text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

In the hadronic production of particles with open charm an interesting situation, connected with the interaction of charmed quarks with the hadronic remnant, takes place (see  and references therein).

Let us remind that such a problem does not arise in the case of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, where a heavy quark is hadronized due to its own radiation and all the description is reduced to the fragmentation function:

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{c\overline{c}}}\frac{d\sigma }{dz}=D(z,Q^2)$$

here $`z`$ is the part of the $`c`$-quark momentum, taken by charmed hadron and $`Q^2`$ is the square of total energy in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation.

It is well known that a simple transition of factorization approach in the form of (Introduction) to the charmed particle production in hadronic interaction leads to the valuable deviation from experimental data. Indeed, there is a substantial difference in the yield of different charmed hadrons in the fragmentation region $`(|x|1,x2p_H/\sqrt{s})`$ of initial hadrons.

This charmed particle yields asymmetry $`A`$ (or “leading particle effect”) is defined as follows:

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d\sigma }{dx}(leading)\frac{d\sigma }{dx}(nonleading)}{\frac{d\sigma }{dx}(leading)+\frac{d\sigma }{dx}(nonleading)}}.`$ (1)
Here symbol ’leading’ or ’non-leading’ refers to charmed hadron with or without light quarks identical to valence quarks from initial hadrons. For example, in $`\pi ^{}(\overline{𝐮}𝐝)`$-beam the mesons $`D^0(c\overline{𝐮})`$ and $`D^{}(\overline{c}𝐝)`$ are leading particles, while $`\overline{D}^0(\overline{c}𝐮)`$ and $`D^+(c\overline{𝐝})`$ should be considered as non-leading ones.

There are many theoretical articles devoted to description of a such phenomenon . In our previous  publications we have taken into account the interaction of $`c`$–quarks with quarks of the initial hadrons and obtained a good agreement with the data in the spectra description at large $`x`$ and the $`x`$–asymmetry dependence in $`\pi ^{}N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N`$-interactions.

The recent data on the charm production in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-beams  are of special interest due to the fact that the beam hadron (here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) has $`s`$-quark and as consequence the distribution functions of the valence quarks in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-baryon differ from that of proton . It has to lead to the set of observable effects and, in particular, to the another asymmetry in the yield of the charmed hadrons that in the case of proton-proton collisions.

Preliminary data presented by the SELEX Collaboration  on the charm yield in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}p`$ and $`\pi ^{}p`$ collisions show however some disagreement with other experiments  and general theoretical assumptions, in particular, in the expected charmed particle and anti-particle yields in the central region.

In this article we consider very briefly this problem from general theoretical point of view (Section 1). In the Section 2 we give a short description of the fragmentation mechanism. Our approach for calculation of $`x`$-distributions of charmed-particle production in recombination mechanism is given in the Section 3. We present the predictions for differential distributions of charmed hadrons produced in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N`$-interactions in the Section 4. A short summary of the results is given in the Conclusion.

## 1 Asymptotic behavior in the central region

Before discussing in detail of the spectra behavior and the charge asymmetry in the hadron yield let us consider general behavior of charmed particle spectra.

According to the generalized optical theorem  an inclusive spectrum is connected with the discontinuity of the sixth particle amplitude by the following relation (see Fig. 1.):

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}=\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{disc}M_{33},$$
(2)
where $`s`$ is the total energy squared.

Let us introduce two invariants (see Fig.1)

$`s_1=(p_a+p_c)^2,s_2=(p_b+p_c)^2.`$
At the high energies the asymptotic behavior of the $`M_{33}`$ amplitude as a function of these invariants $`s_{1,2}`$ is determined by leading Regge trajectories, namely, the Pomeron ($`𝒫`$) and secondary trajectories ($`_i`$), related to $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`f`$, $`A_2`$ mesons. In so doing, the $`𝒫𝒫`$, $`𝒫`$, and $``$ contributions become important.

In the central region $`(x0)`$, where the kinematic invariants $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ are large, one has

$`s_1\sqrt{s}m_{}e^y,s_2\sqrt{s}m_{}e^y,`$ (3)
where $`y`$ is the rapidity and $`m_{}=\sqrt{m^2+p_{}^2}`$.

Double Regge representation is a good approximation for the $`M_{33}`$ amplitude (see Fig.1) in this kinematic region. So, one has

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}\frac{1}{s}\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}s_1^{\alpha _i}s_2^{\alpha _j}$$
(4)
where $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\alpha _j`$ are the intercepts of the leading Regge-trajectories . For Pomeron trajectory one has $`\alpha _P1`$, while the $`f,\rho ,\omega ,A_2`$ trajectories have the intercept $`\alpha _R1/2`$.

The $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}(m_{})`$ are unknown functions of $`m_{}`$, but it seems that these functions are universal and do not depend on the type of produced particles . These functions can be determined by fitting to experimental data. All the dependence on quantum numbers of initial and final particles is determined by the coupling constants of the secondary Reggeons $``$, included to the definition of the $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}(m_{})`$ functions.

After substituting $`s_{1,2}`$ from (3) the expression (4) takes the form:

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{𝒫𝒫}(m_{})\underset{i,j}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}(m_{})}{s^{1\frac{\alpha _i+\alpha _j}{2}}}e^{(\alpha _j\alpha _i)y}$$
(5)
This equation provides a good description of the transition to the asymptotic regime in the “central” region for all variety of the yields of $`\pi `$\- and $`K`$-mesons .

