text:
# AGN Outflows: Analysis of the Absorption Troughs

## 1 Introduction

Outflows in Seyfert galaxies are evident by resonance line absorption troughs, which are blueshifted with respect to the systemic redshift of their emission counterparts. Velocities of several hundred km s-1 (Crenshaw et al. 1999; Kriss et al. 2000) are observed in UV resonance lines (e.g., C iv $`\lambda \lambda `$1548.20,1550.77, N v $`\lambda \lambda `$1242.80,1238.82, O vi $`\lambda \lambda `$1037.62,1031.93 and Ly$`\alpha `$), as well as in X-ray resonance lines (Kaastra et al. 2000; Kaspi et al. 2000). Similar outflows (often with significantly higher velocities) are seen in quasars that are the luminous relatives of Seyfert galaxies (Weymann et al. 1991; Korista Voit & Weymann 1993; Arav et al. 2001a). Reliable measurement of the absorption column densities in the troughs are crucial for determining the ionization equilibrium and abundances of the outflows, and the relationship between the UV and the ionized X-ray absorbers (Mathur et al. 1995; Elvis 2001).

In the last few years our group (Arav 1997; Arav et al. 1999a; Arav et al. 1999b; de Kool et al. 2001; Arav et al. 2001) and others (Barlow 1997, Telfer et al. 1998, Churchill et al. 1999, Ganguly et al. 1999) have shown that in quasar outflows most lines are saturated even when they are not black. We have also shown that in many cases the shapes of the troughs are almost entirely due to changes in the line of sight covering as a function of velocity, rather than to differences in optical depth (Arav et al. 1999b; de Kool et al. 2001; Arav et al. 2001a). As a consequence, the column densities inferred from the depths of the troughs are only lower limits.

These results have led us to suspect that many of the reported column densities in Seyfert outflows are likely underestimated. Recently, we have re-analyzed the HST high resolution spectroscopic data of the intrinsic absorber in NGC 5548 (Arav, Korista & de Kool 2002) and found that the C iv absorption column density in the main trough is at least four times larger than previously determined. Furthermore, we have shown that similar to the case in quasars, the shape of the main trough is almost entirely due to changes in covering fraction as a function of velocity, and is not due to differences in real optical depth.

In this paper we analyze the outflow in another Seyfert 1 galaxy, NGC 985. Similar to the NGC 5548 case, the apparent column density (Ly$`\alpha `$ in this case) is a severe underestimate of the real column density. Furthermore, the resulting errors in the inferred values of the total hydrogen column density ($`N_H`$) and the ionization parameter ($`U`$) of the absorbing gas are far larger. For the specific case of NGC 985, the real $`N_H`$ and $`U`$ values may allow the X-ray and UV absorbers to arise from the same gas. We conclude by highlighting potential difficulties expected in the X-ray spectral analysis of AGN outflows, based on the UV investigation shown here and elsewhere.

## 2 The case of NGC 985

NGC 985 is a bright ($`V=13.8`$ for UV see Fig 1, X-ray: $`<F_{210kev}>=2\times 10^{11}`$ cgs, Nicastro et al. 1998), nearby Seyfert 1 galaxy, which shows a strong and complex system of warm absorbers ($`N_H=10^{22}`$ and $`10^{23}`$ cm-2) in its ROSAT-PSPC (Brandt et al. 1995) and ASCA (Nicastro et al. 1998). In figure 1 we show the available HST data of the intrinsic UV absorber in NGC 985, which covers the Ly$`\alpha `$ and N v troughs. To find the physical conditions of the absorbing gas we first extract the apparent column densities for the Ly$`\alpha `$ and N v troughs for the outflow, and then use these values to compute the $`N_H`$ and $`U`$ of the absorbing gas.

### 2.1 Apparent column density extraction and the resultant ionization equilibrium determination

Figure 2 shows an unsaturated absorption model for the Ly$`\alpha `$ trough consisting of an unabsorbed emission model convolved with six Gaussian absorption components. The fit is very good and the main discrepancy (seen around 1266 Å) is due to our restrictive assumption that each kinematic component for Ly$`\alpha `$ and N v will have the same velocity centroid. We note in passing that this assumption holds quite well in this case, since four of the Ly$`\alpha `$ components are fitted very well using the velocity centroid of the N v components. For absorption component 4, the Gaussian parameters yield $`\mathrm{log}(\text{N}_{\text{H I}})=14`$.

Figure 3 shows an unsaturated absorption model for the N v absorption. Components 4 and 5 are not saturated (or only slightly so) since their depths in the red and blue doublet lines are consistent with the expected 1:2 optical depth ratio (the ratio of their oscillator strengths). For absorption component 4, the Gaussian parameters yield $`\mathrm{log}(\text{N}_{NV})=14.2`$

It is usually assumed that the plasma is in photoionization equilibrium and therefore the relevant physical parameters are the total hydrogen column density ($`N_H`$) and the ionization parameter ($`U`$) of the absorbing gas. In order to determine these we use the photoionization code CLOUDY (Ferland 1996) to try to find combinations of these parameters which will reproduce the measured column densities.

In figure 4 we show photoionization solutions for absorption component 4. The presentation method is based on the grid models approach developed in Arav et al. (2001b), using the same ionizing continuum. We plot curves of constant $`N_{ion}`$ (determined from the observed troughs) in the $`N_H/U`$ plane. That is, within the range of plotted parameters, any combination of $`N_H`$ and $`U`$ that falls on the curve yields the desired column density value (for an assumed set of elemental abundances, solar in our case). The parameters of the absorber are determined by the crossing of the different $`N_{ion}`$ curves. We note that with two given curves we can obtain two solutions, since two crossing points are possible. By coincidence, we obtained a single solution in this particular case. The inferred $`N_H`$ is at least two orders of magnitude too small to account for a typical warm absorber column density (Kaastra et al. 2000; Kaspi et al. 2000).

### 2.2 Non-black saturation

However, our ionization equilibrium inferences are crucially dependent upon the reliability of the N v and Ly$`\alpha `$ column densities inferred from our absorption models (Figs. 2 and 3). The evidence we have collected over the last few years suggests that it is impossible in principle to extract a reliable column density from one singlet line (see § 1 and Arav et al. 2002). It is therefore quite possible that our Ly$`\alpha `$ inferred H i column density is greatly underestimated. Luckily we possess FUSE spectra that covers the Ly$`\beta `$ and Ly$`\gamma `$ outflow troughs in NGC 985, and can directly check the reliability of the Ly$`\alpha `$ model.

Figure 5 shows the results of applying the Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption model to the Ly$`\beta `$ trough. Our very good model-fit for the Ly$`\alpha `$ trough (Fig. 2) fails completely when we apply it to the Ly$`\beta `$ trough assuming no saturation (upper dotted line). A model assuming complete saturation (lower dotted line) fits the data considerably better, but since it over-predicts the depth of the troughs we determine that the Ly$`\beta `$ is not heavily saturated. This conclusion is confirmed by the shape of the Ly$`\gamma `$ trough where all the components except number 6 are significantly shallower. The apparent H i column density of component 4, as measured from the Ly$`\alpha `$ trough, is 5$`\times `$ smaller than its real H i column density deduced with the constraints imposed by the Ly$`\beta `$ and Ly$`\gamma `$ troughs. In passing, we mention that the FUSE spectra also show saturation in the O vi lines.

## 3 Realistic ionization equilibrium

Figure 6 illustrates the consequence of ignoring the possibility of saturation in Ly$`\alpha `$ and therefore underestimating the H i column density in component 4 by a factor of five. The physical solution that uses the real H i column density results in an absorber with 100$`\times `$ higher $`N_H`$ and roughly a 10$`\times `$ higher ionization parameter than the one using the apparent column density. The relative difference between the two solutions is a robust key point of this investigation. Absolute values of the correct $`N_H`$ and $`U`$ are far less accurate due to the systematic uncertainties in chemical abundances and incident ionizing spectrum, as well as the reliance on only to ionic column densities. Nonetheless, we point out that he solution based on realistic H i column density is compatible with physical parameters inferred for warm absorbers in general (Kaastra et al. 2000; Kaspi et al. 2000), while the apparent one is much too low in both $`N_{ion}`$ and $`U`$.

## 4 Summary and Relevance to analyses of X-ray warm absorbers data

1. Non-black saturation is prevalent in UV troughs of AGN outflows, even when the trough is fully resolved spectroscopically. This suggests that the same phenomenon occur in the X-ray troughs of the same objects. In addition, a single covering fraction per absorption component is a poor approximation, since covering fraction is often strongly velocity-dependent.
2. Errors in column density estimates can be greatly amplified in the inferred ionization equilibrium for the absorbing gas. In the case of component 4 in NGC 985, correcting the $`N_{H\mathrm{i}}`$ by a factor of five resulted in a two orders of magnitude higher $`N_H`$ and an order of magnitude higher $`U`$. These differences are large enough to make UV component 4 compatible with being the same gas as the X-ray warm absorber.
3. Many line series are covered by the X-ray band, thus allowing for excellent saturation diagnostics and thus the extraction of reliable column densities. However, care must be taken to allow for non-black saturation, which is very different from saturation due too spectroscopically unresolved absorption components.

###### Acknowledgements.

Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number HST-AR-09079 from the STScI, and by NASA LTSA grant 2001-029. The author expresses gratitude for the hospitality of the Astronomy department at UC Berkeley for the duration of this work, and thanks Kirk Korista for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Two-photon partial widths of tensor mesons

## 1 Introduction

For the time being the main problem of meson spectroscopy is the reliable determination of states belonging to the $`P`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet $`1^3P_Jq\overline{q}`$. The solution of this problem is of principal importance for the quark systematics as well as for the search of exotic mesons such as glueballs and hybrids (in connection with this problem see \[1-4\]). The classification of mesons $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$, that is of crucial meaning for the nonet of scalar mesons $`1^3P_0q\overline{q}`$, gives rise to certain questions. In a set of papers \[5-10\], on the basis of the analysis of experimental data, it was argued that for the states $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ the $`1^3P_0q\overline{q}`$ component is dominant. However, another point of view on the structure of these mesons exists as well, see mini-review  and references therein.

