text:
# Dynamic stiffness of spin valves

## Abstract

The dynamics of the magnetic order parameters of ferromagnet/paramagnet/ferromagnet spin valves and isolated ferromagnets may be very different. We investigate the role of the nonequilibrium spin-current exchange between the ferromagnets in the magnetization precession and switching. We find a (low-temperature) critical current bias for a uniform current-induced magnetization excitation in spin valves, which unifies and generalizes previous ideas of Slonczewski and Berger. In the absence of an applied bias, the effect of the spin transfer can be expressed as magnetic–configuration-dependent Gilbert damping.

The giant-magnetoresistanceBaibich et al. (1988) (GMR) in multilayers of metallic ferromagnet (F) and normal-metal (N) films controls the current flow by a magnetic–field-induced reorientation of the magnetizations. This effect has found applications in, e.g., magnetic-field detectors as read heads of mass storage devices. Modern magnetic storage media and magnetic random-access memories also consist of F/N composites with information stored by switchable magnetic configurations. Device performance is measured in terms of bit density as well as speed of reading and writing information. A thorough understanding of the magnetization dynamics in F/N hybrid structures is therefore desirable.

Magnetization reversal is usually achieved by magnetic fields generated by external electric currents. In small structures, however, much energy is wasted in the form of stray magnetic fields, which motivates consideration of other switching mechanisms. An effect inverse to the GMR (i.e., exerting spin torques on the magnetizations by an electric current passed through the multilayer) appears rather promising for this purpose. The spin torque can lead to magnetization switching at a critical electric current,Berger (1996); Slonczewski (1996) as has been experimentally confirmed.Myers et al. (1999); Katine et al. (2000); Myers et al. (2002)

Perpendicular spin valves, i.e., Fs/N/Fh trilayer pillar structures with layer thicknesses down to a few monolayers and lateral dimensions in the (sub)micron region, are ideal to study precession and switching phenomena in hybrid systems. When reservoirs are attached on the outer sides, these spin valves can be biased by an electric current perpendicular to the interface planes. Fs is a “soft” ferromagnetic film with a magnetization that can change easily, whereas Fh is a “hard” magnetic layer whose magnetization is assumed to be stationary. The relevant variable is then the time-dependent magnetization of the soft layer. In the following, we will consider two scenarios: that of exciting the soft layer by a current bias or driving it by an applied rf magnetic field. In the former case, the layer Fh can be made stationary by making it much thicker (and therefore more inert for a given spin torque) than Fs or by using a resistance anisotropy,Kovalev et al. (2002) while in the latter case (realized as, e.g., an isolated magnetic bilayer), Fh can be pinned by an exchange bias or surface magnetic anisotropy.Urban et al. (2001) For small enough systems, the magnetic layers are monodomain ferromagnets characterized by two magnetization vectors. Assuming a thick enough spacer N, we disregard the static interaction between the ferromagnetic layers, but not the dynamic couplingHeinrich et al. (2002) induced by the spin pumping.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002a)

SlonczewskiSlonczewski (1996) and BergerBerger (1996) were the first to predict new time-dependent effects in spin valves. Both authors have realized that a current flowing through a spin valve causes a spin transfer through the nonmagnetic spacer, inducing spin torques on the ferromagnets. In addition, Berger predicted that the two ferromagnets interact via spin transfer even in the absence of an applied electric current, resulting in a significant contribution to the Gilbert damping of the magnetization dynamics. He further demonstrated that a sufficiently large electric current can induce coherent spin-wave emission in the ferromagnet, an idea which was later supported experimentally.Tsoi et al. (2000) The condition for spin-wave emissionBerger (1996) is similar to the criterion for the magnetization switching due to Slonczewski,Slonczewski (1996) who treated the Gilbert damping parameter as a phenomenological constant. In Ref. Berger, 1996, a dependence of the damping parameter in spin valves on the relative magnetization angle was found. Some of Berger’s and Slonczewski’s results as well as the underlying theoretical models were thus not consistent with each other. In this report we offer an alternative theory, which both unifies and extends the seminal work of these pioneers.

Based on the concept of parametric spin pumping, we demonstrated in Ref. Tserkovnyak et al., 2002a that the magnetization motion of a ferromagnetic layer is damped by emitting (pumping) spins into adjacent conductors. The presence of a second ferromagnet can considerably affect the relaxation of the pumped spins, and therefore the magnetization dynamics, as discussed below. We combine adiabatic spin pumping with magnetoelectronic circuit theoryBrataas et al. (2000); Bauer et al. (2002) to provide a self-contained framework for spin transfer in spin valves. The main results presented here are the critical current bias for a low-temperature magnetization instability and the configuration-dependent Gilbert damping parameter. In terms of conductance parameters accessible to first-principles calculationsXia et al. (2002) and combined with micromagnetic simulations, the full range of the precession and switching dynamics can then be studied in principle.

We consider the system sketched in Fig. 1. The Fs/N/Fh trilayer is sandwiched between two normal-metal contacts sustaining a charge current bias $`J`$. The soft layer Fs magnetization $`𝐦`$ will start moving from its equilibrium direction at a critical value $`J_c`$ (depending on the applied magnetic field). Thermal activation facilitates current-induced magnetization switching,Myers et al. (2002) but we focus here on the low-temperature regime. The generalized Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equationGilbert (1955); Slonczewski (1996) for the magnetization direction $`𝐦(t)`$ of Fs in the presence of a spin current $`𝐈_s`$ flowing out of Fs reads

$$\frac{d𝐦}{dt}=\gamma 𝐦\times 𝐇_{\text{eff}}+\alpha _0𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}+\frac{\gamma }{M_sSd}𝐦\times 𝐈_s\times 𝐦,$$
(1)
where $`\gamma `$ is the absolute value of the gyromagnetic ratio and $`𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$ an effective magnetic field which is determined by the applied dc magnetic field and the anisotropy energy (i.e., shape, crystal, and surface anisotropy). Fs is characterized by $`\alpha _0`$, its intrinsic (dimensionless) Gilbert damping constant, $`M_s`$, its saturation magnetization, $`d`$, its thickness, and $`S`$, its cross section. The spin current

$$𝐈_s=𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}+𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}$$
(2)
consists of the dynamic-exchange current $`𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}`$ induced by the spin pumping and of the current $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}`$ driven by an applied current bias. The former has recently been shown to be responsible for a dynamic coupling between the ferromagnetsHeinrich et al. (2002) and, according to Ref. Berger, 1996, also determines the threshold for spin-wave emission. Alternatively, one can interpret it as a “dynamic stiffness,” which stabilizes the relative magnetization configuration of the spin valve against the torques exerted by $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}`$ or an applied magnetic field. In high-density metallic systems, the applied voltages and spin accumulations are safely smaller than the Fermi energies, which means that we are in the linear-response regime and both spin currents may be calculated independently of each other. Spin pumping in the outward direction, i.e., into the external connectors, would only increase the intrinsic damping coefficient $`\alpha _0`$ by a constant value,Tserkovnyak et al. (2002a) so we disregard it here for simplicity.

Let us first consider the spin current $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ pumped into the spacer by a time-dependent $`𝐦(t)`$ in the absence of an applied bias, $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}=0`$. The transverse component of the spin accumulation is absorbed in the ferromagnetic layer on the scale of a (transverse) spin-coherence length $`\pi /|k_F^{}k_F^{}|`$ in terms of the spin-dependent Fermi wave vectors $`k_F^,`$ (amounting to only a few monolayers for transition-metal ferromagnetsBrataas et al. (2000); Stiles and Zangwill (2002)). When Fs is thicker than that,Tserkovnyak et al. (2002a)

$$𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }\left(g_r^{}𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}g_i^{}\frac{d𝐦}{dt}\right).$$
(3)
Here $`g^{}=g_r^{}+ig_i^{}`$ is the (dimensionless) mixing conductance of the Fs/N interface. For simplicity, the conductance parameters of the two F/N interfaces are taken to be identical in the following. The mixing conductance is to a good approximation real-valued, i.e., $`g_i^{}g_r^{}`$, at least for transition-metal ferromagnets.Xia et al. (2002) $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ creates a spin accumulation $`𝝁_{sN}`$ in N, which induces a backflow spin current $`𝐈_{si}^{\text{back}}`$ into both ferromagnets $`i=1,2`$. According to the circuit theory,Brataas et al. (2000); Bauer et al. (2002) making use of the zero-electric–current condition through the interfaces,

$`𝐈_{si}^{\text{back}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{2g^{}g^{}}{g^{}+g^{}}}𝐦_i(\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_{si}𝐦_i)`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`g^{}𝐦_i\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_{si}\times 𝐦_i].`$
Here $`g^{ss}`$ is the (dimensionless) spin-$`s`$ interface conductance, $`𝐦_1=𝐦`$, $`𝐦_2=𝐌`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_{si}=𝝁_{sN}\mu _{sFi}𝐦_i`$ is the spin-accumulation difference across the Fi/N interface. Note that for intermetallic interfaces Sharvin contributions must be subtracted if conductances are computed microscopically by scattering theory.Bauer et al. (2002) The time scale of the magnetization dynamics, $`10^{11}`$ s, is much larger than typical electron dwell times in the metallic spacer. Assuming weak spin-flip scattering in N, the conservation of spin then implies that

$$𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}=𝐈_{s1}^{\text{back}}+𝐈_{s2}^{\text{back}}.$$
(5)
The exchange current is given by the difference between the pumped current and the backflow: $`𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}=𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}𝐈_{s1}^{\text{back}}=𝐈_{s2}^{\text{back}}`$.