For the $`D`$\- and $`B`$-meson cases the expression (5) simplifies due to the fact that the contribution of the trajectories, connected with a charmed $`c`$-quark in $`D`$-meson ($`J/\psi ,\chi _c`$ trajectories) or beauty $`b`$-quark in $`B`$-meson ($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\chi _b`$ trajectories), is strongly suppressed by the Zweig rule for the coupling with initial mesons or nucleons. Therefore, in the sum of Eq. (5) there are no contributions with two secondary Reggeons $`(`$-contributions) in the upper and bottom “shoulder” of the diagram in Fig. 1. So, one gets more simple expression:

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma (D)}{d^3p}\stackrel{~}{f}_{𝒫𝒫}(m_{})\frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{4}\sqrt{s}}\{\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})e^{y/2}+\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})e^{y/2}\}.$$
(6)
Note, that the contribution of the first $`𝒫𝒫`$-term in the equation (6) is the same for the particle and anti-particle and is proportional to the total cross-section of the interaction of initial hadrons. Thus, the normalized cross-section

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{hh}}E\frac{d^3\sigma (hhDX)}{d^3p}$$

at high energy limit has one universal limiting value independently on the type of colliding hadrons.

For the case of the $`D_s`$-meson production in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`K`$-beams the leading intercept is related to $`\varphi `$-meson, $`\alpha _j=\alpha _\varphi 0`$ and there is no contribution from the third $`𝒫`$-term in Eq. (6). The $`\varphi `$-trajectory can be connected with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-particle only, because there are no valence strange quarks in the proton. As a result, one has only two terms:

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}}E\frac{d^3\sigma (D_s)}{d^3p}\stackrel{~}{f}_{𝒫𝒫}(m_{})\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})e^y$$
(7)
The contribution of secondary trajectories determines the difference between the yields of the particle and anti-particle in the central region. For instance, for $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$-collisions one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{pp}\frac{a}{s^{1/4}}ch\frac{y}{2},\mathrm{\Delta }_{p\overline{p}}\frac{b}{\sqrt{s}}sh\frac{y}{2},$$

where the $`a`$ and $`b`$ coefficients depend on both combinations of secondary Reggeon couplings and particle type of $`D`$\- or $`B`$-meson.

In the most experiments on fixed target the point $`y=0`$ $`(x=0)`$, as a rule, is out of reach due to the experiment conditions, and the measured spectrum starts from $`x0.1`$. With a simple substitution $`y\mathrm{ln}(x\frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_{}})`$ for $`D`$-mesons the equation (6) takes the form

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}}E\frac{d^3\sigma (D)}{d^3p}\stackrel{~}{f}_{𝒫𝒫}(m_{})\{\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})\sqrt{m_{}}\sqrt{x}+\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})\frac{\sqrt{m_{}}}{\sqrt{sx}}\}.$$
(8)
For $`D_s`$-meson production in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or $`K`$ beams one has:

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}}E\frac{d^3\sigma (D_s)}{d^3p}\stackrel{~}{f}_{𝒫𝒫}(m_{})\stackrel{~}{f}_𝒫(m_{})m_{}x$$
(9)
The asymmetry in the particle yield, which depends on the quantum numbers of initial hadrons and observed charmed particles, is determined by the second term in these expressions, which is different for the $`D`$ and $`D_s`$ cases. One can see that the transition to the asymptotics at fixed $`x`$ is achieved much faster than in the regime of the fixed rapidity. It is seen also that the behavior in the vicinity of $`x=0`$ is determined by the value of intercept of secondary trajectory connected with valence quark, common for the beam hadron and observed particle.

It is quite evident that the applicability region of the above expressions is severely restricted by the necessity to fulfill the condition of large values of the $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ invariants in the case of the Regge approximation. However, the general conclusions on the character of an asymptotic behavior of charmed particle spectra, which can be obtained from them, on the one hand, are quite definite, and, on the other hand, agree well with the parton model predictions.

We wish to stress once more, that from general theoretical consideration one should expect equal yields of the charmed particle and anti-particle in the central region $`(x0)`$ when $`s\mathrm{}`$:

$$E\frac{d^2\sigma (D)}{d^3p}|_{x0}E\frac{d^2\sigma (\overline{D})}{d^3p}|_{x0}$$
(10)
As we will show such behavior is agree also with parton model predictions.

## 2 Fragmentation mechanism

In our previous publications  we developed the phenomenological model model, where the hadronization of charmed $`c`$-quark is described by the sum of two mechanisms, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _H}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _H^F}{dx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _D^R}{dx}},`$ (11)
where the first term corresponds to the charmed quark fragmentation, while the second term takes into account the charmed $`c`$-quark interaction with valence quarks from initial hadrons (recombination).

In the fragmentation mechanism the inclusive cross section for the charmed hadrons ($`D`$-mesons) production has the form as follows:

$`E_H{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma ^F}{d^3p_H}}={\displaystyle E_c\frac{d^3\sigma (h_1h_2cX)}{d^3p_c}D(z)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_Hz\stackrel{}{p}_c)d^3p_c}.`$ (12)
where $`z=|\stackrel{}{p}_H|/|\stackrel{}{p}_c|`$ is the fraction of the $`c`$-quark momentum carried away by the charmed hadron $`H`$.

