format: text

text:
# Domain Wall Fermion Study of Scaling in Non-perturbative Renormalization of Quark Bilinears and 𝐵_𝐾

## I Introduction

Lattice QCD has proven to be a powerful approach to calculating from the first principles the mass spectrum, weak decay constants, weak matrix elements, quark masses, and hadronic structure functions. Such studies require calculating matrix elements of composite operators. In order to extract physical predictions in the continuum limit from Monte–Carlo simulations in lattice QCD, one in general needs to determine the normalization of these operators in terms of physical requirements.

In calculations involving the operator product expansion one needs to know the Wilson coefficients. The corresponding calculations are done perturbatively, and therefore must be carried out at a high enough energy scale. To evolve those coefficients down to the scale at which lattice calculations are performed, one usually also uses perturbative methods.

A possible approach to renormalization of operators defined on the lattice is lattice perturbation theory. This approach, though, suffers from many difficulties, the main being poor convergence of the perturbation series. One source of this difficulty was identified by Parisi and Toe , and later by Lepage and Mackenzie , and is due to the presence of tadpole diagrams. The authors of  proposed a method to improve the convergence properties of these series which is known as tadpole–improved perturbation theory. Nevertheless, the calculations using this method are complex, and therefore are rarely carried out beyond the one–loop level. Since $`g^2`$ decreases only logarithmically with decreasing $`a`$, the systematic improvement of perturbation theory is very difficult, leaving the possibility for large systematic uncertainty in extraction of physical results.

In some limited cases renormalization of lattice operators can be obtained from Monte–Carlo simulations using the chiral Ward Identities. The examples include vector and axial vector currents, and the ratio of pseudoscalar and scalar densities. Unfortunately, this method cannot be applied to general composite operators for which there is no corresponding Ward Identity.

A method for full non–perturbative renormalization of lattice operators by means of Monte–Carlo simulations was proposed in . The procedure mimics the approach taken in continuum perturbation theory. The renormalization conditions are imposed directly on quark and gluon Green’s functions, in a fixed gauge, with specified, external lines carrying far off–shell momenta. This defines the so–called Regularization Independent scheme (RI). At high momenta the results can be directly related to the perturbative calculations, provided that corresponding conversions are made in order to match different renormalization schemes used in continuum calculations (usually the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme).

A necessary condition for the RI method to work is to have the off–shell momentum scale of the external lines, $`\mu `$, much smaller than the inverse lattice spacing and much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The former condition restricts the value of reliable momenta from above for a given lattice spacing $`a`$. The lower bound on momentum comes from the need to compare with perturbation theory which is only applicable at an energy scale above the non–perturbative regime, $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. These two constraints leave a pretty narrow range of momenta that can be used to calculate renormalization coefficients.

To extend the range of momenta over which an operator is renormalized, one can perform simulations at different values of coupling constant $`\beta =6/g^2`$ with overlapping regions of reliable physical momenta. By combining the results of these calculations, it is in principle possible to relate renormalization coefficients of a given operator between quite different momentum scales $`\mu `$. By starting with sufficiently high momenta where the perturbation theory can be trusted, operators can be renormalized at a series of scales down to a few GeV where most lattice calculations are done.

To make the matching between results obtained at different $`\beta `$’s meaningful, it is important to insure that it is done under identical physical conditions. In particular, mass and volume dependence have to be taken into account.

The difficulty that arises from the finite volume effects can be approached in several ways. A direct way of taking the infinite volume limit turns out to be inefficient due to the strong volume dependence at low momenta. In this work we instead keep the volume explicitly finite. The matching between calculations at different $`\beta `$’s is done at the same physical momentum and physical volume. This procedure is described in detail in Section III.

In our simulations we use the domain wall fermion formulation . This approach is computationally more demanding than the usual Wilson fermions, but offers significant advantages that are more than enough to compensate for the additional computer time required for the calculations. The DWF formulation provides an easy procedure of taking the chiral limit, independently of the continuum limit. No additional fine–tuning is required. By working at sufficiently large lattice extent in the fifth direction, the residual quark mass arising from the chiral symmetry breaking coupling between the walls can be made very small. Then the limit of zero bare quark mass corresponds to the chiral limit with high accuracy. We use this property to eliminate the mass dependence of our results, by taking the chiral limit.

The excellent chiral properties of the DWF formulation suppresses the mixing of such operators as $`O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}`$ with operators of opposite chiralities, Ref. . This is a serious complication for studying the renormalization of such operators using fermion actions with large chiral symmetry violations.

It is important that in the DWF formulation the chiral properties are improved not only for the on–shell calculations, but also for the off–shell ones. This is one of the reasons why the DWF formulation is ideal for using the non–perturbative renormalization method described in the next section that imposes a renormalization condition on the matrix elements of operators between external off–shell quark states. Another important consequence of these good chiral properties of the lattice theory with the DWF is the absence of order $`O(a)`$ errors in the results for the matrix elements of operators.

We use the quenched version of the DWF method in our paper. For an extensive analysis of the properties of this formulation the reader is referred to the early works on this subject, Refs.  and .

The paper is organized as follows: In Section II we explain the method of non-perturbative renormalization. The scaling technique is described in Section III. In Section IV we present the results of numerical calculations.

## II The Non–Perturbative Renormalization Method

In our calculation of non–perturbative renormalization coefficients we follow closely the procedure first proposed by the Rome–Southampton group . The renormalized operator $`O(\mu )`$ is defined as the bare operator $`O_{bare}`$ multiplied by the $`Z`$–factor,

$$O(\mu )=Z_O(\mu ;a)O_{bare}(a).$$
(1)
For simplicity of presentation we ignore the possibility of operator mixing which would require replacing Eq. (1) by a matrix equation but have no other effect on the method developed in this paper. Here the bare operator $`O_{bare}(a)`$ is regularized by discretizing it on a space–time lattice with lattice spacing $`a`$ that has units of inverse energy and throughout this paper $`a`$ is assumed to be uniform in all directions. It can also depend on other (bare) parameters in the Lagrangian. The renormalized operator $`O(\mu )`$ has low energy matrix elements with no dependence on regularization parameters. These low energy matrix elements are functions of only physical parameters, such as physical masses, coupling constant, etc., defined at the renormalization scale $`\mu `$, and $`\mu `$ itself.

The renormalization condition imposed on an operator constructed from a product of $`n`$ quark fields is given by

$$Z_O(\mu ;a)Z_q^{n/2}(\mu ;a)\mathrm{\Gamma }_O(p;a)|_{p^2=\mu ^2}=1,$$
(2)
where $`Z_q(\mu ;a)`$ is the quark field renormalization coefficient,

$$q_{ren}(\mu )=Z_q^{1/2}(\mu ;a)q_{bare}(a).$$
(3)
This specifies our conventions for $`Z_q`$. The precise prescription for determining $`Z_q`$ is given later in Eq. (6).

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_O(p)`$ is obtained from the amputated matrix element of the operator $`O_{bare}`$ between external off-shell (bare) quark states, in the Landau gauge, by tracing it with a projector $`\widehat{P}_O`$ on a tree–level operator. In the case of quark bilinear operators it is defined by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_O(p;a)=\frac{\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_O(p;a)\widehat{P}_O\right)}{12},$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_O(p;a)=S_{bare}(p;a)^1G_O(p;a)S_{bare}(p;a)^1$$
(5)
is the truncated Green’s function. The corresponding equations for the case of four quark operators can be found in Section IV D of this paper.

The above renormalization condition is independent of the regularization scheme, although it does depend on a particular choice of the off–shell momenta and the choice of gauge. This dependence is not important since the final physical results will not depend on this momentum choice, and will be gauge invariant. We always choose the sum of all external momenta to be equal to zero. In the case of the four quark operators all four external lines carry momenta that are equal up to an overall sign.

The renormalization coefficient of the fermion field, $`Z_q^{1/2}`$, is defined from the full propagator,

$$Z_q(\mu ;a)=\frac{i}{48}\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^\mu \frac{S_{bare}(p;a)^1}{p_\mu }\right)_{p^2=\mu ^2}$$
(6)
and can be calculated numerically using the Ward Identity for the conserved vector current $`V^C`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{V^C}^\mu (p;a)=i\frac{S_{bare}(p;a)^1}{p_\mu },$$
(7)
which implies

$$Z_q(\mu ;a)=\frac{1}{48}\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{V^C}^\mu (p;a)\right)_{p^2=\mu ^2}.$$
(8)
Substituting this into Eq. (2) for $`V^C`$ one can see that the RI renormalization condition for the conserved vector current is consistent with the equality $`Z_{V^C}=1`$.

## III Scaling technique

Our scaling technique exploits the renormalizability of lattice QCD which implies that, when scaling violations are small, the values of a renormalization coefficient calculated at two different values of the lattice spacing will be related to each other by an overall multiplicative coefficient independent of the physical conditions such as physical volume or momentum scale,

$$\frac{Z_O(\mu ,V;a^{})}{Z_O(\mu ,V;a)}=R_O(a^{},a)$$
(9)
We use this property to “sew together” evolutions of renormalization coefficients over overlapping regions of momentum scale. We are going to describe this technique in detail here.

In the formula above we explicitly show the dependence of the renormalization coefficients on the physical volume $`V`$. While this dependence could be eliminated by taking the infinite volume limit, in our scaling method this is not necessary for the intermediate steps where the finite volume effects are explicitly taken into account. To avoid complications associated with the quark mass renormalization, the chiral limit is always taken.

In any Monte–Carlo QCD simulation the size of the lattice in any direction is finite and rarely exceeds 32. This puts limits on the momenta accessible in a simulation with one fixed value of the coupling constant $`\beta `$. The components of momenta can assume only a discrete set of values,

$$p_ia=\frac{2\pi }{L_i}n_i,n_i=(L_i1)/2,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},L_i/2.$$
(10)
For the momenta with large values of $`n_i`$ the discretization errors become significant. This forces one to use momenta with small $`n_i`$ and therefore limits the range over which the non–perturbative renormalization technique outlined above can be carried out.

Finding a way to study the renormalization of operators in a wide range of momentum scales is important in many applications. One particular but very important example is the connection with perturbation theory. Most of the lattice simulations are performed at low momentum scales, where the non–perturbative effects play a major role. On the other hand, if one needs to relate the results to perturbation theory, for example, to use the Wilson coefficients determined from a perturbative calculation, one has to have access to large physical momenta (several GeV) where perturbation theory should become accurate. This is very difficult to achieve in a simulation at a single value of $`\beta `$.

