format: text

text:
# 1 Sketch of the COSY-TOF spectrometer.

Study of the reaction $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}\pi ^0`$ within 10 MeV above the threshold

COSY-TOF collaboration

S. AbdEl Samade, R. Bilgerd, A. Böhmb, K.-Th. Brinkmannb, H. Clementd, S. Dshemuchadsef, W. Eyrichc, D. Filgese, H. Freieslebenb, M. Fritschc, R. Geyere, D. Hesselbarthe, B. Jakobb, L. Karschb, K. Kiliane, H. Kocha, J. Kressd, E. Kuhlmannb# , S. Marwinskie, P. Michelf, K. Möllerf, H.P. Morsche, L. Naumannf, M. Richterb, E. Roderburge, M. Roggee, A. Schamlottf, M. Schmitze, P. Schönmeierb, W. Schroederc, M. Schulte-Wissermannb, M. Steinkea, F. Stinzingc, G.Y. Sunb, G.J. Wagnerd, M. Wagnerc, A. Wilmsa, S. Wirthc

a Institut für Experimentalphysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
b Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
c Physikalisches Institut, Universität Erlangen, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
d Physikalisches Institut, Universität Tübingen, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany
e Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany
f Institut für Kern- und Hadronenphysik, Forschungszentrum Rossendorf, D-01314 Dresden, Germany

April 25, 2003

Abstract

Kinematically complete measurements of the $`pppp\pi ^0`$ reaction were performed for beam energies in the range $`292298`$MeV. We detected both protons in coincidence by using the large acceptance COSY-TOF spectrometer and an external proton beam at COSY-Jülich; thus we measured total and differential cross sections and energy distributions. A strong enhancement was observed in the Dalitz plots due to the final state interaction between the two outgoing protons; the data are well reproduced by Monte Carlo simulations using a standard scattering length of $`a_0`$=-7.83 fm and effective range of $`r_0`$=2.8 fm. Our measured total cross sections are roughly $`50\%`$ larger than those of recent internal target experiments at IUCF and CELSIUS. This discrepancy may be due to the final state interaction pushing some events into the very small-angle region which is almost inaccessible to an internal target experiment. In the angular distributions we found only very slight deviations from isotropy. The analysis of our momentum distributions yielded a small fraction of $`5\pm 5\%`$ for Ps or Pp wave contributions.

PACS numbers: 13.75.Cs, 25.10.+s, 25.40.Ep, 29.20.Dh

$`\mathrm{\#}`$ corresponding author, e.kuhlmann@fz-juelich.de

I. Introduction

The last decade saw a renaissance of near-threshold pion producing reaction studies in nucleon-nucleon (NN) collisions. With the advent of medium-energy accelerators in Bloomington/USA (IUCF), Uppsala/Sweden (CELSIUS), and Jülich/Germany (COSY) a wealth of high precision data on total and differential cross sections as well as polarization observables was measured for the reactions $`pppp\pi ^0`$ $`[`$ 1-6 $`]`$, $`pppn\pi ^+`$ $`[`$ 7-9 $`]`$ and $`ppd\pi ^+`$ $`[`$ 10-11 $`]`$, which in turn induced a flurry of theoretical activity $`[`$ 12-18 $`]`$. So far, good agreement is found in the theoretical description of the reactions $`ppd\pi ^+`$ and $`pppn\pi ^+`$, larger discrepancies are observed for the $`pppp\pi ^0`$ reaction. Soon after publication of the near-threshold data on neutral pion production it was recognized that the $`pp\pi ^0`$ reaction near threshold is sensitive to short-range mechanisms in the NN-system. Since the main pion exchange term, which dominates the charged pion producing channels, is isospin-forbidden, Lee and Riska proposed to counter this shortfall by the additional consideration of pair diagrams with an exchanged heavy meson ($`\sigma ,\omega `$) . Likewise the role of pion-rescattering only then was treated with more concern, but also in a somewhat controversial manner, since field theoretical models and chiral perturbation theories found different relative signs in the $`\pi `$-exchange amplitude with respect to the direct (Born) term , , . Attempts have been pursued to additionally include $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ isobar and $`S_{11}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ nucleon resonance excitations $`[`$ 15-17 $`]`$. To date, calculations in the framework of the Jülich meson exchange model , , which incorporate all the basic terms like heavy meson exchange (HME), delta resonance and off shell effects as well as realistic final-state interactions, yield the best results; with the exception of the strength parameter of the HME term the model needs no adjustable parameters.

Close to threshold only a few partial waves have to be considered with Ss, Sp, Ps and Pp being the leading ones, whereas the role of $`l=2`$ contributions (Sd and Ds) is still under debate. Here the Rosenfeld notation $`L_pl_q`$ has been used  with $`L_p`$ being the orbital angular momentum of the NN-pair, $`l_q`$ that of the pion with respect to this pair. In the $`pp\pi ^0`$ reaction the partial wave Sp which apart from Ss governs the isoscalar reaction channels $`d\pi ^+`$ and $`pn\pi ^+`$, is forbidden by conservation laws. As a result purely isotropic angular distributions are found for the $`pp\pi ^0`$ reaction in the region up to 10 MeV above threshold . Also, sizeable analyzing powers are only observed for this reaction for excess energies Q higher than 16 MeV  which follows from the fact that interference effects are only possible between amplitudes (Ps, Pp) on the one hand or (Ss,Sd,Ds) on the other. Except for Ss, however, the magnitude of all these amplitudes is negligibly small up to Q =16 MeV. For comparison, angular distributions as well as analyzing powers extracted from a study of the $`\pi ^+`$-producing reactions show clear evidence for the presence of Sp, and hence $`l=1`$ contributions at energies as low as 2 MeV above threshold $`[`$ 10-11 $`]`$.

Measurements very close to threshold, where all escaping particles are confined to a narrow cone around the beam axis, require a perfectly matched detector system which has to cover as much of the available phase space as possible in order to keep necessary acceptance corrections to a minimum. In Jülich, the COSY-TOF spectrometer, a scintillator hodoscope of cylindrical shape with full $`\varphi `$-symmetry fulfills these requirements to a very large extent. Charged particles are detected at polar angles as close as one degree to the beam. In the past we have used this spectrometer in meson- and hyperon-production studies and pp bremsstrahlung experiments. Parallel to the analysis of the bremsstrahlung reaction , data obtained simultaneously for $`pppp\pi ^0`$ were analysed as a cross check. We systematically found larger cross sections than given in , . Since the results we deduced from the data for the concurring charged $`\pi `$-producing reactions agreed nicely with the published values , , , whereas the cross sections for $`\pi ^0`$-production remained high, we decided to perform a second experiment to clarify that matter.

In this paper we will present data from a kinematically complete measurement of the reaction $`pppp\pi ^0`$ for three energies in the range 292 - 298 MeV, corresponding to beam momenta of 796-805 MeV/c. Total cross sections as well as angular and energy distributions will be shown and compared to Monte Carlo simulations which are based on phase space distributed events that are modified by the final-state interaction (FSI). Results of the concurring reactions $`ppd\pi ^+`$ and $`pppn\pi ^+`$ which were obtained in parallel will only be given to underline the performance of the spectrometer and to prove the consistency of the analysis. Apart from the excess energy Q we will also use the dimensionless parameter $`\eta `$ for labelling energies above threshold defined as $`\eta =q_{max}/m_\pi `$ with $`q`$ being the CM-momentum of the pion and $`m_\pi `$ its mass. With $`p`$ we denote the CM-momentum of one proton in the two-proton subsystem. The angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p`$ (in the CM-system) are taken with respect to the beam. The momenta $`q`$ and $`p`$ are linked by energy conservation via $`\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+q^2}+\sqrt{M_{pp}^2+q^2}`$ and $`M_{pp}^2=4(m_p^2+p^2)`$ where $`s`$ is the square of the total CM energy and $`M_{pp}`$ the invariant mass of the two protons.

II. Experimental Procedure

A. Apparatus

The experiment was carried out with the time-of-flight spectrometer COSY-TOF   set up at an external beamline of the 2.5 GeV proton synchrotron COSY at Jülich/Germany. The goal was to study simultaneously and with the same spectrometer all five reaction channels which are open in pp-collisions at beam energies near 300 MeV. Besides pp-elastic scattering, which is by far the strongest, and the very weak pp bremsstrahlung, our interest mainly aimed at the $`\pi `$-producing reactions $`ppd\pi ^+`$, $`pppp\pi ^0`$, and $`pppn\pi ^+`$, each one with cross sections rising fast with excess energy.

A schematic sketch of the spectrometer showing the locations of the main components, the barrel (B), ring (R), and quirl (Q) detector, as well as the target region is given in fig. 1. To prevent the reaction products from undergoing secondary reactions on their way from the target to the different detector modules of the spectrometer it is housed within a 3.3 m $`\times `$ 4 m steel tank which can be evacuated to a pressure of 0.2 Pa. Protons were extracted out of the COSY ring in a slow extraction mode allowing spill lengths of up to 10 min. Their intensity typically was of the order of several $`10^6`$/s. The beam was focussed onto the liquid hydrogen target with dimensions 6 mm $`\times `$ 4 mm . Its front and rear ends were closed by 0.9 $`\mu `$m thin hostaphan foils. A set of scintillator veto detectors with central holes of various sizes were located 260, 51 and 3.5 cm upstream of the target. They helped to define the beam spot in the center of the target to an area with diameter d=3.0 mm. Charged particles emitted from the target into the forward hemisphere had to transverse a 0.5 mm thin plastic scintillator device  which served as start detector. This detector shown in fig. 2 consists of two concentric rings made out of 16 trapezoidally shaped scintillators each, which were placed 30 mm (Ring B) and 50 mm (Ring A) behind the target. The inner detector had a central hole of diameter di=3.3 mm and extended out for 26 mm, the outer one had dimensions di=16 mm and da=130 mm. The minimum angle for observable ejectiles was $`1.9^{}`$ if they originated from the center of the target, but smaller values far less than $`1.0^{}`$ were possible if the initial pp-reaction took place off the beam axis. The elements of the outer ring were arranged in such a way as to show a tiny overlap along their sides thus guaranteeing full $`\varphi `$-coverage whereas the ones of the inner ring were only allowed to touch each other thereby leaving narrow gaps of order 50 $`\mu `$m which caused an overall loss in $`\varphi `$-coverage of $`3\%`$ distributed evenly over the full circle.

