text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The first KamLAND results  are the last (or almost last) step in resolution of the long-standing solar neutrino problem . “In the context of two flavor neutrino oscillations with the CPT invariance, the KamLAND results exclude all oscillation solutions of this problem but the ‘Large mixing angle’ solution” . In fact, KamLAND excludes also all non-oscillation solutions based on neutrino spin-flip in the magnetic fields of the Sun, on the non-standard neutrino interactions, etc.. More precisely, KamLAND excludes them as the dominant mechanisms of the solar neutrino conversion.

Soon after the suggestion of the MSW mechanism , the “MSW triangle”  had been constructed in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ plane which corresponds to 1/4 - 1/3 suppression of the Argon production rate . The region around the upper right corner of this triangle, or large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ part of its horizontal side (“the adiabatic solution”) is what we call now the LMA region.

Kamiokande , SAGE  and GALLEX  have disintegrated the triangle into pieces excluding some parts of oscillation parameter space. First, the results from Kamiokande (the absence of a strong spectrum distortion as well as the absence of strong Day-Night effect) have chipped off the LMA region. Then Gallium experiments SAGE and GALLEX, confirming LMA, have splitted the diagonal side of the triangle into SMA and LOW. Apart from that vacuum oscillation solutions (VO) were always present.

For a long time SMA was the favored solution and LMA was considered as an non excluded possibility. Things changed in 1998 when Super-Kamiokande  has testified against SMA (the flatness of spectrum and the absence of a peak in the zenith angle distribution of events in the Earth core bin). Soon after that, the analysis of the Super-Kamiokande data for 708 days of operation allowed us  to conclude that solar neutrino results provide hints that the LMA solution could be correct (see also analysis in ). Since that time LMA continuously reinforced its position.

Super-Kamiokande  and then SNO  have accomplished genesis of the triangle. They have practically excluded SMA, disfavored LOW and VO, and shifted the LMA region to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (small Day-Night asymmetry at Super-Kamiokande) and smaller mixings (small ratio of CC/NC events at SNO).

By the time of the KamLAND announcement, the solar neutrino data  have definitely selected LMA as the most favorable solution based on neutrino mass and mixing . The best fit point from the free boron neutrino flux fit  is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.1510^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.41,f_B=1.05,$$
(1)
where $`f_BF_B/F_B^{SSM}`$ is the boron neutrino flux in the units of the Standard Solar Model predicted flux .

On basis of the solar neutrino results (and the assumption of the CPT invariance) predictions for the KamLAND experiment have been calculated. A significant suppression of the signal was expected in the case of the LMA solution. The predicted ratio of the numbers of events with the visible (prompt) energies, $`E_p`$, above 2.6 MeV with and without oscillations equals :

$$R_{KL}^{LMA}=0.65_{0.40}^{+0.09}(3\sigma ).$$
(2)
For other solutions of the solar neutrino problem one expected $`R_{KL}=0.91`$, where the deviation from 1 can be due to the effect of nonzero 1-3 mixing.

In the best fit point (1) the predicted spectrum has (i) a peak at $`E_p(3.03.6)`$ MeV, (ii) a suppression of the number of events near the threshold energy $`E_p2.6`$ MeV and (iii) a significant suppression of the signal (with respect to the no-oscillation case) at the high energies: $`E_p>(45)`$ MeV . No distortion of the spectrum is expected for the other solutions.

The first KamLAND results: both the total number of events and spectrum shape , are in a very good agreement with predictions:

$$R_{KL}^{exp}=0.611\pm 0.094.$$
(3)
The spectral data (although not yet precise) reproduce well the features described above. As a result, the allowed “island” in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ plane with the best fit KamLAND point covers the best fit point from the solar neutrino analysis .

In this paper we present our analysis of the KamLAND data as well as combined analysis of the solar neutrinos and KamLAND results. The impact of KamLAND on the LMA MSW solution is studied. We consider implications of the combined (solar neutrinos + KamLAND) analysis and make predictions for the future measurements.

During preparation of this paper, several studies of the first KamLAND results and solar neutrino data have been published  \- . Our conclusions are in a good agreement with results of those papers, although there are some differences. Detailed comparison of results will be done later.

## 2 KamLAND

In a given energy bin $`a`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{}.13)`$ the signal at KamLAND is determined by

$$N_a=A\underset{i}{}_{E_a}^{E_a+\mathrm{\Delta }E}𝑑E_p𝑑E_p^{}P_iF_i\sigma f(E_p,E_p^{}),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.425`$ MeV,

$$P_i=\left(1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2L_i}{4E}\right)$$
(5)
is the vacuum oscillation survival probability for $`i`$ reactor situated at the distance $`L_i`$ from KamLAND, $`F_i`$ is the flux from $`i`$ reactor, $`\sigma `$ is the cross-section of $`\overline{\nu }pe^+n`$ reaction, $`E_p`$ is the observed prompt energy, $`E_p^{}`$ is the true prompt energy, $`f(E_p,E_p^{})`$ is the energy resolution function, $`A`$ is the factor which takes into account the fiducial volume, the time of observation, etc.. We sum over all reactors contributing appreciable to the flux at KamLAND.

The suppression factor of the total number of (reactor neutrino) events above certain threshold is defined as:

$$R_{KL}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )\frac{N(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )}{N_0},$$
(6)
where $`N=_aN_a`$, $`N_a`$ is given in (4) and $`N_0`$ is the total number of events in the absence of oscillations (following KamLAND we will call $`N`$ and $`N_0`$ the rates).

1). KamLAND spectrum. High threshold. We perform $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the KamLAND spectrum, defining

$$\chi _{spec}^2=\underset{a=1\mathrm{}13}{}\underset{b=1\mathrm{}13}{}(N_aN_a^{th})\sigma _{ab}^2(N_bN_b^{th}),$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the covariance matrix in which the systematic uncertainties were propagated to the spectral bins.

We find that for $`E_p2.6`$ MeV the minimum of $`\chi _{spec}^2`$ is achieved for

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.3410^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.453,$$
(8)
and in this point $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=2.92/11`$. Notice that in contrast with the KamLAND result  our best fit mixing deviates from the maximal mixing.

We present in fig. 1 the contours of constant confidence level with respect to the best fit point (8) in the $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$ plane using relation: $`\chi ^2=\chi _{min}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1,3.84`$ and $`6.63`$ for $`1\sigma `$, $`95\%`$ and $`99\%`$ C.L. correspondingly.

The contours manifest an oscillatory pattern in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ in spite of a strong averaging effect which originates from large spread in distances from different reactors. The pattern can be described in terms of oscillations with certain effective distance, $`L_{eff}`$, and effective oscillation phase $`\varphi _{eff}`$:

$$\varphi _{eff}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2L_{eff}}{4E},L_{eff}165\mathrm{km}.$$
(9)
$`L_{eff}`$ corresponds to the distance between KamLAND and the closest set of reactors which provides the large fraction of the antineutrino flux. Notice that $`L_{eff}`$ is smaller than the average (weighted with power) distance 189 km.

Let us consider the 95% allowed regions.

(i) The lowest “island” allowed by KamLAND with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<210^5`$ eV2 corresponds to the oscillation phase $`\varphi _{eff}<\pi /2`$. This region is excluded by the absence of significant day-night asymmetry of the Super-Kamiokande signal. In this domain, the predicted asymmetry at SNO, $`A_{DN}^{SNO}>17\%`$, is still consistent with data.

(ii) The second allowed region, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(510)10^5`$ eV2, corresponds to the first oscillation maximum, $`\varphi _{eff}\pi `$ (maximum of the survival probability). It contains the best fit point.

(iii) The third island is at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(1323)10^5`$ eV2: it corresponds to the oscillation maximum (second maximum of the survival probability) with $`\varphi _{eff}2\pi `$.

There is a continuum of the allowed regions above $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2310^4`$ eV2. The third region merges with the continuum at 99% CL.

At the $`1\sigma `$ level the second island is the only allowed region.

2) KamLAND rate. In fig.1 we show the regions excluded by the KamLAND rate at $`95\%`$ C.L.. The borders of these regions coincide with contours of constant $`R_{KL}^{max}=0.80`$ and $`R_{KL}^{min}=0.42`$ obtained in ). The exclusion region at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(25)10^5`$ eV2 corresponds to the first oscillation minimum (minimum of the survival probability) at KamLAND ($`\varphi _{eff}\pi /2`$). Here the suppression of the signal is too strong. Another region of significant suppression (second oscillation minimum with $`\varphi _{eff}=3\pi /2`$) is at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(912)10^5`$ eV2.

3). KamLAND spectrum. Low threshold. We analyze the spectrum with the threshold $`E_p^{th}=0.9`$ MeV, using the same prescription for the contribution of the geological neutrinos as in . The best fit point shifts with respect to (8) to larger mixing and smaller mass squared difference:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.8610^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.48.$$
(10)
In fig. 2 we show the allowed regions at 68 %, 95% and 99% confidence levels.

With lowering the threshold the sensitivity to the spectrum shape increases: the measurements become sensitive not only to the dominant oscillation peak but also to the lower energy oscillation maximum. As a result, the analysis leads to stronger exclusion of the oscillation parameter space. In particular, maximal and large mixing parts become less favored than in the case of high threshold.

4). KamLAND spectrum and rate. Following procedure in  we have performed also combined analysis of spectrum and rate introducing the free normalization parameter of the spectrum, $`R_{KL}`$, and defining the $`\chi ^2`$ as

$$\chi _{spec,R}^2=\chi _{spec}^2+\chi _R^2,$$
(11)
where

$$\chi _R^2=\left(\frac{R_{KL}0.611}{0.094}\right)^2.$$
(12)
We find results which are very close to those from our spectrum analysis. In particular, the best fit value of mixing is $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.48`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.3110^5`$ eV2.

As it follows from our consideration here, the values of oscillation parameters extracted from the KamLAND data, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{KL}`$, are in a very good agreement with the values from independent solar neutrino analysis $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{sun}`$, For the best fit points (1), (8) (10) we conclude that within $`1\sigma `$ (see fig. 1 and fig. 2)

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{KL}=(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{sun}.$$
(13)
At the same time, the data do not exclude that the solar and KamLAND parameters are different, and moreover, the difference still can be large. For instance, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{KL}`$ can coincide with the present best fit point or be in the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ island, whereas $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )_{sun}`$ can be at lower $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

## 3 Solar Neutrinos

We use the same data set and the same procedure of analysis as in our previous publication . Here the main ingredients of the analysis are summarized.

The data sample consists of

\- 3 total rates: (i) the $`Ar`$-production rate, $`Q_{Ar}`$, from Homestake , (ii) the $`Ge`$production rate, $`Q_{Ge}`$ from SAGE  and (iii) the combined $`Ge`$production rate from GALLEX and GNO ;

\- 44 data points from the zenith-spectra measured by Super-Kamiokande during 1496 days of operation ;

\- 38 day-night spectral points from SNO .

Altogether the solar neutrino experiments provide us with 81 data points.

All the solar neutrino fluxes, but the boron neutrino flux, are taken according to SSM BP2000 . The boron neutrino flux is treated as a free parameter. For the $`hep`$neutrino flux we take fixed value $`F_{hep}=9.3\times 10^3`$ cm-2 s-1  .