It is natural to think of using the results of numerical simulations at several $`\beta `$’s with overlapping regions of physical momenta with small discretization errors to extend the range over which renormalization coefficients are calculated numerically. The procedure implementing this idea is the following (see Figure 1). One starts at $`\beta (a)`$ which is sufficiently large to insure that there are momenta well below the lattice cutoff that are in the perturbative regime. At such scales the renormalization coefficients obtained from the Monte–Carlo simulation can be reliably related to the perturbative ones. The finite volume effects at this $`\beta (a)`$ can be eliminated by numerically taking the infinite volume limit. Alternatively, one can use perturbation theory carried out at finite volume.

The next step involves simulations at a series of $`\beta `$’s with lattice spacing $`a`$ increasing by factors of two. The number of lattice sites in all directions is fixed. The physical volume is finite and different in each simulation, increasing by factors of $`2^4`$. The range of momenta with small discretization errors in each simulation also scales by factors of two. The overall range of momentum scales with small discretization errors covered in this sequence of simulations can be very large. But the $`Z`$–factors obtained with different lattice spacings cannot be meaningfully compared directly, since the lattice spacing plays the role of the ultraviolet cutoff on the lattice. Changing the cutoff requires complex, generally nonperturbative renormalization of operators in order to keep the physical, low energy predictions of the theory unchanged. Therefore, in order to relate the $`Z`$–factors obtained in simulations at different $`\beta `$’s, it is necessary to rescale them to be defined with the same ultraviolet cutoff equal to the lattice spacing $`a`$ at some fixed value of $`\beta `$. To achieve this, we use the property Eq. (9) which lies in the heart of our scaling method. For the common ultraviolet cutoff we choose, quite arbitrarily, the lattice spacing at $`\beta =7.05`$ from the first simulation in the series.

In order to accomplish the program of redefining all of the $`Z`$–factors at a common ultraviolet cutoff $`a`$ it is necessary to know the coefficients $`R_O(a,a^{})`$ that relate the $`Z`$–factors computed at the cutoff $`a^{}`$ to the $`Z`$–factors that would be found if the cutoff $`a`$ was used instead. To compute the rescaling coefficients $`R_O(a,a^{})`$ we perform a series of additional simulations. Each additional simulation has the lattice spacing two times larger than the corresponding simulation from the main series. At the same time, the number of the lattice sites in each direction is reduced by a factor of two. With this choice of parameters, the physical volume and the values of physical momenta are the same for these two simulations. If discretization errors were negligible, the $`Z`$–factors from these two simulations computed at the same physical momenta would be related by a momentum–independent factor $`R_O(2^na,2^{n+1}a)`$, in accordance with Eq. (9). Here $`2^na`$ and $`2^{n+1}a`$ are the lattice spacings used correspondingly in the simulation from the main series and the additional simulation, while $`a`$ is the value of the common ultraviolet cutoff chosen to be equal to the lattice spacing used in the simulation with the largest $`\beta `$ in the series. To find this factor we would use the ratio $`Z(\mu ,V;2^na)/Z(\mu ,V;2^{n+1}a)`$ calculated at any value of physical momentum scale $`\mu `$. Here $`V`$ is the physical volume in both simulations.

When discretization errors are present, $`Z`$–factors, as well as their ratios, have momentum–dependent corrections. For the domain wall fermion action these errors are quadratic in momentum,

$$\frac{Z_O(\mu ,V;2^na)}{Z_O(\mu ,V;2^{n+1}a)}=R_O(2^na,2^{n+1}a)+O\left((\mu 2^na)^2\right).$$
(11)
We use quadratic in $`\mu a`$ fits to remove the $`O\left((\mu 2^na)^2\right)`$ term and extract $`R_O(2^na,2^{n+1}a)`$. By combining the rescaling coefficients obtained for pairs of lattice spacings, $`R_O(a,2a)`$, $`R_O(2a,4a)`$, etc., we can compute the rescaling coefficients $`R_O(a,2^na)`$,

$`R_O(a,2a)`$ (12)
$`R_O(a,4a)`$ $`=`$ $`R_O(a,2a)R_O(2a,4a)`$ (13)
$`R_O(a,8a)`$ $`=`$ $`R_O(a,2a)R_O(2a,4a)R_O(4a,8a)`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{},`$ (15)
or, more generally, $`R_O(2^na,2^ma)`$ where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers.

With the rescaling coefficients on the left hand side of equations Eq. (13) we finally can apply the same formula Eq. (9) to the $`Z`$–factors computed in the main series of simulations at different ultraviolet cutoffs to compensate for the non–trivial renormalization required when different values of the cutoff are used. In particular, from the original $`Z`$–factors in the main series, $`Z_O(\mu ,V;a)`$, $`Z_O(\mu ,2^4V;2a)`$, $`Z_O(\mu ,4^4V;4a)`$, etc., we obtain $`Z_O(\mu ,V;a)`$, $`Z_O(\mu ,2^4V;a)`$, $`Z_O(\mu ,4^4V;a)`$, etc.,

$`Z_O(\mu ,V;a)`$ (16)
$`Z_O(\mu ,2^4V;a)`$ $`=`$ $`R_O(a,2a)Z_O(\mu ,2^4V;2a)`$ (17)
$`Z_O(\mu ,4^4V;a)`$ $`=`$ $`R_O(a,4a)Z_O(\mu ,2^4V;4a)`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{}.`$ (19)
After such a rescaling the ratios of the new $`Z`$–factors from all of the simulations are completely physical and represent the dependence of the corresponding quantities on the momentum scale and volume. We would like to emphasize that direct computation of the $`Z`$–factors on the left hand side of Eq. (18) in the whole momentum scale range for which they have been determined would require tremendous computer resources and at the very least would be completely impractical.

After the rescaling, the renormalization coefficients $`Z_O`$ from different simulations evaluated at the same physical momentum scale will in general differ, because they are calculated in different physical volumes. In fact, this method offers one the possibility to study the finite volume effects using same size lattices with nevertheless quite different physical volumes, which can provide certain advantages. The difference caused by the finite volume effects gets smaller when the momentum scale becomes large in comparison with the inverse size of the volume extent. For some renormalization coefficients these effects are quite large (see results for the scalar and pseudoscalar densities and $`O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}`$). This effect is illustrated schematically in Figure 1 on the graph at the bottom. The labels on the lines show explicit dependence on the physical volume, which is different for the simulations at different $`\beta `$’s. If the finite volume effects are small, these lines overlap at the corresponding momentum scales. This is (almost) the case for the local and exactly conserved vector and axial currents. For any renormalization coefficient there exists a line that corresponds to the infinite volume. It is shown as a dotted line on the plot at the bottom of Figure 1. Since in our method we do not need to take this limit, our lines are just approximations of the infinite volume line. At each momentum scale the line that has larger physical volume is a closer approximation.

Another reason why the $`Z`$–factors computed at the same physical momentum can differ between simulations and in fact from their true values is the presence of discretization errors. We eliminate these errors from the determination of rescaling coefficients $`R_O`$ using the procedure outlined above, but not from the $`Z`$–factors themselves. To remove discretization errors from the $`Z`$–factors we could use even more additional simulations with matching physical volumes so that a continuum limit at each momentum could be taken. The presence of these errors does not effect our ability to relate $`Z`$–factors between arbitrarily different momenta since we only need $`R_O`$ for that. Since discretization errors are quadratically small for small lattice momenta, the values of the computed $`Z`$–factors at each physical momentum are closer to their true value for data points that come from the simulations at larger $`\beta `$. When the finite volume effects are negligible, so that the expected difference between $`Z`$–factors at the corresponding physical momenta is small, one can use this observation to estimate the magnitude of the discretization error effects. It turns out that their significance varies depending on the particular operator for which the $`Z`$–factor is computed. As a result of our study we found that discretization errors are quite large for the local vector and axial currents, and even larger for the exactly conserved vector and axial currents. In the $`16^4`$ volume, for example, only four to five points with the lowest lattice momenta have reasonably small errors. This implies that it is virtually impossible to study the running of the renormalization coefficients for these operators without using the scaling technique or performing simulations in very large volumes that is extremely expensive computationally.

## IV Numerical Results

We use the fermion action which is the hermitian conjugate of the action in Ref.  where the domain wall fermion method was introduced. The domain wall fermion operator that we use is given by

$$D_{x,s;x^{},s^{}}=\delta _{s,s^{}}D_{x,x^{}}^{||}+\delta _{x,x^{}}D_{s,s^{}}^{}$$
(20)
$$D_{x,x^{}}^{||}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}\left[(1\gamma _\mu )U_{x,\mu }\delta _{x+\widehat{\mu },x^{}}+(1+\gamma _\mu )U_{x^{},\mu }^{}\delta _{x\widehat{\mu },x^{}}\right]+(M_54)\delta _{x,x^{}}$$
(21)
$`D_{s,s^{}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(1\gamma _5)\delta _{s+1,s^{}}+(1+\gamma _5)\delta _{s1,s^{}}2\delta _{s,s^{}}\right]`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_f}{2}}\left[(1\gamma _5)\delta _{s,L_s1}\delta _{0,s^{}}+(1+\gamma _5)\delta _{s,0}\delta _{L_s1,s^{}}\right]`$
Operators are constructed from an interpolating operator for the light fermion of the form

$`q(x)`$ $`=`$ $`P_L\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,0}+P_R\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,L_s1}`$ (24)
$`\overline{q}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{x,0}P_R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{x,L_s1}P_L`$ (25)
Evaluation of the matrix elements is done in Landau gauge. The gauge is fixed on each configuration by finding a unitary transformation of the lattice links that maximizes the functional

$$\text{Tr}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(U_\mu (x)+U_\mu ^{}(x)\right).$$
(26)
In our calculations the parameter $`M_5`$ is set to $`1.8`$. We use lattice volumes $`8^4`$ and $`16^4`$ at three values of $`\beta `$, 6.0, 6.45, and $`7.05`$. We assume the inverse lattice spacing at $`\beta =6.0`$ to be $`1.96GeV`$, twice that at $`\beta =6.45`$, and four times that at $`\beta =7.05`$. These values are based on the string tension data in . The scale for $`\beta =6.45`$ was obtained by interpolating the data from that paper using the two–loop perturbation formula for the running coupling constant. The result for $`\beta =7.05`$ was obtained by extrapolating and is less accurate.

The chiral limit for the local operators is taken using correlated fits to the results obtained at a set of masses $`m_f=0.004,0.012,0.020`$ in $`16^4`$ volume and $`m_f=0.004,0.012,0.020,0.028`$ in $`8^4`$ volume.

In the case of conserved currents all simulations are performed with $`m_f=0.05`$, which is small enough for the results to be in the chiral limit. We tested this statement by repeating one of the points using $`m_f=0.02`$ and found the data to be in agreement within statistical errors.