After a flight path of up to 3 m in vacuum, the reaction products hit the 3-component (B, R, and Q) scintillator hodoscope. The circular, 3-layer quirl and ring detector components of the endcap were both built according to the same layout. 5 mm thin scintillator sheets (BC408) were used as basic material. The first layer in the quirl is made from 48 wedge-like scintillators, followed by two layers with 24 left and 24 right wound elements, each element cut along an Archimedian spiral . In central projection a net-like pattern is formed consisting of more than 1000 triangular pixels. A central hole of radius r=4.2 cm was left for the beam, the outer radius of the quirl is 58 cm. The three layers in the ring were made from 96 wedges and $`2\times 48`$ left and right wound Archimedian spirals, the inner (outer) radius is 56.8 (154) cm, respectively. The barrel consists of 96 scintillator bars, mounted to the inside of the tank. Each bar of 2.85 m length has a cross section with measures thickness $`\times `$ width =15 mm $`\times `$ 96 mm and is read out from both ends .

In the course of the experiment which went on for almost two years two slightly different set-ups were employed. The one described above with barrel, ring and quirl was used at T=293.5 MeV. Azimuthal coverage was complete, the acceptance in polar angle $`\theta `$ ranged from $`1.5^{}78^{}`$. In an earlier experiment performed at T=292.2 and 298.1 MeV the ring component was still under construction, leaving a gap in polar angle $`\theta `$ between $`10.4^{}26^{}`$. For this run a modular neutron detector  was additionally set up downstream around the beam line and outside of the tank. It covered approximately the same area as the quirl detector and was employed in the study of the concurring $`pppn\pi ^+`$ reaction. As a first level trigger usually one, in some cases two charged hits were required in the start detector, at least two in any of the stop detectors B, R, Q, with 2B, 2R, 2Q and 2(BRQ) denoting separately handled trigger patterns. For each of these patterns slightly different deadtimes were observed and the necessary corrections had to be applied accordingly.

B. Performance Checks and Luminosity Monitor

Simultaneously with the $`\pi `$-producing reactions, elastic scattering events, which were detected either as barrel-barrel (BB) or as barrel-ring (BR) coincidences, were written on tape. In addition to serving as a tool for calibrating the whole detector system, this reaction was used as a luminosity monitor through comparison of experimentally deduced elastic scattering events with data taken from the SAID database  (see fig. 3). The cross section around T = 300 MeV is known with an error of less than $`5\%`$. Any cross section of interest determined relative to the one for $`pp_{elast}`$ will thus be measured with comparable accuracy, since all uncertainties resulting from instabilities in beam intensity and target thickness cancel.

We obtained complementary information on the detector performance from a careful study of the $`ppd\pi ^+`$-reaction. Its cross section at 295 MeV is close to 45 $`\mu `$b . While the deuterons with a maximum polar angle at $`3^{}`$ will only reach the quirl, the pions with $`\theta ^{max}=32^{}`$ can be observed in all of the three stop-detector components. The unique kinematics of this 2-particle reaction allowed the extraction of rather clean and almost background free spectra as e.g., invariant $`d`$\- and $`\pi ^+`$-mass distributions. In the present case this reaction was used for an accurate determination of the beam energy $`T_p`$, which is important in view of the strong $`T_p`$ dependence of the cross section as well as available phase space coverage, which in turn has a strong impact on the acceptance correction. In fig. 4 the transverse $`\pi `$-momentum $`p_t`$ is plotted versus the longitudinal $`\pi `$-momentum $`p_l`$. The boxes represent the experimental data, their sizes being proportional to the respective number of counts. Concentration of yield is observed along an elliptical curve which aligns nicely with the one resulting from two-body kinematics for a beam energy of Tp =293.5 MeV (dashed curve). The two solid lines calculated for beam energies which are 0.6 MeV higher and lower clearly miss the main body of the data from which we deduce an error in beam energy of order 0.3 MeV.

The modulation in yield along the elliptical curve and the absence of yield for $`p_t`$-values below 17 MeV/c is well understood and can be explained as stemming from particular technical details in detector construction as well as the rather low pion momenta: pions emitted at angles larger than $`26^{}`$ will be observed in the one-layer barrel section; these are the events with $`p_l`$ up to 52 MeV/c. Those with very low momenta, however, will not be able to reach it. The ring section covers the range $`10.4^{}26^{}`$; here, however, a pion has to reach at least the second layer in order to fix its point of impact, hence a decrease in yield is observed for pion angles approaching the outer range of the ring. Very forward pions with low $`p_t`$-values were not observed, since the coincident deuterons escaped through the central hole in the start detector.

III. Data Analysis and Calibration

A. Principle of Measurement

The photomultiplier signals of all detector elements were used for energy-loss as well as time-of-flight measurements. To this end, the analog signals were digitized in Fastbus-QDC modules, the timing signals were derived in leading-edge type discriminators and used in Fastbus TDCs. Both measurements yield the particle velocity $`\beta `$. From the particle’s point of impact the flight direction was obtained from which two additional observables, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, can be derived. In the endcap with its 3-layer quirl and ring components the flight direction is deduced by combinatorical means . For the one-layer barrel elements with two-sided readout the point of impact is found from the difference in TDC-values of both ends , whereas the TDC-sum is a measure of the flight time. The spatial resolution as given from the pixel size in the endcap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =0.5^{},\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2^{}`$; roughly the same values hold for the barrel elements. Typical values obtained for the time resolution of the start-stop system were of the order of 0.5 ns (FWHM) which corresponds to about $`2.5\%`$ of the average flight time of a $`\beta =0.5`$ particle.

The momentum 4-vector of each detected particle can then be deduced from the measured observables $`\beta `$, $`\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$ by applying an additional mass hypothesis. This of course has to be checked in comparison with results obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. In case of a reaction with one neutral particle like $`pppp\pi ^0`$ the 4-vector of that particle is deduced by employing energy and momentum conservation and calculating its mass.

B. Calibration

In order to determine $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\beta `$ for each particle, several steps in calibrating the detector had to be performed . After a simple pedestal subtraction in the QDC spectra, a walk correction had to be applied for each TDC entry. Depending on the pulse height of the scintillator signal, time shifts of up to 3 ns were observed. To correct for these shifts a five-parameter fit function was found which relates the observed walk with the pulse height given by the corrected QDC value. The complete parameter list for up to 600 scintillator channels was determined before each experiment. This was routinely done by use of a laser-based calibration system where UV-light from a $`N_2`$-laser is fed via quartz fibers into each of the individual scintillator channels. Through use of a set of filters the amount of light going into the various elements can be varied such as to cover the complete dynamic range of the multipliers.

A check on the differential nonlinearity in the TDC modules revealed no deviations from the precision given by the manufacturer ($`<0.1\%`$ of full scale), in some cases, however, a channel width of 90 ps/channel was observed instead of the preset value of 100 ps/channel. Due to different cable lengths and varying transit times in the photomultiplier tubes and electronic modules, variations in the signal arrival time arise which are specified as TDC-offsets. These offsets were determined in an iterative manner by first comparing overlapping, but otherwise identical channels as e.g., neighboring elements in the outer start detector (sect. II.A) or overlap regions from left- and right-wound elements in the endcap. Two-particle reactions like $`pp_{elast}`$ and $`d\pi ^+`$ with their unique kinematics then were used for the adjustment of all remaining detector components. As a byproduct the light velocities within the differently shaped scintillator elements were deduced. Whereas in bulk material it is given by $`c/n`$ ($`n`$: index of refraction), smaller values were found for the rather flat, but long elements due to an effective lengthening of the lightpath. For the straight quirl elements of wedgelike shape and a thickness of 5 mm we found 18.0 cm/ns, for the corresponding ones of the ring 15.8 cm/ns. A value of 16.1 cm/ns was observed for the 3 m barrel elements. The calibration of the neutron detector with its 10 cm thick bars was performed as outlined in . Special care was applied in the determination of the energy-dependent efficiency which, for neutron energies larger than 60 MeV, was found to be rather constant around $`13.5\%`$.

C. Monte Carlo simulation

Throughout the analysis each step was compared to the results deduced from the Monte Carlo simulation. The program package written in $`C^{++}`$ was developed in Bochum ,  with the purpose of simulating the spectrometer response, thereby giving insight into the overall performance, and to determine the detector acceptance. At its core is the CERNLIB random event generator GENBOD , which generates a preset number of N-body events for a given reaction specified by N, the number of ejectiles, their masses and the 4-momentum of the incoming beam. It returns momentum 4-vectors for each particle in the overall center of mass system, and weight factors $`w_e`$ based on the phase space density of the reaction. These weight factors have to be modified, if angular momentum or final-state interaction effects are believed to play a substantial role. The Monte Carlo code then boosts this event into the laboratory system and each particle is tracked through the complete setup. Nuclear interactions are treated according to the INC code  which has its roots in the Bertini intranuclear cascade model of the late sixties . This model assumes the nucleons within their respective nuclei to behave like a fermigas and the interactions between the incident particle and the nucleus is simulated as the output of an intranuclear particle shower with nucleon-nucleon and pion-nucleon reactions. Elastic and inelastic NN and $`\pi `$N cross sections are supplied via extensive data tables. Great care was put into modelling all of the detector components in their particular shape as close as possible to reality, including the left- and right-wound spirals in the endcap and the trapezoidal elements of the slightly conical barrel detector. Options were built into the program to study in detail the influence of the extended target and the transverse beam spread or the variation in acceptance due to the narrow gaps between neighboring scintillator elements or the size of the central hole in the inner start detector.