The investigation of radiative decays is a powerful tool for establishing the quark structure of hadrons. At early stage of the quark model, radiative decays of vector mesons provided strong evidence for constituent quark being a universal constructive element of mesons and baryons \[12-15\]. In our opinion, the radiative decays of the $`1^3P_Jq\overline{q}`$ mesons are equally important for the determination of the $`P`$-wave multiplet.

Partial widths of the decays $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ have been calculated in  assuming the mesons $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$ to be dominantly $`q\overline{q}`$ states, that is, $`1^3P_0q\overline{q}`$ mesons. The results of our calculation agree well with experimental data. In paper , on the basis of data  for the decay $`\varphi (1020)\gamma f_0(980)`$ together with the value of partial width $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ obtained in the re-analysis , the flavour content of $`f_0(980)`$ has been studied. Assuming the flavour wave function in the form $`n\overline{n}\mathrm{cos}\phi +s\overline{s}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$, we have described the experimental data with two allowed values of mixing angle: either $`\phi =48^{}\pm 6^{}`$ or $`\phi =85^{}\pm 4^{}`$ (the negative angle is more preferable). Both values of mixing angle are in qualitative agreement with data on hadronic decays of $`f_0(980)`$ into $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ .

Although direct calculations of widths of radiative decays agree well with the hypothesis that the $`q\overline{q}`$ component dominates both $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$, to be confident that these mesons are members of $`1^3P_0q\overline{q}`$ multiplet one more step is necessary: it is necessary to check whether radiative decays of tensor mesons $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$, $`f_2(1525)`$ can be calculated under the same assumption and within the same technique as it was done for the reactions involving $`f_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(980)`$. The tensor mesons $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$, $`f_2(1525)`$ are basic members of the $`P`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet, and just the existence of tensor mesons lays in the ground of the nonet classification of mesons as $`q\overline{q}`$-states, with four $`P`$-wave nonets .

In the framework of spectral integration technique, we calculate the transition form factors of tensor mesons $`a_2(1320)\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$, $`f_2(1270)\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ and $`f_2(1525)\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ in the region of small $`Q^2`$: these form factors, in the limit $`Q^20`$, determine partial widths $`a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma `$, $`f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma `$. The spectral representation technique has been developed in  for the investigation of the transitions of pseudoscalar mesons such as $`\pi ^0\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$, $`\eta \gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$. As is said above, by using this technique the calculation of the decay coupling constants $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$, $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi (1020)\gamma f_0(980)`$ has been performed in .

In the region of moderately small $`Q^2`$, where Strong-QCD works, the transition form factor $`q\overline{q}`$-meson $`\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ is determined by the quark loop diagram of Fig. 1$`a`$ which is a convolution of the $`q\overline{q}`$-meson and photon wave functions, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$. The calculation of the process of Fig. 1$`a`$ is performed in terms of the double spectral representation over $`q\overline{q}`$ invariant masses squared, $`s=(m^2+k_{}^2)/\left(x(1x)\right)`$ and $`s^{}=(m^2+k_{}^2)/\left(x(1x)\right)`$ where $`k_{}^2`$, $`k_{}^2`$ and $`x`$ are the light-cone variables and $`m`$ is the constituent quark mass. Following , we represent photon wave function as a sum of the two components which describe the prompt production of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair at large $`s^{}`$ (with a point-like vertex for the transition $`\gamma q\overline{q}`$, correspondingly) and the production in the low-$`s^{}`$ region where the vertex $`\gamma q\overline{q}`$ has a nontrivial structure due to soft $`q\overline{q}`$ interactions. The necessity to include such a component can be argued, for example, by the vector-dominance model $`\gamma \rho ^0,\omega ,\varphi q\overline{q}`$.

The process of Fig. 1$`a`$ at moderately small $`Q^2`$ is mainly determined by the low-$`s^{}`$ region, in other words by the soft component of photon wave function.

The soft component of the photon wave function was restored in , on the basis of the experimental data for the transition $`\pi ^0\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ at $`Q^21`$ GeV2. Once the photon wave function is found, the form factors $`a_2\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ and $`f_2\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ at $`Q^21`$ GeV2 provide us the opportunity to investigate in detail the tensor-meson wave functions. However, when investigating a small-$`Q^2`$ region, we may restrict ourselves with a simplified, one-parameter wave function of the basic tensor mesons $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, this parameter being the mean radius squared $`R_T^2`$.

Assuming the $`q\overline{q}`$ structure of tensor mesons, the flavour content of $`a_2(1320)`$ is fixed, thus allowing unambiguous calculation of the transition form factor $`a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma `$. Reasonable agreement with data has been obtained at $`7\mathrm{GeV}^2R_{a_2(1320)}^212\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (remind that for pion $`R_\pi ^210`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}0.4`$ fm2). To describe the decay $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ the quark wave function of $`a_0(980)`$ should have nearly the same mean radius square  $`7\mathrm{GeV}^2R_{a_0(980)}^212\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Still, we do not exclude the possibility that the $`P`$-wave states may be rather compact. Hadronic reactions agree with this possibility: the estimation of radius of $`f_0(980)`$ carried out by using GAMS data for $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$  proves that $`q\overline{q}`$ component in $`f_0(980)`$ gives : $`R_{f_0(980)}^2=(6\pm 6)`$ GeV-2.

Partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma )`$ depend on the relative weights of strange and non-strange components in a tensor-isoscalar meson, $`s\overline{s}`$ and $`n\overline{n}`$. The study of hadronic decays tells us that $`f_2(1270)`$ is dominantly $`n\overline{n}`$ state, while $`f_2(1525)`$ is, correspondingly, $`s\overline{s}`$ one. It is in accordance with the calculated values of partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma )`$: at $`R_{f_2(1270)}^2R_{f_2(1525)}^2R_{f_0(980)}^2`$, the agreement with data is reached with $`n\overline{n}`$\- and $`s\overline{s}`$-dominated components in $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$, respectively.

The two-photon decays of radial-excited states, $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$, are suppressed as compared to decays of basic states. The reason is that radial wave functions of the states $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ change sign, so the convolution of wave function $`\psi _{2^3P_2q\overline{q}}\psi _\gamma `$ is comparatively small. This fact is also the reason of a qualitative character of predictions for the decays $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present basic formulae for the calculation of amplitudes for $`\gamma \gamma `$ decaying into tensor mesons, members of the $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ and $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ nonets. The results of the calculation are given in Section 3. In Conclusion we discuss the $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet classification of tensor and scalar mesons resulting from radiative meson decays.

## 2 Tensor-meson decay amplitudes for
the process $`q\overline{q}(2^{++})\gamma \gamma `$

Below the formulae are presented for the amplitudes of radiative decay of the $`q\overline{q}`$ tensor mesons belonging to the multiplets located at $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2000`$ MeV: $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ and $`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$.

### 2.1 Spin-momentum structure of the decay amplitude

The decay amplitude for the process $`q\overline{q}(2^{++})\gamma \gamma `$ has the following structure:

$$A_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(T)}=e^2\left[S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(p,q)F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(0)}(0,0)+S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(2)}(p,q)F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}(0,0)\right],$$
(1)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge ($`e^2/4\pi =\alpha =1/137`$). Here $`S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ and $`S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(2)}`$ are the moment-operators, indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ refer to photons and $`\mu ,\nu `$ to tensor meson. The transition form factors for photons with transverse polarization $`T\gamma _{}(q_1^2)\gamma _{}(q_2^2)`$, namely, $`F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(0)}(q_1^2,q_2^2)`$ and $`F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}(q_1^2,q_2^2)`$, depend on the photon momenta squared $`q_1^2`$ and $`q_2^2`$; the limit values $`q_1^2=0`$ and $`q_2^2=0`$ correspond to the two-photon decay. We also use the notations: $`p=q_1+q_2`$ and $`q=(q_1q_2)/2`$.

The moment-operators read:

$$S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(p,q)=g_{\alpha \beta }^{}\left(\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}\right)$$
(2)
and

$$S_{\alpha \beta ,\mu \nu }^{(2)}(p,q)=g_{\mu \alpha }^{}g_{\nu \beta }^{}+g_{\mu \beta }^{}g_{\nu \alpha }^{}g_{\mu \nu }^{}g_{\alpha \beta }^{},$$
(3)
where metric tensors $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ are determined as follows:

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{}=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2},g_{\alpha \beta }^{}=g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}\frac{p_\alpha p_\beta }{p^2}.$$
(4)
The moment-operators are orthogonal in the space of photon polarizations:
$`S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}S_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{},\alpha \beta }^{(2)}=0`$.

The spin structure of the amplitude $`A_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(T)}`$ is discussed in more detail in Appendix A, also there is presented a connection between amplitudes written in terms of spin operators and standard helicity amplitudes.

