text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio is the most persistent and serious problem related to the non-mesonic decay of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. The problem lies in the large discrepancy between the theoretical ratio provided by the one pion exchange model (OPE) and the experiment. While certainly the OPE model is too simplified, the different attempts improving on the model for the non-mesonic decay have not been more successful. The OPE model, using exclusively the parity conserving part of the weak $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay vertex $`H_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi N}`$, leads to a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio of 1/14  in nuclear matter. The ratio is much influenced by the antisymmetry of the two-nucleon wave functions and if one neglects crossed terms this ratio becomes 1/5. If in addition one includes the parity violating term, which is less important than the parity conserving one for the non-mesonic decay, the ratio changes to about 1/8 . These results are somewhat different in  where a ratio of about 1/5 is claimed for the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C nucleus although a value of 1/11 is obtained in nuclear matter and the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He nucleus. Results become worse when short range correlations are taken into account and the values range from 1/16 in , to 1/8 in , 1/14 in  and 1/20 in , all of them for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. The ratios are somewhat larger for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, 1/10 in  and 1/5 in .

There are still some discrepancies as to the precise numbers but there is a systematic agreement in the fact that they range from about 1/5 to 1/20 and that numbers of the order of unity, as experiments suggest, cannot be accommodated with the OPE model.

Experimentally one has results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He from  with a ratio 0.93$`\pm `$0.5 and for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C with ratios $`1.33_{0.81}^{+1.12}`$ , $`1.87_{1.59}^{+0.91}`$  and 0.70$`\pm `$0.30, 0.52$`\pm `$0.16 . More recent results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C are still quoted as preliminary  but also range in values around unity with large errors.

The large discrepancy of the OPE predictions with the experimental data has stimulated much theoretical work. One line of progress has been the extension of the one meson exchange model including the exchange of $`\rho ,\eta ,K,\omega ,K^{}`$ in  and . The results obtained are somewhat contradictory since while in  values for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio around 0.83 are quoted for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, the number quoted in  is 0.07. Also, in  the same ratio is obtained for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C while in  the value of the ratio in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C is about twice larger than for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He (see  for a further discussion on this issue).

Another line of progress has been the consideration of two pion exchange. An early attempt in  including N and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ intermediate states in a box diagram with two pions did not improve on the ratio and it made it actually slightly worse. However, in  the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ intermediate states were also considered leading to an increase of the the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio, although no numbers were given. A similar approach was followed in  where the exchange of two interacting pions through the $`\sigma `$ resonance was considered and found to lead also to improved results in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio. Although there are still some differences in the works and results of  (see  for details) they share the qualitative conclusion that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio increases when the $`\sigma `$ exchange is considered. In  the ratio goes from 0.087 for only pion exchange to 0.14 when the correlated two pions in the $`\sigma `$ channel (and also the $`\rho `$, which does not change much the ratio) are considered.

A third line followed so far has been to take the quark model point of view. The origins of this line of work come from the pioneering work of , where pion exchange was considered beyond a certain distance and quark degrees of freedom before. Two recent works follow this line  although there are some discrepancies between them and some sign ambiguity that has been recently clarified using arguments of current algebra in . Quoting the results from this latter work, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio is changed from 0.13 for the OPE model to 0.49 when the quark degrees of freedom are considered in the nucleus of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. Further work is done in , where considerations of chiral symmetry are done and interesting new relations are developed, but the conclusion is that, though the consideration of the quark degrees of freedom at short distances goes in the direction of improving the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio, the large contribution of the OPE makes the final ratios still incompatible with experimental results. However, some recent advances in this direction, including $`K`$ exchange,  lead to improved ratios but also large widths.

Some hopes were raised when the mechanism of the two-nucleon induced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay was introduced in  where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays into a nucleon and a virtual pion which is absorbed by two nucleons. The absorption of pions takes place mostly on neutron proton pairs, thus leading to a mechanism that produces two neutrons and a proton per $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay. This enhances the production of neutrons versus protons and could be responsible for the large number of neutrons seen in the experiment without the need to have a large value for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio of the one-nucleon induced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay. However, it was observed in  that this had to be taken with care and, given the type of experimental analysis done to extract the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio, the consideration of this new mode made the experimental ratio even bigger, depending on the number obtained from the analysis without considering the two-nucleon mode. Actually, as noted in , the results of the new analysis depend on whether the slow particles are detected or not. A detailed analysis of this problem considering final state interaction of the nucleons and actual detection thresholds was done in  determining spectra of neutrons and protons from where future experiments can extract the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio. For the purpose of the present paper the findings of  simply tell us that the consideration of the two-nucleon mode of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay makes the experimental errors a little larger than assumed so far from present analyses.

The situation is hence puzzling. Discrepancies between authors using a similar approach still persist, but in spite of that, there is a clear discrepancy between predictions of different models and present experimental results.

Our contribution to this problem has certainly benefitted from previous efforts and we have included in our approach in a unified way all the relevant elements considered before within the context of the one and two meson exchange. Thus, we include pion exchange, short range correlations via the Landau-Migdal interaction, which also serves to estimate the effects of the $`\rho `$ meson or $`K^{}`$ exchange, kaon exchange, the exchange of two pions, uncorrelated or interacting in the scalar-isoscalar channel (the $`\sigma `$ channel) and omega exchange. The correlated two pion exchange has been done here following closely the steps of the recent work  where the two pions are allowed to interact, using the Bethe-Salpeter equation and the chiral Lagrangians . This chiral unitary approach to the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering problem leads to good agreement with the $`\pi \pi `$ data in the scalar sector including the generation of a pole in the t-matrix corresponding to the $`\sigma `$ meson . We also study the $`\omega `$ exchange which is of the same order of magnitude.

The results obtained here lead to ratios of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ of the order of 0.53 and simultaneously one can obtain values for the absolute rates of different nuclei that are comparable to the experimental ones using reasonable Landau-Migdal parameters for the strong p-wave interactions. These high values obtained for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ are compatible with all present experiments within errors, even more if these errors are enlarged as suggested in .

The present calculations are done in nuclear matter and the local density approximation is used to go to finite nuclei. The procedure should be quite good for nuclei around $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C and heavier, as done here. Yet, given the particular significance that the present findings have, apparently solving a long standing problem, additional calculations in finite nuclei should be encouraged and work in this direction is already under way .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review the OPE approach. In section 3 the kaon exchange is introduced. The two-pion exchange is included in section 4 and the results are presented and discussed in section 5. Conclusions are then presented in the last section.

## 2 One Pion Exchange

The decay of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in nuclear matter is investigated here with the propagator approach which provides a unified picture of different decay channels of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . As mentioned above, the decay width of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is calculated in infinite nuclear matter, and is extended to finite nuclei with the local density approximation. In this section we shall review the calculation of the decay width of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in nuclear matter using the one pion exchange approach.

First of all, we start with an effective $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ weak interaction which is written as,

$$_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N\pi }=iG\mu ^2\overline{\psi }_N[A+\gamma _5B]\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \psi _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(1)
after the non-relativistic reduction we have:

$$_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N\pi }=iG\mu ^2\overline{\psi }_N[S(P/\mu )\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}]\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \psi _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ denotes the pion mass, and $`G`$ is the weak coupling constant with

$$G\mu ^2=2.211\times 10^7$$
(3)
and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the momentum of the outgoing pion.

By assuming that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ behaves as a $`I=1/2,I_z=1/2`$ state in the isospin space, this effective interaction already implements the phenomenological $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule, which is seen in the nonleptonic free decay of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The coupling constants $`S`$ and $`P`$ are determined by the parity conserving and parity violating amplitudes of the nonleptonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay, respectively:

$$A=S=1.06,\frac{B}{2M_N}\mu =P=0.527$$
(4)
with $`M_N`$ the nucleon mass. The $`\pi NN`$ vertex with strong interaction is given by the following effective Lagrangian:

$$_{\pi NN}^S=\frac{g}{2M_N}\overline{\psi }_N\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi _\pi }\psi _N$$
(5)
or, after the non-relativistic reduction,

$$_{\pi NN}^S=i\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }\overline{\psi }_N\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\varphi _\pi }\psi _N$$
(6)
with $`f_{\pi NN}=g\mu /2M_N=1.02`$, and an incoming pion of momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$.

In order to evaluate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in a nuclear medium due to a certain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition amplitude, as depicted in fig. 1, we start with the calculation of the self-energy in the medium, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, shown in fig. 2, and then we take its imaginary part:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(7)
We take into account the $`ph`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h`$ excitations to all orders in the sense of the random phase approximation (RPA), which is shown in fig. 3.