In the course of the simulation, interactions of the particles on their way through the various active or passive detector parts can be switched on or off, their energy loss and small-angle scattering can be investigated separately. Effective low-energy thresholds can thus be studied in detail as eg., in case of the endcap, where a hit in at least two layers is needed for a successful pixel reconstruction. Also included in the Monte Carlo package is the possibility of particle decay. In the present case it was found that a sizeable fraction of the $`\pi ^+`$-mesons with low momentum had decayed before the detector was reached and a decay myon was detected instead.

IV. Results

A. Total cross sections

By use of energy and momentum conservation, the $`pp\pi ^0`$ events were identified by calculating the missing mass $`m_x`$ of the unobserved neutral pion according to

$`m_x^2=(_b+_t_1_2)^2`$,

where $`_b(_t)`$ denotes the beam (target) momentum 4-vector, respectively, and $`_i`$ the one of the i-th proton. The high energy part of the distribution obtained at T= 293.5 MeV is given in fig. 5 showing a clear signal at the expected location $`m_x=m_\pi `$= 0.135 GeV/c2.

The only cuts applied in the analysis were upper limits on the $`\beta `$-values of the protons in order to eliminate events where a much faster pion was wrongly interpreted as a proton. Background due to reactions on the target foils or condensates thereon is negligible as can be seen from the spectrum obtained from an empty target run and shown by the dashed histogram in fig. 5. Also displayed is the result of our Monte Carlo simulation (solid histogram) which is in excellent agreement with the data. The angular distribution of the inelastically scattered protons is shown in fig. 6 (solid dots with error bars) together with results of our Monte Carlo simulations. A shift towards smaller proton angles and away from purely phase space distributed events (dashed histogram) is readily seen. When incorporating final state interaction effects into the Monte Carlo code, however, and using standard values for effective range $`r_0`$ and scattering length a, the simulated curve nicely reproduces the data as shown by the solid histogram. For more details on our treating of the final state interaction see sect. IV.B.

In a next step total cross sections for the reaction $`pppp\pi ^0`$ were extracted from the data by summing up the events for m$`{}_{x}{}^{}`$ 0.13 GeV/c2 (see fig. 5). By making minute corrections for falsely interpreted $`pppn\pi ^+`$-events of order $`3\%`$ from Monte Carlo considerations, one finds the number of $`pp\pi ^0`$-events as given in column 3 of table 1. Column 4 lists the acceptances as derived from our Monte Carlo simulations. The main deviation from complete acceptance ($`acc1`$) results from geometrical properties as e.g., the central hole in the inner start detector (mainly for the low-energy measurements) and the missing ring component (see sect. II.A) for the measurement at T=298.1 MeV. Nevertheless, in all cases acceptance values of order $`50\%`$ or higher were found. The error in acc was estimated by varying in the Monte Carlo code such values as the diameter of the central hole of the start detector (by some $`10\%`$) or the beam energy (by 0.2 MeV). An overall error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }acc=3.5\%`$ was found. The integrated luminosities as given in column 5 of table 1 were derived from a comparison with the results obtained for pp-elastic scattering in the angular range $`32^{}55^{}`$, a range that was covered by the barrel alone. For the measurement at T=293.5 MeV, where the ring was available as well, the quoted value not only is corroborated by the results found for the extended range $`18^{}70^{}`$, but also from a comparison with results for $`ppd\pi ^+`$. For this reaction a total cross section of $`\sigma =42\pm 5\mu `$b was found in very good agreement with an interpolated value of 44 $`\mu `$b deduced from . For the $`pppn\pi ^+`$ reaction at T=298.1 MeV we determined a cross section of $`\sigma _{pn\pi ^+}`$=3.5$`\pm 0.4\mu b`$ which agrees nicely with the interpolated value of 3.1$`\pm 0.4\mu b`$ extracted from , .

Total cross sections for the reaction $`pppp\pi ^0`$ are given in the last column of table 1 together with their statistical and systematical errors. The latter are composed of $`5\%`$ from the pp cross section, $`3.5\%`$ from the acceptance correction, $`1.5\%`$ from the uncertainty in misinterpreted background events and $`2\%`$ in the luminosity determination.

B. Dalitz Plots and Energy Distribution

As mentioned before, a crucial point in the determination of the total cross section is the extrapolation of the measured data into the full region allowed by phase space. A thorough understanding of the detector response is essential, as is the knowledge of any deviation in the original (physical) data from those given by simple phase space, i.e. s-wave distributed

events. A convenient way to compare in a comprehensive manner experimental and simulated data from a 3-particle reaction is to set up a Dalitz plot, which quite instructively allows the extraction of the underlying physics from the event distribution. Purely phase space distributed events will result in a uniformly covered Dalitz plot, deviations from such a distribution will induce some modulations. The Dalitz plot as found from the present (kinematically fitted) data at T=293.5 MeV is shown in fig. 7 and compared to the result of our Monte Carlo simulation (top row left and right, respectively). As a consequence of the strong final state interaction in the pp system a systematic enhancement in the top left corner is observed in the data. The simulated distribution was obtained by incorporating the FSI formalism as developed in ,  and later refined by Morton et al. . In short, one calculates additional weight factors $`w_{fsi}`$ which are multiplied with the event weight $`w_e`$ given by the CERNLIB subroutine GENBOD (see also sect. III.C). These factors are given as

$`w_{fsi}=C^2[C^4T_{pp}^{CM}+\frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{m_pc^2}\left(\frac{m_pc^2}{2(\mathrm{}c)^2}r_0T_{pp}^{CM}\frac{1}{a_0}\sqrt{2}\frac{\alpha m_pc^2}{\mathrm{}c}h(\gamma _p)\right)^2]^1`$,

where $`T_{pp}^{CM}`$ denotes the pp center of mass kinetic energy $`T_{pp}^{CM}=M_{pp}2m_p`$ and $`C^2`$ the Coulomb penetration factor

$`C^2=\frac{2\pi \gamma _p}{e^{2\pi \gamma _p}1}`$

with $`\gamma _p=\frac{\alpha \mu _{pp}c}{p_{pp}}`$. Here $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`p_{pp}=\sqrt{2\mu _{pp}T_{pp}^{CM}}`$ and $`\mu _{pp}`$ is the reduced mass of the pp-system. The term with $`h(\gamma _p)=\gamma _p^2_n\frac{1}{n(n^2+\gamma _p^2)}0.5772ln\gamma _p`$ contributes only little and is often omitted. From literature we took the standard values $`a_0`$=-7.83 fm and $`r_0`$=2.8 fm  as input parameters for the scattering length and effective range, respectively, for the two protons in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state. The smooth rise in yield which readily is seen in the simulated data is partially obscured in the experimental data due to the limited statistical accuracy. However, when inspecting the projection of the 2-dimensional Dalitz plot distribution onto the x-axis it is obvious that only through inclusion of FSI effects the simulated data follow the experimental ones (fig. 7, bottom) whereas a simulation based on purely phase space distributed events fails over the whole range.

The proton energy distribution $`T_{pp}^{CM}`$ at 293.5 MeV in the center of mass system is shown in fig. 8. That close to threshold proton energies only range up to roughly 7 MeV with a very distinct maximum near 1 MeV. The FSI-based simulation given by the dashed histogram reproduces the data very well, whereas a simple phase space distribution (given by the dotted histogram and normalized to the experimental yield) fails completely. Also shown is the result of a simulation where final state interaction effects have been included but with a much reduced scattering length of $`a_0`$=-1.5 fm as was suggested in  (fig. 8, dash-dotted histogram). When normalizing this distribution to our experimental data as was done in fig. 8 very poor agreement is observed. If on the other hand one normalizes only to the upper part beyond $`T_{pp}^{CM}`$=3.0 MeV the maximum around 1.0 MeV is totally missed and we cannot see how a proper extrapolation can be achieved. From the insert showing in a two-dimensional plot $`\mathrm{\Theta }_p^{LAB}`$, the smaller of the two proton angles, versus $`T_{pp}^{CM}`$, it can be seen, that the maximum yield found near $`T_{pp}^{CM}`$=1 MeV is connected with one of the two protons emerging towards $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-values well below $`5^{}`$, a range that is almost completely without detector coverage in each of the two internal target experiments. In view of this observation we argue that a description of the data and hence an extrapolation towards full acceptance can only be performed correctly by using the standard values $`a_0`$=-7.83 fm and $`r_0`$=2.8 fm as scattering length and effective range, respectively. The result is given by the solid histogram in fig. 8.

One important remark should be added. In the work of Flammang et al. on the $`pppn\pi ^+`$ reaction it was argued that the acceptance calculation and thus the extraction of a total cross section is insensitive to the presence, absence or details of the FSI model , since the additional weight factors used for the extrapolation cancel out. This statement is true to some extent and has been checked in the present analysis; the extrapolation to full acceptance as given in fig. 8 by the solid line could also be obtained from our experimental points by neglecting in the Monte Carlo simulation any FSI effects and assuming purely phase space distributed events. The agreement between experimental and simulated data in that case, however, would have been of that quality shown in fig. 8 by the dotted line. Instead, and we like to stress this as a crucial point, our initial distribution, although modified by the detector acceptance, not only showed the enhancement due to FSI, but this distribution was also well reproduced by our Monte Carlo simulation, which we had based on i) our knowledge of detector performance and acceptance and ii) the use of standard FSI parameters for scattering length and effective range. If we would have started from a distribution with (almost) no enhancement nothing would have been gained from an extrapolation where one tries to adjust the $`w_{fsi}`$ weights alone.

