text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

The HarishChandra and Itzykson-Zuber (HIZ) integral for the unitary group $`U_k`$ is defined by

$$I=𝑑U\mathrm{exp}i\mathrm{trU}^{}\mathrm{XU}\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(1)
where $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are diagonal $`k\times k`$ Hermitian matrices. It is well known that this integral is given, up to some normalization of the measure, by

$$I=\frac{det_{1i,jk}\mathrm{exp}(ix_i\lambda _j)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(X)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are the Vandermonde determinants of the eigenvalues of $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(x_ix_j)`$). This HIZ formula may be easily derived by considering the Laplacian operator

$$L=\frac{^2}{X_{ij}^2}.$$
(3)
Its eigenfunctions are plane waves

$$Le^{i\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{X}}=(\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{itr}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{X}}.$$
(4)
One can construct a unitary invariant eigenfunction of $`L`$, for the same eigenfunction $`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, by the superposition

$$I=𝑑Ue^{i\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{UXU}^{}},$$
(5)
which is nothing but the HIZ integral. The integral $`I`$ beeing unitary invariant, is a function of the $`k`$ eigenvalues $`x_i`$ of $`X`$. The one dimensional quantum mechanics of the eigenvalues, for unitary invariant eigenstates, is then easily solved in terms of free fermions, leading to the unitary HIZ formula.

The same considerations hold for the three ensembles $`\beta =1,2`$ and 4, corresponding to the orthogonal, unitary and symplectic ensembles, with

$$I=e^{i\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{gXg}^1}𝑑g.$$
(6)
The Laplacian acting on invariant states, may be expressed in terms of a differential operator on the eigenvalues $`x_i`$ :

$$[\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+\beta \underset{i=1,(ij)}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{x_ix_j}\frac{}{x_i}]I=ϵI,$$
(7)
with the eigenvalue $`ϵ`$

$$ϵ=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _i^2$$
(8)
Note that the integral $`I`$ is manifestly symmetric under interchange of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`X`$, but the procedure is dissymetric. The solutions will of course restore this property, which is not obvious if one considers the equation (7) alone.

The $`x`$-dependent eigenfunctions of this Schrödinger operator have a scalar product given by the measure

$$\phi _1|\phi _2=𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_k|\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)|^\beta \phi _1^{}(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)\phi _2(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)$$
(9)
The measure becomes trivial if one multiplies the wave function by $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|^{\beta /2}`$ . Thus if, for some given ordering of the $`x_i`$’s, one changes $`I(x)`$ to

$$\psi (x_1\mathrm{}x_k)=|\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)|^{\beta /2}I(x_1\mathrm{}x_k),$$
(10)
one obtains the Hamiltonian,

$$[\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}\beta (\frac{\beta }{2}1)\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}]\psi =ϵ\psi .$$
(11)
The relation between matrix quantum mechanics and many-body problems with $`1/r^2`$ pair potentials was already present in  and it has also be used for the study of Selberg integrals by Forrester . This Schrödinger equation is a simple Calogero-Moser model.

Although the solutions of this many-body problem are known, they are of little use for our purpose, since it is already quite involved to recover from the formal expression of the solution for arbitrary $`\beta `$, the simple unitary result of HIZ and it looks formidable to extend it to other values of $`\beta `$ . For $`\beta =2`$, the solution is again given by plane waves in the $`x_i`$ and (taking into account the symmetry under permutations of $`I`$), one obtains the HIZ formula. For $`\beta =4`$, the problem is much less trivial, but it leads to explicit solutions for finite values of $`k`$. Indeed the problem turns out to possess simple solutions of the form of symmetrized sums of plane waves multiplied by polynomials in the variables $`1/(x_ix_j)(\lambda _i\lambda _j)`$, providing therefore a complete explicit solution for the $`Sp(k)`$ group integration.

For general $`k`$, the solution of (11) is of the form

$$\psi _0=e^{i(\lambda _1x_1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _kx_k)}\chi $$
(12)
where $`\chi `$ satisfies

$$[\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}+2i\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _i\frac{}{x_i}y\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}]\chi =0$$
(13)
in which

$$y=\beta (\frac{\beta }{2}1).$$
(14)
For k=2, it is immediate to verify that there is a solution, function of the signle variable $`\tau =(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(x_1x_2)`$, whose asymptotic expansion for large $`\tau `$ is

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i/\tau )^n{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}(p1{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2p}})`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`I_\nu (z)\sqrt{2\pi z}e^z`$
in which the Bessel function $`I_\nu (z)`$ is defined with $`\nu ^2=(y+1/2)/4`$ and $`z=i\tau /4`$.

When $`\beta =4`$, the operator $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_i^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(x_ix_j)^2}}`$ annihilates the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ . Consequently the solution of (13) may be written

$$\chi (x_1\mathrm{}x_k)=\frac{f(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)}$$
(16)
in which $`f(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`k(k1)/2`$ in the $`x_a`$’s. Defining

$$\tau _{ij}=(\lambda _i\lambda _j)(x_ix_j)$$
(17)
one finds for $`k=3`$

$`\chi =`$ $`1+2i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{31}}})4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{12}\tau _{23}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{23}\tau _{31}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{31}\tau _{12}}})`$ (18)
$`12i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{12}\tau _{23}\tau _{31}}}.`$
Remaining still with $`\beta =4`$, one may factor out the Vandermonde determinant from $`\chi `$ as (16), and one obtains a differential equation for $`f`$,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{^2}{x_i^2}f+2(\frac{\beta }{2}1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(\frac{f}{x_i}+i\lambda _if)(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{}{x_i}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }})+2i\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _i\frac{f}{x_i}=0$$
(19)
The solution of this equation is obtained by expanding in powers of the $`\lambda _i`$’s, but the expansion ends with the highest degree, the Vandermonde product of degree six $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _4)`$. Using the notation of (17), $`\tau _{ij}=(x_ix_j)(\lambda _i\lambda _j)`$, we obtain

$$f=1\frac{i}{4}(\tau _{12}+\tau _{13}+\tau _{14}+\tau _{23}+\tau _{24}+\tau _{34})+O(\tau ^2)$$
(20)
as shown in the appendix of . In the next section, we consider the symplectic case ($`\beta =4`$) for larger values of $`k`$, and we will clarify the meaning of the coefficients which appear in the expansion of $`\chi `$.

## 2 Decomposition into complete graphs in the symplectic case

Let us discuss now the asymptotic expansion of $`\chi `$ for $`\beta =4`$, i.e. for the symplectic group integration of the HIZ integral. Such integrals appear in various problems ; for instance one encounters it in the calculation of the average of products of characteristic polynomials of random matrices in the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble $`<_{i=1}^k\mathrm{det}(\lambda _iX)>`$. Indeed we have shown in a previous work  that this average may be expressed as an integral over a $`k\times k`$ quaternion matrix ; this representation exhibits a duality between the GOE average and a symplectic HIZ integral. Thus this requires to compute the HIZ integral for $`\beta =4`$, as discussed in  , in which the expressions were given up to $`k=4`$. We extend here the construction of the polynomial solutions to arbitrary values of $`k`$ .

As discussed before, the expansion of the function $`\chi `$ in inverse powers of the variables $`1/\tau _{ij}`$, defined in (17), terminates with a term proportional to $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{ij}}}`$, of degree $`k(k1)/2`$. The monomials in the variables $`1/\tau _{ij}`$ may be represented graphically : one marks $`k`$ points, and a line between the points i and j will represent a factor $`\frac{1}{\tau _{ij}}`$ in a given monomial. A complete graph is a graph in which all the pairs of points are connected by a line. For instance, a triangle (k=3) and a tetrahedron (k=4) are complete graphs. The k-point complete graph has k(k-1)/2 lines. A complete graph of k points receives a factor $`C_k`$ in which

$$C_k=\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}l!$$
(21)
This number is related to the integral,

$$C_k=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{k/2}}\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^2e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle z_i^2}}\underset{i}{\overset{k}{}}dz_i$$
(22)
The last term of highest degree in $`\chi `$ , is equal to

$$i^kC_k\underset{i<j}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{\tau _{ij}}$$
(23)
All the terms of the expansion of $`\chi `$ have coefficients which may be decomposed into combinations of factors $`C_n`$ with $`nk`$.

For instance , the k=3 solution is

$$\chi =1+i\frac{C_2C_1}{C_0}(v_1+v_2+v_3)+i^2\frac{(C_2)^2}{C_1}(v_1v_2+v_2v_3+v_1v_3)+i^3C_3v_1v_2v_3$$
(24)
where $`v_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{12}}}`$, $`v_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{23}}}`$,and $`v_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{31}}}`$. The graphs of the various terms in $`\chi `$ may all be analyzed as a decomposition into complete graphs. For instance, $`v_1v_2`$ consists of two lines connecting the point number three to points one and two. The lines (2-3) and (3-1) are complete graphs of two points, hence the factor $`C_2^2`$, with the point three counted twice, thus a division by $`(C_1)`$, equal to one. (One has to multiply further the result by a power of $`i`$ raised to the number of lines).