Thus, in our analysis of the solar neutrino data as well as in the combined analysis of the solar and KamLAND results we have three fit parameters: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ and $`f_B`$.

We define the contribution of the solar neutrino data to $`\chi ^2`$ as

$$\chi _{sun}^2=\chi _{rate}^2+\chi _{SK}^2+\chi _{SNO}^2,$$
(14)
where $`\chi _{rate}^2`$, $`\chi _{SK}^2`$ and $`\chi _{SNO}^2`$ are the contributions from the total rates, the Super-Kamiokande zenith spectra and the SNO day and night spectra correspondingly. The main result of analysis performed in  is given here in Eq. (1).

## 4 Solar neutrinos and KamLAND

We have performed two different combined fits of the data from the solar neutrino experiments and KamLAND.

1) KamLAND rate and solar neutrino data. There are 81 (solar) + 1 (KamLAND) data points - 3 free parameters = 79 d.o.f.. We define the global $`\chi ^2`$ for this case as

$$\chi _{sun,R}^2=\chi _{sun}^2+\chi _R^2,$$
(15)
where $`\chi _{sun}^2`$ and $`\chi _R^2`$ are given in (14) and (12). The minimum $`\chi _{sun,R}^2(min)/d.o.f.=65.2/79`$ corresponds to the C.L. = 86.7% . It appears at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.0310^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.411,f_B=1.05.$$
(16)
This point practically coincides with what we have obtained from the solar neutrino analysis only.

We construct the contours of constant confidence level in the $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$ plot using the following procedure. We perform minimization of $`\chi _{sun,R}^2`$ with respect to $`f_B`$ for each point of the oscillation plane, thus getting $`\chi _{sun,R}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$. Then the contours are defined by the condition $`\chi _{sun,R}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )=\chi _{sun,R}^2(min)+\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.61},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.99},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9.21}`$ and $`11.83`$ are taken for $`1\sigma ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}90}\%,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}95}\%`$ and $`99\%`$ C.L. and $`3\sigma `$. The results are shown in fig. 3.

According to the figure, the main impact of the KamLAND rate is strengthening of bound on the allowed region from below due to strong suppression of the KamLAND rate at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(25)10^5`$ eV2 (see fig. 1) - region of the first oscillation minimum in KamLAND. The lines of constant confidence level are shifted to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The KamLAND rate leads to a distortion (shift to smaller mixings) of contours at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^4`$ eV2 where the second oscillation minimum at KamLAND is situated. The upper part of the allowed region is modified rather weakly.

2). KamLAND spectrum and solar neutrino data. We calculate

$$\chi _{global}^2=\chi _{sun}^2+\chi _{spec}^2,$$
(17)
where $`\chi _{spec}^2`$ has been defined in (7). In this case we have 81 (solar) + 13 (KamLAND) data points - 3 free parameters = 91 d.o.f.. The absolute minimum, $`\chi _{global}^2(min)=68.2`$ (which corresponds to a very high confidence level: $`96.3\%`$), is at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.3210^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.409,f_B=1.05.$$
(18)
The best fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is slightly higher than that from the solar data analysis. The solar neutrino data have higher sensitivity to mixing, whereas the KamLAND is more sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, as a result, in (18) the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is close to the one determined from the KamLAND data only (8), whereas $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ coincides with mixing determined from the solar neutrino results (1).

We construct the contours of constant confidence levels in the oscillation plane, similarly to what we did for the fit of the solar data and the KamLAND rate (fig. 4).

As compared with the solar data analysis, KamLAND practically has not changed the upper bound on mixing, but strengthened the bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. At the $`3\sigma `$ level we get:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<2.810^4\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta <0.84,99.73\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}..$$
(19)
The spectral data disintegrate the LMA region. At the $`3\sigma `$ level only a small spot is left in the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>2.510^4`$ eV2.

At the 99% C.L. the rest of the region splits into two “islands” which we will refer to as the lower (l-) and higher (h-) LMA regions. (Existence of these two islands can be seen already from an overlap of the solar and KamLAND allowed regions in ). The l-region is characterized by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(4.710)10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.270.75.$$
(20)
It contains the best fit point (18). The h-region is determined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(1220)10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.290.63,$$
(21)
with best fit point at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=14.510^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.41.$$
(22)
This point is accepted with respect to the global minimum (18) at about $`2\sigma `$ level.

The excluded region between two islands corresponds to the second oscillation minimum ($`\varphi _{eff}3\pi /2`$) at $`E_p(34)MeV`$ which contradicts the spectral data.

Features of spectrum distortion. In the fig. 5 we show the prompt energy spectra of events for the best fit points in the l- and h-regions, $`N_l(E_p)`$ and $`N_h(E_p)`$. The spectra can be well understood in terms of the effective oscillation phase $`\varphi _{eff}`$:

$$N(E_p)N_0(E_p)\left[1+D(E_p)\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{eff}\right],$$
(23)
where $`D(E_p)`$ is the averaging factor.

In the best fit point of l-region (18), the peak at $`E_p3.6`$ MeV corresponds to the oscillation maximum $`\varphi _{eff}=\pi `$ (exact position of maximum of the survival probability is at $`E_p=4.3\mathrm{MeV}`$). The closest oscillation minimum (phase $`\varphi _{eff}=3\pi /2`$) is at $`E_p2.4`$ MeV and the next maximum ($`\varphi _{eff}=2\pi `$) is at $`E_p1.8`$ MeV. Due to strong averaging effect the structures below (in $`E_p`$) the main maximum are not profound and look more like a shoulder below the peak. The first oscillation minimum is at $`E_p=7.2`$ MeV.

In the case of h-region (22) the spectrum has similar structure but (due to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$) the energy intervals between maxima and minima decrease. The main peak at $`E_p3.4`$ MeV corresponds now to the second oscillation maximum with $`\varphi _{eff}=2\pi `$. One can calculate then that the next minimum ( $`\varphi _{eff}=5\pi /2`$) is at $`E_p2.7`$ MeV and the next maximum ($`\varphi _{eff}=3\pi `$) is at $`E=2.2`$ MeV. The higher energy oscillation minimum ($`\varphi _{eff}=3\pi /2`$) is at $`E=5`$ MeV. This pattern can be seen in the fig. 5 which confirms validity of the effective phase consideration.

The measured spectrum, indeed, gives a hint of existence of the low energy shoulder. Evidently with the present data it is impossible to disentangle the l- and h- spectra. Substantial decrease of errors is needed. Also decrease of the energy threshold will help. According to fig. 5, $`N_l(E_p)>N_h(E_p)`$ at $`E_p>3.5`$ MeV, and $`N_l(E_p)<N_h(E_p)`$ at lower energies, especially in the interval $`E_p=(2.02.5)`$ MeV. Therefore for the low threshold the difference between $`N_l(E_p)`$ and $`N_h(E_p)`$ can not be eliminated by normalization (mixing angle). See similar discussion in .

Pull-off diagrams. To check the quality of the fit we have constructed the pull-off diagrams  which show deviations, $`D_K`$, of the predicted values of the observables $`K_{bf}`$ from the central experimental values, $`K_{exp}`$, in the units of the $`1\sigma `$ experimental errors, $`\sigma _K`$,:

$$D_K\frac{K_{bf}K_{exp}}{\sigma _K},$$
(24)
where $`K=Q_{Ar},Q_{Ge},CC/NC,A_{DN}^{SNO},A_{DN}^{SK},R_{KL},f_B`$.

In fig. 6 we show the pull-off diagrams for the best fit points from the l- and h-regions. In both regions the largest deviation is for the $`Ar`$-production rate. In the h-region: $`Q_{Ar}>3.1`$ SNU, which is $`2.5\sigma `$ above the Homestake result. In the l-region the $`Q_{Ar}`$ deviation is smaller: about $`1.8\sigma `$.

Other deviations are about $`1\sigma `$ or smaller; they are even smaller in the l-region. In the h-region a very small D-N asymmetry is expected. The l- and h-regions lead to the opposite sign deviations for the CC/NC ratio at SNO, and therefore future precise measurements of this ratio will discriminate among l- and h- solutions. Notice also that in h-region $`f_B<1`$.

## 5 Effect of 1-3 mixing

We assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=(23)10^3`$ eV2, and there is a non-zero admixture of $`\nu _e`$ in the third mass eigenstate described by the angle $`\theta _{13}`$. Both for KamLAND and for solar neutrinos the oscillations driven by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$ are averaged out and signals are determined by the survival probabilities

$$P_{ee}=(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})^2P_2+\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _{13}(12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})P_2.$$
(25)
Here $`P_2=P_2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2,\theta _{12})`$ is the two neutrino vacuum oscillation probability for KamLAND and it is the two neutrino conversion probability for solar neutrinos. The factor $`(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})^2`$ leads to additional suppression of the KamLAND signal and shift of the allowed regions to smaller $`\theta _{12}`$ (see detailed study in ). The effect of $`\theta _{13}`$ on the solar neutrino analysis has been discussed in .

We have performed the combined analysis of the solar neutrino and KamLAND data for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ taken at the upper bound given by the CHOOZ experiment : $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}=0.04`$. The number of degrees of freedom is the same as in the $`2\nu `$ fit and we follow procedure described in sect. 4 with survival probabilities modified according to (25).

In fig. 7 we show results of the combined analysis of the solar data and the KamLAND rate. As can be concluded from comparison of fig. 3 and fig. 7, the main impact of non-zero 1-3 mixing is a slight shift of the allowed region to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and smaller $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. In particular, we find that the best fit, $`\chi _{min}^2/d.o.f.=66.21/79`$, is at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.6010^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.411f_B=1.08.$$
(26)
In fig. 8 we show result of the combined analysis of the solar neutrino data and the KamLAND spectrum. From fig. 8 and fig. 4 we observe the same effect: 1-3 mixing leads to a shift of the allowed region to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and smaller $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. In the best fit point we find $`\chi _{min}^2/d.o.f.=69.24/91`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=7.1710^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.41,f_B=1.07.$$
(27)
The introduction of the 1-3 mixing slightly worsen the fit: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^21`$, it requires higher original boron neutrino flux, than in the $`2\nu `$\- case. At the same time, the 1-3 mixing improves a fit in the h-region: It is accepted now at 90 % C.L. with respect to the best fit point (27). This region merges with the small spot at high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The best fit point in the h-region is shifted to smaller mixing: $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.36`$.

For convenience, the results of different fits are summarized in the Table 1. It shows high stability of the extracted parameters with respect to a type of analysis.

## 6 Next step

The key problems left after the first KamLAND results are

* more precise determination of the neutrino parameters: in particular, (i) precise determination of the deviation of 12-mixing from maximal mixing, (ii) strengthening of the upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (iii) discrimination between the two existing regions;
* searches for effects beyond the single $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and single mixing approximation;
* searches for differences of the neutrino oscillation parameters determined from KamLAND and from the solar neutrino experiments.

Notice that precise knowledge of the parameters is crucial not only for the neutrinoless double beta decay searches, long baseline experiments, studies of the atmospheric and supernova neutrinos, etc., but also for understanding of physics of the solar neutrino conversion. In the region of the best fit point a dominating process (at least for $`E>(0.51)`$ MeV) is the adiabatic neutrino conversion (MSW), whereas in the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ region allowed by KamLAND at the $`2\sigma `$ level, the effect is reduced to the averaged vacuum oscillations (a la Gribov-Pontecorvo)  with small matter corrections.