C. Angular Distribution

Acceptance corrected angular distributions for the pion- and relative two-proton-momentum vectors are shown in fig. 9 for the measurement at T=293.5 MeV. The solid lines are the result of fits in terms of Legendre polynomials $`P_l`$ to the experimental data $`W(cos\mathrm{\Theta })1+_la_lP_l(cos\mathrm{\Theta })`$ up to $`l=2`$. Only very small $`a_2`$-coefficients were found as expected that close to threshold, namely $`a_2=+0.05\pm 0.10`$ for the top and $`a_2=+0.08\pm 0.11`$ for the bottom distribution. Similar results were obtained at the other two bombarding energies. The observed symmetry around $`cos\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ (or the vanishing of the $`P_1`$-term) which stems from the entrance channel consisting of two identical particles was not used as a constraint in the fit; instead we consider it as a valuable check on the quality of our acceptance corrections.

The angular distribution obtained for the $`pppn\pi ^+`$ reaction at T=298.1 MeV corresponding to $`\eta =0.19`$ was found to be consistent with isotropy which is in agreement with the published data . Sizeable anisotropies were found for the angular distribution of the 2-particle reaction $`ppd\pi ^+`$ yielding an $`a_2`$-coefficient of order +0.2 and larger with, however, an error of comparable size. This is a consequence of the significant acceptance corrections which had to be performed to account for those pions which had decayed before reaching the detector, as well as those which were too low in momentum as being able to reach the second layer of the endcap (see also sect. III.C).

V. Discussion

The total cross sections listed in table 1 are compared to results found in the literature $`[`$ 1-3 $`]`$, $`[`$ 5-6 $`]`$ in fig. 10. In the range $`\eta =0.21.0`$ $`\sigma `$ rises over two orders of magnitude up to values close to 100 $`\mu `$b. The present data exceed the ones from IUCF  and CELSIUS  by roughly $`50\%`$. We connect this discrepancy with the one basic difference in experimental set-up, namely theirs being an internal, ours, however, an external target experiment. The most critical step in extracting an absolute cross section lies in the acceptance correction, which depends on the knowledge of i) geometrical coverage of the available phase space, ii) angular distribution effects, and iii) deviations from s-wave distributed events due to final state effects. Since, most probably, the geometrical coverage is well accounted for in all three cases, and angular distribution effects are negligible, we believe an underestimate of the strong FSI effects to be responsible for the large discrepancy. Our reasoning is as follows: The lower the energy above threshold, the more important the relative weight of FSI becomes, and, simultaneously, the more yield gets compressed into the very small angle region. If on the other hand the minimum angle is only near $`4^{}`$, as is the case in the internal target experiments at IUCF  or CELSIUS , more and more yield is missed. To extrapolate into the uncovered region requires a very profound knowledge of the original distribution, and most often some model dependence will enter the extrapolation procedure. As was mentioned before the data given in  were corrected by using non-standard FSI parameters (scattering length $`a_0`$=-1.5 fm), an approach which completely failed to reproduce our data. The low-energy CELSIUS-data  were obtained by detecting the two decay photons instead of the two emerging protons, a method with an acceptance which is only weakly dependent on excess energy and is free of any threshold effects, but suffers from the very small geometric coverage of only $`5\%`$. A rather elaborate acceptance correction has been developed for the high-energy CELSIUS data  where FSI- and angular distribution effects were considered. As can be seen from fig. 10 these data exceed the previous IUCF data  as well although by a smaller margin of some $`15\%`$.

A summary of Legendre polynomial expansion coefficients $`a_2`$ found in the literature for the pion producing reactions in the near threshold region is shown in fig. 11 as a function of $`\eta `$. Three bands of data are discernible. The fastest rise with $`\eta `$ is observed for the $`ppd\pi ^+`$ reaction (given by open symbols, refs. $`[1011]`$, ) where deviations from $`a_2=0`$ are already found below $`\eta =0.1`$. The positive $`a_2`$-coefficients are an indication for strong p-wave contributions. Much less information is available for the other $`\pi ^+`$-producing reaction measured at IUCF and TRIUMF and plotted as asterisks  and diamonds , respectively. Yet a comparable behaviour of a fast rise can be observed as well, which, however, only starts somewhat later near $`\eta =0.2`$. For both these reactions with an isoscalar two-nucleon pair in the exit channel the Sp partial wave which is not Pauli forbidden contributes almost from threshold. A totally different pattern is observed in case of the $`pppp\pi ^0`$-reaction. Near-isotropy is found for almost the whole $`\eta `$-range shown in fig. 11 with $`a_2`$ staggering between -0.2 and +0.2. It is not clear whether d-wave contributions which induce negative $`a_2`$ coefficients might be present that close to threshold. A unique trend (toward positive values) is only observed for $`\eta >0.9`$.

To get a more quantitative estimate on the amount of p-wave contributions to the $`pp\pi ^0`$-reaction at $`\eta `$ = 0.3 we used the fact that close to threshold the dynamics for pion production as given by the matrix element is almost energy independent. Instead the rapid rise in cross section is governed by kinematical effects since phase space as well as the radial wave functions of the participating particles change drastically. In a non-relativistic treatment the available phase space volume scales as q$``$p. The wave functions can be approximated by their asymptotic form which is valid for small arguments, and from this one obtains a factor $`q^{l_q}p^{l_p}`$ with $`l_q`$ ($`l_p`$) denoting the angular momentum of the pion (the NN pair), respectively. Hence each of these additional terms has a particular momentum dependence as e.g., $`\sigma _{Ps}qp^3`$ and $`\sigma _{Pp}q^3p^3`$ . To account for these higher order terms we introduced into our Monte Carlo code additional weight factors $`w_{Ps}=C_{Ps}^2qp^3`$ and $`w_{Pp}=C_{Pp}^2p^3q^3`$ with adjustable fit parameters $`C_{Ps}^2`$ and $`C_{Pp}^2`$, which were added to the dominant weight $`w_ew_{fsi}`$ discussed in section IVB. Due to the limited statistical accuracy in our data we did not attempt a combined fit where the Ps and Pp fractions were varied simultaneously. Instead we fitted our experimental q- and p-momentum distributions by a Monte Carlo generated sum of either Ss+Ps or Ss+Pp terms. In view of the good overall acceptance of our detector with only a small central hole of slightly less than $`2^{}`$ any acceptance dependence of the weight factors, however, was neglected. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$-values as obtained for various fractions f are shown in table 2 where f is given through $`\sigma _{Ps(p)}=f\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{Ss}=(1f)\sigma `$. The best fit with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$/n = 1.24 with n=65 degrees of freedom is found for pure s-wave behaviour. Up to $`10\%`$ of a Pp contribution is allowed by the fit, Ps contributions are even weaker. As a result we assign to the Ss-strength for the pp$`\pi ^0`$ reaction at $`\eta `$=0.3 a fraction (1-f)=0.95$`\pm `$0.05, leaving only a minute contribution of 0.05$`\pm `$0.05 for Pp and Ps waves.

In fig. 12 we show the presently deduced partial cross sections as a function of $`\eta `$ together with data found in the literature $`[`$ 4-6 $`]`$. Although some discrepancies in the data exist, which we attribute to the different methods applied, the general trend seems to be pretty much established. Up to $`\eta `$=0.7 Ss given by the diagonally hatched band is strongest, but gets almost negligible above $`\eta `$=0.9. At the same time the Pp strength (cross-hatched band) starts to dominate, but saturates near 0.6. Ps strength (vertically hatched band) seems to be present already below $`\eta `$=0.4 and exceeds Ss near $`\eta `$=0.8. In the crossover region the discrepancies are the largest which most probably is due to the different methods used. The studies carried out at CELSIUS  and COSY-GEM  were also performed with unpolarized beam and target; from these experiments sizeable Pp strength was reported well below $`\eta `$=0.6. A much higher sensitivity can be expected when measuring polarization observables as was recently done at IUCF . In that study $`\sigma _{Ps}`$ was found to be larger than $`\sigma _{Pp}`$ near $`\eta `$=0.56.

Up to $`\eta =0.7`$ the Ss partial wave dominates the $`pp\pi ^0`$-reaction. As was pointed out in  the cross section in this region could only be reproduced satisfactorily when adding an extra heavy meson exchange (HME) contribution with a “free” strength parameter to the coherent sum of direct and rescattering term, both of which make up roughly $`60\%`$ of the measured yield. Yet at energies above $`\eta =1`$ where even higher partial waves with $`l2`$ start to contribute significantly and where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-isobar contributions have to be considered the predictions underestimate the data more and more. In view of the present findings of a much larger cross section also at low $`\eta `$ values which would require an even larger strength parameter for HME contributions it might be conceivable that something more essential is missing in the theoretical description of the near-threshold $`pp\pi ^0`$ reaction. It seems to be worth mentioning that poor agreement is also found in recent calculations of polarization observables .