### 2.2 Form factor $`F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(q_1^2,q_2^2)`$

Following the prescription of , we write down the amplitude of the process of Fig. 1$`a`$ in terms of the spectral representation in the channels related to tensor meson and photon $`\gamma (q_2)`$. The double spectral representation for the form factor $`F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(q_1^2,q_2^2)`$ with $`H=0,2`$ reads:

$$F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(q_1^2,q_2^2)=Z_T\sqrt{N_c}\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dsds^{}}{\pi ^2}\frac{G_{Tq\overline{q}}(s)}{sm_T^2}\times $$
(5)
$$\times d\mathrm{\Phi }(P,P^{};k_1,k_1^{},k_2)S^{(H)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)\frac{G_{\gamma q\overline{q}}(s^{})}{s^{}q_2^2}.$$

In the spectral integral (5), the momenta of the intermediate states differ from those of the initial/final states. The corresponding momenta for intermediate states are re-denoted as is shown in Fig. 1$`b`$:

$$q_1PP^{},q_2P^{},pP,$$
(6)
$$P^2=s,P^2=s^{},(P^{}P)^2=\stackrel{~}{q}^2=q_1^2.$$

It should be stressed that we fix $`\stackrel{~}{q}^2=q_1^2`$, although $`P^{}P=\stackrel{~}{q}q_1`$. The triangle-diagram phase space $`d\mathrm{\Phi }(P,P^{};k_1,k_1^{},k_2)`$ is equal to:

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }(P,P^{};k_1,k_1^{},k_2)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi )^32k_{10}}\frac{d^3k_1^{}}{(2\pi )^32k_{10}^{}}\frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi )^32k_{20}}\times $$
(7)
$$\times (2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(Pk_1k_2\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(P^{}k_1^{}k_2\right).$$

The factor $`Z_T`$ is determined by the quark content of tensor meson. For the $`a_2`$-meson and $`n\overline{n}`$ or $`s\overline{s}`$ components in the $`f_2`$-meson, the charge factors are equal to

$$Z_{a_2}=2\frac{e_u^2e_d^2}{\sqrt{2}},Z_{n\overline{n}}=2\frac{e_u^2+e_d^2}{\sqrt{2}},Z_{s\overline{s}}=2e_s^2.$$
(8)
The factor $`\sqrt{N_c}`$, where $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colours, is related to the normalization of the photon vertex made in . We have two sorts of diagrams: with quark lines drawn clockwise and anticlockwise; the factor $`2`$ in (8) stands for this doubling. The vertices $`G_{\gamma n\overline{n}}(s^{})`$ and $`G_{\gamma s\overline{s}}(s^{})`$ were found in ; the photon wave function $`G_{\gamma n\overline{n}}(s)/s`$ is shown in Fig. 2.

#### 2.2.1 Wave functions for the $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ and $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ states

We parametrize the wave functions of mesons of the basic multiplet, $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, in the exponential form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_T(s)=\frac{G_T(s)}{sm_T^2}=Ce^{bs},$$
(9)
where $`C`$ is the normalization constant, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T\mathrm{\Psi }_T=1`$, and the parameter $`b`$ can be related to the tensor-meson radius squared.

For mesons of the first radial excitation, $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, the wave functions can be written using exponential approximation as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{T1}(s)=C_1e^{b_1s}(D_1s1).$$
(10)
The parameter $`b_1`$ can be related to the radius of the radial excitation state, then the values $`C_1`$ and $`D_1`$ are fixed by the normalization and orthogonality requirements, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{T1}\mathrm{\Psi }_{T1}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T\mathrm{\Psi }_{T1}=0`$.

### 2.3 Spin structure factors $`S^{(0)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$ and
$`S^{(2)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$

For the amplitude of Fig. 1$`b`$ with transverse polarized photons, the spin structure factors are fixed by the vertex for transition $`Tq\overline{q}`$, and we denote this vertex as $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. One has:

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _\beta ^{}(\widehat{k}_1^{}+m)\gamma _\alpha ^{}(\widehat{k}_1+m)T_{\mu \nu }(\widehat{k}_2m)\right]=$$
(11)
$$=S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(P,P_{}^{})S^{(0)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)+S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(2)}(P,P_{}^{})S^{(2)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)$$

Here $`\gamma _\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\gamma _\beta ^{}`$ stand for photon vertices, $`\gamma _\alpha ^{}=g_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{}`$, while $`g_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{}`$ is determined by (4) with the substitution $`q_1PP^{}`$ and $`q_2P^{}`$. The moment-operators $`S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(P,P_{}^{})`$ and $`S_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }^{(2)}(P,P_{}^{})`$ work also in the intermediate-state momentum space. Recall that the momenta $`k_1^{}`$, $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ in (11) are mass-on-shell.

The vertex $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ taken in a minimal form reads:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}=k_\mu \gamma _\nu +k_\nu \gamma _\mu \frac{2}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}\widehat{k},$$
(12)
where $`k=k_1k_2`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}P_\nu =0`$. With $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ determined by (12), we present the spin structure factors $`S^{(H)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$ at $`q_2^2=0`$ and small $`q_1^2=\stackrel{~}{q}^2Q^2`$. Below we denote $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(s+s^{})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=ss^{}`$ and take into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$. For the non-vanishing terms in the limit $`Q^20`$, we have:

$$S^{(0)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)=\frac{64m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)+$$
(13)
$$+\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(32m^4+8m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }3\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\frac{4m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(4m^2+3\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)$$

and

$$S^{(2)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)=\frac{8\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(16m^4+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+$$
(14)
$$+\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(16m^44m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\frac{4m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left(2m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right).$$

#### 2.3.1 Spin structure factors $`S^{(H)}(P^2,P^2,\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$ for pure $`q\overline{q}(L=1)`$ and $`q\overline{q}(L=3)`$ states

The $`q\overline{q}(2^{++})`$ state can be constructed in two ways, namely, with the $`q\overline{q}`$ orbital momenta $`L=1`$ and $`L=3`$ (the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}q\overline{q}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}q\overline{q}`$ states). The vertex $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ of Eq. (12), corresponding to the dominant $`P`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ state, includes also certain admixture of the $`F`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ state.

The vertex for the production of pure $`q\overline{q}(L=1)`$ state reads:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(L=1),(k)}=k_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu +k_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \frac{2}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }k),\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu ^{}\frac{k_\mu }{2m+\sqrt{s}},$$
(15)
where the operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ selects the spin-1 state for $`q\overline{q}`$ (see  for details). We present corresponding spin factors, $`S_{L=1}^{(0)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)`$ and $`S_{L=1}^{(2)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)`$, in Appendix B.

The $`(L=3)`$-operator for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{2}^{}q\overline{q}`$ state is equal to:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(L=3),(k)}=k_\mu k_\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }k)\frac{k^2}{5}\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }k)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu k_\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu k_\mu \right).$$
(16)
Corresponding spin factors, $`S_{L=3}^{(0)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)`$ and $`S_{L=3}^{(2)}(P^2,P^2,Q^2)`$, are also given in Appendix B.

### 2.4  Spectral integral representation

In formula (5) one can integrate over the phase space by using $`\delta `$-functions, with fixed the energies squared, $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$. So we have:

$$F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(Q^2,0)=$$
(17)
$$=Z_T\sqrt{N_c}\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dsds^{}}{\pi ^2}\psi _T(s)\psi _\gamma (s^{})\frac{\theta \left(ss^{}Q^2m^2\lambda (s,s^{},Q^2)\right)}{16\sqrt{\lambda (s,s^{},Q^2)}}S_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(s,s^{},Q^2),$$

with

$$\lambda (s,s^{},Q^2)=(s^{}s)^2+2Q^2(s^{}+s)+Q^4.$$
(18)
The $`\theta `$-function restricts the integration region for different $`Q^2`$: $`\theta (X)=1`$ at $`X0`$ and $`\theta (X)=0`$ at $`X<0`$.

In the limit $`Q^20`$, one has

$$F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(Q^20,0)=Z_T\sqrt{N_c}\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\pi }\psi _T(\mathrm{\Sigma })\psi _\gamma (\mathrm{\Sigma })\underset{b}{\overset{+b}{}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }\frac{S_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(s,s^{},Q^2)}{16\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta },Q^2)}}$$

$$b=Q\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }/m^24)},\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta },Q^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2.$$
(19)
Where the spin factors $`S_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(s,s^{},Q^2)`$ are given in (13) and (14).

The integration over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ performed, the spectral representation for the form factor $`F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ reads:

$$F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)=\frac{Z_T^{(q\overline{q})}\sqrt{N_c}}{16\pi }\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds}{\pi }\psi _T(s)\psi _\gamma (s)I^{(H)}(s)$$
(20)
where

$$I^{(0)}(s)=2\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}\left(12m^2+s\right)+4m^2\left(4m^2+3s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}$$
(21)
and

$$I^{(2)}(s)=\frac{4\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{3}\left(5m^2+s\right)4m^2\left(2m^2+s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}$$
(22)
The tensor-meson decay form factors $`T\gamma \gamma `$ with vertices $`Tq\overline{q}`$ for pure $`q\overline{q}(L=1)`$ and $`q\overline{q}(L=3)`$ states (see (15) and (16)) are given in Appendix C.

### 2.5 Light-cone variables

The formula (5) allows one to make easily the transformation to the light-cone variables using the boost along the $`z`$-axis. Let us use the frame in which initial tensor meson is moving along the z-axis with the momentum $`p\mathrm{}`$:

$$P=(p+\frac{s}{2p},0,p),P^{}=(p+\frac{s^{}+Q^2}{2p},𝐐,p).$$
(23)
Then the transition form factor $`T\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma `$ reads:

$$F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(Q^2,0)=\frac{Z_T\sqrt{N_c}}{16\pi ^3}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dx}{x(1x)^2}d^2k_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_T(s)\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma (s^{})S^{(H)}(s,s^{},Q^2),$$
(24)
where $`x=k_{2z}/p`$, $`𝐤_{}=𝐤_2`$, and the $`q\overline{q}`$ invariant mass squares are

$$s=\frac{m^2+k_{}^2}{x(1x)},s^{}=\frac{m^2+(x𝐐+𝐤_{})^\mathrm{𝟐}}{x(1x)}.$$
(25)
### 2.6 Tensor-meson charge form factor

In order to relate the wave function parameters $`C`$ and $`b`$ entering (9) to the tensor-meson radius squared, we calculate the meson charge form factor averaged over polarizations; corresponding process is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1$`c`$. Thus determined form factor amplitude has the structure as follows:

$$A_\mu =(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{})F_T(Q^2),$$
(26)
where the meson charge form factor $`F_T(Q^2)`$ is the convolution of the tensor-meson wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$.

#### 2.6.1 Charge form factor in the light-cone variables

Using light-cone variables, one can express the $`q\overline{q}`$-meson charge form factor as follows (for example, see ):

$$F_T(Q^2)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^3}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dx}{x(1x)^2}d^2k_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_T(s)\mathrm{\Psi }_T(s^{})S_T(s,s^{},Q^2),$$
(27)
$`S_T(s,s^{},Q^2)`$ being determined by the quark loop trace in the intermediate state:

$$\frac{1}{5}\mathrm{Tr}[T_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}(\widehat{k}_1+m)\gamma _\alpha (\widehat{k}_1^{}+m)T_{\mu \nu }^{(k^{})}(\widehat{k}_2m)]=$$

$$=[P_\alpha ^{}+P_\alpha \frac{s^{}s}{Q^2}(P_\alpha ^{}P_\alpha )]S_T(s,s^{},Q^2),$$
(28)
where $`(P^{}P)^2=Q^2`$.