In this connection, we will discuss two questions.

How small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be? This is especially important question, e.g., for measurements of the earth regeneration effect. In the l-region we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>410^5\mathrm{eV}^2,(3\sigma )$$
(28)
and it is difficult to expect that lower values will be allowed.

The bound (28) appears as an interplay of both the KamLAND rate and the shape. As it follows from the fig. 3, the KamLAND rate strengthens the lower bounds: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(3.0,4.0,4.7)\times 10^5`$ eV2, at the $`1\sigma `$, $`2\sigma `$, $`3\sigma `$ correspondingly which should be compared with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(2.5,3.2,4.0)\times 10^5`$ eV2 from the solar analysis only. Adding the spectral data results in the bounds $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^23.3,5.5,6.2\times 10^5`$ eV2

With decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ the oscillatory pattern of the spectrum shifts to lower energies. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=510^5`$ eV2 the maximum of spectrum is at $`E_p=2.7`$ MeV and the oscillation suppression increases with energy . The oscillation minimum is at $`E_p5`$ MeV. If $`R_{KL}(2.7\mathrm{MeV})=0.81`$, then $`R_{KL}(4.0\mathrm{MeV})=0.47`$. The KamLAND spectrum does not show such a fast decrease.

One can characterize the spectrum distortion by a relative suppression of signal at the high (say, above 4.3 MeV) and at the low (below 4.3 MeV) energies 111An alternative way is to introduce the moments of the energy spectrum .. The energy interval (2.6 - 4.3) MeV contains KamLAND energy 4 bins. Introducing the suppression factors $`R_{KL}(<4.3\mathrm{MeV})`$ and $`R_{KL}(>4.3\mathrm{MeV})`$ we can define the ratio

$$k=\frac{1R_{KL}(>4.3\mathrm{MeV})}{1R_{KL}(<4.3\mathrm{MeV})}.$$
(29)
$`k`$ which we will call the shape parameter does not depend on the mixing angle and normalization of spectrum. It increases with increase of the oscillation suppression at high energies.

Using the KamLAND data we get the experimental value

$$k^{exp}=0.84_{0.35}^{+.42},1\sigma .$$
(30)
In fig. 9 we present the dependence of the shape parameter $`k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ for fixed mixing: $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.41`$. For the spectrum which corresponds to the best combined fit we find $`k=0.70`$, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=510^5`$ eV2 the ratio equals $`k=2.0`$. For the h-region best point: $`k=0.94`$.

Notice that in the l-region below $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=810^5`$ eV2, $`k`$ increases quickly with decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, reaching a maximal value at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=5.510^5`$ eV2. Below that, the parameter $`k`$ decreases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. In this region, however, the total event rate decreases fast giving the bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. This explains a shift of the allowed (at $`3\sigma `$) region to smaller mixings with decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

Notice also that the central experimental value of $`k`$ can be reproduced in the both allowed regions (l- and h-). Therefore future precise measurement of spectrum will further sharpen determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ within a given island. To discriminate among the islands one needs to use more elaborated criteria (not just $`k`$) or a complete spectral information.

How large is the large mixing? In contrast to  our best fit point is at non-maximal mixing $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =0.86)`$ being rather close to the best fit point from the solar neutrino analysis. Similar deviation from maximal mixing has been obtained in our rate+spectrum analysis. Notice that the KamLAND data have weak sensitivity to the mixing (weaker than the solar neutrino data). The allowed regions cover the interval

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.121.00(\theta <\pi /2),95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}..$$
(31)
Even at $`1\sigma `$ the interval $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.231.00`$ $`(\theta <\pi /2)`$ is allowed. The reason is that KamLAND is essentially the vacuum oscillation experiment (see evaluation of matter effects in KamLAND in ), and effects of the vacuum oscillations depend on deviation from maximal mixing which can be characterized by $`ϵ=(1/2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )`$ quadratically: $`P14ϵ^2`$. The matter conversion depends on $`ϵ`$ linearly: $`P12ϵ`$ .

Notice that maximal mixing is rather strongly disfavored by all measured solar neutrino rates. In the point indicated by KamLAND we predict the charged current to neutral current measurement at SNO, the Argon production rate and the Germanium production rate:

$$\frac{\mathrm{CC}}{\mathrm{NC}}=0.51(+3.3\sigma ),Q_{Ar}=3.2\mathrm{SNU}(+2.5\sigma ),Q_{Ge}=63\mathrm{SNU}(1.6\sigma ).$$
(32)
In brackets we show the pulls of the predictions from the best fit experimental values. As follows from the fig. 10 future precise measurements of the CC/NC ratio at SNO will strengthen the upper bounds on both mixing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

It is important to “overdetermine” the neutrino parameters measuring all possible observables. This will allow us to make cross-checks of selected solution and to search for inconsistencies which will require extensions of the theoretical context. In this connection let us consider predictions for the forthcoming measurements.

1). Precise measurements of the CC/NC ratio at SNO. In fig. 10 we show the contours of constant CC/NC ratio. We find predictions for the best fit point and the $`3\sigma `$ interval:

$$\frac{\mathrm{CC}}{\mathrm{NC}}=0.33_{0.07}^{+0.15},3\sigma .$$
(33)
At $`99\%`$ C.L. the islands split and we get the following predictions for them separately:

$$\frac{\mathrm{CC}}{\mathrm{NC}}(\mathrm{l}\mathrm{region})=0.33_{0.06}^{+0.11},\frac{\mathrm{CC}}{\mathrm{NC}}(\mathrm{h}\mathrm{region})=0.38_{0.03}^{+0.06},99\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}..$$
(34)
Values of CC/NC $`<0.35`$ will exclude the h-region. Precise measurements of the ratio CC/NC will also strengthen the upper bounds on mixing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

2). The day-night asymmetry at SNO. The KamLAND provides a strong lover bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, and shifts the best fit point to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. This further diminishes the expected value of day-night asymmetry. In fig. 10 we show the contours of constant $`A_{DN}^{SNO}`$. The best fit point prediction and the $`3\sigma `$ bound equal

$$A_{ND}^{SNO}=2.8\pm 0.8\%,(1\sigma ),A_{ND}^{SNO}<9\%(3\sigma ).$$
(35)
The present best fit value of the SNO asymmetry, $`7\%`$, is accepted at about 99% C.L.. Observations of the asymmetry $`A_{ND}^{SNO}>1\%`$ will exclude the h-region. The expected asymmetry at Super-Kamiokande is even smaller: In the best fit point we expect $`A_{ND}^{SK}(1.72.0)\%`$.

3). The turn up of the spectrum at SNO and Super-Kamiokande at low energies. Using results of  we predict for the best fit point (18) an increase of ratio of the observed to expected (without oscillation) number of the CC events, $`R_{SNO}^{CC}`$, from 0.31 at 8 MeV to 0.345 at 5 MeV, so that

$$\frac{R_{SNO}^{CC}(5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})R_{SNO}^{CC}(8\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}{R_{SNO}^{CC}(8\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}=0.100.12.$$
(36)
In Super-Kamiokande the turn up is about $`(57)\%`$ in the same interval (5 - 8) MeV.

4). Further KamLAND measurements. Possible impact can be estimated using figures 1, 2, 5. A decrease of the error by factor of 2 (which will require both significant increase of statistics and decrease of the systematic error) will allow KamLAND alone to exclude all the regions but the l-region at 95 % C.L., if the best fit is at the same point as it is determined now.

5). BOREXINO. At $`3\sigma `$ we predict the following suppressions of signals with respect to the SSM predictions to BOREXINO experiment , in the two allowed regions:

$$R_B(\mathrm{l}\mathrm{region})=0.610.73,R_B(\mathrm{h}\mathrm{region})=0.620.73.$$
(37)
So, BOREXINO will perform consistency check but it will not distinguish the l- and h- regions.

6). Gallium production rate.  In the best fit point one predicts the germanium production rate $`Q_{Ge}=71`$ SNU. In the h-region best fit point $`Q_{Ge}=72`$ SNU. So, the Gallium experiments do not discriminate among the l - and h - regions. However, precise measurements of $`Q_{Ge}`$ are important for improvements of the bound on the 1-2 mixing and its deviation from maximal value.

## 7 Conclusions

1. The first KamLAND results (rate and spectrum) are in a very good agreement with the predictions based on the LMA MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem.

2. Our analysis of the KamLAND data reproduces well the results of the collaboration. The oscillation parameters extracted from the KamLAND data and from the solar neutrino data agree within $`1\sigma `$.

3. We have performed a combined analysis of the solar and KamLAND results. The main impact of the KamLAND results on the LMA solution can be summarized in the following way. KamLAND

* shifts the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to slightly higher values $`6.1510^5`$ $`7.310^5`$ eV2; (the mixing is practically unchanged: $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =0.41`$, and this number is rather stable with respect to variations of the analysis;
* establishes rather solid lower bound on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>410^5`$ eV2 ($`3\sigma `$);
* disintegrates the LMA region at 99% C.L. into two parts.

KamLAND further disfavors high values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>310^4`$ eV2.

4. Inclusion of the 1-3 mixing shifts the allowed regions to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and smaller $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$. $`\chi ^2`$ slightly increases with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$.

5. The KamLAND results strengthen the upper bound on the expected value of the day-night asymmetry at SNO: $`A_{DN}^{SNO}<9\%`$. We predict about 10% turn up of the energy spectrum at SNO in the interval of energies (5 - 8) MeV. The CC/NC ratio is expected to be CC/NC $`0.33`$, that is, near the present best SNO value.

Future SNO measurements of the CC/NC ratio and $`A_{DN}^{SNO}`$ will have further strong impact on the LMA parameter space.

## 8 Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to E. Kh. Akhmedov for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Some aspects of Dalitz decay 𝜋⁰→𝑒⁺𝑒⁻𝛾Presented by K. K. at Int. Conf. Hadron Structure ’02, Herlany, Slovakia, September 22-27, 2002

## 1 Introduction

With a branching ratio of $`(1.198\pm 0.032)\%`$  the three body decay $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$, first considered by R. H. Dalitz more than fifty years ago , is the second most important decay channel of the pion. The dominant decay mode, $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$, with its overwhelming branching ratio of $`\text{BR}=(98.798\pm 0.032)\%`$, is deeply connected with this three body decay. The other decay channels connected with the anomalous $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ vertex, like $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ and $`\pi ^02(e^+e^{})`$, are suppressed approximately by respective factors of $`10^7`$ and of $`10^5`$. As already alluded to, the hadronic aspects of the Dalitz decay of the neutral pion are related to the axial anomaly. Actually, the main features of this process can be discussed within the framework of Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT – for reviews see ). In the case at hand, we need only to consider the case of two light quark flavours, $`u`$ and $`d`$. We shall however use the extension of ChPT to electromagnetic interaction, i.e. including effects of virtual photons , treating e.g. the pion mass difference as a $`p^2`$ effect at lowest order.