VI. Summary

The $`pppp\pi ^0`$ reaction has been investigated in a kinematically complete experiment by detecting the two protons in the large acceptance spectrometer COSY-TOF set up on an external beam line of the proton synchrotron COSY. The calibration of the detector and the luminosity determination was carried out by analysing the pp-elastic scattering reaction recorded simultaneously. Extensive Monte Carlo simulations were carried out in order to determine the overall acceptance with high precision. Results derived for the concurring reactions $`ppd\pi ^+`$ and $`pppn\pi ^+`$ are in very good agreement with data from the literature. Total cross sections for the reaction $`pppp\pi ^0`$ were obtained at bombarding energies of 292.2, 293.5 and 298.1 MeV, which exceed previous measurements by roughly $`50\%`$. Invariant mass and energy distributions are governed by strong final state effects. The importance of detecting protons well below $`4^{}`$ to the beam axis is stressed. The angular distributions for the pion and relative two-proton momentum vectors were measured for $`\eta `$-values as low as $`\eta =0.3`$ and were found to be nearly isotropic as expected that close to threshold. From an analysis of the corresponding momentum distributions the combined fraction for Ps and Pp partial cross sections was estimated to be $`5\pm 5\%`$.

Acknowledgements

The help of the COSY crew in delivering a low-emittance proton beam is gratefully acknowledged. The data are based in part on the analysis work performed by B. Jakob . We like to thank R. Klein and M. Würschig-Pörsel for their continued assistance in solving technical problems. Helpful discussions with C. Hanhart are very much appreciated. Financial support was granted by the FFE fund of the Forschungszentrum Jülich and by the German BMBF.


text:
# The nonleptonic decays 𝑩⁺_𝒄→𝑫⁺_𝒔(𝑫^𝟎)̄ and 𝑩⁺_𝒄→𝑫⁺_𝒔𝑫^𝟎 in a relativistic quark model.

## Abstract

In the wake of exploring $`CP`$-violation in the decays of $`B`$ and $`B_c`$ mesons, we perform the straightforward calculation of their nonleptonic decay rates within a relativistic quark model. We confirm that the decays $`B_cD_s\overline{D^0}`$ and $`B_cD_sD^0`$ are well suited to extract the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa angle $`\gamma `$ through the amplitude relations because their decay widths are the same order of magnitude. In the $`bc`$ sector the decays $`BDK`$ and $`B_cDD`$ lead to squashed triangles which are therefore not so useful to determine the angle $`\gamma `$ experimentally. We also determine the rates for other nonleptonic $`B_c`$-decays and compare our results with the results of other studies.

As was pointed out in  and  the decays $`B_c^+D_s^+D^0(\overline{D^0})`$ are well suited for an extraction of the CKM angle $`\gamma `$ through amplitude relations. These decays are better suited for the extraction of $`\gamma `$ than the similar decays of the $`B_u`$ and $`B_d`$ mesons because the triangles in latter decays are very squashed. The $`B_c`$ meson has been observed by the CDF Collaboration  in the decay $`B_cJ/\psi l\nu `$. One could expect around $`5\times 10^{10}`$ $`B_c`$ events per year at LHC  which gives us hope to use the $`B_c`$ decay modes for the studying $`CP`$-violation.

In the case of the $`B_cD_sD^0(\overline{D^0})`$ decays the relevant amplitude relations can be written in the form

$`\sqrt{2}A(B_c^+D_s^+D_+^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B_c^+D_s^+D^0)+A(B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0}),`$
$`\sqrt{2}A(B_c^{}D_s^{}D_+^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B_c^{}D_s^{}\overline{D^0})+A(B_c^{}D_s^{}D^0),`$
where $`|D_+^0=\left(|D^0+|\overline{D^0}\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ is a $`CP`$-even eigenstate. The diagrams describing the decays $`B_c^+D_s^+D^0`$ and $`B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0}`$ are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The color-enhanced amplitude of $`B_c^+D_s^+D^0`$ can be seen to be proportional to $`V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}0.0029\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma )`$. At the same time the decay amplitude for $`B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0}`$ is proportional to $`V_{bc}V_{us}0.0088`$ but color-suppressed. Simple estimates made in  give

$$\left|\frac{A(B_c^+D_s^+D^0)}{A(B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0})}\right|=\left|\frac{A(B_c^{}D_s^{}\overline{D^0}}{A(B_c^{}D_s^{}D^0)}\right|=𝒪(1).$$
(2)
This implies that all sides of the amplitude triangles suggested in  have similar lengths as shown in Fig. 3. It allows one to extract the magnitude of the weak CKM-phase $`\gamma `$ from the measurement of the $`B_c^\pm D_s^\pm +(D^0,\overline{D^0},D_+^0)`$ decay widths. The method  of the extraction of $`\gamma `$ from Eq. (LABEL:triangle) is based on the parametrization of the amplitudes as

$`A(B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0})`$ $`=`$ $`A(B_c^{}D_s^{}D^0)=|\overline{A}|e^{i\overline{\delta }},`$
$`A(B_c^+D_s^+D^0)`$ $`=`$ $`|A|e^{i\gamma }e^{i\delta },A(B_c^{}D_s^{}\overline{D^0}))=|A|e^{i\gamma }e^{i\delta },`$
where $`\delta `$ and $`\overline{\delta }`$ are the strong final state interaction phases. Introducing the notation $`|A(B_c^+D_s^+D_+^0)||A_+|`$ and $`|A(B_c^{}D_s^{}D_+^0)||A_{}|`$ Eq. (LABEL:triangle) can be rewritten as

$`|A_+|^2+|A_{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|A|^2+|\overline{A}|^2+2|A||\overline{A}|\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}(\overline{\delta }\delta ),`$
$`|A_+|^2|A_{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`2|A||\overline{A}|\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}(\overline{\delta }\delta ).`$
The four solutions for $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$ are given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\gamma =\frac{1}{4|A||\overline{A}|}\left\{\pm \sqrt{Y_{++}Y_{}}\pm \sqrt{Y_+Y_+}\right\},$$
(5)
where $`Y_{\pm +}=\left[|A|+|\overline{A}|\right]^22|A_\pm |^2`$ and $`Y_\pm =2|A_\pm |^2\left[|A||\overline{A}|\right]^2`$. Thus, the measurements of the rates of the six decays in Eq. (LABEL:triangle) will determine the magnitude of $`\gamma `$ with the four-fold ambiguity in Eq. (5). The way to resolve the ambiguity was discussed in .

In contrast to $`B_cD_sD`$, the corresponding ratios for $`BKD`$ and $`B_cDD`$ are

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A(B^+K^+D^0)}{A(B^+K^+\overline{D^0})}}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A(B^{}K^{}\overline{D^0}}{A(B^{}K^{}D^0)}}\right|=𝒪(0.1),`$ (6)
$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A(B_c^+D^+D^0)}{A(B_c^+D^+\overline{D^0})}}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{A(B_c^{}D^{}\overline{D^0}}{A(B_c^{}D^{}D^0)}}\right|=𝒪(0.1)`$ (7)
which can be seen to lead to squashed triangles which are not very suited to measure $`\gamma `$.

Some estimates of the branching ratios have been obtained before in - with widely divergent results. We employ here a relativistic quark model  to provide an independent evaluation of these branching ratios.

This model is based on an effective interaction Lagrangian which describes the coupling between hadrons and their constituent quarks. For example, the coupling of the meson $`H`$ to its constituent quarks $`q_1`$ and $`\overline{q}_2`$ is given by the Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{int}}(x)=g_HH(x)𝑑x_1𝑑x_2F_H(x,x_1,x_2)\overline{q}(x_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\lambda _Hq(x_2).$$
(8)
Here, $`\lambda _H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ are Gell-Mann and Dirac matrices which entail the flavor and spin quantum numbers of the meson field $`H(x)`$. The shape of the vertex function $`F_H`$ can in principle be found from the Bethe-Salpeter equation as was done e.g. in . However, we choose a phenomenological approach where the vertex functions are modelled by a simple form. The function $`F_H`$ must be invariant under the translation $`F_H(x+a,x_1+a,x_2+a)=F_H(x,x_1,x_2)`$ and should decrease quite rapidly in the Euclidean momentum space.

In our previous papers  we omit a possible dependence of the vertex functions on external momenta under calculation of the Feynman diagrams. This implies a dependence on how loop momenta are routed through the diagram at hand. In our last paper  and in the present calculation we employ a particular form of the vertex function given by

$$F_H(x,x_1,x_2)=\delta \left(x\frac{m_1x_1+m_2x_2}{m_1+m_2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_H((x_1x_2)^2).$$
(9)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the constituent quark masses. The vertex function $`F_H(x,x_1,x_2)`$ evidently satisfies the above translational invariance condition. We are able to make calculations explicitly without any assumptions concerning the choice of loop momenta.

The coupling constants $`g_H`$ in Eq. (8) are determined by the so called compositeness condition proposed in  and extensively used in . The compositeness condition means that the renormalization constant of the meson field is set equal to zero

$$Z_H=1\frac{3g_H^2}{4\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_H^{}(m_H^2)=0$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_H^{}`$ is the derivative of the meson mass operator. In physical terms the compositeness condition means that the meson is composed of a quark and antiquark system. For the pseudoscalar and vector mesons treated in this paper one has

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_P^{}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}p^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d}{p^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_P^2(k^2)}`$
$`\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma ^5S_1(\overline{)}k+w_{21}\overline{)}p)\gamma ^5S_2(\overline{)}kw_{12}\overline{)}p)\right]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_V^{}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}p^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d}{p^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_V^2(k^2)}`$
$`\mathrm{tr}\left[\gamma ^\nu S_1(\overline{)}k+w_{21}\overline{)}p)\gamma ^\mu S_2(\overline{)}kw_{12}\overline{)}p)\right]`$
where $`w_{ij}=m_j/(m_i+m_j)`$.