The longitudinal component of the spin accumulation can penetrate ferromagnets on the scale of the spin-diffusion length $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$. In order to find $`𝐈_{si}^{\text{back}}`$, we solve the diffusion equation for the (longitudinal) spin transport in the ferromagnets, assuming that the spin current vanishes on the outer boundaries of Fs and Fh. It is shown that the longitudinal spin-accumulation flow into a ferromagnetic slab of thickness $`d`$ is then governed by an effective conductance $`g^{}`$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{g^{}}=\frac{g^{}+g^{}}{2g^{}g^{}}+\frac{1}{g_{\text{sd}}\mathrm{tanh}(d/\lambda _{\text{sd}})}$$
(6)
in terms of $`g_{\text{sd}}=(h/e^2)(S/\lambda _{\text{sd}})(2\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{})/(\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{})`$, where $`\sigma ^s`$ is the spin-$`s`$ conductivity of the ferromagnetic bulk, so that the backflow current, Eq. (4), can be written as

$$𝐈_{si}^{\text{back}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[g^{}𝐦_i\left(𝝁_{sN}𝐦_i\right)+g^{}𝐦_i\times 𝝁_{sN}\times 𝐦_i\right].$$
(7)
$`g^{}0`$ when $`d\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$, i.e., when the spin-flip relaxation vanishes, or when the ferromagnet is halfmetallic, so that it completely blocks the longitudinal spin flow due to charge conservation. The parameter $`\nu =(g^{}g^{})/(g^{}+g^{})`$ characterizes the asymmetry of the absorption of transverse vs longitudinal spin currents. Let us estimate typical values of $`\nu `$ for sputtered Co/Cu and Py/Cu hybrids at low temperatures, taking $`d=5`$ nm. The main difference between the two combinations is the spin-diffusion length in the ferromagnets: Co has a relatively long $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}60`$ nm, while $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}5`$ nm is very short in Py.Bass (1999) Using known values for spin-dependent conductivities,Bass (1999) we thus find $`g_{\text{sd}}S^12.7`$ nm-2 for Co and 16 nm-2 for Py. $`2g^{}g^{}/(g^{}+g^{})S^120`$ nm-2 for Co/Cu interfacesXia et al. (2002) and we expect the value for Py/Cu to be similar. Finally, taking $`g^{}S^128`$ nm-2 for the Co/Cu interfaceXia et al. (2002) and 15 nm-2 for Py/Cu,Bauer et al. (2002) we find $`\nu 0.98`$ for Co/Cu and $`\nu 0.33`$ for Py/Cu.

With $`\nu `$ the same for both layers, we solve for the spin accumulation in the normal metal, $`𝝁_{sN}`$, in the absence of applied current, $`J=0`$, by using the spin conservation, Eq. (5), and Eq. (7) for the backflow in terms of $`𝝁_{sN}`$. We then finally arrive at

$$𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}\nu \left(𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}𝐌\right)\frac{𝐌\nu 𝐦\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\nu ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right].$$
(8)
Semiclassically, this equation can be understood as a multiple scattering of spin current between the interfaces at which the longitudinal part is reflected with probability $`P1+\nu `$ and the transverse component with $`P1\nu `$. We have taken the spacer to be ballistic, so that $`𝝁_{sN}`$ is uniform. Otherwise, the exchange current will be suppressed by diffuse scattering in the interlayer N. It is straightforward to extend our theory to take this into account by, e.g., solving the spin-diffusion equation in the spacer and using the same boundary conditions, Eqs. (3) and (7), as above.

The magnetization dynamics (in the absence of an applied bias) is determined by substituting $`𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}`$ into the LLG equation, which thus has a damping term that cannot be modeled by a constant effective Gilbert parameter. We now analyze the configuration dependence of the damping in more detail, which is experimentally accessible by the FMR line-width broadening at high rf intensitiesHeinrich (2001) (and therefore finite “precession cones”). For $`𝐦`$ precessing around $`𝐌`$,

$$𝐦\times 𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}\times 𝐦=\frac{g^{}}{8\pi }\left(1\nu \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{1\nu ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}.$$
(9)
The angular dependence of the additional Gilbert damping parameter due to the exchange spin current then reads

$$\alpha ^{}(\theta )/\alpha ^{}(0)=1\nu \mathrm{sin}^2\theta /(1\nu ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),$$
(10)
where $`\alpha ^{}(0)=\gamma \mathrm{}g_r^{}/(8\pi M_sSd)`$ is the damping enhancement in a collinear configuration. Interestingly, this result bares similarity with Berger’sBerger (1996)

$$\alpha ^{}(\theta )/\alpha ^{}(0)=1/[1+s(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )],$$
(11)
where $`s\tau _{\text{sf}}`$, a characteristic spin-flip time, and his form of $`\alpha ^{}(0)`$ is similar as well.Berger (1996) Expressions (10) and (11) are compared in Fig. 2: they have the same small-angle asymptotics, but are qualitatively different at large angles (in particular, the latter is symmetric with respect to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ while the former is not). At small $`\theta `$, we can rewrite Eq. (10) to exactly reproduce Eq. (11) after identifying $`s=\nu /(1\nu )`$. As mentioned above, $`\nu `$ is close to 0.98 for cobalt and $`s`$ should be of the order of 100 ($`s=333`$ is found in Ref. Berger, 1996 for Co/Cu with Co 1.5 nm thick, which remarkably would be quite similar to our estimate for this thickness), so that the lower solid line in Fig. 2 represents the damping for Co. The “precessional stiffness” is thus significantly reduced for angles which only slightly deviate from the collinear configurations (we expect this conclusion to be also true for Fe and Ni). Modeling of the magnetization dynamics with a constant damping parameter is thus not allowed for sufficiently thin magnetic layers. For permalloy, on the other hand, the precessional stiffness is expected to remain significant for all angles, see the upper solid line in Fig. 2. This implies that the magnetization reversal has higher energy-dissipation power, but can occur faster than in cobalt in field-induced switching. If $`𝐦`$ moves away from $`𝐌`$, i.e., only the relative angle $`\theta `$ changes, then $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}𝐌`$ and Eq. (8) reduces to $`𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}=𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}/2`$. The “tilting stiffness” has thus an angle-independent enhancement with respect to the intrinsic Gilbert damping, which is given by the same expression as $`\alpha ^{}(0)`$, i.e., the damping in a collinear configuration.

Introducing an applied current bias gives an additional control over the magnetization dynamics. When the conductance parameters of the spin valve are symmetric, the bias-induced spin transfer $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}`$ is coplanar with the magnetization directions, $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}=I_s^{\text{bias}}(𝐦+𝐌)/(2\mathrm{cos}\theta /2)`$, $`\theta `$ being the angle between $`𝐦`$ and $`𝐌`$. This is clear after expanding the spin current as $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}(𝐦,𝐌)=f_{11}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝐦+f_{22}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝐌+f_{12}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝐦\times 𝐌`$ and noting that $`𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}(𝐦,𝐌)=𝐈_s^{\text{bias}}(𝐌,𝐦)`$, which implies $`f_{11}f_{22}`$ and $`f_{12}0`$. The electric current corresponding to a given spin-current bias depends on $`\theta `$ and can be calculated readily by circuit theory.Brataas et al. (2000); Bauer et al. (2002)

Eqs. (1), (2), (8) and the form of the bias current completely determine the dynamics of $`𝐦(t)`$. The exchange induced by the spin pumping causes relaxation toward an equilibrium configuration, while the bias current can either relax or excite a perturbation from an equilibrium, depending on the sign of $`J`$. In the process of, e.g., switching, the trajectory of $`𝐦(t)`$ can become very complicated. While in this report we outline the general formalism, a detailed numerical study of the magnetization dynamics will be carried out elsewhere. In the remainder of this paper we discuss the critical current bias at which a collinear equilibrium configuration becomes unstable.