When $`k=4`$, by this rule of decomposition of the graphs into complete graphs, we find the coefficients of all the terms in the form

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`1+i{\displaystyle \frac{C_2C_1}{C_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}v_i`$ (25)
$`+i^2{\displaystyle \frac{(C_2)^2}{C_1}}(v_1v_2+v_2v_3+v_1v_3+v_1v_4+v_1v_5+v_2v_5+v_2v_6+v_3v_6`$
$`+v_3v_4+v_4v_5+v_4v_6+v_5v_6)`$
$`+i^2(C_2)^2(v_1v_6+v_2v_4+v_3v_5)`$
$`+i^3{\displaystyle \frac{C_3C_1}{C_0}}(v_1v_2v_3+v_1v_4v_5+v_2v_5v_6+v_3v_4v_6)`$
$`+i^3{\displaystyle \frac{(C_2)^3}{(C_1)^2}}(v_1v_3v_5+v_1v_3v_6+v_2v_3v_4+v_3v_4v_5+v_3v_5v_6+v_1v_5v_6+v_2v_4v_5`$
$`+v_2v_3v_5+v_1v_2v_4+v_1v_4v_6+v_1v_2v_6+v_2v_4v_6)`$
$`+i^3{\displaystyle \frac{(C_2)^3}{C_1}}(v_1v_2v_5+v_1v_3v_4+v_2v_3v_6+v_4v_5v_6)`$
$`+i^4{\displaystyle \frac{(C_2)^4C_0}{(C_1)^4}}(v_1v_2v_4v_6+v_1v_3v_5v_6+v_2v_3v_4v_5)`$
$`+i^4{\displaystyle \frac{C_3C_2}{C_1}}(v_2v_4v_5v_6+v_2v_3v_5v_6+v_1v_2v_5v_6+v_3v_4v_5v_6+v_1v_3v_4v_6+v_2v_3v_4v_6`$
$`+v_1v_2v_3v_5+v_1v_2v_3v_6+v_1v_2v_3v_4+v_1v_3v_4v_5+v_1v_2v_4v_5+v_1v_4v_5v_6)`$
$`+i^5{\displaystyle \frac{(C_3)^2}{C_2}}(v_2v_3v_4v_5v_6+v_1v_3v_4v_5v_6+v_1v_2v_4v_5v_6+v_1v_2v_3v_5v_6`$
$`+v_1v_2v_3v_4v_6+v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5)`$
$`+i^6C_4v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5v_6`$
where we have used $`v_1=1/\tau _{12},v_2=1/\tau _{23},v_3=1/\tau _{13},v_4=1/\tau _{14},v_5=1/\tau _{24},v_6=1/\tau _{34}`$. Again the graph of the last term $`v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5v_6`$ is a complete graph of 4-points. Substituting in this formula the values $`C_n=_{j=1}^nj!`$, one recovers precisely the $`k=4`$ result, given in an earlier publication.

The decomposition of graphs into complete components has certain general structures for arbitrary values of $`k`$. The term of highest degree is $`i^{k(k1)/2}C_k`$ ; the next one, obtained by deleting one line, has a decomposition given by

$$\frac{(C_{k1})^2}{C_{k2}}$$
(26)
For k=5, this decomposition means that the graph is made of two tetrahedra sharing a triangular face ; hence the division by $`C_3`$ to avoid double counting of this face. This explains the above factor (26). In the case k=4, this factor represents two triangles connected by one edge, and it reads $`{\displaystyle \frac{(C_3)^2}{C_2}}=72`$.

When two lines are eliminated from the maximum complete graph $`C_k`$, we have two type graphs.

(i) The first case is the elimination of two lines emerging from the same point. In this case the decomposition is $`C_{k1}C_{k2}/C_{k3}`$. For k=4, it is a triangle and one line connected at the vertex. For k=5, it is a tetrahedron connected to a triangle through one edge.

(ii) The second type consists of deleting two non consecutive lines. In this case, we have the decomposition of $`(C_{k2})^4C_{k4}/(C_{k3})^4`$. In the case k=4, it corresponds just to a square, four line connecting the four vertices of a square. For k=5, it is a graph of four triangles connected to each other by four edges.

If we divide this factor $`(C_{k2})^4C_{k4}/(C_{k3})^4`$ by $`C_k`$, as appeared in the expression for $`f`$ in (20), it becomes $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{80}},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{75}}`$ for k= 4,5 and 6, respectively. These values have been found by a direct evaluation of the solution of the differential equation (19). Thus we have, for $`\beta =4`$ and for arbitrary values of k, an expression for $`\chi `$, whose coefficients are given by the decomposition of the complete graphs $`C_n`$.

The case $`\beta =4`$ is thus easy to analyze for two reasons. First there are no ”multiple” lines in a graph, meaning that every monomial in $`\chi `$ is of degree at most one in any variable $`1/\tau _{ij}`$. Then the factor $`C_n=j!`$ for complete graphs has a simple structure. However, for $`\beta 4`$, the number of lines between two points may be arbitrarily large. Then the contribution $`C_n`$ of complete graphs has a more complicated expression. For values of $`\beta `$ of the form

$$\beta =2(m+1)$$
(27)
a complete graph between two points consists of $`m`$ lines joining these two points and

$$C_2=\frac{y}{2}(1+\frac{y}{4})(2+\frac{y}{6})\mathrm{}((m1)+\frac{y}{2m})$$
(28)
in which y has be defined in (14). The evaluation of $`C_3`$ is non trivial and we will discuss it in the following section. For $`\beta `$’s of the form (27) the previous graphical analysis of decomposition into complete subgraphs, may be extended to arbitrary k. However, even then, more complex rules for non-complete graphs are required. To understand this complexity, we consider the $`k=3`$ case for arbitrary $`\beta `$ in the next section.

## 3 k=3 for arbitrary $`\beta `$

Even for the simple $`k=3`$ case, the HIZ integral is not known explicitly in the form of a WKB expansion. An analysis in terms of the solutions of the Calogero three-body problem has been performed in . However, its outcome is far from our purpose since it is already quite involved to recover from there the unitary HIZ formula, and one does not see that for values of $`\beta `$ such as four, the WKB expansion is a polynomial. Therefore we start again with the partial derivative equation (13) for $`k=3`$, and expand the solution as

$$\chi =\underset{n,m,r=0}{}i^{n+m+r}\frac{C_{n,m,r}}{\tau _{12}^n\tau _{23}^m\tau _{31}^r}.$$
(29)
Note that it is not at all obvious that the equation (13) admits such a solution. Indeed, assuming that the solution is only a function of the $`\tau `$’s, one finds easily that

$$[2i\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _i\frac{}{x_i}\underset{i<j}{}\frac{y}{(x_ix_j)^2}]\chi =(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2\tau _{12}^2[2i\frac{}{\tau _{12}}+y]\chi +\mathrm{perm}.$$
(30)
However the term involving the second derivative does not share this structure since

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi }{x_a^2}}=`$ $`2(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2[\tau _{12}^4{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi }{\tau _{12}^2}}+\tau _{12}^3{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _{12}}}]`$ (31)
$`2(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _3\lambda _1)\tau _{12}^2\tau _{31}^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi }{\tau _{12}\tau _{31}}}+\mathrm{perm}`$
The last term, with cross-products in the $`\lambda _a`$’s, is a priori different. However there are, order by order, a set of identities which allow one to cast those cross-products into sums of squares. Those identities follow from $`(x_1x_2)+(x_2x_3)+(x_3x_1)=0`$, leading to

$$(\lambda _1\lambda _2)\tau _{23}\tau _{31}+\mathrm{perm}=0.$$
(32)
From there one derives order by order the identities which are needed to cast the cross-products into squares. Let us quote the simplest

$$(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _3\lambda _1)\tau _{23}^2+\mathrm{perm}=(\lambda _1\lambda _2)^2\tau _{31}\tau _{23}+\mathrm{perm}.$$
(33)
Order by order those identities allow us to satisfy the conditions on the expansion of $`\chi `$, which make it a function of the $`\tau `$ variables . One finds easily that $`C_{n00}`$, which is associated to the diagram consisting of $`n`$ lines between two points, is given by :

$$C_{n00}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}((l1)+\frac{y}{2l})$$
(34)
The generating function of those coefficients is the modified Bessel function, solution of the k=2 problem. Note that $`C_{n,m,r}`$ is symmetric under permutations of n,m and r ; for instance $`C_{m,0,0}=C_{0,m,0}`$.

When r=0, one finds that $`C_{n,m,0}`$ has a decomposition into a product of two factors,

$$C_{n,m,0}=C_{n,0,0}C_{m,0,0}.$$
(35)
For the full HIZ integral, triangle graphs, in which the three integers $`(n,m,r)`$ of $`C_{n,m,r}`$ are non-zero, play an essential role.

From the differential equation (13), one can derive a recursion equation for the $`C_{n,m,r}`$ . However a direct expansion of the solution of is extremely tedious and complicated at increasing orders, since one has to use more and more identities of the type (33), but of higher degree. One needs triagle identities. The expansion for the differential equation (19) has a simpler structure ; it gives a relation between $`C_{n,m,r}`$, with $`n+m+r=P+1`$, in terms of $`C_{n,m,r}`$ with $`n+m+r=P`$ ; this relation is valid for a fixed given value of $`m`$. If one writes $`C_{n,m,r}`$ as a linear combination of $`C_{n^{},m,r^{}}`$, where $`r^{}<r`$, and $`n^{}+r^{}=n+r1`$, one obtains

$$C_{n,m,1}=C_{n,m,0}(nm+\frac{y}{2})$$
(36)
$$C_{n,m,2}=C_{n,m,1}(\frac{m(n1)}{2}1+\frac{y}{4})+C_{n+1,m,0}\frac{m}{2}(n+1)$$
(37)
$`C_{n,m,3}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n,m,2}({\displaystyle \frac{m}{3}}(n2)2+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{6}})+C_{n+1,m,1}{\displaystyle \frac{mn}{3}}`$ (38)
$`+C_{n+2,m,0}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{3}}(n+2)`$
For general $`r`$ ($`r>3`$), we have

$`C_{n,m,r}`$ $`=C_{n,m,r1}({\displaystyle \frac{m(nr+1)}{r}}(r1)+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2r}})`$ (39)
$`+C_{n,m,r2}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}(nr+3)+C_{n,m,r3}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}(nr+5)`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$
$`+C_{n+r2,m,1}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}(n+r3)+C_{n+r1,m,0}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}(n+r1).`$
The solution of these recursion equations guarantees automatically the symmetry under exchange between $`n,m`$ and $`r`$ : $`C_{n,m,r}=C_{n,r,m}=C_{m,n,r}=C_{m,r,n}=C_{r,n,m}=C_{r,m,n}`$.

From these recursion formulae, one may determine iteratively all the coefficients $`C_{n,m,r}`$. The resulting expressions are complicated for general $`y`$. For instance, even at low order, one finds

$$C_{2,2,2}=(\frac{y}{2})^2(1+\frac{y}{4})^2(6+\frac{3}{2}y+\frac{y^2}{8})$$
(40)
$$C_{3,3,3}=(\frac{y}{2})^2(1+\frac{y}{4})^2(2+\frac{y}{6})^2(51\frac{59}{8}y+\frac{37}{48}y^2+\frac{1}{48}y^3)$$
(41)
The solution for $`\beta =4`$ and $`k=3`$, may be written in the compact form

$$\chi =e^\varphi $$
(42)
$$\varphi =2i(\frac{1}{\tau _{12}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{23}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{13}})4i\frac{1}{\tau _{12}\tau _{23}\tau _{13}}$$
(43)
in which it is understood that one expands it in powers of $`1/\tau `$, dropping any term involving powers of $`1/\tau _{ij}`$ greater than one. This corresponds to the absence of multiple bonds between two points in the graphical representation for $`\beta =4`$. This result agrees with (18). This certainly suggests that $`\varphi `$ ought to be written in terms of Grassmann variables. In the next section, we consider such expressions for general $`y`$ in an expansion in $`1/y`$. This also provides consistency checks for the recursion equation (39).