### A Local Vector and Axial Currents

Now we present the results for renormalization coefficients of local vector and axial currents. The local vector and axial current densities are defined by

$$V_L^\mu (x)=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q(x)$$
(27)
and

$$A_L^\mu (x)=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q(x).$$
(28)
In these equations flavor non–singlet currents are implied. The flavor index is suppressed to simplify the notation. The matrix elements of the vector and axial currents in external quark states include finite terms that depend on the direction of the external momentum in addition to the term proportional to the free–field vertex. In the continuum the form of these matrix elements is the following,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{V^L}^\mu (p)=A_{V^L}(p^2)\gamma ^\mu +B_{V^L}(p^2)\frac{p^\mu \text{/}p}{p^2}$$
(29)
and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A^L}^\mu (p)=A_{A^L}(p^2)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5+B_{A^L}(p^2)\frac{p^\mu \text{/}p}{p^2}\gamma _5.$$
(30)
For the $`Z`$–factors we use the definition with the four Lorentz components of matrix elements combined by contracting with the gamma matrices,

$$\frac{Z_q(\mu ;a)}{Z_{V^L}(\mu ;a)}\frac{1}{48}\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{V^L}^\mu (p;a)\gamma ^\mu \right)_{p^2=\mu ^2}$$
(31)
and

$$\frac{Z_q(\mu ;a)}{Z_{A^L}(\mu ;a)}\frac{1}{48}\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A^L}^\mu (p;a)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\right)_{p^2=\mu ^2}.$$
(32)
With these definitions the second term in Eqs. (29) and (30) with coefficient $`B(p^2)`$ is included as part of the matrix element. (Alternatively, one could separate the coefficient of the term proportional to the free–field vertex, for example, by tracing the $`\mu =0`$ component of the matrix element calculated at momenta $`p`$ with $`p^0=0`$ with $`\gamma ^0`$ for the vector current and $`\gamma ^0\gamma _5`$ for the axial current.)

Figure 2 shows the renormalization coefficients $`Z_q/Z_{V^L}`$ and $`Z_q/Z_{A^L}`$ versus the energy scale $`\mu `$ in GeV in the chiral limit. The rows correspond to different physical volumes. The pairs of points on each plot in the two lower rows are from simulations at pairs of different $`\beta `$’s with the lattice spacing differing by factors of two. Since the number of lattice sites differs by the inverse of two, the physical volumes are the same.

Figure 3 demonstrates the procedure of obtaining the rescaling coefficients $`R_A`$ and $`R_V`$ for two pairs of $`\beta `$, $`6.45,6.0`$ and $`7.05,6.45`$. Each point in Figure 3 is a ratio of the $`Z`$–factors in Figure 2 determined at the same physical momentum and in the same physical volume. There are four ratios at each pair of $`\beta `$’s, since we only use the lowest four momenta in $`8^4`$ lattice volume (triangular symbols in Figure 2).

As described in Section III, these ratios would be $`\mu `$ independent in the absence of discretization errors. With finite lattice spacing these errors are quadratic in momentum scale $`\mu `$, see Eq. (11). In order to remove the effects of discretization errors, we extrapolate the ratios linearly in $`\mu ^2`$ to $`\mu 0`$, Figure 3. The rescaling coefficients for the local vector and axial density operators turn out to be very close to one.

Finally, using the rescaling coefficients we rescale the renormalization coefficients according to Eq. (18) so that they are all defined with the same ultraviolet cutoff, determined by the lattice spacing at $`\beta =7.05`$. The results are shown in Figure 4. There is a pretty good agreement between the data computed in different physical volumes at low lattice momenta (the first few low momentum points on each graph) that indicates small finite volume effects for local vector and axial current data. At the same time, discretization errors start effecting data pretty early. To emphasize the actual behavior of the $`Z`$–factors we use solid symbols for the points that have relatively small discretization errors. These are the same points that are used in calculating the rescaling coefficients in Figure 3.

The renormalization group running of $`Z_q`$ from perturbative analysis  is represented by a solid line. This line is defined up to an overall multiplicative constant that we do not determine. Instead, we choose it so that the line agrees with our numerical data at scales about 10 GeV. The coefficient $`Z_{V^L}`$ should be momentum–independent. It reflects the renormalization of the local vector current relative to the exactly conserved on the lattice vector current whose renormalization coefficient is equal to one according to the Ward Identity, Section IV C. The two currents are different at the scales of order $`a^1`$, while for the scales $`\mu a^1`$ the difference can be absorbed into $`Z_{V^L}`$. Therefore, the dependence of $`Z_q/Z_{V^L}`$ on the scale $`\mu `$ should be the same as the dependence of $`Z_q`$ itself. There is a good agreement between the RG line and the data for $`Z_q/Z_{V^L}`$ in the whole range of the scales. On the other hand, $`Z_{A^L}`$ defined by Eq. (32) is momentum–independent only at large scales $`\mu `$. The reason is the same as for the difference between $`Z_q`$ obtained from the conserved vector current and $`Z_q^{(A)}`$ from axial current, see Section IV C.

### B Scalar and Pseudoscalar operators

Now we present the results for renormalization coefficients of scalar and pseudoscalar operators. The matrix elements of the pseudoscalar density at low energy scales (about 1–2 GeV) receive contributions from the chiral symmetry breaking in the form of a pole in momentum squared and quark mass,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_P(p^2)=\frac{Z_q(p^2)}{Z_P(p^2)}+\frac{C}{p^2}\frac{\overline{q}q}{m_f}.$$
(33)
The general form of the chiral condensate is given by the equation

$$\overline{q}q=a+bm_f+\frac{c}{m_f\sqrt{V}}$$
(34)
The third term in the above equation is due to the fermion zero modes present in our quenched simulations, Ref. . This term, which is inversely proportional to $`m_f`$, is suppressed by the square root of the volume and is small in comparison with the constant term for the parameters used in our simulations. Therefore, in Eq. (33) for the pseudoscalar density the mass dependence of the second term is very well described by the equation

$$\frac{C_1}{p^2m_f}.$$
(35)
For the scalar density we have,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_S(p^2)=\frac{Z_q(p^2)}{Z_S(p^2)}+\frac{C}{p^2}\frac{\overline{q}q}{m_f}.$$
(36)
In this case the constant term in the chiral condensate, Eq. (34), is removed by the derivative. Therefore, the third term in Eq. (34) which is inversely proportional to $`m_f`$, can determine the form of the mass–dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S`$ in small physical volumes. In this case the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_S(p^2)`$ from the second term in Eq. (36) has the form

$$\frac{1}{m_f^2}\frac{C_2}{p^2}.$$
(37)
When taking the chiral limit of scalar and pseudoscalar densities at energy scales of a few GeV in finite volume, one needs to remove these non–leading, $`1/p^2`$ contributions which have singular behavior as $`m_f0`$. For a thorough discussion of both of these effects see .

The presence of these terms is clearly seen in Figure 5 where the data for a $`16^4`$ volume at $`\beta =6.0`$ for a set of quark masses is presented. Their contribution to the scalar density becomes significant only for $`m_f=0.004`$ and is almost invisible for $`m_f=0.02`$. Figure 6 shows results at $`\beta =6.45`$. At this $`\beta `$ there is little evidence of such small–$`m_f`$ divergent term, which is consistent with the absence of the chiral symmetry breaking in this smaller physical volume.

Figure 7 shows the renormalization coefficients $`Z_q/Z_P`$ and $`Z_q/Z_S`$ plotted versus the energy scale $`\mu `$ in GeV in the chiral limit. To obtain these results, we performed correlated fits in $`m_f`$ at each momentum in the form Eqs. (35) and (37) plus finite, $`m_f`$–independent renormalization coefficients $`Z_q/Z_P`$ and $`Z_q/Z_S`$. The arrangement of the graphs is the same as for the local vector and axial currents.

The result of the scaling procedure is shown in Figure 8. Solid lines are the renormalization group running from a $`3`$–loop perturbation theory analysis, . They represent the evolution of the $`Z`$–factors with the energy scale, and are defined up to an overall multiplicative constant which we do not determine. We choose this constant to match the RG curve with our data at large scales $`\mu `$ around $`10`$ GeV. The data exhibits large finite volume effects at small momenta in each of the three different physical volumes. This results in the difference between data at the corresponding momenta obtained in different volumes. This difference vanishes as the momentum scale becomes large within the individual momentum range for each volume. On the other hand, discretization error effects are barely noticeable.

### C Conserved Vector and Axial Currents

The exactly conserved domain wall vector and axial currents can be used to compute $`Z_q`$. Following Ref. , with our fermion operator given by Eq. (20) these currents are defined by the equation

$$J_\mu (x)=\sigma _J\underset{s=0}{\overset{L_s/21}{}}j_\mu (x,s)+\underset{s=L_s/2}{\overset{L_s1}{}}j_\mu (x,s),$$
(38)
where $`J=V`$ or $`A`$ and $`\sigma _V=+1`$, $`\sigma _A=1`$ and

$$j_\mu (x,s)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{x+\widehat{\mu },s}\frac{1+\gamma _\mu }{2}U_\mu ^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{x,s}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{x,s}\frac{1\gamma _\mu }{2}U_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{x+\widehat{\mu },s}.$$
(39)
Here flavor non–singlet currents are implied with the flavor indices suppressed for simplicity of notation. With the definition of $`Z_q`$ given by Eq. (6) we can use the Ward Identity Eq. (7) for the exactly conserved vector current which implies Eq. (8). The corresponding Ward Identity for the axial current has an additional term that does not vanish in the chiral limit, due to the presence of a massless Goldstone boson. It becomes negligible at sufficiently large scales $`\mu `$ (see a proof in  for example). For this reason, when we apply the same equation Eq. (8) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A^C}^\mu `$, the resulting renormalization coefficient $`Z_q^{(A)}`$ is different from $`Z_q`$ when evaluated at scales below $``$2 GeV.

Due to the presence of the fermion fields at separate space–time points in Eqs. (38) and (39), propagators must be evaluated for sources at different points on the four–dimensional lattice. In addition, the summation over the position in the fifth dimension implies that propagators for all of these positions should in principle be calculated. Therefore, the calculation of the matrix elements of conserved currents can be very expensive. To minimize the amount of computational time, we use a random source estimator to compute the part of the sum between $`s=1`$ and $`s=L_s2`$, with propagators for $`s=0`$ and $`s=L_s1`$ calculated explicitly. Also, instead of calculating all four components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)`$ for a given momentum $`p`$, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p)`$ for momenta related to $`p`$ by permuting its $`0`$th component with the rest of the components,

$`\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p^0,p^1,p^2,p^3)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p^0,p^1,p^2,p^3)\right)+\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p^1,p^0,p^2,p^3)\right)`$ (41)
$`+\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p^2,p^1,p^0,p^3)\right)+\text{Tr}\left(\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p^3,p^1,p^2,p^0)\right).`$
The computer time required to Fourier transform a matrix element is negligible in comparison with the calculation of the matrix element itself, therefore the formula above allows us to obtain the result with only a quarter of the running time.