## 2 Kinematics

One may separate the contributions to the $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$ process into two main classes. The first corresponds to the Feynman graphs where the electron-positron pair is produced by a single photon (Dalitz pair). The leading contribution, of order $`\alpha ^3`$, to the decay rate belongs to this one-photon reducible class, which involves a semi-off-shell $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ vertex. The second class of contributions corresponds to one-photon irreducible topologies. They start with the radiative corrections to the $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ process, which involves the doubly off-shell $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ vertex. Their contributions to the decay rate are thus suppressed, being at least of order $`\alpha ^5`$. For the time being, we shall therefore not take them into account. A complete discussion will appear elsewhere .

The general expression of the one-photon reducible part of the $`\pi ^0(p)e^+(q_1)e^{}(q_2)`$ $`\gamma (k)`$ amplitude is of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}_{1\gamma R}(\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma )=_\nu g^{\nu \rho }\frac{(i)}{(q_1+q_2)^2}\frac{1}{1+\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}((q_1+q_2)^2)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \overline{u}(q_2)(ie)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q_2,q_1)v(q_1).\end{array}$$
(1)
In this expression, $`_\mu (p,k)`$ represents the semi-off-shell $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude, defined as

$$^\mu (p,k)\gamma (k);\mathrm{out}|j^\mu (0)|\pi ^0(p);\mathrm{in}=𝒜((pk)^2)\epsilon ^{\nu \mu \alpha \beta }ϵ_\nu (k)^{}k^\alpha p^\beta ,$$
(2)
where the second expression follows from Lorentz invariance and parity conservation, while $`j^\mu `$ denotes the electromagnetic current. Furthermore, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}\left((q_1+q_2)^2\right)`$ denotes the renormalized vacuum polarization function, with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(0)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q_2,q_1)`$ stands for the vertex function, renormalized in the on-shell scheme, of the current $`j_\rho `$. Assuming again parity conservation, one may express $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q_2,q_1)`$ in terms of two form factors

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho (q_2,q_1)=F_1\left((q_1+q_2)^2\right)\gamma _\rho +F_2\left((q_1+q_2)^2\right)\frac{i}{2m}\sigma _{\rho \sigma }(q_1+q_2)^\sigma .$$
(3)
The Dirac form factor $`F_1`$ is thus normalized by $`F_1(0)=1`$, while the Pauli form factor gives the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, $`F_2(0)=a_e`$. Finally, since $`(q_1+q_2)^\mu _\mu (p,k)=0`$, the photon propagator reduces to the contribution of the $`g^{\nu \rho }`$ piece.

It is convenient to introduce the following kinematic parameters

$`x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(q_1+q_2)^2}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}},`$ $`\nu ^2`$ $`x1,\nu ^2={\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}},`$ (4)
$`y`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2p(q_1q_2)}{m_{\pi ^0}^2(1x)}},`$ $`\beta `$ $`y\beta ,\beta =\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{x}}}.`$ (5)
One may then write the partial decay rate, normalized to the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(1/64\pi )𝒜(0)m_{\pi ^0}^3`$, for the one photon reducible contribution in terms of these parameters as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)}{𝒜(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)^3}{4x^2}}\left\{\right|F_1(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)|^2(\nu ^2+xy^2+x)`$
$`+|F_2(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{x(\nu ^2xy^2+x)}{\nu ^2}}+4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(F_1(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)F_2^{}(m_{\pi ^0}^2x))x\},`$ (6)
or, by integrating out the parameter $`y`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)}{𝒜(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)^3}{3x^2}}\beta \left\{\right|F_1(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)|^2(\nu ^2+2x)`$
$`+|F_2(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{x(2\nu ^2+x)}{\nu ^2}}+6\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(F_1(m_{\pi ^0}^2x)F_2^{}(m_{\pi ^0}^2x))x\}.`$ (7)
At lowest order in the fine structure constant we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=0`$, $`F_1=1`$ and $`F_2=0`$. We shall discuss $`𝒜`$ and the hadronic part of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ in the next section.

## 3 Parameterization of Hadronic Part

We are going to study the problem in two flavour Chiral Perturbation Theory extended by virtual photons  up to one loop, i.e. for this type of process up to the $`𝒪(p^6)`$ where $`p`$ can represent momenta relevant for the decay or electromagnetic constant $`e`$. The lowest order effective Lagrangian can be written as

$$^{(2)}=\frac{F^2}{4}\mathrm{d}^\mu U^+\mathrm{d}_\mu U+\chi ^+U+U^+\chi \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+ZF^4Q_RUQ_LU^+$$
(8)
with

$$U=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i\varphi }{F_0}},\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi ^0& \sqrt{2}\pi ^+\\ \sqrt{2}\pi ^{}& \pi ^0\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Further chiral invariant Lagrangians of higher order ($`𝒪(p^4)`$ and $`𝒪(p^6)`$), so-called Wess-Zumino anomaly Lagrangian (of $`𝒪(p^4)`$ order) and also the other details of calculation within ChPT can be found in above references.

We will calculate the hadronic part of one photon reducible amplitude of the decay $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$, as it is depicted in Fig.2, i.e. the value of $`𝒜(1\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{had})`$ in the terms of the previous section.

With definition $`\sigma \sqrt{14m_{\pi ^\pm }^2/l^2}`$ one can obtain from the one photon irreducible graphs in Fig.2

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜(l^2)=\frac{N_Ce^2}{12\pi ^2F_{\pi ^0}}\{1\frac{l^2}{6F_0^2}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}[\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}+\frac{1}{3}2\sigma ^2\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma ^3\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma 1}{\sigma +1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }a}]+\delta a\},\end{array}$$
(10)
while the one particle reducible graphs contribute by the factor $`(1\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{had})`$, where the hadronic contribution to renormalized vacuum polarization function is

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{had}(l^2)=\frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2}[\frac{2}{3}+2\sigma ^2+\sigma ^3\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma 1}{\sigma +1}\left]\right\}.$$
(11)
Here we have used standard handling with infinities ($`\lambda `$) for $`𝒪(p^6)`$ constants:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }a^r+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \lambda `$
$`\delta a`$ $`=\delta a^r`$ (12)
with renormalized quantities to be finite and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a^r=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{32\pi ^2}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }a}+\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\pi ^0}^2}{\mu ^2}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}.$$
(13)
The $`𝒪(p^6)`$ constants used in this text could be connected with form of  and  respectively as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}F_0^2(A_24A_3)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}F_0^2c_{13}`$ (14)
$`\delta a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\pi ^2\left[(A_22A_34A_4)m_{\pi ^0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}(A_4+2A_6)2\overline{m}B\right]=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\pi ^2\left[(c_{11}4c_34c_7)m_{\pi ^0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(5c_3+c_7+2c_8)2\overline{m}B\right].`$ (15)
The influence of virtual photon is covered in (10) in the neutral pion decay constant $`F_{\pi ^0}`$ . Unfortunately this constant is not known very accurately $`F_{\pi ^0}=92\pm 4`$  and so in practice the charged pion decay constant is used $`F_\pi =92.4`$

$$F_{\pi ^0}=F_\pi \left(1\frac{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{16\pi ^2F_0^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\pi ^\pm }^2}{m_{\pi ^0}^2}\frac{e^2}{64\pi ^2}\left[(3+\frac{4}{9}Z)\overline{k}_1\frac{40}{9}Z\overline{k}_23\overline{k}_34Z\overline{k}_4\right]\right).$$
(16)
To cover this section we will introduce a slope parameter $`a`$ which is a parameter of linear expansion of $`𝒜(1\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{had})`$ in $`x`$:

$$𝒜(1\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{had})(1+ax)$$
(17)
## 4 Calculation at $`e^3(1+p^2+e^2)`$ order

Now, to the above hadronic contribution we have to add also the QED corrections, which are in our case up to one loop level: lepton part of vacuum polarization function, vertex, bremsstrahlung and 2-photon triangle and box corrections. In the first approximation we will neglect 2-photon loop diagrams (for a polemic whether this is justified see also ). For one-photon exchange the following interesting relation holds (c.f.)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma )=2_0^1\frac{dx}{x}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(s).$$
(18)
with the lepton part of spectral function of the photon propagator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$. With $`𝒪(p^6)`$ constants set equal zero and therefore (from (10), (11) and (17)) $`a=0.0024`$ we can obtain numerically

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma )}=0.01185+0.00010=0.01196,$$
(19)
where the second number represents loop-correction contributions. Comparing this with PDG’s number $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{exp}(\pi e^+e^{}\gamma )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \gamma \gamma )=(1.213\pm 0.033)\%`$ one can immediately see that the total decay rate is not very suitable for probing the smooth effects of the higher orders (e.g. tuning ChPT constants).

Therefore we will turn our attention to the differential decay rate, which can be calculated in one-photon case using the relation (obtained from (18))

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{rad}}}{\mathrm{d}x}=\frac{2}{x}\mathrm{\Pi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(x)+_{(\sqrt{x}+m_\gamma ^{IR}/m_{\pi ^0})^2}^1\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{E}\mathrm{\Pi }_b(E,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(E),$$
(20)
where we have divided the spectral function to the virtual and real part

$$\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(4)}(p)=\mathrm{\Pi }_a(p^2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_b(p^2).$$
(21)
From the first plot in Fig.3 we see that while the radiative effects for the total decay rate is small, the situation in the differential decay rate is opposite.

However, this approach is useful for a situation when the detector is entirely blind to photons. In a more realistic situation, the experimental resolution is such that it is possible to detect photons if only above the (small) energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. For this case we define $`\delta (x,y)`$ and $`\delta (x)`$

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{rad}}}{\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y}=\delta (x,y)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y},\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{rad}}}{\mathrm{d}x}=\delta (x)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}x}.$$
(22)
In Fig.3 (the second plot) we depicted how the $`\delta (x)`$ changes with parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

Up to now we have systematically neglected the graphs which arise from the two-virtual-photons exchange. We have performed this calculation and we found interesting behaviour of contribution to $`\delta (x)`$, particularly when $`x`$ is close to 1. In this domain

$$\delta (x1,y)0.1,$$
(23)
i.e. it represents approximately 10% of leading order and from the previous we could conclude that it is a important contribution to differential decay rate, which cannot be neglected. However, it will be difficult to test this area experimentally. Actually for

$$x1\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}{m_{\pi ^0}}$$
(24)
the photon is effectively immeasurable by definition and precisely this is the domain where the interesting situation of (23) occurs. Let us also stress that in this part of calculation we have neglected the electron mass and thus, at this level, it is not possible to compare and use in our consideration process $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ which is proportional to $`m_e`$ (for more details see ).

## 5 Conclusion

We have discussed the Dalitz decay $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$ in two flavour ChPT and set the hadronic part within this effective theory. Using PDG’s value for the slope parameter (see (17)) $`a=0.032\pm 0.004`$  one can estimate following linear combination of $`𝒪(p^6)`$ constants

$$\frac{m_{\pi ^0}^2}{6F_0^2}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }a}a\delta a=a+0.0024$$

(cf. (13) and (14)). We approve that the effects of higher orders in total decay rate are smaller than the present experimental error (19). However, differential decay rate is much sensitive to these effects.
Acknowledgement.  This work was supported in part by the program “Research Centres” project number LN00A006 of the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic, Socrates/Erasmus programme and EC contract HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE).


text:
# From phase- to amplitude-fluctuation driven superconductivity in systems with precursor pairing

## I I Introduction

The features which characterize classical low temperature superconductors are the disappearance, above a certain critical temperature $`T_c`$, of a gap in the density of states (DOS) of the electrons, occurring simultaneously with the disappearance of the magnetic field expulsion (the Meissner effect) and standard Fermi liquid behavior in the normal phase above $`T_c`$. A further characteristic is the practical impossibility to change significantly the value of $`T_c`$ upon changing the concentration of charge carriers, because of $`T_c`$ being largely determined by the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level, which generally is not expected to change much with doping.