This induces modifications of the pion propagation. On the other hand, short range correlations modulate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition amplitude in coordinate space and induce changes in the momentum space representation (see Appendix). The p-wave (parity conserving) part of the weak $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ transition is then written as

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{\pi ,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=[V_l^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t^{}(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)}$$
(8)
with

$`V_l^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_l^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]`$ (9)
$`V_t^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}g_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q),`$ (10)
while the s-wave parity violating part gives rise to

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{\pi ,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=V_s^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\sigma _i^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)},$$
(11)
with

$$V_s^{}(q)=\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }S[D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]|\stackrel{}{q}|$$
(12)
Here $`g_l^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$, $`g_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ and $`g_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ implement the short range correlations, with a similar role to that of the Landau-Migdal parameters, and $`D_\pi (q)`$ and $`F_\pi (q)`$ denote the pion propagator and form factor, respectively. We use the same form factor $`F_\pi (q)`$ in both strong and weak vertices:

$$F_\pi (q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2q^2}$$
(13)
We have similar expressions for the spin-isospin strong effective interaction, which we write as

$$G_{NN}(q)=[V_l(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)}$$
(14)
with

$`V_l(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2}{\mu ^2}}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_l(q)]`$ (15)
$`V_t(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2}{\mu ^2}}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\rho (q)F_\rho ^2(q)C_\rho +g_t(q)]`$ (16)
It is worth noting that the first $`ph`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h`$ excitations in fig. 3 are induced by the weak transition $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}(q)`$, but, once it happens, the successive excitations are produced by the strong transition $`G_{NN}(q)`$ or the analogous one with $`G_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}(q)`$.

The short range correlations, $`g_l(q)`$ and $`g_t(q)`$, which are written explicitly in eqs. (67, 68) in the Appendix, have slightly smaller size than those used in the conventional analysis of the spin-isospin effective nuclear force . Thus we rescale these functions $`g_l(q)`$ and $`g_t(q)`$ so that they have the value $`g^{}=0.7`$ at $`q=0`$.

In the nucleon propagator, the Pauli blocking effect is implemented in terms of the nucleon occupation number $`n(\stackrel{}{k})`$:

$$G_N(k)=\frac{1n(\stackrel{}{k})}{k^0E(\stackrel{}{k})V_N+iϵ}+\frac{n(\stackrel{}{k})}{k^0E(\stackrel{}{k})V_Niϵ}$$
(17)
where the nucleon binding energy $`V_N=k_F^2/2M_N`$ from the Thomas-Fermi approximation and $`n(\stackrel{}{k})=1`$ for $`|\stackrel{}{k}|k_F`$, $`n(\stackrel{}{k})=0`$ for $`|\stackrel{}{k}|>k_F`$ with $`k_F`$ the Fermi momentum, which depends on the position of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the density $`\rho (r)`$ in the local density approximation.

After the summation of the RPA series, the non-mesonic decay width coming from the direct term, shown in fig. 1(a), is obtained with the result :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,\rho )=(G\mu ^2)^2\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\theta (q_0)[1n(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})]\mathrm{Im}W(q)|_{q^0=k^0E(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})V_N}$$

$$\mathrm{Im}W(q)=\mathrm{Im}U_N(q)T(q)$$
(18)
with:

$`T_{p,\mathrm{dir}}^\pi (q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[5{\displaystyle \frac{V_s^2(q)}{|1UV_l(q)|^2}}+5{\displaystyle \frac{V_l^2(q)}{|1UV_l(q)|^2}}+10{\displaystyle \frac{V_t^2(q)}{|1UV_t(q)|^2}}\right]`$
$`T_{n,\mathrm{dir}}^\pi (q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_s^2(q)}{|1UV_l(q)|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_l^2(q)}{|1UV_l(q)|^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{V_t^2(q)}{|1UV_t(q)|^2}}\right]`$ (19)
$`T_{p,\mathrm{dir}}^\pi `$ and $`T_{n,\mathrm{dir}}^\pi `$ together with eq. (18) give the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay induced by proton and neutron, respectively. Here $`U(q)=U_N(q)+U_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$, and $`U_N`$ and $`U_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the Lindhard functions for $`ph`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h`$ excitations. To obtain eqs. (2) we take the spin average of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which removes the term linear in $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ self-energy.

Up to here we have only considered the direct term. Actually the contribution from the exchange terms, shown in fig. 2(b) is suppressed by factor $`1/2`$ compared with the direct term, due to the absence of the nucleon loop. Isospin indices will be taken into account explicitly. However, as we shall see later, the exchange term gives a large contribution to the ratio of the neutron induced decay to the proton induced one.

To calculate the exchange term shown as fig. 2(b), we may use the same set of propagator with the direct term. In fact, assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at rest, the variable in the upper propagator in fig. 2(b) is $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}`$ instead of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the direct diagram. However since $`q`$ is large ($`420`$ MeV/c) and $`p`$ (the momentum of the occupied nucleons in the Fermi sea) is smaller than $`q`$ and sometimes adds and other subtracts to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, the corrections are of order $`(p/q)^2`$, and hence $`(p/q)^2`$ is about $`20\%`$ in a term with smaller strength than the direct term and we neglect $`p`$ in this interaction in front of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. Therefore the difference in the calculation of the contribution from the exchange terms is the summation of spin and isospin. For the spin summation, it is important to notice that the upper pion carries momentum $`q`$, which produces a different sign in the parity violating part with respect to the direct term. We calculate the spin sum of the exchange term for the parity violating part:

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{s}{}s|\sigma ^j\sigma ^l|s\widehat{q}_j\widehat{q}_li(iV_s^{})i(iV_s^{})=V_s^2$$
(20)
This gives the same sign as the direct term when including in the latter the minus sign due to the fermion loop. The spin sum for the p-wave in the exchange term is given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}s|\sigma ^i\sigma ^k\sigma ^j\sigma ^l|s`$ (21)
$`\times \{V_l^{}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t^{}(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)\}\{V_l^{}\widehat{q}_k\widehat{q}_l+V_t^{}(\delta _{kl}\widehat{q}_k\widehat{q}_l)\}`$
$`=`$ $`V_l^24V_l^{}V_t^{}`$ (22)
Note that $`V_t^2`$ vanishes but a crossed term between $`V_l^{}`$ and $`V_t^{}`$ remains.

In fig. 4 one can see the different OPE diagrams corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }nnn`$ transitions. We finally obtain:

$$T_{p,\mathrm{exch}}^\pi =\frac{2V_s^2}{|1UV_l|^2}+\frac{2V_l^2}{|1UV_l|^2}8V_l^{}V_t^{}\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{1}{(1UV_l)(1U^{}V_t)}\right]$$
(23)
$$T_{n,\mathrm{exch}}^\pi =\frac{\frac{1}{2}V_s^2}{|1UV_l|^2}\frac{\frac{1}{2}V_l^2}{|1UV_l|^2}+2V_l^{}V_t^{}\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{1}{(1UV_l)(1U^{}V_t)}\right]$$
(24)
With the direct and exchange terms we obtain the non-mesonic decay width with one pion exchange. As we shall discuss later, if we add the mesonic width and the two-nucleon induced width we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=1.6\text{ }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{free}`$, which is larger than the experimental width. If we neglect the transverse part and the induced interaction and we take only the direct terms, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is $`1/5`$. However with the exchange terms, it becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}=\frac{\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_P}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+7\mathrm{\Gamma }_P}$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_P`$ denote the partial width of the parity violating and parity conserving decay. Eq. (25) gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=1/21/14`$ (the values $`1/2`$ and $`1/14`$ are obtained when considering only s-wave and p-wave respectively). Therefore the exchange terms should be counted to reproduce both the total decay width and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio. An actual calculation with all terms included gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.1\text{ }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{free}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p1/8`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$. This implies that we need some extra mechanisms additional to that of pion exchange.

## 3 Kaon Exchange

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ non-mesonic decay with one $`K`$ exchange takes place through the diagram shown in fig. 5. Including the $`K`$ exchange is straightforward in the meson propagator approach, once the $`KNN`$ weak vertex is fixed.

The strong $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ vertex is given by:

$$_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^S=\frac{g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{2M_N}\overline{\psi _N}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5_\mu \varphi _K\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(26)
with $`g_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}2M/\mu `$, which is estimated with the $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry:

$$\frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }=\frac{D+3F}{2\sqrt{3}f}$$
(27)
with $`D+F=1.26`$, $`DF=0.33`$ and $`f`$ the pion decay constant, $`f=93`$ MeV. Note that there is a different sign in $`f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ with respect to the $`pp\pi ^0`$ vertex, $`f_{\pi NN}/\mu =(D+F)/(2f)`$.