Near a collinear configuration, Eq. (8) simplifies to $`𝐈_s^{\text{exch}}=𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}/2`$. Let $`𝐦`$ (circularly) precesses around $`𝐌`$ with the FMR frequency $`\omega `$: $`𝐦\times d𝐦/dt=\omega 𝐦\times 𝐌\times 𝐦`$. The total (projected) spin current in the Gilbert form then reads:

$$𝐦\times 𝐈_s\times 𝐦=\left[\mathrm{}g^{}/(8\pi )+I_s^{\text{bias}}/(2\omega )\right]𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}.$$
(12)
An instability is reached when the effective Gilbert damping coefficient becomes negative. The critical bias is thus given by

$$I_{s,c}^{\text{bias}}=\left[g^{}/(4\pi )+2\alpha _0M_sSd/(\mathrm{}\gamma )\right]\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(13)
Neglecting the first term in the brackets of the above expression, we obtain result analogous to Slonczewski’s,Slonczewski (1996) while neglecting the second term, we get a condition similar to Berger’s spin-wave emission criterion.Berger (1996) The spin-pumping contribution (first term) is comparable with the intrinsic damping (second term) for films with thickness $`d`$ of several nanometers,Tserkovnyak et al. (2002a); Urban et al. (2001) with the former dominating for very thin films.

In summary, we have developed a general theoretical framework for the low-temperature magnetization dynamics in small spin valves, unifying and extending pioneering work by SlonczewskiSlonczewski (1996) and Berger.Berger (1996) The non-equilibrium spin torque induced by the bias current and the enhanced Gilbert constant due to the spin pumping must be treated on equal footing. When the memory magnetic element is sufficiently thin ($`d<10`$ nm), the nontrivial dependence of the damping on both the static and dynamic configurations of the system can importantly modify the magnetization dynamics. We derived the dependence of the Gilbert damping of Fs on the precession-cone angle, which can also be measured by the FMR.Heinrich (2001) Micromagnetic simulation codes should take these effects into account as the device and magnetic bit dimensions decrease down to the nanometer scale.

We would like to thank B. I. Halperin and B. Heinrich for many stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the NEDO International Joint Research Grant Program “Nano-magnetoelectronics,” NSF Grant DMR 02-33773, and the FOM.


format: text

text:
# Nonlinear cotunneling through an artificial molecule

## Abstract

We study electron transport through a system of two lateral quantum dots coupled in series. We consider the case of weak coupling to the leads and a bias point in the Coulomb blockade. After a generalized Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, cotunneling through this system is described using methods from lowest-order perturbation theory. We study the system for arbitrary bias voltages below the Coulomb energy. We observe a rich, non-monotonic behaviour of the stationary current depending on the internal degrees of freedom. In particular, it turns out that at fixed transport voltage, the current through the system is largest at weak-to-intermediate inter-dot coupling.

Quantum dots are prototype systems for studying the properties of discrete levels embedded in a solid-state environment. Single dots (“artificial atoms” Ashoori ) can be coupled through quantum point contacts, leading to “artificial molecules”. Indeed it has been shown experimentally Waugh ; Blick1 ; AlexScience , that the eigenstates of double dot systems are coherent molecular superpositions of single dot (atomic) states. Unlike real molecules, these dots are readily contacted and tunable in situ, making them a natural test-bed for molecular transport. Double dots have also been proposed as charge quantum bits Blick2 ; UdoFrank .

This raises the question, which information on the energy spectrum and the wavefunctions of the dot can be probed by transport measurements. This is only possible if artifacts induced by the coupling to the leads can be sorted out and the double-dot is disturbed as little as possible. This is the case, when the coupling to the outside leads is weak (see Fig. 1) and the gates are tuned to the Coulomb blockade regime Leo ; Wilfried . In that regime, only states with a fixed number of electrons are energetically permissible and hence sequential tunneling is suppressed. The leading transport mechanism in this case is cotunneling Nazarov , the coherent transfer of two electrons via virtual levels in the dots. Our work stands between studies focusing on sequential tunneling Stoof  and work on linear response in the Kondo regimeLaszlo . The properties of cotunneling currents as a spectroscopic tool for the spectrum of quantum dot system have recently been studied in exquisitely controlled experiments on systems similar to ours Silvano ; AlexScience .

In this paper, we analyze a serial configuration of lateral quantum dots in the cotunneling regime. We study finite voltages up to the order of the charging energy i.e. do not restrict ourselves to linear response. We find a rich nonmonotonic structure in the current as a function of the dot parameters. In particular, we find a pronounced crossover indicating the opening of an inelastic transport channel, which leads to the surprising result, that a too strong interdot coupling actually inhibits charge transport. We analyze the influence of the asymmetry of the dots on the current.

In the Coulomb blockade regime Leo ; Wilfried , the relevant Hilbert space is spanned by four basis states $`|i,j`$, $`i,j\{0,1\}`$, which denotes $`i`$ and $`j`$ additional electrons (as compared to an appropriate neutral state) on the left and right dot respectively. We study the situation where the gate voltages of the single dots are very close to each other and the inter-dot coupling is, although appreciable, much smaller than the single dot addition energy. Thus, the subspace spanned by the two states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,1`$ is energetically most favorable. The next closest states $`|v_0=|0,0`$ and $`|v_2=|1,1`$ are outside the transport window and serve as virtual states Nazarov . States with higher dipolar moment are energetically even less favorable due to the high charging energy of the individual dots.

The Hamiltonian of this system can be written as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_1`$ (1)
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`H_{\mathrm{sys}}+H_{\mathrm{res}}`$ (2)
$`H_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}(\widehat{n}_l\widehat{n}_r)\epsilon _\alpha \widehat{n}_{v_0}+\epsilon _\beta \widehat{n}_{v_2}`$ (3)
$`+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(a_n^La_n^R+a_n^Ra_n^L)`$
$`H_{\mathrm{res}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\epsilon _\stackrel{}{k}^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}\epsilon _\stackrel{}{k}^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R`$ (4)
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`t_c{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}(a_n^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L+a_n^Lb_\stackrel{}{k}^L)`$ (5)
$`+t_c{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},n}{}}(a_n^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R+a_n^Rb_\stackrel{}{k}^R).`$
Note, that the sum over dot states $`n`$ only runs over the restricted Hilbert space described above. $`H_0`$ describes the isolated double-dot ($`H_{\mathrm{sys}}`$) and the leads ($`H_{\mathrm{res}}`$), whereas the tunneling part $`H_1`$ describes the coupling of each dot to its lead and will be treated as a perturbation. $`\widehat{n}_{l/r}`$ are the number operators counting additional electrons on either dot. The asymmetry energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}=(\epsilon _l\epsilon _r)/2`$ describes half of the difference between the energy level for the additional electron in left dot ($`\epsilon _l`$) and the corresponding energy level in the right dot ($`\epsilon _r`$), which can be tuned through the gate voltages. $`\epsilon _\beta `$ and $`\epsilon _\alpha `$ are the charging energies towards the higher level $`|v_2`$ and the lower level $`|v_0`$ respectively. $`\gamma `$ is the tunable inter-dot coupling strength. The $`a^{()}`$s and $`b^{()}`$s denote electron creation/annihilation operators in the dots and leads. In $`H_1`$, the symbol $`t_c`$ represents the tunnel matrix element between the dots and the leads. It is independent of the energies in the double-dot system and the corresponding sequential tunneling rate $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi t_c^2N(\epsilon _\mathrm{F})`$ should be small compared to the internal energies. $`N(\epsilon _\mathrm{F})`$ is the density of states in the leads taken at the Fermi energy. We restrict our analysis to spin-polarized electrons, these can be polarized by an appropriate in-plane magnetic field. Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the system.

In Fig. 1, $`V=\mu _R\mu _L`$ is the bias voltage between the two leads (hatched) and $`2\delta =2\sqrt{\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}^2+\gamma ^2}`$ is the level splitting in the molecular two-state system (TSS).

