text:
# References

ADP-02-76/T515

Cabibbo-suppressed non-leptonic decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and final state interaction

Shao-Long Chen1,2, Xin-Heng Guo4, Xue-Qian Li1,2,3 and Guo-Li Wang1,2,3

1. CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China,

2. Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.

3. Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China.

4. Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics, and Special Research Center for the Subatomic Structure of Matter, Adelaide University, SA 5005, Australia

Abstract

With the diquark structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, we investigate the branching ratios of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+`$ and $`p\pi ^0`$. The results show that without considering the final state interaction (FSI), the branching ration of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^+`$ is only of order $`10^6`$ whereas taking into account the FSI effects, this ratio could reach $`10^4`$ and is at the same order as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^0`$. Concrete values depend on phenomenological parameters adopted in the calculations. These branching ratios can be measured in the experiments to come.

PACS numbers: 14.20.Lq, 13.30.-a, 12.39.Hg, 12.39.-x

I. Introduction

In the recent years, there are remarkable progresses in heavy flavor physics for both theoretical framework and applications. As long as heavy flavors are involved in the concerned physical processes, due to an extra symmetry $`SU(2)_fSU(2)_s`$, calculations become simpler and more reliable, and the physics picture is clearer as well . Based on the understanding, the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) has been established  and applied to investigate the physical processes. In the HQET, at the leading order of $`1/m_Q`$ expansion, the non-perturbative QCD effects are attributed into one form factor, i.e. the Isgur-Wise function. With it, one can make predictions and extract significant information from data, such as the CKM entries.

Heavy-meson related processes have attracted intensive interests because a great amount of data about B and D have been accumulated so far. By contrary, the processes of heavy baryons have not received as much attention as for mesons. The reason is two-fold. First, there are not sufficient amount of data on heavy baryons available yet. Secondly, one has to deal with a three-body problem theoretically which is much more complicated than the meson case. On the other side, there are many unsolved problems for baryons, for example, the lifetime of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is 27% shorter than that of B-meson, and it indicates the shortcoming of the spectator scenario .

The diquark picture was proposed a long time ago and it has been applied to study many processes involving baryons . Obviously, for a baryon containing two heavy and one light quarks, the two heavy quarks constitute a diquark which serves as a color-field source for the light flavor. Instead, for the one-heavy and two-light quark structure, it is suggested that the two light quarks can also form a light diquark.

In this work we are going to employ the diqaurk picture to study the Cabibbo-suppressed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ decays. The reason for doing such calculations is that in the near future there will be a great amount of data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ decays available and probably, higher statistics for the rare decay modes will also be achieved, so we can use the data to testify our theory. Moreover, in these decays the final state interaction (FSI), which is also a very important subject, is more important than that in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. In this work, we will investigate how much the FSI effects could change the branching ratios.

We will mainly use the factorization ansatz which is not accurate for meson decays, as many authors pointed out . Even though the non-factorizable effects which are proportional to the color-octet currents may bring up some errors for the theoretical predictions, later we will show that they do not affect our qualitative conclusion. Besides, there are some uncertainties coming from other approximations and all of them are due to lack of sufficient knowledge on the non-perturbative QCD.

All the weak effective vertices employed in this work are standard . Then we can calculate the weak transition in a straightforward way up to the hadronic matrix elements. To evaluate the hadronic matrix elements, one needs to invoke models, because they are fully governed by the non-perturbative QCD. Since we are dealing with transitions from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ to lighter baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda },p,n`$, etc., we cannot simply use the Isgur-Wise function which applies only to the transitions between heavy flavors. In terms of the diqaurk picture, we employ the wave-functions of baryons which are presented in literature to carry out calculations of the corresponding hadronic matrix elements. They finally are attributed into two independent form factors.

Another important issue is the FSI effects which may bring up dramatic changes to the predicted branching ratios. As well known in the meson case, FSI plays a remarkable role and sometimes is almost crucial . Thus one can believe that in the baryon case, FSI may also be significant. In fact, our numerical results show that without considering FSI, the branching ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ is only of order $`10^6`$. However, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ can be realized via $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K(K^{})p\pi ^0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+(\rho ^+)p\pi ^0`$ inelastic final scattering, and the resultant branching ratio could reach order of $`10^4`$. The results can be tested in the future experiments.

Obviously our calculations depend on some phenomenological ansatz and certain parameters, but all what we adopt in this work have been widely used in literature and most of them have been tested by experiments to some extent, hence they are somewhat trustworthy or at least reasonable. Definitely, our results depend on the chosen parameters, but not very sensitively. In other words we do not fine-tune the numbers, therefore one can trust the order of magnitude of the results.

The work is organized as follows. After the introduction, we present our formulation and meanwhile very briefly review some necessary knowledge. In Sec.III, we give our numerical results as well as the adopted parameters and the last section is devoted to our conclusion and discussion.

II. Formulation

The weak effective hamiltonian is written as (for $`cq`$ transition)

$$H_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}V_{CKM}^ic_i(\mu )O_i,$$
(1)
where $`c_i(i=1,\mathrm{},6)`$ are the QCD modified Wilson coefficients and the operators $`O_i`$ have the following expressions:

$`O_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\beta \overline{q}_\beta \gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c_\alpha ,O_2=\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)c,`$
$`O_3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q^{},O_4=\overline{u}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)q_\alpha ^{},`$
$`O_5`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)q^{},O_6=\overline{u}_\alpha \gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}\overline{q}_\beta ^{}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)q_\alpha ^{},`$
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are color indices, and $`q^{}=u,d,s`$. In the Hamiltonian we have omitted the operators associated with electroweak penguin diagrams.

The corresponding transition matrix elements are

$$<f|H_{eff}|i>=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}V_{CKM}^ic_i(\mu )<f|O_i|i>.$$
(3)
In the limit $`m_c\mathrm{}`$, the baryonic transition matrix element for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cf`$ can be formed as

$$<f(p_f)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(v)>=\overline{U}_f(p_f)[F_1(vp_f)+\text{/}vF_2(vp_f)]\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(v),$$
(4)
where $`v`$ is the four-velocity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`q=u,d,s`$, and $`U_f`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ are Dirac spinors for $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, respectively. The two form factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ must be evaluated in concrete models.

To calculate the transition amplitude, it is usually assumed that the process only occurs at the heavy quark arm while the light flavor quark (diqaurk) stands as a spectator. Recent research points out that the non-spectator contributions may be important for evaluating the lifetimes of $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons. However, following literature, in the exclusive processes, the spectator seems to be fully dominant and it is reasonable to believe that the evaluation is sufficiently accurate if only the spectator contribution is taken into account.