The parameterization of the fragmentation function $`D(z)`$ (for example, in the form from  or ) can be found by fitting to the data from reaction $`e^+e^{}D(c\overline{q})X`$. However, in hadronic collisions the situation is more complicated. Indeed, the use of the fragmentation function is justified at asymptotically large values of the invariant mass of $`c\overline{c}`$ pair or high $`p_{}`$. However, in hadronic production of the charmed particles the main contribution into inclusive charm production cross section results from $`c`$-quarks with low values of the invariant mass of $`c\overline{c}`$ pair ($`M_{c\overline{c}}2m_c`$. These quarks dominate in the region small $`x`$. At the same time there is large amount of partons from initial hadrons in the same (central) region of $`x`$. Therefore, the $`c`$-quark in combination with one of such a parton can easily to produce a charmed hadron. Such a process occurs practically without any loss of $`c`$-quark momentum (i.e. $`\stackrel{}{p}_H\stackrel{}{p}_c`$). Therefore, in the small $`x`$ region one should expect the coincidence of the spectra of charmed hadrons and $`c`$-quarks. Whereas at high $`x`$ region one may use the conventional fragmentation mechanism.

Following these arguments we have proposed the modified form of the fragmentation function

$`D^{MF}(z,M_{c\overline{c}})z^{\alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})}(1z),`$ (13)
with two additional conditions on $`\alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})`$:

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})\hfill & & \mathrm{}\hfill & D(z)\delta (1z)\hfill & \mathrm{at}& M_{c\overline{c}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_c,\hfill \\ \alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})\hfill & & \alpha _c2.2\hfill & D(z)z^{\alpha _c}(1z)\hfill & \mathrm{at}& M_{c\overline{c}}M_0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
The explicit form of $`\alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})`$ equal

$`\alpha (M_{c\overline{c}})={\displaystyle \frac{13\mu (M_{c\overline{c}})}{1\mu (M_{c\overline{c}})}},`$
where

$`\mu (M_{c\overline{c}})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M_{c\overline{c}}}{2m_c}q_0)}{\mathrm{ln}q_0}}\right)^{0.464},q_00.12`$
Note, that the usage of the fragmentation function assumes the absence of the interaction of the produced heavy $`c`$-quark with the remnants of the initial hadrons. Therefore, it should be no difference between the spectra of charmed and anti-charmed hadrons. Moreover, any modification of the fragmentation mechanism can not reproduce the production asymmetry (the leading particle effect).

## 3 Recombination mechanism

The fragmentation mechanism can be apply for the production of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in the color–singlet state or for high $`p_T`$ production of the open charm. On the other hand, for the case of the hadronic production of color $`c\overline{c}`$ pair with small $`p_T`$ one should takes into account the possibility of charmed $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ quarks interaction with the initial hadron remnants. Therefore, due to the different valence quarks in the initial hadrons one may expect the different inclusive spectra of the final charmed hadrons.

In the parton model framework, a heavy $`c`$–quark should interact with a high probability with its nearest neighbor in the rapidity space able to form a color-singlet state with it. In some cases, the heavy anti-quark (quark) may find itself close (in rapidity space) to a valence light quark (diquark) from the initial hadron. This would result in the formation of a fast heavy meson (baryon) in the fragmentation region of the initial hadron.

We use the model  to describe the production asymmetry for charmed hadrons. In this model the interaction of the charmed quarks with valence quarks from the initial hadrons describes with the help of the recombination function . The recombination of the valence $`q_V`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ quarks into $`D`$-meson is described by the function of $`R_M(x_V,z;x)`$:

$`R_M(x_q,z;x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha _q\alpha _c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _q)}}\xi _q^{(1\alpha _q)}\xi _c^{(1\alpha _c)}\delta (1\xi _q\xi _c),`$ (17)
where $`\xi _q=x_q/x`$ and $`\xi _c=z/x`$, while $`x_q`$, $`z`$, and $`x`$ are the fractions of the initial-hadron c.m. momentum that are carried away by the valence $`q`$-quark, charmed $`c`$-quark, and the $`D(\overline{c}q)`$-meson, respectively. The corresponding recombination of three quarks into baryon can be described by means of the similar recombination function:

$`R_B(x_1,x_2,z;x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _c)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\xi _1^{(1\alpha _1)}\xi _2^{(1\alpha _2)}\xi _c^{(1\alpha _c)}\delta (1\xi _1\xi _2\xi _c).`$
These functions take into account the momentum conservation and the proximity of partons in the rapidity space. Actually, the recombination function is the modulus squared of the heavy meson (baryon) wave function in momentum space, being considered in the infinite momentum frame in the valence quark approximation.

With the help of the function $`R(x_V,z;x)`$ describing the recombination of the quarks $`q_V`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ into a meson, we represent the corresponding contribution to the inclusive spectrum of $`D`$ meson as follows :

$`x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^R}{dx}}=R_0{\displaystyle x_Vz^{}\frac{d^2\sigma }{dx_Vdz}R(x_V,z;x)\frac{dx_V}{x_V}\frac{dz}{z}},`$ (19)
where $`x^{}=2E/\sqrt{s}`$ and $`x=2p_l/\sqrt{s}`$ (here, $`E`$ and $`p_l`$ are the energy and longitudinal momentum of the $`D`$-meson in the c.m.s. of the initial hadrons); $`x_V`$ and $`z`$ are the momentum fractions carried away by the valence quark and heavy anti-quark, respectively, and $`x_Vz^{}\frac{d^2\sigma }{dx_Vdz}`$ is the double-differential cross section for the simultaneous production of the quarks $`q_V`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ in a hadronic collision. The equation describing the production of charmed baryon has an analogous form.

The parameter $`R_0`$ is the constant term of the model, that determines the relative contribution of recombination. We fit the data on charmed hadrons production in $`\pi ^{}N`$ collisions and found that $`R_00.8`$ .

