text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The advent of chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi PT`$) as an effective approach to QCD at low energies  in hadron dynamics has allowed steady progress in the field of meson-baryon interaction . Yet, an important step in the application of the chiral Lagrangians at higher energies than allowed by $`\chi PT`$ is the implementation of unitarity in coupled channels. Pioneering works in this direction were those of , where the Lippmann-Schwinger equation in coupled channels was used extracting the kernels from the chiral Lagrangians. Subsequent steps in this direction were done in  in the study of the $`K^{}p`$ interaction with the coupled states using the Bethe-Salpeter equation and introducing all the channels which could be formed from the octet of pseudoscalar mesons and stable baryons. Further steps in this direction in the strangeness $`S=0`$ sector have been done in . The works of  deal only about the $`s`$-wave $`K^{}p`$ scattering, and one obtains a remarkably good agreement at low energies with the data for transitions of $`K^{}p`$ to different channels, indicating that the $`p`$-wave and higher partial waves play a minor role at these energies. The extension of these works to include $`p`$-wave or higher partial waves is thus desirable in order to see whether the agreement found with only $`s`$-wave is an accident or whether one confirms that the contribution of the $`p`$-wave is indeed small. There is also an important feature of the $`p`$-wave which is the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$ resonance appearing with the same quantum numbers as those of the $`K^{}p`$ system, although only visible in $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states since the resonance is below the $`K^{}p`$ threshold.

The introduction of $`p`$-waves in the strangeness $`S=1`$ sector was done in  and more recently in . In  only the region of energies above the $`K^{}p`$ threshold is investigated but the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$ resonance region is not explored. In  the decouplet of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$ is explicitly included as a field and new chiral Lagrangians to next to leading order are introduced to deal with the meson-baryon scattering problem. In this latter work the around 25 free parameters of the theory are fitted to the data, although some of the parameters are constrained by large $`N_c`$ arguments.

Simplicity is one of the appealing features of the $`K^{}p`$ interactions from the perspective of chiral symmetry. Indeed, in , it was found that using the transition amplitude obtained with the lowest order chiral Lagrangian as a kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, and a cut-off of about 630 MeV to regularize the loops, one could reproduce the cross sections of $`K^{}pK^{}p`$, $`\overline{K}^0n`$, $`\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, together with the properties of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance, which is dynamically generated in that scheme.

It is remarkable that, using the same input, one can also obtain the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1670)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1620)`$ $`s`$-wave resonances  as well as the $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1620)`$ , which completes the octet of lowest energy $`s`$-wave excited baryons together with the $`N^{}(1535)`$ obtained in  following the same lines.

The idea here is to see whether the simplicity observed in the $`s`$-wave interaction holds also for $`p`$-waves. In other words, we would like to see what does one obtain for the $`p`$-wave amplitudes using again the lowest order chiral Lagrangians and the same cut-off parameter as in . Anticipating results, we can say that the $`p`$-wave amplitudes obtained with this line are in good agreement with experiments, as well as the properties of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1385)`$ resonance, thus obtaining a parameter-free description of the $`p`$-wave phenomenology in the $`S=1`$ sector.

## 2 Meson-baryon amplitudes to lowest order

Following  we write the lowest order chiral Lagrangian, coupling the octet of pseudoscalar mesons to the octet of $`1/2^+`$ baryons, as

$`_1^{(B)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{B}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu BM\overline{B}B`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D\overline{B}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\{u_\mu ,B\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F\overline{B}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5[u_\mu ,B]`$
where the symbol $``$ denotes the trace of SU(3) flavor matrices, $`M`$ is the baryon mass and

$`_\mu B`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu B+[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,B],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(u^{}_\mu u+u_\mu u^{}),`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`u^2=\mathrm{exp}(i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Phi }/f),`$ (2)
$`u_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`iu^{}_\mu Uu^{}.`$
The couplings $`D`$ and $`F`$ are chosen as $`D=0.85`$, $`F=0.52`$.

The meson and baryon fields in the SU(3) matrix form are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & \pi ^+& K^+\\ \pi ^{}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\pi ^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta & K^0\\ K^{}& \overline{K}^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\eta \end{array}\right),$$
(3)
$$B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }& \mathrm{\Sigma }^+& p\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }& n\\ \mathrm{\Xi }^{}& \mathrm{\Xi }^0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
The $`BB\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ interaction Lagrangian comes from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ term in the covariant derivative and we find

$$_1^{(B)}=\overline{B}i\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{4f^2}[(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })BB(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })],$$
(5)
from where one derives the transition amplitudes

$$V_{ij}=C_{ij}\frac{1}{4f^2}\overline{u}(p^{})\gamma ^\mu u(p)(k_\mu +k_\mu ^{})$$
(6)
where $`k`$, $`k^{}`$ ($`p`$, $`p^{}`$) are the initial and final meson (baryon) momenta, respectively, and the coefficients $`C_{ij}`$, where $`i`$, $`j`$ indicate the particular meson-baryon channel, form a symmetric matrix and are written explicitly in . Following , the meson decay constant $`f`$ is taken as an average value $`f=1.123f_\pi `$ . The channels included in our study are $`K^{}p`$, $`\overline{K}^0n`$, $`\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi ^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`K^+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, $`K^0\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$. The $`s`$-wave amplitudes are obtained in  and we do not repeat them here. The Lagrangian of eq. (5) provides also a small part of the $`p`$-wave which is easily obtained by evaluating the matrix elements of eq. (6) using the explicit form of the spinor and the Dirac matrices. We obtain, in the center of mass system,

$$t_{ij}^c=C_{ij}\frac{1}{4f^2}a_ia_j\left(\frac{1}{b_i}+\frac{1}{b_j}\right)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_j)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_i)$$
(7)
with

$$a_i=\sqrt{\frac{E_i+M_i}{2M_i}},b_i=E_i+M_i,E_i=\sqrt{M_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}$$
(8)
where $`M_i`$ is the mass of the baryon in channel $`i`$.

In addition we have the contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ pole terms which are obtained from the $`D`$ and $`F`$ terms of the Lagrangian of eq. (1). The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ pole term is also included explicitly with couplings to the meson-baryon states evaluated using SU(6) symmetry arguments . These terms correspond to the diagrams of Fig. 1 a), b), c).

The amplitudes for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ pole terms are readily evaluated and performing a nonrelativistic reduction, keeping terms up to $`𝒪(p/M)`$, we find in the center of mass frame,

$`t_{ij}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`D_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }D_j^\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_j)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_i)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_j^0}{M_j}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_i^0}{M_i}}\right),`$
$`t_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_j)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}_i)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_j^0}{M_j}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_i^0}{M_i}}\right),`$ (9)
$`t_{ij}^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}(\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{k}_j)(\stackrel{}{S}^{}\stackrel{}{k}_i)`$
with $`S^{}`$ the spin transition operator form spin $`1/2`$ to $`3/2`$ with the property

$$\underset{M_s}{}S_i|M_sM_s|S_j^{}=\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ij}\frac{i}{3}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k$$
(10)
and

$`D_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{D,\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2f}}c_i^{F,\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{12}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2f}},`$
$`D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{D,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2f}}c_i^{F,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\sqrt{12}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{2f}},`$ (11)
$`D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{S,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}.`$
The constants $`c^D`$, $`c^F`$, $`c^S`$ are SU(3) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients which depend upon the meson and baryon involved in the vertex and are given in Table 1. The phase relating physical states to isospin states $`|K^{}=|1/2,1/2`$, $`|\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=|1/2,1/2`$, $`|\pi ^+=|1,1`$, $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=|1,1`$, normally adopted in the chiral Lagrangians, are also assumed here. $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are bare masses of the hyperons, which will turn into physical masses upon unitarization.

## 3 Unitary amplitudes

The lowest order (tree level) contributions to the $`p`$-wave meson-baryon scattering matrix are provided by eqs. (7) and (9). Following the philosophy of , the tree level contributions are used as a kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Furthermore, the factorization of the kernel makes it technically simpler to solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation. It was shown in  that the kernel for the $`s`$-wave amplitudes can be factorized on the mass shell in the loop functions, by making some approximations typical of heavy baryon perturbation theory. The factorization for $`p`$-waves in meson-meson scattering is also proved in  along the same lines. A different, more general, proof of the factorization is done in  for meson-meson interactions and in  for meson-baryon ones where, using the $`N/D`$ method of unitarization and performing dispersion relations, one proves the on-shell factorization in the absence of the left-hand cut contribution. This part is shown to be small in  for meson-meson scattering and even smaller for the meson-baryon case because of the large baryonic masses in the meson-baryon systems. The formal result obtained in  for the meson-baryon amplitudes in the different channels is given in matrix form by the same result coming from the Bethe-Salpeter equation

$$T=V+VGT,$$
(12)
that is

$$T=[1VG]^1V$$
(13)
where $`V`$ is the kernel (potential), given by the amplitudes of eqs. (7) and (9), and $`G`$ is a diagonal matrix accounting for the loop function of a meson-baryon propagator, which must be regularized to eliminate the infinities. In  it was regularized by means of a cut-off, while in  dimensional regularization was used. Both methods are eventually equivalent although in the dimensional regularization scheme there is a different subtraction constant in each isospin channel and thus allows for more freedom.