In the quark-diquark picture, the two-body baryonic wavefunction can be written as

$$\psi _i(x_1,𝐤_{})=N_ix_1x_2^3\mathrm{exp}[b^2(𝐤_{}^2+m_i^2(x_1x_{0i})^2)].$$
(5)
where $`i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,n,p`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`x_1,x_2(x_2=1x_1)`$ are the longitudinal momentum components of the quark and diqaurk, $`𝐤_{}`$ is the transverse momentum of the constituents, and $`N_i`$ is a normalization factor.

The two form factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ in eq.(4) are related to an overlapping integral of the wavefunctions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and the produced baryon :

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E_f+m_f+m_q}{2(E_f+m_q)}}C_sI(\omega ),`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_qm_f}{2(E_f+m_q)}}C_sI(\omega ).`$ (6)
where $`I(\omega )`$ is the overlapping integral of the wavefunctions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`f`$

$`I(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\omega +1}}\right)^{7/4}y^{9/2}[A_fK_6(\sqrt{2}bϵ)]^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(2b^2ϵ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega 1}{\omega +1}})\times `$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2bϵ}{\sqrt{\omega +1}}}^{y\frac{2bϵ}{\sqrt{\omega +1}}}}dz\mathrm{exp}(z^2)\left(y{\displaystyle \frac{2bϵ}{\sqrt{\omega +1}}}z\right)\left(z+{\displaystyle \frac{2bϵ}{\sqrt{\omega +1}}}\right)^6,`$
where $`y=bm_f\sqrt{\omega +1}`$, $`\omega `$ is the velocity transfer and $`\omega =vp_f/m_f`$. $`A_f`$ and $`K_6`$ are defined as

$`A_f={\displaystyle _0^1}dxx^6(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}[2b^2m_f^2(xϵ/m_f)^2],`$
$`K_6(\sqrt{2}bϵ)={\displaystyle _{\sqrt{2}bϵ}^{\mathrm{}}}dx\mathrm{exp}(x^2)(x+\sqrt{2}bϵ)^6.`$ (8)
It is noted that here the limit $`m_c\mathrm{}`$ is taken. In general, according to the Lorentz structure the transition matrix element of $`B_i(𝐩_i)B_f(𝐩_f)`$ is decomposed into the form

$`B_f(p_f)|V_\mu A_\mu |B_i(p_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_f(p_f)[f_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu +if_2(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +f_3(q^2)q_\mu `$ (9)
$`(g_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu +ig_2(q^2)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +g_3(q^2)q_\mu )\gamma _5]U_i(p_i),`$
where $`q=p_ip_f`$. Comparing eqs. (4) and (9) we have relations

$$f_1(q^2)=g_1(q^2)=F_1(q^2)+\frac{m_f}{m_i}F_2(q^2),$$
(10)
$$f_2(q^2)=g_2(q^2)=f_3(q^2)=g_3(q^2)=\frac{1}{m_i}F_2(q^2).$$
(11)
Finally we reach the following formula:

$`B_f(p_f)|V_\mu A_\mu |B_i(p_i)=\overline{U}_f[a_1\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+a_2(p_i)_\mu \gamma _5+b_1\gamma _\mu +b_2(p_i)_\mu ]U_i,`$ (12)
where

$`a_1=[F_1(q^2)+F_2(q^2)],a_2=2F_2(q^2)/m_i;`$
$`b_1=[F_1(q^2)F_2(q^2)],b_2=2F_2(q^2)/m_i.`$ (13)
The process $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ is Cabibbo-suppressed and the reaction corresponds to the so-called inner emission which is a color-suppressed process . In terms of the weak effective hamiltonian we obtain

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}})(c_3+c_4)\pi ^0|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)u|0p|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ (14)
$`+(c_5+{\displaystyle \frac{c_6}{N_c}})\pi ^0|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)u|0p|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6)\pi ^0|\overline{u}(1+\gamma _5)u|0p|\overline{u}(1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N_c}})\pi ^0|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)d|0p|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}[(c_3+{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{N_c}})\pi ^0|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)d|0p|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$
$`+(c_5+{\displaystyle \frac{c_6}{N_c}})\pi ^0|\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)d|0p|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c],`$
where $`N_c`$ is the effective number of color which includes non-factorizable effects. After some simple manipulations, it is recast as

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N_c}})+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi }{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{U}_p(A^{}+B^{}\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ (15)
$`+\sqrt{2}G_FV_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6)({\displaystyle \frac{if_\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}})\overline{U_p}(A^{\prime \prime }+B^{\prime \prime }\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$
$`=`$ $`i\overline{U_p}(A+B\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
where

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi \left\{\left[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N_c}})+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)\right]A^{}+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6)A^{\prime \prime }\right\},`$
$`B={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2}}f_\pi \left\{\left[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}(c_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N_c}})+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)\right]B^{}+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6)B^{\prime \prime }\right\},`$
$`A^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_u(m_cm_u)}}A^{},B^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_u(m_c+m_u)}}B^{},`$
$`A^{}=b_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_p)+b_2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2+m_\pi ^2m_p^2}{2}},B^{}=a_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_p)+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2+m_\pi ^2m_p^2}{2}},`$
$`a_1=[F_1(m_\pi ^2)+F_2(m_\pi ^2)],a_2=2F_2(m_\pi ^2)/m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
$`b_1=[F_1(m_\pi ^2)F_2(m_\pi ^2)],b_2=2F_2(m_\pi ^2)/m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}.`$ (16)
The expressions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+(\rho ^+)`$ are similar to that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$, so we omit the details and show the result directly,

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{U}_n(A+B\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$ (17)
here $`A,B`$ take values as follows

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]f_\pi A^{}`$
$`V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_Ff_\pi m_\pi ^2}{(m_u+m_d)(m_cm_d)}}A^{},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]f_\pi B^{}`$ (18)
$`+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_Ff_\pi m_\pi ^2}{(m_u+m_d)(m_c+m_d)}}B^{},`$
where $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ have the same forms as those in eq.(16) with $`m_p`$ being replaced by $`m_n`$. In the same way, we have

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\rho ^+)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]\rho ^+|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu d|0n|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_c.`$ (19)
Finally,

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\rho ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_nϵ_\rho ^\mu \left[A_1\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+A_2(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})_\mu \gamma _5+B_1\gamma _\mu +B_2(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})_\mu \right]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$ (20)
where $`A_i=a_i\eta `$, $`B_i=b_i\eta `$ (i=1, 2), and

$$\eta =\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}[V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}(\frac{c_1}{N_c}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}(\frac{c_3}{N_c}+c_4)]f_\rho m_\rho .$$
(21)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+(K^+)`$, the formulas are in analog to those given above. We have