## 4 Large y expansion

One can obtain an expansion in powers of $`1/y`$ if one returns to the differential equation (13), taking now as variables

$$u_a=x_a/y.$$
(44)
The function $`\chi (u_1\mathrm{}u_k)`$ is solution of

$$[\frac{1}{y}\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{^2}{u_a^2}+2i\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _a\frac{}{u_a}\underset{a<b}{}\frac{1}{(u_au_b)^2}]\chi =0.$$
(45)
The leading term $`\chi _0`$ is thus solution of

$$[2i\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _a\frac{}{u_a}\underset{a<b}{}\frac{1}{(u_au_b)^2}]\chi _0=0.$$
(46)
We look for a solution which is a symmetric function of the variables

$$v_{a,b}=\frac{i}{(\lambda _a\lambda _b)(u_au_b)},a<b$$
(47)
which thus satisfies

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _a\frac{\chi _0}{u_a}=i\underset{1a<bk}{}(\lambda _a\lambda _b)^2v_{ab}^2\frac{\chi _0}{v_{ab}}.$$
(48)
The equation (46) takes then the simple form

$$\underset{1a<bk}{}(\lambda _a\lambda _b)^2v_{ab}^2[2\frac{}{v_{ab}}1]\chi _0=0.$$
(49)
There is a trivial symmetric solution which satisfies the $`k(k1)/2`$ equations

$$[2\frac{}{v_{ab}}1]\chi _0=0,$$
(50)
namely

$$\chi _0=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\underset{a<b}{}v_{ab})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{iy}{2}\underset{a<b}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _a\lambda _b)(x_ax_b)}).$$
(51)
One thus writes

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`e^\varphi `$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\varphi _2+\mathrm{},`$ (52)
with

$$\varphi _0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{a<b}{}v_{ab}.$$
(53)
The next terms are solutions of

$$\underset{1}{\overset{k}{}}((\frac{\varphi _0}{u_a})^2+\frac{^2\varphi _0}{u_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})+2i\underset{1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _a\frac{\varphi _1}{u_a}=0,$$
(54)
$$\underset{1}{\overset{k}{}}(2\frac{\varphi _0}{u_a}\frac{\varphi _1}{u_a}+\frac{^2\varphi _1}{u_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}})+2i\underset{1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _a\frac{\varphi _2}{u_a}=0.$$
(55)
In order to make it clear that it is a non trivial property of these equations to have solutions which are symmetric polynomials in the variables $`v_{ab}`$, we shall examine these equations in some detail.

For simplicity of notations we shall limit ourselves to k=3, the generalization to arbitrary k beeing immediate. It is thus convenient to simplify slightly the notations and write

$$v_{12}=V_3,v_{23}=V_1,v_{31}=V_2$$
(56)
Let us first consider (54) ; since the function $`\varphi _1`$ is a symmetric function of the $`V_i`$’s one finds easily, as in (48), that

$$\underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _a\frac{\varphi _1}{u_a}=i[(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2V_1^2\frac{}{V_1}+\mathrm{perm}.]\varphi _1$$
(57)
The explicit solution (53) allows one to write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}}(({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{u_a}})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2V_1^4+\mathrm{perm}.]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _3\lambda _1)\mathrm{V}_2^2\mathrm{V}_3^2+\mathrm{perm}.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi _0}{u_a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2[(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2V_1^3+\mathrm{perm}.]`$ (58)
The second term of the first line of (57) does not involve a priori $`(\lambda _a\lambda _b)^2`$ ; however the variables $`V_i`$ are not independent since they are defined in terms of the differences $`(t_1t_2),(t_2t_3),(t_3t_1)`$ whose sum is zero. Thus

$$V_2V_3(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _1\lambda _3)+\mathrm{perm}.=0$$
(59)
and one can check without difficulty that

$$V_2^2V_3^2(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _1\lambda _3)+\mathrm{perm}.=\mathrm{V}_1\mathrm{V}_2\mathrm{V}_3[(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2\mathrm{V}_1+\mathrm{perm}.].$$
(60)
With the help of this identity the equation for $`\varphi _1`$ takes the simple form

$$(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2V_1^2[\frac{\varphi _1}{V_1}+\frac{1}{4}V_1^2+V_1\frac{1}{4}V_2V_3]+\mathrm{perm}.=0.$$
(61)
Thanks to the identity (60) one can look for a solution of the three equations

$$\frac{\varphi _1}{V_1}+\frac{1}{4}V_1^2+V_1\frac{1}{4}V_2V_3=0$$
(62)
plus the other two deduced from the cyclic permutations. The system is trivially integrable and one finds

$$\varphi _1=\frac{1}{4}V_1V_2V_3\frac{1}{2}(V_1^2+V_2^2+V_3^2)\frac{1}{12}(V_1^3+V_2^3+V_3^3).$$
(63)
For arbitrary $`k`$ this generalizes to

$$\varphi _1=\frac{1}{4}\underset{(abc)}{}v_{ab}v_{bc}v_{ca}\frac{1}{2}\underset{a<b}{}v_{ab}^2\frac{1}{12}\underset{a<b}{}v_{ab}^3,$$
(64)
in which the sum (abc) runs over all distinct triplets of indices.

We have exposed this simple calculation in some detail, in order to make it clear that the success of the method relies on two successive facts :

* Identities such as (59, 60) which allows one to write the differential equation as three separate equations for $`\varphi /V_a`$
* The integrability conditions of this system of three equations are satisfied.

At higher orders the technique is identical. It requires new identities of higher degree, such as

$`V_2^2V_3^2(V_2^2+V_3^2)(\lambda _1\lambda _2)(\lambda _1\lambda _3)+\mathrm{perm}.`$
$`=(\lambda _2\lambda _3)^2V_1V_2V_3[V_1(V_1^2+V_2^2+V_3^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_1V_2V_3]+\mathrm{perm}..`$ (65)
and many others ; thereby one obtains again remarkably an integrable system of three equations. At order $`1/y^2`$ the solution is

$`\varphi _2=`$ $`(V_1^3+V_2^3+V_3^3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_1^4+V_2^4+V_3^4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_1V_2V_3(V_1+V_2+V_3)`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}(V_1^5+V_2^5+V_3^5){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}V_1V_2V_3(V_1^2+V_2^2+V_3^2)`$
## 5  A cubic identity

Let us consider the case of $`k=4`$ for different values of $`\beta `$, assuming that it is an even integer. For the tetrahedron (k=4), the coefficients of the expa nsion of $`\chi `$ may be written as

$$\chi =\underset{n,m,r,p,q,l=0}{\overset{j}{}}i^{n+m+r+p+q+l}\frac{C_{nmr;pql}}{\tau _{12}^n\tau _{13}^m\tau _{23}^r\tau _{24}^p\tau _{34}^q\tau _{14}^l}$$
(67)
where $`j=\beta /21`$. By imposing to satisfy the differential equation (19), one should determine those coefficients. For instance, in the case $`\beta =6`$ (or $`y=12`$), one finds $`C_{222;222}=87(65)^2(43)^3,C_{222;221}=(27)(65)^2(43)^3,C_{222;211}=4(65)^2(43)^3,C_{222;220}=(C_{222;000})^2/C_{200;000}=(65)^2(43)^3,C_{222;000}=(65)(43)^2,C_{221;221}=6(65)^32^5,C_{nm2;pq1}=C_{nm2;pq0}(np+mq+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{2}}),C_{nmr;pq0}=C_{nmr;000}C_{pqr;000}/C_{r00;000},C_{222;pq2}=C_{222;pq1}({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{4}})`$. (The coefficient $`C_{nmr;000}`$ is identical to the $`C_{nmr}`$ of the k=3 case (29). Whenever the graphs reduce to triangles, one recovers the coefficients of the k=3 problem).

However the above representation (67) is in fact somewhat ambiguous. Indeed there is an interesting cubic identity between the six variables

$$\tau _{ab}=(x_ax_b)(\lambda _a\lambda _b),1a<b4,$$

which holds for every set of $`x_a`$’s and $`\lambda _a`$’s, namely

$`\tau _{12}^2\tau _{34}+\tau _{13}^2\tau _{24}+\tau _{14}^2\tau _{23}+\tau _{23}^2\tau _{14}+\tau _{24}^2\tau _{13}+\tau _{34}^2\tau _{12}`$
$`\tau _{12}\tau _{34}(\tau _{23}+\tau _{24}+\tau _{14}+\tau _{13})\tau _{13}\tau _{24}(\tau _{14}+\tau _{12}+\tau _{23}+\tau _{34})`$
$`\tau _{14}\tau _{23}(\tau _{12}+\tau _{24}+\tau _{34}+\tau _{13})`$
$`+\tau _{12}\tau _{24}\tau _{14}+\tau _{13}\tau _{14}\tau _{34}+\tau _{23}\tau _{24}\tau _{34}+\tau _{12}\tau _{23}\tau _{13}=0.`$ (68)
Consequently, when one divides the l.h.s. of this identity by the Vandermonde squared $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )^2`$, one generates an identity for the terms of the exapnsion of $`\chi `$ whose coefficients are $`C_{221;220},C_{221;211},C_{122;121}`$. Thus there is an arbitrariness in writing $`\chi `$ in the form of the expansion (67), in view of this cubic identity. For arbitrary $`k`$, there are $`(k2)(k3)/2`$ similar cubic identities, and therefore only $`(2k3)`$ independent $`\tau _{ab}`$.

For other values of $`\beta `$ such as $`\beta =8`$ for instance, by imposing the differential equation (19), one finds that the values of $`C_{332;331},C_{332;322},C_{323;322}`$ are not uniquely determined, because again of this same cubic identity. One may need to eliminate this arbitrariness by choosing some arbitrary value for some coefficient, decide that is it zero for instance. This cubic identity carries the problem over to higher orders. Indeed, multiplying this same cubic identity, by some symmetric function of the $`\tau `$’s, such as $`{\displaystyle \tau _{ij}}`$, one obtains an identity of order $`\tau ^4`$, which again requires some arbitrary choice in the expression for $`\chi `$ at next order.