The loop function $`G`$ in the cut-off method is given by

$`G_l(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{M_l}{E_l(\stackrel{}{q})}\frac{1}{k^0+p^0q^0E_l(\stackrel{}{q})+iϵ}\frac{1}{q^2m_l^2+iϵ}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^{q_{\mathrm{max}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _l(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_l}{E_l(q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^0+k^0\omega _l(q)E_l(q)}}`$
while in dimensional regularization one has

$`G_l(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`i2M_l{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(Pq)^2M_l^2+iϵ}\frac{1}{q^2m_l^2+iϵ}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_l}{16\pi ^2}}\{a(\mu )+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_l^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2M_l^2+s}{2s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{M_l^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_l}{\sqrt{s}}}[\mathrm{ln}(s(M_l^2m_l^2)+2\overline{q}_l\sqrt{s})+\mathrm{ln}(s+(M_l^2m_l^2)+2\overline{q}_l\sqrt{s})`$
$`\mathrm{ln}(s+(M_l^2m_l^2)+2\overline{q}_l\sqrt{s})\mathrm{ln}(s(M_l^2m_l^2)+2\overline{q}_l\sqrt{s})]\},`$
where $`m`$ and $`M`$ are taken to be the observed meson and baryon masses, respectively, in order to respect the phase space allowed by the physical states, and $`\mu `$ is a regularization scale (playing the role of a cut-off) and $`a_i`$ are subtraction constants in each of the isospin channels. In  it was shown that, taking $`\mu =630`$ MeV as the cut-off in , the values of the subtraction constants in eq. (3) which lead to the same results as in the cut-off scheme are 222The $`a_{K\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ parameter quoted here is slightly changed from $`2.56`$ in  in order to get the position of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1670) resonance better, but as show there, this parameters has no relevance in the low energy results studied here.

$`a_{\overline{K}N}=1.84,a_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}=2.00,a_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}=1.83`$
$`a_{\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }}=2.25,a_{\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }}=2.38,a_{K\mathrm{\Xi }}=2.67.`$ (16)
We shall use the same values here and hence this procedure would be equivalent to performing the calculations using a unique cut-off $`q_{\mathrm{max}}=630`$ MeV in all channels. In a second step we shall relax this constraint and allow the subtraction constants to vary freely to obtain a better global fit to the data.

The use of the amplitudes of eqs. (7) and (9) directly in eq. (13) is impractical since, due to their spin structure, there is a mixture of different angular momenta. It is standard to separate the amplitude for a spin zero meson and a spin 1/2 baryon into different angular momentum components. We write, with the angle $`\theta `$ between meson momenta in initial and final states,

$`f(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{(l+1)f_{l+}+lf_l\right\}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (17)
$`i\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{k}^{}\times \widehat{k}){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{f_{l+}f_l\right\}P_l^{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
which separates the amplitude into a spin non-flip part and a spin flip one. The amplitudes $`f_{l+}`$, $`f_l`$ correspond to orbital angular momentum $`l`$ and total angular momentum $`l+1/2`$, $`l1/2`$, respectively. This amplitudes exhibit independent unitarity conditions and separate in the Bethe-Salpeter equation. If we specify the $`l=1`$ case, the $`p`$-wave amplitudes can be written as

$$T(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k})=(2l+1)\left(f(\sqrt{s})\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{k}ig(\sqrt{s})(\widehat{k}^{}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)(l=1).$$
(18)
From Eqs. (7), (9) the corresponding lowest order (tree level) amplitudes read

$`f_{ij}^{\mathrm{tree}}(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{C_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}a_ia_j({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_j}})+{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }D_j^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(1+\frac{k_i^0}{M_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{k_j^0}{M_j}\right)}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(1+\frac{k_i^0}{M_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{k_j^0}{M_j}\right)}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}\}k_ik_j`$
$`g_{ij}^{\mathrm{tree}}(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{C_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4f^2}}a_ia_j({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_j}}){\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }D_j^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(1+\frac{k_i^0}{M_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{k_j^0}{M_j}\right)}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(1+\frac{k_i^0}{M_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{k_j^0}{M_j}\right)}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}D_j^\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\sqrt{s}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}\}k_ik_j`$
where $`i,j`$ are channel indices. Hence, denoting $`f_{l+}f_+`$ , $`f_lf_{}`$ for $`l=1`$, with

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`f+g`$ (21)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`f2g,`$
and using Eq. (13), one obtains

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`[1f_+^{\mathrm{tree}}G]^1f_+^{\mathrm{tree}}`$ (22)
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`[1f_{}^{\mathrm{tree}}G]^1f_{}^{\mathrm{tree}}.`$
As one can see from these equations, the amplitudes $`f_+^{\mathrm{tree}}`$, $`f_{}^{\mathrm{tree}}`$ in the diagonal meson-baryon channels contain the factor $`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$, with $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ the on-shell center-of-mass momentum of the meson in this channel. For transition matrix elements from channel $`i`$ to $`j`$ the corresponding factor is $`k_ik_j`$ where the energy and momentum of the meson in a certain channel are given by

$$E_i=\frac{s+m_i^2M_i^2}{2\sqrt{s}};k_i=\sqrt{E_i^2m_i^2},$$
(23)
which also provides the analytical extrapolation below the threshold of the channel where $`k_i`$ becomes purely imaginary.

The differential cross sections, including the $`s`$-wave amplitudes are given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _{ij}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{M_iM_j}{s}\frac{k^{}}{k}\left\{\left|f^{(s)}+(2f_++f_{})\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|^2+\left|f_+f_{}\right|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right\}$$
(24)
where the subscript $`i`$, $`j`$ in each of the amplitudes must be understood. The set of equations (22) can be solved in the space of physical states, the ten-channel space introduced in the former section. Alternatively one can also construct states of given isospin (see section 3 of Ref. ) and work directly with isospin states. Conversely, one can work with the physical states and construct the isospin amplitudes from the appropriate linear combinations of transition amplitudes with physical states. The isospin separation is useful for $`p`$-wave. Indeed in the channel $`f_{}`$, which corresponds to $`J=1/2`$, we can have $`I=0`$, $`I=1`$. The pole of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from the pole terms in Fig. 1 will show up in the calculation in these channels, respectively. However, the unitarization procedure will shift the mass from a starting bare mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in eqs. (9) to another mass which we demand to be the physically observed mass. Similarly, in the $`f_+`$ amplitude, corresponding to $`J=3/2`$, there will be a pole for $`I=1`$ corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Once again we start from a bare mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in eqs. (9) such that after unitarization the pole appears at the physical $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ mass. In the case of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, since there is phase space for decay into $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the unitarization procedure will automatically provide the width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. With no free parameters to play with, the results obtained for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ width and the branching ratios to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels will be genuine predictions of the theoretical framework. Since the poles of the coupled channel $`T`$ matrix appear when the determinant of the $`[1f_+^{\mathrm{tree}}G]`$ or $`[1f_{}^{\mathrm{tree}}G]`$ matrices is zero (in the complex plane), it is clear from Eq. (22) that one gets the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ poles in all the matrix elements.

## 4 Results

In Fig. 2, we can see the total cross sections for $`K^{}p`$ to different channels as a function of the initial meson momentum in the laboratory frame. The parameters taken there are the set of values of the subtraction constants $`a_i`$ from eq. (16) which are already fixed from , and the values of the bare masses, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1078`$ MeV, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }=1104`$ MeV, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=1359`$ MeV. The results with the $`s`$-wave alone are equivalent to those presented in . As already remarked there, the agreement with experiment is quite good, particularly taking into account that only a free parameter, the cut-off, has been fitted to the data. In addition the threshold ratios $`\gamma `$, $`R_c`$, $`R_n`$ defined as

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}}=2.36\pm 0.04`$
$`R_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{charged particles)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{all)}}}=0.664\pm 0.011`$ (25)
$`R_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{all neutral states})}}=0.189\pm 0.015`$
were also well reproduced. The values obtained here are $`\gamma =2.30`$, $`R_c=0.618`$, $`R_n=0.257`$.

The effect of adding the $`p`$-wave is quite small in the cross sections, justifying the success of the results obtained using the $`s`$-wave alone. In order to better appreciate the effect of the $`p`$-wave, it is better to look at the differential cross sections since there one is sensitive to the interference of $`s`$\- and $`p`$-waves, which results in larger effects than in the integrated cross section where just the square of the $`p`$-wave amplitudes appears. We can see in Fig. 3 that the incorporation of the $`p`$-waves provides the right slope in the differential cross sections, clearly indicating that the amount of $`p`$-wave introduced is the correct one. The agreement is not perfect for all laboratory momenta shown, but the little strength missing or in excess is clearly due to the dominant $`s`$-wave. In order to emphasize this better we have taken advantage of the fact that one can make a fine-tuning of the subtraction constants $`a_i`$ to improve the fit to the data. We have just changed the parameters $`a_i`$ slightly to the values

$`a_{\overline{K}N}=1.75,a_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}=2.10,a_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}=1.62`$
$`a_{\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }}=2.56,a_{\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }}=1.54,a_{K\mathrm{\Xi }}=2.67`$ (26)
by means of which one obtains improved values for the low energy observables:

$$\gamma =2.36,R_c=0.634,R_n=0.178.$$
(27)
The values of the bare masses are now $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1069`$ MeV, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }=1195`$ MeV, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=1413`$ MeV. The results for the integrated cross sections with this new set of parameters are shown in Fig. 4. The improvement is clearly appreciable in the $`K^{}pK^{}p`$ and $`K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross sections. The effect of the $`p`$-waves are more clearly shown in Fig. 5, where the differential cross sections for $`K^{}pK^{}p`$ and $`K^{}p\overline{K}^0n`$ are now well reproduced. In fact, the $`p`$-waves have barely changed from Fig. 3 to Fig. 5, but the slight improvement in the $`s`$-wave brings the results in better agreement with experiment. It is interesting to mention that there has been no free parameter in the determination of the $`p`$-wave amplitude. The bare masses of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ cannot be considered free parameters since they are determined by the physical masses of the baryons once the regularizing cut-off is chosen.

## 5 Properties of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$(1385) resonance

We turn now to the results below threshold where the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$(1385) resonance appears. The results are seen in the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distributions in reactions with $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the final state. The mass distribution of $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dm}=C\left|t_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(I=1)}\right|^2p_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(28)
where the constant $`C`$ is related to the particular reaction generating the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ state prior to final state interactions. Relatedly, the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distribution originating from the same primary mechanism will be given by Eq. 28 by changing $`\left|t_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(I=1)}\right|^2p_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ by $`\left|t_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(I=1)}\right|^2p_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. The shape of the mass distribution is used experimentally to obtain the position and width of the resonance, and the ratio of partial widths of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi \mathrm{\Lambda },\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be obtained by means of

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}}=\frac{\left|t_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(I=1)}\right|^2p_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\left|t_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}^{(I=1)}\right|^2p_{\mathrm{CM}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}.$$
(29)
In Fig. 6 we can see the shape of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ distribution, which a width of about $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}31`$ MeV which compares favorably with the experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}35\pm 4`$ MeV . The ratio of the partial decay widths obtained is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}}=7.7,$$
(30)
which compares well with the experimental value of $`7.5\pm 0.5`$.