Pursuing our aforementioned objective, we take the inter-dot coupling $`\gamma `$ into account to all orders by diagonalizing $`H_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ and transforming $`H_1`$ into the new basis. Already now, there is no simple selection rule or symmetry of the coupling of the states to the leads any more. We want to use well-established tools of lowest order perturbation theory for both finding the density matrix of the system and evaluating the current. In order to capture cotunneling by this approach, we perform a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation Schrieffer  up to second order, i.e. we take into account all indirect transitions between arbitrary final and initial states of the dot which involve only a single intermediate state. This takes the transformed Hamiltonian into the generic form

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{c,d}{}}\alpha _c^{}\alpha _d[{\displaystyle \underset{Y,Y^{},\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}}}{}}H_{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},c,d}^{Y,Y^{}}b_\stackrel{}{k}^Yb_\stackrel{}{k^{}}^Y^{}+`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{Y,Y^{},\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}}}{}}H_{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},c,d}^{Y,Y^{}}b_\stackrel{}{k}^Yb_\stackrel{}{k^{}}^Y^{}],`$
where the $`H_{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k^{}},c,d}^{Y,Y^{}}`$ are Schrieffer-Wolff amplitudes and $`c,d=\pm `$ denote the two molecular levels, $`\alpha _{c/d}^{()}`$ the associated molecular operators and $`Y,Y^{}`$ the position of the electrons involved in these processes. Due to the molecular nature of the double dot eigenstates, all the amplitudes are finite and composed out of a huge number of contributions with no particular symmetry. The perturbation theory formula for this general case can be found e.g. in Ref. CohenTannoudij,  and is worked out in more detail in Refs. UdoFrank,  and Diplomarbeit, . In eq. (6), we have taken matrix elements in the double-dot eigenbasis only whereas we stick to second-quantized notation in the leads, because this notation readily connects to the formalism used later on.

The stationary density matrix is found using the well-established and controlled Bloch-Redfield theory Agyres . This is a systematic technique for deriving generalized master equations within Born approximation in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I`$, eq. (6), which includes all relevant non-markovian parts. This approach has been shown Hartmann  to be numerically equivalent to formally exact path integral methods for the Spin-Boson model in the weak-coupling limit. The Redfield equations Weiss  for the elements of the reduced density matrix $`\rho `$ in the molecular basis read

$$\dot{\rho }_{nm}(t)=i\omega _{nm}(t)\rho _{nm}(t)\underset{k,l}{}R_{nmkl}\rho _{kl}(t),$$
(7)
where $`\omega _{nm}=(E_nE_m)/\mathrm{}`$ are the appropriate energy splittings and $`R_{nmkl}`$ are the elements of the Redfield tensor. They are composed out of golden rule rates involving $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I`$ from eq. (6). $`n`$, $`m`$, $`k`$ and $`l`$ can be either $`+`$ (molecular excited state) or $``$ (molecular ground state). The $`E`$s are the eigenenergies of the two molecular states. Due to the lack of symmetry, this leads to a huge number of processes contributing to each term Diplomarbeit . We are only interested in stationary solutions here. A full treatment of the simple case with $`\gamma =0`$ can be found in Ref. UdoFrank, .

The current is derived from the standard formula Mahan

$$I(t)=e\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}[\dot{N}_L(t),\stackrel{~}{H}_I(t^{})],$$
(8)
where $`N_L`$ is the particle number operator on the left dot in the interaction representation and the transformed interaction Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_I`$ from eq. (6) is also taken in the interaction picture. Carrying out the integration in equation (8) and rotating back to the Schrödinger picture, we get a time-independent expression for the current $`I`$. Using the stationary occupation probability of the molecular ground ($`\rho _{,\mathrm{st}}`$) or excited state ($`\rho _{++,\mathrm{st}}`$), we obtain for the expectation value of the stationary current

$$I_{\mathrm{st}}=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _{\mathrm{st}}I)=\rho _{++,\mathrm{st}}I_{++}+\rho _{,\mathrm{st}}I_{},$$
(9)
where we find from balancing relaxation processes in the Bloch-Redfield equation, eq. (7)

$$\rho _{++,\mathrm{st}}=\frac{R_{++}}{R_{++}R_{++++}}\rho _{,\mathrm{st}}=\frac{R_{++}}{R_{++}R_{}}.$$
(10)
The current amplitudes $`I_{++}`$ and $`I_{}`$ in eq. (9) are of the same form as the contributions to the Redfield tensor. We emphasize, that the choice of processes from all possibilities is very distinct. As an example, Fig. 2 displays a variety of possible processes in such a double-dot system. Processes of the type displayed in Fig. 2 (a) contribute to the relaxation but do not carry current, (b) shows a process which carries current but does not relax the state, and (c) relaxes and carries current. The phase information of the quantum state is lost in all three pictures of Fig. 2. Consequently, one must not confuse cotunneling rates with relaxation rates.

We now turn to the discussion of the results. All internal energies $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$ and $`\gamma `$ are normalized in units of the bias voltage $`V`$, the stationary current $`I_{\mathrm{st}}`$ in terms of $`I_0=e\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In Fig. 3 the current at fixed bias voltage as a function of the inter-dot coupling is shown. The sign of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$ plays a role, as one can see above, for an intermediate $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$-regime. This effect is more pronounced in $`I(V)`$, see Ref. Diplomarbeit . Close to $`\gamma =0`$, the curves all turn to zero, because at that point the dots are disconnected and no current can flow. However, a number of curves, the ones with $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V<1`$, exhibit an intermediate maximum at low $`\gamma `$ next to a very sharp minimum at $`\gamma =0`$, which sometimes is hardly resolved. At high $`\gamma V`$, the stationary current saturates into a value, which for our parameters turns out to be about $`I_{0,\mathrm{st}}/I_0=7.510^7`$. Remarkably, this is half the value of the current at the aforementioned low-$`\gamma `$-Maximum. This is the central result of this paper.

These regimes can be classified in terms of the level splitting $`2\delta `$Wegewijs : At $`V<2\delta `$, the energy $`V`$ supplied from the leads is only sufficient to use one of the molecular states for transport (elastic cotunneling) whereas at $`V>2\delta `$, both states participate and also inelastic processes contribute, i.e. there is a second current channel, which carries the same contribution of $`I_0`$. The crossover naturally occurs at $`\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}^2}`$, which can only be reached if $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V<1/2`$. As long as $`\gamma `$ is not too low, the coupling to the leads is the limiting element for the current flow. Only if $`\gamma <\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$, the double-dot eigenstates become localized and the inter-dot coupling becomes the current bottleneck. Consequently, associated dips have a half-width of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$ for low temperatures and bias voltages and can thus be extremely narrow. We would like to remark that the notion of transport “channels” is appropriate here, because cotunneling is a coherent transport process.

Fig. 4 shows the dependence of the stationary current on $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V`$. It confirms the interpretation of Fig. 3. The plot is only weakly asymmetric to $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V=0`$. At zero asymmetry, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V=0`$, the condition for charge transport is ideal, $`\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}^2}`$ has its maximum and therefore the current is only governed by the inter-dot coupling $`\gamma /V`$, resulting in a zero-asymmetry maximum.

Still, all three transport regimes can be recognized in Fig. 4. The $`\gamma /V=0`$ curve shows, that the stationary current $`I_{\mathrm{st}}/I_0`$ is exactly zero as expected. For growing, but small values of $`\gamma /V`$, the maximum at $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}/V=0`$ reaches the highest value $`I_{\mathrm{st}}/I_0=2I_{0,\mathrm{st}}/I_0`$ at about $`1.510^6`$ (like in Fig. 3), corresponding to two open transport channels (elastic and inelastic). If we raise $`\gamma /V`$ further, the height of the peak goes down again and saturates at $`I_{\mathrm{st}}/I_0=I_{0,\mathrm{st}}/I_07.510^7`$, corresponding to only the elastic channel being open.

The three transport regimes are summarized in Fig. 5: i) the atomic limit (no transport) $`\gamma <\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}`$, ii) the two-channel case (inelastic cotunneling) $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}<\gamma <\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}^2}`$; and iii) the one-channel case (elastic cotunneling) $`\gamma >\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}\epsilon _{\mathrm{as}}^2}`$.

These conditions show that indeed cotunneling can be used as a tool for investigating the energy spectrum of an undisturbed artificial molecule AlexScience . The cross-over between the elastic and the inelastic cotunneling in dependence of the applied bias voltage has recently been observed Silvano . A similar conclusion was found in Ref. Wegewijs, .