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{us}V_{cs}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]if_K\overline{U}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^{}+B^{}\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$
$`V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6){\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2}G_Ff_Km_K^2}{(m_u+m_s)(m_c^2m_s^2)}}\overline{U}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[(m_c+m_s)A^{}(m_cm_s)B^{}\gamma _5\right]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$
$`=`$ $`i\overline{U}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(A+B\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
where $`A,B`$ are given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{us}V_{cs}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]f_KA^{},`$
$`V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_Ff_Km_K^2}{(m_u+m_s)(m_cm_s)}}A^{},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}[V_{us}V_{cs}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_c}}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{N_c}}+c_4)]f_KB^{}`$ (23)
$`+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{N_c}}+c_6){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}G_Ff_Km_K^2}{(m_u+m_s)(m_c+m_s)}}B^{},`$
with

$`A^{}=b_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })+b_2(p_Kp_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})=b_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })+b_2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2+m_K^2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{,}}`$
$`B^{}=a_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}m_\mathrm{\Lambda })+a_2(p_Kp_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})=a_1(m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}+m_\mathrm{\Lambda })+a_2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}^2+m_K^2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}}.`$ (24)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$, we have

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}_\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ_K^{}^\mu \left[A_1\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+A_2(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})_\mu \gamma _5+B_1\gamma _\mu +B_2(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})_\mu \right]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$ (25)
where $`A_i=a_i\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ and $`B_i=b_i\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ (i=1, 2), and

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}[V_{us}V_{cs}^{}(\frac{c_1}{N_c}+c_2)V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}(\frac{c_3}{N_c}+c_4)]f_K^{}m_K^{}.$$
(26)
With all the amplitudes, we can immediately obtain the decay widths and corresponding branching ratios if there were no final state interaction. But in fact, the FSI effects can drastically change the results. In the following, we will present the formulas for the FSI effects.

Since the final state interactions may change the whole picture for some processes, one needs to take into account these effects seriously. Unfortunately, the FSI processes are governed by non-perturbative QCD, so we cannot simply start from any underlying theory to carry out the computations yet. One could extract valuable information from data. Theoretically, we may also use some phenomenological approaches to study the order of magnitude of the FSI effects.

There are several ways to evaluate the FSI. A usually adopted method is the one-particle exchange model  and another one is that in which the produced primary particles of the decay scatter into the final products via exchanging the Regge poles . The first method is straightforward and simple, and we employ it in this work.

In this method, the effective vertices can be obtained from the chiral Lagrangian . The coefficients in the chiral Lagrangian are obtained directly from data where all external particles are on their mass shells. Instead, for our case the exchanged mesons or baryons are obviously off mass shell. To compensate the off-shell effects, one needs to introduce a form factor at the effective vertices .

The Feynman diagrams for the FSI are shown in Fig.1.

In fact, there are some u-channel diagrams, namely in Fig.1, $`p`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ may exchange positions and the intermediate bosons $`\rho (K^{})`$ or $`\pi (K)`$ are replaced by baryons $`p`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. But a direct calculation indicates that the u-channel contributions are only at most $`10^310^2`$ of the t-channel, so we omit the u-channel part in later calculations for simplicity.

Moreover, the direct decay of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ is color suppressed compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+`$ etc., and hence has smaller amplitudes. Thus we only consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+,n\rho ^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0`$, but not the opposite directions.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$, the amplitude with final state interactions can be written as

$`A_{n\pi ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^32E_1}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^32E_2}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})}`$ (27)
$`A(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+)n\pi ^+|S|p\pi ^0,`$
where for clarity, we set $`p_1=p_n,p_2=p_{\pi ^+},p_3=p_p`$ and $`p_4=p_{\pi ^0}`$. In terms of the Cutkosky cutting rule, we can easily calculate the inelastic scattering amplitude.

The effective $`\rho NN`$ has the following form :

$$_{\rho NN}=g_{\rho NN}ϵ_\rho ^\mu \overline{N}\left(\gamma _\mu +\kappa _\rho \frac{i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m_N}\right)N.$$
(28)
With this vertex, we have

$`A_{n\pi ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_1^2m^2)\delta (p_1^2m^2)\frac{iF(k^2)g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\rho ^2}\overline{U}_p(p_3)ϵ_\rho ^\mu \left(\gamma _\mu +\kappa _\rho \frac{i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m_N}\right)}`$ (29)
$`ϵ_\rho ^\alpha (p_2+p_4)_\alpha (\text{/}p_1+m_1)i(A+B\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}).`$
Here $`F(k^2)`$ is a form factor. In fact, the effective couplings at the vertices are obtained from real processes where all particles are on mass shell, but in our case, at least one of the particles (the exchanged $`\rho `$ meson) is off shell. Therefore, we introduce this form factor as a compensation to the off shell effects. Following the literature, in our calculation we take

$$F(k^2)=\left[(\alpha ^2m_\rho ^2)/(\alpha ^2p_\rho ^2)\right]^2,$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a parameter.

The explicit expressions for $`A_{n\pi ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ as well as those for other inelastic final state interactions, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\rho ^+p\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0`$, are rather complicated, so we collect them in the appendix.

III. The numerical results

As inputs, we take the $`c_i`$’s in the weak effective Lagrangian from literature  where the renormalization is carried out to one-loop level:

$$c_i(m_c)<O_i(m_c)>=c_i^{}<O_i>^{tree},$$

where $`c_i^{}`$ are effective Wilson coefficients.

In the wavefunction $`\psi _i(x_1,𝐤_{})`$, we take $`b=1.77`$ GeV and 1.18 GeV corresponding to $`<𝐤_{}^2>^{1/2}=400`$ MeV and 600 MeV, respectively. $`x_{0i}(x_{0i}=1m_D/m_i`$, $`i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c,n`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is calculated with the diquark mass $`m_D`$ being taken the value of 600 MeV. We let the parameter $`\alpha `$ in the form factor $`F(q^2,\alpha )`$ vary in a reasonable region. The results are not very sensitive to these parameters as shown below.

We also set $`m_um_d10`$ MeV, $`m_s=150`$ MeV, $`m_c=1.35`$ GeV. For the hadron decay constants, $`f_\pi =132`$ MeV, $`f_K=160`$ MeV, $`f_\rho =210`$ MeV, and $`f_K^{}=221`$ MeV.

The CKM entries are in the Wolfenstein parametrization and all values are taken from the Particle Data book.

a. Without the final state interaction.