We have looked for poles in the complex plane in the $`p`$-wave amplitudes and have not found any, except for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$(1385) which is introduced as a genuine resonance in our approach, in the same way as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryons are included as basic fields in the theory. This means that the strength of the lowest order $`p`$-wave amplitudes is too weak to generate dynamical resonances, contrary to what was found in  for the $`s`$-waves.

## 6 Conclusions

We have evaluated the $`p`$-wave amplitudes for meson-baryon scattering in the strangeness $`S=1`$ sector starting from the lowest order chiral Lagrangian, unitarizing by means of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, or equivalently the $`N/D`$ method, and regularizing the loops with a cut-off or an equivalent method using dimensional regularization. The cut-off, or equivalently the subtraction constants in the dimensional regularization procedure, is fitted to the scattering observables at threshold. In practice we take them from earlier work  where only the $`s`$-wave amplitudes were studied in our approach. Once this is done there is no extra freedom for the $`p`$-wave amplitudes, which are completely determined in our approach. We perform some fine-tuning of the subtraction constants with respect to  in order to obtain better results for the $`K^{}pK^{}p`$ cross section, which however does not practically modify the $`p`$-wave amplitudes.

The results which we obtain for the $`p`$-wave amplitudes in this approach are consistent with experimental data for the differential cross sections. The contribution to the total cross sections at low energies is very small but in the differential cross sections its effects are clearly visible producing a slope in $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ which is in good agreement with the data.

One of the most interesting features of the $`p`$-wave in the $`S=1`$ sector is the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$(1385) resonance below the $`K^{}p`$ threshold. This resonance cannot be generated dynamically from the strength of the $`p`$-wave in lowest order of the chiral Lagrangians and hence is introduced as a basic field, like the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It couples to the meson-baryon states with a strength obtained using SU(6) symmetry from the standard chiral Lagrangians involving pseudoscalar mesons and the octet of stable baryons. With these couplings and the unitarization procedure the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$(1385) develops a width. In this sense, the total width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, as well as the branching ratios to $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, are predictions of the theory and they come out with values in agreement with experiment.

The approach followed here corroborates once more the potential of the chiral Lagrangians to describe the low energy interaction of mesons with baryons, provided a fair unitarization procedure is used to appropriately account for the multiple scattering of the many channels which couple to certain quantum numbers. In this particular case, the previous works in the $`S=1`$ sector in $`s`$-wave, together with the present one for $`p`$-wave, provide a good theoretical framework to study the meson-baryon dynamics at low energies. These works show that the basic dynamical information is contained in the chiral Lagrangian of lowest order, since by means of a proper unitarization procedure in coupled channels and one regularizing parameter of natural size for the loops, one can describe quite well the low energy scattering data in the different reactions with $`S=1`$.

### Acknowledgments

E. O. and D. J. wish to acknowledge the hospitality of the University of Barcelona. This work is also partly supported by DGICYT contract numbers BFM2000-1326, PB98-1247, by the EU TMR network Eurodaphne, contract no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169, and by the Generalitat de Catalunya project 2001SGR00064.


format: text

text:
# Late-time correlators in semiclassical particle-black hole scattering

## Abstract

We analyse the quantum corrected geometry and radiation in the scattering of extremal black holes by low-energy neutral matter. We point out the fact that the correlators of local observables inside the horizon are the same as those of the vacuum. Outside the horizon the correlators at late times are much bigger than those of the (thermal) case obtained neglecting the backreaction. This suggests that the corrected Hawking radiation could be compatible with unitarity.

PACS number(s):04.70.Dy, 04.62.+v

The discovery that black holes emit thermal radiation  has raised a serious conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. If a black hole is formed from the collapse of matter, initially in a pure quantum state, the subsequent evaporation produces radiation in a mixed quantum state . If the analysis is performed in a fixed background geometry it is very hard to imagine how this conclusion can be avoided. The core of the problem is connected with the black hole causal structure. The information that flows through the horizon is not accessible to the outside observer and therefore one has to trace over the internal (unobserved) states. This generates a density matrix and the information, codified in correlations between internal and external states, is indeed lost in the singularity. There are several posibilities to avoid such a radical conclusion, but the most conservative one suggests that the information is recovered in the corrected Hawking radiation due to large backreaction effects . However it is difficult to unravel a detailed mechanism capable to produce information return. Even more, it seems unlikely that unitarity can be preserved within the semiclassical approximation. It is usually stated that unitarity can only be obtained in a pure quantum gravity theory. Since we still do not have such a theory it is useful to consider a particular situation for which the problem can be simplified and, in turn, the backreaction effects can be controlled in a very efficient way. Such a scenario is given by the scattering of low-energy particles by extremal Reissner-Nordström charged black holes.
We now briefly recall the standard picture of the process in a fixed background spacetime approximation. Throwing long-wavelength particles into an extremal black hole results into a non-extremal one which then emits Hawking radiation. The Penrose diagram of such a process is given in Fig.1. There exists radiation flowing to future null infinity $`I^+`$ (Hawking radiation) and in general also inside the horizon. The quantum state of radiation is given by:

$$|0_{in}=\underset{i,j}{}c_{i,j}|\psi _i_{int}|\psi _j_{ext}$$
(1)
i.e., a superposition of products of internal and external states of right-moving modes (note that we shall be mostly concerned with right-movers, as in , because they are the ones which transmit the Hawking radiation). At late time this state takes the form

$$|0_{in}=\underset{w}{}\sqrt{1e^{2\pi w/\kappa }}\underset{n}{}e^{\pi nw/\kappa }|n_w_{int}|n_w_{ext}$$
(2)
where $`|n_w`$ is a n-particle state with frequency $`w`$. An observer on $`I^+`$ will describe his measurements in terms of a reduced thermal density matrix

$$\rho =\underset{w}{}(1e^{2\pi w/\kappa })\underset{n}{}e^{2\pi nw/\kappa }|n_w_{ext}n_w|_{ext}.$$
(3)
FIG.1.Penrose diagram corresponding to the creation of a near-extremal charged black hole from the extremal one. The ingoing arrow line represents an infalling shock wave.

In this paper we shall analyse how this scenario gets modified when backreaction effects are taken into account. Due to Hawking emission the radiating non-extremal configuration will decay back to the extremal black hole, if charged particles are sufficiently massive. The corresponding Penrose diagram is given in Fig.2. Comparing the diagrams of Figs. 1 and 2 we see that the right singularity, being an artifact of the fixed background approximation, has completely disappeared. It appears very unlikely the preservation of purity if radiation is still present at $`H`$ (which is part of the future Cauchy horizon), since this would mean that the information is indeed lost in another causally disconnected and asymptotically flat region.

FIG.2. Penrose diagram corresponding to the process of particle capture by an extremal charged black hole followed by Hawking radiation. The end-state geometry is, due to backreaction effects, an extremal black hole. The location of the event horizon $`H^+`$ is at $`x^{}=x_{int}^{}`$.

We shall exploit the fact that the dominant Hawking emission is carried away in s-waves. Moreover, in the region very close to the initial extremal horizon $`r=ql`$ ($`q`$ is the black hole charge and $`l^2`$ is Newton’s constant), which is the relevant one to study the radiation at $`H`$, a scalar matter field $`f`$ obeys the free equation

$$_t^2f_r^{}^2f=0,$$
(4)
where $`r^{}`$ is the tortoise coordinate. The dynamics in the region close to $`r=ql`$ is controlled by the Jackiw-Teitelboim model , as it has been explained in . The advantage of this model is that the backreaction effects can be incorporated immediately by adding the Polyakov-Liouville term . In summary, the effective semiclassical model is given by the action

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2}|f|^2\right]}`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{96\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}R\mathrm{}^1R}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}\lambda ^2},`$ (6)
where the relation between the fields appearing in (5) and the four-dimensional metric is given by

$`ds_{(4)}^2={\displaystyle \frac{ds_{(2)}^2}{\sqrt{\varphi }}}+4l^2\varphi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}}+\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (7)
and $`\lambda ^2=l^2q^3`$. Usually, in order to make physical sense of the semiclassical approximation one considers a huge number, $`N`$, of scalar fields. In this way the quantum gravitational corrections can be safely neglected at one-loop order. Here for simplicity we consider $`N=1`$, but it is straightforward to generalise our results to arbitrary $`N`$. We note that although the model we study is certainly simplified compared to the original 4d one the approximations made are reasonable. Indeed, the Hawking radiation derived from the model (5) has the same form as for 4d scalars in the limits considered, i.e. close to the horizon and $`I^+`$ at late times. The initial extremal configuration can be described, near $`r=ql`$, by the solution

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{2l^2q^3dx^+dx^{}}{(x^{}x^+)^2}},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{lq^3}{x^{}x^+}}.`$ (8)
The line $`x^{}=+\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the extremal radius $`r=ql`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$. This configuration is quantum mechanically stable and it does not produce radiation. If we send a very narrow pulse of classical null matter at $`x^+=x_0^+`$ with small energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ we create a near-extremal black hole of mass $`m=q+\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. The semiclassical solutions are now more involved, due to the non-locality of the quantum effective action.