To relate the wave function parameters to the tensor-meson radius squared we may restrict ourselves by the consideration of the low-$`Q^2`$ region. The low-$`Q^2`$ charge form factor can be expanded in a series over $`Q^2`$:

$$F_T(Q^2)1\frac{1}{6}R_T^2Q^2.$$
(29)
At small $`Q^2`$ one has for $`S_T(s,s^{},Q^2)`$:

$$S_T(s,s^{},Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{45(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}[48\mathrm{\Sigma }^3(8m^2+3\mathrm{\Sigma })(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma })$$
(30)
$$16Q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(64m^422m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }+9\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)+8\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }^2(40m^4+29m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }9\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)]$$

$$\frac{Q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^3\left(8m^2+3\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{45(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{4\mathrm{\Sigma }^4}+\frac{Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^3}\frac{Q^4}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}\right].$$

Recall, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(s+s^{})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=ss^{}`$.

#### 2.6.2 Spectral integral representation for charge form factor

Expanded in a series over $`Q^2`$, the spectral integral for charge form factor, $`F_T(Q^2)`$, reads:

$$F_T(Q^2)\frac{1}{16\pi }\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds}{\pi }\psi _T^2(s)\left(I(s)\frac{Q^2}{6}I_R(s)\right),$$
(31)
where

$$I(s)=\frac{8\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{15s}\left(8m^2+3s\right)\left(s4m^2\right),$$
(32)
$$I_R(s)=\frac{4\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{5s^3}\left(64m^640m^4s+26m^2s^2+9s^3\right)+$$

$$+\frac{8}{15s}\left(16m^446m^2s+9s^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}.$$

Comparison of this expression with formula (29) gives us the parameters of the tensor-meson wave function.

Formulae (31) and (32) can be used for the determination of the wave function parameters for any $`n^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ meson.

## 3 Results

Here are presented the results of the calculation of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ partial widths for mesons of the basic multiplet $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, that is, $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$. According to , mesons of the first radial excitation, $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, are $`a_2(1660)`$, $`f_2(1640)`$ and $`f_2(1800)`$), and we calculate their $`\gamma \gamma `$ partial widths as well. We estimate also the $`\gamma \gamma `$ widths of the $`F`$-wave mesons, namely, the members of $`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$ nonet, these mesons are located in the vicinity of $`2000`$ MeV .

### 3.1 Tensor-meson $`\gamma \gamma `$ decay partial width

Partial width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T\gamma \gamma }`$, is determined as follows:

$`m_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_{T\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p;q_1,q_2)\frac{1}{5}\underset{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }{}|A_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \beta }|^2}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}\pi \alpha ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(0)}(0,0)\right)^2+\left(F_{T\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}(0,0)\right)^2\right].`$
Here $`m_T`$ is the mass of the tensor meson; the summation is carried out over outgoing-photon polarizations; the photon identity factor $`1/2`$ is written explicitly; averaging over the tensor-meson polarizations results in the factor $`1/5`$. The two-particle invariant phase space is equal to

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p;q_1,q_2)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3q_1}{(2\pi )^32q_{10}}\frac{d^3q_2}{(2\pi )^32q_{20}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(pq_1q_2\right),$$
(34)
and for photons $`𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_2(p;q_1,q_2)=1/16\pi `$.

### 3.2 Transition form factors $`F_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}`$ and $`F_{s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}`$ for mesons of the $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ nonet

The transition form factors $`F_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}`$ and $`F_{s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}`$ are determined by Eq. (20). They depend on the quark mass and type of the vertex entering the spin factor, as well as the tensor mesom wave function. For non-strange quarks, the ratios $`F_{a_2\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)/Z_{a_2}`$ and $`F_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)/Z_{n\overline{n}}`$ are equal to one another, provided $`a_2`$ and $`(n\overline{n})_2`$-state belong to the same $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet. The magnitudes $`F_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ and $`F_{s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for different tensor mesons.

The transition form factors for mesons of the basic multiplet $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ for the case when the transition vertex $`Tq\overline{q}`$ is chosen in the minimal form (12) are shown in Fig. 3$`a`$. Form factors decrease noticeably with the increase of radius of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system in the interval 6 Gev$`{}_{}{}^{2}R_T^216`$ GeV-2. The calculated form factors reveal a strong dependence on the quark mass. In our calculations we put $`m=350`$ MeV for the non-strange quark and $`m=500`$ MeV for the strange one. One can see that with the increase of quark mass by 150 MeV the transition form factors fall down, with a factor 1.5.

In Fig. 3$`b`$ the form factors $`F_{q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)/Z_{q\overline{q}}`$ are shown for mesons $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ in case when the vertex $`Tq\overline{q}`$ is taken in the form (15), that corresponds to a pure $`P`$-wave.

### 3.3 Decays $`a_2\gamma \gamma `$

The form factor $`F_{a_2\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ is equal to that of the $`n\overline{n}`$ component, up to the charge factor:

$$F_{a_2\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)=\frac{Z_{a_2}}{Z_{n\overline{n}}}F_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0).$$
(35)
Since flavour structure of the $`a_2`$-meson is fixed, we can calculate partial $`\gamma \gamma `$ widths rather reliably.

In Fig. 4 the magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ are shown versus $`R_{a_2(1320)}^2`$ together with experimental data.

Recent measurements of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ partial width of the $`a_2(1320)`$-meson reported the magnitudes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }=0.98\pm 0.05\pm 0.09`$ keV  and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }=0.96\pm 0.03\pm 0.13`$ keV  (corresponding areas are shown by close hatched lines in Fig. 4). Besides, one should take into consideration that the extraction of the signal $`a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma `$ faces the problem of a correct account for coherent background. In the analysis  it was shown that the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ can fall down in a factor $`1.5`$ due to the interference ”signal–background”. Therefore, we estimate the allowed region for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ as $`1.12`$ keV$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }0.60`$ keV (rare hatched lines in Fig. 4).

Figure 5$`a`$ demonstrates a full set of the $`a_2\gamma \gamma `$ widths. Thick solid line is drawn for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma )`$ with the vertex given by (9) and (12) while the dashed line presents $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma )`$ for the vertex given by (9) and (15). The thin solid and dotted lines show correspondingly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_2(1660)\gamma \gamma )`$ for the vertex given by (10) and (12) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_2(2000)\gamma \gamma )`$ for the vertex given by (9) and (16).

When comparing the calculated values with experimental data, one should keep in mind that quark masses are strictly fixed: as was mentioned above, $`m=350`$ MeV for the non-strange quark and $`m=500`$ MeV for strange one. The same mass values have been used in  for the calculation of the decays $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$. Still, the two-photon decays of scalar mesons depend comparatively weakly on quark masses, while for tensor meson the situation is quite opposite: the decrease of constituent quark mass by 10% results in the increase of the form factor $`F_{n\overline{n}}^{(H)}(0,0)`$ approximately by 10%, that means a 20% growth of the calculated value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ at fixed $`R_{a_2(1320)}^2`$. The 10%-uncertainty in the definition of the constituent quark mass looks quite reasonable, therefore the 20% accuracy of the model prediction for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ should be regarded as quite normal.

Coming back to the decay $`a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma `$ we conclude that calculated values $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma }`$ demonstrate rather good agreement with data at $`R_{a_2(1320)}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}12`$ GeV-2.

### 3.4 Decays $`f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma `$

First, consider the decays of mesons belonging to basic $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ nonet. We define flavour wave functions of $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$ as follows:

$`f_2(1270):`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _Tn\overline{n}+\mathrm{sin}\phi _Ts\overline{s},`$
$`f_2(1525):`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _Tn\overline{n}+\mathrm{cos}\phi _Ts\overline{s}.`$ (36)
Then the form factors of the two-photon decays of $`f_2`$-mesons read:

$`F_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _TF_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)+\mathrm{sin}\phi _TF_{s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0),`$
$`F_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _TF_{n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)+\mathrm{cos}\phi _TF_{s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0).`$ (37)
Hadronic decays tell us that $`f_2(1270)`$ is mainly $`n\overline{n}`$ system while $`f_2(1525)`$ is $`s\overline{s}`$, that is, the mixing angle $`\phi _T`$ is small.

Following \[26-29\] we accept partial widths as follows: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }=(2.60\pm 0.25_{0.25}^{+0.00})`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }=0.097\pm 0.015_{0.25}^{+0.00})`$ keV. The magnitude of the extracted signal depends on the type of a model used for the description of the background. For the coherent background the magnitude of the signal decreases, and the second error in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }`$ is related to the background uncertainties.

Figure 5$`b`$ shows the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }`$ calculated under the assumption that $`\phi _T=0`$.

In Fig. 6 the results of the fit to data for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }`$ are shown, without any fixation of $`\phi _T`$. One can see that there exist two solutions: $`\phi _T0^{}`$ and $`\phi _T25^{}`$, in both cases $`R_T^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ GeV-2. The rare hatched areas correspond to the description of data near the low border: $`2.10\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma }2.35\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`0.57\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma }0.82\mathrm{keV}`$.

### 3.5 Two-photon decays of the $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ and $`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$ states

As it follows from , at 1600–1800 MeV there are two tensor-isoscalar states – members of the $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet: they are $`f_2(1640)`$ and $`f_2(1800)`$ (presumably $`n\overline{n}`$\- and $`s\overline{s}`$-dominant states, correspondingly).

In Fig. 3$`c`$ the form factors of mesons from radial excitation nonet $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ are shown: the transition vertex $`Tq\overline{q}`$ is defined by the wave function (10) and spin matrix (12). A small magnitude of transition form factors at $`R_T^2\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ GeV-2 is due to zero in the wave function (10). The form factor magnitudes calculated for the transitions $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$ are in some way approximate only – they strongly depend on the details of the wave functions of $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$-states, and comparatively weak variation which, for example, does not change the mean radius square $`R^2`$ may affect the form factor value by 100%.