We first present the numerical results when the FSI effects are turned off. The numerical results are shown in Table.1 and Table.2.

| Products | | $`p\pi ^0`$ | $`n\pi ^+`$ | $`n\rho ^+`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`b=1.77`$ | $`F_1`$ | 0.207 | 0.209 | 0.264 | 0.301 | 0.384 |
| GeV | $`F_2`$ | -0.0533 | -0.0538 | -0.0730 | -0.0728 | -0.0989 |
| $`b=1.18`$ | $`F_1`$ | 0.145 | 0.146 | 0.165 | 0.208 | 0.236 |
| GeV | $`F_2`$ | -0.0372 | -0.0375 | -0.0456 | -0.0503 | -0.0609 |

Table 1. The form factors $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ as $`b`$ takes two values.

| Branching ratos | $`p\pi ^0`$ | $`n\pi ^+`$ | $`n\rho ^+`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`b=1.77`$ GeV | $`4.35\times 10^6`$ | $`2.10\times 10^4`$ | $`3.57\times 10^4`$ | $`3.86\times 10^4`$ | $`4.91\times 10^4`$ |
| $`b=1.18`$ GeV | $`2.14\times 10^6`$ | $`1.03\times 10^4`$ | $`1.39\times 10^4`$ | $`1.84\times 10^4`$ | $`1.85\times 10^4`$ |

Table 2. The branching ratios. Here we have $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=0.206`$ ps .

b. Taking the FSI effects into account.

The coupling constants of the strong interaction at the vertices take the values $`g_{K^{}K\pi }=5.8`$, $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=6.1`$ , $`g_{\rho NN}=2.5,\kappa _\rho =8.0`$ , $`g_{\pi NN}=13.6`$ , $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}=10`$ . To determine the coupling $`g_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$, we assume the equality $`g_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/g_{\rho NN}=g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/g_{\pi NN}`$. In the compensation form factors $`F(\alpha )`$, the parameter $`\alpha `$ takes values in the reasonable region as $`1.22.0`$ GeV. In our concrete calculations, we employ $`\alpha =0.9`$ GeV, $`1.0`$ GeV, and $`1.2`$ GeV, respectively. From  we have $`|g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}/g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}|=12`$, thus we do not need to consider the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Sigma }K`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi `$ via final state interaction. The calculations are done for the case of maximum interference.

The numerical results with FSI effects are listed in table 3.

|  | without | with FSI effects | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | FSI effects | $`\alpha =0.9`$ GeV | $`\alpha =1.0`$ GeV | $`\alpha =1.2`$ GeV |
| $`b=1.77`$ GeV | $`4.35\times 10^6`$ | $`3.14\times 10^4`$ | $`2.92\times 10^4`$ | $`3.55\times 10^4`$ |
| $`b=1.18`$ GeV | $`2.14\times 10^6`$ | $`1.20\times 10^4`$ | $`1.11\times 10^4`$ | $`1.50\times 10^4`$ |

Table 3. The branching ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ with and without the FSI effects.

IV. Conclusion and discussion

It is widely recognized that non-perturbative QCD is, so far, an unsolved problem, but it is entangled with the effects of the fundamental mechanisms. We need to explore its properties in the phenomenological studies and gradually get better understanding of it.

The processes where only mesons are involved have been carefully investigated, including the final state interactions, even though there is still no way to evaluate them exactly from underlying theory. On the other hand, for the baryon case, the situation is more complicated because there are three valence quarks in a baryon.

It is reasonable to consider the diquark structure in baryons, which may be one of the possible configurations of three quarks. For a heavy baryon with one heavy quark and two light quarks, the two light flavors constitute a color $`\overline{3}`$ diquark where the interaction is attractive, and the heavy one acts as a color field source. This configuration may be expected as the dominant one. Thus in this work we employ this physical picture to carry out the calculations. Definitely, this configuration does not possess 100% probability, so we might introduce a phenomenological parameter which is less than unity, but close to, for describing the deviation. Therefore, the branching ratios we obtained in the text must be multiplied by this parameter. However, the relative ratios of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+`$ does not depend on it and this fact can be tested in experiments. As a matter of fact, some authors also used the diqaurk picture to evaluate the decays of heavy flavors to lighter ones recently .

Moreover, it is easy to accept that in the spectator picture, the heavy quark turns into a lighter one, there could be a possibility that a light quark in the light diquark breaks out and combines with the newly produced quark to constitute another diquark. But from the physics intuition, this probability should be smaller than retaining the original diquark structure as spectating the heavy quark turn into a light one, so we assume that the light diquark serves as a spectator and does not change after the weak transition.

When we calculate weak transitions, we use the factorization ansatz, which is not accurate. Therefore the absolute values of the obtained branching ratios may decline from the real values by a certain amount. But according to the information we have learned in the meson case, for such exclusive processes, factorization works. We will pursue this problem in our later works.

In this work, we show that the FSI effects are important, not only for the meson cases, but also for baryon-involved processes. It is indicated that without considering the FSI, the estimated branching ratio of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ is almost two orders smaller than that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+`$, but with FSI, they could have the same order. The numerical results show that the theoretically calculated values depend on the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ in the model employed here. This originates from the lack of knowledge of non-perturbative QCD, and we cannot fix them at present. However, as long as they fall in a reasonable region, the order of magnitude does not change.

For evaluating the FSI effects, we only consider the absorptive part of the triangle diagram. It is the real final state process because both hadron which are produced via the weak transition are on their mass shell. But definitely, the dispersive part of the triangle which needs to be renormalized would also bring up some effects and we ignore them in this calculation. Higher order FSI may also play roles and it can induce a strong phase and cause CP violations. We have investigated the possible CP violation in the meson case  because there are data about the scattering amplitude and phases. In this concerned case, it is impossible to carry out accurate calculation yet, so we can only trust it to the order of magnitude.

By including the final state interaction, we show that the branching ratios of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cp\pi ^0`$ could be greatly enhanced by almost two orders and it is similar to the meson case, as $`D^0K^0\overline{K}^0`$ is much suppressed compared to $`D^0K^+K^{}`$, but measurements indicate that they are at the same order. This is obviously due to the FSI effects. Therefore when we evaluate the processes for baryons, we cannot ignore the FSI, as we understand in the meson case.

As pointed out above, many uncertainties exist in the theoretical calculations, so for a better understanding, we need more data as well as a more reliable theory for the non-perturbative QCD. Fortunately, the BEPC, CLEO and other high energy accelerators such as the B-factory and even TEVATRON and LHC will provide much more data in the future and we will be able to use them to determine the parameters involved in the phenomenological models and surely test the model itself.

Acknowledgement:

This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Australian Research Council.

Appendix

In this appendix we present some details of the formulation about the final state inelastic scattering amplitudes.