We are interested in the Hawking radiation detected by an external observer at $`I^+`$. In this region the quantum incoming flux vanishes and therefore the metric can be naturally described in the outgoing Vaidya-type form

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{2\stackrel{~}{x}^2}{l^2q^3}l\stackrel{~}{m}(u)\right)du^22dud\stackrel{~}{x},$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}=l\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`u`$ is a null Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate. The relevant semiclassical equations in conformal gauge, $`ds^2=e^{2\rho }dx^+dx^{}`$, are

$`2_+^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4_+\rho _+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}\left[(_+\rho )^2_+^2\rho \right]`$ (10)
$`2_{}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4_{}\rho _{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}\left[(_{}\rho )^2_{}^2\rho \right]`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{24\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{du}{dx^{}}}\right)^2\{x^{},u\}`$
where $`\{x^{},u\}`$ is the Schwarzian derivative proportional to the (late time) Hawking flux. In conformal coordinates, where the metric takes the form (8), the effects of the evaporation are all encoded in the field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, expressed by means of a single function $`G(x^{})`$ through

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{G(x^{})}{x^+x^{}}+\frac{1}{2}G^{}(x^{}).$$
(13)
The consistency of (9) with the equations (10-12) and (13) implies that $`du/dx^{}=lq^3/G(x^{})`$ where $`G(x^{})`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$G^{\prime \prime \prime }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\left(\frac{G^{\prime \prime }}{G}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{G^{}}{G}\right)^2\right).$$
(14)
The recovery of the extremal solution at late times ($`u+\mathrm{}`$) requires that $`\stackrel{~}{m}(u)`$ (the mass deviation from extremality) vanishes for $`x^{}x_{int}^{}`$ (with $`x^{}<x_{int}^{}`$). This implies that in this limit $`\{x^{},u\}0`$, i.e. the relation between $`u`$ and $`x^{}`$ is a Möbius transformation

$$u=\frac{ax^{}+b}{cx^{}+d},$$
(15)
where $`a,b,c,d`$ are real parameters verifying the condition $`adbc=1`$. It is now easy to evaluate the derivative $`du/dx^{}=1/(cx^{}+d)^2,`$ and then we face two qualitatively different possibilities: $`c0`$ and $`c=0`$. We will not consider here the case $`c=0`$ as it entails a period of negative Hawking flux (we will give more details in ). Therefore the (reasonable) assumption we make in this paper is that the Hawking radiation is always positive.

Let us analyze the case $`c0`$. In Fig.3. we numerically generate a solution for $`G(x^{})`$ with this behaviour

$$G(x^{})\stackrel{x^{}x_{int}^{}}{}\frac{1}{2}A(x^{}x_{int}^{})^2,$$
(16)
where $`A`$ is a non-vanishing constant. Note that the simplest solution which reproduces the extremal configuration at late times is obtained when $`G(x^{})`$ becomes a non-zero constant. However this implies $`c=0`$. The parabolic behaviour (16) is the only one which allows to recover the extremal solution with c non-zero. Inserting (16) into eq. (13) we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{A}{2}\frac{(x^{}x_{int}^{})(x^+x_{int}^{})}{x^+x^{}}$$
(17)
which can be brought to the standard extremal form (8) after the change of coordinates $`x^\pm ^{}1/(x^\pm x_{int}^{})`$. Further, a short manipulation of the differential equation shows that $`G^{(n)}(x_{int}^{})=0`$ for $`n3`$. This implies that the unique function $`G(x^{})`$, for $`x^{}x_{int}^{}`$, matching with the solution for $`x^{}x_{int}^{}`$ is exactly the parabola (16). This is crucial, since it means that inside the horizon $`H^+`$, and so along $`H`$, we can express the solution in a form similar to (9) with $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0`$ in terms of a new null coordinate $`u_H`$

$$u_H=\frac{2lq^3}{A(x^{}x_{int}^{})}.$$
(18)
The correlators of quasi-primary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ associated to $`f`$ at $`H`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(u_{H_1})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(u_{H_n})=`$ (19)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{du_H}}\right)^{\lambda _1}(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{du_H}}\right)^{\lambda _n}(x_n^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x_1^{})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x_n^{})`$ (20)
where $`\lambda _1`$, …,$`\lambda _n`$ are the corresponding conformal weights. Since (18) is a Möbius transformation the correlators are the same as those of the vacuum. This means that the state at $`H`$ is just the restriction of the vacuum to $`H`$. Moreover, the range of the coordinate $`u_H`$ can be prolonged beyond $`H`$ ($`u_H0`$) to cover the whole future Cauchy horizon up to the singularity (i.e. up to $`u_H+\mathrm{}`$). This suggests that the state inside the horizon is just the vacuum state (naturally defined by the null time $`\mathrm{}<u_H<+\mathrm{}`$) and, therefore, that the correlators of the Hawking radiation can be obtained from a pure state $`|\psi _{ext}`$.

FIG.3.Plot of the function G and its first and second derivatives.We have taken $`A0.808`$ and $`x_{int}^{}2.463`$

To deepen our analysis we shall compare the stress-tensor 2-point correlation $`C(x_1^{},x_2^{})T_{}(x_1^{})T_{}(x_2^{})T_{}(x_1^{})T_{}(x_2^{})`$ measured by the external observer at late times with and without backreaction. It is well known that neglecting the backreaction the correlation is thermal

$$C_{nb}(u_1,u_2)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^4}{8\pi ^2}\frac{e^{2\kappa |u_1u_2|}}{(e^{\kappa |u_1u_2|}1)^4},$$
(21)
where $`\kappa =\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Delta }m/lq^3}`$ is the surface gravity at the event horizon.
In general we have

$$C(u_1,u_2)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{x^{^{}}(u_1)^2x^{^{}}(u_2)^2}{(x^{}(u_1)x^{}(u_2))^4}.$$
(22)
The expression (21) is obtained using the (no-backreaction) relation $`x^{}=e^{\kappa u}/\kappa `$. With backreaction effects included the relation between $`x^{}`$ and $`u`$, given by (14), is crucially modified to (up to terms $`O(e^{2Cu})`$)

$$x^{}=x_{int}^{}\frac{2lq^3}{Au}(1\frac{B}{AC}\frac{e^{Cu}}{u}),$$
(23)
where $`C=\mathrm{}/(24\pi lq^3)`$ and $`B/A=(24\pi )^2lq^3\mathrm{\Delta }m/\mathrm{}^2`$. Therefore the two-point correlator at late times becomes

$$C_{wb}(u_1,u_2)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{1}{(u_1u_2)^4}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(u_1,u_2)}{(u_1u_2)^4},$$
(24)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(u_1,u_2)={\displaystyle \frac{2B}{A}}(e^{Cu_1}+e^{Cu_2})+`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4B}{AC}}({\displaystyle \frac{e^{Cu_1}}{u_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{Cu_2}}{u_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_1u_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{u_2}{u_1}}e^{Cu_1}{\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{u_2}}e^{Cu_2}))].`$ (26)
In the coincidence limit $`u_2u_1=ϵ0`$ the general expression (22) gives

$$C(u_1,u_2)\frac{1}{ϵ^4}[1\frac{8\pi }{\mathrm{}}T_{uu}ϵ^2].$$
(27)
From eqs. (24) and (25) it is

$$C_{wb}\frac{1}{ϵ^4}[1\frac{ϵ^2}{3}\frac{BC^2}{A}e^{Cu_1}],$$
(28)
from which one can extract the late time Hawking flux $`T_{uu}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{lq^3}e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{24\pi lq^3}u}`$ as computed in .

The increase in the correlations when backreaction effects are included can be read off by considering the relative correlator

$$C_{rel}\frac{C_{wb}(u_1,u_2)}{C_{nb}(u_1,u_2)}=\frac{[1\mathrm{\Delta }(u_1,u_2)]}{(u_1u_2)^4}\frac{(e^{\kappa |u_1u_2|}1)^4}{\kappa ^4e^{2\kappa |u_1u_2|}}.$$
(29)
$`C_{rel}`$ by construction goes to $`1`$ when $`u_2u_1`$ and is elsewhere always bigger than $`1`$. In particular when $`\kappa |u_2u_1|1`$ it grows exponentially without bound. Therefore backreaction effects restore (fully or partially) the correlations that were lost in the (thermal) fixed background approximation.

Summarizing, we have inspected in detail the process of particle capture by an extremal Reissner-Nordström black hole and its subsequent (Hawking) decay back to extremality. The solvable model (5) has allowed us to determine the quantum corrected evaporation flux as detected by an external asymptotic observer at late times and, by analytic continuation, the quantum corrected geometry along the future Cauchy horizon. We have given arguments indicating that the quantum state of the radiation field in this region is the vacuum (in particular, no radiation is present), thus suggesting that the final state of the Hawking flux is pure (as exemplified by the significant increase of correlations in the emitted radiation). A full understanding of the problem requires to construct the quantum state capable to reproduce the late time correlator (24): the first term is reproduced by the vacuum state and the second one (with (25)) requires a more involved state .

To finish we would like to remark that some years ago the particle-hole scattering was widely studied for a dilaton gravity model . This raised the hope of finding a possible resolution of the information loss paradox in a simplified context. However additional studies showed that unitarity was not preserved at the one-loop semiclassical level  (the emergence of strong correlations has only appeared in the subcritical regime  and is crucially related to the presence of negative energy radiation). It was then speculated that only higher-order corrections could restore unitarity . We believe that we have provided evidence that, for Reissner-Nordström black holes, the effects of backreaction are stronger than for dilaton black holes, and therefore signals of unitarity already emerge in the semiclassical approximation.

This research has been partially supported by the research grants BFM2002-04031-C02-01 and BFM2002-03681 from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (Spain) and from EU FEDER funds. G.J. Olmo acknowledges the Generalitat Valenciana for a fellowship. A.F. thanks R. Balbinot for useful discussions.

Email address: fabbria@bo.infn.it
<sup>∗∗</sup>Email address:jnavarro@ific.uv.es
Email address: dnavarro@ific.uv.es
Email address: gonzalo.olmo@ific.uv.es


text:
# Good Local Bounds for Simple Random Walks

## Cramér-Edgeworth expansions for lattice distributions

This second part yields the bounds we use for the tilted measures in the LCLT. The proof follows the arguments in Bhattacharya/Rao, . The statement here differs from their result in two points: On one hand, we only want to approximate the walk at time $`n`$ up to order $`n^{(d+3)/2}`$, and we suppose bounded range of the measure. Thus we only look at a special case of their result. On the other hand, we need more precise control of the error terms. This means that most of the required lemmas from  would have to be adjusted. Rather than doing that, we prove everything we need directly.