The weak vertex of $`NNK`$ may be written as

$`_{KNN}`$ $`=`$ $`iG\mu ^2[\overline{\psi }_p(A^{\overline{K}^0,p}+\gamma _5B^{\overline{K}^0,p})\varphi _{K^0}^{}\psi _p`$
$`+\overline{\psi }_n(A^{K^{},p}+\gamma _5B^{K^{},p})\varphi _{K^+}^{}\psi _p`$
$`+\overline{\psi }_n(A^{\overline{K}^0,n}+\gamma _5B^{\overline{K}^0,n})\varphi _{K^0}^{}\psi _n]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
It is convenient to write these couplings in terms of $`S`$ and $`P`$ for the pion exchange, hence we introduce the factor $`C^{K,N}`$ as

$$A^{K,N}S^{K,N}=C_S^{K,N}S\frac{B^{K,N}}{2M_N}\mu C_P^{K,N}P$$
(29)
To avoid confusion recall that in the case of the pion there was a minus sign connecting $`B`$ and $`P`$ which we omit deliberately here to define the constants $`C_P^{K,N}`$. Isospin symmetry gives one constraint :

$$C_S^{\overline{K}^0,n}=C_S^{\overline{K}^0,p}+C_S^{K^{},p}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n}=C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p}+C_P^{K^{},p}$$
(30)
The coupling constants $`C^{K,N}`$ should be determined by some theoretical analysis, because the $`KNN`$ vertex cannot be determined directly by the experiment. Here we take the result of the conventional analysis of , where for the parity violating part the amplitude is assumed to behave as the $`6^{th}`$ component of the SU(3) generators, and for the parity conserving part the pole model is used. The values of $`C^{K,N}`$ are summarized in table 1.

Now we include one $`K`$ exchange in the previous result. In the $`K`$ exchange the positions of weak and strong vertex are opposite to the pion exchange. When introducing the short range correlation in the $`K`$ exchange, one obtains the p-wave effective interaction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$:

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{K,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=[V_{l,K}^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_{t,K}^{}(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}C_P^{K,N}$$
(31)
with

$`V_{l,K}^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_K(q)F_K^2(q)+g_{l,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]`$ (32)
$`V_{t,K}^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}g_{t,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ (33)
and the parity violating part is written as

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{K,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=V_{s,K}^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\sigma _i^{(1)}C_S^{K,N}$$
(34)
with

$$V_{s,K}^{}(q)=\frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }S[D_K(q)F_K^2(q)+g_{s,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]|\stackrel{}{q}|$$
(35)
Here $`D_K(q)`$ is the propagator for $`K`$ and the form factor for $`K`$ is defined as

$$F_K(q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_K^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_K^2q^2}$$
(36)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1.0`$ GeV.

In order to introduce one $`K`$ exchange in the previous results, we replace the $`\pi `$ propagator by the $`\pi +K`$ with the following rules:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{proton}\hfill & \pi ^0:& V_{l,t}^{}& & \pi ^0+\overline{K}^0:& V_{l,t}^{}+C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p}V_{l,t,K}^{}& \\ & \pi ^{}:& 2V_{l,t}^{}& & \pi ^{}+K^{}:& 2V_{l,t}^{}+C_P^{K^{},p}V_{l,t,K}^{}& \\ \mathrm{neutron}\hfill & \pi ^0:& V_{l,t}^{}& & \pi ^0+\overline{K}^0:& V_{l,t}^{}+C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n}V_{l,t,K}^{}& \end{array}$$
(37)
while in s-wave part of the exchange we replace:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{proton}\hfill & \pi ^0:& V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i& & \pi ^0+\overline{K}^0:& V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i+C_S^{\overline{K}^0,p}V_{s,K}^{}\sigma _i^{(1)}\widehat{q}_i& \\ & \pi ^{}:& 2V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i& & \pi ^{}+K^{}:& 2V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i+C_S^{K^{},p}V_{s,K}^{}\sigma _i^{(1)}\widehat{q}_i& \\ \mathrm{neutron}\hfill & \pi ^0:& V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i& & \pi ^0+\overline{K}^0:& V_s^{}\sigma _i^{(2)}\widehat{q}_i+C_S^{\overline{K}^0,n}V_{s,K}^{}\sigma _i^{(1)}\widehat{q}_i& \end{array}$$
(38)
In the direct terms of s-wave (see fig. 6 (d))the pion cannot interfere with $`K`$, because the spin sum vanishes in the nucleon loop.

The results with one pion and one $`K`$ exchange in the lowest order of the RPA series are the following ones:

$`T_p^{\pi +K,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`5V_s^2+(V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{\overline{K}^0,p})^2+(V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{K^{},p})^2`$
$`+(V_s^{}+V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{\overline{K}^0,p})(2V_s^{}+V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{K^{},p})`$
$`T_p^{\pi +K,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p})^2+(2V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})^2`$
$`+2\{(V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p})^2+(2V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})^2\}`$
$`(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p})(2V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})`$
$`+2(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p})(2V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})`$
$`+2(2V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})(V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,p})`$
$`T_n^{\pi +K,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`V_s^2+(V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{\overline{K}^0,n})^2`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_s^{}+V_{s,K}^{}C_S^{\overline{K}^0,n})^2`$
$`T_n^{\pi +K,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})^2+2(V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})^2`$
$`+2(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})(V_t^{}+V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})`$
In order to include all orders of the RPA series, we just replace

$`V_{i,(1)}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{i,(1)}^2}{|1UV_i|^2}}`$ (43)
$`V_{l,(1)}^{}V_{t,(2)}^{}+V_{l,(2)}^{}V_{t,(1)}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1UV_l}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1U^{}V_t}}\right\}(V_{l,(1)}^{}V_{t,(2)}^{}+V_{l,(2)}^{}V_{t,(1)}^{})`$
Here $`V_{i,(1)}^{}`$ and $`V_{i,(2)}^{}`$ with $`i=l,t,s`$ stand for the effective interactions with $`\pi `$ or $`K`$ exchange. The s-wave component of $`K`$, however, remains $`V_{s,K}^2`$, because the vertex in the $`Kph`$ excitation contains no $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ and hence this $`ph`$ excitation does not get modified by the effective strong spin-isospin interaction.

## 4 Two-pion exchange

Another kind of diagrams that have been traditionally studied are those corresponding to two-pion exchange. We will divide the study of these diagrams into two categories: correlated two-pion exchange and uncorrelated two-pion exchange. In the case of correlated exchange we will only consider the scalar-isoscalar channel, where the $`\sigma `$ meson appears. The vector channel is neglected since the $`\rho `$ contribution has been seen to be not relevant . Simple estimations will also be done here. We will also see that the scalar-isoscalar channel is also the relevant one in the case of uncorrelated two-pion exchange. The effect of heavier scalar mesons (such as the $`f_0,a_0`$) is also negligible .

### 4.1 Correlated two-pion exchange

Some works on this topic have been done , incorporating the $`\sigma `$ meson as an explicit degree of freedom. There it is found that, working with reasonable values for the mass, width and $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ coupling, the role of this $`\mathrm{"}2\pi /\sigma \mathrm{"}`$ exchange is relevant in the non-mesonic decay problem.

A less phenomenological treatment of the sigma meson is provided by Chiral Unitary Approaches . In  it was found that the $`\sigma `$ meson is dynamically generated by the interaction of two pion in flight when summing up the s-wave $`t`$matrix of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering to all orders using the Bethe-Salpeter equation. The former picture of the $`\sigma `$ meson was used to describe its role in the $`NN`$ interaction in ref. , finding a moderate attraction beyond $`r=0.9`$ fm and a repulsion at shorter distances, in contrast with the attraction of the conventional $`\sigma `$ exchange. We will follow an analogous model to the one of the aforementioned reference.

The diagrams corresponding to the correlated exchange are those of fig. (7). In the weak vertex we will only consider at the moment the parity conserving term of the Lagrangians (we will see later that the contribution from the parity violating part is not relevant). This simplifies the problem because, as the parity conserving part (proportional to $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the momentum of the pion) has the same structure as the strong $`\pi NN`$ vertex, the results obtained in ref.  are also applicable here. In that reference it was shown that there is a cancellation of the meson-meson vertex off-shell part of the diagram 8A with the diagrams 8B containing a $`\pi \pi \pi NN`$ vertex.

Taking this fact into account, the rescattering of the pions can be treated non-perturbatively by means of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, as was done in ref. . Such a treatment also applies in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ interaction when considering only the parity conserving term of the interacting Lagrangian. One is then allowed to take the expression of the potential coming from the diagrams with $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as intermediate states from that reference, with the only difference of a multiplicative factor $``$ that reflects the replacement of one strong $`\pi NN`$ vertex by the weak $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi N`$. The potential is then given by :

$$V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)=v^2(q)\frac{6}{f^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2}}{1G(\stackrel{}{q}^{2})\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{f^2}}$$
(44)
where $`G(s)`$ is the loop function with two pion propagators, and $`v(q)`$ (associated to diagrams of fig. 7 with intermediate N, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and $``$ are given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P/\mu }{\frac{D+F}{2f}}}`$
$`v(q)`$ $`=`$ $`v_N(q)+v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$ (45)
In the former equation $`v_N(q)`$ can be written, after performing the $`p^0`$ integration and assuming that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryon is initially at rest, as:

$`v_N(q)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left(\frac{D+F}{2f}\right)^2(\stackrel{}{p}^{2}+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})\frac{M_N}{2E_N}\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{1}{\omega ^{}}\theta (|\stackrel{}{p}|k_F)\frac{1}{\omega +\omega ^{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_N+\omega M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_N+\omega ^{}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\omega +\omega ^{}+E_NM_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (46)
In the former equations the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ are those of fig. (8) and:

$$E=E(\stackrel{}{p});\omega =\sqrt{\mu ^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{2}};\omega ^{}=\sqrt{\mu ^2+(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})^{2}}.$$
(47)
$`\theta `$ is the Heaviside function and $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. In eq. (4.1) we have neglected the energy transfer $`q^0`$ which is small compared with $`\stackrel{}{q}`$.