The leptonic decay constant $`f_P`$ is calculated from

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_P}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_P(k^2)\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\mu S_1(\overline{)}k+w_{21}\overline{)}p)\gamma ^5S_2(\overline{)}kw_{12}\overline{)}p)\right]}=f_Pp^\mu .`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_V}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_V(k^2)\mathrm{tr}\left[O^\mu S_1(\overline{)}k+w_{21}\overline{)}p)\gamma ϵ_VS_2(\overline{)}kw_{12}\overline{)}p)\right]}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_V}}f_Vϵ_V^\mu ,`$
The transition form factors $`P(p_1)P(p_2)(V(p_2))`$ are calculated from the Feynman integrals

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_Pg_P^{}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_P((k+w_{13}p_1)^2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_P^{}((k+w_{23}p_2)^2)}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{tr}\left[S_2(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p_2)O^\mu S_1(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p_1)\gamma ^5S_3(\overline{)}k)\gamma ^5\right]=F_+(q^2)P^\mu +F_{}(q^2)q^\mu ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_Pg_V}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{4\pi ^2i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_P((k+w_{13}p_1)^2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_V((k+w_{23}p_2)^2)}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{tr}[S_2(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p_2)O^\mu S_1(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p_1)\gamma ^5S_3(\overline{)}k)\gamma ϵ_V]={\displaystyle \frac{(ϵ_V)_\nu }{m_P+m_V}}`$
$`\left\{g^{\mu \nu }PqA_0(q^2)+P^\mu P^\nu A_+(q^2)+q^\mu P^\nu A_{}(q^2)+i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }P_\alpha q_\beta V(q^2)\right\},`$
where $`O^\mu =\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)`$. We use the local quark propagators $`S_i(\overline{)}k)=1/(m_i\overline{)}k)`$ where $`m_i`$ is the constituent quark mass. As discussed in , we assume that $`m_H<m_1+m_2`$ in order to avoid the appearance of imaginary parts in the physical amplitudes. This holds true for the light pseudoscalar mesons but is no longer true for the light vector mesons. We shall therefore employ identical masses for the pseudoscalar mesons and the vector mesons in our matrix element calculations but use physical masses in the phase space calculation. This is quite a reliable approximation for the heavy mesons, e.g. $`D^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ whose masses are almost the same as the $`D`$ and $`B`$, respectively. However, for the light mesons this approximation is not so good since the $`K^{}(892)`$ has a mass much larger than the $`K(494)`$. For this reason we exclude the light vector mesons from our considerations. The fit values for the constituent quark masses are taken from our papers  and are given in Eq. (13).

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}m_u& m_s& m_c& m_b& \\ & & & & \\ \text{ 0.235 }& \text{ 0.333 }& \text{ 1.67 }& \text{ 5.06 }& \text{ GeV }\end{array}$$
(13)
We employ a Gaussian for the vertex functuon $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_H(k_E^2)=\mathrm{exp}(k_E^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2)`$ and determine the size parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H^2`$ by a fit to the experimental data, when available, or to lattice simulations for the leptonic decay constants. The numerical values for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi & \mathrm{\Lambda }_K& \mathrm{\Lambda }_D& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{D_s}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_B& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{B_s}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{B_c}& \\ & & & & & & & \\ \text{ 1.00 }& \text{ 1.60 }& \text{ 1.70 }& \text{ 1.70 }& \text{ 2.00 }& \text{ 2.00 }& \text{ 2.05 }& \text{ GeV }\end{array}$$
(14)
We have used the technique outlined in our previous papers  for the numerical evaluation of the Feynman integrals in Eqs. (11) and (12). The results of our numerical calculations are well represented by the parametrization

$$F(s)=\frac{F(0)}{1a\widehat{s}+b\widehat{s}^2}$$
(15)
with $`\widehat{s}=q^2/m_{B_c}^2`$. Using such a parametrization facilitates further integrations. The values of $`F(0)`$, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are listed in Table 1. The calculated values of the leptonic decay constants are given in Eq. (16). They agree with the available experimental data and the results of the lattice simulations.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}f_{K^+}& f_{D^0}& f_{D^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}& f_{D_s}& f_{D_s^{}}& f_B& f_{B_c}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \text{ 0.161 }& \text{ 0.215 }& \text{ 0.348 }& \text{ 0.222 }& \text{ 0.329 }& \text{ 0.180 }& \text{ 0.398 }& \text{ GeV }& \end{array}$$
(16)
The relevant effective Hamiltonian for the decays $`B_cD_s\overline{D^0}`$ and $`B_cD_sD^0`$ is written as

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{C_1(\mu )(V_{cs}V_{ub}^{}(\overline{b}u)_{VA}(\overline{c}s)_{VA}+V_{us}V_{cb}^{}(\overline{b}c)_{VA}(\overline{u}s)_{VA})`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`C_2(\mu )(V_{cs}V_{ub}^{}(\overline{b}s)_{VA}(\overline{c}u)_{VA}+V_{us}V_{cb}^{}(\overline{b}s)_{VA}(\overline{u}c)_{VA})\}`$
where $`VA`$ refers to $`O^\mu =\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)`$. We use the numerical values of the Wilson coefficients at the renormalization scale $`\mu =m_{b,\mathrm{pole}}`$ given by $`C_1=1.107`$ and $`C_2=0.248`$ as given in . Note that we interchange the labeling $`12`$ of the coefficients to be consistent with the papers -.

Straightforward calculation of the matrix elements of the decays $`B_cD_s\overline{D^0}(D_sD^0)`$ by using the effective Hamiltonian in Eq.(17) reproduces the result of the factorization method. We have

$`A(B_c^+D_s^+D^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{a_1[f_+^{B_cD}(m_{D_s}^2)(m_{B_c}^2m_{D^0}^2)+f_{}^{B_cD}(m_{D_s}^2)m_{D_s}^2]f_{D_s}`$
$`+`$ $`a_2[f_+^{B_cD_s}(m_{D^0}^2)(m_{B_c}^2m_{D_s}^2)+f_{}^{B_cD_s}(m_{D^0}^2)m_{D^0}^2]f_{D^0}\},`$
$`A(B_c^+D_s^+\overline{D^0})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{bc}^{}V_{us}`$
$`\times `$ $`a_2\left[f_+^{B_cD_s}(m_{D^0}^2)(m_{B_c}^2m_{D_s}^2)+f_{}^{B_cD_s}(m_{D^0}^2)m_{D^0}^2\right]f_{D^0}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{annihilation}\mathrm{channel}`$
where $`a_1=C_1+\xi C_2`$ and $`a_2=C_2+\xi C_1`$ with $`\xi =1/N_c`$. As usual we put the QCD color factor $`\xi =0`$ according to $`1/N_c`$-expansion. Also we drop the annihilation processes from the consideration. Note that the calculation of the matrix elements of the nonleptonic decays involving the vector D-mesons in the final states proceed in a similar way. We extend our analysis to the semileptonic and nonleptonic decays of $`B`$-meson.

For numerical evaluation we have used the set of the parameters: $`m_{B^+}=5.279`$ GeV, $`\tau _{B^+}=1.655`$ ps, $`m_{B_c}=6.4`$ GeV, $`\tau _{B_c}=0.46`$ ps, $`a_1|_{\xi =0}=1.107`$, $`a_2|_{\xi =0}=0.248`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}|V_{ud}|& |V_{us}|& |V_{ub}|& |V_{cd}|& |V_{cs}|& |V_{bc}|\\ & & & & & \\ \text{ 0.98 }& \text{ 0.22 }& \text{ 0.003 }& \text{ 0.22 }& \text{ 0.98 }& \text{ 0.040 }\end{array}$$
(20)
First, to illustrate the quality of our calculations, we list some branching ratios of the $`B`$-meson decays in Table 2 and compare them with the experimental data. The exclusive nonleptonic decay widths of the $`B`$ and $`B_c`$ mesons for arbitrary values of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are listed in Table 3 whereas their branching ratios for $`a_1=1.107`$ and $`a_2=0.248`$ are given in Table 4. One can see that as it was expected the magnitudes of the branching ratios of the decays $`B_cD_sD^0`$ and $`B_cD_s\overline{D^0}`$ are very close to each other. It gives us hope that they can be measured in the forthcoming experiments. Finally, in Table 5 we compare our results with the results of other studies. One can see that there are quite large differences between the predictions of the different models.

This work was completed while M.A.I. and O.N.P. visited the University of Mainz. M.A.I. appreciates the partial support by Graduiertenkolleg “Eichtheorien”, the Russian Fund of Basic Research grant No. 01-02-17200 and the Heisenberg-Landau Program. O.N.P. thanks DAAD and Federal Russian Program ”Integracia” Grant No. 3057.


text:
# Stochastic Path Integral Formulation of Full Counting Statistics

## Abstract

We derive a stochastic path integral representation of counting statistics in semi-classical systems. The formalism is introduced on the simple case of a single chaotic cavity with two quantum point contacts, and then further generalized to find the propagator for charge distributions with an arbitrary number of counting fields and generalized charges. The counting statistics is given by the saddle point approximation to the path integral, and fluctuations around the saddle point are suppressed in the semi-classical approximation. We use this approach to derive the current cumulants of a chaotic cavity in the hot-electron regime.

Noise properties of electrical conductors are interesting because they reveal additional information beyond linear response BB . In the pioneering work of Levitov and Lesovik Levitov1 , the optics concept of full counting statistics (FCS) for photons was introduced for electrons in the context of mesoscopic physics. FCS gives the probability of counting a certain number of particles at a measurement apparatus in a certain amount of time and finds not only conductance and shot noise, but all higher current cumulants as well. Several methods have been used in finding this quantity. Originally, quantum mechanical methods based on scattering theory Levitov1 ; Muzykantskii1 , the Keldysh approach put forth by Nazarov Nazarov1  or sigma-models Gefen1  have been advanced and have been successfully applied to a number of problems among which we mention only multiterminal structures Bagrets1 , normal-superconducting samples Belzig1 , combined photon/electron statistics Schomerus1 , and conductors which are current (instead of voltage) biased Kindermann1 .