The object of interest here is $`H`$, the single step distribution of an aperiodic and maximal random walk on $`^d`$ with bounded steplength $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`E`$ denote the expectation and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the covariance matrix of $`H`$. The aim is to give a good local bound for $`H^n(nE)`$, which we use in the proof of the LCLT.

First we introduce some notations and basic estimates (for more details see , chapter 6). We denote by $`\widehat{H}`$ the Fourier transform of $`H`$, that is

$$\widehat{H}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{x^d}{}e^{itx}H(x).$$

Since $`H`$ has bounded steplength, all moments of $`H`$ exist. We denote by $`\mu _\nu `$ the $`\nu `$th moment of $`H`$, where $`\nu `$ is a $`d`$-dimensional integral vector, that is

$$\mu _\nu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{x^d}{}x^\nu H(x),\text{and we have}i^{|\nu |}\mu _\nu =(D^\nu \widehat{H})(0).$$

The so called cumulants $`\chi _\nu `$ are given by

$$i^{|\nu |}\chi _\nu =(D^\nu \mathrm{log}\widehat{H})(0)$$

and can be expressed in terms of moments by equating coefficients of $`t^\nu `$ on both sides of the formal identity

(6)
$$\underset{|\nu |1}{}\chi _\nu \frac{(it)^\nu }{\nu !}=\mathrm{log}\widehat{H}(t)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{s+1}\frac{1}{s}\left(\underset{|\nu |1}{}\mu _\nu \frac{(it)^\nu }{\nu !}\right)^s.$$

For $`r`$ we define the polynomial $`\chi _r(z)`$ in $`z^d`$ by

$$\chi _r(z)=\underset{|\nu |=r}{}\frac{r!}{\nu !}\chi _\nu z^\nu .$$

We have $`\chi _1(z)=Ez`$ and $`\chi _2(z)=z(\mathrm{\Gamma }z)`$. For $`r`$ we can bound

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _r(z)}{r!}}\right|`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{|\nu |=r}{}}\chi _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{z^\nu }{\nu !}}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(1)^{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\left|\nu ^{(1)}\right|,\mathrm{},\left|\nu ^{(k)}\right|1\\ _{j=1}^k\left|\nu ^{(j)}\right|=r\end{array}}{}}\mu _{\nu ^{(1)}}\mathrm{}\mu _{\nu ^{(k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{_{j=1}^k\nu ^{(j)}}}{_{j=1}^k\nu ^{(j)}!}}\right|`$
$`|z|^r\mathrm{}^r{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\left(\underset{=e^d1}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \underset{|\nu |1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu !}}}}\right)^k|z|^rr[\mathrm{}(e^d1)]^r`$
(7) $`r(K|z|)^r,`$
where $`K\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{}(e^d1)`$. Thus for $`|t|<1/K`$ the Taylor series $`_{r=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\chi _r(it)}{r!}`$ is convergent, that is,

(8) $`\mathrm{log}\widehat{H}(t)`$ $`=Eit{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{r=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _r(it)}{r!}}.`$
###### Lemma.

There exists a constant $`C`$ such that for all $`x`$ in $`^d`$, $`\alpha (0,1/2)`$ and for all natural $`n`$,

$`|H^n(x)`$ $`n^{d/2}[1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(D)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(D)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(D)}{72n}}]\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{xnE}{\sqrt{n}}}\right)|`$
(9) $`Cn^{(d+3)/2},`$
where the formal polynomials $`\chi _r(D)`$ are given by

$$\chi _r(D)f(x)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\underset{|\nu |=r}{}\frac{r!}{\nu !}\chi _\nu D^\nu f(x)\text{and}\chi _r^2(D)f(x)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(\chi _r(D)f\chi _r(D)f)(x).$$

The constant $`C`$ depends only on the dimension $`d`$, the steplength $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`H`$ and on a lower bound for the smallest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

First we use the Fourier inversion formula for aperiodic lattice measures (see for example  (21.28)) to express $`H`$. We have

$`H^n(x)`$ $`=(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}}\mathrm{exp}[itx]\widehat{H}^n(t)𝑑t`$
(10) $`=(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _{[\sqrt{n}\pi ,\sqrt{n}\pi ]^d}}\mathrm{exp}[it{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{n}}}+n\mathrm{log}\widehat{H}({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}})]𝑑t.`$
With the usual inversion formula for continuous measures we obtain

(11) $`n^{d/2}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(D)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(D)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(D)}{72n}}\right]\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{xnE}{\sqrt{n}}}\right)`$
$`=(2\pi `$ $`\sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle }_^d\mathrm{exp}[it{\displaystyle \frac{xnE}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}\left]\right[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(it)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(it)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(it)}{72n}}]dt,`$
where we used

$$\widehat{D^\nu \phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)=(it)^\nu \widehat{\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }}(t)=(it)^\nu \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}\right].$$

Now let $``$ be a small ball around $`0`$ with radius $`\epsilon >0`$ (precise conditions on $`\epsilon =\epsilon (d,\mathrm{},\gamma )`$ will be determined later). Using (Proof.) and (11) we can bound the left hand side of (Lemma) by the sum of three integrals $`I`$, $`II`$ and $`III`$ with

$`I`$ $`=(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _\sqrt{n}}|\mathrm{exp}\left[n\mathrm{log}\widehat{H}({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}})\right]\mathrm{exp}[it{\displaystyle \frac{nE}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}]`$
$`\times [1+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(it)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(it)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(it)}{72n}}]|dt,`$
and
$`II`$ $`=(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _{[\sqrt{n}\pi ,\sqrt{n}\pi ]^d\sqrt{n}}}\left|\widehat{H}^n({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}})\right|𝑑t,`$
and
$`III`$ $`=(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _{^d\sqrt{n}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}\right]\left|1+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(it)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(it)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(it)}{72n}}\right|𝑑t.`$
We start with the essential term, the integral $`I`$. As a first condition we let $`\epsilon 1/(2K)`$. Then we have $`K|t|/\sqrt{n}1/2`$ for all $`t\sqrt{n}`$. Denote by $`\gamma `$ (a lower bound for) the smallest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We use (8) and (Cramér-Edgeworth expansions for lattice distributions) to obtain

$`I`$ $`(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _\sqrt{n}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}\right]`$
$`\times \left|\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{r=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{\frac{r2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _r(it)}{r!}}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(it)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(it)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(it)}{72n}}\right]\right|dt`$
$`(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _\sqrt{n}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}t^2]\times [{\displaystyle \underset{r=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{\frac{r2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi _r(it)|}{r!}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r,s3\\ r+s7\end{array}}{}}n^{\frac{r+s4}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi _r(it)||\chi _s(it)|}{r!s!}}+{\displaystyle \underset{s=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{\frac{r2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi _r(it)|}{r!}}\right)^s/s!]dt`$
$`(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _\sqrt{n}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}t^2][n^{3/2}{\displaystyle \underset{r=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}r(Kt)^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n^{3/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r,s3\\ r+s7\end{array}}{}}rs(Kt)^{r+s}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{s=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{s/2}(2Kt)^{3s}/s!]dt`$
$`n^{(d+3)/2}(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _^d}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}t^2]\text{const}(d,\mathrm{})[t^5+t^7+t^9\mathrm{exp}[\epsilon (2K)^3)t^2]]dt`$
$`n^{(d+3)/2}(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _^d}\text{const}(d,\mathrm{},\gamma )\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}t^2]𝑑t,`$
if we choose $`\epsilon =\epsilon (d,\mathrm{},\gamma )`$ small enough. Therefore we have

$`I`$ $`\text{const}(d,\mathrm{},\gamma )n^{(d+3)/2}.`$
Now we come to the error term II. Since $`|\widehat{H}|=1`$ in zero and $`|\widehat{H}|<1`$ away from zero, there exists a constant $`K^{}<1`$ with $`|\widehat{H}(t)|K^{}`$ on $`[\pi ,\pi ]^d`$. As in the proof of the LCLT we use the fact, that the set of all measures on $`^d`$ with steplength $`\mathrm{}`$ such that the smallest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix is greater or equal $`\gamma `$, is compact. Since the mapping $`(H,t)\widehat{H}(t)`$ is continuous in both arguments, the constant $`K^{}`$ can be chosen depending on $`d`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ only. Therefore we have

$`II`$ $`=(2\pi )^d{\displaystyle _{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}}\left|\widehat{H}^n(t)\right|𝑑tK_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\text{const}(d,\mathrm{},\gamma )n^{(d+3)/2}.`$
$`III`$ is not much more complicated. Using (Cramér-Edgeworth expansions for lattice distributions) to majorize the $`\chi _r`$, we can bound

$`III`$ $`=(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _{^d\sqrt{n}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)}{2}}\right]\left|1+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3(it)}{6\sqrt{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _4(it)}{24n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _3^2(it)}{72n}}\right|𝑑t`$
$`(2\pi \sqrt{n})^d{\displaystyle _{^d\sqrt{n}}}\text{const}(d,\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma t^2}{3}}\right]𝑑t`$
$`\text{const}(d,\mathrm{},\gamma )n^{d/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \epsilon ^2n}{4}}\right]\text{const}(d,\mathrm{},\gamma )n^{(d+3)/2}.`$
The combination of these three estimates completes the proof of the Lemma. ∎

For the proof of the Local CLT we only need an approximation of $`H^n(x)`$ at the point $`x=nE`$. In this case the approximating term

$$n^{d/2}\left[1\frac{\chi _3(D)}{6\sqrt{n}}+\frac{\chi _4(D)}{24n}+\frac{\chi _3^2(D)}{72n}\right]\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{xnE}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$$

simplifies to

$$n^{d/2}\left[1+n^1\left(\chi _4(D)/24+\chi _3^2(D)/72\right)\right]\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(0),$$

since the odd derivatives of a centered normal density vanish at zero. Therefore we obtain the following corollary as a special case of the lemma.

