beta s_\beta )_{VA}`$
$`O_3`$ $`=`$ $`2(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}+2(\overline{u}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\beta u_\beta )_{VA}`$
$`(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\beta d_\beta )_{VA}(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{s}_\beta s_\beta )_{VA}`$
$`O_5`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta u_\beta +\overline{d}_\beta d_\beta +\overline{s}_\beta s_\beta )_{V+A}`$
$`O_6`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{d}_\alpha s_\beta )_{VA}(\overline{u}_\beta u_\alpha +\overline{d}_\beta d_\alpha +\overline{s}_\beta s_\alpha )_{V+A}`$
Among the above four-quark operators, only $`O_3`$ induces $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ transitions. The large value of $`K_1`$, and the appearance of $`K_5`$ and $`K_6`$ (from the penguin diagrams) show the enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ transition.

It is, however, realized that the above perturbative enhancement is not enough to explain the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance in the decays of the kaon and the hyperons. Further enhancement, most probably due to nonperturbative QCD corrections, is required. Several possibilities have been suggested, which include effects of isospin dependent final state interactions for the $`K\pi \pi `$ decays , and for the hyperon decays, the suppression of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ by the color antisymmetrization of the valence quarks . Neither of them seem to be effective in the two-baryon transitions in the present analysis. Thus it is possible that the nonmesonic weak decays show significant deviation from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance.

## 4 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing contribution

Virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be mixed in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei via the strong $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ transition. Effects of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing has been considered by many authors in the context of both the hypernuclear structure and its transitions.

Recently, it is advocated that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-mixing is crucial in solving the overbinding problem of the s-shell hypernuclei . Namely, the coherent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing, which is important in $`A=4`$ hypernuclei, gives enough attraction for the $`A=4`$ binding energy even if we take weaker central attraction that is preferable for the smaller binding of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. A sophisticated four-body calculation of $`A=4`$ hypernuclear structure also indicates significant mixing of virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of 1-2% level and thus supports the above idea.

If the mixing probability of the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is 1%, the mixing amplitude $`\beta `$ is $`|\beta |0.1`$. Although its effects on the binding energy are proportional to $`|\beta |^2`$ perturbatively, those on the transition amplitude are of the order of $`|\beta |`$. The latter is also sensitive to the phase of the mixing and therefore to the mixing mechanism. Thus we consider the coherent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing in nonmesonic decays of the $`A=4`$ hypernuclei.

The diagrams shown in fig.1 are two types of nonmesonic weak decays of the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in nuclei. A previous study  considered two-pion exchange process between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and N, one of which induces weak transition (fig.1(a)). The intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-N state is restricted to $`I=1/2`$. It is, however, possible that the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ decays with the assistance of a second nucleon, (fig.1(b)). This “three body” type process is taken into account by considering the coherent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing. They are important for two reasons.

(1) It involves the weak interaction of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-N ($`I=3/2`$) states, which does not contribute in fig.1(a).

(2) The coherent mixing of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hypernuclear states is prohibited in a hypernucleus with $`I=0`$, such as $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He, due to the isospin conservation. In contrast, for $`I0`$ hypernuclei, the coherent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing allows the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to interact with all the nucleons equally and therefore the 3-body weak process fig.1(b) becomes important.

Let us write down the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing effect explicitly for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He. We suppose that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$+3N state with the same quantum numbers mixes to the $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ state,

$`|{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}_{1/2}^0=\sqrt{1\beta ^2}|\mathrm{\Lambda }+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}_{1/2}^0+\beta |\mathrm{\Sigma }+3\mathrm{N}_{1/2}^0`$ (18)
where the superscripts and subscripts are the total angular momentum $`(J)`$ and isospin $`(I)`$ respectively and

$`|\mathrm{\Sigma }+3N_{1/2}^0`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}}|(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p)^0(nn)^0_{1/2}^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}}|(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0n)^0(pp)^0_{1/2}^0`$ (19)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}}|[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+n)^0+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p)^0](pn)^0_{1/2}^0`$
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}|[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+n)^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p)^1](pn)^1_{1/2}^0.`$
One sees that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+3N`$ state contains the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p`$ $`(J=0)`$ component with 22% probability for each pair of baryons. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing strength is denoted by $`\beta `$. According to the recent calculation by Hiyama et al., $`|\beta |^2`$ is about 1% in the ground state of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He. But we need not only the magnitude but also the relative phase between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+3\mathrm{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+3\mathrm{N}`$ states. We therefore attempt to estimate $`\beta `$ roughly in the first order perturbation as follows