Although the notion of (elastic and inelastic) cotunneling was already introduced very earlyNazarov , its consequences for realistic quantum dot systems have only been discussed very recentlyWegewijs , along with detailed and accurate experiments on small semiconductor quantum dots Silvano ; AlexScience  becoming available. The sharp crossover between elastic and inelastic cotunneling, which we discuss, has been identified in a vertical quantum dotSilvano  by changing the transport voltage. Ref. AlexScience,  studies cotunneling in a parallel double-dot topology, using again cotunneling and the elastic-to-inelastic crossover as a spectroscopic tool and tuning the inter-dot coupling in situ. In both cases, the narrow regime of decoupled dots would not have been accessible through a conductance measurement. Some of the experimental issues have been theoretically addressed in Ref. Wegewijs, . In that case, however, the behavior of a single multilevel dot system was modelled with phenomenological couplings to the leads, whereas we take a realistic model and only by this manage to predict effects which e.g. depend on the serial dot topology of the sample. Note, that parts of the double-dot literature focus on phonon/photon assisted transport (see e.g. Refs. Qin, ; Oosterkamp,  for experiments and Refs. Hazelzet, ; Brandes1,  for theory). Unlike Ref. Juergen, , we concentrate on the Coulomb blockade regime and do not consider cotunneling at resonance. In Ref. Loss, , a different approach to the problem was developed, in which the master equation is carried to second order instead of using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, and a few setups simpler than ours are studied. Our approach does not require the molecule to be artificial, in principle it can be applied to “real” molecules Weber . In contrast to the approach in Ref. Cuevas, , it permits to take into account charging effects, however, the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation is clearly a laborious step for larger systems.

To conclude, we analyzed the stationary coherent cotunneling current $`I_{\mathrm{st}}`$ through a double quantum dot system or artificial molecule. As a function of the inter-dot coupling strength it displays a rich, non-monotonic structure, which enables us to perform “molecular cotunneling spectroscopy”. Strikingly, we have shown that at fixed bias voltage, the current is highest, if the dots are weakly-to-intermediately connected, such that the inter-dot coupling is at least as strong as the coupling to the leads, but the splitting of the molecular wavefunctions is still smaller than the transport voltage.

We thank J. von Delft, J. König, L. Borda, M. Sindel, A.W. Holleitner, A.K. Hüttel and E.M. Höhberger for clarifying discussions. We acknowledge financial support from ARO, Contract-No. P-43385-PH-QC.


text:
# Fourth-order perturbative extension of the single-double excitation coupled-cluster method, Part II: Angular reduction

## 1 Generalities

This e-print serves as an electronic supplement to Ref. \[DE02\]. In that paper we derived fourth-order many-body corrections to matrix elements for univalent atoms. Based on the derived diagrams we proposed next-generation many-body method for calculating atomic properties such as parity-violating amplitudes. Here I carry out the next necessary step required in a practical implementation of this method — angular reduction of the relevant diagrams.

In Ref. \[DE02\] the fourth-order diagrams were classified using coupled-cluster-inspired separation into contributions from $`n`$-particle excitations from the lowest-order wavefunction. It was found that the complete set of fourth-order diagrams involves only connected single, double, and triple excitations and disconnected quadruple excitations. Approximately half of the fourth-order diagrams is not accounted for by the popular coupled-cluster method \[LM86\] truncated at single and double excitations (CCSD). To devise a practical scheme capable of improving accuracies of the existing many-body methods, we proposed to combine direct order-by-order many-body perturbation theory (MBPT) with the truncated CCSD method. This idea is illustrated in Fig. 1: the CCSD method recovers all many-body diagrams up to the third order of MBPT for matrix elements, but misses contributions starting from the fourth order. Such a fusion of (truncated) all-order methods with order-by-order MBPT promises improved accuracy in calculation of parity-violating effects for several practically interesting atoms such as Cs, Fr, and with some modifications to Tl. It is worth noting that based on the derived fourth-order diagrams we also devised a partial summation scheme to all orders of MBPT \[DE02\]. The discussion of that approach is beyond the scope of the present e-print.

We considered a matrix element $`M_{wv}`$ of non-scalar operator $`Z`$ between two states of valence electron $`w`$ and $`v`$. The set of MBPT diagrams complementary to CCSD is entirely due to omitted triple excitations from the reference Hartree-Fock determinant. We separated these additional contributions into three major classes by noting that triples enter the fourth order matrix element $`_{wv}^{(4)}`$ via

1. an indirect effect of triples on single and double excitations in the third-order wavefunction — we denote this class as $`Z_{0\times 3}`$,
2. direct contribution of triples to matrix elements — class $`Z_{1\times 2}`$,
3. correction to normalization – $`Z_{\mathrm{norm}}`$.

Further these classes are broken into subclasses based on the nature of triples, so that

$`\left(_{wv}^{(4)}\right)_{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{CCSD}}=Z_{1\times 2}(T_v)+Z_{1\times 2}(T_c)+`$
$`Z_{0\times 3}(S_v[T_v])+Z_{0\times 3}(D_v[T_v])+Z_{0\times 3}(S_c[T_c])+Z_{0\times 3}(D_v[T_c])+`$
$`Z_{\mathrm{norm}}(T_v).`$
Here we distinguished between valence ($`T_v`$) and core ($`T_c`$) triples and introduced a similar notation for singles ($`S`$) and doubles ($`D`$). Notation like $`S_v[T_c]`$ stands for an effect of second-order core triples ($`T_c`$) on third-order valence singles $`S_v`$. The reader is referred to Ref. \[DE02\] for further details and discussion. Representative diagrams are shown in Fig. 2 and algebraic expressions are tabulated in the Appendix of Ref. \[DE02\].

### 1.1 Sample contribution and notation

Here is a sample fourth-order term derived in Ref. \[DE02\]

$$Z_{0\times 3}(S_c[T_c])=\underset{abcmnr}{}\frac{z_{bv}\stackrel{~}{g}_{acnr}g_{nrcm}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mwab}}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _b)(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+7\mathrm{additional}\mathrm{terms}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{s}.$$
(2)
In energy denominators, abbreviation $`\epsilon _{xy\mathrm{}z}`$ stands for $`\epsilon _x+\epsilon _y+\mathrm{}\epsilon _z`$, with $`\epsilon _x`$ being single-particle Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) energy. Further, $`g_{ijlk}`$ are matrix elements of Coulomb interaction in the basis of DHF orbitals $`u_i(𝐫)`$

$$g_{ijkl}=u_i^{}\left(𝐫\right)u_j^{}\left(𝐫^{}\right)\frac{1}{\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|}u_k\left(𝐫\right)u_l\left(𝐫^{}\right)d^3rd^3r^{}.$$
(3)
The quantities $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ijlk}`$ are antisymmetric combinations $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ijlk}=g_{ijlk}g_{ijkl}`$. The summation is over single-particle DHF states, labelled according to the following convention: core orbitals are enumerated by letters $`a,b,c,d`$, complementary excited states are labelled by $`m,n,r,s`$, and valence orbitals are denoted by $`v`$ and $`w`$. Finally matrix elements of operator $`\widehat{Z}`$ in the DHF basis are denoted $`z_{ij}`$ and the $`\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{s}.`$ contribution is to be calculated by taking the hermitian conjugate of all preceding terms and swapping labels $`v`$ and $`w`$.

### 1.2 Angular reduction

Having introduced building blocks of a many-body contribution to matrix elements, now we proceed to angular reduction, which means carrying out a summation over magnetic quantum numbers in a closed form.

One-particle DHF orbital may be conventionally represented as

$$u(𝐫)=\frac{1}{r}\left(\begin{array}{c}iP_{n\kappa }(r)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\kappa m}(\widehat{r})\\ Q_{n\kappa }(r)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\kappa m}(\widehat{r})\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are large and small radial components, $`\kappa =(lj)\left(2j+1\right)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\kappa m}`$ is the spherical spinor. Then in Eq. (2) a summation over an orbital $`i`$ encapsulates summation over principal quantum number $`n_i`$, angular momentum $`j_i`$ (or $`\kappa _i`$), and magnetic quantum numbers $`m_i`$.