(1) For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+p\pi ^0`$,

$`A_{n\pi ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_1^2m^2)\delta (p_1^2m^2)\frac{iF(k^2)g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\rho ^2}}`$ (30)
$`\overline{U}_p(p_3)\{[4p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(m_1^2\text{/}p_3m_1^2\text{/}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1\text{/}p_3){\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_\rho ^2}}]`$
$`+m_1[(2\text{/}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\text{/}p_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(p_2p_4M^2+2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+\text{/}p_3\text{/}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_\rho ^2}}\text{/}p_3]\}i(A+B\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_1^2m^2)\delta (p_1^2m^2)\frac{iF(k^2)g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\rho ^2}}`$
$`\overline{U}_p(p_3)i(AH_1^a+BH_2^a\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c});`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d(cos\theta )|\stackrel{}{p}_1|}{16\pi M}}{\displaystyle \frac{iF(k^2)g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\rho ^2}}\overline{U}_p(p_3)i(AH_1^a+BH_2^a\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}),`$
where $`\theta `$ is the angle spanned between $`𝐩_1`$ and $`𝐩_3`$, $`k^2=(p_1p_3)^2=m_1^2+m_3^22E_1E_3+2|\stackrel{}{p}_1||\stackrel{}{p}_3|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$, and $`|\stackrel{}{p}_1|=\lambda ^{1/2}(M^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)/(2M)`$. $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2yz2xz`$ is the well-known function.In the above expression, $`A,B`$ take the values in Eq.(18) and $`H_1^a`$, $`H_2^a`$ are

$`H_1^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(m_1^2m_3m_1^2M2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3){\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_\rho ^2}}\right]`$
$`+m_1\left[2M+m_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(p_2p_4M^2+2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_3M)+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2^2m_4^2)m_3}{m_\rho ^2}}\right],`$
$`H_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(m_1^2m_3+m_1^2M2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3){\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_\rho ^2}}\right]`$
$`+m_1\left[2M+m_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{m_N}}(p_2p_4M^2+2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3M)+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2^2m_4^2)m_3}{m_\rho ^2}}\right].`$
(2) For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\rho ^+p\pi ^0`$ we have similar expressions

$`A_{n\rho ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^32E_1}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^32E_2}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})A(\mathrm{\Lambda }_cn\pi ^+)n\rho ^+|S|p\pi ^0}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_1^2m^2)\delta (p_1^2m^2)\frac{iF(k^2)g_{\pi NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\pi ^2}i\overline{U}_p(p_3)\gamma _5(\text{/}p_1+m_1)}`$
$`ϵ_\rho ^\mu (k+p_4)_\mu ϵ_\rho ^\nu \left[A_1\gamma _\nu \gamma _5+A_2(p_1)_\nu \gamma _5+B_1\gamma _\nu +B_2(p_1)_\nu \right]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
where $`p_1=p_n,p_2=p_{\rho ^+},p_3=p_p`$ and $`p_4=p_{\pi ^0}`$. Eq.(31) is recast as

$`A_{n\rho ^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_1^2m^2)\delta (p_1^2m^2)\frac{iF(k^2)g_{\pi NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\pi ^2}i\overline{U}_p(p_3)[A_b+B_b\gamma _5]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d(cos\theta )|\stackrel{}{p}_1|}{16\pi M}}{\displaystyle \frac{iF(k^2)g_{\pi NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{k^2m_\pi ^2}}i\overline{U}_p(p_3)[A_b+B_b\gamma _5]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
and $`A_b,B_b`$ are defined as

$`A_b`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1\left\{A_1(Mm_3)+A_2p_1(p_3p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}\left[A_1M+A_2p_1(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1)\right]\right\}`$
$`+2\left\{2p_1p_3A_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}m_1^2A_1\right\},`$
$`B_b`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1\left\{B_1(Mm_3)+B_2p_1(p_3p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}\left[B_1M+B_2p_1(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1)\right]\right\}`$
$`+2\left\{2p_1p_3B_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}m_1^2B_1\right\}.`$
and $`A_i=a_i\eta `$, $`B_i=b_i\eta `$ $`(i=1,2)`$.

(3) For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0`$, we have similar expressions

$`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^32E_1}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^32E_2}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})A(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+|S|p\pi ^0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d(cos\theta )|\stackrel{}{p}_1|}{16\pi M}}{\displaystyle \frac{iF(k^2)g_{K^{}N\mathrm{\Lambda }}g_{K^+K\pi }}{k^2m_K^{}^2}}\overline{U}_p(p_3)i(AH_1^c+BH_2^c\gamma _5)U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}),`$
where $`A,B`$ take the values in Eq.(S0.Ex29) and $`H_1^c,H_2^c`$ are

$`H_1^c`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _\rho ^{}}{m_N+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(m_1^2m_3m_1^2M2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3){\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_K^{}^2}}\right]`$
$`+m_1\left[2M+m_3+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _\rho ^{}}{m_N+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(p_2p_4M^2+2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_3M)+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2^2m_4^2)m_3}{m_K^{}^2}}\right],`$
$`H_2^c`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1+m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _\rho ^{}}{m_N+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(m_1^2m_3+m_1^2M2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3){\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2(m_2^2m_4^2)}{m_K^{}^2}}\right]`$
$`+m_1\left[2M+m_3+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _\rho ^{}}{m_N+m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(p_2p_4M^2+2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1m_3M)+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_2^2m_4^2)m_3}{m_K^{}^2}}\right],`$
where $`\kappa _\rho ^{}`$ is from the interaction vertex of (28) and we have $`p_1=p_\mathrm{\Lambda },p_2=p_{K^+},p_3=p_p`$, $`p_4=p_{\pi ^0}`$.

(4) For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0`$,

$`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+p\pi ^0}^{FSI}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi )^32E_1}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi )^32E_2}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})A(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }K^+|S|p\pi ^0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d(cos\theta )|\stackrel{}{p}_1|}{16\pi M}}{\displaystyle \frac{iF(k^2)g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}g_{K^+K\pi }}{k^2m_K^2}}i\overline{U}_p(p_3)[A_d+B_d\gamma _5]U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},`$
where $`p_1=p_\mathrm{\Lambda },p_2=p_{K^+},p_3=p_p`$ and $`p_4=p_{\pi ^0}`$. $`A_d,B_d`$ are defined as

$`A_d`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1\left\{A_1(Mm_3)+A_2p_1(p_3p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}\left[A_1M+A_2p_1(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1)\right]\right\}`$
$`+2\left\{2p_1p_3A_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}m_1^2A_1\right\},`$
$`B_d`$ $`=`$ $`2m_1\left\{B_1(Mm_3)+B_2p_1(p_3p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}\left[B_1M+B_2p_1(p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}p_1)\right]\right\}`$
$`+2\left\{2p_1p_3B_1{\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_4}{m_2^2}}m_1^2B_1\right\},`$
and $`A_i=a_i\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$, $`B_i=b_i\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ $`(i=1,2)`$.


format: text

text:
# Microscopic model, spin wave theory, and competing orders in double perovskites

## Abstract

We present a microscopic theory of carrier-induced ferrimagnetism in metallic double perovskite compounds such as $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeMoO}_6`$ and $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeReO}_6`$ which have recently attracted intense interest for their possible applications to magnetotransport devices. The theory is based on an effective ”Kondo-like” Hamiltonian treated here within the large-$`S`$ expansion. We find that depending on the value of the carrier density the ground state is either a ferrimagnet or a layered antiferromagnet. The ferrimagnetic state has a robust half-metallic electronic structure. The transition to antiferromagnetic phase is first order accompanied with the regime of phase separation. We study spin wave spectrum including quantum corrections and find strongly enhanced quantum effects in the vicinity of zero-temperature phase transition.