The $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$ function has the same structure as $`v_N(q)`$. The only difference is that we have to replace the energy and the mass of the intermediate nucleon by those of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the $`\pi NN`$ vertex by the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ one. The Heaviside function disappears now from the integrand since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance is not Pauli-blocked, and there is also an extra isospin coefficient:

$`v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{f_{\pi NN}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}(\stackrel{}{p}^{2}+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2E_\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{1}{\omega ^{}}\frac{1}{\omega +\omega ^{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Delta }+\omega M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Delta }+\omega ^{}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\omega +\omega ^{}+E_\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (48)
Here $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ parameterizes the $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling, with $`f_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}=2.12\text{ }f_{\pi NN}`$. The regularization of these loops can be accomplished by means of a form factor. We take static form factors as in :

$$F(\stackrel{}{p})F(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2+(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q})^2},$$
(49)
and in our calculations we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$=1 GeV.

So far we have been studying diagrams in which the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryon appears in the weak vertices. However, as we can see in fig. 7, there are also diagrams with a strange intermediate baryon ($`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ strongly coupled to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In these new diagrams the cancellation of the meson-meson vertex off-shell part of diagram 8A with the diagrams 8B also holds. Therefore, we only need to calculate the $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(q)`$ functions (analogous to $`v_N(q)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)`$) which correspond to the diagrams depicted in fig. 9. In order to calculate these functions we need to know the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N\pi `$ vertices (see fig. 10).

The strong $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ vertex is given in ref.  and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi `$ vertex can be obtained from the former one by replacing the spin and isospin Pauli matrices by the analogous representation-changing operators $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ and by invoking $`SU(6)`$ symmetry, as done in . We can write the strong $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi `$ vertices as:

$`it_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{f}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}`$
$`it_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\pi }={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{D+F}{2f}}\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{q}`$ (50)
for an incoming pion of momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$.

The calculation of the weak $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N\pi `$ vertices is not so trivial. Here we only care about the parity conserving part of these vertices, as said before. As commented in the former section one cannot use current algebra arguments and must resort to some model. Here we take a simple one using $`SU(3)`$ symmetry plus the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. We implement this rule by introducing in the initial state a fictitious $`|1/\mathrm{2\; 1}/2;1\overline{K}^0`$ state, which we couple to the nucleon, and then we couple the resulting state to the pion to get the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) baryon. Experimental values for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi `$ couplings (both for the parity conserving and parity violating parts) and some constraints can be found in reference . Our results satisfy the aforementioned constraints since they come from $`SU(2)`$ symmetry plus $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule, and therefore are also valid for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N\pi `$ couplings. We get also a reasonable good agreement with the experimental data and this is enough because, as we are going to see, there are big cancellations between the diagrams with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and those with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, and the final results barely depend on the inclusion of these diagrams in the calculations. In fact, in our final results we will neglect these diagrams.

We get for the weak vertex of the diagrams of fig. 10:

$$it_{\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi }=(a_\mathrm{\Sigma }d+b_\mathrm{\Sigma }f)\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}it_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N\pi }=a_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}d\stackrel{}{S}^{}\stackrel{}{q}$$
(51)
where the values of $`a_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`b_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`a_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are given in table 2.

With these values for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N\pi `$ couplings we can finally calculate the $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(q)`$ functions. We obtain:

$`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{D}{\sqrt{3}f}\left(\frac{D+F}{2f}\right)(\stackrel{}{p}^{2}+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})\frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2E_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}\frac{1}{\omega +\omega ^{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\omega M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\omega ^{}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\omega +\omega ^{}+E_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{12\sqrt{2}}{25}\left(\frac{D+F}{2f}\right)^2(\stackrel{}{p}^{2}+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q})\frac{M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{2E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}\frac{1}{\omega \omega ^{}}\frac{1}{\omega +\omega ^{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\omega M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\omega ^{}M_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\omega +\omega ^{}+E_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (52)
where the notation followed is the same as in eq (4.1). We can see that $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(q)`$ have opposite sign, thus leading to the aforementioned cancellation.

At this point we have all the ingredients to calculate the $`V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)`$ of equation eq (44) corresponding to the correlated two-pion exchange. The only thing one has to do is to generalize the definition of $`v(q)`$ of eq. (4.1) by:

$$v(q)=v_N(q)+v_\mathrm{\Delta }(q)+v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)+v_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(q)$$
(53)
In fig. 11 we plot $`V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)`$ both with and without considering the diagrams with intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. As we can see, the effect of these latter diagrams is very small due to the cancellation between them. In our calculations we will no longer include these diagrams.

In order to include the short range correlations we will use $`V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)\stackrel{~}{V}_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)`$ instead of $`V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)`$, where the tilde on the function means that $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}`$ must be replaced by $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}+q_c^2`$, being $`q_c`$ the inverse of a typical correlation length (see Appendix).

### 4.2 Uncorrelated two-pion exchange

The other set of processes that we have to study when considering the two-pion exchange is the one in which the exchanged pions only interact with baryonic legs and not with other pions (uncorrelated exchange). The corresponding Feynman diagrams are depicted in fig. 12.

We do not include the diagrams with an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, because one expects a similar cancellation to the one found in the correlated exchange, nor the diagrams with two nucleon propagators in diagram 12 (a), which correspond to final state interaction and are included in the correlations. We will neglect also the spin dependent term, which is found to be of order $`2q^2/(9p^2)`$ with respect to the spin-independent one. Here $`q`$ is the momentum transfer and $`p`$ is the loop variable, which is cut around 1GeV by the cut off, so taking $`p800`$ MeV/c and $`q400`$ MeV/c we find $`2q^2/(9p^2)6\%`$, and therefore we do not care about it.

Let us consider first the direct exchange. As an example we write the contribution of the diagram with one intermediate nucleon in the left hand baryonic line of fig. 12 (a), and an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the right one. We will include at the end the factor $``$ associated to the weak vertex. The modifications needed to describe the other diagrams are trivial. The potential associated to the aforementioned exchange is:

$`iv_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{dir}\left(q\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{M_N}{E\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)}\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\stackrel{}{p_2}+\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)}\frac{i\text{ }\left(1n\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\right)}{p_1^0p^0q^0/2E\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)+iϵ}}`$ (54)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{p_2^0+p^0+q^0/2E_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\stackrel{}{p_2}+\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(p+q/2\right)^2\mu ^2+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(pq/2\right)^2\mu ^2+iϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}\right)^2`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }N}}{\mu }}\right)^2\stackrel{}{\sigma _1}\left(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{\sigma _1}\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{S_2}\left(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{S_2}^{}\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\tau _1^i\tau _1^jT_2^iT_2^j`$
where $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ are the spin and isospin transition operators normalized such that they satisfy:

$`S_iS_j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k`$
$`T_iT_j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{ijk}\tau _k`$ (55)
To regularize these loops we will include a cutoff in the space of intermediate states together with static form factors in the $`\pi NN`$ vertices, as done in the case of correlated two pion exchange. We will also work with the initial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and nucleon at rest in order to simplify the calculations.

The calculation of the crossed exchange is analogous. As before, we will write the contribution of the diagram containing one nucleon propagator in the left baryonic line of fig.12.b, and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator in the right one:

$`iv_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{cross}\left(q\right)={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\frac{M_N}{E\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)}\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\stackrel{}{p_2}\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)}\frac{i\text{ }\left(1n\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\right)}{p_1^0p^0q^0/2E\left(\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)+iϵ}}`$ (56)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{p_2^0p^0+q^0/2E_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\stackrel{}{p_2}\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(p+q/2\right)^2\mu ^2+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\left(pq/2\right)^2\mu ^2+iϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}\right)^2`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }N}}{\mu }}\right)^2\stackrel{}{\sigma _1}\left(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{\sigma _1}\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{S_2}\left(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\stackrel{}{S_2}^{}\left(\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}/2\right)\tau _1^i\tau _1^jT_2^iT_2^j`$
The regularization is achieved also by including a cutoff and static form factors. The $`p^0`$ integral can be analytically performed in both cases.