None of these features are observed in the high temperature superconductors (HTSC). The opening of a gap in the DOS occurs gradually, as a multitude of different experimentsTimusk and Stratt (1999)) show. This gap initially emerges in form of a pseudogap - a dip in the DOS - below a certain temperature $`T^{}`$, which, depending on doping, can be much above $`T_c`$. Upon lowering the temperature and approaching $`T_c`$, this pseudogap smoothly joins the superconducting gap, as is evident from its angular variation near the Fermi surface. If the opening of the pseudogap and of the superconducting gap represent different physical manifestations of one and the same pairing mechanism, an interplay between these manifestations of electron pairing in the two phases is to be expected and is in fact observed in form of remnant effects, such as:

(i) A remnant of magnetic field expulsion is seen in form of a transient Meissner effect several tens of degrees above $`T_c`$, judging from the optical conductivity in the Tera Hertz regimeCorson et al. (1999). This points toward long-lived diamagnetic fluctuations, which have been attributed to the presence of long-lived diffusing vortices above $`T_c`$Xu et al. (2000), as well as to phase uncorrelated diamagnetic regions which act as precursors to the true Meissner state below $`T_c`$Iguchi et al. (2001). Experiments, invoking Andreev reflections to interpret the enhanced tunneling conductance in the pseudogap phaseDeutscher (1999); Choi et al. (2000), point toward phase uncorrelated pairing above $`T_c`$.

(ii) Remnants of local electron-pairing in the c-axes optical response (orthogonal to the $`CuO_2`$ planes)Homes et al. (1993) in the pseudogap phase, are seen in the superconducting phase. Similarly, the c-axes component of the electronic kinetic energy is getting reduced upon entering the superconducting phaseBasov et al. (2001), provided the normal state exhibits pseudo gap features. The doping dependence of the c-axis penetration depth, being qualitatively similar to that of the basal plane, suggests that both are strongly influenced by the pseudogap features of the normal statePanagopoulos et al. (2000). Tunneling measurements have indicated remnants of the pseudogap which continue to coexist with the superconducting gap in the superconducting phase. The latter disappears at $`T_c`$, while the former remainsKrasnov et al. (2000).

The question whether such findings favor or not a common origin of pseudogap and of the superconducting gap is presently still being debatedSuzuki and Watanabe (1991); Kugler et al. (2001).

The features in the HTSC, involving the interplay of the pseudogap phase and of the superconducting phase, are highly doping dependent. $`T^{}`$ steadily decreases with increased hole doping, while $`T_c`$ shows an equally steady rise until the two approach each other. $`T_c`$ then bends over and follows the descent of $`T^{}`$ upon further doping and approaching the optimal/overdoped regime. $`T_c`$ plotted as a function of the phase stiffness (determined by the square of the inverse penetration depth), involving the ratio of the density of superfluid carriers over their mass, shows a universal linear behaviorUemura et al. (1989).

The main emphasis in this paper will be to analyse the doping dependence of $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ within a precursor pairing scenario. Very little about that doping dependence is known for such a scenario when based on single component systems, such as the negative U Hubbard model or the effective BCS Hamiltonians, extended to strong coupling. In such studies, doping is frequently introduced ad hoc, by assuming a doping dependent electron hopping or inter-electron attraction, in view of simulating a physics close to a Mott transition. In the present paper we shall examine such doping dependent effects without making any such ad hoc assumptions. As we shall see, considering a mixture of itinerant electrons (Fermions) and localized electron-pairs (hard-core Bosons) coupled together via a charge exchange term, is capable of reproducing the doping dependent features of $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ specified above. The essential new features introduced in this two-component scenario are the difference in statistics of the two components and the hard core features of the short range two-electron resonances (Cooperons) in the itinerant electron subsystem which result as a consequence of the charge exchange coupling. The variation of $`T_c`$ is dictated by correlation effects of the Cooperons.

This two-component scenario has some similarity to the single-component scenarios with attractive inter-particle interaction mentioned above, in as far as it can be viewed as a two-fluid picture of existing preformed pairs and unpaired electronsSewer and Beck (2001). The electron-pair resonant states which result in such a scenario have certain features which are reminiscent of localized resonance impurity states seen in the HTSC, and which arise when $`Cu`$ atoms are substituted by non-magnetic atoms, like $`Zn`$Kruis et al. (2001). Yet, the electron-pair resonant states which we are considering here, have the essential potentiality of becoming itinerant and thus to lead to a superconducting phase controlled by excitations of electron-pairs with finite momenta rather than pair breaking.

In section II we discuss the interplay between phase and amplitude fluctuations in systems with precursor pairing, contained in the spectral properties of the Cooperon propagator. This permits us to make a connection with the phase fluctuation scenarios, which have been widely discussed in the literature. In section III we briefly outline the model and the Green’s function formalism which we adopt in order to treat the hard-core nature of the resonant electron-pairs. In section IV we present the results for the temperature variation of the density of states over a wide doping regime and analyse the doping variation of $`T^{}`$. In section V we explore the spectral properties of the two-particle excitations and compare the low and high density regime of the Cooperons as far as their quasi-particle properties are concerned. In section VI we discuss the thermodynamics of the pseudogap phenomenon in terms of the specific heat and entropy for different doping regimes. Finally in section VII we give a summary of our findings which are characteristic of precursor pairing systems, involving Fermionic as well as Bosonic charge carriers.

## II II The Cooperon within a phase fluctuation scenario

Based on the different experimental results mentioned in the Introduction, which clearly indicate that the physics of those HTSC is not BCS like (over at least a wide regime of doping), it is widely agreed upon that the onset of the superconducting state in the underdoped regime in those HTSC should be controlled by phase rather than amplitude fluctuationsEmery and Kivelson (1995); Palo et al. (1999); Chakraverty (2000). This supposes the existence of local superconducting droplets with a given phase, pre-existing above $`T_c`$ and evolving into a macroscopic phase locked state upon entering the superconducting state. Such a situation can be realized provided that the fluctuations of the phase of the macroscopic superconducting wave function are less costly in energy than the fluctuations of the amplitude of the electron-pairs, which describe pair breaking. To within a first approximation, this so-called phase fluctuation scenario is generally described within a hydrodynamic formulation of a spatially fluctuating phase $`\varphi `$ and its conjugate variable $`\delta n_s`$, which describes the spatial fluctuations of the superfluid particle density $`n_s`$. The corresponding effective Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}D_\varphi (\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2\chi n_s^2}(\delta n_s)^2,$$
(1)
where $`D_\varphi =\mathrm{}^2(n_s/m_s)`$ denotes the superfluid phase stiffness, $`\chi `$ the compressibility, and $`m_s`$ their respective mass. The temperature which controls the phase order of such a system is given by $`k_BT_\varphi D_\varphi a`$, with $`a`$ being either given by the coherence length $`\xi `$ for 3D systems or by the interlayer distance in layered compounds such as HTSC.

This phase fluctuation scenario is frequently discussed in conjunction with the so called BCS-BEC cross-over phenomenonRanderia (1995), where, as a function of the strength of the inter-particle attraction, one passes from a BCS state at weak attraction to a Bose Einstein condensation (BEC) of tightly bound electron-pairs in the limit of strong attraction. The physics for that has been widely studied on the basis of effective BCS and negative U Hubbard Hamiltonians, aiming to treat the single-particle and two-particle features on the same footing. The pseudogap in such a scenario arises from short range electron-pairing, correlated over a finite time scale, comparable to the energy scale of the zero temperature superconducting gap. According to a general theorem (due to Bogoliubov) and based on the singular behavior of the occupation number of electron-pairs with small momenta which signal bound states, such electron pairing ought to survive below $`T_c`$Cherny and Shanenko (1999). A possible experimental verification for that might come from the socalled peak-dip-hump feature in ARPESNorman et al. (1997), which shows a spectral behavior upon entering the superconducting phase, where a sharp peak (related to superconducting correlations of the low energy excitations) emerges out of the broad incoherent background, characterized by a broad hump and representing remnants of the pseudogap phase.

An attempt to formulate the problem of local pairing as a prerequisite of superconductivity was made a long time ago by generalizing the mean field BCS formalism such as to cover the regime above as well as below $`T_c`$Kadanoff and Martin (1961). Instead of using the order parameter, the propagator for the electron-pairs, also called Cooperons, is introduced and treated on the same level as the single electron propagator. Within such a formalism, and on a quite general basis, the pseudogap phase of the HTSC has been examinedTchernyshyov (1997), invoking the mutual feedback effect between the single- and the two-particle properties via the introduction of some effective gap above $`T_c`$.

A different procedure was followed by proposing a specific structure of the Cooperon propagatorGiovannini and Berthold (2001) of the form

$$C(𝐫,t)=C_aexp(r/r_0)+C_\varphi e^{i\varphi (𝐫,t)}e^{\varphi (0,0)},$$
(2)
separating amplitude from phase correlations in an additive way. The first term, representing a rather rapidly decreasing function with $`r`$, describes local pair amplitudes which are treated in a time independent fashion. The second term describes the phase correlations, which, in the low frequency limit, are approximately expressed by $`C_\varphi exp(r/\xi (T))`$ where $`\xi (T)`$ denotes the temperature dependent coherence length. Attributing that latter contribution of the Cooperon propagator to a $`2D`$ $`XY`$ physics above the Kosterlitz-Thouless critical temperature $`T_{KT}`$, establishes a link with the phase fluctuation scenario. The doping behavior of such precursor systems as the HTSC is then monitored by parameterizing the relative weight of the coefficients $`C_a,C_\varphi `$ together with the relative spatial extent of the two contributions of $`C(𝐫,t)`$ such that it describes:

(i) an underdoped regime, characterized by primarily phase fluctuation controlled onset of superconductivity with a large temperature regime for the pseudogap phase,

(ii) an optimal/overdoped regime, characterized by a gradual disappearance, upon increased doping, of the pseudogap phase and a superconducting phase, controlled by amplitude correlations.

Considering the origin of the pseudogap as being due to pair fluctuations, also called precursor pairing (not to be confused with preformed pairs), the characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ below which the opening of the pseudogap occurs for such single-component scenarios with inter-particle attraction, scales with the strength of that interactionMicnas et al. (1995); Levin et al. (2001); Rohe and Metzner (2001); Kopec (2002). However, as far as the concentration dependence of $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ is concerned within such scenarios, it invariably shows that both $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ follow the same trendAllen et al. (1999); Kyung et al. (2001) upon varying the number of charge carriers. This is clearly the opposite to what is found in the HTSC. Potential dimensionality changes, linked to the change-over from underdoped to overdoped materials, can not remedy this situation either, since as far as $`T^{}`$ is concerned, it is determined by essentially local physics and thus independent on any dimensional aspects. As far as $`T_c`$ is concerned, even upon assuming a cross-over, with reduced doping, to a Kosterlitz-Thouless critical temperature behavior in the underdoped regime, $`T_{KT}`$ would still follow the same doping trend as $`T^{}`$. It thus seems likely that correlation effects are indispensable in determining the doping dependence of $`T_c`$ versus $`T^{}`$ in such precursor scenarios.