The recent discovery of the room temperature magnetoresistance in double perovskite compounds  has generated intense interest in these materials because of their potential importance as magnetotransport devices as well as their rich and challenging properties. For applications metallic ferrimagnetic (FiM) compounds such as $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeMoO}_6`$ and $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeReO}_6`$ are of particular interest, because both have high magnetic transition temperature ($`T_\mathrm{c}420`$, and $`400`$ K, respectively) and their electronic structures have been suggested to be half-metallic. Despite an enormous interest in half-metallic ferromagnets, most of the theoretical studies until now have been only by ab initio methods.

In this letter we formulate a microscopic theory of the carrier-induced ferrimagnetism in this family of magnetic compounds. The theory is based on a minimal model Hamiltonian, in which only the lowest energy charge fluctuations, coupled to the local moments, are retained, and those which are moved to high energies due to strong correlations, are disallowed. The model has two parameters and allows for reliable analytical treatment of the physically relevant situation.

In the double perovskite structure Fe and Mo/Re ions form two face centered cubic sublattices and each pair of nearest-neighbor lattice sites is occupied by two different ions. In the ionic picture, $`\mathrm{Fe}`$ is in the $`3+`$ valence state and half-filled $`d`$-shell forms a $`S=5/2`$ local moment. The Mo is in $`5+`$ state with one $`t_{2g}`$ electron in $`4d`$-shell. This extra electron, which hybridizes with the same orbital states at the neighboring iron sites, is responsible for the system’s lowest energy charge excitations. In the classical picture, only a spin down electron, with respect to a neighboring Fe local moment, can hop to this Fe site. For a spin up electron this hopping is blocked by the Pauli principle, as at the the iron site the spin up states are already all occupied. Thus, it is the exclusion principle, which couples the itinerant and the local spins kinematically. This contrasts with the case of double-exchange systems, in which the intra-atomic Hund’s rule is responsible for the coupling between the two subsystems. In the magnetic double perovskites, as in double exchange magnets, ordering of local moments occurs due to the reduction of the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy in the former case is minimized when the local moments are parallel to each other and antiparallel to itinerant spins, and this causes the ferrimagnetism.

Model Hamiltonian. — We now turn to a minimal model Hamiltonian reflecting the above discussion. We retain only low energy charge excitations in the system, which correspond to the processes $`(\mathrm{Fe}d^5,\mathrm{B}^{}d^n)(\mathrm{Fe}d^6,\mathrm{B}^{}d^{n1})`$ ($`\mathrm{B}^{}`$ stands for Mo/Re). The $`\mathrm{Fe}`$ ions are treated as localized spins $`S=5/2`$ and extra electrons from nonmagnetic Mo/Re ions as charge carriers. There are $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ carriers per unit cell in Mo and Re compounds, respectively. When a carrier is placed at a site with core spin $`S=5/2`$, the total spin $`𝒮`$ can take two possible values $`𝒮=2`$ and $`𝒮=3`$. However, the maximal allowed spin for six electrons in a $`d`$-shell is $`𝒮=2`$. To project out the $`𝒮=3`$ spin state we introduce infinite local antiferromagnetic (AFM) coupling $`J\mathrm{}`$ between core and itinerant spins. The carriers occupy three degenerate $`t_{2g}`$ ($`d_{xy},d_{yz},d_{yz}`$) orbital states. In the cubic lattice the $`t_{2g}`$-transfer matrix is diagonal in the orbital space and is non-zero only in the corresponding plane. A minimal Hamiltonian can be written as a sum of three two dimensional (2D) terms $`=H_{xy}+H_{xz}+H_{yz}`$, where each term corresponds to a given orbital state. All three terms have the same form given by (we further omit orbital index for simplicity)

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}[d_{i\sigma }^{}\overline{d}_{j\sigma }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}n_i{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}\overline{n}_j`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}J\left[𝐒_i𝐬_iAn_i\right],`$ (2)
where the first term describes an electron hopping between nearest-neighbor Fe and Mo/Re ions, labeled by $`i`$ and $`j`$, respectively. The operators $`d_{i\sigma }`$ ($`n_i`$) and $`\overline{d}_{j\sigma }`$ ($`\overline{n}_j`$) corrsepond to Fe and Mo/Re sublattices, respectively, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}=E(\mathrm{Fe}d^6,B^{}d^0)E(\mathrm{Fe}d^5,B^{}d^1)`$ is a charge transfer gap, and $`𝐒_i`$ ($`𝐬_i`$) stands for the localized (itinerant) spin. The last term with $`A=(S+1)/2`$ is chosen so that the exchange energy vanishes for a state with $`𝒮=2`$.

We now consider the ferromagnetic (FM) arrangement of local moments, which corresponds to the ground state of Hamiltonian (2) for carrier density $`n<n_1`$ (see below). In the limit $`J\mathrm{}`$ , we restrict the Hilbert space to spin eigenstates with maximum allowed spin $`𝒮`$ at a given site. Thus, the magnetic ion is in a state either with $`𝒮=S`$, without an extra electron, or of $`𝒮=S1/2`$, with an extra electron. The site states are labeled by $`|𝒮,M`$ and $`M`$ is $`z`$-projection of the spin $`𝒮`$. Considering low lying excitations we can retain only the states with $`M=𝒮`$ and $`M=𝒮1`$. Moerover, as the value of the core spin is relatively large $`S=5/2`$ we perform the $`1/S`$ expansion around the ordered state. Then the local Hilbert space consists of four states:$`|S,S`$, $`|S,S1`$, $`|S\frac{1}{2},S\frac{1}{2}`$, and $`|S\frac{1}{2},S\frac{3}{2}`$. To describe transitions between these states we introduce magnon and fermion operators as $`B^{}|𝒮,M=|𝒮,M1`$ and $`D_{}^{}|S,M=|S\frac{1}{2},M\frac{1}{2}`$, respectively. Through corresponding matrix elements, one can find the following relations $`d_{}=D_{}\left[1B^{}B/4SB^{}B/(32S^2)\right]`$, and $`d_{}=D_{}B^{}/\sqrt{2S}`$ to order $`1/S^2`$. The state generated by $`D_{}`$ corresponds to $`𝒮=S+1/2`$ and is projected out.