In summary, we have obtained expressions for the HarishChandra-Itzykson-Zuber integration for $`k\times k`$ matrices, for group integrals characterized by the parameter $`\beta `$. Our investigation relies upon new solutions to the heat kernel differential equation. Other methods such as supersymmetric quantum mechanics, combinatorial group analysis, or algebraic geometry may be of help in solving the numerous open questions concerning this problem.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Dr. Alfaro for interesting remarks concerning the relevance of supersymmetric quantum mechanics in this problem. S.H. has benefited from a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) by JSPS.


format: text

text:
# References

Strong Couplings of Heavy Mesons to A Light Vector Meson in QCD

Zuo-Hong Lia,b,c,d,111Email: lizh@ytu.edu.cn, Tao Huanga,c Jin-Zuo Suna,b and Zhen-Hong Daib

a. CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China
b. Department of Physics, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China222Mailing address
c. Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O.Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, China
d. Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

ABSTRACT

We make a detailed analysis of the $`BB\rho `$($`DD\rho `$) and $`B^{}B\rho `$($`D^{}D\rho `$) strong couplings $`g_{BB\rho }`$($`g_{DD\rho }`$) and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$($`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$) using QCD light cone sum rules(LCSR). The existing some negligence is pointed out in the previous LCSR calculation on $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$($`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$) and an updated estimate is presented. Our findings can be used to understand the behavior of the $`B,D\rho `$ semileptonic form factors at large momentum transitions.
PACS numbers: 11.55.Hx, 13.75.Lb
Keywords: Light Cone QCD Sum Rules, $`BB\rho `$ and $`B^{}B\rho `$ Strong Couplings

1. INTRODUCTION

At the present time, there is an increasing interest in exclusive $`B`$ decays in order to explore the sources of CP violation. However, the definite interpretations for the relevant experimental data demand that we have the ability to precisely compute the physical amplitudes. It is nonperturbative QCD dynamics not being dealt rigorously with that would hinder us from doing such a desired calculation. One is forced to use some approximate methods. Lattice QCD simulation is the most trustworthy approach to nonperturbative QCD effects, with no parameters or assumptions, but the precision of calculation is limited by the available computing resources and some certain restriction exists, for example, in describing $`bu`$ or $`s`$ transitions. The formulation of QCD factorization formula is based on the first principle and is viewed as a great progress in phenomenology of heavy flavors; however, the underlying long distance effects included in a series of the hadronic matrix elements still confront us. Heavy quark symmetry can very well apply to describing the systems including one heavy quark, but is of less predictive power for heavy-to-light transitions. Although QCD sum rule method builds its underlying physical assumptions on the field theory, and exhibits its decided superiority in dealing with some of nonperturbative quantities, such as decay constants, hadronic matrix elements and strong coupling constants, a problem with it is that the resulting form factors for heavy-to-light transitions can not behave very well in the heavy quark limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$. The successes of perturbative QCD in treating numerous hard exclusive processes have excited the occurrence of many excellent works. The most prominent of them is the development of QCD light-cone sum rules (LCSR). It is the striking advantage of this approach to describe heavy-to-light transitions in a way consistent with the universally accepted physical picture that nonperturbative QCD dynamics occupies an dominant place and perturbative hard gluon exchanges contribute only a subleading effect in that case. LCSR approach takes the basic correlator, in which the proper current operators are sandwiched between the vacuum and an on shell light meson state, and adopts the operator product expansion (OPE) around the light cone $`x^20`$ instead of at the small distance $`x0`$. Nonlocal matrix elements occurring in this approach, which encode all the information on large distance dynamics, are parametrized in terms of a set of so-called light-cone wavefunctions classified by twist, which describe the momentum distributions of the quarks inside the relevant light mesons. This is identical with a summation over all the condensate terms in the short distance OPE. Consequently, the resulting form factors for heavy-to-light transitions exhibit the correct behavior with heavy quark mass, averting the problem with the traditional sum rules. This method has extensively been accepted and has found its successful applications, such as the investigations of the form factors for heavy-to-light transitions at small and intermediate momentum transfers\[5-11\] and of the strong couplings between heavy and light mesons, since its presentation in. Very recently, it has been generalized to study the nonfactorizable effects in $`B\pi \pi `$ and to probe heavy-to-light form factors in the whole kinematically accessible ranges. The technical details of LCSR can be found, for instance, in , while for a detailed comparison with traditional sum rules, see .

An investigation of strong interactions between heavy mesons and a light vector meson is of important phenomenological interest, and especially the relevant strong couplings can be employed to understand the behavior of the corresponding heavy-to-light form factors at large momentum transfer in a pole dominance model, which has proven to be exact in an effective chiral Lagrangian approach. The off-shell $`B^{}B\rho `$($`D^{}D\rho `$) strong coupling $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$($`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$), in fact, has been calculated in the standard LCSR approach; however, it calls for a reexamination due to some negligence existing in calculations. Another nonperturbative quantity deserving of investigation is the $`BB\rho `$($`DD\rho `$) strong coupling $`g_{BB\rho }`$($`g_{DD\rho }`$), which turns out to be equally important. Motivated by all these facts, in this paper we make a systematic study on them.

This presentation is organized as follows. The following Section is devoted to a detailed derivation of the sum rules for $`g_{BB\rho }`$($`g_{DD\rho }`$) and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$($`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$), using LCSR method. Then we give a numerical analysis of the resulting sum rules, including a discussion of error estimates, in Sec.3. The last Section give to a simple summary.

2. LCSR’S FOR THE STRONG COUPLINGS

The $`BB\rho `$ and $`B^{}B\rho `$ strong couplings $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ can be defined as

$$\rho (q,e)B\left(p\right)|B\left(p+q\right)=g_{BB\rho }e_{(\lambda )}^{}p,$$
(1)
$$\rho (q,e)B^{}(p,\eta )|B\left(p+q\right)=g_{B^{}B\rho }ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }\eta ^\mu q^\alpha e_{(\lambda )}^\beta p^\gamma .$$
(2)
The resulting findings can easily converted into the corresponding $`c`$-quark meson cases. According to the general strategy of QCD sum rules, it is needed to construct an adequate correlator in order to obtain an qualitative estimate for $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$. As usual, we use two correlators of the following forms as the starting points of LCSR calculations on $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$, respectively,

$`F(p,\left(p+q\right))`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}\rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)i\gamma _5b\left(x\right),\overline{b}\left(0\right)i\gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)e^{}p,`$
$`G_\mu (p,p+q)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}\rho (q,e)|T\overline{u}(x)\gamma _\mu b(x),\overline{b}(0)i\gamma _5d(0)|0}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{G}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }q^\alpha e^\beta p^\gamma .`$
For the correlator (3), isolating the pole contribution of the lowest $`0^{}B`$ meson and parametrizing these from the higher $`0^{}`$ states in a form of dispersion integral, the hadronic form of the invariant function $`\stackrel{~}{F}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ may be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^H(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_B^4/m_b^2f_B^2g_{BB\rho }}{\left(m_B^2p^2\right)\left[\left(m_B^2p+q\right)^2\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^H(s_1,s_2)}{\left(s_1p^2\right)\left[s_2\left(p+q\right)^2\right]}𝑑s_1𝑑s_2},`$ (5)
with a double integral starting from the same threshold parameter $`s_0`$, which should be set in the neighborhood of the squared mass of the first excited $`0^{}B`$ meson. Similarly we have for the invariant function $`\stackrel{~}{G}^H(p,\left(p+q\right))`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^H(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)=\frac{m_B^{}m_B^2f_Bf_B^{}g_{B^{}B\rho }}{m_b\left(m_B^{}^2p^2\right)\left[m_B^2(p+q)^2\right]}+\frac{\rho _2^H(s_1,s_2)ds_1ds_2}{\left(s_1p^2\right)\left[s_2(p+q)^2\right]}.$$
(6)
QCD calculations of the underlying correlators may be allowed, on the other side, for the negative and large values of $`p^2`$ and $`\left(p+q\right)^2`$, in which case the $`b`$ quarks travel only a small distance $`x`$ and therefore the operator product expansion (OPE) goes effectively in powers of the deviation from the light cone $`x^20.`$ We would like to work in the case where the interactions of the $`b`$ quarks with the background field gluons are omitted, since their influence on the sum rules is, as always, negligibly small. On contracting the $`b`$ quark operators into a free propagator,

$$0|Tb\left(x\right)\overline{b}\left(0\right)|=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^4i}d^4ke^{ikx}\frac{k/+m_b}{m_b^2k^2},$$
(7)
one gets,

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b^2k^2}}e^{i(pk)x}[k^\mu \rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ (8)
$`m_b\rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)d\left(0\right)\right|0].`$
The nonlocal matrix elements $`\rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ and $`\rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ define the light cone wavefunctions of the $`\rho `$ meson\[17-19\] as,

$`\rho (q,e)\left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho \{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\left(\lambda \right)}x}{qx}}q_\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}due^{iuqx}[\phi _{}(u,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2x^2}{16}}A(u,\mu )]`$ (9)
$`+\left(e_\mu ^{\left(\lambda \right)}q_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{\left(\lambda \right)}x}{qx}}\right){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ue^{iuqx}g_{}^{\left(v\right)}(u,\mu )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{\left(\lambda \right)}x}{\left(px\right)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _0^1}due^{i\xi x}C(u,\mu )\},`$
$$\rho (q,e)\left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)d\left(0\right)\right|0=i/2f_\rho ^Tm_\rho ^2(e^\lambda x)_0^1𝑑ue^{iuqx}h_{}^s(u,\mu _b).$$
(10)
$`f_\rho `$ stands for the usual vector decay constant of the $`\rho `$ meson and $`f_\rho ^T`$ is defined as $`0|\overline{d}\sigma _{\mu \nu }u|\rho =if_\rho ^T\left(e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}q_\nu e_\nu ^{(\lambda )}q_\mu \right)`$; $`\phi _{}(u,\mu )`$ is the leading twist-2 wavefunction, $`g_{}^{\left(v\right)}(u,\mu )`$ and $`h_{}^s(u,\mu _b)`$ refer to the twist-3 ones, and both $`A(u,\mu )`$ and $`C(u,\mu )`$ have twist-4, which parametrize the mass corrections. $`\phi _{}(u,\mu )`$, $`g_{}^{\left(v\right)}(u,\mu )`$ and $`h_{}^s(u,\mu _b)`$ are normalized as $`_0^1𝑑uf\left(u\right)=1`$, while $`C(u,\mu )`$ satisfies $`_0^1𝑑uC\left(u\right)=0`$. A tedious but straightforward calculation yields

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho \left[{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}\left(u\right)}{m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b^2\left(p+q\right)^2}}\right]`$ (11)
$`+f_\rho ^Tm_\rho ^2m_b{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}^{(s)}(u,\mu _b)}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_\rho m_\rho ^3{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^3}}\right\}.`$
$`\times \left[A\left(u\right)+8\stackrel{~}{C}\left(u\right)\right]`$
In deriving Eq.(11), it proves to be convenient for a partial integration to introduce the auxiliary functions $`\overline{f}\left(u\right)=_0^uf\left(v\right)𝑑v`$ for $`f(u)=\phi _{}(u,\mu )`$, $`g_{}^{(v)}(u,\mu )`$ and $`A(u,\mu )`$, and $`\overline{C}(u)=_0^uC(v)𝑑v`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}\left(u\right)=_0^u\overline{C}\left(v\right)𝑑v`$, which is equal to zero when $`u=1`$. The twist-3 contribution from $`g_{}^{(v)}(u,\mu )`$ vanishes exactly due to cancellations in the partial integrations.