## III III The model and the technique employed

The scenario of a mixture of itinerant Fermions (band electrons) and localized hard-core Bosons (bound electron-pairs) will be described on the basis of the so-called Boson-Fermion model (BFM). This model presents a paradigm for interacting electron systems where two-particle resonant states are expected to occur due to the interaction of the electrons with certain Bosonic modes and where such two-particle resonant states act as precursor to a transition into a superconducting state. The underlying physics behind this modelRanninger and Romano (2002), as it was initially conceivedRanninger and Robaszkiewicz (1985), is that of electrons strongly coupled to local phonons, which act as such Bosonic modes. This results in self-trapped entities, comprising the charge carriers and the surrounding clouds of Bosonic excitations, in form of resonant pair states inside a system of itinerant electrons. Such a BFM scenario is not in any way restricted to electronic systems undergoing a superconducting transition but ought equally well apply to electron-hole pairing in semi-conductorsMysyrowicz et al. (1996), and low density nuclear matter with isospin singlet pairingSchnell et al. (1999). Moreover, it was in a similar spirit that such a Boson-Fermion mixture scenario has been derived recently for (i) the Hubbard model with intermediate repulsive couplingAltman and Auerbach (2002), (ii) the exchange interaction between spinon singlets of resonating valence bond (RVB) electron-pairs and holonsKochetov and Mierzejewski  and (ii) for entangled atoms in squeezed states in molecular Bose Einstein condensates in trapsYurovski and Ben-Reuven . More generally, the BFM has been employed in attempts to bosonize an intrinsically Fermionic systemFriedberg et al. (1994).

The model Hamiltonian describing the Boson Fermion scenario is given by

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`(D\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}c_{i\sigma }^+c_{i\sigma }+(\mathrm{\Delta }_B2\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\rho _i^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}c_{i\sigma }^+c_{j\sigma }+v{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(\rho _i^+c_ic_i+\rho _i^{}c_i^+c_i^+\right)`$
where the localized hard-core Bosons are represented by pseudo spin-1/2 operators $`[\rho _i^+,\rho _i^{},\rho _i^z]`$ and the itinerant electrons by $`[c_{i\sigma },c_{i\sigma }^+]`$. $`v`$ denotes the strength of the onsite hybridization between the two types of charge carriers and $`t`$ the hopping integral for the itinerant electrons with a band half width $`D`$. The full band width $`2D`$ will be used as the energy unit through out this paper. The energy level of the localized Bosons is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ and the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is chosen to be common to both species, such as to ensure total charge conservation, $`n_{tot}=n_F+2n_B`$. $`n_F`$ and $`n_B`$ denote the occupation number per site of the electrons (including up and down spin states) and of the hard core-Bosons.

The opening of the pseudogap and its temperature dependence on the basis of this model, for a fixed concentration and upon neglecting the hard-core nature of the Bosons has been studied previouslyRanninger et al. (1995); Devillard and Ranninger (2000); Domanski and Ranninger (2001). In a study, based on the dynamical mean field approachRobin et al. (1998), the hard-core nature of the Bosons could be taken into account. But then, the itinerancy of the Bosons could not be treated within such a scheme which restricted this study to purely amplitude fluctuations driven superconductivity. In the present work we shall account for both, the hard-core nature of the Bosons as well as their potentiality becoming itinerant and shall study the pseudogap characteristics as a function of total carrier concentration. The present study follows closely the previous self-consistent diagrammatic approachRanninger et al. (1995), but generalizes it such as to take into account the hard-core nature of the Bosons. We adopt for that purpose the diagrammatic technique which had been developed for spin systemsVaks et al. (1968); Izyumov and Skryabin (1988) (with their convention $`[\rho ^+,\rho ^{}]=\rho ^z`$) and for which it was shown that the usual Wick theorem had to be generalized to

$`T\left\{\rho _1^{\alpha _1}(\tau _1)\mathrm{}\rho _0^{}(\tau )\mathrm{}\rho _n^{\alpha _n}(\tau _n)\right\}_0`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`K_{01}^0(\tau \tau _1)T\left\{[\rho _1^{\alpha _1},\rho _0^{}]_{\tau _1}\rho _2^{\alpha _2}(\tau _2)\mathrm{}\rho _n^{\alpha _n}(\tau _n)\right\}_0`$
$`+`$ $`K_{02}^0(\tau \tau _2)T\left\{\rho _1^{\alpha _1}(\tau _1)[\rho _2^{\alpha _2},\rho _0^{}]_{\tau _2}\mathrm{}\rho _n^{\alpha _n}(\tau _n)\right\}_0`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
with

$`K_{11^{}}(\tau \tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{11^{}}K^0(\tau \tau ^{})`$
$`K^0(\tau \tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T\rho ^{}(\tau )\rho ^+(\tau ^{})_0}{\rho ^z_0}}=`$
$`=`$ $`e^{E_0(\tau \tau ^{})}n(x_0)\theta (\tau \tau ^{})+`$
$`+`$ $`e^{E_0(\tau \tau ^{})}(1+n(x_0))\theta (\tau +\tau ^{})`$
$`n(x_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{x_0}1}},x_0=\beta E_0.`$ (5)
Recursively applying this procedure of the modified Wick theorem, the remaining multi-spin correlation functions are transformed step by step into a sum of products of $`K_{ij}^0`$ multiplied with thermal averages of the type $`\rho _i^z\mathrm{}.\rho _n^z_0`$ (evaluated with respect to the unperturbed Hamiltonian: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_B2\mu )_i(\rho _i^z+\frac{1}{2})`$). These thermal averages are expressed in terms of a set of cumulants, the first few of which are given by:

$`\rho _1^z(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n_B`$
$`\rho _1^z(\tau )\rho _2^z(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`b^2+b^{}\delta _{1,2},b^2+b^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$
$`\rho _1^z(\tau )\rho _2^z(\tau )\rho _3^z(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`b^3+bb^{}(\delta _{1,2}+\delta _{2,3}+\delta _{3,1})`$
$`+b^{\prime \prime }\delta _{1,2}\delta _{2,3}`$ , $`b^3+3bb^{}+b^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}b`$ (6)
Keeping only the first two cumulants $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ gives rise to the set of diagrams, illustrated in Fig. 1, and describe the set of self-consistent equations determining the Fermion (Fig. 1a) and Boson Green’s functions (Fig. 1b) $`G(k,\omega _n)`$ and $`K(q,\omega _m)`$. The vertex depicted by the full square in those figures is made up of two contributions: one arising from the cumulant $`b`$ and depicted by a full circle and one arising from the cumulant $`b^{}`$, illustrated by the second contribution to this vertex. Both those vertex contributions have to be determined selfconsistently. For the contribution arising from the cumulant $`b`$ it simply is $`b=1/2+n_B`$. For the contribution arising from the second cumulant, given by $`b^{}V(\omega )`$ the selfconsistent equation corresponding to the set of diagrams illustrated in Fig. 1d has to be solved. To within this approximation of cumulants, this leads to the following set of equations:

$`G(k,\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega _n\epsilon _k\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega _n)}},`$
$`K(q,\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b+b^{}V(\omega _m)}{i\omega _mE_0(b+b^{}V(\omega _m))\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega _m)}},`$
$`G^0(k,\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega _n\epsilon _k}};K^0(\omega _m)={\displaystyle \frac{b}{i\omega _mE_0}},`$
$`V(\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`V_0(\omega _m)+K_0(\omega _m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(q,\omega _m)K(q,\omega _m),`$
$`V_0(\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega _m)}{i\omega _mE_0}}`$ (7)
with $`E_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_B2\mu `$ and the bare electron dispersion $`\epsilon _𝐤=D(1\frac{1}{Nz}_{r_ir_j}e^{i𝐤(𝐫_𝐢𝐫_𝐣)})\mu `$. The self energies for the Fermions and hard-core Bosons are given by:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\beta N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,\omega _m}{}}G(𝐪𝐤,\omega _m\omega _n)K(𝐪,\omega _m)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\beta N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\omega _n}{}}G(𝐪𝐤,\omega _m\omega _n)G(k,\omega _n)`$ (8)
This set of equations represents a generalization of the usual self-consistent RPA equations for this BFM-problemRanninger et al. (1995); Devillard and Ranninger (2000) when restricting oneself to the lowest order approximation involving only the cumulant $`b`$. The contributions arising from higher order comulants bring in frequency dependent vertex corrections $`V(\omega )`$. Qualitatively, the hard-core nature of the Bosons is already contained in the lowest approximation, due to the appearance of the factor $`b`$ in the expression for the hard-core Bose Green’s function. Given the considerable complexity in solving these equations we have, for a restricted set of values for the temperature and the total particle concentration, compared the results which arise from the full set of equations (7, 8) with those arising form the lowest order approximation, i.e., keeping only the cumulant $`b`$. The results being qualitatively the same, and given our aim to present only very robust qualitative features of the physics we want to discuss here, we report in the following exclusively the results based on this lowest order approximation.

The Green’s functions for the Fermions and the hard-core Bosons are defined by

$`G_{i,j}(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`T[c_{i\sigma }(\tau )c_{j\sigma }^+(\tau ^{})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,n}{}}e^{i𝐤(𝐫_𝐢𝐫_𝐣)i\omega _n(\tau \tau ^{})}G(𝐤,\omega _n),`$
$`K_{i,j}(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`T\left[\rho _i^{}(\tau )\rho _j^+(\tau ^{})\right]`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,m}{}}e^{i𝐪(𝐫_𝐢𝐫_𝐣)i\omega _m(\tau \tau ^{})}K(𝐪,\omega _m).`$
where $`\omega _n=\pi (2n+1)/\beta `$ and $`\omega _m=\pi 2m/\beta `$ denote the Matsubara frequencies for Fermions and Bosons respectively, $`n`$ and $`m`$ running over all integers from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The expressions for the self energies for the Fermions, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega _n)`$ and for the hard-core Bosons, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega _m)`$ differ from the standard ones for ordinary Bosons by a change in sign due to the Wick theorem for hard-core Bosons. The effect of the cumulants however corrects this sign change in the end because of the presence of the factor $`b`$ in the numerator of the Bose Green’s function. Fixing $`n_{tot}`$, Eqs. (7) are solved numerically on the Matsubara axes and the resulting Green’s functions and selfenergy functions are then analytically continued onto the real frequency axes, via the usual Padé type procedure. The Green’s functions $`G`$ and $`K`$ are linked to the occupation numbers $`n_𝐤^F=(2/\beta )_{\omega _n}e^{i\omega _n0^{}}G(𝐤,\omega _n)`$ and $`n_𝐪^B=(2/\beta )_{\omega _m}e^{i\omega _m0^{}}K(𝐪,\omega _m)`$ for the Fermions and Bosons respectively, with $`n_{F,B}=\frac{1}{N}_𝐤n_𝐤^{F,B}`$.