We used $`m_f=0.05`$ in our simulations for the conserved vector and axial currents which from our experience is sufficiently close to the chiral limit. A test run at $`\beta =6.0`$ with $`m_f=0.02`$ with $`30`$ configurations produced results consistent within statistical errors. In Figure 9 we plot $`Z_q`$ computed from the conserved vector current using Eqs. (8) and (41). The same figure shows the renormalization coefficient $`Z_q^{(A)}`$ obtained by applying these equations with the axial current.

The data is similar to that obtained for the local vector and axial currents, but shows larger discretization errors. In Figure 10 we plot the evolution of $`Z_q`$ and $`Z_q^{(A)}`$ factors computed from the conserved vector and axial currents after rescaling, such that the ultraviolet cutoff is equal to the lattice spacing at $`\beta =7.05`$. The renormalization group running of $`Z_q`$ from a perturbative analysis  is represented by a solid line. This line is defined up to an overall multiplicative constant that we do not determine. Instead, we choose it so that the line agrees with our numerical data at scales about 10 GeV.

From the results in Figure 10 obtained at different $`\beta `$’s, one can see that while the finite volume effects are still small, as in the local current case, the quadratic in $`\mu a`$ deviations due to discretization errors that curves the results up become significant very early. Essentially, only the first five points with lowest momenta at each $`\beta `$ seem to have relatively small discretization errors. This statement of course is correct only in a $`16^4`$ volume. But it does suggest that attempts to analyze the momentum dependence of $`Z_q`$ from conserved currents using simulations at a single value of $`\beta `$ are subject to large discretization errors. We use solid symbols for the data points that have reasonable discretization errors. These are the same points that are used in calculating the rescaling coefficients for conserved currents.

The results from the conserved vector and axial currents agree pretty well at the scales of about 2 GeV and above. At the same time, at 2 GeV and below there is large difference between $`Z_q`$ and $`Z_q^{(A)}`$. The difference reaches almost 20% at about 1 GeV and is more than 30% at 0.8 GeV. The numerical results therefore indicate that the additional finite term in the axial Ward Identity is large at these scales. The same argument is consistent with the data for the rescaling coefficients in Table I. The agreement between rescaling coefficients for $`Z_q`$ and $`Z_q^{(A)}`$ is much better for the pair of weaker couplings $`\beta =6.45`$ and $`\beta =7.05`$ than for $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`\beta =6.45`$.

The results in Figure 10 are in poor agreement with the renormalization group curve from perturbation theory, though it becomes slightly better at large momenta as the scale dependence of $`Z_q`$ (and $`Z_q^{(A)}`$) becomes flatter. This is in sharp contrast with the results for the local vector and axial currents, Figure 4. In the absence of scaling violations the results from local currents should agree up to an overall momentum–independent factor with the results from the conserved currents, as argued in Section IV A. We interpret this inconsistency between our results for the local and conserved currents as arising from discretization errors present in the non–local, conserved currents. These can arise in two ways. First, our matching procedure using the small $`8^4`$ volumes might not be able to properly account for the order $`O(a^2\mu ^2)`$ terms. This difficulty can be addresses by working on $`16^4`$ and $`32^4`$ volumes that would allow smaller lattice momenta to be used, therefore reducing the errors. The second source of errors may arise from the failure of these non–local conserved currents to scale at couplings as strong as $`\beta =6.0`$.

### D $`B_K`$

In this section we present the results of non–perturbative renormalization of a phenomenologically important parameter $`B_K`$ which is relevant to the calculation of the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing amplitude. The standard definition of $`B_K`$ is given by

$$B_K(\mu )=\frac{\overline{K}^0|O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(\mu )|K^0}{\overline{K}^0|O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(\mu )|K^0_{VSA}}=\frac{\overline{K}^0|O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(\mu )|K^0}{\frac{8}{3}f_K^2m_K^2}.$$
(42)
This definition implies that $`B_K`$ renormalizes in the same way as the four–fermion operator

$$O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}=\left(\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}d\right)\left(\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}d\right)\overline{s}\gamma _L^\mu d\overline{s}\gamma _L^\mu d.$$
(43)
We closely follow the RI procedure for renormalization of this operators described in . In the domain wall fermion formulation the mixing with operators of different chiralities is small and is not studied in our paper. For more detailed treatment of this topic the reader is referred to Ref. . The four–point Green’s function is defined by

$$G_{B_K}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=s(x_1)\overline{d}(x_2)O_{LL}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}(0)s(x_3)\overline{d}(x_4).$$
(44)
For the Fourier transformed Green’s function the off–shell external momenta are chosen to be equal. Using the upper Roman indices to denote color and the lower Greek indices to denote spin, the non–amputated Green’s function can be written as

$$G_{B_K}(p)_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{ABCD}=2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)_{\alpha \beta }^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)_{\gamma \delta }^{CD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)_{\alpha \delta }^{AD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)_{\gamma \beta }^{CB}\right],$$
(45)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p)_{\alpha \beta }^{AB}=S(p|0)_{\alpha \sigma }^{AR}\gamma _{L}^{\mu }{}_{\sigma \rho }{}^{}\left(\gamma _5S(p|0)^{}\gamma _5\right)_{\rho \beta }^{RB}.$$
(46)
$`S(p|0)`$ is a Fourier transformed propagator on a single configuration in Landau gauge. It is not translationally invariant.

The amputated Green’s function is calculated from the non–amputated one by multiplying it with the inverse propagator $`S(p)`$ averaged over all configurations

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B_K}(p)_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{ABCD}=S^1(p)_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{AA^{}}S^1(p)_{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^{CC^{}}G_{B_K}(p)_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}\delta ^{}}^{A^{}B^{}C^{}D^{}}S^1(p)_{\beta ^{}\beta }^{B^{}B}S^1(p)_{\delta ^{}\delta }^{D^{}D}.$$
(47)
The projection operation Eq. (4) is defined by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B_K}(p;a)=\frac{1}{32N_c(N_c+1)}\gamma _{L}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}^{}\gamma _{L}^{\mu }{}_{\beta \beta ^{}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B_K}(p)_{\alpha ^{}\alpha \beta ^{}\beta }^{AABB},$$
(48)
where $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors. The renormalization condition imposed on the $`O^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=2}`$ operator is given by the same formula Eq. (2).

The numerical results for this $`Z`$–factor obtained with different values of $`m_f`$ have no statistically significant dependence on $`m_f`$. Nevertheless, the same procedure of linear correlated fitting in $`m_f`$ was applied to take the chiral limit with the results shown in Figure 11. The final results after rescaling to a new ultraviolet cutoff equal to the lattice spacing at $`\beta =7.05`$ are presented in Figure 12. It is interesting to notice that the finite volume effects at low lattice momenta are very significant and for the lowest momenta are of the order of $`50`$%. This same volume dependence can also be seen from a direct comparison with the smaller, $`8^4`$ volume at the same $`\beta `$. For illustration purposes we include the result at $`\beta =6.0`$ in a $`8^4`$ volume in Figure 12 using small circles. The data points for this smaller volume are rescaled using the same factor as the $`\beta =6.0`$, $`16^4`$ volume result, therefore the difference between the two results is a direct result of the finite volume effects. The systematic difference from the data at $`\beta =6.45`$ that has the same physical volume is due to larger discretization errors that are present in the $`\beta =6.0`$ data at the corresponding momenta.

The solid line on the graph is for the one–loop renormalization group analysis in perturbation theory . Since it is defined up to an overall multiplicative constant which we do not determine, we matched it with the numerical result at large energy scales $`\mu `$ of about $`10`$ GeV. There is a surprisingly good agreement in the whole range from $`1`$ to $`10`$ GeV. This might be fortuitous for $`\mu `$ lower than $`2`$ GeV, since at these scales we expect large non–perturbative effects. These effects together with the large finite volume effects at low momenta could have resulted in the flat shape of numerical results at around $`1`$ GeV.

## V Conclusions

The combination of recursive scaling and NPR offers a promising connection between the perturbative and non–perturbative regimes–a connection that is required if perturbative errors are to be properly controlled. The results reported here suggest a consistent picture for the scaling of renormalization factors over a momentum range between 2 and 10 GeV for the case of quenched domain wall fermions for the operators analyzed. The only exception to this generally satisfactory picture occurs in the comparison of the local and conserved currents, where the larger discretization errors present in the non–local, conserved currents may be at fault. To fully resolve this issue and demonstrate the validity of this approach more extensive calculations and larger lattice volumes will be required.

## VI Acknowledgments

The author thanks C. Dawson for much important assistance with the NPR technique and N. Christ, T. Blum, and R. Mawhinney for helpful discussions, and other collaborators and Columbia and Brookhaven for the hardware and software resources which were essential to this work.

All of the numerical calculations were done on the 400 Gflops QCDSP computer at Columbia University and the 600 Gflops QCDSP computer at the RIKEN–BNL Research Center. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the RIKEN BNL Research Center.


text:
# Determination of the Gaugino Mass Parameter 𝑀₁ in Different Linear Collider ModesPresented by Claus Blöchinger.

## Introduction

After discovering supersymmetry it will be particularly important to measure the parameters of the underlying supersymmetric model at a linear collider LC1 . In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the neutralino sector depends on the $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass parameters $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and the ratio $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields. For the gaugino mass parameters usually the GUT relation $`M_1=5/3\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\times M_2`$ is assumed. We relax this relation and present for processes in the four different linear collider modes a comparative study of the $`M_1`$ dependence of the production of supersymmetric particles with subsequent leptonic decay. Beam polarization and complete spin correlations between production and decay are included. We discuss the possibility to determine the gaugino mass parameter $`M_1`$ and, combined with measurements from the chargino sector, to test the GUT relation between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. In the following a mSUGRA inspired scenario is assumed with $`M_2=152`$ GeV, $`\mu =316`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, which leads to a gaugino-like LSP $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ scenario .