Note, that using of the recombination with the valence quarks provides a well description of the leading particle effect. At the same time its contribution in the total inclusive cross section production of the charmed particles is sufficiently small ($`10\%`$). This mechanism dominates in the high $`x`$ region.

Note, that this model provides more or less successful description of the charmed $`D`$-meson production in $`\pi ^{}N`$-interactions (see Fig. 2, 3 and  for details).

## 4 Charm production in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$–beam

In this section we consider the charmed hadron production in high-energy beam of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-hyperon. First of all we expect the various behavior of the distributions of the valence $`d`$\- and $`s`$-quarks. Indeed, as a first approximation, the distribution of valence quark in the baryon $`B(q_1q_2q_3)`$ can be presented as follows :

$$V_{q_1}^B(x)x^{\alpha _1}(1x)^{\gamma _b\alpha _2\alpha _3},$$
(20)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is the intercept of the leading Regge-trajectory for $`q_i`$-quark, while $`\gamma _B4`$. Note, that due to violation flavor $`SU(N)`$-symmetry, we have different intercepts for $`d(u)`$\- and $`s`$-quarks :

$`\alpha _u=\alpha _d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\alpha _s0,\alpha _c2.2.`$ (21)
As a result, the $`x`$-dependence of the valence $`d`$ and $`s`$-quark in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(sdd)`$-hyperon has the form as follows :

$$V_d^\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}(1x)^{3.5},V_s^\mathrm{\Sigma }(1x)^3$$
(22)
It is seen from the (22) that the valence $`s`$-quark in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-hyperon has harder $`x`$-distribution than that for $`d`$-quark. Note, that gluon distribution in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-hyperon has the same form as in usual nucleon. As a result, we expect more harder $`x`$-dependence of $`s`$-quark distribution in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-hyperon then $`u`$-quark distribution in nucleon. Thus, one may expect slightly harder spectrum of $`D_s`$-mesons, produced in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-beam, then spectrum of $`D^0`$-mesons, produced in $`nucleon`$-beam. On the other hand, $`d`$-quark in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-hyperon should be slightly softer then that in nucleon. As a result we should observe the different $`x_F`$-dependence of spectra of charmed hadrons with $`d`$\- or $`s`$-quarks, namely, $`D^{}(\overline{c}d)`$ and $`D_s^{}(\overline{c}s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0(cds)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}(cdd)`$, etc.

We use LO formulas for calculations of the cross sections for quark-antiquark and gluon-gluon annihilation into $`c\overline{c}`$-pair. We set $`m_c=1.25`$ GeV and the value of strong coupling constant equals 0.3. Then for the cross section value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}p`$ interaction at $`P_{LAB}=600`$ GeV one has:

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}pc\overline{c}X)8\mu b$$
(23)
In our calculations we do not pretend to reproduce the absolute value of this cross section (see , for detail consideration of this problem). We concentrate on the description of $`x_F`$-distribution of charmed mesons and baryons.

Recently, we have done the calculations of asymmetry of $`x`$-spectra for $`D`$, $`D_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ hadrons produced in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ beam with the energy of 340 GeV. The WA89 Collaboration have compared these predictions with their experimental data . This comparison is presented in Fig.4. As is seen from the picture the asymmetry in $`D`$-meson production in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-beam is different from that in $`\pi ^{}`$-beam and there is more pronounced asymmetry for $`D_s`$-meson production.

Below we present the predictions for charmed hadrons production in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-beam at 600 GeV energy. The corresponding distributions (integrated over $`p_{}`$) are presented in Fig.5. We may see from these figures, that the considered charmed quark interaction in the final state (recombination) leads, indeed, to noticeable differences in $`x_F`$-spectra. These differences can be explicitly seen in Fig.6, where we present the corresponding asymmetry $`A`$ (see (1) for definition). The most non-trivial prediction of the proposed model is presented in two lower plots in Fig.6, where we present the ratio of the inclusive spectra of $`D_s^{}(\overline{c}s)`$ and $`D^{}(\overline{c}d)`$ mesons as well as $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ baryons. Indeed, due to the difference of the valence $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-beam (see (22)) we expect the additional asymmetry in the leading charmed particles production.

## 5 CONCLUSION

In the present article we wish to stress once more, that the source of the observed asymmetry in charmed hadron production is the interaction of produced charmed quarks with valence quarks from initial hadrons. Note, the model under consideration provides also the additional method to measure the valence quark distribution functions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-baryons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank E. Chudakov, A. Kushnirenko, O. Piskunova, and J.S. Russ for the fruitful discussions.

This work was supported in part by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, projects no. 99-02-16558.