###### Corollary.

There exist constants $`C`$ and $`L`$ such that for all natural $`n`$,

$$\left|H^n(nE)(2\pi n)^{d/2}(det\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2}\left[1+n^1L\right]\right|Cn^{(d+3)/2}.$$

Here $`L`$ is a constant depending polynomially on the moments of $`H`$ up to order four (coming from the $`\chi `$ terms) and on the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ (coming from the derivatives of $`\phi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). The constant $`C`$ depends only on the dimension $`d`$, the steplength $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`H`$ and on a lower bound for the smallest eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.


text:
# Appearance of Fermion Condensation Quantum Phase Transition in Different Fermi Liquids

## Abstract

We show that the quasiparticle effective mass $`M^{}`$ diverges as a function of the system’s density $`x`$, $`M^{}1/(xx_{FC})`$, when a system approaches the critical point $`x_{FC}`$ at which the fermion condensation quantum phase transition (FCQPT) occurs. Such behavior is of general form and takes place in both three dimensional systems and two dimensional ones. We demonstrate that a system which has undergone FCQPT and lies close to the critical point $`x_{FC}`$ can be driven back into the normal Fermi liquid by applying a small magnetic field $`B`$. As the field $`B`$ is reduced, the system is tuned back to the critical point and the effective mass diverges as $`M^{}1/\sqrt{BB_{FC}}`$ where $`B_{FC}`$ is the maximum field at which FCQPT takes place. If the system lies precisely at the critical point then $`B_{FC}=0`$. We demonstrate the constancy of the Kadowaki-Woods ratio when approaching the critical point at the fields $`BB_{FC}`$. Analyzing recent experimental data on the effective mass behavior in a strongly correlated two dimensional fluid 3He, in metallic two dimensional electron systems and in heavy-fermion systems, we show that the observed behavior is in agreement with our consideration. As a result, we may conclude that FCQPT can be conceived of as a universal cause of the strongly correlated regime in different Fermi liquids.

It is widely believed that unusual properties of the high-temperature superconductors is defined by a quantum phase transition which takes place at temperature $`T=0`$ being driven by a control parameter other then temperature, for instance, pressure or the density of mobile charge carriers $`x`$. The quantum phase transition occurs at the quantum critical point; in a common case, this point is the end of a line of continuous transitions at $`T=0`$. As any phase transition, the quantum phase transition is related to the order parameter which induces a broken symmetry. By now, experimental data show that there are no any broken rotational symmetry or broken translational symmetry, see e.g. . Therefore, the relevant quantum phase transition and its quantum critical point have to possess peculiar features, immediate experimental study of which is of crucial importance for understanding the physics of the high-temperature superconductivity and strongly correlated systems. Unfortunately, it is difficult to study the properties of the high-temperature superconductors, which bear a direct relation to the critical point, because all the corresponding area is occupied by the superconductivity. On the other hand, recent experimental data on different Fermi liquids in the highly correlated regime at the critical point can help to illuminate both the nature of this point and the control parameter by which this point is driven. Experimental facts on strongly correlated high-density two dimensional (2D) 3He  show that the effective mass diverges when the density at which 2D 3He liquid begins to solidify is approached . Then, sharp increase of the effective mass when the density tends to the critical density of the metal-insulator transition point, which occurs at sufficiently low densities, in a metallic 2D electron system was observed . Note, that there is no ferromagnetic instability in both Fermi systems and the relevant Landau amplitude $`F_0^a>1`$ , in accordance with the almost localized fermion model . At $`T0`$, another critical point in heavy-fermion metal YbRh2Si2 is observed . This critical point is driven by magnetic fields $`B`$ which suppresses the antiferromagnetic order, when $`B`$ reaches the critical value, $`B=B_c`$, while the effective mass $`M^{}`$ diverges as $`M^{}1/\sqrt{BB_c}`$ . The study of the magnetic field dependence of the coefficients $`A`$, $`\gamma _0`$, and $`\chi _0`$ in the resistivity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =A(B)T^2`$, specific heat, $`C/T=\gamma _0(B)`$, and the magnetic ac susceptibility, $`\chi _{ac}=\chi _0(B)`$, has revealed that YbRh2Si2 behaves as a true Landau Fermi liquid for $`B>B_c`$ and the well-known Kadowaki-Woods ratio $`A/\gamma _0`$  is preserved . It is pertinent to note that heavy fermion metals are more likely to be three dimensional (3D) then 2D and nonetheless we observe the same critical point as in the mentioned above strongly correlated Fermi liquids.

In this Report, to study the nature of the discussed critical points, we analyze the appearance of the fermion condensation phase transition (FCQPT)  in different 2D and 3D Fermi liquids. We show that at $`T0`$ FCQPT manifests itself in the divergence of the quasiparticle effective mass $`M^{}`$ as the density $`x`$ of a system approaches the critical point $`x_{FC}`$ at which FCQPT takes place, so that $`M^{}1/|xx_{FC}|`$. If a Fermi system lies beyond FCQPT point and the density is close to the critical point, then FCQPT can be driven by magnetic fields, while the effective mass diverges as $`M^{}1/\sqrt{BB_{FC}}`$ where $`B_{FC}`$ is the maximum field at which the FCQPT still occurs. As a result, we show that FCQPT can be conceived of as a universal cause of the strongly correlated regime in different Fermi liquids.

We start with a brief consideration of general properties of FCQPT taking, as a case in point, a two-dimensional electron liquid in the superconducting state, when the system has undergone FCQPT . At $`T=0`$, the ground state energy $`E_{gs}[\kappa (𝐩),n(𝐩)]`$ is a functional of the order parameter of the superconducting state $`\kappa (𝐩)`$ and of the quasiparticle occupation numbers $`n(𝐩)`$ and is determined by the known equation of the weak-coupling theory of superconductivity (see e.g. )

$$E_{gs}=E[n(𝐩)]+\lambda _0V(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)\kappa (𝐩_1)\kappa ^{}(𝐩_2)\frac{d𝐩_1d𝐩_2}{(2\pi )^4}.$$
(1)
Here $`E[n(𝐩)]`$ is the ground-state energy of normal Fermi liquid, $`n(𝐩)=v^2(𝐩)`$ and $`\kappa (𝐩)=v(𝐩)\sqrt{1v^2(𝐩)}`$. It is assumed that the pairing interaction $`\lambda _0V(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)`$ is weak. Minimizing $`E_{gs}`$ with respect to $`\kappa (𝐩)`$ we obtain the equation connecting the single-particle energy $`\epsilon (𝐩)`$ to the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$

$$\epsilon (𝐩)\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)\frac{12v^2(𝐩)}{2\kappa (𝐩)},$$
(2)
here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The single-particle energy $`\epsilon (𝐩)`$ is determined by the Landau equation

$$\epsilon (𝐩)=\frac{\delta E[n(𝐩)]}{\delta n(𝐩)}.$$
(3)
The equation for the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)`$ takes form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)=\lambda _0V(𝐩,𝐩_1)\kappa (𝐩_1)\frac{d𝐩_1}{4\pi ^2}.$$
(4)
If $`\lambda _00`$, then, the maximum value of the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_10`$, and Eq. (2) reduces to that proposed in

$$\epsilon (𝐩)\mu =0,\mathrm{if}\kappa (𝐩)0,(0<n(𝐩)<1);p_ipp_fL_{FC}.$$
(5)
At $`T=0`$, Eq. (5) defines a new state of Fermi liquid with the fermion condensate (FC) for which the modulus of the order parameter $`|\kappa (𝐩)|`$ has finite values in $`L_{FC}`$ range of momenta $`p_ipp_f`$ occupied by FC, while the superconducting gap can be infinitely small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_10`$ in $`L_{FC}`$ . Such a state can be considered as superconducting, with infinitely small value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ so that the entropy of this state is equal to zero. This state, created by the quantum phase transition, disappears at $`T>0`$. FCQPT can be considered as a “pure” quantum phase transition because it cannot take place at finite temperatures. Therefore, its quantum critical point does not represent the end of a line of continuous transitions at $`T=0`$. Equation (5) determines also the critical point of FCQPT, possessing solutions at some density $`x=x_{FC}`$. Nonetheless, FCQPT has a strong impact on the system’s properties up to temperature $`T_f`$ above which FC effects become insignificant . FCQPT does not violate any rotational symmetry or translational symmetry, being characterized by the order parameter $`\kappa (𝐩)`$. It follows from Eq. (5) that the quasiparticle system brakes into two quasiparticle subsystems: the first one in $`L_{FC}`$ range is occupied by the quasiparticles with the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}1/\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, while the second by quasiparticles with finite mass $`M_L^{}`$ and momenta $`p<p_i`$. If $`\lambda _00`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ becomes finite, leading to finite value of the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$ in $`L_{FC}`$, which can be obtained from Eq. (2)

$$M_{FC}^{}p_F\frac{p_fp_i}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_1},$$
(6)
while the effective mass $`M_L^{}`$ is disturbed weakly. Here $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. It follows from Eq. (6) that the quasiparticle dispersion can be presented by two straight lines characterized by the effective masses $`M_{FC}^{}`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ respectively. These lines intersect near the binding energy $`E_0`$ of electrons which defines an intrinsic energy scale of the system:

$$E_0=\epsilon (𝐩_f)\epsilon (𝐩_i)\frac{(p_fp_i)p_F}{M_{FC}^{}}2\mathrm{\Delta }_1.$$
(7)
In fact, as it is seen from Eqs. (5) and (6) even at $`T=0`$, Fermi liquid with FC presenting highly generated state is absorbed by the superconducting phase transition and never exhibits the dispersionless plateau associated with $`M_{FC}^{}\mathrm{}`$. As a result, a Fermi liquid beyond the point of FCQPT can be described by two types of quasiparticles characterized by the two finite effective masses $`M_{FC}^{}`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ respectively and by the intrinsic energy scale $`E_0`$. It is reasonably safe to suggest that we have come back to the Landau theory by integrating out high energy degrees of freedom and introducing the quasiparticles. The sole difference between the Landau Fermi liquid and Fermi liquid undergone FCQPT is that we have to expand the number of relevant low energy degrees of freedom by adding both a new type of quasiparticles with the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$, given by Eq. (6), and the energy scale $`E_0`$ given by Eq. (7). We have also to bear in mind that the properties of these new quasiparticles of a Fermi liquid with FC cannot be separated from the properties of the superconducting state, as it follows from Eqs. (6) and (7). We may say that the quasiparticle system in the range $`L_{FC}`$ becomes very “soft” and is to be considered as a strongly correlated liquid. On the other hand, the system’s properties and dynamics are dominated by a strong collective effect having its origin in FCQPT and determined by the macroscopic number of quasiparticles in the range $`L_{FC}`$. Such a system cannot be disturbed by the scattering of individual quasiparticles and has features of a quantum protectorate .