## Neutralino Pair Production in $`e^+e^{}`$ Annihilation

In fig. 1a the total cross sections $`\sigma _e`$ and in fig. 1b the forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{FB}`$ of the decay electron of the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+e^{}`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}+30`$ GeV and selectron masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=161`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=176`$ GeV are shown for various configurations of beam polarization Gudi1 . Beam polarization strongly enlarges the sensitivity of both observables to $`M_1`$. The cross sections allow to constrain $`M_1`$ with ambiguities, which can be resolved by measuring $`A_{FB}`$. Since $`|P_e^{}|=85\%`$, $`|P_{e^+}|=60\%`$ enhances $`\sigma _e`$ by about a factor 3, the statistical errors for the observables are reduced by more than 40% Gudi2 . As can be seen in Gudi1  $`M_1`$ can also be determined by measuring polarization asymmetries of the cross section.

## Associated Production of Selectrons and Neutralinos in $`e^{}\gamma `$ Scattering

Due to the large cross sections for a gaugino-like $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, the process $`e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}`$ offers an interesting possibility to access the gaugino mass parameter $`M_1`$. High energetic photon beams are obtained by Compton backscattering of laser beams off one of the electron beams of a linear collider. Both the energy spectrum and the mean helicity of the high energetic photons sensitively depend on the longitudinal polarization $`P_{e2}`$ of the converted electrons and the circular polarization $`\lambda _L`$ of the laser photons PC1 . In addition the longitudinal polarization $`P_{e1}`$ of the colliding electron beam can be used to enhance the contribution of right and left selectrons, respectively. The total cross section $`\sigma _{ee}`$ in the laboratory frame, obtained by convoluting the $`e\gamma `$ cross section with the energy distribution of the high energetic photons, is shown in fig. 2 for $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=500`$ GeV and different polarizations of the electron beams and the laser photons. For all polarization configurations the cross sections in our scenario are larger than those for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+e^{}`$, fig. 1. For 40 GeV $`<M_1<`$ 170 GeV high cross sections are obtained for $`P_{e1}=P_{e2}=80\%`$ and for both right and left circularly polarized laser photons, $`\lambda _L=\pm 100\%`$ (fig. 2a), so that in this region $`M_1`$ can be measured with small statistical errors. Although being somewhat smaller the cross sections for $`P_{e1}=P_{e2}=80\%`$ and $`\lambda _L=\pm 100\%`$, fig. 2b, significantly depend on $`M_1`$ up to 300 GeV. Ambiguities in the cross sections can easily be resolved by measuring polarization asymmetries bloechi1 .

## Chargino Pair Production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ Scattering

In the pair production of charginos in photon collisions only pure QED couplings enter. Since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is independent of $`M_1`$, the process $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _e\overline{\nu }_ee^+e^{}`$ reflects the $`M_1`$ dependence of the leptonic three body decay of the charginos tobias . In fig. 3a the $`M_1`$ dependence of the convoluted cross section $`\sigma _{ee}`$ is shown at $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}=1000`$ GeV for unpolarized laser photons and longitudinal polarizations $`P_{e1}=80\%`$ and $`P_{e2}=80\%`$ of the converted electron beams. Due to the large cross sections this polarization configuration leads to small statistical errors for the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}`$ of the decay electrons. For the selectron mass and the sneutrino mass we have choosen $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=179.3`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}=164.2`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=350.0`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}=342.5`$ GeV. In both cases the $`M_1`$ dependence of the total cross section (fig. 3a) is rather weak. For $`M_1<50`$ GeV the two body decay $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm W^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ dominates by far. Also for $`M_1>90`$ GeV the cross sections are quite flat, so that only for small selectron and sneutrino masses and in the region 50 GeV $`<M_1<`$ 90 GeV the cross section shows a moderate $`M_1`$ dependence. The forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}`$, fig. 3b, turns out to be more sensitive on $`M_1`$. If $`A_{FB}>2\%`$ can be measured with good accuracy, it allows to determine $`M_1`$ up to 150 GeV for the small slepton masses and up to 90 GeV for the heavy slepton scenario.

## Selectron Pair Production in $`e^{}e^{}`$ Scattering

In the process $`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^{}e^{}`$ both selectron production and decay depends on $`M_1`$. Pair production of selectrons proceeds via t- and u-channel exchange of all four neutralinos. Since - depending on the respective region - the mass and the couplings of at least one of the exchanged neutralinos significantly depend on $`M_1`$ (fig. 4a), one expects that also the cross section of the combined process is sensitive to $`M_1`$ over a large region. In fig. 4b the $`M_1`$ dependence of the cross sections for production and subsequent leptonic decay of the selectrons is shown at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV for longitudinal beam polarization $`P_{e1}=P_{e2}=+80\%`$ and selectron masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=137.7`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=179.3`$ GeV. Also depicted is the contribution of the production channel $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, which is by far dominating for right-polarized electrons. The cross section shows a significant $`M_1`$ dependence in the whole region 40 GeV $`<M_1<`$ 1000 GeV with one ambiguity for $`M_1<`$ 250 GeV and $`M_1>`$ 250 GeV in our scenario. For left-polarized electrons, $`P_{e1}=P_{e2}=80\%`$, the cross sections, dominated by the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ channel, are about one order of magnitude smaller in our scenario. They show an additional ambiguity in the region 40 GeV $`<M_1<`$ 250 GeV. Particularly due to the larger cross sections right-polarized electron beams are more suitable for constraining $`M_1`$ in selectron pair production.

## Conclusions

For a specific mSUGRA inspired scenario we have studied four processes in different linear collider modes with polarized beams. Total cross sections, forward-backward asymmetries and polarization asymmetries for production and leptonic decay of supersymmetric particles are investigated with regard to their dependence on the gaugino mass parameter $`M_1`$. Neutralino production and decay in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is very sensitive to $`M_1`$ in the studied region. Combining measurements of total cross sections, forward-backward asymmetries and polarization asymmetries with different beam polarizations resolves ambiguities. For associated LSP-selectron production and decay in $`e\gamma `$ scattering the cross sections are larger and for suitably polarized beams sensitive to $`M_1`$ up to 300 GeV. Ambiguities can be resolved by measuring different polarization asymmetries. The total cross section for chargino pair production and decay in $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering is sensitive on $`M_1`$ only in the small region 50 GeV $`<M_1<90`$ GeV. The forward-backward asymmetry of the decay electrons, however, shows a signifcant $`M_1`$ dependence up to 150 GeV without any ambiguities. For selectron pair production and decay in $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering the cross section for right polarized beams is sensitive to $`M_1`$ in the large region 40 GeV $`<M_1<`$ 1000 GeV with one ambiguity. For a more realistic comparison of the four processes, Monte Carlo studies including ISR and beamstrahlung are necessary.


text:
# Luminescence from highly excited nanorings: Luttinger liquid description

## I Introduction

Photoluminescence (PL) from zero-dimensional objects (quantum dots) is one of the highlights in physics of nanostructures which emerged during the last decade. Early papers (see, e.g., Refs. , and the review article Ref. ) reported the PL spectra consisting of ”zero-width” luminescence lines. High surface density of quantum dots caused an ambiguity in assigning of these lines. In the later studies the emission from a single dot was resolved. This progress has permitted the PL spectroscopy of individual dots with controllable exciton population determined by the excitation intensity, and also at tunable charge states.

At low excitation intensity the number of excitons in a dot is either one or zero. Then the emission line corresponds to the transition between the lowest size-quantization levels in the conduction and the valence bands. Upon increasing the excitation intensity, the number of excitons in a dot, $`N`$, can be larger than one. This leads to the features in the PL spectrum which must be interpreted in terms of recombination within many-exciton complexes. Different recombination processes within a complex result in a multitude of the emission lines. One reason for an emergence of additional PL lines is that, for $`N>2`$, the carriers constituting the complex occupy higher size-quantization levels. Another reason, is that the the interactions between the strongly confined photoexcited carriers lift the degeneracies of the final many-body states. The latter mechanism of interaction-induced multiplication of the emission lines was addressed in Refs.  for the situations with and without orbital degeneracy of single-particle states. The calculations carried out in Refs.  predicted the splittings of the PL lines, originating from different many-body final states, to be of the order of the matrix element of the interaction potential. The actual positions of the lines predicted by these calculations reproduce quite accurately the experimental PL spectra of Refs.  (for up to $`N=16`$) and of Ref. (for $`1N6`$).

Within the approaches of Refs. , each many-body line corresponds to recombination of an electron and a hole having the same size-quantization quantum numbers. We note here that in the experiment additional emission lines have been observed that were identified with the transitions between different size-quantization levels. These transitions originate from a shake-up effect in a confined electron-hole system. Namely, the radiative recombination of an electron-hole pair is accompanied by an internal excitation within the exciton multiplex. These many-body processes are missed within the theoretical approaches of Refs. . Meanwhile, as we argue below, the PL lines originating from the shake-up processes multiply very rapidly with increasing $`N`$, and for high enough $`N`$ become the dominant feature of the PL spectrum. Here we develop a theory of the many-body luminescence from a quantum dot for the limiting case $`N1`$.

When a number of photoexcited carriers is large, an adequate description of PL from a dot must be developed in terms of Fermi seas formed by equal numbers (determined by excitation) of electrons and holes in conduction and valence bands, respectively (see inset in Fig. 1). As in the case of a small number of carriers, such a description is based on the fact that PL is preceeded by a fast nonradiative relaxation of electrons and holes into the corresponding ground states. Microscopic mechanism of this relaxation is addressed, e.g., in Ref. .

For noninteracting system, the emission lines would correspond to transitions between size-quantization levels in conduction and valence bands which obey the selection rules. Within this description, the single-particle emission spectrum near the Fermi edge is given by the Golden rule,

$`I(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}C_n\delta \left[\omega +(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2)n\right],`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are level spacings for electrons and holes; $`C_n`$ are the oscillator strength which depend on $`n`$ only weakly ($`\omega <0`$ is measured from the Fermi edge).

As discussed above, the many-body transitions, resulting from interactions of carriers in a dot, change qualitatively the form of the spectrum. Analogously to recombination within an exciton multiplex, here a removal of an e-h pair shakes up the respective Fermi seas by causing them to emit Fermi sea excitations. Since in a finite system, the energies of excitations are quantized, such a shake-up would lead to the spectrum of a form

$$I(\omega )\underset{mn}{}C_{mn}\delta \left(\omega +m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2\right),$$
(2)
rather than Eq. (1). Here $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ are the level spacings renormalized by interactions. All the information about many-body correlations in the system is encoded in the oscillator strengths $`C_{mn}`$. As we will see below, $`C_{mn}`$, being governed by interactions, are strong functions of $`m`$ and $`n`$.