P.S. When this article was finished we received the article  with the recent results of E791 Collaboration. They present the inclusive $`x`$ and $`p_{}`$ distributions of charmed hadrons, produced in $`\pi ^{}`$-beam. In particular, they observed a noticeable asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}}`$ baryons production in the forward region (about 13%). Note, that our model can not explain this result. Due to the equal amounts of valence $`\overline{𝐮}`$ and $`𝐝`$ quarks in the $`\pi ^{}`$-beam we expect an equal yields of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+(cu𝐝)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{}(c𝐮d)}`$ baryons in the $`\pi ^{}`$-beam. Moreover, the most theoretical models  predicts also zero asymmetry for these particle production.


format: text

text:
# Schwinger-Keldysh semionic approach for quantum spin systems

\[

## Abstract

We derive a path-integral Schwinger-Keldysh approach for quantum spin systems. This is achieved by means of a semionic representation of spins as fermions with imaginary chemical potential. The major simplifying feature in comparison with other representations (Holstein-Primakoff, Dyson-Maleev, slave bosons/fermions etc) is that the local constraint is taken into account exactly. As a result, the standard diagram technique with usual Feynman codex is constructed. We illustrate the application of this technique for the Néel and spin-liquid states of the AFM Heisenberg model.
PACS numbers: 75.10.-b, 75.10.Jm, 75.40.Gb, 71.10.Fd

\]

Since a long time  physicists are aware of the fact that spin operators which commute on different sites and anticommute on the same site are neither Fermi nor Bose operators. Less convergent opinions exist on whether fermionizations or bosonizations or none of those should be used to take care of spin statistics in many body quantum theory. At least the answers appear to be linked to the kind of physical problem considered. Widely accepted is the view that path integral representations and diagrammatic expansions for spin systems are thus substantially more complicated than those of pure fermion/boson systems. Many variants of diagram technique  that are based on different representation of spins such as Bose -, Fermi -, Majorana , supersymmetric  or Hubbard  operators have been proposed. Another method to treat spin Hamiltonians is based on direct representation of coherent states for spins (nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, see e.g ). Some of these techniques -, being applicable only at low temperatures or in large spin ($`S`$$``$$`1`$) limit, describe nevertheless well excitations in ordered magnets (ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic magnons), but fail to provide rigorous calculations in strongly correlated systems such as Kondo lattices or quantum magnets. Other techniques, based on a successful choice for the hierarchy of coupling constants are mainly restricted to equilibrium situations. The fundamental problem which is at the heart of the difficulty is the local constraint. On one hand, any representation of spin operators as bilinear combination of Fermi or Bose quasiparticles makes the dimensionality of the Hilbert space, where these operators act, greater than the dimensionality of the Hilbert space for spin operators. As a result, the spurious unphysical states should be excluded from the consideration resulting in substantial complication of corresponding rules of diagrammatical summation. On the other hand, there is no Wick theorem directly for spin operators but the Gaudin theorem  instead (see also ). It can however not avoid complications in diagram techniques based on Hubbard operators, rendering the resummation of diagram series in many cases practically uncontrollable. The exclusion of double-occupied and empty states for impurity spins interacting with a conduction electron bath (single impurity Kondo problem)  is cured by an infinite chemical potential for Abrikosov pseudofermions. It works for dilute spin subsystems, where all spins can be considered independently. Unfortunately, attempts to generalize this technique to the lattice of spins result in the replacement of the local constraint (the number of particles on each site is fixed) by a so-called global constraint (in the saddle point approximation), where the number of particles is fixed only as an average value for the whole crystal. There is no reason to believe that such an approximation is a good starting point for the description of strongly correlated systems. Besides, it is very difficult to take into account the fluctuations related to the replacement of a local constraint by a global one.

An alternative approach for spin Hamiltonians free of the local constraint problem has been proposed in the pioneering paper of Popov and Fedotov (PF) . Based on exact fermionic representation for $`S`$$`=`$$`1/2`$ and $`S`$$`=`$$`1`$ operators, where fermions are treated as quasiparticles with imaginary chemical potential, these authors demonstrated the power and simplification of the corresponding Matsubara diagram technique. For these two special cases the Matsubara frequencies are $`\omega _n`$$`=`$$`2\pi `$$`T`$$`(n+1/4)`$ for $`S`$$`=`$$`1/2`$ and $`\omega _n`$$`=`$$`2\pi `$$`T`$$`(n+1/3)`$ for $`S`$$`=`$$`1`$ providing a rigorous description of (and restricted to) the equilibrium situation. The semionic representation used by PF is neither fermionic, nor bosonic, but reflects the fundamental Pauli nature of spins. Later the generalization of the PF technique for arbitrary spin  was derived by introducing proper chemical potentials for spin fermions. The goal of this paper is to derive a method for nonequilibrium systems, which allows to treat quantum spin Hamiltonians on the same footing as Fermi or Bose systems.

A long time ago Keldysh  proposed a novel approach for the description of kinetic phenomena in metals. This approach was found especially fruitful for normal metals, and, in many recent applications, for superconductors , for disordered interacting (normal or superconducting) electron liquids  for example. The previous application of the real-time formalism to the quantum theory of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)  allowed the derivation of a Fokker-Planck equation, which describes both kinetic and coherent stages of BEC. Moreover  developed the closed-time path integral formalism for aging effects in quantum disordered systems being in contact with an environment. The Keldysh formalism in application to disordered systems (see  -) also attracted interest some time ago as an alternative approach to the replica technique. The main advantage of closed-time contour calculations is an automatic normalization (disorder independent) of the partition function. In this paper we derive the Keldysh formalism for quantum spin systems (e.g. Heisenberg clean and disordered magnets, Kondo lattices), which is based on Popov-Fedotov ideas of semionic representation.

We reformulate the PF-concept adopting it to real-time formalism. As an example we consider $`S=1/2`$. As it was first shown in , the partition function of a spin system with Hamiltonian $`H_S`$ can be replaced by the partition function of an effective ”fermionic” system with Hamiltonian $`H_F`$ as follows

$$Z_S=Tre^{\beta \widehat{H}_S}=(\pm i)^NTre^{\beta (\widehat{H}_F\pm i\pi \widehat{N}_F/2\beta )},$$
(1)
where $`\beta `$$`=`$$`1/T`$ and usual ”fermionic” representation of spin similar to e.g. Abrikosov pseudofermions  is used: $`S^+`$$`=`$$`f_{}^{}f_{},`$ $`S^{}`$$`=`$$`f_{}^{}f_{},`$ $`S^z`$$`=`$$`\frac{1}{2}`$$`(f_{}^{}f_{}`$$``$$`f_{}^{}f_{}),`$ and $`N_F`$$`=`$$`f_{}^{}f_{}`$$`+`$$`f_{}^{}f_{}`$.