A quantum mechanical treatment of transport shows that the leading contribution to current cumulants is of the order of the channel number $`N`$. For many conductors or circuits of interest, this leading order is a semi-classical quantity Beenakker1 . Weak localization or universal conductance fluctuations provide only a small correction of order $`1`$. Clearly, it is desirable to have a purely semi-classical theory to calculate semi-classical results. To provide such a derivation of FCS is the main purpose of this work.

That a purely classical theory should be developed was realized by de Jong DeJong1  who put forth a discussion for problems which can be described with the help of master equations. A more general approach, leading to a set of rules for a cascade of higher order cumulants, was recently invented by Nagaev Nagaev1  and applied to chaotic cavities Nagaev2 . The work presented here aims at providing a foundation for the cascade approach by deriving a functional integral from which FCS, but also dynamical quantities such as correlation functions, can be obtained.

The approach provided here applies to an arbitrary mesoscopic network. Its semi-classical nature does not allow the treatment of weak localization corrections nor is it applicable to macroscopic quantum effects like the proximity effect. As in Boltzmann-Langevin theory Kogan1 , our approach is based on a separation of time scales: fast microscopic fluctuations causes variations of conserved quantities (like the charge inside the conductor) on much longer time scales. Whenever such a separation of time scales is present in a stochastic problem, the formalism outlined here is useful. This includes for example normal-diffusive wires Nagaev1 ; Henny , superconducting-normal structures outside the proximity regime Sanquer , as well as stochastic problems beyond mesoscopic physics Langevin .

Path integral derivation. To introduce our path integral formalism, we consider a simple example of electron transport through a chaotic cavity (see Fig. 1) which is a large conductor connected to two metallic leads $`L`$ and $`R`$ through ideal point contacts. The leads are at different chemical potentials $`\mu _R`$ and $`\mu _L=\mu _R+eV`$, causing a current $`I`$ to flow through the cavity. The number of modes in each point contact $`N_{L,R}`$, and the number of states $`eVn_F`$ ($`n_F`$ being a Fermi density of states in the cavity) are large, so that the transport is classical. We assume elastic transport (no energy relaxation), zero temperature, and chaotic electron dynamics in the cavity commentm1 . Then, the state of the cavity is described by only one variable $`f_C`$ which is independent of the electron’s coordinate, momentum and energy in the interval $`\mu _R<\epsilon <\mu _L`$ Langen ; cavity . The average values of outgoing currents $`I_{L,R}`$ are given by $`I_R=(e^2V/2\pi \mathrm{})N_Rf_C`$ and $`I_L=(e^2V/2\pi \mathrm{})N_L(1f_C)`$. Since currents are conserved $`I_L+I_R=0`$, the average current through the cavity is $`I=(e^2V/2\pi \mathrm{})[N_LN_R/(N_L+N_R)]`$, i.e. the resistances of the two point contacts add.

The currents $`I_{L,R}`$ however fluctuate as a result of the discretness of the electron charge. These fast fluctuations (correlated on the time scale $`\tau _0\mathrm{}/eV`$) cause slow variations of the occupation $`f_C`$ on the scale of the relaxation time $`\tau _C=2\pi \mathrm{}n_F/(N_L+N_R)`$ comment0 ; Brouwer . The cause of this is charge conservation: $`I_L+I_R=\dot{Q}_C`$, where $`Q_C=e^2n_FVf_C`$ is the charge accumulated in the cavity. Fluctuations of $`f_C`$ in turn affect the currents $`I_{L,R}`$ thereby generating correlations between them. Our goal is to integrate out currents $`I_{L,R}`$ taking into account correlations and to obtain the FCS of the transmitted charge $`Q(t)=(1/2)_0^t𝑑t^{}[I_R(t^{})I_L(t^{})]`$. More precisely, we have to find the generator $`S(\chi ,t)`$ of the charge cumulants defined as

$`P(Q,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^1{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi \mathrm{exp}[i\chi Q+S(\chi ,t)]},`$ (1)
$`Q^m(t)`$ $`=`$ $`^mS(\chi ,t)/(i\chi )^m|_{\chi =0}`$ (2)
where $`P(Q,t)`$ is the distribution of transmitted charge, and $`Q^m(t)`$ is its $`m`$-th cumulant. The average current and its zero-frequency noise power are given respectively by the first cumulant $`Q(t)/t`$, and second cumulant $`Q^2(t)/t`$, after taking the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The separation of time scales $`\tau _C/\tau _01`$ allows us to consider the intermediate time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, such that $`\tau _0\mathrm{\Delta }t\tau _C`$, on which the occupation $`f_C`$ is approximately constant in time. Then the charges transmitted through the point contacts during this time interval, $`Q_{L,R}=_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝑑t^{}I_{L,R}`$, are not correlated, i.e. the total distribution is a product $`P_L(Q_L)P_R(Q_R)`$. On the other hand, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is large compared to the correlation time $`\tau _0`$, their distributions $`P_{L,R}`$ can be written as Fourier integrals (1) with the cumulant generators proportional to time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ comment1 , namely $`S_{L,R}=H_{L,R}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. They are well known Levitov1  and for ideal point contacts given by

$`H_{L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`(N_{L,R}/2\pi \mathrm{}){\displaystyle }d\epsilon \{\mathrm{ln}[1+f(\epsilon )(e^{ie\chi _{L,R}}1)]`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}[1+f_{L,R}(\epsilon )(e^{ie\chi _{L,R}}1)]\}.`$
For elastic transport, only the energy interval $`\mu _R<\epsilon <\mu _L`$ contributes with $`f_L=1`$, $`f_R=0`$, and $`f=f_C`$.

To proceed with our derivation we first discretize time, $`t_n=n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$, and write the characteristic function of transmitted charge $`\mathrm{exp}[S(\chi ,t)]`$ for the unconditional probability distribution

$`\mathrm{exp}[S(\chi ,t)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=L,R}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q_l(t_n)P_l[Q_l(t_n)]}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\chi }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[Q_R(t_n)Q_L(t_n)]\right\}.`$
Next, we impose a constraint

$$f_C(t_{n+1})=f_C(t_n)(e^2n_FV)^1[Q_L(t_n)+Q_R(t_n)],$$
(5)
which guarantees the conservation of charge on the cavity, and gives dynamics to the fluctuating charge $`Q_C`$. Integrating out the charges $`Q_{L,R}(t_n)`$ in Eq. (4) with the use of Eqs. (1) and (5), and taking a continuum limit, we obtain one of our main results

$`\mathrm{exp}[S(\chi ,t)]=(2\pi )^1{\displaystyle 𝒟Q_C𝒟\chi _C}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}[i\chi _C\dot{Q}_C+H(\chi ,\chi _C,Q_C)]\right\},`$ (6)
where $`H(\chi ,\chi _C,Q_C)`$ is

$$H=H_L(\chi _C\chi /2,f_C)+H_R(\chi _C+\chi /2,f_C)$$
(7)
with $`H_{L,R}`$ given by Eq. (3). Eq. (6) resembles the imaginary time path integral for the evolution operator of a quantum particle with coordinate $`Q_C`$, momentum $`\chi _C`$, and Hamiltonian $`H`$ with the difference that $`H`$ given by (7) is not Hermitian. Nevertheless, we can apply the Hamiltonian formalism to our path integral (6). Next, we derive the saddle-point solution and discuss its applicability.

Saddle-point solution. The saddle point of the path integral (6) can be obtained by a variation of the action with respect to $`\chi _C`$ and $`Q_C`$ and gives “classical equations of motion”

$$i\dot{Q}_C=H/\chi _C,i\dot{\chi }_C=H/Q_C.$$
(8)
These equations have to be solved with the conditions $`Q_C=Q_C(0)`$ for $`t^{}=0`$, and $`\chi _C=0`$ for $`t^{}=t`$ comment2 . The solution has to be substituted into Eq. (6) to obtain the saddle-point part $`S_0`$ of the cumulant generator.

Eqs. (8) describe the relaxation of the initial state $`Q_C(0)`$ to the stationary state $`\{\overline{\chi }_C,\overline{Q}_C\}`$ given by the solution of $`H/\chi _C=H/Q_C=0`$. On time scales large compared to the relaxation time $`\tau _C`$, the initial and final integration points contribute little (see discussion below), and we can neglect the first term in the action (6). This gives us a large time asymptotics SP-solution ,

$$S_0(\chi ,t)=tH(\chi ,\overline{\chi }_C,\overline{Q}_C),t\tau _C,$$
(9)
which will be analyzed below.

To further simplify the analysis, we concentrate on the symmetric cavity with equal number of modes $`N_L=N_R=N_{pc}`$ in the contacts. Then the stationary saddle-point solution can be found analytically giving $`\overline{\chi }_C=0`$, $`\overline{f}_C=1/2`$, and

$$S_0(\chi ,t)=(eVN_{pc}t/\pi \mathrm{})\mathrm{ln}[(1/2)(1+e^{ie\chi /2})]$$
(10)
which is the known result for a symmetric cavity found from quantum mechanical calculations Blanter .