The goal of the present paper is to demonstrate that the oscillator strengths $`C_{mn}`$ can be evaluated analytically for a dot of a ring geometry. Such dots have been recently fabricated and their emission spectra (including many-body effects) were studied for low excitation intensities both experimentally and theoretically. Our approach is valid when the number of carriers, N, is large enough (the accuracy is 1/N). However, this ”asymptotic” consideration allows us to establish the universal properties of the many-body spectrum away from the threshold.

For a ring-shaped dot, the electron and hole Fermi seas represent one-dimensional (1D) systems. This allows us to use the finite-size Luttinger-liquid description for calculation of the emission spectrum. Note that the Luttinger liquid model was employed earlier for calculations of the Fermi-edge optical properties of infinite 1D systems (with and without defects) in Refs. .

We show that due to a finite size of the system, the structure of the emission spectrum is different in low- and high-$`\omega `$ domains. Namely, for $`\mu \mathrm{ln}\left|\omega /(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)\right|1`$ (low frequencies) the spectrum is dominated by single-particle peaks; many-body satellites have a relative magnitude $`\mu `$, where $`\mu 1`$ is the dimensionless interaction strength (Luttinger liquid parameter). For high frequencies (i.e., $`\mu \mathrm{ln}\left|\omega /(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)\right|1`$), the many-body peaks completely dominate the spectrum; roughly speaking, in the high-$`\omega `$ domain, the oscillator strengths of single-particle peaks are evenly distributed among the multitude of many-body peaks. Furthermore, the peaks cluster into groups (generations), so that the patterns of peaks within the neighboring generations are almost identical.

## II Emission from a Luttinger liquid ring

We start with the two-component Luttinger liquid model on a ring with Hamiltonian $`H_1+H_2+H_{int}`$, where $`H_j`$ describe noninteracting electrons ($`j=1`$) and holes ($`j=2`$) with linearized dispersions (the slopes are determined by the Fermi velocities $`v_j`$); $`H_{int}`$ describes the interactions between carriers via screened potential $`U(x)`$. The e-h recombination rate is given by the Golden rule

$`W(\omega )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}|f|T|i|^2\delta (E_iE_f\omega )`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}i|T^{}(t)T(0)|i,`$
where $`E_i`$ and $`E_f`$ are the energies of initial (ground) and final (with e-h pair removed) states, and

$`T=T_++T_{}\text{ }T_\pm =d{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\psi _2(x)\psi _{1\pm }(x)`$ (5)
is the dipole transition operator. Here $`\psi _{i\pm }`$ are annihilation operators for left ($``$) and right ($`+`$) moving carriers, $`d`$ is the interband dipole matrix element, and $`L`$ is the ring circumference. Note that recombination occurs between left (right) electrons and right (left) holes. The recombination rate is then expressed via a four-particle Green function,

$`W(\omega )=`$ $`d^2{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\left[D_+(x,t)+D_{}(x,t)\right]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`d^2\left[D_+(\omega )+D_{}(\omega )\right],`$ (7)
$`D_\pm (x,t)=`$ $`\psi _2^{}(x,t)\psi _{1\pm }^{}(x,t)\psi _{1\pm }(0)\psi _2(0).`$ (8)
In order to evaluate $`D_\pm (x,t)`$ for a two-component Luttinger liquid, we use the bosonization technique on a ring (see Appendix A). The final result reads

$`D_\pm (x,t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{it\delta _P}}{L^2}}ϵ^{2(\mu _2+\mu _2)}`$ (11)
$`\times \left[f_\pm (z_{1\pm })\right]^{1+\mu _1}\left[f_{}(z_1)\right]^{\mu _1}`$
$`\times \left[f_{}(z_2)\right]^{1+\mu _2}\left[f_\pm (z_{2\pm })\right]^{\mu _2},`$
where $`\delta _P=\pi (v_1+v_2)/L`$ is the energy shift (to be absorbed into the frequency) due the change in the parity of electron and hole numbers, and $`ϵ`$ is a cutoff. The coordinate dependence of $`D_\alpha (x,t)`$ is determined by ($`\alpha =\pm `$)

$`f_\alpha (z_{j\alpha })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{i\alpha (2\pi z_{j\alpha }/L+\alpha iϵ)}}},z_{j\alpha }=x\alpha \stackrel{~}{v}_jt.`$ (12)
The explicit expressions for renormalized Fermi velocities $`\stackrel{~}{v}_j`$ and interaction-induced exponents $`\mu _j`$ are given in Appendix A. Correspondingly, the level spacings are now $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j=2\pi \stackrel{~}{v}_j/L`$. The interaction strength is characterized by the ratio $`u/v_j`$, with

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑xU(x)}`$ (13)
being the Fourier of screened potential; this ratio represents the average (screened) interaction in units of the (bare) level spacing near the Fermi energy. For weak interactions, $`u/v_j1`$, we have (see Appendix A)

$`\mu _j(u/4v_j)^2,\text{ }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j(1+u/2v_j).`$ (14)
The correlator $`D_\alpha (x,t)`$ is periodic in variables $`z_{j\alpha }`$. In order to carry out the integration in Eq. (6) we first perform the Fourier expansion of $`\left[f_\alpha (z_{j\alpha })\right]^\nu `$ as

$$\left[f_\pm (z_{j\pm })\right]^\nu =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu }{\pi }\underset{n}{}B(n+\nu ,1\nu )e^{\pm 2\pi inz_{j\pm }/L},$$
(15)
where $`B(x,y)`$ is the Beta-function. Substituting this expansion into Eq. (11), and then into Eq. (6), we arrive at the expected form Eq. (2) of the emission spectrum with the coefficients $`C_{mn}`$ cast in the following closed form (see appendix B).

$`C_{mn}={\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1d\varphi _2d\varphi _3}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}e^{\frac{i}{2}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)(m+n)}}{\left(1e^{i\varphi _1}\right)^{1+\mu _1}\left(1e^{i\varphi _2}\right)^{1+\mu _2}}}`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{i}{2}\varphi _3(mn)}}{\left(1e^{i(\varphi _2\varphi _3)}\right)^{\mu _1}\left(1e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _3)}\right)^{\mu _2}}}.`$
Note, that the sum in Eq. (2) is constrained by the selection rule that $`m`$ and $`n`$ are of the same parity, i.e., the combinations

$$N=(m+n)/2,M=(mn)/2,$$
(18)
which enter into the rhs of Eq. (17), are integers. This is the result of the linear dispersion of electrons and holes near the Fermi levels.

Formula (17) for the oscillator strengths is the main result of this section. It is easy to see that it correctly reproduces the non-interacting limit. Indeed, upon setting $`\mu _i=0`$, the integral over $`\varphi _3`$ yields $`C_{mn}=\delta _{mn}`$. Another important limiting case $`m,n1`$ corresponds to the transitions well away from the Fermi edge. In this case, the main contribution to the integral (17) comes from the domain $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2(m+n)^11`$. Within this domain, one can neglect the difference between $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ in the last two factors in the denominator. Then the integrals over $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ factorize, yielding

$`C_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+1+\mu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+1+\mu _2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu _2)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+1)]^2}}K(M),`$ (19)
with

$`K(M)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}e^{iM\varphi }}{\left(1e^{i\varphi }\right)^{\mu _1}\left(1e^{i\varphi }\right)^{\mu _2}}}`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}(1)^M\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu _1\mu _2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1M\mu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+M\mu _2)}},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Gamma-function. It can be seen from Eq. (21) that, for a given $`N`$, the oscillator strengths, $`C_{mn}`$, fall off as $`C_{mn}|M|^{\mu _1+\mu _21}`$ with increasing $`|M|=\frac{1}{2}|mn|`$. This slow power-law decay reveals strong correlations within electron-hole system on a ring. Finally, using the large $`x`$ asymptotics of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$, we obtain the expression for the oscillator strengths valid for $`N,|M|1`$,

$$C_{mn}=\frac{ϵ^{2\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mu _2)}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\pi }N^\mu |M|^{\mu 1},$$
(22)
where $`\mu =\mu _1+\mu _2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\mu +\frac{1}{2}(\mu _1\mu _2)\mathrm{sgn}M`$.

## III Many-body structure of the emission spectrum

The general expression (17) determines the heights of the emission peaks, while the order of the peaks with different $`\{m,n\}`$ is governed by the $`\delta `$-functions in Eq. (2), which ensure the energy conservation. Therefore, this order depends crucially on the relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$. Moreover, a commensurability between $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ leads to accidental degeneracies in the positions of the emission lines. However, in order to establish the general properties of the spectrum, it is instructive to consider first two particular cases of commensurate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$.

We start with the symmetric case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}/2`$ (and, hence, $`\mu _i=\mu /2`$). The peak positions, as determined by Eq. (2), coincide with those for single-particle transitions, $`|\omega |=N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The corresponding oscillator strengths can be straightforwardly evaluated from Eq. (17) as

$`c_N={\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}C_{N+M,NM}=\left[{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^\mu e^{iN\varphi }}{\left(1e^{i\varphi }\right)^{1+2\mu }}}\right]^2.`$ (23)
For $`N1`$, the denominator of the integrand can be expanded, yielding

$`c_N(ϵN)^{2\mu }=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2\mu }.`$ (24)
Note that single-particle oscillator strengths correspond to $`c_N=1`$. We thus conclude that interactions affect strongly the peak heights for $`|\omega /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^{2\mu }1`$, i.e., in the high frequency domain. In fact, even for an arbitrary relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$, the crossover between “single-particle” and “many-body” domains of the spectrum is governed by the dimensionless parameter $`\mu \mathrm{ln}\left|\omega /(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2})\right|`$.

Indeed, consider now the case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ (and thus $`\mu _29\mu _1`$) which renders a spectrum richer than (1) and (24). As follows from Eq. (2), the spectral positions of the peaks are given by $`|\omega |/(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2)=l/2`$, where $`l`$ is an integer. The corresponding oscillator strengths can be evaluated explicitly from Eq. (17) (see appendix C). The final result reads

$`D_\pm (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2\mu }{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left|\frac{2\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu }{2}}\delta (\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}l)`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1\left|\frac{2\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu }{2}}\delta [\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(l+1/2)]],`$
with $`\mu =\mu _1+\mu _210\mu _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2=4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$.

The above result illustrates how the structure of the spectrum evolves as the frequency departs from the Fermi edge. For $`\mu \mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|1`$, each single-particle peak, $`|\omega |=l\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ acquires a weak many-body satellite at $`|\omega |=(l+\frac{1}{2})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In the opposite limit, $`\mu \mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|1`$, the oscillator strength of an “integer” peak gets equally redistributed between the components of the doublet. The crossover frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, separating the “single-particle” and the developed many-body domains of the spectrum is determined by the condition $`\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|\mu ^1`$. The spectrum (26) is schematically depicted in Fig. 1.