Representing spins as bilinear combinations of Fermi operators, we enlarged by a factor of two the Hilbert space of the Hamiltonian. In addition to physical states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ two unphysical states $`|1,1`$ and $`|0,0`$ are introduced. Nevertheless in the average over all states unphysical states cancel each other, since $`Tr_{unphys}(\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /2))^{N_F}=(i)^0+(i)^2=0.`$ This representation being of semionic origin results in conventional Matsubara diagram technique with $`\omega _n=2\pi T(n+1/4)`$ or $`\omega _n=2\pi T(n+3/4)`$  depending on the sign in expressions (1). Besides, one can introduce the auxiliary distribution function for quasiparticles

$$f^{(1/2)}(ϵ)=T\underset{n}{}\frac{e^{i\omega _n\tau |_{+0}}}{i\omega _nϵ}=\frac{1}{e^{\pm i\pi /2}\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ)+1}$$
(2)
where signs $`\pm `$ in the exponent (2) are the same as in (1). We note that, since auxiliary Fermi fields do not represent the true quasiparticles of the problem helping only to treat properly the spin operators, the distribution function for these objects in general should not be a real function, e.g. $`f^{(1/2)}=n(2ϵ)\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sech}(ϵ/T)`$ where $`n(x)=[\mathrm{exp}(x/T)+1]^1`$ is the standard Fermi distribution function. As we shall see for arbitrary value of spin, $`12\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}f^{(S)}(ϵ)=B_S(ϵ/T)`$ is expressed in terms of the Brillouin function $`B_S(x)=(1+\frac{1}{2S})\mathrm{coth}((1+\frac{1}{2S})x)\frac{1}{2S}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{x}{2S})`$, e.g. for $`S=1/2`$, $`B_{1/2}(x)=\mathrm{tanh}(x)`$. We also note that in the $`T0`$-limit the imaginary part of $`f^{(1/2)}`$ satisfies the identity $`\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}f^{(1/2)}(x)=i\pi T\delta (x)/2`$.

The spin correlation functions of any order can be expressed in terms of the two-component field $`\psi ^T`$$`=`$$`(f_{}f_{})`$:

$$S_{i_1}^{\alpha _1}(t_1)\mathrm{}S_{i_n}^{\alpha _n}(t_n)=Tr(\rho _0(\psi ^{}\sigma _{i_1}^{\alpha _1}\psi )_{t_1}\mathrm{}(\psi ^{}\sigma _{i_n}^{\alpha _n}\psi )_{t_n})$$

where $`\rho _0=\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0)/Tr\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0)`$ is the density matrix and $`\sigma `$ denotes Pauli matrices. We included the term $`i\pi N_F/(2\beta )`$ into the Hamiltonian $`H_0=h_iS_i^z\pm i\pi T/2_iN_F^{(i)}`$ of noninteracting spins in a uniform external magnetic field $`h`$, since it exists both in numerator and denominator of $`\rho _0`$.

Following the standard route  we can express the partition function of the problem containing spin operators as a path integral over Grassmann variables $`\overline{\psi }`$,$`\psi `$

$$𝒵/𝒵_0=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(i𝒜)/D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(i𝒜_0)$$
(3)
where actions $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_0`$ are taken as an integral along the closed-time contour $`C_t+C_\tau `$ which is shown in Fig.1. The contour is closed at $`t=\mathrm{}+i\tau `$ since $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0)=T_\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(_0^\beta H_0𝑑\tau \right).`$ We denote the $`\psi `$ fields on upper and lower sides of the contour $`C_t`$ as $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ respectively. The fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ stand for the contour $`C_\tau `$. These fields provide matching conditions for $`\psi _{1,2}`$ and are excluded from final expressions. Taking into account the semionic boundary conditions for generalized Grassmann fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu (\beta )`$$`=`$$`i\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu (0)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu (\beta )=i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu (0)`$ one gets the matching conditions for $`\psi _{1,2}`$ at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$.

$$\psi _1^\mu (\mathrm{})=i\psi _2^\mu (\mathrm{})e^{\beta h\sigma _\mu ^z},\psi _1^\mu (+\mathrm{})=\psi _2^\mu (+\mathrm{})$$
(4)
The correlation functions can be represented as functional derivation of the generating functional

$$Z[\eta ]/𝒵_0=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(i𝒜+i_C𝑑t(\overline{\eta }\sigma ^z\psi +\overline{\psi }\sigma ^z\eta )\right)$$

where $`\eta `$ represents sources and $`\sigma ^z`$ matrix stands for ”causal” and ”anti-causal” orderings along the contour.