The resulting uncorrelated two-pion exchange potential can be divided into an isoscalar and an isovector piece:

$$V_{unc}^{2\pi }(q)=V_{is,unc}^{2\pi }(q)+V_{iv,unc}^{2\pi }(q)\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\tau }$$
(57)
where these two pieces are:

$`V_{is,unc}^{2\pi }(q)=3v_{NN}^{cross}(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(v_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^{dir}(q)+v_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{dir}(q)+v_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^{cross}(q)+v_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{cross}(q)\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{27}}\left(v_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{dir}(q)+v_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{cross}(q)\right)`$
$`V_{iv}^{2\pi }(q)=2v_{NN}^{cross}(q)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left(v_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^{dir}(q)+v_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{dir}(q)v_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}^{cross}(q)v_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{cross}(q)\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{81}}\left(v_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{cross}(q)v_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{dir}(q)\right)`$ (58)
It is worth mentioning that, as we are not taking into account direct diagrams with two nucleon propagators, $`V_{unc}^{2\pi }(q)`$ is real. The isoscalar and isovector parts of the function of eq. (4.2) are plotted in fig. 13. As we can see there, the isoscalar part is dominant around $`q420`$ MeV/c, so from now on we will neglect the isovector contribution. This simplifies the description since the remaining scalar-isoscalar contribution can be added directly to the correlated ”$`2\pi /\sigma `$” exchange of the previous subsection. As in the correlated exchange case, short range correlations must be taken into account and their inclusion is achieved, as before, by subtracting to $`V_{is,unc}^{2\pi }(q)`$ its value at $`\stackrel{}{q}^{2}+q_c^2`$ (see Appendix).

Up to now we have not taken into account the parity violating part of the weak vertex in the two-pion exchange contributions. We have evaluated this contribution both in the correlated and uncorrelated two-pion exchange and we find these terms small. Additionally there is a cancellation between them, so the inclusion of this term is irrelevant. The point is that one cannot have an intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupled to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the weak vertex, and this reduces the correlated exchange contribution to $`1/5`$ of the one of the parity conserving part but also reduces strongly the contribution of the uncorrelated exchange, leading to a very big cancellation at the relevant momentum $`q420`$ MeV/c. The structure of these terms is exactly the same as the (s-wave) parity violating term in the $`K`$ exchange and their summed strength is found negligible compared to this latter term.

The inclusion of the two-pion scalar-isoscalar terms is easy. These terms only have interferences with the p-wave part of the $`\pi +K`$ exchange. By using eqs. (44) and (4.2) we define:

$$V_{2\pi }^{}(q)=\frac{V_{corr}^{2\pi }(q)+V_{is,unc}^{2\pi }(q)}{}$$
(59)
and the new contributions are accounted for by adding to eqs. (3) to (3) the following terms:

$`T_{p,S}^{2\pi }(q)=(V_{2\pi }^{}(q))^2`$
$`T_{p,P,int}^{2\pi }(q)=V_{2\pi }^{}(q)(2V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1UV_l}}\right)`$
$`V_{2\pi }^{}(q)(4V_t^{}+2V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{K^{},p})\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1UV_t}}\right)`$
$`T_{n,S}^{2\pi }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_{2\pi }^{}(q))^2`$
$`T_{n,P,int}^{2\pi }(q)=V_{2\pi }^{}(q)(V_l^{}+V_{l,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1UV_l}}\right)`$ (60)
$`V_{2\pi }^{}(q)(2V_t^{}+2V_{t,K}^{}C_P^{\overline{K}^0,n})\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1UV_t}}\right)`$
The repulsive character of our correlated two-pion exchange in momentum space is somewhat unexpected but it is linked to an important constraint of chiral symmetry, i.e., the Adler zero at $`s=\mu ^2/2`$ where the $`\pi \pi `$ scalar-isoscalar amplitude changes sign. In coordinate space it leads to a moderate attraction at intermediate and long distances, and to a repulsion at short distances . Such repulsion from the correlated two-pion exchange is actually not so novel and in models like the Skyrme model, where only pion degrees of freedom are considered, the scalar-isoscalar $`NN`$ interaction also shows repulsion at short distances . However, it is worth noting that when we sum the correlated and uncorrelated two-pion contribution we obtain a net attraction in coordinate space. This is shown in fig. 14.

Once at this point, we would also like to connect our results with present realistic forces of the $`NN`$ interactions. We choose the Argonne potentials $`v_{14}`$, $`v_{18}`$  (see also the paper  for a discussion of this central potential). We observe that this potential has a moderate attraction of around 20-30 MeV at intermediate distances and becomes repulsive at short distances. Our potential with correlated plus uncorrelated two-pion exchange is only attractive. Obviously other contributions are missing there, and the conventional meson exchange approach to generate this repulsion is the $`\omega `$ exchange. We thus add the omega exchange to our potential and find that for standard values of the coupling and the form factor we can reproduce fairly well the Argonne $`v_{14}`$ potential. This is seen in fig. 14, where we have chosen the coupling $`g_\omega =13`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega =1.4`$ GeV, for a monopole form factor.

Now we turn to the weak interaction. Since we have seen that $`\omega `$ exchange plays a role in the strong interaction, we would also like to include it in the weak transition. For this purpose we take the strong coupling determined here from the $`NN`$ central potential and use the weak coupling of the $`\omega `$ given in  $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N\omega }^W=3.69G\mu ^2`$ (for the parity conserving part, and the sign is the same one as for the weak parity conserving pion coupling), and same form factor as for the strong vertex. With the sign prescription for our strong and weak Lagrangians this $`\omega `$ potential in momentum space is given by

$$V_\omega (\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N\omega }^Wg_\omega }{\stackrel{}{q}^{2}+m_\omega ^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ^2m_\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{q}^{2}}\right)^2$$
(61)
In fig. 15 we show now our results for the transition potential in momentum space for the weak two-pion exchange, omega exchange and their sum. We observe that around $`q=400\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{c}`$ the inclusion of the $`\omega `$ exchange reduces the contribution of the scalar-isoscalar transition to about 30% of the contribution of the two-pion exchange alone. We shall discuss the effect of the $`\omega `$ exchange in the results for the total decay widths and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio in the next section.

## 5 Results

We show the results for the proton and neutron induced decay widths of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C separating the different contributions. In table 3 we show the results obtained with only one pion exchange. In table 4 we show the results with only one kaon exchange and only the scalar-isoscalar two-pion exchange. In table 5 we show the different interference terms and in table 6 the results obtained including $`\pi +K`$, $`\pi +K+2\pi `$ and $`\pi +K+2\pi +\omega `$.

While $`K`$ or $`2\pi `$ contributions by themselves are small compared to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ from OPE, the interference effects with the OPE contribution are large. As we can see from table 5, one of the important pieces of interference is in the longitudinal part of the p-wave contribution. The kaon exchange produces a large cancellation of this contribution from OPE in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. The interference of $`2\pi `$ exchange and OPE in the p-wave longitudinal channel is also relevant, and to a smaller extend also the interference of $`2\pi `$ with $`K`$ exchange.

If one looks at table 5 and compares it to table 3 one can see that the main effect of the $`K`$ exchange contribution is to decrease the p-wave contribution of the OPE in the proton case, which was responsible for the large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio. The two-pion exchange contribution has finally a small contribution to the rates because of the cancellation between direct $`2\pi `$ and interference contributions.

It is worth recalling, as we saw from fig. 13, that the $`\sigma `$ and uncorrelated $`2\pi `$ contributions have different signs and there are large cancellations between them at the relevant momentum $`q420`$ MeV/c. Let us stress once more that we obtain a sign for the $`\sigma `$ exchange here which is opposite to the conventional one. Should we have the $`\sigma `$ contribution with opposite sign to ours and about the same strength, the combination of $`\sigma `$ and uncorrelated two-pion exchange would give a contribution for the $`2\pi `$ part alone about 6 times bigger than here, and this would render the total rates unacceptably large in spite of the interference terms, which are only multiplied by a factor 2.5.

We address now the contribution from the $`\omega `$ exchange. We have already seen in table 6 that the combined effect of the two-pion exchange (“$`\sigma `$” in the table) is very moderate. It increases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ by 10% and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ by 13 %. The inclusion of $`\omega `$, as looks clear from fig. 15, should give contributions of the same order of magnitude. This is the case indeed, and in table 6 we show the contribution when the $`\omega `$ exchange is added, which indeed is small but helps one to obtain a better agreement with experiment for the total widths.

In table 7 we present the results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio for different nuclei. We have used the parameters of ref.  for the $`NNK`$ coupling. We find that the total rates from the $`1p1h`$ channel go from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{free}=0.77`$ in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C to 1.3 in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{208}`$Pb and the ratios $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ are all of them of about $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p0.53`$.

We have also made calculations with the couplings for $`K`$ exchange from  and . The qualitative results do not change much. In both cases they lead to smaller ratios and larger widths, particularly in the case of , because the strength of the $`K`$ exchange is smaller and so are the interference terms. However, we should mention that a fit with only three independent terms is done in  while there is more freedom, according to , where five independent terms contributing to the parity conserving part can be found.