Special feature of the two-photon decays of radial-excitation mesons is that their partial widths are considerable smaller than corresponding widths of the basic mesons:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1^3P_2n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma }`$ $`>>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2^3P_2n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma },`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1^3P_2s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }`$ $`>>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2^3P_2s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }.`$
The inequalities are due to the fact that radial wave function of $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$-state contains a zero, therefore the convolution of wave functions $`\psi _{2^3P_2q\overline{q}}\psi _\gamma `$ is significantly smaller than the convolution $`\psi _{1^3P_2q\overline{q}}\psi _\gamma `$ (wave function of basic state has no zeros).

In Fig. 5$`c`$ one can see partial widths for $`f_2(1640)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma `$ calculated under simple hypothesis that $`f_2(1640)`$ is a pure $`n\overline{n}`$ state, while $`f_2(1800)`$ is pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state. One should emphasize that the probability for the transition $`2^3P_2n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma `$ is higher by an order of value than $`2^3P_2s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma `$. This means that a comparatively small admixture of the $`n\overline{n}`$ component may considerably enhance the width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma }`$, by a factor 2–3 as compared to what follows from pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state.

The verification of Eq. (38) is of principal meaning from the point of view of meson quark structure. Preliminary data of the L3 collaboration  on the reaction $`\gamma \gamma K_s^0K_s^0`$ allow one to evaluate the transition $`f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma `$: Fig. 7 shows the $`K_s^0K_s^0`$ spectrum where the peaks are distinctly seen which correspond to the production $`f_2(1525)`$ and $`f_2(1800)`$. The description of these peaks in terms of the Breit–Wigner resonances gives us the following relation:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma }=(0.10\pm 0.05)\mathrm{keV}\frac{BR(f_2(1525)K\overline{K})}{BR(f_2(1800)K\overline{K})}.$$
(39)
Comparing (39) with partial width values shown in Fig. 5$`c`$ proves that the L3 data agree qualitatively with (38), provided $`BR(f_2(1800)K\overline{K})BR(f_2(1525)K\overline{K})`$, that is, the decay channel $`f_2(1800)K\overline{K}`$ is not small. A rather large magnitude of the branching $`f_2(1800)K\overline{K}`$ looks natural, because the $`f_2(1800)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$, according to the systematics in the $`(n,M^2)`$-plane , should belong to the same trajectory, so they both have rather large $`s\overline{s}`$ component. The fact that, according to (39), partial width of the decay $`f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma `$ should be greater than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2^3P_2s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma }0.03`$ keV may be explained by the (20–30)% admixture of $`n\overline{n}`$ component in the $`f_2(1800)`$.

Figure 3$`d`$ demonstrates form factors for mesons of the $`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet: the wave functions are defined by (9), while the vertex $`Tq\overline{q}`$ has the form (16). In Fig. 5$`d`$ partial widths are shown for the transitions $`1^3F_2n\overline{n}\gamma \gamma `$ and $`1^3F_2s\overline{s}\gamma \gamma `$ calculated under assumption that masses of these states are of the order of 2000 MeV .

## 4 Conclusion

We have calculated the two-photon decays of tensor mesons, members of the $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplets $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$, $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ and $`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$.

The main goal was to calculate the decays of mesons of basic multiplet $`1^3P_2q\overline{q}`$: $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$. All calculated partial widths of radiative decays of these mesons, $`a_2(1320)\gamma \gamma `$, $`f_2(1270)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`f_2(1525)\gamma \gamma `$, are in reasonable agreement with the hypothesis about quark-antiquark structure of tensor mesons. In addition, radial wave functions of $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$ are close to radial wave functions of $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ found in the study of radiative decays $`a_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$, $`f_0(980)\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\varphi (1020)\gamma \gamma `$ . The possibility to describe simultaneously scalar and tensor mesons using approximately equal wave functions may be considered as a strong argument in favour of the fact that all these mesons — tensor $`a_2(1320)`$, $`f_2(1270)`$ and $`f_2(1525)`$ and scalar $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ — are members of the same $`P`$-wave $`q\overline{q}`$ multiplet.

The mesons of the first radial excitation, according to , are $`a_2(1660)`$, $`f_2(1640)`$ and $`f_2(1800)`$. We have calculated partial $`\gamma \gamma `$ widths for all these mesons. The comparison with data of the L3 Collaboration on the reaction $`f_2(1800)\gamma \gamma `$ reveals qualitative agreement. However, it should be stressed that calculated values of partial $`\gamma \gamma `$ widths of mesons belonging to the $`2^3P_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet are rather sensitive to details of the wave function of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system.

We have also calculated the $`\gamma \gamma `$ width of mesons belonging to the $`3^3F_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet. These mesons are located near 2000 MeV , and we may expect them to be a target for studying the reactions $`\gamma \gamma `$hadrons.

##

We are grateful to L.G. Dakhno and A.V. Sarantsev for useful discussions. The paper is suppored by the RFBR grant $`n_0`$ 01-02-17861.

## Appendix A. Spin structure of the decay amplitude $`T\gamma \gamma `$

### 4.1 The completness of operators $`S_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(H)}`$

Here we demonstrate that the convolution of the angular momentum operators for $`L=2`$ and $`L=4`$ with the helicity operator $`S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}`$ does not change the amplitude stucture given by (1).

The convolution of the helicity $`H=2`$ operator with that of $`L=2`$ reads:

$$X_{\mu _2\beta }^{(2)}(q)S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\mu _1\beta }^{(2)}(p,q)=$$
$`(A.1)`$
$$=\frac{3}{2}\left(q_{\mu _2}^{}q_\beta ^{}\frac{1}{3}q_{}^2g_{\mu _2\beta }^{}\right)\left(g_{\mu _1\alpha _1}^{}g_{\beta \alpha _2}^{}+g_{\mu _1\alpha _2}^{}g_{\beta \alpha _1}^{}g_{\mu _1\beta }^{}g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{}\right)=$$

$$=\frac{q^2}{2}\left(g_{\mu _1\alpha _1}^{}g_{\mu _2\alpha _2}^{}+g_{\mu _1\alpha _2}^{}g_{\mu _2\alpha _1}^{}g_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{}g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{}\right)=\frac{q^2}{2}S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}(p,q).$$

The convolution of the helicity $`H=2`$ operator with that of $`L=4`$ also gives the term proportional to the $`H=2`$ operator:

$$X_{\mu _1\mu _2\beta \lambda }^{(4)}(q)S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\nu \lambda }^{(2)}(p,q)=$$
$`(A.2)`$
$$=\frac{35}{8}[q_{\mu _1}q_{\mu _2}q_\nu q_\lambda \frac{q^2}{7}(g_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{}q_\nu q_\lambda +g_{\mu _1\nu }^{}q_{\mu _2}q_\lambda +g_{\mu _2\nu }^{}q_{\mu _1}q_\lambda +g_{\nu \lambda }^{}q_{\mu _1}q_{\mu _2})$$

$$\frac{q^4}{35}(g_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{}g_{\nu \lambda }^{}+g_{\mu _1\nu }^{}g_{\mu _2\lambda }^{}+g_{\mu _1\lambda }^{}g_{\mu _2\nu }^{})\left]\right(g_{\nu \alpha _1}^{}g_{\lambda \alpha _2}^{}+g_{\nu \alpha _2}^{}g_{\lambda \alpha _1}^{}g_{\nu \lambda }^{}g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{})=$$

$$=\frac{q^4}{4}\left(g_{\mu _1\alpha _1}^{}g_{\mu _2\alpha _2}^{}+g_{\mu _1\alpha _2}^{}g_{\mu _2\alpha _1}^{}g_{\mu _1\mu _2}^{}g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^{}\right)=\frac{q^4}{4}S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}(p,q).$$

So, we see that the both convolutions, the $`H=2`$ operator with $`L=2`$ and $`L=4`$, give the terms proportional to $`S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2,\mu _1\mu _2}^{(2)}(p,q)`$.

### 4.2 The operators $`S_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(H)}`$ and standard helicity technique

To demonstrate the connection of the introduced operators with standard helicity technique, consider as an example the transition $`\gamma \gamma 2^{++}\mathrm{resonance}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. Using the momenta $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$ for photons and $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$ for mesons, one has for relative momenta and photon polarization vectors

$$q=\frac{1}{2}(q_1q_2)=(0,0,0,q_z),k=\frac{1}{2}(k_1k_2)=(0,k_x,k_y,k_z),$$
$`(A.3)`$
$$ϵ=(0,ϵ_x,ϵ_y,0)=(0,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0).$$

In the helicity basis

$$ϵ=(0,ϵ_+,ϵ_{},0),$$
$`(A.4)`$
$$ϵ_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(ϵ_x+iϵ_y),ϵ_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(ϵ_xiϵ_y)$$

The spin-dependent part of the amplitude with $`H=0`$ reads:

$$ϵ_\alpha ^{(1)}ϵ_\beta ^{(2)}S_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(q)X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=\frac{9}{4}q^2k^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \frac{1}{3})(ϵ_+^{(1)}ϵ_+^{(2)}+ϵ_{}^{(1)}ϵ_{}^{(2)}).$$
$`(A.5)`$
For $`H=2`$ one has

$$ϵ_\alpha ^{(1)}ϵ_\beta ^{(2)}S_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k).$$
$`(A.6)`$
Different components are written as follows:

$$ϵ_+^{(1)}ϵ_+^{(2)}S_{++\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=0,$$
$`(A.7)`$
$$ϵ_+^{(1)}ϵ_{}^{(2)}S_{+\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=\frac{3}{2}k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1+2i\mathrm{sin}\varphi e^{i\varphi }\right),$$

$$ϵ_{}^{(1)}ϵ_+^{(2)}S_{+\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=\frac{3}{2}k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(12i\mathrm{sin}\varphi e^{i\varphi }\right),$$

$$ϵ_{}^{(1)}ϵ_{}^{(2)}S_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}(k)=0.$$

### 4.3 Operators $`S_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(H)}`$ and analytical properties of vertex function

The operators $`S_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(H)}`$ are expressed through metric tensors $`g_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ which work in the space perpendicular to the reaction plane $`T\gamma \gamma `$. This metric tensor has the structure as follows:

$$g_{\alpha \beta }^{}=g_{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta /m_T^2+4q_\alpha q_\beta /m_T^2.$$
$`A.8`$
The presence of factors $`1/m_T^2`$ may evoke the question about the behaviour of the form factor amplitude at $`m_T^2=0`$. Of course, this is a far remote point for the reactions under consideration (the lowest tensor resonance is at $`m_T1600`$ GeV2). Still, this problem sounds principal, so consider it in details.