Furthermore, it is indispensable to convert Eq.(11) into a form of dispersion integral for upcoming continuum substraction. The relevant QCD spectral density can easily be obtained by virtue of the technique suggested in . In the following we consider only the twist-2 and -3 terms and give a detailed deviation. First of all, we perform a double Borel transformation $`Q_1^2=p^2M_1^2,Q_2^2=\left(p+q\right)^2M_2^2,`$ for the twist-2 term ( the term proportional to the inverse $`m_b^2\left(p+q\right)^2`$ disappears after doing that ), obtaining

$`\widehat{B}(M_1^2,Q_1^2)\widehat{B}(M_2^2,Q_2^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}\left(u\right)}{m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_1^2M_2^2}}e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left[m_b^2+m_\rho ^2u_0\left(1u_0\right)\right]}\phi _{}\left(u_0\right),`$ (12)
with $`u_0=M_1^2/\left(M_1^2+M_2^2\right)`$ and $`M^2=\frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{M_1^2+M_2^2}.`$ The symmetry of the correlator makes it natural to set $`M_1^2=M_2^2`$ so that the wavefunctions $`\phi _{}\left(u\right)`$ may take its value at the symmetric point $`u_0=1/2`$. Further, making a replacement $`M_1^21/\sigma _1,M_2^21/\sigma _2`$ in Eq.(12) yields

$`\widehat{B}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _1}},Q_1^2)\widehat{B}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _2}},Q_2^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}\left(u\right)}{m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1\sigma _2}{\sigma _1+\sigma _2}}e^{\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _2\right)\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`f(\sigma _1,\sigma _2).`$
Finally, we take the function $`\overline{f}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=\frac{1}{\sigma _1\sigma _2}f(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$ and perform one more Borel transformation in the variables $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$: $`\sigma _11/s_1`$ and $`\sigma _21/s_2`$. The resulting QCD spectral density reads

$`\rho _{tw2}^{\left(QCD\right)}(s_1,s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\rho m_\rho }{s_1s_2}}\widehat{B}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}},\sigma _1)\widehat{B}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2}},\sigma _2)\overline{f}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho \phi _{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\delta \left(s_1s_2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(s_1m_b^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(s_2m_b^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2\right).`$
Applying all the same procedure to the twist-3 part, we have

$`\rho _{tw3}^{\left(QCD\right)}(s_1,s_2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho ^Tm_\rho ^2m_b\left(m_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2\right)^2h_{}^s\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\delta \left(s_1m_b^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2\right)\delta \left(s_2m_b^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1s_2}},`$ (15)
which means that the twist-3 part receives no continuum substraction. With Eqs. (14) and (15), $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ can be expressed as

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho {\displaystyle 𝑑s_1𝑑s_2\frac{\delta \left(s_1s_2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(s_1m_b^2\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(s_2m_b^2\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}{\left(s_1p^2\right)\left[s_2\left(p+q\right)^2\right]}\phi _{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_\rho ^Tm_\rho ^2m_bh_{}^s\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2p^2\right)\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2(p+q)^2\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_\rho m_\rho ^3{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^3}}\right\}\left[A\left(u\right)+8\stackrel{~}{C}\left(u\right)\right].`$
Making the Borel improvement $`p^2M_1^2`$, $`(p+q)^2M_2^2`$ for both the theoretical and hadronic expressions, which suppresses the higher state and twist-4 contributions, and then equating them by the use of the quark-hadron duality ansatz, the final sum rule for $`f_B^2g_{BB\rho }`$ reads,

$`f_B^2g_{BB\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_B^4}}e^{\frac{m_B^2}{M^2}}\{f_\rho m_\rho M^2[e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}e^{\frac{s_0}{M^2}}]\phi _{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}`$ (17)
$`\times [4m_bf_\rho ^Th_{}^{\left(s\right)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)f_\rho m_\rho [A\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+8\stackrel{~}{C}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)](1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M^2}})]\}.`$
Now let’s turn from this topic to a discussion of the sum rule for the $`B^{}B\rho `$ strong coupling $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ by expanding the relevant correlator (4) around the light cone $`x^2=0`$. Utilizing Eq.(7) it follows immediately that

$`G_\mu ^{QCD}(p^2,(p+q)^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b^2k^2}}e^{i\left(pk\right)x}[k^\nu \rho \left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ (18)
$`+m_b\rho \left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0].`$
The $`\gamma `$ algebraic relation $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _5=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }+g_{\mu \nu }\gamma _5`$ can help us to write it down in a preferred form,

$`G_\mu ^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b^2k^2}}e^{i\left(pk\right)x}[k_\mu \rho \left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }k^\nu \rho \left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }d\left(0\right)\right|0+m_b\rho \left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0].`$
The nonlocal matrix element $`\rho \left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ is exactly vanishing, as required by the parity conservation of strong interactions. The light cone expansions of the other two matrix elements reads respectively,

$`\rho \left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }d\left(0\right)\right|0`$ $`=`$ $`if_\rho ^T\{(e_{\left(\lambda \right)}^\alpha q^\beta e_{\left(\lambda \right)}^\beta q^\alpha ){\displaystyle _0^1}due^{iuqx}[\phi _{}\left(u\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}m_\rho ^2x^2A_T\left(u\right)]`$ (20)
$`+\left(q^\alpha x^\beta q^\beta x^\alpha \right){\displaystyle \frac{e_{\left(\lambda \right)}^{}x}{\left(qx\right)^2}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ue^{iuqx}B_T\left(u\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_{\left(\lambda \right)}^\alpha x^\beta e_{\left(\lambda \right)}^\beta x^\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{qx}}{\displaystyle _0^1}due^{iuqx}C_T\left(u\right)\},`$
and

$`\rho \left|T\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d\left(0\right)\right|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_\rho m_\rho \epsilon _{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }q^\alpha e^\beta x^\gamma {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ue^{iuqx}g_{}^{(a)}(u,\mu _b).`$ (21)
$`\phi _{}\left(u\right)`$ and $`g_{}^{(a)}(u)`$ stand for the twist-2 and -3 wavefunctions, respectively, and obey $`_0^1f\left(u\right)𝑑u=1`$; the others are associated with twist-4 operators and parametrize the $`\rho `$ mass corrections, among which both $`B_T\left(u\right)`$ and $`C_T\left(u\right)`$ abide by $`_0^1f\left(u\right)𝑑u=0`$ as it stands.

As with the $`g_{BB\rho }`$ case, in practical calculations we use the definitions $`\overline{B}_T\left(u\right)=_0^uB_T\left(v\right)𝑑v`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_T\left(u\right)=_0^u\overline{B}_T\left(v\right)𝑑v`$ and $`\overline{G}_T\left(u\right)=_0^uG_T\left(v\right)𝑑v`$. Substituting Eqs. (20) and (21) into (19) we gain the theoretical expression for $`\stackrel{~}{G}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{G}^{QCD}(p^2,\left(p+q\right)^2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho ^T\{{\displaystyle _0^1}du{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}\left(u\right)}{m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2{\displaystyle _0^1}duA_T(u)`$ (22)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b^2}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^3}}]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_bm_\rho f_\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{(a)}(u)}{\left[m_b^2\left(p+uq\right)^2\right]^2}}.`$
It is interesting to note that the $`\rho `$ mass effect is only offered by the twist-4 wavefunction $`A_T(u)`$. Obviously, the QCD spectral densities concerning the leading and next-to-leading terms are, except for a constant factor, the same as those in the $`g_{BB\rho }`$ case, respectively. Omitting details, we end up with the following sum rule for the product $`f_B^{}f_Bg_{B^{}B\rho }`$,

$`f_B^{}f_Bg_{B^{}B\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_B^{}m_B^2}}e^{\frac{m_B^{}^2+m_B^2}{2M^2}}\{f_\rho ^T[(e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}e^{\frac{s_0}{M^2}})M^2\phi _{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_\rho ^2(3{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{M^2}})e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}A_T\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_\rho m_bm_\rho e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}g_{}^{(a)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\}.`$
It should be understood that the Borel variables $`M_1^2`$ and $`M_2^2`$ have been taken equal once again, for the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ mesons are nearly degenerate in mass. This enables the relevant wavefunctions to take values at $`u=1/2`$, to high accuracy.

We would like to emphasize that the previous LCSR results for $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ and $`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$ are questionable, because of a missing factor $`1/2`$ in front of the term $`ϵ_{\mu \alpha \lambda \rho }\sigma ^{\lambda \rho }`$ in writing down the $`\gamma `$ algebraic relation $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\alpha \gamma _5=1/2ϵ_{\mu \alpha \lambda \rho }\sigma ^{\lambda \rho }+g_{\mu \alpha }`$, and a misuse of the subtraction procedure $`e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}e^{\frac{1}{M^2}\left(m_b^2+\frac{1}{4}m_\rho ^2\right)}e^{\frac{s_0}{M^2}}`$ imposed on the twist-3 parts.