Let us turn to the structure of the spectrum in the general case of incommensurate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$. We start from the observation that the peak positions can be classified by “generations”. Namely, once a peak $`\{m,0\}`$ (or $`\{0,n\}`$) emerges at $`\omega =\omega _m=m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ (or $`\omega =\omega _n=n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$), it is followed by next generations of peaks $`\omega _m^{(k)}=\omega _mk(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2)`$ or $`\omega _n^{(k)}=\omega _nk(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2)`$ repeating with a period $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$. Thus, for a crude description of the spectrum away from the Fermi edge it is convenient to divide the frequency region $`\omega <0`$ into the intervals of width $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

The number of peaks within the spectral interval $`\{|\omega |,|\omega |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}`$ is the number of integers satisfying the conditions $`|\omega |<m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2<|\omega |+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. This number is equal to

$$𝒩_\omega =\frac{|\omega |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2},$$
(27)
where we assumed $`|\omega |\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and took into account the parity restriction. From Eq. (27) we find the peak density $`g_\omega =𝒩_\omega /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=|\omega |/2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$. It also follows from (27) that $`𝒩_{\omega \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}𝒩_\omega =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ generations start within each interval. Since the heights of consecutive peaks within the interval $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ vary non-monotonically, it is natural to characterize these heights by the distribution function

$$F(𝒞)=\frac{1}{2g_\omega }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m𝑑n\delta \left(\omega +m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+n\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2\right)\delta \left(C_{mn}𝒞\right),$$
(28)
where $`C_{mn}`$ is given by Eq. (22). Here we made use of the fact that $`𝒩_\omega 1`$ by treating $`m`$ and $`n`$ as continuous variables. The prefactor in Eq. (28) ensures the normalization $`\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝒞F(𝒞)=1\right)`$. It is easy to see that $`F(𝒞)`$ is nonzero in the interval between $`𝒞_{min}=\mathrm{min}\left\{2\mu _{1,2}\left|\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{1,2}}{\omega }\right|^{12\mu }\right\}`$ and $`𝒞_{max}=2\left|\frac{\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu \mathrm{max}\{\mu _{1,2}\}`$ (we omit the overall factor $`ϵ^{2\mu }`$). Within this wide interval, $`F(𝒞)`$ falls off as $`\left(𝒞_0/𝒞\right)^{2+\mu }`$, where

$$𝒞_0=\mu \left|\frac{\omega }{4}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2^1\right)\right|^{2\mu 1}$$
(29)
is the typical value of the oscillator strength. On the other hand, the average oscillator strength, which can be easily calculated from Eq. (28), is equal to $`\overline{𝒞}=\mu ^1𝒞_0𝒞_0`$. The distribution function $`F(𝒞)`$ is schematically depicted in Fig. 2. The fact that $`\overline{𝒞}`$ decreases with $`|\omega |`$ can be understood in the following way. As it is seen from Eq. (24), in the symmetric case, with only a single peak per interval $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, the peak heights increase with $`|\omega |`$ as $`|\frac{\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}|^{2\mu }`$. In the general case, this spectral intensity gets redistributed between $`𝒩_\omega `$ different peaks. Thus,

$$\overline{𝒞}𝒩_\omega ^1\left|\frac{\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^{2\mu }|\omega |^{2\mu 1}.$$
(30)
## IV Conclusions

In the present paper we derived the emission spectrum from a highly excited ring-shaped quantum dot. In this system electron-electron, hole-hole and electron-hole interactions relax the momentum conservation leading to a multitude of discrete emission lines. Luttinger liquid model employed in our calculation allows to evaluate the overlap integrals between the correlated initial and final many-body states. These overlap integrals determine the intensity of the corresponding spectral lines.

The theoretical value of the dimensionless interaction parameter $`\mu `$ is determined by the ratio of screened interaction $`U`$ to the level spacings $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ at the corresponding Fermi levels. Both quantities depend on the number of excited carriers, $`N`$, which in turn is determined by the excitation intensity. This, and the sensitivity of the screening to the details of experimental setup, lead to a common ambiguity in the theoretical determination of $`\mu `$. For example, in quantum wires, the value of $`\mu `$ measured in resonant tunneling experiments, was significantly larger then theoretical estimates. Concerning the estimates for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$, in the experimental paper Ref.  on luminescence from ring-shape dots, the total energy separation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ between the lowest level was approximately $`5`$ meV. This value comes almost exclusively from the conduction band, due to the large ratio of the electron and hole effective masses. Both $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$ increase linearly with increasing $`N`$. This implies that the shake-up processes within the hole system are experimentally much more relevant than those for electrons.

Note finally, that for emission from a finite electron-hole 1D system considered here, the physics underlying the interaction-induced multiplication of the number of lines with departure from the Fermi level is analogous to that for tunneling into a disordered quantum dot.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with E. Ehrenfreund and D. Gershoni are gratefully acknowledged. The work at Vanderbilt was supported by ONR Grant No. N00140010951. The work in Utah was supported by NSF Grant No. INT-0003710, the Petroleum Research Fund under ACS-PRF Grant No. 34302-AC6, and by the Army Research Office under Grant No. DAAD 19-0010406.

## A

Here we outline the calculation of the Green function (11) using a bosonisation scheme for the multicomponent Luttinger liquid on a ring. The right/left fermion fields are presented as

$$\psi _{j\alpha }(x)=(2\pi ϵ)^{1/2}e^{i\phi _{j\alpha }(x)+i\alpha \pi x/L},$$
(A1)
where right/left ($`\alpha =\pm `$) bosonic fields $`\phi _{j\alpha }(x)`$ are related to the corresponding densities as $`\rho _{j\alpha }(x)=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{\phi _{j\alpha }(x)}{x}`$ (here $`ϵ`$ is a cutoff). The bosonic field has a decomposition

$$\phi _{j\alpha }(x)=\phi _{j\alpha }^0+\alpha N_{j\alpha }2\pi x/L+\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x),$$
(A2)
where the number operator $`N_{j\alpha }`$ and its conjugate $`\phi _{j\alpha }^0`$ satisfy the commutation relations

$$[N_{j\alpha },\phi _{l\beta }^0]=i\delta _{jl}\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(A3)
and the periodic fields $`\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x)=\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x+L)`$ have the usual form,

$$\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x)=\underset{q}{}\theta (q\alpha )\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{L|q|}}e^{|q|ϵ/2}\left(e^{iqx}a_{qj}+e^{iqx}a_{qj}^{}\right),$$
(A4)
with $`a_{qj}`$ and $`a_{qj}^{}`$ satisfying standard boson commutation relations \[$`\theta (x)`$ is the step function\]. The boundary condition for the fermion fields, $`\psi _{j\alpha }(x+L)=(1)^{N_j}\psi _{j\alpha }(x)`$, depends on the parity of the number of particles, $`N_j=2N_{j\alpha }`$. The Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+H_{int}`$ is quadratic in boson fields:

$$H_0=\underset{j\alpha }{}\frac{v_j}{4\pi }_0^L𝑑x\left[\frac{\phi _{j\alpha }(x)}{x}\right]^2,$$
(A5)
and

$`H_{int}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jl}{}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{j\alpha }(x)}{x}}\right]U_{jl}(xy)`$ (A7)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{l\beta }(y)}{y}}\right],`$
where $`U_{jl}(x)`$ is the screened potential. Using Eqs. (A2) and (A4), and after separating out the zero-mode part of the Hamiltonian, $`H^0`$, from the bosonic part, $`\overline{H}`$, the total Hamiltonian $`H=H^0+\overline{H}`$ can be written as

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{jl\alpha \beta }{}}N_{j\alpha }(v_j\delta _{jl}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{jl}}{2}})N_{l\beta }`$ (A10)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{qjl}{}}e^{|q|ϵ}|q|[v_j\delta _{jl}a_{qj}^{}a_{qj}`$
$`\text{ }+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{jl}}{4}}(a_{qj}^{}+a_{qj})(a_{ql}^{}+a_{ql})],`$
where $`u_{jl}=\pi ^1𝑑xU_{jl}(x)`$.

In order to calculate correlation functions, the Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$, corresponding to the second term of (A10), has to be brought to the canonical form. This is done in two steps. First, we perform a two-component Bogolubov’s transformation in order to eliminate the cross-terms with opposite momenta,

$`a_{qj}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(X_{jl}b_{ql}+Y_{jl}b_{ql}^{}\right),`$ (A11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(X_{jl}X_{ln}^{}Y_{jl}Y_{ln}^{}\right)=\delta _{jn}.`$ (A12)
We then obtain

$`\overline{H}={\displaystyle \underset{qjl}{}}e^{|q|ϵ}|q|b_{qj}^{}(X^{}Y^{})_{jl}v_l(XY)_{ln}b_{qn},`$ (A13)
where the matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ must satisfy

$`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}(X^{}+Y^{})_{jl}`$ $`(u_{lm}+v_l\delta _{lm})(X+Y)_{mn}`$ (A15)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}(X^{}Y^{})_{jl}v_l(XY)_{ln}.`$
Second, we diagonalize the Hamiltonian (A13) by first presenting the matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ as

$`X=\mathrm{cosh}\lambda O,Y=\mathrm{sinh}\lambda O,`$ (A16)
where $`\lambda _{jl}=\lambda _j\delta _{jl}`$ is diagonal matrix of Bogolubov’s angles $`\lambda _j`$ and $`O`$ is an orthogonal matrix, and then by introducing new boson operators $`c_{qj}=_lO_{jl}b_{ql}`$. The Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$ then takes the form

$`\overline{H}={\displaystyle \underset{qj}{}}e^{|q|ϵ}|q|\stackrel{~}{v}_jc_{qj}^{}c_{qj},`$ (A17)
with renormalized Fermi velocities $`\stackrel{~}{v}_j=e^{2\lambda _j}v_j`$. The old and new boson operators are related as

$`a_{qj}=\mathrm{cosh}\lambda _jc_{qj}+\mathrm{sinh}\lambda _jc_{qj}^{}.`$ (A18)
Using the decomposition (A16), Eq. (A15) takes the form $`\stackrel{~}{O}AO=0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{O}`$ is the transposed matrix, and the matrix $`A`$ is given by

$`A_{jl}=u_{jl}e^{\lambda _j+\lambda _l}+\delta _{jl}v_j\left(e^{2\lambda _j}e^{2\lambda _j}\right).`$ (A19)
The Bogolubov’s angles $`\lambda _j`$ are found from the condition that all the eigenvalues of $`A_{jl}`$ vanish. In the two-component case, this yields

$`e^{2\lambda _1}=\sqrt{Q{\displaystyle \frac{v_1+u_{11}v_2Q}{v_1Qv_2u_{22}}}},\text{ }e^{2\lambda _2}=Q/e^{2\lambda _1},`$ (A20)
$`Q=\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{11}}{v_1}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{22}}{v_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{u_{12}^2}{v_1v_2}}}.`$ (A21)
The Luttinger liquid interaction parameter is given by $`\mu _j=\mathrm{sinh}^2\lambda _j`$. In the case of weak interactions, $`u_{jl}/v_j1`$, we have $`\lambda _ju_{jj}/4v_j`$ so that $`\mu _j\lambda _j^2(u_{jj}/4v_j)^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j(1+u_{jj}/2v_j)`$.