When treating the reaction ”composite system $`\gamma \gamma `$” one should distinguish it from the transition ”constituents $`\gamma \gamma `$”, in this case $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$. These processes though related to each other are different: the amplitude for the process ”composite system $`\gamma \gamma `$” (or $`T\gamma \gamma `$) is determined by the residue in the amplitude pole $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$ at $`s=m_T^2`$, where $`s`$ is the invariant energy squared of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system. Both amplitudes should satisfy the requirement of gauge invariance (this requirement for the transition $`T\gamma \gamma `$ is imposed by the operators $`S_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(H)}`$), but they have different analytical properties. In particular, the threshold theorems appropriate for $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$ do not take place in the vertex function, i.e. for the residue in the pole $`s=m_T^2`$ the threshold theorems are realised by the interplay of pole and non-pole terms. Due to this fact we must keep the mass of the tensor meson $`m_T^2`$ in Eq. (A.8) as fixed value.

The problem of interrelation of gauge invariance and analyticity in the spectral integration technique has been discussed in detail in  for the transitions $`q\overline{q}\gamma q\overline{q}`$, $`NN\gamma NN`$, $`NN\gamma NN\gamma `$ and corresponding vertex functions describing composite systems (mesons and deuteron).

An opposite point of view according to which the threshold theorems should work for vertex functions was outspoken in .

## Appendix B. Spin factors for pure $`q\overline{q}(L=1)`$ and $`q\overline{q}(L=3)`$ states

At small $`Q^2`$ the spin factor $`S_{L=1}^{(H=0)}(P^2=s,P^2=s^{},Q^2)`$ for pure $`(L=1)`$-state reads:

$$S_{L=1}^{(0)}(s,s^{},Q^2)=$$
$`(B.1)`$
$$=\frac{32\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[2m^2\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\frac{m\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(32m^4+8m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }3\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)\frac{4m\left(16m^4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{4m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(4m^2+3\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\frac{4m\left(2m^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]$$

Recall that we use the notations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(s+s^{})/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=ss^{}`$.

For $`H=2`$ one has:

$$S_{L=1}^{(2)}(s,s^{},Q^2)=$$
$`(B.2)`$
$$=\frac{8\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(16m^4+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\frac{2m\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(16m^44m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\frac{8m^3\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{4m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(2m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)+\frac{4m^3}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right].$$

Correspondingly, the spin factors $`S_{L=3}^{(H)}(s,s^{},Q^2)`$ for pure $`(L=3)`$-state are as follows:

$$S_{L=3}^{(0)}(s,s^{},Q^2)=$$
$`(B.3)`$
$$=\frac{48\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[2m^2\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2\frac{m\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^3}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{12\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(16m^4+4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\frac{2m\left(4m^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{12m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(8m^4+4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)\frac{2m\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(2m^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right],$$

and

$$S_{L=3}^{(2)}(s,s^{},Q^2)=$$
$`(B.4)`$
$$=\frac{4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q^4}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(6m^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2+\frac{3m\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^3}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{2\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(24m^4+4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)+\frac{12m^3\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{2m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^4}{5(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\mathrm{\Sigma }Q^2)^2}\left[\left(12m^4+2m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\frac{6m^3\left(4m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{2m+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right].$$

## Appendix C. Transition form factors $`F_{T(L)\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$

Spectral integral for the form factor $`F_{T(L)\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)`$ with pure $`(L=1)`$ or $`(L=3)`$ wave in the vertex $`Tq\overline{q}`$ reads as follows:

$$F_{T(L)\gamma \gamma }^{(H)}(0,0)=\frac{Z^{(q\overline{q})}\sqrt{N_c}}{16\pi }\underset{4m^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ds}{\pi }\psi _T(s)\psi _\gamma (s)I_L^{(H)}(s),$$
$`(C.1)`$
where for $`(L=1)`$ one has

$$I_{L=1}^{(0)}(s)=2\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}\left(12m^2+3\right)+4m^2\left(4m^2+3s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}+$$

$$+\frac{16m^3}{2m+\sqrt{s}}\left[3\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}\left(2m^2+s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}\right]$$
$`(C.2)`$
and

$$I_{L=1}^{(2)}(s)=\frac{4\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{3}\left(5m^2+s\right)4m^2\left(2m^2+s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}+$$

$$+\frac{4m}{2m+\sqrt{s}}\left[\frac{\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{3}\left(10m^2s\right)+4m^4\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}\right].$$
$`(C.3)`$
Analogously, for the $`q\overline{q}(L=3)`$-wave ($`1^3F_2q\overline{q}`$ multiplet), we have

$$I_{L=3}^{(0)}(s)=\frac{2\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{5}\left(72m^4+8m^2s+s^2\right)+$$
$`(C.4)`$
$$+\frac{12}{5}m^2\left(8m^4+4m^2s+s^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}+$$

$$+\frac{24m^3\left(s4m^2\right)}{5(2m+\sqrt{s})}\left[3\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}+\left(2m^2+s\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}\right]$$

and

$$I_{L=3}^{(2)}(s)=\frac{2\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{15}\left(30m^44m^2s+s^2\right)$$
$`(C.5)`$
$$\frac{2}{5}m^2\left(12m^42m^2s+s^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}+$$

$$+\frac{m\left(s4m^2\right)}{5(2m+\sqrt{s})}\left[\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}\left(10m^2s\right)12m^4\mathrm{ln}\frac{s+\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}{s\sqrt{s\left(s4m^2\right)}}\right].$$


text:
# Electronic structure and magnetic properties of correlated metals

## 1 Introduction

Electronic structure and magnetic properties of iron-group metals are a subject of great interest for a very long period (for review of early theories see herring ; vons ; moriya ). Density functional (DF) theory in the form of local spin density approximation (LSDA) or generalized gradient approximation (GGA), which is the base of modern microscopic theory of solids, is faced with a series of difficulties when describing the photoemission, thermoemission and other spectra of Fe and Ni as well as their finite-temperature magnetic properties (see IKT ; vollhardt ; book ; spflex ; PRL  and Refs. therein). The electron correlation effects should be taken into account to solve these problems. There were a lot of attempts to include these effects in band structure calculations of transition metals liebsch ; treglia ; manghi ; nolting ; steiner ; drchal . Probably the most accurate and successful approach is the use of the dynamical mean-filed theory (DMFT, DMFT ; GKKR ) with the solution of effective impurity problem by numerically exact QMC methods; it has been applied to the magnetism of transition metals in Refs.exchplus ; PRL . Unfortunately, this approach is very cumbersome and expensive computationally; besides that, the QMC method deals with the “truncated” two-indices interaction matrix instead of the complete four-indices one (see exchplus ). Alternatively, a scheme has been proposed in Ref.spflex  basing on a multiband spin-polarized generalization of the “fluctuating exchange” (FLEX) approximation by Bickers and Scalapino flex . Original formulation of the FLEX approximation treats in the equal way both particle-hole (PH) and particle-particle (PP) channels. However, their roles in magnetism are completely different: the interaction of electrons with spin fluctuations in PH channel leads to the most relevant correlation effects moriya  whereas PP processes are important for the renormalizations of the effective interactions in spirit of $`T`$-matrix approach (“ladder approximation”) by Galitskii tmatr  and Kanamori kanamori . Therefore we used in Ref. spflex  a “two-step” procedure when, at first, bare matrix vertex is replaced by $`T`$-matrix, and, secondly, PH channel processes with this effective interaction are taken into account explicitly. Note that the first attempt to combine the $`T`$-matrix and particle-hole correlations in relation with the problem of the magnetism of transition metals has been done by Liebsch liebsch ) but in a different way (introducing of the particle-hole renormalization into the $`T`$-matrix which is opposite in this sense to the approach of Ref. spflex ).

The latter (“two-step-FLEX”) approximation has high enough accuracy for the Hubbard model fleck , as well as for real systems with moderate correlations $`U<W/2`$ where $`U`$ is the Hubbard on-site repulsion energy and $`W`$ is the bandwidth spflex . The replacement of the bare Coulomb interaction by the $`T`$-matrix can be justified accurately, at least for the spin-wave temperature region, both for the Hubbard model IK90  and for the s-d exchange (spin-fermion) model IK85 . However, specific form of the approximation used in spflex  can be improved further by taking into account the spin-dependence of the $`T`$-matrix. Here we present the formulation of the spin-polarized T-matrix-FLEX (SPTF) approximation and its application to the electron structure of ferromagnetic nickel.

## 2 Computational approach

We start with the general many-body Hamiltonian in the LDA+U scheme revU :

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_t+H_U`$
$`H_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}\sigma }{}}t_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}c_{\lambda \sigma }^+c_{\lambda ^{}\sigma }`$
$`H_U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left\{\lambda _i\right\}\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}\lambda _1\lambda _2\left|v\right|\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}c_{\lambda _1\sigma }^+c_{\lambda _2\sigma ^{}}^+c_{\lambda _2^{}\sigma ^{}}c_{\lambda _1^{}\sigma ,}`$ (1)
where $`\lambda =im`$ are the site number $`\left(i\right)`$ and orbital $`\left(m\right)`$ quantum numbers, $`\sigma =,`$ is the spin projection, $`c^+,c`$ are the Fermion creation and annihilation operators, $`H_t`$ is the effective single-particle Hamiltonian from the LDA, corrected for the double-counting of average interactions among correlated electrons as it will be described below, and the Coulomb matrix elements are defined in the standard way

$$12\left|v\right|34=𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\psi _1^{}(𝐫)\psi _2^{}(𝐫^{})v\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)\psi _3(𝐫)\psi _4(𝐫^{}),$$
(2)
where we define for briefness $`\lambda _11`$ etc. Following Ref. tmatr  we take into account the ladder ($`T`$-matrix) renormalization of the effective interaction:

$`13\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right|24=13\left|v\right|24{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{5678}{}}13\left|v\right|57`$
$`G_{56}^\sigma \left(i\omega \right)G_{78}^\sigma ^{}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega \right)68\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right|24,`$ (3)
where $`\omega =(2n+1)\pi T`$ are the Matsubara frequencies for temperature $`T\beta ^1`$ ($`n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}`$). Further we rewrite the perturbation theory in terms of this effective interaction matrix.