3. Numerical Results

The parameters to need fixing for a numerical estimate are those concerning the $`B^{}`$ or $`B`$ mesons and those describing the $`\rho `$ meson. The former contain the decay constants $`f_B`$ and $`f_B^{}`$, mass parameters $`m_B`$, $`m_B^{}`$ and $`m_b`$, and threshold parameter $`s_0`$. We use $`m_b=4.8\pm 0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_B=5.279GeV`$ and $`m_B^{}=5.325\mathrm{GeV}`$. With the two point sum rules formulated in, the values of the decay constants $`f_B`$ and $`f_B^{}`$ are fixed at $`f_B=115\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`f_B^{}=125\mathrm{MeV}`$, corresponding to $`m_b=4.8\mathrm{GeV},s_0=33\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$. Also, all the parameters of the $`\rho `$ meson involved become now numerically available. We take as inputs the experimental values $`m_\rho =770MeV`$, $`f_\rho =198\pm 7MeV`$ and the QCD sum rule result $`f_\rho ^T=152\pm 9MeV`$  at the scale $`u_b=\sqrt{m_B^2m_b^2}2.5GeV.`$ Concerning the light cone wavefunctions appearing in our sum rules, there have been many discussions on them in the literature. It is in  that QCD sum rule method is first applied to study the twist-2 distribution amplitudes of vector mesons. Later on, a more systematic discussion was given in , where results of  were critically examined and updated. Very recently, the authors of  took further the meson mass corrections into consideration by introducing some higher twist distributions in the light cone expansions of the relevant nonlocal matrix elements, extending the work  by an additional use of the QCD equations of motion. The yielded findings, some of which will be used in our numerical analysis, have found applications in phenomenology of exclusive semileptonic and radiative $`B`$ decays. The explicit forms of the light cone wavefunctions in relation to our sum rule calculations are

$`\phi _{}(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`6u\left(1u\right)\left(1+a_2^{}\left(\mu _b\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[5\left(2u1\right)^21\right]\right),`$
$`\phi _{}(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`6u\left(1u\right)\left(1+a_2^{}\left(\mu _b\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[5\left(2u1\right)^21\right]\right),`$
$`h_{}^{(s)}(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`6u(1u)(1+0.15[5(2u1)^21]),`$
$`g_{}^{(a)}(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`6u(1u)(1+[5(2u1)^21]),`$ (24)
$`A_T(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`24u^2\left(1u\right)^2,`$
$`A(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}\xi _4+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\xi _3\right]30u^2\left(1u\right)^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{C}(u,\mu _b)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\xi _4+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\xi _3\right]u^2(1u)^2,`$
with the coefficient $`a_2^{}\left(\mu _b\right)=0.17\pm 0.09`$ and $`a_2^{}\left(\mu _b\right)=0.16\pm 0.09`$, $`\xi _3=0.023`$ and $`\xi _4=0.13`$.

Having all the input parameters at hand, we could carry out the numerical calculations. It is a critical step towards deriving a reliable sum rule prediction to look for a reasonable range of the Borel parameters. The standard procedure requires that the terms proportional to the highest inverse power of the Borel parameters stay reasonably small, which can fix the lower limit of the fiducial Borel interval, and that the higher resonance and continuum contribution should not become too large, which may determine the upper limit of the allowed range. For the two sum rules in consideration, we find that the Borel intervals to satisfy the above criteria are respectively $`8M^214\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for the $`g_{BB\rho }`$ case and $`8M^215\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for the $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ case, where the twist-4 wavefunctions contribute less than $`6\%`$ and $`5\%`$ and the high states at the orders lower than $`23\%`$ and $`25\%`$, respectively. The figure 1 shows the sensitivity of the sum rules for $`f_B^2g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`f_B^{}f_Bg_{B^{}B\rho }`$ to the Borel parameters. From the corresponding sum rule ”windows”, we arrive at $`f_B^2g_{BB\rho }=0.071\pm 0.002GeV^2`$ and $`f_B^{}f_Bg_{B^{}B\rho }=0.082\pm 0.004GeV`$, the uncertainties quoted being due to the variations of $`M^2`$. By means of values of decay constants obtained previously it is immediate to get the desired sum rules for the strong couplings $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$. If using the central values for all the relevant sum rule results, we have $`g_{BB\rho }=5.37`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }=5.70GeV^1`$.

For a better understanding of the overall uncertainties in the coupling constants, it is highly advisable to employ the analytic forms instead of the numerical results in Eqs.(17) and (23) for the decay constants. When $`m_b`$ keeps fixed while $`s_0`$ changes between $`3234GeV^2`$, the resulting variations relative to the central values amount to $`\pm 6\%`$ for $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and to $`\pm 8\%`$ for $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$, if the uncertainties due to the Borel parameters are included. The influences on the sum rules can be investigated of the uncertainty in $`m_b`$, by considering a correlated variation of $`m_b`$ and $`s_0`$ in the individually allowed ranges. Requiring the strong couplings $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ to take values only if the sum rules for the relevant decay constants show the best stability, we observe that the induced changes are typically of orders $`7\%`$ and $`6\%`$ respectively. It is of course important to investigate further the uncertainties from the wavefunctions. The simplest way to test the sensitivity of the sum rules to model wavefunctions is by putting all the corresponding nonasymptotic coefficients to zero, namely by using their asymptotic forms which are mode-independent and completely dictated by perturbative QCD. The resulting sum rules deviate from their individual central values by about $`7\%`$ in the $`g_{BB\rho }`$ case and by about $`8\%`$ in the $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ case. The effects observed in such a way come from an extreme treatment and therefore are anyway being overestimated. Taking it into account that the twist-4 wavefunctions bring only a correction of about $`4\%`$ to both sum rules for $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho },`$ we can reasonably conjecture that the uncertainties due to neglected yet higher twists would be at best of the same orders as the twist-4 corrections. At present, the total uncertainties in the sum rules for $`g_{BB\rho }`$ and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ can conservatively be estimated to be about $`25\%`$ and $`27\%`$, respectively, by adding linearly up all the considered errors.

The same procedures may be used for a numerical discussion of LCSR for $`g_{DD\rho }`$ and $`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$. The relevant parameters are taken as $`m_c=1.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_D=1.87\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_D^{}=2.01\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`f_D=170\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`f_D^{}=240\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`s_0=6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. In addition, we have to evolute the wavefunctions to a lower scale $`\mu _c=\sqrt{\overline{m_D^2m_c^2}}`$. Using the standard criteria the fiducial intervals of $`M^2`$ turns out to be $`4<M^2<8\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in the $`g_{DD\rho }`$ case and $`5<M^2<8\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in the $`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$ case. The stability of the sum rules for $`f_D^2g_{DD\rho }`$ and $`f_D^{}f_Dg_{D^{}D\rho }`$ is illustrated in Fig. 2. We have $`f_D^2g_{DD\rho }=0.11\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`f_D^{}f_Dg_{D^{}D\rho }=0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$, with the negligibly small uncertainties due to $`M^2`$. As for the strong couplings $`g_{DD\rho }`$ and $`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$, the resulting sum rules are predicted to be $`g_{DD\rho }=3.81`$ and $`g_{D^{}D\rho }=4.17\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, the total uncertainties being about $`23\%`$ and $`25\%`$, respectively.

4. SUMMARY

We have made an intensive study on QCD interactions between heavy mesons and a light vector meson within the framework of LCSR. A detailed deviation of the sum rules is presented for the relevant strong coupling constants $`g_{BB\rho }`$($`g_{DD\rho }`$) and $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$($`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$) and a systematic numerical analysis, including a painstaking investigation of the uncertainty arising from all the possible sources of error, is made. An existing negligence is pointed out in the previous LCSR calculation on $`g_{B^{}B\rho }`$ and $`g_{D^{}D\rho }`$, and an updated LCSR result is formulated.

The obtained predictions can be used to estimate the couplings for the other charge states using the relations from isospin symmetry. Also, it is straightforward to investigate the $`B_sBK^{}`$, $`B_s^{}BK^{}`$ and $`B^{}B_sK^{}`$ strong couplings, and the corresponding those in $`c`$ quark meson case by making a corresponding parameter replacement in the relevant sum rules formulated.

The numerical results presented here should be updated, once our understanding of the meson wavefunctions, $`b`$-quark mass and decay constants became more clear, and the QCD radiative corrections are included in sum rule calculation.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1: The stability of LCSR for the products $`f_B^2g_{BB\rho }`$(Fig.1 (a)) and $`f_B^{}f_Bg_{B^{}B\rho }`$(Fig.1 (b)), with $`m_b=4.8GeV`$ and $`s_0=33GeV^2`$.
Fig.2: The stability of LCSR for the products $`f_{D^2}g_{DD\rho }`$(Fig.2(a)) and $`f_D^{}f_Dg_{D^{}D\rho }`$(Fig.2(b)), with $`m_c=1.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`s_0=6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.


text:
# The role of electron scattering in magnetization relaxation in thin Ni81Fe19 films

## I Introduction

The Gilbert form of the Landau-Lifshitz equation describes the small angle precession of magnetization in a ferromagnet,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}𝑴}{\mathrm{d}t}=\gamma 𝑴\mathbf{\times }𝑯_{\text{eff}}\frac{\alpha }{M}𝑴\mathbf{\times }\frac{\mathrm{d}𝑴}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$
(1)
Here $`𝑴`$ is magnetization and $`\gamma =g\left|e\right|/2mc`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, and $`\alpha `$ is the Gilbert damping coefficient that affects the magnitude of the viscous damping term. $`𝑯_{\text{eff}}`$ is the effective magnetic field seen by the magnetization, and is expressed in terms of the free energy as $`𝑯_{\text{eff}}=_𝑴`$. The Gilbert damping coefficient $`\alpha `$, controls how rapidly the magnetization equilibrates in the absence of external stimulus. This obviously makes $`\alpha `$ a key parameter in the description of high speed dynamics in magnetic materials. A few areas where $`\alpha `$ plays a vital role are in devices that rely on fast magnetization reversal (e.g. in Giant Magnetoresistive- Russek et al. (2000), Magnetic Tunnel Junction- Koch et al. (1998) or other spintronic devices), current induced magnetization reversal Katine et al. (1998), generation of microwaves by spin currents Tsoi et al. (1998) etc.