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}|V_{\mathrm{\Sigma }N\mathrm{\Lambda }N}|\mathrm{\Lambda }+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (20)
For the transition potential, we employ the D2 potential of the paper . Evaluating eq.(20) by using the Gaussian wave function, we obtain

$`\beta =0.05`$ (21)
We should note that the magnitude of $`\beta `$ is rather sensitive to the Gaussian $`b`$ parameter, which is chosen here as $`b=2.24`$ \[fm\]. Although this estimate of $`\beta `$ may be too crude to be quantitative, we can at least determine the sign of the mixing. In the next section, we assume the coherent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing of 1% for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He and evaluate its effects on the nonmesonic decay rates. We consider the similar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing to the isospin partner $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H.

The transition potential for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }NNN`$ is derived similarly to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition. For example the OPE induced $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0pnp`$ transition potential is

$`V_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0pnp}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ (22)
$`=G_Fm_\pi ^2[\overline{u}_n(A_{\pi ^0}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}+B_{\pi ^0}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}\gamma _5)u_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}]{\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2}}\right)^2g_{\pi NN}[\overline{u}_p\gamma _5u_p]`$
where $`I_2=1`$. The potential for the OKE induced $`\mathrm{\Sigma }NNN`$ transition is also written similarly.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 A=5 system

Table 3 shows the results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. The $`\pi `$ exchange process has a large proton-induced decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ because of the large tensor transition amplitude ($`d_{pn}`$-channel). The $`K`$ exchange reduces the $`\pi `$ contribution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ by about 30 %, while it enhances the $`J=1`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$ ($`f_{nn}`$-channel) and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio.

The DQ process gives significantly large contribution and large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio, which is the major difference from the meson exchange. It contributes constructively to the meson exchange amplitudes. As a result, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio largely enhanced to $`0.720`$. Considering the large error bars in the experimental data, the agreement with experiment is fairly good.

Exchanges of the heavy mesons i.e. $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, and $`K^{}`$, are the other possibility for the short range weak interaction. It was pointed out that the nonmesonic decay rates are significantly enhanced by the heavy mesons, while the change of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio is not large . In contrast, the DQ process induces a large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$ and it gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}1.216`$ by itself. From the $`\pi +K`$ exchange contribution the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio is enhanced by more than 50% due to the DQ transition. Ref. examined the realistic final state interactions and found a stronger effect that reduces the total nonmesonic decay rates by more than 50% and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio by more than 20%. As the recent measurement of the nucleon spectrum  suggests significantly large final state interaction, further quantitative studies are important and urgent.

The last column of Table 3 shows the asymmetry parameter of the emitted proton against the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This quantity is sensitive to the ratio of parity violating amplitude and parity conserving amplitude. Our result shows that the asymmetry parameter is negative and large as it is enhanced by the DQ contribution compared to the value given by OPE. This again is a reflection of strong $`f_{pn}`$ amplitude. The only available experimental data taken at KEK indicate positive value in contrast to the theoretical predictions . This requires further study as the sign of the asymmetry seems robust in theoretical calculations as far as the meson exchange and direct quark processes are concerned.

### 5.2 A=4 system

An advantage of the $`A=4`$ and 5 hypernuclei regarding the nonmesonic weak decay is their selectivity of the two-body channels. To the leading order, the ground state of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He contains two protons forming spin 0 and a neutron and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ forming spin 0. Thus there is no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`n`$ pair with spin 1, which forbids the $`f_{nn}`$-channel in Table 1. As a result, the neutron induced decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$, is strongly suppressed, which is consistent with what current experimental data indicate ( Table 4).

It is interesting to see how large the effect of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing is. As we discussed in the previous section, we consider virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-hypernucleus component, whose probability is given by $`|\beta |^2`$. In Table 4, we show the decay rates of A=4 hypernuclei for two values of $`\beta `$, such that $`\beta ^21\%`$. One sees that the mixing changes the total decay rate by about 20% for $`\beta ^21\%`$. The sign of $`\beta `$ determined above is negative. One sees that the results for $`\beta =0.1`$ give better agreement with the current experimental data. It has been also found that the negative $`\beta `$ is consistent with the study of the magnetic moments due to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing in hypernuclei . The negative $`\beta `$ is found to reduce the proton induced decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$, while a positive $`\beta `$ will enhance the rates. We find that the mixing does not change the qualitative behaviors of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio and the proton asymmetry.