The Wigner-Eckart (WE) theorem \[Edm85\] allows to “peel off” $`m`$-dependence of various matrix elements. WE theorem states that if an operator $`Z_Q^{(K)}`$ is the $`Q^{\mathrm{th}}`$ component of an irreducible tensor operator of rank $`K`$, then the matrix element $`n_1j_1m_1|Z_M^{(K)}|n_2j_2m_2`$ may be expressed as

$$n_1j_1m_1|Z_Q^{(K)}|n_2j_2m_2=\left(1\right)^{j_1m_1}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& K& j_2\\ m_1& Q& m_2\end{array}\right)n_1j_1Z^{(K)}n_2j_2,$$
(5)
where $`nj|Z^{(K)}|n^{}j^{}`$ is a reduced matrix element. Using the WE theorem and expansion of $`1/|𝐫𝐫^{}|`$ into Legendre polynomials, the Coulomb matrix element (3) is traditionally represented as

$$g_{abcd}=\underset{LM}{}\left(1\right)^{LM}\left(1\right)^{j_am_a}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_a& L& j_c\\ m_a& M& m_c\end{array}\right)\left(1\right)^{j_bm_b}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_b& L& j_d\\ m_b& M& m_d\end{array}\right)X_L(abcd),$$
(6)
where Coulomb integral

$$X_L(abcd)=(1)^L\kappa _aC^{\left(L\right)}\kappa _c\kappa _bC^{\left(L\right)}\kappa _dR_L(abcd)$$

is defined in terms of reduced matrix element of normalized spherical harmonics $`C^{(L)}`$ \[VMK88\] and a Slater integral expressed in terms of radial components of single-particle orbitals

$$R_L(abcd)=_0^{\mathrm{}}dr_1[P_a(r_1)P_c(r_1)+Q_a(r_1)Q_c(r_1)]_0^{\mathrm{}}dr_2\frac{r_<^L}{r_>^{L+1}}[P_b(r_2)P_d(r_2)+Q_b(r_2)Q_d(r_2)$$

with $`r_<=\mathrm{min}(r_1,r_2)`$ and $`r_>=\mathrm{max}(r_1,r_2)`$. The anti-symmetrized combinations $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{abcd}=g_{abcd}g_{abdc}`$ are reduced similar to $`g_{abcd}`$ , except in Eq.(6) $`X_L(abcd)`$ is replaced with

$$Z_L(abcd)=X_L(abcd)+[L]\underset{L^{}}{}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}b& d& k\\ a& c& k^{}\end{array}\right\}X_L^{}(bacd).$$

Here $`[L]=2L+1`$. It is worth emphasizing that both $`Z_L(abcd)`$ and $`X_L(abcd)`$ do not depend on magnetic quantum numbers of single-particle states.

Angular reduction, i.e. summation over magnetic quantum numbers of atomic single-particle orbitals in many-body diagrams $`_{wv}`$ such as Eq.(2) , leads to many-body correction to reduced matrix elements, $`\overline{M}_{wv}`$, as prescribed by the WE theorem (5)

$$_{wv}=\left(1\right)^{j_wm_w}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_w& K& j_v\\ m_w& Q& m_v\end{array}\right)\overline{M}_{wv},$$
(7)
where $`K`$ and $`Q`$ are the rank and component of the underlying one-particle operator $`Z`$. In symbolic calculations it is more convenient to invert this relation and compute

$$\overline{M}_{wv}=\underset{m_wm_vQ}{}\left(1\right)^{j_wm_w}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_w& K& j_v\\ m_w& Q& m_v\end{array}\right)_{wv}.$$

To derive many-body diagrams and carry out angular reduction we developed a symbolic tool based on Mathematica \[Wol99\] and publicly available angular reduction routine \[Tak92\]. This package allows to work with MBPT expressions in an interactive regime. For example, all the formulae tabulated in the Section 2 have been generated automatically. Without the help of symbolic tools, the sheer number of diagrams in the fourth order of MBPT would have made the traditional “pencil-and-paper” approach unmanageable and error-prone. The correctness of the developed code has been verified by repeating results of angular reduction for the third-order corrections to matrix elements, tabulated by Johnson, Liu, and Sapirstein \[JLS96\].

The results of the angular reduction is given in Section 2. In addition to the Coulomb matrix elements $`X_L(abcd)`$ and $`X_L(abcd)`$ already introduced, we used the following notation. Reduced matrix elements of a non-scalar one-particle operator $`Z`$ are denoted as $`izj`$, $`K`$ is the rank of the operator, $`(1)^{a+\mathrm{}}=(1)^{j_a+\mathrm{}}`$, $`\delta _\kappa (a,b)=\delta _{\kappa _a,\kappa _b}`$, and $`[a]=2j_a+1`$.

As to the angular reduction of $`\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{s}.`$ terms, it is given simply by adding a phase factor and swapping labels $`w`$ and $`v`$ in the main contribution $`M_{wv}`$

$$\overline{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{s}.\left(M_{wv}\right)}=(1)^{wv}\overline{M}_{wv}(wv),$$
(8)
provided reduced matrix element of one-particle operator satisfies

$$azb=(1)^{ab}bza.$$
(9)
The relation (8) allows us to carry out angular reduction and code only half of the diagrams, which is of a great utility considering a couple of hundreds of diagrams in the fourth order MBPT. The requirement (9) is not restrictive, it holds for all practically important matrix elements: non-retarded electric and magnetic multipoles, hyperfine, and parity-violating matrix elements.

To reiterate, in this e-print we have tabulated angularly reduced fourth-order corrections to matrix elements for univalent atoms. Due to overwhelmingly large number of diagrams we focused on the diagrams complementary to those included in the coupled cluster method truncated at single and double excitations. The derivation of the diagrams and angular reduction has been carried out with the help of symbolic algebra software. In the future we plan to extend the suite to automatically generate Fortran code for these contributions and to perform numerical evaluations.

I would like to thank W.R. Johnson, W.F. Perger, and K. Takada for discussions. This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

## 2 Formulae

### 2.1 $`Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_c\right)`$

$$Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_c\right)=$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+L_2rvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ b& L_2& L_1\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& K& L_2\\ a& m& n\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(cbrv)Z_{L_1}(rncm)Z_{L_2}(mwab)azn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rv}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_1mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_1& m\\ b& K& v\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mnba)Z_{L_1}(cbrv)Z_{L_1}(rwcm)azn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rv}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1nvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& w& v\\ c& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& K& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bcnv)Z_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_3}(wrcm)azr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,w)\delta _\kappa (b,m)\left(1\right)^{c+L_3n+r+w}X_{L_1}(nrcm)Z_{L_1}(cbnr)Z_{L_3}(mwab)azv}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[b][L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,w)\left(1\right)^{b+c+L_2+mnr+w}Z_{L_1}(bcnr)Z_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(rwcm)azv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{bmvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ d& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& K& L_1\\ a& c& n\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awcd)Z_K(mnba)Z_{L_2}(cdnv)bzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K][v]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,v)\left(1\right)^{bc+d+Kmnv}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_K(mwba)Z_{L_1}(dcnv)bzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_3v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& v& n\\ d& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& n\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_{L_2}(cdmv)Z_{L_3}(mwab)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mv}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& w\\ d& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awcd)X_{L_2}(mnab)Z_{L_3}(cdmn)bzv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[w]}}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left(1\right)^{ac+dn}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_0(mwab)Z_{L_1}(cdmn)bzv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+L_1nvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ d& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(awcd)Z_{L_2}(bdnv)Z_{L_2}(mnab)czm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_2]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{d+K+L_1nvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_3& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& w& v\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(ancd)Z_{L_1}(dbnv)Z_{L_3}(mwab)czm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+cd+L_2mn}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& w& K\\ a& d& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_K(andc)Z_{L_2}(bdmv)Z_{L_2}(mwba)czn}{(\epsilon _{mv}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_2]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{cnvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)Z_K(nrcm)Z_{L_2}(abrv)czn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rv}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_3v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& v& n\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& n\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(bavr)Z_{L_3}(rwmc)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rv}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K][v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+Knrv}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwcm)Z_{L_1}(banv)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nv}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,w)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& w\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)X_{L_2}(nrcm)Z_{L_3}(banr)czv}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,d)\delta _\kappa (c,w)\left(1\right)^{b+L_2+mnw}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_1}(bdnm)Z_{L_2}(awcd)czv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,w)\left(1\right)^{a+b+d+L_1mnw}Z_{L_1}(ancd)Z_{L_1}(mwba)Z_{L_2}(bdmn)czv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_1]^2}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,w)\delta _\kappa (m,r)\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_3n+w}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_1}(banr)Z_{L_3}(rwcm)czv}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1][m]}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.2 $`Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_v^h\right)`$