By the 1970s it had been shown that intrinsic magnetization relaxation in transition metal ferromagnets could be explained by electron scattering by phonons and magnons. The former process, mediated by the spin-orbit interaction, occurs both with Kamberský (1976, 1970), and without Kamberský (1970); Korenman and Prange (1972); Korenman (1974); Berger (1977) the accompaniment of a spin-flip. In the former case $`\alpha \tau ^1`$, where $`\tau ^1`$ is the electron scattering rate. In the latter case the angular momentum relaxes as scattered electrons repopulate the magnetization-direction dependent Fermi volume, and $`\alpha \tau `$ is expected. Magnon modes can relax through exchange interaction with a conduction electron, causing its spin to flip (this can be viewed simplistically as s–d exchange accompanied by a spin-flip of the s-electron) Heinrich et al. (1967); Mitchell (1957); Kittel and Mitchell (1956). The conduction electron spin then relaxes to the lattice through the spin-orbit interaction. This also results in $`\alpha \tau ^1`$ to leading order.

More recently, new effects were predicted for ultrathin films and for multilayers that would contribute to the effective $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (1). Arias et al. showed that under certain conditions in ultrathin films the uniform mode ($`k=0`$), excited by ferromagnetic resonance (FMR), can be scattered into $`k0`$ magnons by anisotropic surface defects, where $`k`$ is the wavevector Arias and Mills (1999). This two-magnon scattering theory was used by Azevedo et al. to explain experimental results of FMR linewidth and resonance field in NiFe films Azevedo et al. (2000). Berger predicted that transfer of electron spin angular momentum between two ferromagnetic layers, separated by a nonmagnetic layer, contributes to the magnetization relaxation (i.e. $`\alpha `$Berger (1996). The experimental results of Urban et al. confirmed an increase in FMR-linewidth with two layers of Fe separated by a nonmagnetic layer, compared to a single layer of Fe Urban et al. (2001).

We have studied FMR and electronic transport in NiFe-films (Ni81Fe19, “Py” for short), in which the electronic scattering rates were affected over a wide range by: (a) changing the surface scattering contribution by varying the film thickness, (b) changing film deposition conditions, and (c) choosing different interfaces and surface treatment. We observe a strong correlation between the Gilbert damping coefficient and resistivity, i.e. $`\alpha \rho `$ in our single layer Py-samples. Our results show that the dominant magnetization relaxation mechanism in these samples involves electron scattering, and is seemingly insensitive to whether the scattering occurs within the “bulk” of the films or at the surface. This explains why $`\alpha `$ is observed to increase with decreasing film thickness Platow et al. (1998). It also implies that the effective $`\alpha `$ in magnetic devices, small in at least one dimension, made with transition metals or alloys, is expected to be considerably larger than that intrinsic to the bulk material, due to an increased surface/volume ratio and to enhanced spin relaxation at interfaces Zhang and Levy (1996). Our data also appear inconsistent with the two-magnon scattering theory. Further, we observe that with nonmagnetic (NM) Pt enclosing our Py-films, the magnetization relaxation is significantly enhanced, in addition to the electron scattering related mechanism above. The enhancement is attributed to spin relaxation of conduction electrons that leave the Py-layer, both at the interfaces and within the NM-layers.

## II Experiment

Our NiFe films were deposited by dc-magnetron sputtering in a vacuum system with a base pressure of $`2\times 10^8`$ torr. During deposition they were (all but one series) exposed to a uniform magnetic field of $`150`$ Oe to induce uniaxial in-plane anisotropy. X-ray results show that the Py films are (111) textured. We made two series of samples of Si/SiO2/Py/PR, where PR is photoresist, used to protect the film from oxidation. One of these (called o-Py) was grown in a uniform applied magnetic field, the other (called d-Py) without a deliberately applied field. Both series have a clearly defined easy axis, the direction of which in the d-Py was presumably defined by the Earth’s field. Resistivity measurements on these samples were made using the van der Pauw method. They indicate that the d-Py series has more disorder than the o-Py (“ordered”). We also studied the effect of adjoining Py layers with 80 Å thick NM-metallic layers, i.e. Si/SiO2/X/Py/X, where X is Cu, Nb, or Pt. The Py thickness within each sample series was varied by depositing a terraced structure on a single wafer using a movable shadow mask. The films were then lithographically patterned into arrays of discs, 1 or 2 mm in diameter. From each deposition we thus obtained a series of samples of different thickness, with minimal variations in growth conditions. We also made one sample of Si/SiO2/Py, 1000 Å thick, and ion-milled it several times, measuring its thickness and magnetic properties between millings.

To obtain the Gilbert damping in our samples we measured their in-plane magnetic susceptibility in an FMR-experiment with swept frequency and fixed dc magnetic field. The experimental setup is essentially the same as that of Korenivski et al. Korenivski et al. (1996). The magnetic softness of Py ($`H_c4`$ Oe) allows the experiments to be done with applied dc-fields $`H150`$ Oe. Our films are thinner than the skin depth at the corresponding resonance frequencies, i.e. $`\omega _r/(2\pi )3.5`$ GHz for the uniform mode of spin precession. The exchange stiffness in Py causes higher order spin wave modes to appear at much higher frequencies. The ac-field is considered uniform throughout the films and a quasistatic approximation relates the internal and external fields. These assumptions are supported by the Lorentzian lineshape of our resonance peaks, and holds even for the thickest samples of $`1000`$ Å. The FMR experiments were done at a small precession-cone angle, the ratio of the amplitudes of the ac- and dc-fields being $`10^4`$. There was no detectable change in the FMR (susceptibility) when the rf-power was increased by 15 dB.

The conditions above allow us to fit the susceptibility very well with a linearized form of Eq. (1). The free energy $``$, includes the Zeeman energy, a demagnetization term, uniaxial in-plane anisotropy and a uniaxial out-of-plane (interface) anisotropy term. In the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1, under the assumption that the applied dc magnetic field $`𝑯`$ is in-plane, $``$ can be expressed as,

$$=MH\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\psi )+2\pi M^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +K_u\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +2\frac{K_s}{d}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta $$
(2)
where $`K_u`$ is an in-plane uniaxial anisotropy constant, $`K_s=\left(K_{s1}+K_{s2}\right)/2`$ is a surface anisotropy constant representing the average anisotropy of the upper and lower surfaces, and $`d`$ is the film thickness. The in-plane uniaxial anisotropy is determined by fitting the angular variation of the resonance frequency, $`\omega _r`$, in the plane of the samples. Typical results are shown in Fig. 2, which displays a fit to $`\omega _r/2\pi `$ as a function of the equilibrium magnetization angle, $`\varphi `$.

For the free energy given in Eq. (2) the resonance frequency is given by,

$$\left(\frac{\omega _r}{\gamma }\right)^2=\left(H\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi +\psi \right)+4\pi M\frac{2K_u}{M}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\frac{4K_s}{dM}\right)\times \left(H\mathrm{sin}\left(\varphi +\psi \right)\frac{2K_u}{M}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\varphi \right)\right).$$
(3)
With the applied field and the magnetization coincident with the easy axis of the sample, i.e. $`\varphi =0`$, $`\psi =\theta =\pi /2`$, for each series of samples we use the leading terms in the field dependence of $`\omega _r`$ in Eq. (3) to get an initial estimate of $`\gamma `$. Similarly we use the thickness dependence of $`\omega _r`$ to obtain an initial value for $`K_s`$, as shown in Fig. 2 (b). Subsequently we obtain the Gilbert damping parameter $`\alpha `$, and refined values for $`K_s`$ and $`\gamma `$ by fitting the complex susceptibility. With this approach we arrive at a self-consistent result where a constant $`K_s`$ accounts for the shift in the resonance frequency as a function of film thickness *and* where the $`g`$-value is constant for any given series of samples.

Even without our careful determination of the abovementioned values we could get a good estimate of $`\alpha `$, since its effect on the resonance curve can not be mimicked by adjusting other parameters. However, as damping increases, the resonance peak gradually disappears and it becomes difficult to estimate $`\alpha `$ accurately, even with our fitting procedure. This is reflected in the size of the errorbars in Fig. 3 (c). We emphasize that in our treatment $`\alpha `$ is the dimensionless Gilbert damping coefficient and not the frequency linewidth. Although we observe the linewidth following the same trends as $`\alpha `$ as a function of film thickness, we believe that the fitting procedure gives more reliable results than measuring the linewidth. Also, $`\alpha `$ represents the total effective damping, including both intrinsic and extrinsic damping, such as surface damping.

## III Results and discussion

The Gilbert damping coefficients $`\alpha `$, for the two PR-coated series (o-Py and d-Py) are displayed in Fig. 3 (a), as function of inverse film thickness $`1/d`$.

Values for the thickest films approach the bulk damping, but as the thickness decreases $`\alpha `$ increases dramatically. In the o-Py the damping doubles from the thickest film to the thinnest. The effect is much more pronounced in the d-Py, where the thinnest film has roughly six-fold the bulk damping value. The room temperature resistivity $`\rho \left(d\right)`$, of these two series is shown in Fig. 3 (b). The changes in $`\rho `$ reflect quite accurately the corresponding changes in $`\alpha `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _0\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha _0`$, where the subscript 0 refers to thick film values. This suggests the existence of a simple relationship between $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$, which is addressed below. The reason for plotting these data as function of $`1/d`$ is, that if one naively assumes that $`\alpha `$ can be separated into independent bulk and surface contributions a $`1/d`$-dependence is expected as the surface/volume ratio changes. This is analogous to the assumption made for electron scattering in the Fuchs-Sondheimer theory of surface scattering Tellier and Tosser (1982).

However, neither the o-Py nor the d-Py series exhibit a perfectly linear relationship between $`\alpha `$, or $`\rho `$, and $`1/d`$, although the deviation of the o-Py samples from a straight line appears small. Neglecting the small deviation, a Fuchs-Sondheimer-type analysis of the o-Py resistivity results in a bulk resistivity at room temperature of $`\rho _\text{b}=24`$ $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm and mean-free-path $`\lambda =96`$ Å (the corresponding low temperature, or residual, values are $`\rho _{\text{b,res}}=14`$ $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm and $`\lambda _{\text{res}}=215`$ Å). It is clear from the significant departure of $`\rho `$, in the d-Py series, from linear $`1/d`$-dependence, that the simple assumptions of the Fuchs-Sondheimer model do not hold there. Additional scattering mechanisms such as impurity and grain boundary scattering should be taken into account Tellier and Tosser (1982). In any case, it is evident from the small resistivity ratios in both series, $`\rho _{295\text{K}}/\rho _{\text{res}}`$ ranging from 1.85 for the thickest films to 1.1 for the thinnest films), that scattering associated with film surfaces and defects (including grain boundaries) accounts for the major share of the total resistivity in all of these films. The strongest $`T`$-dependent contribution to $`\rho (T)`$ at low $`T`$ is proportional to $`T^2`$, which is attributed to electron-electron and electron-magnon scattering Campbell and Fert (1982).