As a typical example for the present study we choose the energy level of the hard-core Bosons to lie in the center of the band of itinerant electrons ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_B=1`$) and assume a small value of the exchange coupling constant ($`v^2=0.02`$). Requiring the chemical potential to lie slightly below the Bosonic level ($`\mu 0.5`$), assures us that upon changing the total number of charge carriers $`n_{tot}`$ from 2 to 1, we recover a situation which, as far as the density of electrons is concerned, mimics the situation encountered in HTSC over a wide doping regime. We shall for that reason adopt the terminology, widely used in connection with studies on the HTSC’s, and refer to the doping regime $`2n_{tot}n_0`$ as the underdoped regime and $`n_{tot}n_0`$ as the optimal/overdoped regime, with $`n_01.1`$ for our choice of parameters. We furthermore restrict the momentum summations over a 1D Brillouin zone with 200 $`k`$-points. This is justified, since we are interested here in only very general features of the pseudogap phenomenon. If our results, have any bearing on the physics of HTSC, they should apply to regions in momentum space where the pseudogap phenomenon is most pronounced i.e., near the so-called hot spots around the $`M`$ points in the Brillouin zone of the basal plane. There they could describe $`d`$ wave symmetry pseudogap behavior along one of it’s lobs along a direction $`[0,0][0,\pi ]`$ and their equivalents, traversing the $`M`$ points. Our results could thus possibly be compared with ARPES spectra for wave vectors along such directions in $`k`$ space, as well to transport measurements along the same directions.

## IV IV The doping and temperature dependence of the pseudo-gap

We present in the following the results of the solution of the set of self-consistent equations (7, 8), together with a self-consistent determination of the lowest cumulant $`b`$, Eq. (6). This permits us to determine the electronic DOS as a function of temperature for different “doping rates”, given by $`n_{tot}`$, or alternatively, by the depletion of the Fermi sea away from half filling, given by $`(1n_F)`$. In this BFM scenario, doping influences both the number of itinerant electrons $`n_F`$ as well as the number of bound electron-pairs $`n_B`$. This is not an unrealistic premise as far as the HTSC are concerned, since it has been experimentally established that doping does not occur exclusively in the $`CuO_2`$ planes but involves also the dielectric layers between them. This is born out by XPS studies which permit to determine the relative change with doping of the population of $`Cu^+`$ versus $`Cu^{++}`$ ions Tolentino et al. (1992). Further indications that doping occurs in a multi-component system comes from measurements of the size of the Fermi surface volumeKordyuk et al. (2002) which show that the universal curve for $`T_c`$ as a function of doping is shifted downwards in doping as compared to its dependence on the chemical doping rate. And finally, site dependent XAFS studiesMerz et al. (1998) show that in order for the superconducting phase to materialize, doping must necessarily involve holes located outside the metallic $`CuO_2`$ planes. Further evidence for the existence of two species of different charge carriers, itinerant ones (giving rise to a Drude peak) and localized ones (giving rise to a peak in the far infrared regime), comes from reflectivity measurementsLupi et al. (2000).

Given our choice of the Boson level falling in the middle of the band of itinerant electrons, fixes the Fermi level such that we have the situation of a half filled band for $`n_{tot}=2`$. Upon hole doping we move the chemical potential downwards from its value at $`D`$, which introduces holes in the electronic subsystem and at the same time diminishes $`n_B`$. This variation of $`n_B`$ as function of $`\mu `$ is illustrated in Fig. 2 for different temperatures. The bound electron-pairs, being hard-core Bosons lead to a fully symmetric situation for particle and hole doping for this choice of parameters. We also illustrate in this figure the variation of $`n_B`$ with $`\mu `$ for ordinary Bosons, which significantly differs from that of hard-core Bosons.

In order to study the evolution of the pseudo-gap as a function of temperature and doping, we evaluate the spectral function of the single-particle Fermionic Green’s function $`A_F(𝐤,\omega )=2\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}G(𝐤,i\omega _n\omega +i\delta ))`$ which, after integrating over all wave-vectors in the Brillouin zone gives us the DOS, $`\rho (\omega )`$. In Figs. 3 we plot the evolution of the pseudo-gap near the chemical potential (corresponding to $`\omega =0`$) as a function of temperature and for several doping concentrations $`n_{tot}=`$ 1.66, 1.20 and 0.97.

In order to determine $`T^{}`$ as a function of $`n_B`$ and $`n_{tot}`$ respectively, we illustrate in Fig. 4 the minimum of the dip in the DOS given by $`\rho _{min}(T)`$, as a function of $`n_B`$ for different temperatures. We then consider the relative values of this depletion of the DOS, determined by $`\rho _{min}(T)/\rho _{min}(\mathrm{})`$ and cut these functions by horizontal lines, lying $`4\%`$ below the saturation values of $`\rho _{min}(\mathrm{})`$. The crossing points determine the values of $`T^{}`$ for any particular $`n_{tot}`$ and its corresponding value of $`n_B`$. $`T^{}`$, representing a cross-over rather than a phase transition, thus corresponds to that temperature where the deviation from the high temperature saturated DOS close to the Fermi energy is reduced by an arbitrary but small amount, chosen here as $`4\%`$. In Fig. 5 we illustrate the variation of $`T^{}`$ as a function of $`n_{tot}`$ as well as of $`(1n_F)`$; the latter being a measure of the deviation of the Fermion occupation from the half-filled band situation and thus of hole doping.

It is illustrative to compare this doping dependence of $`T^{}`$, derived from the dip in the DOS in the normal state, with the doping dependence of the mean field critical temperature $`T_c^{MF}`$ for amplitude fluctuation controlled superconductivity. That latter is characterized by the order parameters

$$x=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}c_i^+c_i^+,\rho =\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\rho _i^++\rho _i^{}$$
(10)
which refer to the off diagonal elements of the charge operators of the electron-pairs and hard-core Bosons respectively. Solving this mean field equation problem (for details for such an analysis the reader is referred to an earlier paperRanninger and Robin (1995)) gives rise to a $`T_c^{MF}`$ which exhibits a doping dependence which is quite similar to that of $`T^{}`$ (see Fig. 5), with an onset of amplitude fluctuation controlled superconductivity slightly below that temperature where electron-pair fluctuations set in. $`T_c^{MF}`$ has of course not the meaning of a transition temperature for the onset of superconductivity, which, as we shall see in the next section, is induced by phase rather than amplitude fluctuations, except for the limit of low Boson concentrations where $`T_c^{MF}`$ and $`T^{}`$ smoothly join.

It is an interesting question to ask how this doping dependence of $`T^{}`$ changes when istead of hard-core Bosons one considers normal Bosons. We plot in Fig. 5 the temperature $`T_{NB}^{}`$, signalling the opening of the pseudogap in that case. It shows a monotonocally decreasing behavior with decreasing $`n_{tot}`$, similar to that found for hard core Bosons but does not saturate, as is the case for those latter, when approaching the fully symmetric limit $`n_{tot}=2`$.

## V V Spectral properties of the Cooperon propagator

Let us now examine the features of the normal state which act as a precursor of the superconducting phase. As previously shownDevillard and Ranninger (2000), the intrinsically localized bound electron-pairs (Bosons), gradually acquire itinerancy as the temperature is lowered below $`T^{}`$. We shall here explore this behavior as a function of doping and focus on the effect of the hard-core nature of those Bosons, which has been neglected in such previous studies. The resonant electron-pair states in the Fermionic subsystem, induced by the exchange with the bound electron-pairs of the Bosonic subsystem, are described by the spectral properties of the Cooperon propagator

$$C(𝐪,\tau )=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}c_{𝐪𝐤}^+(\tau )c_𝐤^+(\tau );c_𝐤^{}(0)c_{𝐪𝐤^{}}(0),$$
(11)
which are intimately linked to the spectral properties of the single-particle Bose Green’s function $`K(𝐪,\omega _m)`$ via the relation

$$C(𝐪,\omega _m)=\frac{1}{v^2}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega _m)+\frac{1}{v^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(𝐪,\omega _m)K(𝐪,\omega _m).$$
(12)
The thermodynamic and transport properties of our system are given by the low lying excitation spectrum of those resonant electron-pairs. Their spectral properties are determined by spectral functions of the hard-core Bosons, given by the second term in Eq. (12). In Figs. 6-8 we illustrate those spectral functions for the long wavelength regime together with their evolution with temperature for three representative concentrations, which cover the entire doping regime from underdoped ($`n_{tot}1.65`$) with a high concentration of Bosons to the optimal/overdoped ($`n_{tot}0.97`$) with a low concentration of Bosons. We find that in the underdoped regime the Cooperons are well defined propagating modes with a narrow width of the spectral function which, moreover, strongly decreases with decreasing temperature (see Figs. 6, 7). In the optimally/overdoped regime, on the contrary, the spectral functions show overdamped mode behavior (see Fig. 8). Tracing the peak position of the Boson spectral function as a function of wave-vector $`𝐪`$ permits us to determine the mass $`m_p`$ of those Cooperons. As we approach the dense limit of Bosons, $`m_p`$ increases sensibly, when we compare this mass for different values of doping ($`n_{tot}`$) at a fixed given temperature (see Table I). For the low doping regime where the Bosons are well defined quasi-particles, their DOS shows an evolution with temperature in which the low energy part gets more and more peaked as the temperature is lowered and the peak position approaches the value $`E_0+b\mathrm{\Pi }(0,0)`$, (see Fig. 9, 10), as it should according to the Hugenholtz Pines theoremHugenholtz and Pines (1959).

We next turn to the evaluation of the concentration of Cooperons, which, together with their mass will enable us to estimate the phase stiffness in that system and thus the onset temperature of superconductivity due to phase fluctuations, $`T_\varphi `$. The density of Cooperons, acting as superfluid charge carriers, is contained in the combination of $`n_p/m_p`$ entering the expression for the penetration depth. Alternatively, and in an approximative fashion, it describes the density of itinerant quasi-particles in the normal state, derivable from the Drude weight in the optical conductivityTanner et al. (1998). For the BFM scenario investigated here, such a Drude component arises from an Aslamazov-Larkin term in the conductivity of the itinerant electronsDevillard and Ranninger (2000), involving the Cooperons and is contained in the second term of the Cooperon propagator, Eq. (12). In order to estimate the density $`n_p`$ of those Cooperons which give rise to such a Drude component, we have to attribute it to just that contribution of the Cooperon propagator, i.e.,

$$n_p=\frac{1}{N\beta }\underset{𝐪,\omega _m}{}\frac{1}{v^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(𝐪,\omega _m)K(𝐪,\omega _m),$$
(13)
where the uncorrelated part $`\frac{1}{v^2}_{𝐪,\omega _m}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega _m)`$ has been subtracted out of the thermal average of the doubly occupied sites, given by $`<c_{}^+c_{}^+c_{}c_{}>`$. In Table, II we present the mass and and concentration of Cooperons for different temperatures and doping rates corresponding to the well underdoped ($`n_{tot}1.65`$) and the less well underdoped ($`n_{tot}1.20`$) regime, for which the Bosons have well defined propagating quasi-particle features.

In order to highlight the effect of the hard-core nature of the Bosons we have repeated this study for the Cooperons for the case of normal Bosons rather than hard-core Bosons and present the corresponding values for the Cooperon mass and concentration by the numerical values, given in Table I, in the parenthesis.