Let us assume that FC has just taken place, that is $`p_ip_fp_F`$, the deviation $`\delta n(p)`$ is small, and $`\lambda _00`$. Expanding functional $`E[n(p)]`$ in Eq. (3) in Taylor’s series with respect to $`\delta n(p)`$ and retaining the leading terms, one obtains taking into account Eq. (5),

$$\mu =\epsilon (𝐩,\sigma )=\epsilon _0(𝐩,\sigma )+\underset{\sigma _1}{}F_L(𝐩,𝐩_1,\sigma ,\sigma _1)\delta n(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},\sigma _1)\frac{d𝐩_1}{(2\pi )^2};p_ipp_fL_{FC},$$
(8)
where $`F_L(𝐩,𝐩_1,\sigma ,\sigma _1)=\delta ^2E/\delta n(𝐩,\sigma )\delta n(𝐩_1,\sigma _1)`$ is the Landau interaction, and $`\sigma `$ denotes the spin states. Both the Landau interaction and the single-particle energy $`\epsilon _0(p)`$ are calculated at $`n(p)=n_F(p)`$. Equation (8) possesses solutions if the Landau amplitude $`F_L`$ is positive and sufficiently large, so that the integral on the right hand side of Eq. (8) defining the potential energy is large and makes the potential energy prevail over the kinetic energy $`\epsilon _0(𝐩)`$ . It is also seen from Eq. (8) that the FC quasiparticles forms a collective state, since their energies are defined by the macroscopical number of quasiparticles within the region $`p_ip_f`$, and vice versa. The shape of the spectra is not effected by the Landau interaction, which, generally speaking, depends on the system’s properties, including the collective states, impurities, etc. The only thing defined by the interaction is the width of the region $`p_ip_f`$, provided the interaction is sufficiently strong to produce the FC phase transition at all. Thus, we can conclude that the spectra related to FC are of universal form. At temperatures $`TT_c`$, the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$ related to FC is given by ,

$$M_{FC}^{}p_F\frac{p_fp_i}{4T}.$$
(9)
Multiplying both sides of Eq. (9) by $`p_fp_i`$ we obtain the energy scale $`E_0`$ separating the slow dispersing low energy part, related to the effective mass $`M_{FC}^{}`$, from the faster dispersing relatively high energy part, defined by the effective mass $`M_L^{}`$ ,

$$E_04T.$$
(10)
It is seen from Eq. (10) that the scale $`E_0`$ does not depend on the condensate volume. The single particle excitations are defined according to Eq. (9) by the temperature and by $`n(p)`$, given by Eq. (5). Thus, again at $`TT_c`$, the one-electron spectrum is negligible disturbed by thermal excitations, impurities, etc, and one observes the features of the quantum protectorate .

FCQPT appears in Fermi liquids, when the effective interaction becomes sufficiently large, as it occurs in 3He at sufficiently high densities and in many-electron systems at relatively low density . Calculations based on simple models show that FC can exist as a stable state separated from the normal Fermi liquid by the phase transition . In ordinary electron liquid this interaction is directly proportional to the dimensionless parameter $`r_s1/p_Fa_B`$, where $`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius. If $`p_ip_Fp_f`$, Eq. (5) determines the point $`r=r_{FC}`$ at which FCQPT takes place, and $`(p_fp_i)/p_F(r_sr_{FC})/r_{FC}g_{eff}`$, with $`g_{eff}`$ being the effective coupling constant, which characterizes the interaction in proximity to the point $`r_{FC}`$ of FCQPT . FCQPT precedes the formation of charge-density waves or stripes, which take place at some value $`r_s=r_{cdw}`$ with $`r_{FC}<r_{cdw}`$, while the Wigner solidification takes place even at larger values of $`r_s`$ and leads to insulator . On the other hand, there are charge-density waves, or stripes, in underdoped copper oxides and finally at small doping levels one has insulators . In the same way, the effective mass inevitably diverges as soon as the density $`x`$ becomes sufficiently large approaching the critical density at which 2D 3He begins to solidify , as it was observed in .

Recent studies of photoemission spectra discovered an energy scale in the spectrum of low-energy electrons in cuprates, which manifests itself as a kink in the single-particle spectra . The spectra in the energy range (-200—0) meV can be described by two straight lines intersecting at the binding energy $`E_0(5070)`$ meV . Then, in underdoped copper oxides, there are the pseudogap phenomenon and the line-shape of single-particle excitations strongly deviates from that of normal Fermi liquid, see, e.g. . While, in the highly overdoped regime slight deviations from the normal Fermi liquid are observed . All these peculiar properties are naturally explained within a model proposed in  and allow to relate the doping level, or the charge carriers density $`x`$, regarded as the density of holes (or electrons) per unit area to the density of Fermi liquid with FC. We assume that $`x_{FC}`$ corresponds to the highly overdoped regime at which FCQPT takes place. In that case, the effective coupling constant $`g_{eff}(xx_{FC})/x_{FC}`$. According to the model, the doping level $`x`$ at $`xx_{FC}`$ in metals is related to $`(p_fp_i)`$ in the following way:

$$g_{eff}\frac{(x_{FC}x)}{x_{FC}}\frac{p_fp_i}{p_F}\frac{p_f^2p_i^2}{p_F^2}.$$
(11)
Now we consider the divergence of the effective mass in 2D and 3D Fermi liquids at $`T=0`$, when the density $`x`$ approaches FCQPT from the side of normal Landau Fermi liquid (LFL). First, we calculate the divergence of $`M^{}`$ as a function of the difference $`(x_{FC}x)`$ in case of 2D 3He. For this purpose we use the equation for $`M^{}`$ obtained in , where the divergence of the effective mass $`M^{}`$ due to the onset of FC in different Fermi liquids including 3He was predicted

$$\frac{1}{M^{}}=\frac{1}{M}+\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{g_0}{}}\frac{v(q(x))}{[1R(q(x),\omega =0,g)\chi _0(q(x),\omega =0)]^2}\frac{xdxdg}{\sqrt{1x^2}}.$$
(12)
Here we adopt the shorthand, $`p_F\sqrt{2(1x)}=q(x)`$, with $`q(x)`$ being the transferred momentum, $`M`$ is the bare mass, $`\omega `$ is the frequency, $`v(q)`$ is the bare interaction, and the integral is taken over the coupling constant $`g`$ from zero to its real value $`g_0`$. In Eq. (12), both $`\chi _0(q,\omega )`$ and $`R(q,\omega )`$, being the linear response function of noninteracting Fermi liquid and the effective interaction respectively, define the linear response function of the system in question

$$\chi (q,\omega ,g)=\frac{\chi _0(q,\omega )}{1R(q,\omega ,g)\chi _0(q,\omega )}.$$
(13)
In the vicinity of charge density wave instability, occurring at the density $`x_{cdw}`$, the singular part of the function $`\chi ^1`$ on the disordered side is of the well-known form, see. e.g.

$$\chi ^1(q,\omega ,g)(x_{cdw}x)+(qq_c)^2+(g_0g),$$
(14)
where $`q_c2p_F`$ is the wavenumber of the charge density wave order. Upon substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (12) and taking the integrals, the equation for the effective mass $`M^{}`$ can be cast into the following form

$$\frac{1}{M^{}}=\frac{1}{M}\frac{C}{\sqrt{x_{cdw}x}},$$
(15)
with $`C`$ being some positive constant. It is seen form Eq. (15) that $`M^{}`$ diverges at some point $`x_{FC}`$, which is referred to as the critical point at which FCQPT occurs, as a function of the difference $`(x_{FC}x)`$

$$M^{}\frac{1}{x_{FC}x}.$$
(16)
It follows from the derivation of Eqs. (15) and (16) that the form of these equations is independent of the bare interaction $`v(q)`$, therefore both of these equations are also applicable to 2D electron liquid or to another Fermi liquid. It is also seen from Eqs. (15) and (16) that FCQPT precedes the formation of charge-density waves. In consequence of this, the effective mass diverges at high densities in case of 2D 3He, and it diverges at low density in case of 2D electron systems, in accordance with experimental facts . Note, that in the both cases the difference $`(x_{FC}x)`$ has to be positive because $`x_{FC}`$ represents the solution of Eq. (15). Thus, considering electron systems we have to replace $`(x_{FC}x)`$ by $`(xx_{FC})`$. In case of 3D system, the effective mass is given by

$$\frac{1}{M^{}}=\frac{1}{M}+\frac{p_F}{4\pi ^2}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{g_0}{}}\frac{v(q(x))xdxdg}{[1R(q(x),\omega =0,g)\chi _0(q(x),\omega =0)]^2}.$$
(17)
A comparison of Eq. (12) and Eq. (17) shows that there is no fundamental difference between these equations, and along the same way we again arrive at Eqs. (15) and (16). The only difference between 2D electron systems and 3D ones is that FCQPT occurs at densities which are well below those corresponding to 2D systems. While in the bulk 3He, FCQPT cannot probably take place being absorbed by the first order solidification.