At first, we take into account the “Hartree” and “Fock” diagrams with the replacement of the bare interaction by the $`T`$-matrix

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12,\sigma }^{\left(TH\right)}\left(i\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{34\sigma ^{}}{}}13\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right|24G_{43}^\sigma ^{}\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega \right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12,\sigma }^{\left(TF\right)}\left(i\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{34}{}}14\left|T^{\sigma \sigma }\left(i\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right|32G_{34}^\sigma \left(i\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega \right)`$
Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(TH)}+`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(TF)}`$ contains exactly all the second-order contributions as it can be easily seen from the corresponding Feynman diagrams. Now we have to consider the contribution of particle-hole excitations to the self-energy. Similar to spflex  we will replace in the corresponding diagrams the bare interaction by the static limit of the $`T`$-matrix (as it was already mentioned, it can be justified by the explicit calculation of the electron and magnon Green functions of a ferromagnet, at least, for spin-wave temperature region IK85 ; IK90 ). We improve the approximation spflex  by taking into account the $`T`$-matrix spin dependence. When considering the particle-hole channel we replace in the Hamiltonian (1) $`vT^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ which is the solution of Eq.(3) at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.`$ Eq. (LABEL:HarFock) is exact in the limit of low electron (or hole) density which is important for the criterion of magnetism, e.g., in the case of nickel (with almost completely filled $`d`$\- band).

Now we rewrite the effective Hamiltonian (1) with the replacement $`12\left|v\right|34`$ by $`12\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|34`$ in $`H_U`$. To consider the correlation effects due to PH channel we have to separate density ($`d`$) and magnetic ($`m`$) channels as in Ref.flex

$`d_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(c_1^+c_2+c_1^+c_2\right)`$
$`m_{12}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(c_1^+c_2c_1^+c_2\right)`$
$`m_{12}^+`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^+c_2`$
$`m_{12}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^+c_2,`$ (5)
Then the interaction Hamiltonian can be rewritten in the following matrix form

$$H_U=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(D^+V^{}D+m^+V_m^{}m^{}+m^{}V_m^{}m^+\right)$$
(6)
where $``$ means the matrix multiplication with respect to the pairs of orbital indices, e.g.

$`\left(V_m^{}m^+\right)_{11^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{34}{}}\left(V_m^{}\right)_{11^{},22^{}}m_{22^{}}^+,`$
the supervector D defined as

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`(d,m^0),D^+=\left(\begin{array}{c}d^+\\ m_0^+\end{array}\right),`$
and the effective interactions have the following form:

$`\left(V_m^{}\right)_{11^{},22^{}}=12\left|T^{}\right|2^{}1^{}`$
$`V^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{dd}& V^{dm}\\ V^{md}& V^{dd}\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
$`V_{11^{},22^{}}^{dd}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}12\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|1^{}2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}12\left|T^{\sigma \sigma }\right|2^{}1^{}`$
$`V_{11^{},22^{}}^{mm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}\sigma \sigma ^{}12\left|T^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\right|1^{}2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}12\left|T^{\sigma \sigma }\right|2^{}1^{}`$
$`V_{11^{},22^{}}^{dm}=V_{22^{},11^{}}^{md}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[12\left|T^{}\right|1^{}2^{}12\left|T^{}\right|1^{}2^{}12\left|T^{}\right|1^{}2^{}+`$
$`12\left|T^{}\right|1^{}2^{}12\left|T^{}\right|2^{}1^{}+12\left|T^{}\right|2^{}1^{}]`$ (11)
To calculate the particle-hole (P-H) contribution to the electron self-energy we first have to write the expressions for the generalized susceptibilities, both transverse $`\chi ^{}`$ and longitudinal $`\chi ^{}`$. The corresponding expressions are the same as in Ref.spflex  but with another definition of the interaction vertices. One has

$$\chi ^+(i\omega )=\left[1+V_m^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(i\omega )\right]^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(i\omega ),$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12,34}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(\tau \right)=G_{23}^\sigma \left(\tau \right)G_{41}^\sigma ^{}\left(\tau \right)$$
(13)
is an “empty loop” susceptibility and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\omega )`$ is its Fourier transform, $`\tau `$ is the imaginary time. The corresponding longitudinal susceptibility matrix has a more complicated form:

$$\chi ^{}(i\omega )=\left[1+V^{}\chi _0^{}(i\omega )\right]^1\chi _0^{}(i\omega ),$$
(14)
and the matrix of bare longitudinal susceptibility is

$$\chi _0^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
in the $`dd`$-, $`dm^0`$-, $`m^0d`$-, and $`m^0m^0`$\- channels ($`d,m^0=1,2`$ in the supermatrix indices). An important feature of these equations is the coupling of longitudinal magnetic fluctuations and of density fluctuations. It is not present in the one-band Hubbard model due to the absence of the interaction of electrons with parallel spins. For this case Eqs. (12,14) coincides with the well-known result kubo .

Now we can write the particle-hole contribution to the self-energy. Similar to Ref.spflex  one has

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12,\sigma }^{(ph)}\left(\tau \right)=\underset{34,\sigma ^{}}{}W_{13,42}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(\tau \right)G_{34}^\sigma ^{}\left(\tau \right),$$
(16)
with the P-H fluctuation potential matrix:

$$W^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\left(i\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}W^{}\left(i\omega \right)& W^{}\left(i\omega \right)\\ W^{}\left(i\omega \right)& W^{}\left(i\omega \right)\end{array}\right],$$
(17)
where the spin-dependent effective potentials are defined as

$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{}\left[\chi ^{}\chi _0^{}\right]V^{}`$
$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{}\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^{}\right]V^{}`$
$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`V_m^{}\left[\chi ^+\chi _0^+\right]V_m^{}`$
$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`V_m^{}\left[\chi ^+\chi _0^+\right]V_m^{}.`$ (18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^{}`$ differ from $`\chi ^{},\chi _0^{}`$ by the replacement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in Eq.(15). We have subtracted the second-order contributions since they have already been taken into account in Eq.(LABEL:HarFock).

Our final expression for the self energy is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(TH)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(TF)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(PH)}$$
(19)
This formulation takes into account accurately spin-polaron effects because of the interaction with magnetic fluctuations IK90 ; UFN , the energy dependence of $`T`$-matrix which is important for describing the satellite effects in Ni liebsch , contains exact second-order terms in $`v`$ and is rigorous (because of the first term) for almost filled or almost empty bands.

The FLEX approximation can be used in principle directly to the crystal problem taking into account the momentum dependence of the self-energy, which would lead to very cumbersome calculations. To overcome this computational problem, we use as in Ref.spflex  a local approximation to the self-energy, corresponding to combination of the SPTF approach presented above with the DMFT theory. The latter maps the many-body system onto a multi-orbital quantum impurity, i.e. a set of local degrees of freedom in a bath described by the Weiss field function $`𝒢`$. The impurity action (here $`𝐜(\tau )=[c_{m\sigma }(\tau )]`$ is a vector of Grassman variables) is given by:

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau ^{}Tr[𝐜^+(\tau )𝒢^1(\tau ,\tau ^{})𝐜(\tau ^{})]+`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau H_U[𝐜^+(\tau ),𝐜(\tau )]`$
It describes the spin, orbital, energy and temperature dependent interactions of particular magnetic $`3d`$-atom with the rest of the crystal and is used to compute the local Greens function matrix:

$$𝐆_\sigma (\tau \tau ^{})=\frac{1}{Z}D[𝐜,𝐜^+]e^{S_{eff}}𝐜(\tau )𝐜^+(\tau ^{})$$
(21)
($`Z`$ is the partition function) and the impurity self energy $`𝒢_\sigma ^1(i\omega )𝐆_\sigma ^1(i\omega )=𝚺_\sigma (i\omega )`$ .

The Weiss field function $`𝒢`$ is required to obey the self consistency condition, which restores translational invariance to the impurity model description:

$$𝐆_\sigma (i\omega )=\underset{𝐤}{}[(i\omega +\mu )\mathrm{𝟏}H(𝐤)𝚺_\sigma ^{dc}(i\omega )]^1$$
(22)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`H(𝐤)`$ is the LDA Hamiltonian in an orthogonal basis. The local matrix $`𝚺_\sigma ^{dc}`$ is the sum of two terms, the impurity self energy and a so-called “double counting ” correction, $`E_{dc}`$ which is meant to subtract the average electron-electron interactions already included in the LDA Hamiltonian. For metallic systems we propose the general form of dc-correction: $`𝚺_\sigma ^{dc}\left(i\omega \right)=𝚺_\sigma \left(i\omega \right)\frac{1}{2}Tr_\sigma 𝚺_\sigma \left(0\right)`$ for non-magnetic LDA Hamiltonian PRL  and $`𝚺_\sigma ^{dc}\left(i\omega \right)=𝚺_\sigma \left(i\omega \right)𝚺_\sigma \left(0\right)`$ for the magnetic LSDA Hamiltonian. This is motivated by the fact that the static part of the correlation effects are already well described in the density functional theory. Only the $`d`$-part of the self-energy is presented in our calculations, therefore $`𝚺_\sigma ^{dc}=0`$ for $`s`$\- and $`p`$\- states as well as for non-diagonal $`ds`$,$`p`$ contributions.