A new interesting decay channel is available when we consider the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ mixing in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He. The system consists of a virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`p`$ and two $`n`$. When $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ meets the proton, it decays into two $`p`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+ppp`$ decay. The calculated decay rate for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+ppp`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pp}=0.0003\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (23)
at $`\beta =0.1`$. Although the branching ratio is tiny, it gives a clean signal as a back to back $`p`$-$`p`$ in the final state. This will be a direct evidence for virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mixing in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei.

The selectivity is reversed in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H, that is, the $`J=1`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ is absent. As the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}(J=1)`$ is the largest contribution of OPE due mainly to the strong tensor force, the OPE predicts very small total nonmesonic decay rate. The kaon exchange and DQ enhances $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$, and the total decay rate reaches up to $`0.19`$. Thus the total nonmesonic decay rate of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H is a good indicator of the non-pion contributions to the decay process.

### 5.3 Breaking of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule

It is worthy to note that our model does not predict $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance. In the present nonmesonic weak decays, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule requires

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{nn}\\ b_{nn}\\ f_{nn}\end{array}\}=\sqrt{2}\{\begin{array}{c}a_{pn}\\ b_{pn}\\ f_{pn}\end{array}$$
(24)
between the amplitudes in Table 1. It is, however, strongly violated in the $`J=0`$ amplitudes, i.e., $`a`$ and $`b`$. The amplitudes calculated in our $`\pi +K+DQ`$ model are given in Table 6. Since we use the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi `$ vertices, the relations are satisfied in the $`\pi +K`$ model.

However, in the $`\pi +K+DQ`$ model, one sees that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ relations are largely violated in $`J=0`$ amplitudes, while they are almost maintained in the $`J=1`$ channels. Of course this violation comes from the DQ contribution. Because the $`J=0`$ amplitudes are relatively small in magnitude, their $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ breaking does not show up in the decay rate of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. The ratio of the average $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ is not affected much by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ components. Therefore the large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio predicted in the DQ model is independent of the breaking of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance.

In order to check whether the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance is realized in the nonmesonic decays, the selectivity in the $`A=4`$ system is again useful. In fact, we can write

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{He})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{H})}}{\displaystyle \frac{|a_{nn}|^2+|b_{nn}|^2}{|a_{pn}|^2+|b_{pn}|^2}}.`$ (25)
to the leading order. This ratio should be $`2`$ if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ transition is dominant. We can test the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance in the $`J=0`$ amplitudes $`a`$ and $`b`$ by seeing the deviation of $`\kappa `$ from $`2`$. Our $`\pi +K+DQ`$ model predicts $`\kappa =0.133`$ reflecting the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ contribution. Unfortunately, we cannot confirm our result because no experimental data is available for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{4}\mathrm{H})`$ so far. Further experimental studies are highly desirable.

## 6 Conclusions

We calculate the nonmesonic decay rates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei by using the quark-meson hybrid model. We have found that the $`J=1`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ is reduced by the $`K`$ exchange contribution, and the $`J=1`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}`$ is enhanced both by the $`K`$ exchange and the DQ contribution. Thus the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}`$ ratio becomes large, and the result is consistent with the current experimental data.

We also estimate the effect of the virtual $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ excitation which is known to be important when we consider the property of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in nuclei. In this paper we add the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }NNN`$ amplitude to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ amplitude by using the mixing parameter $`\beta `$. We find that it changes the magnitudes of the nonmesonic decay rate significantly and our estimates of the decay rates agree with the experimental data fairly well for a negative $`\beta 0.1`$. We have also pointed out that observation of final $`p`$-$`p`$ state from the decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$He gives us a chance to show a clear evidence of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ component in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernucleus.

Our model predicts that the “$`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule” is largely violated in the $`J=0`$ transitions. In order to confirm the prediction, a careful experiment of the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H decay is indispensable, which is now underway. The origin of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ dominance in nonleptonic $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$ weak transitions is still under heavy discussion. The vertex corrections plus the Penguin diagrams were shown to enhance $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$. They alone, however, are not enough to reproduce the large ratio of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ amplitudes. There must be significant effects from the nonperturbative QCD corrections. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition will be a new tool to determine the nonperturbative mechanism of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancement.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. A. Gal, Prof. Y. Akaishi, Dr. E. Hiyama, and Prof. M. Iwasaki for discussions. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (2) 11640261 of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.