The on-site Green’s functions (GF) which are matrices $`4\times 4`$ with respect to both Keldysh (lower) and spin (upper) indices are given by

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{})=i\frac{\delta }{i\delta \overline{\eta }_\mu ^\alpha (t)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta _\nu ^\beta (t^{})}Z[\eta ]|_{\overline{\eta },\eta 0}$$

After a standard shift-transformation  of fields $`\psi `$ the Keldysh GF of free PF-fermions assumes the form

$`G_0^\alpha (ϵ)=G_0^{R,\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1f_ϵ& f_ϵ\\ 1f_ϵ& f_ϵ\end{array}\right)G_0^{A,\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_ϵ& f_ϵ\\ 1f_ϵ& 1f_ϵ\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
where the retarded and advanced GF’s are

$$G_0^{(R,A)\alpha }(ϵ)=(ϵ+\sigma _\alpha ^zh/2\pm i\delta )^1,f_ϵ=f^{(1/2)}(ϵ).$$
(10)
The interdependence of matrix elements of the GF in Keldysh-space is more transparent after rotation

$`\widehat{G}{\displaystyle \frac{1i\sigma ^y}{\sqrt{2}}}\sigma ^zG{\displaystyle \frac{1+i\sigma ^y}{\sqrt{2}}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^R& G^K\\ 0& G^A\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
where $`G_0^K`$$`=i2\pi \delta (ϵ\pm h/2)\left[B_{1/2}(ϵ/T)\pm i\mathrm{sech}(ϵ/T)\right]`$. We emphasize, that unlike diagrammatic techniques for Fermi and Bose operators, the off-diagonal element (Keldysh-component) in semionic representation is expressed in terms of Brillouin function, containing correct information about occupied states. We recall that diagonal elements of the matrix (13) in ”triangular” representation satisfy the Dyson equation providing the exact description of the system. The equation of motion for $`G^K`$ generally constitutes the quantum-kinetic equation.

Let us illustrate the application of the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism for spin Hamiltonians. We consider the Heisenberg model with nearest neighbour interaction

$$H_{int}=\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j\frac{1}{4}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<ij>}{}J_{ij}\psi _i^{}\psi _j\psi _j^{}\psi _i$$

We firstly discuss the Néel solution for the Heisenberg model with isotropic antiferromagnetic (AFM) exchange ($`J<0`$). Applying the PF-transformation to the partition function one obtains the action as an integral along the closed-time Keldysh-contour

$$𝒜=𝒜_0+𝒜_{int}=𝒜_0+_C𝑑t\underset{𝐪}{}J(𝐪)\stackrel{}{S}_𝐪(t)\stackrel{}{S}_𝐪(t)$$
(14)
where $`𝒜_0`$ corresponds to noninteracting fermions

$`𝒜_0={\displaystyle _C}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{\psi }_i\left(\begin{array}{cc}(G_0^{R,\alpha })^1& 0\\ 0& (G_0^{A,\alpha })^1\end{array}\right)\psi _i`$ (17)
We denote $`J_𝐪`$$`=`$$`J`$$`_{<𝐥>}`$$`e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐥}}`$, $`\nu _𝐪`$$`=`$$`J_𝐪`$$`/`$$`J_0`$ and apply 8-component PF representation with $`\psi ^T`$$`=`$$`(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_𝐤^T`$$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{𝐤+𝐐}^T)`$, where $`𝐐=(\pi ,\mathrm{},\pi )`$ for hypercubic lattice. To decouple the four-fermion term along the Keldysh-contour with the help of Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation we introduce the two-Keldysh-component vector (Bose) field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^T=(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2)`$. As a result we obtain

$$𝒜_{int}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐪^TJ_𝐪^1\sigma ^z\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐪)+Tr(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\gamma ^\mu \psi )$$
(18)
Now we integrate out $`\psi `$ fields and express the effective action in terms of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ fields

$$𝒜_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐪^TJ_𝐪^1\sigma ^z\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐪)+Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(G_0^1+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma }\gamma ^\mu \right)$$

where $`\gamma ^\mu `$$`=`$$`(\sigma ^z\pm 1)/2`$ acts in Keldysh space. Since in general $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is a time- and space-dependent fluctuating field the partition function (3) cannot be evaluated exactly. Nevertheless, when a magnetic instability occurs, we can represent the longitudinal component of this field as a superposition of a staggered time-independent part (”staggered condensate”) and a fluctuating field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^z(𝐪,\omega )=𝒩J_𝐪\gamma ^\mu \delta _{𝐪,𝐐}\delta (\omega )+\varphi _\mu ^z(𝐪,\omega ),$$
(19)
where $`𝒩`$ is a staggered magnetization and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^\pm (𝐪,\omega )=\varphi _\mu ^\pm (𝐪,\omega )`$ with the matching conditions at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ involving the dispersions of excitations $`\omega _𝐩`$

$$\varphi _1^\pm (\mathrm{})=\varphi _2^\pm (\mathrm{})e^{i\beta \omega _𝐩},\varphi _1^\pm (+\mathrm{})=\varphi _2^\pm (+\mathrm{}).$$
(20)
We expand $`Tr\mathrm{ln}(G_0^1+\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma }\gamma ^\mu )`$ in accordance with

$$Tr\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})=Tr\mathrm{ln}G_0^1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{n}(G_0\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma }\gamma ^\mu )^n$$
(21)
The spectrum of the excitations (AFM magnons) can be defined as poles of the transverse GF $`D_{𝐱,t}^+`$$`=`$$`D(𝐱,t)`$$`=`$$`iT_C\varphi _1^+(𝐱,t)\varphi _1^{}(0,0)`$. The procedure of the calculation of this GF is similar to that for a ”fermionic” GF. Introducing the sources and evaluating (21) one gets