$$Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_v^h\right)=$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+K+L_3+v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L_3\\ b& m& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& v& r\\ c& L_2& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& c\\ a& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(nrmv)Z_{L_2}(cbrn)Z_{L_3}(wmab)azc}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,m)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Kn+r}X_{L_1}(nrbm)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(bcnr)azc}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[c][L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1r+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& K\\ a& c& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_1\\ K& L_2& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bcrn)Z_{L_1}(rwbm)Z_{L_2}(nmav)azc}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+L_1+mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& m& K\\ a& c& L_1\end{array}\right\}Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_1}(bcnr)Z_{L_1}(mnab)azc}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{anvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& K\\ b& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& v& K\\ L_1& L_2& s\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(rsmv)Z_K(mnba)Z_{L_2}(bwrs)azn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K][w]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,w)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Knr+s+w}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_K(mnva)Z_{L_1}(bwrs)azn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1s+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& K& L_2\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}n& w& L_1\\ K& L_2& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bwsn)Z_{L_1}(srbm)Z_{L_2}(mnav)azr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+L_3n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& K& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s& v& L_3\\ K& L_1& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bwns)Z_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_3}(rsmv)azr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{\left(1\right)^{4K}}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& K\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_1& K\\ b& c& n\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(nrbm)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_2}(acrn)bzc}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ac})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+L_3n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_3& K\\ b& c& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_3\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(acnr)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_3}(rwbm)bzc}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ac})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3n+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L_3\\ a& m& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& w& r\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& b\\ K& n& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_{L_2}(awsr)Z_{L_3}(mnav)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{aw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_1+mnr+s}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& w& v\\ L_1& m& s\end{array}\right\}Z_K(rsbm)Z_{L_1}(awns)Z_{L_1}(nmav)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{aw})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_1m+nr+s}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}n& L_1& m\\ a& K& s\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(bars)Z_{L_1}(rnbm)szn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3n+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& s& w\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& s\\ K& n& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)Z_{L_2}(basr)Z_{L_3}(rnmv)szn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+K+L_1+L_2mnr+s}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& w& s\\ K& n& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_2& s\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bars)Z_{L_1}(rwbm)Z_{L_2}(mnav)szn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& s& n\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_2}(abrs)szn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+K+L_1n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_1& L_3\\ b& r& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_3\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(abns)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_3}(rwbm)szr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,s)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Kn+r}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_1}(bans)szr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1][m]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& s& v\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)X_{L_2}(rsmv)Z_{L_3}(abrs)wzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left(1\right)^{a+br+s}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_0(mnav)Z_{L_1}(bars)wzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rs}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_2+mns+v}Z_{L_1}(abns)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_2}(srbm)wzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,s)\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_3n+v}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_1}(bans)Z_{L_3}(rsmv)wzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{ns}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1][m]}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.3 $`Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_v^p\right)`$

$$Z_{1\times 2}\left(T_v^p\right)=$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_2v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& n& v\\ d& L_2& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& L_2\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& d\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnav)Z_{L_2}(awcb)Z_{L_3}(cdmn)bzd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& K\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& K\\ b& d& n\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_3}(cdmn)bzd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{ab+cd+K+L_1+L_2mn}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}d& L_2& v\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& w& K\\ b& d& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(cdnm)Z_{L_1}(nacv)Z_{L_2}(mwab)bzd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{ab+cd+L_1+mn}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}d& m& L_1\\ a& b& K\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(anbc)Z_{L_1}(cdnm)bzd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_1mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_1& n\\ a& K& v\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mnba)Z_{L_1}(cwrn)Z_{L_1}(racv)bzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{cw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+L_3r+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_3& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}n& v& L_3\\ K& L_1& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(arbc)Z_{L_1}(cwrn)Z_{L_3}(mnav)bzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{cw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{brvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& K\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& n& L_3\\ L_1& K& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnav)Z_K(arcb)Z_{L_3}(cwmn)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_2r+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& w& b\\ K& r& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& L_2\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& n\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(arcv)Z_{L_3}(cwmn)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{cw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,d)\left(1\right)^{b+c+K+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_1}(bdnm)czd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1m+vw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_1& L_3\\ a& v& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_3& K\\ c& d& n\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bdmn)Z_{L_1}(mwba)Z_{L_3}(nacv)czd}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bd})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_2n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& w& L_2\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(arcv)Z_{L_2}(bwnr)Z_{L_2}(mnab)czm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K][w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,w)\left(1\right)^{b+c+K+mnr+w}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(arvc)Z_{L_1}(bwnm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bw})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+L_2+mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& m& K\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_2}(bcnr)Z_{L_2}(mnab)rzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3m+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& b& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& r& w\\ c& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& r\\ K& m& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awbc)Z_{L_2}(cbrn)Z_{L_3}(nmav)rzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_1n+vw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& v& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& r& m\\ b& L_2& L_1\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(cbnr)Z_{L_1}(nacv)Z_{L_2}(mwba)rzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,r)\left(1\right)^{b+c+K+mn}X_{L_1}(anbc)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(cbnr)rzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+K+L_1+L_2mn+r}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& w& r\\ K& n& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& w& L_1\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(ancv)Z_{L_2}(bcmr)Z_{L_2}(mwba)rzn}{(\epsilon _{mr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& r& n\\ c& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& K& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(anbc)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_2}(bcmr)rzn}{(\epsilon _{mr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_2nrv}Z_{L_1}(bcnr)Z_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(racv)wzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,n)\delta _\kappa (m,v)\left(1\right)^{b+c+L_3r+v}X_{L_1}(arbc)Z_{L_1}(bcnr)Z_{L_3}(mnav)wzm}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& v\\ c& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(arbc)X_{L_2}(mnav)Z_{L_3}(bcmn)wzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,c)\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(arcv)Z_{L_1}(bcnm)wzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.4 $`Z_{0\times 3}\left(S_v[T_v]\right)`$

$$Z_{0\times 3}\left(S_v[T_v]\right)=$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& s& v\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)X_{L_2}(rsmv)Z_{L_3}(abrs)wzn}{\left(\epsilon _n\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_2mrv}Z_{L_1}(bcmr)Z_{L_1}(mnba)Z_{L_2}(racv)wzn}{\left(\epsilon _n\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left(1\right)^{a+br+s}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_0(mnav)Z_{L_1}(bars)wzn}{\left(\epsilon _n\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (n,v)\left(1\right)^{ab+cr}X_{L_1}(arbc)Z_0(mnav)Z_{L_1}(bcmr)wzn}{\left(\epsilon _n\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& v\\ c& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(arbc)X_{L_2}(mnav)Z_{L_3}(bcmn)wzr}{\left(\epsilon _r\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,c)\delta _\kappa (r,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(arcv)Z_{L_1}(bcnm)wzr}{\left(\epsilon _r\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (s,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_2+mnr+v}Z_{L_1}(abnr)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_2}(rsbm)wzs}{\left(\epsilon _s\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,r)\delta _\kappa (s,v)\left(1\right)^{a+bmn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(rsmv)Z_{L_1}(banr)wzs}{\left(\epsilon _s\epsilon _v\right)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]\sqrt{[m]}}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.5 $`Z_{0\times 3}\left(S_c[T_c]\right)`$

$$Z_{0\times 3}\left(S_c[T_c]\right)=$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& w\\ d& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awcd)X_{L_2}(mnab)Z_{L_3}(cdmn)bzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _b)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[w]}}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left(1\right)^{a+cn+r}X_{L_1}(nrcm)Z_0(mwab)Z_{L_1}(canr)bzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _b)(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[w]}}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left(1\right)^{ac+dn}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_0(mwab)Z_{L_1}(cdmn)bzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _b)(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (b,w)\left(1\right)^{a+c+L_2+mnr+w}Z_{L_1}(acnr)Z_{L_1}(nmab)Z_{L_2}(rwcm)bzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _b)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,w)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& w\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)X_{L_2}(nrcm)Z_{L_3}(banr)czv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _c)(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,w)\delta _\kappa (m,r)\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_3n+w}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_1}(banr)Z_{L_3}(rwcm)czv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _c)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1][m]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[w]}}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,c)\delta _\kappa (d,w)\left(1\right)^{a+b+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(awcd)Z_{L_1}(bcnm)dzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _d)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[w]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (d,w)\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_2mnw}Z_{L_1}(bcmn)Z_{L_1}(mwba)Z_{L_2}(nacd)dzv}{(\epsilon _w\epsilon _d)(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.6 $`Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_c]\right)`$

$$Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_c]\right)=$$

$$\frac{1}{[K][v]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,v)\left(1\right)^{bc+d+Kmnv}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_K(mwba)Z_{L_1}(dcnv)bzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{bnvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ d& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& K& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awcd)Z_K(mnab)Z_{L_2}(cdmv)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_3v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& v& n\\ d& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& n\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(ancd)Z_{L_2}(cdmv)Z_{L_3}(mwab)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_1mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_1& m\\ a& K& v\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mnab)Z_{L_1}(carv)Z_{L_1}(rwcm)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{ab+c+K+L_1+L_2mn+r}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& L_2& v\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& r\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(canv)Z_{L_1}(nrcm)Z_{L_2}(mwab)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+K+L_1nvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& w& v\\ c& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& K& L_1\\ b& m& r\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(acnv)Z_{L_1}(nmab)Z_{L_3}(wrcm)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_3v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& v& n\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& n\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(bavr)Z_{L_3}(rwmc)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{crvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)Z_K(nrmc)Z_{L_2}(abnv)czr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K][v]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,v)\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+Knrv}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwcm)Z_{L_1}(banv)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abc})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_1nvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& d& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& v& w\\ b& L_2& L_1\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(cbnv)Z_{L_1}(nacd)Z_{L_2}(mwab)dzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bcd+K+L_1+L_2m+n}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_1& n\\ d& K& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& n& L_1\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(awcd)Z_{L_2}(bcmv)Z_{L_2}(mnba)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_2]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+d+L_2mn}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& w& K\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_K(ancd)Z_{L_2}(bcmv)Z_{L_2}(mwba)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcd})[L_2]}.+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.7 $`Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_v^h]\right)`$