We can also make estimates of possible contributions from heavier mesons like the $`\rho `$ and the $`K^{}`$. Given the small range of these exchanges, they can be easily accounted for by means of moderate changes in the $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ parameters of $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ exchange. This is a usual way to account for $`\rho `$ effects in the effective spin-isospin strong interaction via the Landau-Migdal effective force. We have checked that by increasing the $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ parameter by $`20\%`$ in the case of the pion or the kaon exchange, the changes in both the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio and the rates were smaller than $`5\%`$.

If we want to compare these results with experimental data we should still add the mesonic contribution and the $`2p2h`$ induced one. For the mesonic contribution we take the results from , which agree well with experiment in the measured cases. The mesonic rates are only relevant for the lighter nuclei. We take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=0.25\text{ }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{free}`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C, 0.07 for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{26}`$Si and 0.03 for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{40}`$Ca and neglect this contribution for heavier nuclei. The $`2p2h`$ induced contribution calculated in  is $`0.27\text{ }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{free}`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C and 0.30 for the rest of the nuclei. With these results we compute the total rates which we show in table 7. We have recalculated this contribution with the new form factor and with the new values of $`g^{}`$ that we use here, rescaling the $`C_0`$ parameter of  in order to obtain the same strength for the p-wave part of the pionic atoms optical potential. We obtain the same results as in ref. , within $`5\%`$. The present status of the width measurements can be found in table 8. We can see that our total rates are compatible with the experimental numbers in the best measured nuclei. In heavy nuclei the experimental errors are larger and our results are compatible with the experiment. In fig. 16 we plot our results versus experiment for the total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay width.

As for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratios our results are compatible within the experimental errors, on the lower side. However, one word of caution is necessary here. The experimental analyses were done neglecting the $`2p2h`$ induced channel, but it was observed in  that the inclusion of this mechanism in the analyses of the data leads to different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. A formula was given in this reference to correct the results of the old analysis due to the consideration of this induced mechanism, but it assumed that all particles were detected. The formula was corrected in  assuming that the slow particles (with energies smaller than about 40 MeV) were not detected. Detailed calculations of the spectra of protons and neutrons from the non-mesonic decay were done in  but assuming a ratio of $`1p1h`$ to $`2p2h`$ induced strength given by the OPE model alone, which as shown here overcounts the $`1p1h`$ strength. In view of this we just take the formula of  and use it to recalculate the experimental bands. The present bands for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C are: $`1.33_{0.81}^{+1.12}`$, $`1.87_{1.59}^{+0.91}`$ , $`0.70\pm 0.30`$, $`0.52\pm 0.16`$. The lower bounds are 0.52, 0.29, 0.4, 0.36 respectively. However, if we use the formula of  assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2p2h}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}`$ of the order of 0.3 one reduces the lower bound to values 0.2, 0.14, 0.1, 0.01 and the value obtained by us is well within present experimental ranges.

## 6 Conclusions

We have evaluated the non-mesonic proton and neutron induced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay rates in nuclei, by including one pion, one kaon, correlated and uncorrelated two-pion exchange and $`\omega `$ exchange. We found that the contribution of $`K`$ exchange was essential to reduce the total decay rate from the OPE results and simultaneously increase the value of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio from values around 0.12 for the OPE to values around 0.52. We also included the $`\sigma `$ and uncorrelated two pion exchange and we found some cancellations between them, such that the total contribution of the two-pion exchange to the total rate and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio was small. Additional inclusion of the $`\omega `$ exchange made the scalar-isoscalar contribution smaller, and while changing the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratios only from 0.54 to 0.53, it helped a bit in getting the total rates in better agreement with the data. However, in these results it was very important that the contribution of the $`\sigma `$ exchange had opposite sign to the conventional contributions taking only the exchange of a $`\sigma `$ particle. This change of sign was due to the presence of the Adler zero in the scalar-isoscalar $`\pi \pi `$ interaction which makes the amplitude change sign below $`s=\mu ^2/2`$, which is the case here where we have $`s`$ negative. We have also evaluated a weak parity violating $`\sigma `$ exchange term which we found negligible compared to the parity conserving one.

The total rates obtained are good compared to the present data. The ratios $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ are considerably improved with respect to the OPE ones and compatible with present experiments. We have also seen that, once the present experimental data are corrected to account for the $`2p2h`$ channel the value of 0.53 obtained here for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio is well within the present experimental boundaries.

Further studies to evaluate the contribution from shorter distances, using for instance quark models, like in  would be most welcome. They seem to lead to even larger values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ but also larger total decay rates. In any case our study of the long and intermediate distances has shown that one can obtain values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ considerably larger than those given by the OPE model while still having total rates in good agreement with experiment.

### Note added in proof

While our paper was in print another related paper appeared in the web  paying especial attention to the final state interaction (FSI) of the two nucleons after the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay. Tables IV and V of that paper show the effects of the FSI, but the initial state interaction (ISI) is already accounted for. One should not compare these results with ours, since our correlation function is meant to account for initial as well as final state correlations. Comparison of our results for one pion exchange and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C with those of , complemented by the effects of ISI found in  is possible. Depending on the strong potential used, the combined effect of ISI and FSI in ,  is a reduction by a factor ranging for 1.4 to 1.9. Our correlation function gives us a reduction of a factor 1.5.

### Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge multiple and useful discussions with A. Ramos and A. Parreño. Useful information from A. Gal and M. Oka is much appreciated. We would also like to acknowledge financial support from the DGICYT under contracts PB96-0753, PB98-1247 and AEN97-1693, from the Generalitat de Catalunya under grant SGR98-11 and from the EU TMR network Eurodaphne, contract no. ERBFMRX-CT98-0169. J.E.P. thanks finantial support from the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. The work by D.J. is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education in the Program “Estancias de Doctores y Tecnólogos Extranjeros en España”.

## Appendix

In this Appendix we briefly review how to implement the short range correlation in the effective interactions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$ and $`NNNN`$. We follow here closely the steps of  for this purpose. The hard core in the short range is produced by a strong repulsive force independent on spin and isospin in the $`NN`$ interaction, and is very well approximated by a local correlation function $`g(r)`$. Then, we may write the effective interaction $`G_{NN}`$ through one meson exchange potential $`V_{NNNN}`$ as

$$G_{NN}(r)=g(r)V_{NN}(r),$$
(62)
where typically $`g(r)`$ vanishes as $`r0`$ and goes to $`1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. One of the practical choices of $`g(r)`$ is

$$g(r)=1j_0(q_cr).$$
(63)
The analysis of the $`NN`$ interaction suggested that eq. (63) with $`q_c=780\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c`$ gives a fair correlation function .

With eq. (63) the effective interaction in momentum space is given by

$$G_{NN}(q)=[V_l(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)}$$
(64)
with

$`V_l(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2}{\mu ^2}}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_l(q)]`$ (65)
$`V_t(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2}{\mu ^2}}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\rho (q)F_\rho ^2(q)C_\rho +g_t(q)]`$ (66)
The short range correlations are taken into account in the $`g_l(q)`$ and $`g_t(q)`$:

$`g_l(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\right)\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\pi (q){\displaystyle \frac{2q_c^2}{3}}C_\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\rho (q),`$ (67)
$`g_t(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\pi (q)\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2q_c^2}{3}}\right)C_\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\rho (q).`$ (68)
The tilde on the functions means that $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}`$ must be changed by $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\text{ }2}+q_c^2`$ in the argument of the function. $`C_\rho `$ is the ratio of the $`\rho NN`$ coupling to the $`\pi NN`$ coupling: $`C_\rho =(f_\rho /m_\rho )/(f_{\pi NN}/\mu )=2`$. Here we rescale these functions to keep consistency with the spin-isospin effective nuclear force:

$$g_{l,t}(q)g^{}\frac{g_{l,t}(q)}{g_{l,t}(0)}$$
(69)
with $`g^{}=0.7`$. $`D_\pi (q)`$ and $`D_\rho (q)`$ are the propagators of $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$, respectively, and $`F_\pi (q)`$ and $`F_\rho (q)`$ denote the form factor for $`\pi NN`$ and $`\rho NN`$, which are given by

$`F_\pi (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ^2q^2}}`$ (70)
$`F_\rho (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2m_\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^2q^2}}`$ (71)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1.0`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =2.5`$ GeV.

Similarly we introduce the short range correlation into the effective interaction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN`$:

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}(r)=g(r)V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}(r)$$
(72)
where $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}`$ is the potential with one $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ exchanges in this case. We use the same correlation function and $`q_c`$ for $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}(r)`$ and for $`G_{NN}(r)`$, as usually done.