$`D_0(\omega )=D_0^R\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+N_\omega & N_\omega \\ 1+N_\omega & N_\omega \end{array}\right)D_0^A\left(\begin{array}{cc}N_\omega & N_\omega \\ 1+N_\omega & 1+N_\omega \end{array}\right)`$ (26)
where the retarded and advanced magnons GF’s are

$$D^{R,A}(𝐩,\omega )=(\omega \omega (𝐩)\pm i\delta )^1,N_\omega =(\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega )1)^1$$

The magnon spectrum is determined by the zeros of the expression $`J_𝐪^1\mathrm{\Pi }_2^+(\omega )`$ (see Fig.2a) in equilibrium

$$\omega _𝐩=|J_0|𝒩\sqrt{1\nu _𝐩^2}c|𝐩|,𝒩=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{J_𝐐𝒩}{2T}\right)$$
(27)
The magnon-damping is defined by four-magnon processes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_4^{++}`$, shown in Fig2.b. The derivation of the kinetic equation and calculation of magnon damping is reserved here for a detailed publication. The results (27) (and similar for quantum FM) are in full agreement with the spin-wave theory (see, for example,  and ).

The second possibility to decouple the four-fermion term in the Heisenberg model is provided by the bi-local scalar bosonic field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}`$ depending on two sites. Introducing new coordinates $`\stackrel{}{R}`$$`=`$$`(\stackrel{}{R}_i`$$`+`$$`\stackrel{}{R}_j)`$$`/2`$, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$$`=`$$`\stackrel{}{R}_i`$$``$$`\stackrel{}{R}_j`$ and applying a Fourier transformation we obtain the effective action

$$𝒜_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pq_1}^TJ_{𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}}^1\sigma ^z\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pq_2})+Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(G_0^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \gamma ^\mu \right)$$

This effective action describes the nonequilibrium quantum spin-liquid (SL). We confine ourselves to consider the uniform phase  of Resonant Valence Bonds. It is sutable to rewrite the functional in new variables, namely amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and phase $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$$`=`$$`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$$`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{R})`$, according to formula

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^{<ij>}(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{\rho })=\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{\rho })J\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{A}_\mu (\stackrel{}{R})\right)$$
(28)
The exponent in (28) stands for gauge fluctuations to be taken in eikonal approximation. The spectrum of excitations in the uniform SL is defined by the zeros of $`\pi _{q,\omega }^{R,\alpha \beta }`$$`=`$$`Tr(p^\alpha p^\beta (G_{p+q}^RG_p^K`$$`+`$$`G_{p+q}^KG_p^A)`$$`+`$$`\delta _{\alpha \beta }f(J_𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ in equilibrium  and is purely diffusive (see e.g.)

$$\omega =iJ\mathrm{\Delta }|𝐪|^3,\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{𝐪}{}\nu (𝐪)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{J_𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}\right)$$
(29)
The quantum kinetic equation for nonequilibrium spin liquids can be obtained by taking into account the higher order diagrams similarly to Fig.2b with current-like vertices and will be presented elsewhere.

We discuss finally the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism for spins $`S>1/2`$. As shown by Popov and Fedotov for $`S`$$`=`$$`1`$, it is possible to eliminate the unphysical states by introducing three-component fermions $`\psi ^T`$$`=`$$`(f_{}f_0f_{})`$ with imaginary chemical potential $`\lambda `$$`=`$$`i\pi `$$`T/3`$. The boundary conditions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the imaginary part of the contour $`C_\tau `$ read as follows $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu (\beta )`$$`=`$$`e^{i\pi /3}\mathrm{\Psi }^\mu (0)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu (\beta )`$$`=`$$`e^{i\pi /3}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\mu (0).`$ As a result, the distribution function in equilibrium is $`f^{(1)}(ϵ)`$$`=`$$`1`$$`/`$$`\left[e^{\pm i\pi /3}\mathrm{exp}(ϵ/T)+1\right].`$ Thus the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism with $`6\times 6`$ matrices for GF (13) and $`f_ϵ`$$`=`$$`f^{(1)}(ϵ)`$ in equilibrium is obtained. The off-diagonal Keldysh component is given by

$$G_0^K=i2\pi \delta (ϵ\pm h)[B_1(ϵ/T)\pm i\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{ϵ}{2T})/\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{3ϵ}{2T})].$$

For arbitrary spin values $`S`$$`>`$$`1`$ there is no unique imaginary chemical potential for $`2`$$`S`$$`+`$$`1`$ component PF-fermions, but instead they are distributed on each lattice site $`j`$ according to

$$P(\lambda _j)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{[S1/2]}{}}a_l\delta (\lambda _j\lambda _l),a_l=\frac{2i}{2S+1}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{2l+1}{2S+1}\right),$$

where $`\lambda _l`$$`=`$$`i\pi `$$`T(2l+1)`$$`/`$$`(2S+1)`$ . Thus, the Schwinger-Keldysh approach can be generalized for arbitrary spin values in the same fashion as for $`S`$$`=`$$`1/2`$ and $`S`$$`=`$$`1`$.

Summarizing, we derived the technique applicable for nonequilibrium dynamics of quantum spin systems. Unlike other techniques this approach takes into account the constraint rigorously and allows one to treat spins on the same footing as Fermi and Bose systems. The method derived can be applied especially to problems where the local constraint becomes important, e.g. quantum phase transition in clean and disordered magnets, spin glasses, Kondo lattices, nonequilibrium Kondo systems etc.

We acknowledge useful discussions with L.V.Keldysh and many helpful conversations with H.Feldmann and K.Kikoin. This work is supported by the SFB410 (II-VI semiconductors). MNK express his gratitude to Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for support of his research.