As a next step, we express the Hamiltonian (2) in terms of the new operators, diagonalize its band part, and arrive in the momentum space to the following expression $`H=H_0+H_1+H_2`$, where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\left\{E_𝐤[a_𝐤^{}a_𝐤b_𝐤^{}b_𝐤]\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}\overline{d}_𝐤^{}\overline{d}_𝐤\right\},`$ (3)
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2SN}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\left\{\overline{d}_{𝐤𝐪}^{}[N_{𝐤,𝐪}a_𝐤+M_{𝐤,𝐪}b_𝐤]B_𝐪^{}+\text{H.c.}\right\},`$ (4)
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4SN}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8S}}]{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐩,𝐪}{}}B_𝐪^{}B_{𝐪+𝐤𝐩}\{P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{aa}a_𝐤^{}a_𝐩`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{bb}b_𝐤^{}b_𝐩+P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{ab}a_𝐤^{}b_𝐩+P_{𝐩,𝐤}^{ab}b_𝐤^{}a_𝐩\},`$ (6)
where $`a_𝐤=u_𝐤D_𝐤v_𝐤e^{ik_x}\overline{d}_𝐤`$, $`b_𝐤=v_𝐤D_𝐤+u_𝐤e^{ik_x}\overline{d}_𝐤`$, and $`u(v)_𝐤=\sqrt{[1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}/E_𝐤]/2}`$. The first term $`H_0`$, corresponding to the classical limit $`(S\mathrm{})`$, describes the band structure of the system. The electronic structure of each orbital state is composed of the three bands: bonding ($`b_𝐤`$) and antibonding ($`a_𝐤`$) of down spin electrons, and nonbonding ($`\overline{d}_𝐤`$) of Mo/Re up spin electrons. $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{\epsilon _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}^2}`$ and $`\epsilon _𝐤=2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ for the $`d_{xy}`$-orbital. For $`n`$ carriers per unit cell each bonding band of a given orbital is $`n/3`$-filled and fully polarized. Given this band structure, the system is half-metallic for arbitrary model parameters ($`t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$) and for any realistic value of carrier density. The last two terms $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ \[see Eq.(6)\] are due to the quantum nature of the core spins. Spin up electrons, localized in the classical picture, can hop thanks to the quantum nature of the local moments, but leaving a trace of spin deviations along their trajectories. This process is described by $`H_1`$. The last term $`H_2`$ describes fluctuations of the local moment generated by the hopping of spin down electrons. The corresponding vertices are given by $`N_{𝐤,𝐪}=\epsilon _{𝐤𝐪}u_𝐤`$, $`M_{𝐤,𝐪}=\epsilon _{𝐤𝐪}v_𝐤`$, $`P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{aa}=\epsilon _𝐤v_𝐤u_𝐩\epsilon _𝐩u_𝐤v_𝐩`$, $`P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{bb}=\epsilon _𝐤u_𝐤v_𝐩+\epsilon _𝐩v_𝐤u_𝐩`$, and $`P_{𝐤,𝐩}^{ab}=\epsilon _𝐩u_𝐩u_𝐤\epsilon _𝐤v_𝐤v_𝐩`$.

Spin wave theory. – We now turn to analysis of the spin wave spectrum. The magnon Green function is obtained from the Dyson equation $`D_{𝐪,\omega }=[\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐪,\omega }]^1`$. Where magnon self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and $`i=xy,xz,yz`$ refers to a given orbital channel. We note that to the order we consider the magnon self-energy does not mixes the different orbital channels. This is due to the fact that the electron propagator as well as the magnon-electron vertecies are diagonal in the orbital space. To order $`1/S`$, the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ includes the second order perturbative contribution from $`H_1`$ as well as first order contribution from $`H_2`$ (see first two diagrams in Fig 1.) (The analytical form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is lengthy and will be presented elsewhere.) Here we discuss the results. There are two branches of spin excitations, like those of localized ferrimagnets, the gapless Goldstone mode and the optical mode. In addition to this, there exists a Stoner continuum of spin-flip particle-hole excitations.

We below focus on the low energy mode. The spectrum of the magnons at the quasi-classical level is Heisenberg-like $`\omega _𝐪=16SJ_1[1\gamma _{1𝐪}]+16SJ_2[1\gamma _{2𝐪}]`$, where $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ are nearest and next-nearest neighbor exchange couplings, respectively, $`\gamma _{1𝐪}=(\mathrm{cos}q_x\mathrm{cos}q_y+\mathrm{cos}q_x\mathrm{cos}q_z+\mathrm{cos}q_y\mathrm{cos}q_z)/3`$, and $`\gamma _{2𝐪}=(\mathrm{cos}^2q_x+\mathrm{cos}^2q_y+\mathrm{cos}^2q_z)/3`$. The carrier-induced exchange energies are given by $`J_{1(2)}=t^2/(16S^2N)_𝐤\overline{\gamma }_{1(2)}n_𝐤/E_𝐤`$, where $`\overline{\gamma }_1=2\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$, $`\overline{\gamma }_2=\mathrm{cos}2k_x+\mathrm{cos}2k_y`$ and $`n_𝐤`$ is a Fermi distribution function. We also note that there is no Landau damping of spin waves at this order.

In Fig. 2(a) we show carrier density dependence of the spin stiffness $`𝒟=16S(J_1+J_2)`$ for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$. At a fixed density the stiffness scales with the bandwidth: $`𝒟t`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ and $`𝒟t^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$. As a function of density the spin stiffness exhibits strongly nonmonotonic behavior. It shows a maximum at optimal filling $`n_{opt}1`$ and then drops to zero at some critical density $`n_{cr}`$.

We now analyze quantum corrections to the harmonic spectrum discussed above. These corrections are generated by the magnon self-energy diagrams proportional to $`1/S^2`$. They are governed by fermionic excitations and are thus different from those in insulating magnets. At this order magnon self-energy includes fourth and second order contributions from $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively, as well as mixed type terms. Graphically they are presented in Fig. 1. From the structure of the diagrams one easily verifies that renormalization of the electron propagator due to the scattering of spin waves as well as all relevant vertex corrections are consistently taken into account at this order. After collecting all the diagrams in this order one recovers the Goldstone theorem, that illustrates the consistency of the approximation.