With the Hamiltonian (A17), the time-dependence of new operators is standard, $`c_{qj}(t)=e^{i\stackrel{~}{v}_j|q|t}c_{qj}`$. Using the relation (A18), the periodic fields (A4) take the form

$`\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x,t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L|q|}}}e^{|q|ϵ/2}`$ (A24)
$`\times \left[\theta (q\alpha )\mathrm{cosh}\lambda _j+\theta (q\alpha )\mathrm{sinh}\lambda _j\right]`$
$`\times \left(e^{iqxi\stackrel{~}{v}_j|q|t}c_{qj}+e^{iqx+i\stackrel{~}{v}_j|q|t}c_{qj}^{}\right).`$
The time-dependence of zero-modes is governed by the zero-mode part (first term) of the Hamiltonian (A10). The time-dependent bosonic field is finally obtained as

$`\phi _{j\alpha }(x,t)=`$ $`\phi _{j\alpha }^0+\alpha N_{j\alpha }2\pi (x\alpha v_jt)/L`$ (A26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l\beta }{}}u_{jl}N_{l\beta }\pi t/L+\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x,t).`$
We are now in position to calculate the Green functions. For this, we separate out annihilation and creation parts of the periodic field (A24), $`\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }(x,t)=\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^{}(x,t)+\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^+(x,t)`$, which satisfy the following commutation relations

$`[\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^{}(x,t),\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^+(x^{},t^{})]=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}f_\alpha (z_{j\alpha }z_{j\alpha }^{})`$ (A28)
$`+\mu _j\mathrm{ln}\left[f_\alpha (z_{j\alpha }z_{j\alpha }^{})f_\alpha (z_{j,\alpha }z_{j,\alpha }^{})\right],`$
with $`z_{j\alpha }=x\alpha \stackrel{~}{v}_jt`$. Then we present the fermion operator (A1) in the normal-ordered form,

$`\psi _{j\alpha }(x,t)=`$ $`\psi _{j\alpha }^0(x,t)\overline{\psi }_{j\alpha }(x,t),`$ (A29)
$`\psi _{j\alpha }^0(x,t)=`$ $`e^{iv_j(1+u_{jj}/2)\pi t/L}e^{i\phi _{j\alpha }^0}`$ (A31)
$`\times e^{i\alpha N_{j\alpha }2\pi z_{j\alpha }/Li_{l\beta }u_{jl}N_{l\beta }\pi t/L},`$
$`\overline{\psi }_{j\alpha }(x,t)=`$ $`L^{1/2}\left(2\pi ϵ/L\right)^{\mu _j}e^{i\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^+(x,t)}e^{i\overline{\phi }_{j\alpha }^{}(x,t)},`$ (A32)
where we again separated out zero-mode and periodic parts. Using Eq. (A29) together with commutators (A3) and (A28), the Green function (6) can be straightforwardly calculated as

$`D_\alpha (x,t)=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ϵ}{L}}\right)^{2(\mu _2+\mu _2)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{it\delta _Pit\delta _u}}{L^2}}`$ (A35)
$`\times \left[f_\alpha (z_{1\alpha })\right]^{1+\mu _1}\left[f_\alpha (z_{1,\alpha })\right]^{\mu _1}`$
$`\times \left[f_\alpha (z_{2,\alpha })\right]^{1+\mu _2}\left[f_\alpha (z_{2\alpha })\right]^{\mu _2},`$
where $`\delta _P=\pi (v_1+v_2)/L`$ and $`\delta _u=\pi (u_{11}+u_{22}+2u_{12})/2`$ are the energy shifts due the changes in the parity of electron and hole numbers and in the Coulomb energy, caused by a removal of an e-h pair. We assume that the screened interaction is the same for electrons and holes, $`u_{11}=u_{22}=u_{12}=u`$, so that $`\delta _u=0`$. Then, after absorbing the factor $`2\pi /L`$ into $`ϵ`$, we arrive at Eq. (11).

Note finally that the above calculation is easily generalized if the ring is penetrated by a magnetic flux $`\varphi `$. In this case, the electron and hole number operators should be shifted by flux-dependent constants, $`N_{1\alpha }N_{1\alpha }+\alpha \varphi /\varphi _0`$ and $`N_{2\alpha }N_{2\alpha }\alpha \varphi /\varphi _0`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum. This results in a replacement $`\delta _P\delta _P(12\alpha \varphi /\varphi _0)`$ in Eq. (11).

## B

Substituting the Fourier expansion

$`\left[f_\alpha (z_{j\alpha })\right]^\nu =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}b_\nu (n)e^{i\alpha 2\pi nz_{j\alpha }/L},`$ (B1)
$`b_\nu (n)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu }{\pi }}B(n+\nu ,1\nu ),`$ (B2)
into Eq. (11), $`D_\alpha (\omega )`$ takes the form

$`D_\pm (\omega )=ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}{\displaystyle \underset{\{n\}}{}}`$ $`b_{1+\mu _1}(n_1)b_{\mu _1}(n_1^{})b_{1+\mu _2}(n_2)`$ (B4)
$`\times b_{\mu _2}(n_2^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm (\omega ,\{n\}),`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm (\omega ,\{n\})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}{\displaystyle }dt{\displaystyle _0^L}dx\mathrm{exp}[i\omega t`$ (B8)
$`\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}(n_1z_{1\pm }n_1^{}z_1n_2z_2+n_2^{}z_{2\pm })]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}\delta _{n_1n_1^{},n_2n_2^{}}\delta [\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{v}_1}{L}}(n_1+n_1^{})`$
$`\text{ }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{v}_2}{L}}(n_2+n_2^{})],`$
where we absorbed the parity shift $`\delta _P`$ into $`\omega `$. The Kroniker delta and the delta-function reflect the conservation of momentum and energy, respectively. Thus, we obtain

$`D_\alpha (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}C_{mn}\delta \left(\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1m+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2n\right),`$ (B9)
with

$`C_{mn}=ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}`$ $`b_{1+\mu _1}[(m+n)/2l]b_{1+\mu _2}(nl)`$ (B11)
$`\times b_{\mu _1}[(mn)/2+l]b_{\mu _2}(l).`$
Finally, using the integral representation for the Beta-function in Eq. (B1) we arrive at Eq. (17). The sum in Eq. (B9) is constrained by the selection rule that $`m`$ and $`n`$ are of the same parity, as can be seen from Eq. (B8). From Eq. (B9), the emission spectrum (2) follows.

## C

Here we consider the case when the level spacings in the conduction and valence bands are commensurate: $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2=p/q`$, where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are integers. Then Eq. (B9) takes the form

$`D_\alpha (\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}C_{mn}\delta \left(\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{mp+nq}{p+q}}\right)`$ (C2)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}C_k\delta (\omega +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}k/Q),`$
where $`Q=p+q`$, $`P=pq`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2`$, and

$`C_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}\delta _{k,mp+nq}C_{mn}={\displaystyle \underset{MN}{}}\delta _{k,MP+NQ}C_{N+M,NM}`$ (C4)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{MN}{}}\delta _{kMP,NQ}C_{\frac{k}{Q}+M\left(1\frac{P}{Q}\right),\frac{k}{Q}M\left(1+\frac{P}{Q}\right)}.`$
Using the relation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\delta _{k,NQ}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{Q1}{}}}e^{i2\pi lk/Q},`$ (C5)
the oscillator strengths can be presented as

$`C_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{Q1}{}}}e^{i2\pi lk/Q}f_l(k),`$ (C6)
with

$`f_l(k)={\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}e^{i2\pi lMP/Q}C_{\frac{k}{Q}+M\left(1\frac{P}{Q}\right),\frac{k}{Q}M\left(1+\frac{P}{Q}\right)}.`$ (C7)
Using integral representation (17), the sum over $`M`$ can be explicitly performed. For $`k/Q=|\omega |/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1`$, the resulting expression for coefficients $`f_l`$ takes the form

$`f_l(k)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _1d\varphi _2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)k/Q}}{(i\varphi _1)^{1+\mu _1}(i\varphi _2)^{1+\mu _2}}}`$ (C10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1s_lis_l[\varphi _2+(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)P/Q]\right)^{\mu _1}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1s_l^{}is_l^{}[\varphi _1(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)P/Q]\right)^{\mu _2}}},`$
where $`s_l=e^{i2\pi lP/Q}`$. The $`l`$-dependence of $`f_l(k)`$ is determined by the relative magnitude of $`Q/k`$ and $`|1s_l|`$:

$`f_l(k)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵk}{Q}}\right|^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}`$ (C11)
for $`k/Q|1s_l|^1`$, and

$`f_l(k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2k/Q}{1s_l}}\right)^{\mu _1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2k/Q}{1s_l^{}}}\right)^{\mu _2}`$ (C12)
for $`k/Q|1s_l|^1`$, with the two estimates matching at $`k/Q|1s_l|^1`$.

In the case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2=3`$, corresponding to $`P=2`$ and $`Q=4`$ so that $`s_l=(1)^l`$, the coefficients $`f_l`$ take two different values depending on the parity of $`l`$,

$`f_{even}(k)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵk}{4}}\right|^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2(\mu _1+\mu _2)},`$ (C13)
$`f_{odd}(k)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2k}{8}}\right|^{\mu _1+\mu _2}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\omega }{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{\mu _1+\mu _2},`$ (C14)
yielding

$`C_k=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^k}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{i\pi k/2}\left|\frac{2\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu }{2}}`$ (C15)
with $`\mu =\mu _1+\mu _2`$. Obviously, $`C_k=0`$ for $`k`$ odd. For $`k`$ even, we have

$`C_{4l}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left|\frac{2\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu }{2}},`$ (C16)
$`C_{4l+2}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right|^{2\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1\left|\frac{2\omega }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right|^\mu }{2}},`$ (C17)
leading to Eq. (26).

On leave from Vanderbilt University

Fig. 1

Fig. 2