The above assessment of the mass and concentration of the Cooperons, contributing to the Drude peak in the normal state and ultimately to the superfluid current, shows that for hard-core Bosons their concentration depends little on doping, while their mass depends on it sensibly. The latter rapidly increases, as, upon reducing the hole doping, we enter the regime of high Boson concentration where correlation effects become increasingly important. As compared to the case of hard-core Bosons, for normal Bosons the variation with doping of the concentration of Cooperons turns out to be much more important, while for the mass it is less important. This leads, as we shall see below, to significant qualitative differences in the respective temperatures determining the onset of phase correlation driven superconductivity.

On the basis of these findings, we now attempt to estimate the critical temperature for phase fluctuation controlled superconductivity. For that we put $`k_BT_\varphi \mathrm{}^2(n_p/m_p)a`$, where $`n_p`$ and $`m_p`$ are our estimates for the density $`n_s`$ and mass $`m_s`$ of the superfluid charge carriers. $`a`$ denotes a length scale which is of the order of the coherence length or, alternatively, the inter-plane distance, depending on the degree of anisotropy of the system.

Assuming $`a`$ in the expression for $`T_\varphi `$ to be given by the lattice constant, corresponding to a layer compound system such as the HTSC, we trace this critical temperature as a function of doping ($`n_{tot}`$ and $`1n_F`$) in Fig. 5. We notice a crossing of the energy scales related to the phase stiffness and to the electron pairing, as we approach the high doping limit, where the density of Bosons is small and Cooperons are no longer well defined quasi-particles. This phase diagram, Fig. 5, corresponds to that proposed on the basis of the phase fluctuation scenarioEmery and Kivelson (1995), but with the difference that there the doping dependent quantity of the phase stiffness was supposed to be related to the density of superfluid carriers, while, according to our present findings, based on the BFM scenario, it should be primarily related to the mass of the superfluid carriers - estimated as the mass of the Cooperons in our case. Upon approaching the optimal/overdoped regime, where $`T_\varphi `$ crosses $`T^{}`$, the Cooperons loose their good quasi-particle features, and the onset of superconductivity is becoming controlled by amplitude fluctuations, like in a BCS system. The opposite trend with doping of $`T_\varphi `$ and $`T^{}`$, observed up to this level of doping, ceases accordingly and $`T_c`$ is constraint to decreases, since being limited from above by the decreasing behavior of $`T^{}`$ which controls pair formation.

In comparison to these features, derived by considering hard-core Bosons, we find a noticeably different doping dependence of the phase fluctuation temperature when these hard-core effects are absent and the Bosons are treated as normal Bosons. See the corresponding values for $`T_\varphi ^{NB}`$ in Table I and its graphical representation in Fig. 5. $`T_\varphi ^{NB}`$ decreases only moderately upon approaching the low doping regime and, unlike for the case of hard core Bosons, does not vanish as the Boson concentration approaches $`n_B=1`$ for $`n_{tot}=2`$.

In order to illustrate the combined effect of local electron pairing and phase correlations of those resonant pair states, we now examine the Cooperon propagator, Eq. (12) in the low frequency limit and interpret it in terms of its physically intuitive form, given in eq. (2) in section II. Let us for that purpose illustrate this Cooperon propagator in Fig. 11 as a function of temperature for two cases, representing a well underdoped and a less well underdoped situations, showing the tendency with increased hole doping. Fitting the spatial dependence of the Cooperon propagator to this phenomenological form, permits us to determine the various parameter which characterize it and which we enumerate in Table III. We notice that upon increasing the temperature, the coefficients $`C_a`$, weighting the short range phase-uncorrelated local electron pairing, tend to rapidly decrease as we approach $`T^{}`$ in the entire doping regime. In the underdoped regime, upon decreasing the temperature and approaching $`T_\varphi `$, the coefficients $`C_\varphi `$, weighting the phase correlated electron-pairs, increase rapidly together with the coherence length $`\xi `$, which is typically an order of magnitude bigger than the short range electron-pair correlation length $`r_0`$. In the optimal/overdoped regime, on the contrary, $`C_\varphi `$ hardly changes with temperature, while the coherence length follows the similar temperature dependence as in the underdoped regime. A systematic change is observed in the relative weight of the long range to short range contribution of the Cooperon correlation function: $`C_\varphi /C_a`$, which, with increased hole doping, shows a decreasing behavior when evaluated for some characteristic doping dependent temperatures such as $`T^{}`$. In particular, we find $`C_\varphi /C_a=0.71,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.45},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.31}`$ for $`n_{tot}=1.65,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.20},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.02}`$ and corresponding values of $`T^{}0.016,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0142},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.005}`$ and $`T_\varphi =0.004,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.010},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.014}`$. It is this relative weight increase of amplitude versus phase contributions, as we go from the underdoped to the optimal/overdoped regime, which indicates the change-over from phase correlation driven superconductivity toward amplitude correlation driven superconductivity. A remarkable result is that neither the short nor the long range scale depend sensitively on doping. We have some experimental indicationsShibauchi *et al.* (2001) from studies in the HTSC that, at least as far as $`\xi `$ is concerned, its doping dependence is very weak.

## VI VI Evidence for pairing correlations in the specific heat

The onset of the pseudogap, as seen in numerous experimental studies such as ARPES and single particle tunneling, indicate a loss of low energy single particle spectral weight. This loss of single particle spectral weight ought to be accompanied by a compensating increase of spectral weight coming from collective excitations, which, for the present precursor scenario, should predominantly come from pair fluctuations. Without having to go to elaborate spectroscopic techniques, indications for such Many Body effects are already seen in basic thermodynamic quantities such as the specific heat $`C_V(T)`$ and entropy $`S(T)`$, where a hump in $`C_V/T`$ and a change in slope in $`S(T)`$ is observed at temperatures around $`T^{}`$Loram et al. (2000). A recent theoretical approachMoca and B.Janko (1995) on the basis of a classical pair fluctuation scenarioVilk and Tremblay (1997) attributed this hump feature very clearly to the contributions coming from pairing correlations, sitting on top of the single particle contributions.

We shall in this section present a similar investigation on the basis of the two-component precursor scenario adopted here. We evaluate for that purpose the inner energy, given by

$`U(T)`$ $`=`$ $`E_{kin}^F(T)+E_{kin}^B(T)+E_{int}^{BF}(T)`$
$`E_{kin}^F(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\epsilon _𝐤+\mu )n_𝐤^F(T)`$
$`E_{kin}^B(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Bn_B(T)`$
$`E_{int}^{BF}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`v{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\rho _i^+c_ic_i+\rho _i^{}c_i^+c_i^+)_T`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,\omega _m}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega _m)K(𝐪,\omega _m)`$
and subsequently determine $`C_V(T)=\frac{d}{dT}U(T)`$ and $`S(T)=_0^T𝑑T^{}C_V(T^{})/T^{}`$. The Fermion distribution function $`n_𝐤^F(T)`$, the number of Bosons $`n_B(T)`$ and the expectation values of the interaction energy have to be calculated with respect to the full Hamiltonian. We illustrate in Fig. 12 the temperature variation of $`C_V(T)`$ and $`S(T)`$ for different total doping rates $`n_{tot}`$, corresponding to the underdoped situation and compare it with the non-interacting case ($`v=0`$) for the case of very small concentrations of Bosons. The pseudogap is manifest in the dip-like feature of $`C_V(T)`$ which occurs at $`T^{}`$, together with a subsequent upturn of $`C_V(T)`$ upon lowering the temperature which indicates the broad hump-like structure above $`T_c`$. As we decrease $`n_{tot}`$ upon going from the underdoped to the optimal/overdoped regime, the dip moves to lower temperatures in agreement with a decreasing $`T^{}`$ and eventually disappears upon reaching a doping concentration where the number of Bosons tends to zero (given approximately by the non-interacting BFM with $`v=0`$. At the same time the linear slope of $`C_V(T)`$ at high temperatures increases in correspondence with an increase of the DOS at the Fermi energy and saturating at the value characterizing the low Boson concentration limit. Concerning the entropy, we are able to evaluate its increase, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(T)`$, starting form a fixed lowest temperature and going up to the highest temperature we have been considering. The rapid rise in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(T)`$ below $`T^{}`$, changing into a rather slow rise above $`T^{}`$ signals the existence of local order below $`T^{}`$ which gradually disappears when going beyond $`T^{}`$ to higher temperatures.

## VII  VII Summary

A doping induced change-over from phase- to amplitude-fluctuation driven superconductivity is shown to result in a system with precursor pairing within a two-component scenario, involving charge carriers with different statistics: Fermions and Bosons, coupled together via a charge exchange term. The Fermions describe free electrons while the Bosons (more precisely hard-core Bosons) describe localized self-trapped electron-pairs having spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ statistics which give rise to correlation effects in such a system. The opposite variation with doping of $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ is obtained, where the critical temperature is given by the phase stiffness of the system. With decreasing the concentration of the localized electron-pairs, the energy associated with this phase stiffness crosses the pairing energy $`k_BT^{}`$ in the itinerant electrons subsystem at a certain characteristic doping level. There, phase fluctuation controlled superconductivity changes over into amplitude fluctuation controlled superconductivity, giving rise to a phase diagram, which, qualitatively, is reminiscent of that proposed for the HTSC within the so-called phase fluctuation scenario. The doping dependent length scales for short range local electron-pair correlations and long range phase correlations are discussed on the basis of the spectral properties of the Cooperon propagator, describing the exchange induced pairing in the electron subsystem. In the precursor pairing scenario studied here, it turns out that it is the degree of itinerancy of the Cooperons rather than their concentration which controls the doping dependence of the phase stiffness. This degree of itinerancy varies from well defined itinerant electron-pair states in the limit of high concentration of localized bound electron-pairs (low hole doping) to overdamped excitations in the limit of low concentration of localized bound electron-pairs (high hole doping).

The phase diagram, Fig. 5, represented as a function of doping, involves changes in the concentration of electrons away from half filling (hole doping) for given changes in total concentration of charge carriers, $`n_{tot}`$. The variation of the hole doping (changes in $`(1n_F)`$ of the order of $`2\%`$) in this phase diagram is small compared to changes in $`n_{tot}`$, which is due to the $`1D`$ situation we have been considering here. This result is less surprising when we consider a $`2D`$ system with an anisotropic charge exchange coupling between the bound electron-pairs and the bare itinerant electrons. One would then obtain a corresponding anisotropic pseudogap, similar to what is observed in the HTSC. Hole doping would now affect roughly equally all the regions near the $`2D`$ Fermi surface, and thus attributing only a very small fraction of the doped holes to the actual regions in the Brillouin zone where the pseudogaps are formed, i.e., around the $`M`$ points and along lines parallel to $`[0,0][0,\pi ]`$ and equivalents.

One of the outstanding problems to be solved within such a precursor scenario for superconductivity is to understand how the transition to the superconducting state occurs. This involves a competition between Cooper pairing and real space pairing and necessitates a generalization of the present system of Green’s functions by including the anomalous Green’s functions in order to treat superconducting fluctuations. This problem will be the issue of future studies.

## VIII Acknowledgment

The authors are extremely grateful to B. K. Chakraverty, T. Domanski and G. Jackeli for innumerable discussion on this subject as well as with help in setting up the diagramatic procedure for hard-core Bosons and assistance with numerical procedures.