Consider the divergence of $`M^{}`$ in external magnetic fields $`B`$, when an electron system is located very close to the critical point $`x_{FC}`$ so that $`(x_{FC}x)/x_{FC}1`$. As it follows from the above, this consideration will be applicable to any 2D or 3D Fermi systems. The application of magnetic field $`B`$ leads to a weakly polarized state when some levels at the Fermi level are occupied by quasiparticles with the ordered spins. These levels are located in the momentum range $`\delta p`$ given by

$$\frac{p_F\delta p}{M^{}}B\mu _{eff},$$
(18)
where $`\mu _{eff}\mu _B`$ is the effective moment. It is seen from Eq. (8) that this polarized state lowers the integral on the right hand side of Eq. (8) by the value $`\delta I`$,

$$\delta I\delta pM^{}B.$$
(19)
If $`\delta I`$ is sufficiently large, Eq. (8) has no solutions and FC vanishes. As a result, we can conclude that $`\delta Ig_{eff}`$. Thus, it is seen form Eq. (19) that the strength of magnetic fields can be used as a control parameter. Let $`B_{FC}`$ be the magnetic field that suppresses FC so that $`p_fp_Fp_I`$, then it follows from Eq. (11)

$$(BB_{FC})M^{}g_{eff}\frac{xx_{FC}}{x_{FC}}.$$
(20)
Upon substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (16) we obtain

$$M^{}(B)\frac{1}{\sqrt{BB_{FC}}}.$$
(21)
Equation (21) shows that by applying a magnetic field $`B>B_{FC}`$, the system can be driven back into LFL with the effective mass $`M^{}(B)`$ dependent on the magnetic field. It was demonstrated that the constancy of the Kadowaki-Woods ratio is obeyed by systems in the strongly correlated regime when the effective mass is sufficiently large . Therefore, we are led to the conclusion that by applying magnetic fields, the system is driven back into LFL, and the constancy of the Kadowaki-Woods ratio is obeyed. Since the resistivity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (M^{})^2`$ , we obtain from Eq. (21)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \frac{1}{BB_{FC}}.$$
(22)
Obviously, if the system lies precisely at the critical point, $`x=x_{FC}`$, then $`B_{FC}=0`$. At finite temperatures, there is a temperature $`T^{}(B)`$ at which the polarized state is destroyed. Then, the value of the integral in Eq. (8) is restored, and the system comes back into the state with $`M^{}`$ defined by Eq. (9) and giving rise to the non-Fermi liquid behavior (NFL). For instance, in that case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho T`$ . At small fields $`B`$, $`T^{}(B)`$ is an increasing function of $`B`$ because $`T^{}B\mu _{eff}`$. Thus, the higher is the magnetic field $`B`$, the higher is the temperature $`T^{}(B)`$, at which the crossover from LFL to NFL occurs.

To explain the nature of the field-induced quantum critical point in YbRh2Si2, we assume that the electron system of this heavy fermion metal is located very close to the critical point $`x_{FC}`$, so that $`(x_{FC}x)/x_{FC}1`$, and see that the obtained above results are in good agreement with experimental facts . We can also safely assume that the electron system of heavy-fermion metals is 3D system. Comparatively small values of $`T_c`$ observed in these metals rather favor the 3D scenario . A detailed analysis of the discussed experimental facts will be published elsewhere.

To conclude, FCQPT can be conceived of as a universal cause of the strongly correlated regime and of non-Fermi liquid behavior in different Fermi liquids such as 2D 3He liquid of high densities, 2D electron systems of low densities, heavy-fermion metals and the high-temperature superconductors.

This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, No 01-02-17189.


text:
# Kaon B-parameter using Overlap Fermions

## Abstract

I present first results from an in-progress calculation of $`B_K`$ in quenched approximation using overlap fermions. My particular implementation of the overlap uses a kernel with nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions and HYP-blocked gauge connections. Matching to the continuum NDR regularization is done perturbatively. I present preliminary results at $`\beta =5.9`$ and 6.1 (lattice spacings 0.125 and 0.09 fm) for quark masses, pseudoscalar decay constants, and B-parameter – $`B_K^{(NDR)}(\mu =2`$ GeV) $`0.66(34)`$.

The kaon B-parameter $`B_K`$, defined as $`\frac{8}{3}(m_Kf_K)^2B_K=\overline{K}|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d|K`$, has been computed many times with lattice methods. Lattice calculations of $`B_K`$ require actions with good chiral properties, to prevent operator mixing with wrong-chirality operators from contaminating the signal. There has been a continuous cycle of lattice calculations using fermions with ever better chiral properties. This calculation is yet another incremental upgrade, to the use of a lattice action with exact $`SU(N_f)SU(N_f)`$ chiral symmetry, an overlap action. These actions have operator mixing identical to that of continuum-regulated QCD.

The overlap action used in these studies is built from a kernel action with nearest and next-nearest neighbor couplings, and HYP-blocked links. HYP links fatten the gauge links without extending gauge-field-fermion couplings beyond a single hypercube. This improves the kernel’s chiral properties without compromising locality. The kernel action is designed to resemble the exact overlap well enough that its eigenvectors are good “seeds” for a calculation of eigenvectors of the exact action, and it is kept simple enough that finding its own eigenvectors is inexpensive. These eigenvectors are used to precondition the calculation of quark propagators, in principle eliminating all critical slowing down at small quark mass.

The data set is generated in the quenched approximation using the Wilson gauge action at couplings $`\beta =5.9`$ (on a $`12^3\times 36`$ site lattice) and $`\beta =6.1`$ (on a $`16^3\times 48`$ site lattice) with 40 lattices each (so far). The nominal lattice spacings are $`a=0.125`$ fm and 0.090 fm from the measured rho mass. Propagators for six quark masses are constructed corresponding to pseudoscalar-to-vector meson mass ratios of $`m_{PS}/m_V0.6`$ to 0.85.

The methodology for $`B_K`$ is well-developed: compute an un-amputated correlator which contains the desired matrix element (two kaon sources far apart on the lattice with the four-fermion operator sandwiched in between), clip off the $`(m_Kf_K)^2`$ prefactor by simultaneously measuring the matrix element $`0|\overline{s}\gamma _0\gamma _5d|K`$, extrapolate/interpolate the lattice $`B`$parameter to its value at the kaon mass, and convert the lattice number to its continuum-regulated counterpart.

To maximize the signal volume I computed propagators from two well-separated sources ($`N_t/22`$ temporal sites apart) and brought them together to the operator. I used Gaussian sources to maximize overlap onto the ground state. These sources do not make momentum eigenstates, and so the $`p=0`$ $`B_K`$ signal is contaminated by a $`\stackrel{}{p}0`$ contribution. This causes problems at bigger quark mass, because $`E(p)m`$ gets smaller as the pseudoscalar mass $`m`$ grows. Fortunately, there are two inequivalent paths on the torus to disentangle the two “signals,” and one can fit the $`B_K`$ correlator to a sum of a $`\stackrel{}{p}=0`$ term and a $`p=2\pi /N_s`$ term. This is not a problem at small quark mass.

I extracted a signal from fits to the traditional ratio of the $`\overline{K}K`$ amplitude and product of two-point functions, as well as correlated fits to the $`\overline{K}K`$ amplitude and the two-point functions. A ratio plot is shown in Fig. 1. A typical correlated fit is shown in Fig. 2, and a plot of lattice $`B_K`$ vs. quark mass is shown in Fig. 3. Uncorrelated jackknife “ratio fits” have small uncertainties and are quite stable over a wide range of timeslices. However, one would really like to do correlated fits. The data points are strongly correlated, and it is necessary to use singular value decomposition to invert the correlation matrix. When I do this, I find that my fits are consistent with the jackknife fits and have reasonable confidence levels. To get to the physical kaon I linearly extrapolated my results with a jacknife; there is no sign of discernable curvature in my data.

I calculated the renormalization factors between the lattice- and continuum-regulated (NDR) matrix elements using one loop perturbation theory. At $`a`$ (lattice spacing) $`\times \mu `$ (continuum regularization point) $`=1`$, a conversion factor is $`Z=1+(\alpha _s(q^{})/4\pi )z`$. As one might expect from related work, the HYP link pushes the constant $`z`$ close to zero. The cost is that $`q^{}`$ (defined a la Lepage-Mackenzie) can move to a small value, but sensible values of $`q^{}`$ are given by the higher-order prescription of .

For $`B_K`$, the operator $`O_+`$ has a matching factor $`Z_+`$ and for the overlap action used here, its parameter $`z=4.0`$ at $`q^{}a=0.92`$ for NDR. The entire conversion factor for $`B_K`$ from lattice $`\beta =5.9`$ to $`\mu =2`$ GeV is $`Z_+/Z_A^2=0.99`$. (Wilson-action kernel overlap actions have $`z`$’s which are an order of magnitude larger.)

How reliable is this number? I have not checked it directly (yet), but perturbation theory for the local axial vector current can be tested with overlap actions by a comparison of the vacuum-to-pseudoscalar meson matrix elements of the axial vector and pseudoscalar density. At $`\beta =5.9`$ I find $`Z_A=0.97`$ or 0.98 (depending on the choice of lowest-order or higher-order $`q^{}`$, and 0.97(1) nonperturbatively. Perturbation theory for the matching coefficient fo the $`\overline{MS}`$ quark mass can also be compared to the nonperturbative calculation of Ref. . This analysis gives $`Z(\mu =2\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{a})=1.10(3)`$ at $`r_0m_{PS}=5`$ and 1.14(11) at $`r_0m_{PS}=3`$, as compared to the perturbative prediction of 0.95.

My PRELIMINARY values for $`B_K`$ and for other relevant parameters (lattice spacings from rho mass, decay constants, $`\overline{MS}(\mu =2`$ GeV) quark masses) are recorded in the Table. A combined error from fitting, extrapolation, and lattice spacing (dominated by statistics) is shown. My $`B_K`$ result is in reasonably good agreement with the staggered JLQCD result a bit higher than the CP-PACS domain wall fermion result and quite a bit higher than the RBC domain wall fermion result. It is also consistent with the Wilson-overlap results presented by Lellouch at this meeting. Of course, it is a linear extrapolation: that is a dangerous thing to do. If the allocation gods allow, I hope to push to smaller quark masses (bracketing the necessary quark mass and possibly revealing the chiral logarithm) and collect more statistics (hopefully giving more respectable error bars).

This work was supported by the US Department of Energy. I are grateful to S. Sharpe for suggesting this project and C. Bernard and T. Blum for helpful instruction. Simulations were performed on the Platinum cluster at NCSA.