In spirit of the DMFT approach we have to use the Weiss function $`𝒢_\sigma `$ instead of $`G_\sigma `$ in all the expressions when calculating the self-energy on a given site. Similar to the one-band DMFT-perturbation scheme logan ; fleck  we keep the static mean-field term in the bath Green functions: $`𝒢_\sigma ^1(i\omega )=𝐆_\sigma ^1(i\omega )+𝚺_\sigma (i\omega )𝚺_\sigma \left(0\right)`$.

## 3 Electronic structure of nickel

We have started from the non spin-polarized LDA or spin-polarized LSDA band structure of nickel within the TB-LMTO method OKA  in the minimal $`s,p,d`$ basis set and used numerical orthogonalization to find the $`H(𝐤)`$ Hamiltonian in Eq.(22). We take into account of the Coulomb interactions only between $`d`$-states. The correct parameterization of the $`H_U`$part is indeed a serious problem. For example, first-principle estimations of average Coulomb interactions ($`U`$) U ; steiner  lead to unreasonably large value of order of 5-6 eV in comparison with experimental values of the $`U`$-parameter in the range of 1-2 eV for ironsteiner . Semiempirical analysis of the appropriate interaction value oles  gives $`U3`$ eV. It is shown in Refs. spflex ; PRL  that an adequate description of a broad circle of the properties of Fe and Ni in the LDA+DMFT scheme is possible when choosing $`U23`$ eV. The difficulties with an ab initio determination of the correct value of $`U`$ are connected with complicated screening problems, definitions of orthogonal orbitals in the crystal, and contributions of the intersite interactions. In the quasiatomic (spherical) approximation the full $`U`$-matrix for the $`d`$shell is determined by the three parameters $`U,J`$ and $`\delta J`$ or equivalently by effective Slater integrals F0, F2 and F4 revU . For example, U= F0, J=(F2+F4)/14 and we use the simplest way of estimating $`\delta J`$ or F4 keeping the ratio F2/F4 equal to its atomic value 0.625 revU .

Note that the value of intra-atomic (Hund) exchange interaction $`J`$ is not sensitive to the screening and approximately equals 1 eV in different estimationsU ; further we have chosen $`J=1`$ eV. For the most important parameter $`U`$, which defines the bare vertex matrix (Eq. (2)), we took the values $`U=2`$ and $`3`$ eV to check the dependence of the density of states (DOS) on $`U`$. To find DOS we applied a Pade approximant method pade  for the analytical continuation of the Green function from the Matsubara frequencies to the real energy axis. To find the self-consistent solution of the SPTF equations we used 1024 Matsubara frequencies and the FFT-scheme with the energy cut-off at 25 eV and temperature around 200 K. The sum over irreducible Brillouin zone have been made with 256 $`𝐤`$-points.

Comparison of the LDA density of state and the SPTF calculation with DMFT self-consistency for the local self-energy matrix (Fig.1) shows that the latter does reproduce the three most important characteristic features of correlation effects for nickel: 6 eV satellite, 30% narrowing of the $`d`$-bandwidth and 50% reduction of exchange splittings in comparison with the LSDA band structure iwan ; eber ; kamp ; himpsel . For $`U`$=2 eV the position of satellite is reproduced quite well, while for $`U`$=3 eV it is shifted to the lower energies. Note that the LDA+DMFT consideration with the QMC solution of the effective impurity problem gives an adequate description of the electronic structure of Ni for the choice $`U=3`$ eV PRL . The narrowing of the $`d`$-bandwidth in our calculations is reasonable for the both $`U`$-values. The non-magnetic LDA starting Hamiltonian is better than the LSDA one for correct description of the 50% reduction of the spin-splittings in nickel, while for magnetic LSDA Hamiltonian the the spin-splitting in the quasiparticle DOS remains approximately the same like in the LSDA results (Fig.1). The local magnetic moment on nickel atom is not very sensitive to the U-values and is equal to 0.56 $`\mu _B`$ for U=2 eV LDA+SPTF and 0.58 $`\mu _B`$ for U=3 eV LSDA+SPTF calculations.

Another important correlation effect is an essential reduction of the spin polarization near the Fermi level in comparison with the LSDA calculations. This is connected with the spin-polaron effects because of the mixing of the spin-up and spin-down states UFN . They are taken into account in our scheme due to presence of the off-diagonal terms in the effective potential Eq.(17).

## 4 Exchange interactions in nickel

Calculating the variation of the thermodynamic potential with respect to small spin rotations with the use of the “local force theorem” an effective exchange interaction parameters can be found in the following form exchplus

$$J_{ij}=Tr_{\omega L}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^sG_{ij}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^sG_{ji}^{}\right)$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^s=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}\right).`$ Correspondingly, the magnon dispersion relation $`\omega _𝐪`$ for a ferromagnet is defined by the formula

$$\omega _𝐪=\frac{4}{M}\left[J(0)J(𝐪)\right]$$
(24)
where $`M`$ is the magnetic moment per unit cell, $`J(𝐪)`$ is the Fourier transform of the exchange integrals defined by Eq.(23). The expression for the stiffness tensor $`D_{\alpha \beta },`$

$$\omega _𝐪=D_{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha q_\beta ,\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐪0,\end{array}$$
(25)
reads

$$D_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{2}{M}Tr_{\omega L}\underset{𝐤}{}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^s\frac{G^{}\left(𝐤\right)}{k_\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }^s\frac{G^{}\left(𝐤\right)}{k_\beta }\right)$$
(26)
These results generalize the LSDA expressions of Ref. LKG  to the case of correlated systems. One can show (see Appendix) that they can be derived using a standard diagram approach under two assumptions: (i) the locality of the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (which is fulfilled in the DMFT) and (ii) the neglecting of the vertex corrections. The expression (26) for the stiffness constant turns out to be exact in the framework of the DMFT.

We have calculated the magnon spectrum for the optimal choice $`U`$=2 eV and $`J`$=1 eV using SPTF calculations with the non-magnetic LDA as a starting point. The computational results are shown in Fig.2; the calculated spin-wave stiffness constant for Ni is found to be $`D=450`$ meV/A2 in an excellent agreement with the experimental value of $`455`$ meV/A2 experD . Note that simple approximation for exchange interactions is not allowed us to investigate the problem of the optical mode in magnon spectrum of nickel savrasov .

## 5 Conclusions

Here we have presented the results of new SPTF approximation in the framework of first-principle dynamical mean field theory for magnetic transition metals. This approximation combining the $`T`$-matrix and FLEX schemes gives a satisfactory description of both electronic and magnon spectra of Ni. In contrast with the QMC method for the solution of the effective impurity problem, this approach, being less rigorous, is not so time- and resource-consuming and allows to work with the most general rotationally invariant form of the Coulomb on-site interaction.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO project 047-008-16) and partially supported by Russian Science Support Foundation.

## Appendix: Exchange interactions and vertex corrections

In order to elucidate the approximation behind the expression for the exchange parameters (Eq. 23), we consider the energy of a spiral magnetic configuration with the rigid rotation of the spinor-electron operators on site $`i`$ by the polar angles $`\theta _i`$ and $`\phi _i`$:

$$c_{im}U(\theta _i,\phi _i)c_{im}$$

where

$`U(\theta ,\phi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2& \mathrm{sin}\theta /2\mathrm{exp}\left(i\phi \right)\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta /2\mathrm{exp}\left(i\phi \right)& \mathrm{cos}\theta /2\end{array}\right),`$ (29)
assuming that $`\theta _i=const`$ and $`\phi _i=\mathrm{𝐪𝐑}_𝐢`$ where $`𝐑_𝐢`$ is the site lattice vector. Since we take into account only on-site correlation effects the interaction term in the Hamiltonian is invariant under that transformation, and the change of the Hamiltonian is

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta H=\underset{ij}{}Tr_{L\sigma }\left[t_{ij}c_i^+\left(U_i^+U_j1\right)c_j\right]=\delta _1H+\delta _2H\hfill \\ \delta _1H=\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}\underset{k}{}Tr_{L\sigma }\left[\left(t\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)t\left(𝐤\right)\right)c_𝐤^+c_𝐤\right]\hfill \\ \delta _2H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \underset{ij}{}Tr_L\left[t_{ij}c_i^+c_j\right]\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐑}_i\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐑}_j\right)\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
Consider further the case of small $`\theta `$, we can calculate the variation of the total energy to lowest order in $`\theta `$ which corresponds to the first order in $`\delta _1H`$ and the second order in $`\delta _2H`$:

$`\delta E={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{4}}Tr_L{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}[t(𝐤+𝐪)t(𝐤)]\{n_𝐤+`$
$`Tr_\omega [\gamma (k,q)G_{}(k+q)[t(𝐤+𝐪)t(𝐤)]G_{}(k)]\},`$ (31)
where $`n_𝐤=Tr_{L\sigma }c_𝐤^+c_𝐤`$, $`q,k`$ are four-vectors with component $`(𝐪,0)`$ and $`(𝐤,i\omega )`$, $`\gamma `$ is the three-leg vertex. Our main approximation is to neglect the vertex corrections ($`\gamma `$ = 1). In this case the previous equation takes the following form:

$`\delta E={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{4}}Tr_{L\omega }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}[t(𝐤+𝐪)t(𝐤)]`$ (32)
$`G_{}(k+q)[G_{}^1(k+q)G_{}^1(k)+t(𝐤+𝐪)t(𝐤)]G_{}(k)`$
Using the following consequence of the Dyson equation:

$`t\left(𝐤+𝐪\right)t\left(𝐤\right)=G_{}^1\left(k\right)G_{}^1\left(k+q\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\left(E\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\left(E\right)`$
one can rewrite the Eq.(Appendix: Exchange interactions and vertex corrections) in the form: $`\delta E=\frac{\theta ^2}{4}[J(0)J(𝐪)]`$ with the exchange integrals corresponding to Eq. (23). We conclude that the expression for $`J_{ij}`$ is accurate if the vertex corrections can be neglected. Note that the limit of small q this neglecting can be justified rigorously, provided that the self-energy and three-leg scalar vertex are local. This can be proven, e.g., using the Ward-Takahashi identities HE . Therefore, the expression for the stiffness constant of the ferromagnet (Eq. (26)) appears to be exact in the framework of DMFT berlin .