The quantum corrections generate two main effects in the magnon spectrum: (i) they give rise to spin wave damping in the ground state, and (ii) they modify the semi-classical dispersion law of magnons. The first nonzero contribution to magnon damping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐪`$ is proportional to $`1/S^3`$ and is due to the spin wave scattering of carrier density fluctuations. To evaluate damping, one has to replace the bare magnon propagator in the self-energy diagrams by that obtained in harmonic approximation (see Golosov in Ref.). In the long wave-length limit one finds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐪f_{k_\mathrm{F}}tq^6/S^3`$, where $`f_{k_\mathrm{F}}`$ denotes the Fermi surface average of $`f_𝐤=(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y)^2`$.

Figure 3 shows magnon dispersion obtained semiclassically (solid line) and with quantum corrections included (dashed line), for carrier densities $`n=1`$, Fig.3(a), and $`n=1.8`$, Fig.3(b). In the case of optimal carrier density, $`n=1`$, the quantum effects are small and practically do not alter harmonic dispersion law. However, for a higher carrier density the quantum effects become strongly pronounced and result in a dramatic modification of the harmonic spectrum. They cause stiffening of the long-wave length excitations and strong softening of the zone boundary magnons \[see Fig. 3(b)\].

Ground state phase diagram. – As we have already mentioned, there is a critical carrier density $`n_{cr}`$ at which the spin wave stiffness vanishes \[see Fig. 2(a)\]. This indicates that there exist another type of magnetic ordering which competes with FiM order and becomes favorable as $`nn_{cr}`$. The most direct route to identify the symmetry of new magnetic order is to find the wave vector at which spin wave spectrum becomes unstable. The linear theory can not answer this question, because the harmonic dispersion vanishes identically in $`[111]`$ direction, and no special soft mode is singled out at this order. The problem can be resolved by considering quantum effects. The tendency of the zone boundary magnons to soften with increasing $`n`$ \[see Fig. 3(a) and 3(b)\] can be interpreted as a precursor effect of a transition to a layered magnetic ordering with wave-vector $`𝐐=\pi /2[1,1,1]`$. The latter consists of alternating {111} FM planes. The magnetic moments of neighboring planes can be either misaligned by an angle $`\theta `$, which is the case of canted magnetic structure, or aligned antiparallel to form type-II antiferromagnetic (AFM-II) ordering. Hence, there are two possible scenarios for the phase transition: (a) the transition is second order and is to a canted state or (b) transition is first order to AFM-II ordering. To decide which of these two is realized we have evaluated and compared the kinetic energy of carriers in FM, canted and AFM-II background of core spins. We have found that canted state never minimizes the energy and hence is never stabilized.

In Fig. 4 (left panel) we show 2D (001) cut of AFM-II magnetic structure. In this magnetic structure carriers are confined within the 1D FM stripes and have the dispersion law $`\epsilon _k=2\sqrt{2}t\mathrm{cos}k`$ (the factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ is due to the two possible path of the charge transfer between nearest-neighbor magnetic ions). Figure 2(b) shows the difference between the energies ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) of the AFM-II and FiM states versus carrier density for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}=0`$ (the same qualitative behavior is realized for finite values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$). As it is seen in this figure, with increasing carrier density $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ shows the same trend, not coincidently, as the spin wave stiffness \[see Fig. 2(a)\], and vanishes at carrier concentration $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{cr}`$ slightly smaller than $`n_{cr}`$ suggested from linear spin wave theory. For $`n>\stackrel{~}{n}_{cr}`$ carriers gain more kinetic energy in AFM-II state. This consideration suggests the first order transition from ferrimagnetic to AFM-II state. To investigate the possibility of phase separation accompanying the first order transition we have evaluated the ground state thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E\mu n`$ for homogenous ferrimagnetic and AFM-II phases as a function of chemical potential $`\mu `$. The homogenous state is destabilized with respect to phase separation when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the ferrimagnetic phase becomes larger than that of AFM-II state. The value of $`\mu `$ at which this takes place gives the lower $`n_1`$ and upper $`n_2`$ boundaries of carrier density for the phase separation regime. We find that the carrier density $`n_1`$, at which which the phase separation occurs, is smaller then the critical carrier densities suggested form the above analysis, the following inequality holds $`n_1<\stackrel{~}{n}_{cr}(n_{cr})<n_2`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}=0`$ we find $`n_11.5`$ and $`n_22`$.

Based on the above analysis, in Fig. 4 (right panel) we present ground state phase diagram of Hamiltonian (1). For carrier density $`n<n_1`$ the ground state is ferrimagnet, for $`n_1<n<n_2`$ the systems phase separates (PS) in ferrimagnetic and AFM-II phases. The volume fraction occupied by FiM and AFM-II phases are given by $`v_1=(nn_1)/(n_2n_1)`$ and $`v_2=(n_2n)/(n_2n_1)`$, respectively. Here, we point out, that in the real systems, long-range Coulomb interaction, not considered here, most likely will prevent the phase separation at macroscopic scale resulting in the nanoscale domains. We have also analyzed the stability of homogenous AFM-II phase within the linear spin wave theory and found that this magnetic ordering is indeed stable for $`nn_2`$.

So far, we have not considered the effect of direct AFM exchange $`J^{}`$ between the local moments. At the semi-classical level, an effect of $`J^{}`$ is to reduce carrier-induced FM exchange. However, in the compounds with large transfer gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{CT}}`$, FM exchange can be largely suppressed and AFM exchange, if strong enough, can stabilize AFM-II magnetic ordering. Considering the metallic compounds with fully polarized carriers we have also neglected on-site Coulomb repulsion $`U`$ between charge carriers on $`3d`$ level of Fe-ions. (As at Mo/Re ions electrons reside in more extended $`4d/5d`$ level this interaction is much smaller and can be neglected.) This approximation is fully justified for $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeMO}_6`$ compound that has one charge carrier per Fe-Mo cell and hence the Fe-ion is effectively quarter filled. Therefore the probability of generating doubly-occupied states is low, and the effect of the Gutzwiller projector on the uncorrelated wave function is expected to be negligible. As for the $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{FeReO}_6`$ which has two charge carrier per formula unit, the on-site $`U`$, if it is not largely screened in the metallic state, may suppress the charge fluctuations and renormalize electronic caracteristics of the system, such as an effective carrier density and their band-width. However, as far as magnetic properties of the systems are concerned, we expect that Coulomb repulsion can only change our quantitative but not qualitative predictions. The spin wave spectrum as well as its carrier density dependence can be directly verified by inelastic neutron scattering experiments on Mo and Re based compounds.

We thank N. Andrei, E. I. Kats, D. I. Khomskii, D.E. Logan, and Ph. Nozières for their interests and useful discussions. Earlier discussion with D. D. Sarma is gratefully acknowledged. We are indebted to M. E. Zhitomirsky for continuous valuable discussions and to T. Ziman for a critical reading of the manuscript.