Then the effective interaction with one $`\pi `$ exchange for the parity violating part is written as

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{\pi ,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=V_s^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\sigma _i^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)}$$
(73)
while the parity conserving part is split into the longitudinal and transverse components:

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{\pi ,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=[V_l^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t^{}(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\tau }^{(2)}$$
(74)
with

$`V_l^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_l^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]`$ (75)
$`V_t^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}g_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ (76)
$`V_s^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{\mu }}S[D_\pi (q)F_\pi ^2(q)+g_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ (77)
The form factor is assumed to be the same as for the strong $`\pi NN`$ vertex. The short range correlations are considered in $`g_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$`g_l^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\right)\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\pi (q)`$ (78)
$`g_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\pi (q)`$ (79)
$`g_s^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pi ^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_\pi (q)`$ (80)
where the tilde is defined as for the case of the $`NN`$ interaction.

Similarly, the effective interaction with one kaon exchange are given as

$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{K,\mathrm{p}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=[V_l^{,K}(q)\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+V_t^{,K}(q)(\delta _{ij}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j)]\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}C_P^{K,N}$$
(81)
$$G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }NNN}^{K,\mathrm{s}\mathrm{wave}}(q)=V_{s,K}^{}(q)\widehat{q}_i\sigma _i^{(1)}C_S^{K,N}$$
(82)
with

$`V_{l,K}^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}[\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}D_K(q)F_K^2(q)+g_{l,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]`$ (83)
$`V_{t,K}^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\mu }}g_{t,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ (84)
$`V_{s,K}^{}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{K\mathrm{\Lambda }N}}{\mu }}S[D_K(q)F_K^2(q)+g_{s,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)]|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ (85)
Here $`D_K(q)`$ is the $`K`$ propagator and $`F_K(q)`$ denotes the form factor of the $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$. We use the same form factor for the weak $`KNN`$ vertex:

$$F_K(q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_K^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_K^2q^2}$$
(86)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_K=1.0`$ GeV. The short range correlations are accounted for by means of the $`g`$ coefficients

$`g_{l,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\right)\stackrel{~}{F}_K^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_K(q)`$ (87)
$`g_{t,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_c^2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{F}_K^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_K(q)`$ (88)
$`g_{s,K}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_K^2(q)\stackrel{~}{D}_K(q)`$ (89)


format: text

text:
# Two leg quantum Ising ladder: A bosonization study of the ANNNI model

## Abstract

The quantum ANNNI chain in a transverse field is investigated by means of the bosonization approach in the limit of large next-nearest neighbor interaction. In this regime, this model can be viewed as a weakly coupled two-leg zigzag ladder which enables us to derive its low energy effective field theory. In particular, it is shown that the effect of frustration in the system is captured by the presence of a non zero conformal spin perturbation that accounts for the existence of all the incommensurate phases of the model.

One of the most striking effect of frustration in magnetic systems is that it can lead to a huge number of degenerate ground states. As a result, the nature of finite temperature phases may not, in contrast with ferromagnetic systems, be linked only to the sole nature of the microscopic degrees of freedom and the dimension of space-time. Since frustration induces strong fluctuations that involve large number of spins, the low energy physics is determined by interferences between very different regions of phase space. With this picture in mind one may not expect the field theoretical description of the frustration to be an easy task. Of course there have been several attempts to describe frustrated magnets by field theories. But, to our knowledge they were mostly restricted to models that displayed well defined ground states, such as helical ordering, and the main effect of frustration was captured by an enlargement of the dimension of the order parameter space. Here our aim is to single out an operator, in the Renormalization Group (RG) sense, that captures the effect of frustration. In this respect, we shall consider the most studied frustrated system i.e. the two dimensional ANNNI model (see Refs. for a review). This model is characterized by a nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic interaction ($`J_1<0`$) and a competiting next-nearest neighbor antiferromagnetic interaction ($`J_2>0`$):

$$=J_1\underset{(i,j)}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j+J_2\underset{[k,l]}{}\sigma _k\sigma _l,$$
(1)
where $`(i,j)`$ denotes nearest neighbor pairs and $`[k,l]`$ next-nearest ones along a single space direction. The phase diagram of the model (1) is very rich and well known and can be summarize as follows. At zero temperature, the ground state is ferromagnetic for $`J_2<J_1/2`$ and antiferromagnetic (actually an antiphase $``$) for $`J_2>J_1/2`$. At the special point $`J_2=J_1/2`$, the ground state is infinitely degenerate and correlation functions are short ranged. At finite temperatures ($`T0`$), one observes five different phases depending on the parameters (see figure (1)): ferromagnetic (F), paramagnetic commensurate (PC), paramagnetic incommensurate (PI), incommensurate critical phase (IC, also usually called “floating phase”) and antiphase (A). Three different kind of phase transitions are present in this diagram: An Ising transition between the F and PC phases, a commensurate-incommensurate transition between the A and IC phases, and a Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition separates the IC and PI phases. There is also a disorder line that extends down to zero temperature which divides the PC and PI phases. As a most notable feature of this phase diagram is the existence of an incommensurate critical phase in a finite region of the parameter space. In a seminal work, Villain and Bak  have proposed an approximate effective theory in terms of fermions valid in the vicinity of the degenerate point $`J_2=J_1/2`$. All their predictions have been further confirmed by numerical investigations and series expansions. It is the purpose of the present letter to propose a complementary and alternative low energy description of the ANNNI model valid in the large $`J_2`$ limit. Furthermore, within our approach, we exhibit a particular operator that is at the origin of the incommensurate phases found in the phase diagram (figure (1)).

Our starting point is to map (1) into a quantum Ising model in a transverse magnetic field. This is done by introducing an anisotropy between the nearest neighbor interaction in the $`x`$-direction ($`J_1`$) and in the $`y`$-direction ($`J_\tau `$). As it is well known (see Ref.  for a review), the physics of the classical model (1) should be equivalent to the one described by the following quantum Hamiltonian:

$$=\underset{n}{}\left[\beta J_\tau ^{}\sigma _n^z+\beta J_2\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+2}^x\beta J_1\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x\right],$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _n^x`$, $`\sigma _n^z`$ are Pauli matrices and $`2\beta J_\tau ^{}=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{coth}(\beta J_\tau )`$. The model (2) is nothing but the one-dimensional $`axial`$ next-nearest neighbor Ising (ANNNI) model in a transverse field. As seen in figure (2), it can also be viewed as two quantum Ising chains labelled (1) and (2) coupled by a “zigzag” interaction with strength $`J_1`$ and thus identifies with a two-leg quantum Ising ladder with Hamiltonian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,a=1,2}{}}\left[\beta J_\tau ^{}\sigma _a^z(n+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})\beta J_2\sigma _a^x(n+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})\sigma _a^x(n+1+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})\right]`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta J_1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sigma _1^x(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left[\sigma _2^x(n)\sigma _2^x(n+1)\right]+(12).`$
Notice that in order to obtain (3) we have performed an (unphysical) gauge transformation on the ath chain ($`a=1,2`$): $`\sigma _a^x(n+a/2)(1)^{n+a}\sigma _a^x(n+a/2)`$. As we shall now see, the model (3) can be consistently described by a continuous field theory in the limit $`J_1<<J_2`$ and $`J_2J_\tau ^{}`$.

Continuum limit. We shall study the model in the vicinity of the antiferromagnetic phase where $`J_1<<J_2`$. One can take advantage that in the limit $`J_1=0`$ the model is equivalent to two decoupled Ising models which are critical when $`J_2=J_\tau ^{}`$. One can therefore expand the theory around the conformal invariant fixed point with symmetry Z$`{}_{2}{}^{}`$ Z2. In the critical regime the two Ising chains are described by two pairs of right and left Majorana (real) fermions $`\psi _{a(R,L)},a=1,2`$:

$$_0=i\frac{v}{2}\underset{a=1,2}{}\left(\psi _{aR}_x\psi _{aR}\psi _{aL}_x\psi _{aL}\right)m(ϵ_1+ϵ_2),$$
(4)
$`ϵ_a=i\psi _{aR}\psi _{aL}`$ being the energy operator of the ath Ising model whereas the mass gap and the velocity are given by: $`m=2(J_\tau ^{}J_2)/T<<1`$, $`v=a_0J_\tau ^{}/T`$ ($`a_0`$ being the lattice spacing). In the absence of interchain interaction, the system is disordered (respectively ordered) when $`m>0`$ (respectively $`m<0`$) and one has $`\sigma _a=0`$ (respectively $`\sigma _a0`$) where $`\sigma _a`$ are the order operators associated with the two Ising models. We consider now the interacting case and take the continum limit of the second term in equation (3) in the regime $`J_1J_2`$ to obtain:

$$_0+g𝒱,𝒱=a_0^{1/4}\left(\sigma _1_x\sigma _2\sigma _2_x\sigma _1\right).$$
(5)
When $`m=0`$ and $`g=J_1/2T=0`$, the model is conformal invariant with central charge $`c=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}=1`$. In the generic case, this fixed point is perturbed by the thermal operators $`ϵ_{1(2)}`$ which have scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and the operator $`𝒱`$ which has scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=5/4`$. It is important to stress that both operators reflect very different physical behaviors. While the former is the standard operator measuring deviation from criticality in non-frustrated Ising magnets, the latter encodes the whole effect of frustration and is responsible of the non trivial phases of the ANNNI model as we shall see. The operator $`𝒱`$ manifests itself by the fact that it is a parity symmetry breaking perturbation with a conformal spin equals to 1. The effect of such non-zero conformal spin term is non trivial since the usual irrelevant versus relevant criterion does not hold for such a non-scalar contribution (see for instance the discussion in Ref. ). In fact, a similar operator also appears in the study of the S=1/2 Heisenberg zigzag ladder and has been called a “twist term”. Such contribution is difficult to handle non-perturbatively but it has been stressed that this term may represent a new mechanism for incommensuration in one-dimensional systems. As we shall see, in the particular case of the ANNNI model, the effect of this operator can be elucidated by means of the bosonization approach and accounts for the formation of the non trivial incommensurate phases depicted in figure (1).