When the data in Figs. 3 (a) and (b) are plotted together, as in Fig. 3 (c), they fall on a single curve. Note that the thickness of the films in the overlap region is quite different for the two series. For instance, the thinnest o-Py film in Fig. 3 (c) is 35 Å thick, and it corresponds roughly to a d-Py film of thickness 65 Å. At least to leading order, a simple proportionality, describable by *one* constant, of experimental $`\alpha `$ to $`\rho `$ as functions of $`d`$ is apparent in Fig. 3 (c). However, examination of the data in Fig. 3 (a) and (b) reveals that even *two* parameter fits of $`\alpha `$, or $`\rho =a+bd^n`$ to the data would not be fully satisfying. These remarks suggest immediately that a significant contribution to viscous damping in very thin ferromagnetic metals is connected with the electron scattering giving rise to resistivity in a general way not depending on whether the electron scattering is by phonons, defects, or surface irregularities.

Theoretical estimates by Kambersky Kamberský (1976) are particularly helpful in distinguishing a low-temperature damping term proportional to the electron scattering time $`\tau `$ from a high-temperature term proportional to $`\tau ^1`$, when electron scattering by phonons is prevalent. Electron scattering in our samples is dominated by surface and defect scattering. It is mainly caused by fixed electrostatic potentials associated with compositional interdiffusion and structural irregularities. It is therefore more appropriate to use the results of Heinrich et al. Heinrich et al. (1967) to account for our data. They considered the effect of s-electron spin relaxation on s–d exchange and magnetization relaxation:

By definition, the equation $`\alpha =\lambda /\gamma M`$ relates the dimensionless Gilbert damping coefficient to the Landau-Lifshitz parameter $`\lambda `$. Combination of Eq. (21) in Ref. Heinrich et al., 1967 and the assumption that the spin-relaxation rate $`\tau _s^1\zeta \tau ^1`$, where $`\zeta `$ is a constant, and $`\tau ^1`$ is the ordinary electron scattering rate (characteristic of electrical resistivity, i.e. it includes both scattering events that are accompanied by a spin-flip and those that are not), yields the estimate,

$$\alpha \frac{\zeta \gamma m^{}k_\text{F}}{2\pi ^2M\tau }.$$
(4)
Here $`\gamma `$ is the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio, $`m^{}`$ the effective mass of the s-electron, $`k_\text{F}`$ the Fermi wavevector. We have neglected a term $`H/\left(4\pi M\right)10^2`$ compared to unity. We now eliminate the scattering rate with the Drude conductivity formula $`\sigma =\rho ^1=ne^2\tau /m^{}`$. Further, we crudely estimate $`M\mu _\text{B}n`$ with $`\mu _\text{B}=\mathrm{}\gamma /2`$ the Bohr magneton, and $`n`$ the atomic density, to obtain,

$$\frac{\alpha }{\zeta \rho }\frac{e^2k_\text{F}}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}}3.7\times 10^5(\mathrm{\Omega }\text{m})^1,$$
(5)
estimated for a 3d metal or alloy.

The solid line in Fig. 3 (c), obtained by a linear least squares fit constrained to go through the origin, has a slope of $`3\times 10^4`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$m). To satisfy Eq. (5) we must then have $`\zeta 10^1`$, i.e. $`\tau _s^110^1\tau ^1`$. For comparison we observe that the diffuse scattering of an electron is represented by a random walk process, where the spin diffusion length $`l_{\text{sf}}=\lambda \left(\tau _s/\tau \right)^{1/2}`$, $`\lambda `$ is the mean free path of the electron, and $`\tau _s/\tau `$ is the number of spin-preserving scattering events before the spin is flipped. With published values for Py of $`l_{\text{sf}}=55`$ Å Steenwyk et al. (1997), and mean free paths $`\lambda _{}6`$ Å and $`\lambda _{}=46`$ Å Gurney et al. (1993), we estimate the ratio $`\left(\tau _s/\tau \right)^1`$ to be 0.01 and 0.7 for the down and up spin bands, respectively. Our result lies well within that range.

Alternative to the electron scattering mechanism, one may also consider that of two-magnon scattering Arias and Mills (1999). Since both mechanisms involve interfacial effects, they both predict increased damping with decreasing film thickness. But, to account for the plot in Fig. 3 (c) one must show how two-magnon scattering predicts the *equal damping* in two films having *unequal thicknesses* yet exhibiting *equal resistivities* because of a compensating difference in their preparation. The surface roughness of our samples, determined by atomic force microscopy (AFM), was the same $`6\pm 1`$ Å$`_{\text{rms}}`$, both within *and* between the two series. Furthermore, the measured surface anisotropies of the o-Py and the d-Py samples are constant and identical, i.e. $`K_s=0.28`$ erg/cm2 in both cases. It therefore appears improbable that (a) the increase in $`\alpha `$ with decreasing film thickness is caused by variations in surface anisotropy, and (b) the similarity with the changes in $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ is simply a coincidence. Also the theory predicts a field dependence of $`\alpha `$, i.e. a decrease as the applied field is reduced since the two-magnon contribution vanishes in the limit of zero field Arias and Mills (1999). We observe a constant $`\alpha `$ in the field range 150 down to 30 Oe, at which point $`\alpha `$ starts to *increase* due to incomplete saturation of the films.

The effect of adjoining Py-layers with different NM-metallic layers on the magnetization damping is shown in Fig. 4, with the o-Py series as a reference.

For thick samples the damping parameter remains constant, equal to the bulk value. However, as the film thickness decreases $`\alpha `$ increases rapidly, the rate of increase depending on the type of interface. In the Cu-, Nb- and o-Py series the damping at $`d_{\text{Py}}35`$ Å is approximately twice the bulk value in those samples. It is apparent that the effect on $`\alpha `$ of adjoining the Py films with Cu or Nb is the same as protecting the Py with photoresist, i.e. the fact that these thin *metallic* films meet with Py is insignificant in these cases. In contrast a very pronounced effect was observed with Pt-coated surfaces. Assuming a linear dependence of $`\alpha `$ on $`1/d`$ the slope of the Pt-coated material is more than 4.5 times the slope for the other overlayers, and the $`\alpha `$-value at $`d_{\text{Py}}=57`$ Å is almost 4 times the bulk value. This effect was observed independently by Mizukami et al. Mizukami et al. (2001). We have also found that successive thinning of a Py-film by ion milling led to greatly enhanced damping. As can be seen in Fig. 4 the effect of ion milling one side of the sample is at least equivalent to that of having two Py/Pt interfaces.

The great increase in $`\alpha `$ in the ion-milled sample most likely arises from increased electron scattering at the surface due to surface damage caused by the ion-milling process. Again we observe a constant $`\alpha `$ as a function of applied field, arguing against two-magnon scattering effects similar to those observed by LeCraw et al. LeCraw et al. (1958) in single crystal garnets. The Cu-coated samples had a surface roughness of $`(25\pm 3`$ Å$`{}_{\text{rms}}{}^{})`$. The Pt-coated samples were a factor of 3-4 smoother $`(7\pm 2`$ Å$`{}_{\text{rms}}{}^{})`$. Despite having much rougher interfaces than both the o-Py and the Pt-coated samples, the Cu-coated samples did not show enhanced damping over the uncoated o-Py and much less damping than the Pt-coated samples, as can be seen in Fig. 4. These observations confirm that the increased $`\alpha `$ in the Pt-coated series is not caused by surface roughness effects and point towards either an interface scattering effect or to some intrinsic property of the capping layers, or both. Berger Berger  has predicted, for nonmagnetic layers in contact with a magnetic layer, a contribution to $`\alpha `$ from exchange coupling between localized magnetic spins and conduction electrons accompanied by spin flip scattering both at interfaces *and* from interaction with phonons in the nonmagnetic layers through the spin-orbit interaction. The latter would imply that layers with strong spin-orbit interaction, such as Pt, would provide a more effective damping than e.g. Cu, in qualitative agreement with our results. Recently, a paper by Tserkovnyak et al. Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) caught our attention. They presented a model of this same system based on the idea that the magnetization precession in the FM layer drives a spin current into the NM layer, where any spin imbalance is assumed to relax. Thus the same applies in their case, that Pt should provide a large enhancement due to its strong spin-orbit coupling and effective spin relaxation.

We did not study the resistivity of the trilayer films coated with Cu, Nb and Pt, as the situation is obviously much more complicated than in the single layer case. The resistivity of the metallic capping layers is in all our cases lower than that of Py. Separating the resistive contributions of capping layers, Py, and interfaces is very difficult, making a comparison between $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ in this case less meaningful. Nonetheless, these results with adjoining nonmagnetic layers reenforce the above conclusion about the primacy of electron scattering mechanism in the viscous damping of very thin ferromagnetic films.

The effectiveness of ion-milling in increasing $`\alpha `$ compared with the lack thereof in the Cu-coated samples suggests that although the Cu-coated samples are rougher than the very smooth PR- and Pt-coated samples, the roughness is insignificant as far as magnetization damping is concerned. One may expect a much more complex surface after ion-milling, caused by a mixture of redeposition of Py, surface oxidation and structural defects none of which are present in the as-deposited films.

In conclusion we have confirmed that magnetization relaxation in ultrathin Py films is governed by processes that involve ordinary electron scattering. This is analogous to bulk relaxation except that the electron scattering in ultrathin films is increasingly caused by surfaces and defects as the films become thinner, whereas it is to a greater extent caused by phonons in bulk materials. We have also observed increased damping in trilayers of Pt/Py/Pt which we attribute to strong spin-orbit coupling in the Pt-layers. From a practical viewpoint our results highlight the important connection between electron scattering and magnetization damping. That should prove important when designing magnetic devices with a desired “optimal” dynamic response.

We thank T. R. McGuire, L. Berger, and B. Heinrich for helpful discussions, and D. W. Abraham for help with AFM and magnetization measurements. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grants Nos. DMR-0071770 and DMR-0074080.