$$Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_v^h]\right)=$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+c+L_1mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_1& m\\ a& K& v\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mnab)Z_{L_1}(cwrm)Z_{L_1}(racv)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& K\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& r& n\\ b& L_1& K\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_3}(crmn)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_2r+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& w& b\\ K& r& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& L_2\\ a& c& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& n\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_{L_2}(arcv)Z_{L_3}(cwmn)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{ab+c+K+L_1+L_2mn+r}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& L_2& v\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& r\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(crnm)Z_{L_1}(nacv)Z_{L_2}(mwab)bzr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_2m+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& c& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& w& L_2\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(arcv)Z_{L_2}(bwmr)Z_{L_2}(mnba)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+K+L_1+L_2m+nr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& n\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_2& c\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bwrm)Z_{L_1}(rabc)Z_{L_2}(mnav)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_2+v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& L_2\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& n& L_3\\ L_1& L_2& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& r\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnav)Z_{L_2}(awbc)Z_{L_3}(brmn)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,r)\left(1\right)^{b+c+K+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_1}(brnm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{crvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_1& K\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& n& L_3\\ L_1& K& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnav)Z_K(arbc)Z_{L_3}(bwmn)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K][w]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,w)\left(1\right)^{b+c+K+mnr+w}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(arvc)Z_{L_1}(bwnm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnr}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1m+vw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_1& L_3\\ a& v& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& n& r\\ c& K& L_3\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(brmn)Z_{L_1}(mwba)Z_{L_3}(nacv)czr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+L_1+mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& m& L_1\\ a& c& K\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(brnm)Z_{L_1}(nabc)czr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{c+K+L_1n+vw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_3& L_1\\ a& v& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_3& L_1\\ b& d& m\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(anvc)Z_{L_1}(bcdn)Z_{L_3}(mwba)dzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,d)\left(1\right)^{b+c+Kmn}X_{L_1}(anbc)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(bcdn)dzm}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[a][L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bcd+L_2m+n}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}d& n& K\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}Z_K(awcv)Z_{L_2}(bcmd)Z_{L_2}(mnba)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3+n+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& d& w\\ c& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& n\\ d& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(awbc)Z_{L_2}(bcmd)Z_{L_3}(nmva)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bcd+K+L_1+L_2m+n}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}d& w& L_1\\ a& c& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_1& n\\ d& K& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(ancv)Z_{L_2}(bcmd)Z_{L_2}(mwba)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})[L_2]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcdmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_1& L_2\\ c& d& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& K& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(anbc)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_2}(cbdm)dzn}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{dv})(\epsilon _{mnw}\epsilon _{bcv})}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.8 $`Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_v^p]\right)`$

$$Z_{0\times 3}\left(D_v[T_v^p]\right)=$$

$$\frac{1}{[K][w]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,w)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Knr+s+w}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_K(mnva)Z_{L_1}(bwrs)azn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,s)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Kn+r}X_{L_1}(nrbm)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(bsnr)azs}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1][m]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1r+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& K& L_2\\ a& m& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}n& w& L_1\\ K& L_2& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bwrn)Z_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_{L_2}(mnav)azs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_1r+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& K& L_2\\ a& n& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_1\\ K& L_2& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(bsrn)Z_{L_1}(rwbm)Z_{L_2}(nmav)azs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{bnvw}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& K\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& v& K\\ L_1& L_2& s\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(rsmv)Z_K(mnab)Z_{L_2}(awrs)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3n+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L_3\\ a& m& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& w& r\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& b\\ K& n& v\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(rsbm)Z_{L_2}(awsr)Z_{L_3}(mnav)bzn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{b+K+L_3v}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L_3\\ a& m& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}s& v& L_3\\ L_1& L_2& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& s\\ b& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(nrmv)Z_{L_2}(asnr)Z_{L_3}(mwab)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& K\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& s& n\\ b& L_1& K\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(nrbm)Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_2}(asrn)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_1+mn+rs}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& w& v\\ L_1& m& r\end{array}\right\}Z_K(rsmb)Z_{L_1}(awnr)Z_{L_1}(nmav)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+K+L_1+L_3mn+rs}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& w& b\\ K& s& v\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& L_3& m\\ b& L_1& w\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(awnr)Z_{L_1}(nmab)Z_{L_3}(rsmv)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrs}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+L_3n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& K& L_3\\ b& r& s\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_3\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(asnr)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_3}(rwbm)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abmnrs}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_1mn+r+s}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& K& m\\ b& L_1& s\end{array}\right\}Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_1}(asnr)Z_{L_1}(nmab)bzs}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{sw}\epsilon _{bv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+K+L_1+L_2m+nr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_2& n\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}w& L_2& c\\ a& L_1& m\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(abcr)Z_{L_1}(rwbm)Z_{L_2}(mnav)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_1& L_2\\ b& c& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& r\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_2}(abrc)czn}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[K]}\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+L_1+mnr}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}r& m& L_1\\ a& c& K\end{array}\right\}Z_K(mwav)Z_{L_1}(abcn)Z_{L_1}(nrbm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{K+L_3+r+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& c& w\\ b& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& m& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}v& L_3& r\\ c& K& w\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mwab)Z_{L_2}(bacn)Z_{L_3}(rnvm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mw}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})}+$$

$$\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_3}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+K+L_1n+v+w}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}K& L_3& L_1\\ b& c& r\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}m& w& L_3\\ K& L_1& v\end{array}\right\}Z_{L_1}(abnc)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_3}(rwbm)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[K]}\right)\underset{abcmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (c,m)\left(1\right)^{a+b+Knr}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_K(rwmv)Z_{L_1}(abcn)czr}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{rw}\epsilon _{cv})(\epsilon _{nrw}\epsilon _{abv})[c][L_1]}+$$

$$\overline{h.c.s.}$$

### 2.9 Normalization correction

Finally, the angular reduction of normalization correction due to valence triple excitations is given by

$$Z_{\mathrm{norm}}(T_v)=\frac{1}{2}\left(N_v^{(3)}(T_v)+N_w^{(3)}(T_v)\right)wzv,$$

with

$$\frac{1}{2}N_v^{(3)}\left(T_v\right)=$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& L_3& L_1\\ a& m& n\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& r& v\\ b& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(mvab)X_{L_2}(nrmv)Z_{L_3}(abnr)}{(\epsilon _{mv}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})^2}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abcmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2L_3}{}\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_2& n& v\\ c& L_1& L_3\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_2& L_1\\ a& b& m\end{array}\right\}X_{L_1}(avbc)X_{L_2}(mnav)Z_{L_3}(bcmn)}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abcmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,c)\left(1\right)^{a+b+mn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(avcv)Z_{L_1}(bcnm)}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})^2\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{[v]}\underset{abcmn}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+bc+L_1m+nv}Z_{L_1}(anvc)Z_{L_1}(mvba)Z_{L_2}(bcmn)}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})^2(\epsilon _{mv}\epsilon _{ab})[L_1]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\left(1\right)^{a+bn+r}X_{L_1}(nrbm)Z_0(mvav)Z_{L_1}(banr)}{(\epsilon _m\epsilon _a)(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})^2\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abcmn}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (a,m)\left(1\right)^{ab+cn}X_{L_1}(anbc)Z_0(mvav)Z_{L_1}(bcmn)}{(\epsilon _m\epsilon _a)(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{bc})^2\sqrt{[a]}[L_1]}+$$

$$\left(\frac{1}{[v]}\right)\underset{abmnr}{}\underset{L_1L_2}{}\frac{\left(1\right)^{a+b+L_2+mnrv}Z_{L_1}(abnr)Z_{L_1}(nmav)Z_{L_2}(rvbm)}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{av})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})^2[L_2]^2}+$$

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{[v]}}\underset{abmnr}{}\underset{L_1}{}\frac{\delta _\kappa (m,r)\left(1\right)^{a+bmn}X_{L_1}(mnab)Z_0(rvmv)Z_{L_1}(banr)}{(\epsilon _{mn}\epsilon _{ab})(\epsilon _{nr}\epsilon _{ab})^2[L_1]\sqrt{[m]}}.$$