Bosonization and Effective Theory. We shall use the well known equivalence between two critical Ising models, characterized by four chiral real fermions $`\psi _{1R(L)}`$ and $`\psi _{2R(L)}`$, and a free boson theory described by the chiral fields $`\varphi _{R(L)}`$. The bosonization rules are (see Ref.  for a review):

$$(\psi _1+i\psi _2)_{R(L)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi a_0}}\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{R(L)}),$$
(6)
from which it follows that $`_0`$ is equivalent to a sine-Gordon model at $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$ (free fermion point). The bosonization of the twist term (5) requires more work. A suitable bosonic expression is obtained by considering the following operator product expansion (OPE) that stems from the fact that the order operator $`\sigma _a`$ is a primary field:

$$\left(T_1T_2\right)(z)\sigma _1\sigma _2(w,\overline{w})\frac{1}{zw}\left[\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _1\sigma _2\right](w,\overline{w}),$$
(7)
where $`T_a(a=1,2)`$ are the energy momentum tensors in the holomorphic sector ($`z=v\tau +ix`$) associated with the Ising models. The fields in the left hand side of equation (7) can be expressed in terms of the bosonic fields: $`T_1T_2=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{16\pi }\varphi _L)`$ and $`\sigma _1\sigma _2=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _L+\varphi _R`$). We thus deduce by performing the OPE in the bosonic theory the following representation of the twist term:

$$=\frac{v}{2}\left(\left(_x\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+\left(_x\mathrm{\Theta }\right)^2\right)\frac{m}{\pi a_0}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{}\frac{g\sqrt{2}}{a_0}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }\right),$$
(8)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\varphi _L\varphi _R`$ being the dual field. The next step of our approach is to map (8) onto the XXZ Heisenberg model in a magnetic field:

$$=\frac{2\pi u}{3}\left(𝐉_R^2+𝐉_L^2\right)+4\pi ma_0\left(J_R^xJ_L^x+J_R^yJ_L^y\right)+\pi g\sqrt{2}\left(J_R^yJ_L^y\right)+2\pi \lambda _0J_R^zJ_L^z,$$
(9)
where $`u=5v/4`$, $`\lambda _0=3v/2`$ and the SU(2)1 Kac-Moody currents are given by $`J_{L,R}^z=_x\varphi _{L,R}/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and $`J_{L,R}^+=\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\sqrt{8\pi }\varphi _{L,R})/(2\pi a_0)`$. The two expressions (8) and (9) can be shown to be equivalent by a canonical transformation at the special value $`\lambda _0=3v/2`$. As a result, in an appropriate basis, the twist operator acts as a magnetic field. The model (9) is more conveniently analyzed in a basis where the magnetic field lies along the $`z`$ axis. To do so, we perform a $`\pi /2`$ rotation around the x-axis in the spin space so that one finally obtains after rebosonizing once again the currents:

$$=\frac{u^{}}{2}\left(\left(_x\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+\left(_x\mathrm{\Theta }\right)^2\right)g_1\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)g_2\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8\pi /Q}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)h_x\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(10)
where

$$Q=\sqrt{\frac{1ma_0/u}{1+ma_0/u}},u^{}=u\sqrt{(1+ma_0/u)(1ma_0/u)},$$
(11)
$`g_{1(2)}=(2m\pm \lambda _0/a_0)/(4\pi a_0)`$, and $`h=g\sqrt{\pi /Q}`$. The effective field theory (10) is the main result of this work and all the different phases (apart from the F and PC phases) observed in the ANNNI model can be deduced from a simple analysis of it.

Phase Diagram. Consider first the high-temperature phase, i.e. when $`m>0`$. Since $`Q<1`$, for sufficiently large $`m`$, the term $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi /Q}\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is strongly irrelevant and can be dropped. The remaining theory is then easy to analyse and a mass gap to all excitations is generated due to the presence of the relevant $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ term. On the other hand the operator $`_x\mathrm{\Theta }`$ leads to incommensurate fluctuations of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ dependent correlation functions. This phase corresponds to the incommensurate paramagnetic phase PI. This picture is confirmed by an exact solution at the special value $`Q=1/2`$ where the model becomes equivalent to that of free fermions with dispersion $`ϵ_\pm ^2(k)=v^2\left(k\pm g\sqrt{2}\pi /v\right)^2+9v^2/16a_0^2`$. As readily seen, there is a spectral gap and incommensuration develops as soon as $`g0`$ with wavevector $`k^{}=\sqrt{2}\pi g/v`$.

Similarily one can study the low temperature regime i.e. $`m<0`$ and $`Q>1`$. For sufficiently large $`m`$, it is now the $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ term that is irrelevant and can be dropped. After a duality transformation, the resulting Hamiltonian is equivalent to the XXZ chain in a magnetic field along the $`z`$ axis which is equivalent to the bosonized version of the Villain-Bak theory derived in the vicinity of the degenerate point $`J_2/J_1=1/2`$, $`T=0`$. At small $`g`$, there is a gap to all excitations with no incommensuration: it corresponds to the A phase. As $`g`$ grows, the magnetic field increases until it reaches the gap at some critical value ($`g_{c1}`$) above which the excitations become massless. For $`g>g_{c1}`$, the system displays as well an incommensurate behavior with wavevector $`k^{}\sqrt{g^2g_{c1}^2}`$ and one enters the floating phase IC. The nature of the transition at $`g=g_{c1}`$ is of a commensurate-incommensurate type. Finally, as $`g`$ further increases, the $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ term eventually becomes relevant and opens a gap at a critical value $`g_{c2}`$ where a BKT transition to the PI phase takes place. This picture is, as above, confirmed by an exact solution at the point $`Q=2`$ where the model (10) becomes equivalent to massive free fermions.

As seen, the previous analysis correctly reproduces the phase diagram of the ANNNI model in the vicinity of the A phase where frustration plays its tricks. To do so, we have assumed that $`|m|`$ was sufficiently large to be able to neglect one of the cosine terms in equation (10). One can question the validity of this scheme when $`m0`$ where both $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi /Q}\mathrm{\Theta })`$ operators, being almost marginal, compete. A detailed analysis of the RG equations associated with (10) is thus called for but one is faced with the difficulty that the coupling constants are not small since $`\lambda _0`$ is of order one. One has therefore to make the hypothesis that the qualitative feature of the RG approach does not depend on the strength of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ and treat them as small couplings. The RG equations have already been obtained in a different context by Giamarchi and Schulz. It follows from  that the results we have obtained for large $`|m|`$ remain valid for small $`m`$ confirming our hypothesis. However, there is room for a spin-flop transition from the A phase directly to the PI phase if the $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{8\pi Q}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ perturbation blows up before the $`_x\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term closes the gap. The occurence of such a transition strongly depends on the microscopic couplings of the bare Hamiltonian. The analysis of the RG equations for $`\lambda _0=6u/5`$ reveals that a spin flop transition does not occur for the ANNNI model. However, care has to be payed since for this value of $`\lambda _0`$, perturbation theory strictly does not apply and this leaves open the question of the existence of a Lifshitz point in the ANNNI model. Furthermore, notice that the presence of a Lifshitz point is a generic feature of (10). Therefore one may expect that other lattice Hamiltonians displaying the same qualitative phase diagram than the ANNNI model will exhibit such a point. In summary, we have derived a low energy description of the ANNNI model in the large $`J_2`$ limit where the system can be viewed as a weakly coupled two-leg zigzag ladder. This enables us to start from a conformal invariant fixed point in the vicinity of which the continuum limit is well defined and frustration manifests itself through the twist operator. This approach accounts for all the incommensurate phases of the ANNNI model and in the low temperature limit matches the Villain-Bak description near the degenerate point.

D. Allen is a CNRS post-doctoral fellow and thanks l’université Cergy-Pontoise for hospitality while this work was initiated.