To investigate the validity of the saddle-point solutions (8) and (9) we calculate the contribution of Gaussian fluctuations by expanding $`S`$ in the vicinity of the stationary point to second order in $`\chi _C`$ and $`Q_C`$. For the correction to $`S_0`$ we obtain the action of a harmonic oscillator in imaginary time comment3  with inverse frequency $`\omega ^1=\tau _C\mathrm{cos}(e\chi /4)`$ and mass $`M=(4\pi \mathrm{}/e^3VN_{pc})\mathrm{cos}^2(e\chi /4)`$. In the context of our problem such an action describes the linear dissipative dynamics $`\dot{Q}_C=\omega (Q_C\overline{Q}_C)+\nu (t)`$ with the Gaussian Langevin source $`\nu (t)\nu (t^{})=M^1\delta (tt^{})`$ Langevin , which takes the initial state $`Q_C(0)`$ to the stationary state $`\overline{Q}_C`$ after time $`t\tau _C`$. Integrating out $`Q_C`$ we obtain for the total action $`S=S_0+\delta S_0+S_{fl}`$, where $`\delta S_0=(1/2)M\omega Q_C^2(0)\mathrm{tanh}(\omega t)`$ is the initial condition contribution and $`S_{fl}=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}(\omega t)]`$ is the fluctuation contribution. Since in general $`Q_C(0)e^2n_FV`$, the part $`\delta S_0`$ is small compared to $`S_0`$ if $`t\tau _C`$. The part $`S_{fl}`$ is small compared to $`S_0`$ if $`en_FV1`$, which has been assumed for our classical cavity comment4 . All this justifies the saddle-point solution (9). Having established the framework of our formalism, we now proceed with its generalization and applications.

Generalization. We consider the nonequilibrium dynamics of an arbitrary classical system, which can be described by fast fluctuating currents $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ and slow fluctuating charges $`Q_\alpha `$. Metallic reservoirs, such as leads and cavities, can be taken into account by replacing $`\alpha (\alpha ,l)`$, where the index $`l=1,\mathrm{},L`$ enumerates reservoirs, and $`\alpha `$ enumerates generalized charges in the reservoirs. These charges $`Q_\alpha `$ are defined as $`\dot{Q}_\alpha =_\beta I_{\alpha \beta }`$. Assuming that the probability distributions of fluctuating currents $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ are known, we have to find an evolution of the distribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q,t)`$ of the set of charges $`Q=\{Q_\alpha \}`$ for a given initial condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q,0)`$. In other words, one has to find an evolution operator $`U(Q,Q^{},t)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q,t)=𝑑Q^{}U(Q,Q^{},t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q^{},0)`$. We use again the separation of time scales, follow the lines of the derivation of Eq. (6), and obtain the evolution operator $`U=\mathrm{exp}[S_0(Q,Q^{},t)]`$, with $`S_0`$ being a saddle-point solution of the action

$$S=_0^t𝑑t^{}[i\chi \dot{Q}+(1/2)\underset{\alpha \beta }{}H_{\alpha \beta }(\chi _\alpha \chi _\beta )],$$
(11)
where $`\chi =\{\chi _\alpha \}`$ is the set of charge counting fields. The generators $`H_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the cumulants of currents $`I_{\alpha \beta }`$ have the obvious symmetry $`H_{\alpha \beta }(\chi _\alpha \chi _\beta )=H_{\beta \alpha }(\chi _\beta \chi _\alpha )`$.

Next we assume that the “Hamiltonian” $`H=(1/2)_{\alpha \beta }H_{\alpha \beta }`$ depends only on the subset of charges $`Q^c=\{Q_\alpha ^c\}`$, which we call conserved charges since they are related to conserved quantities, such as total energy and charge. We complete the set $`Q=\{Q^c,Q^a\}`$ by the subset of non-conserved or absorbed charges $`Q^a=\{Q_\alpha ^a\}`$. Since $`H`$ does not depend on $`Q^a`$, we find that the corresponding “momentums” $`\chi ^a=\{\chi _\alpha ^a\}`$ are integrals of motion: $`\chi ^a=const`$. This allows us to integrate out the corresponding terms in (11): $`i_0^t𝑑t^{}\chi ^a\dot{Q}^a=i\chi ^a[Q^a(t)Q^a(0)]`$. Thus the rest of the action (11) becomes a generator of cumulants of the absorbed charge $`Q^a(t)Q^a(0)`$. In particular, the stationary solution for the cumulant generator is $`S_0=tH(\chi ^a,\overline{\chi }^c,\overline{Q}^c)`$, where $`\overline{\chi }^c`$ and $`\overline{Q}^c`$ are solutions of the equations $`H/\chi ^c=H/Q^c=0`$.

In the example of the elastic transport considered above there are 3 reservoirs: Two leads ($`\alpha =1,3`$) and one cavity ($`\alpha =2`$). The state of the cavity is described by only one charge $`Q_C=Q_2`$, the total charge on the cavity, while $`Q=(Q_3Q_1)/2`$ is the absorbed charge which is being counted. The counting fields are $`\chi _C=\chi _2`$, and $`\chi /2=\chi _1=\chi _3`$. Next we consider the case of inelastic transport, which requires the introduction of a new generalized conserved charge $`E_C`$, the total energy of the cavity.

Hot-electron regime. We consider the electron transport through a cavity in the so-called hot-electron regime, i.e. when the electron-electron scattering time is much shorter than the relaxation time $`\tau _{ee}\tau _C`$, electrons in the cavity then relax to local thermal equilibrium before escaping from the cavity. Their distribution is given by a Fermi function $`f(\epsilon )=\{1+\mathrm{exp}[(\epsilon \mu _C)/T_C]\}^1`$ where $`\mu _C`$ and $`T_C`$ denote respectively the electro-chemical potential and electron temperature in the cavity. The noise in the hot-electron regime was first considered theoretically for diffusive wires Rudin1 . This calculation and its experimental verification Henny1  found that electron-electron interaction increases shot noise. Similar results for the chaotic cavity were presented in Ref. Beenakker1  and measured in Ref. Oberholzer1 . We now derive the FCS of transmitted charge $`Q`$.

Our calculation starts from the observation that the nonequilibrium state of the cavity is fully described by only two parameters, $`\mu _C`$ and $`T_C`$. They can be expressed in terms of conserved values: The total charge $`Q_C=e^1C_\mu \mu _C`$ and the total energy $`E_C=(1/2C_\mu )Q_C^2+Q_CV_G+(\pi ^2/6)n_FT_C^2`$ of the cavity, where $`C_\mu `$ is the electrochemical capacitance of the cavity, $`1/C_\mu =1/C+1/(e^2n_F)`$, and $`V_G`$ is the gate voltage. The charge and energy conservation can be written as

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon [I_L(\epsilon )+I_R(\epsilon )]}=\dot{Q}_C,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon \epsilon [I_L(\epsilon )+I_R(\epsilon )]}=e\dot{E}_C,`$ (13)
where $`I_{L,R}(\epsilon )`$ are the outgoing currents through the point contacts per energy interval $`d\epsilon `$. We now replace the constraint (5) with these two equations, and apply it to the energy resolved analogue of path integral (4). By doing so, we introduce the counting field $`\chi _E`$ for the total energy $`E_C`$. Instead of (7), the new “Hamiltonian” $`H(\chi ,\chi _C,\chi _E;\mu _C,T_C)`$ takes the form

$$H=𝑑\epsilon [H_L(\chi _C+\epsilon \chi _E\chi /2)+H_R(\chi _C+\epsilon \chi _E+\chi /2)],$$
(14)
with $`H_{L,R}`$ given by Eq. (3).

To obtain the FCS in the long time limit $`t\tau _C`$, where $`\tau _C=2\pi \mathrm{}C_\mu /[e^2(N_L+N_R)]`$ is the RC-time (the time of charge screening in the cavity Brouwer ), we need to evaluate $`H`$ as a function of $`\chi `$ at the saddle point. We find the saddle-point solution $`S_0(\chi ,t)`$ numerically and calculate $`P(Q,t)`$ by Fourier transformation (1). The result is shown in Fig. 1. It is clearly visible that noise is enhanced in the hot-electron regime.

In order to make further analytical progress we note that the saddle point solution for $`\chi =0`$ is given by the chemical potential $`\mu _C=(N_L\mu _L+N_R\mu _R)/(N_L+N_R)`$ and the effective temperature $`T_C=\sqrt{T^2+T_V^2}`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature of the reservoirs, and $`T_V=(\sqrt{3}/\pi )\eta eV`$ is proportional to bias with $`\eta ^2=N_LN_R/(N_L+N_R)^2`$. The internal fields $`\chi _C,\chi _E`$ are zero for $`\chi =0`$. It is now straightforward to expand Eq. (14) and the corresponding saddle point equations around $`\chi =0`$ and to calculate higher cumulants order by order. This procedure is very similar to the cascade approach considered in Refs. Nagaev1 ; Nagaev2 . For the first few cumulants we obtain

$`Q^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\eta t}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\sqrt{N_LN_R}\left(T+T_C\right),`$ (15a)
$`Q^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3\eta ^2t}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\sqrt{N_LN_R}{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}TT_V}{\pi T_C}},`$ (15b)
$`Q^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^4\eta ^3t}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\sqrt{N_LN_R}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{\pi ^2}}\left[TT_C+{\displaystyle \frac{2T^4}{T_C^3}}\right],`$ (15c)
where the second cumulant coincides with the one in the Ref. Oberholzer1 . The result for the third cumulant shows that odd cumulants are strongly suppressed. We note that screening does not affect the FCS in the long time limit $`t\tau _C`$.

Conclusions. We have constructed a stochastic path integral formulation of full counting statistics. Our approach is based on the fact that fast microscopic quantum fluctuations give rise to slow variations of conserved quantities. The method has been illustrated with chaotic cavities and novel results have been presented for the hot-electron regime. We emphasize the general nature of this approach and its applicability to stochastic problems even outside mesoscopic physics.

S. P. acknowledges the collaboration with K. E. Nagaev on an earlier related work. We thank P. Samuelsson for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.