text:
# The Pure Leptonic Decays of 𝐷_𝑠 Meson and Their Radiative Corrections

## 1 Introduction

The pure leptonic decays of the heavy-light meson $`D_s`$ are very interesting. In principle, the pure-leptonic decay $`D_s\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$(see, Fig.1) can be used to determine the decay constant $`f_{D_s}`$ if the fundamental Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`V_{cs}`$ of Standard Model (SM) is known. Conversely if we know the value of decay constant $`f_{D_s}`$ from other method, these process also can be used to extract the matrix element $`V_{cs}`$. But there are the well known effect of helicity suppression and there are only one detected finial state, the measurement of pure leptonic decays of such pseudoscalar meson is very difficult.

The pure leptonic weak decays of the pseudoscalar meson corresponding to Fig.1 are helicity suppressed by factor of $`m_{\mathrm{}}^2/m_{D_s}^2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)=\frac{G_F^2}{8\pi }\left|V_{cs}\right|^2f_{D_s}^2m_{D_s}^3\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{D_s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(1\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{m_{D_s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)^2,$$
(1)
Of them only the process $`D_s\tau \nu _\tau `$ is special, it does not suffer so much from the helicity suppression, and its branching ratio may reach to $`4.5\%`$. However the produced $`\tau `$ will decay promptly and one more neutrino is generated in the cascade decay at least, thus it makes the decay channel difficult to be observed. For the channels when the lepton is $`e`$ or $`\mu `$ and their neutrinos, besides the small branching ratios, there are only one detected finial state, the measurement of such channels are very difficult.

Fortunately, having an extra real photon emitted in the leptonic decays, the radiative pure leptonic decays can escape from the suppression, furthermore, as pointed out in Ref., with the extra photon to identify the decaying pseudoscalar meson $`D_s`$ in experiment from the backgrounds has advantages, since one more particle can be detected in the detector. Although the radiative corrections are suppressed by an extra electromagnetic coupling constant $`\alpha `$, it will not be suppressed by the helicity suppression. Therefore, the radiative decay may be comparable, even larger than the corresponding pure leptonic decays. So, the problem to increase the accuracy of the theoretical calculation, at least up to the first order radiative corrections, emerges.

The radiative pure leptonic decays, theoretically, have infrared divergences and will be canceled with those from loop corrections of the pure leptonic decays. In all the existing calculation of radiative decays, this part is ignored, since they do not include the radiative corrections of the pure leptonic decays. In this paper, we are interested in considering the radiative decays and the pure leptonic decays with one-loop radiative corrections together. Since the process $`D_s\tau \nu _\tau `$ dose not suffer the helicity supression and has a large branching ratio, the corresponding loop correction(virtual photon) to these process should has a considerable larger branching ratio, at least comparing with the radiative decay, and can not be ignored.

The paper is organized as follow: in Section II, we present the calculations of radiative pure leptonic contributions: i) besides the leptonic decays shown as Fig.1, the radiative decays into three family leptons with a real photon appearing in the final state as shown in Fig.2; ii) the virtual photon corrections to the pure leptonic decays, i.e., a photon in loop as shown in Figs.3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. In Section III, we evaluate the values of the decays. As uncertainties the dependence of the results on the parameters appearing in the considered model is discussed. Finally, preliminary conclusion is obtained.

## 2 The Radiative Leptonic Contributions

Let us start with the radiative decay. These contributions are corresponding to the four diagrams in Fig.2. According to the constituent quark model which is formulated by Bethe-Salpeter (B.-S.) equation, the amplitude turns out to be the four terms $`M_i\left(i=1,2,3,4\right)`$:

$$M_1=Tr[\frac{d^4q}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\chi (p,q)i\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)V_{cs}]\times $$

$$\frac{i\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{m_w^2}\right)}{p^2m_w^2}ie[(p^{}+p)_\lambda g_{\nu \rho }+(kp^{})_\nu g_{\rho \lambda }+(pk)_\rho g_{\nu \lambda }]ϵ^\lambda \times $$

$$\frac{i\left(g^{\rho \sigma }+\frac{\left(pk\right)^\rho \left(pk\right)^\sigma }{m_w^2}\right)}{\left(pk\right)^2m_w^2}\overline{\mathrm{}}\frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\sigma \left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
$$M_2=Tr\left[\frac{d^4q}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\chi (p,q)i\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)V_{cs}\right]\frac{i\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{m_w^2}\right)}{p^2m_w^2}$$

$$\times \overline{\mathrm{}}\left(ie\right)\overline{)}ϵ\frac{i}{\overline{)}k_{\mathrm{}}m_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\nu \left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(3)
$$M_3=Tr\left[\frac{d^4q}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\chi (p,q)i\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)V_{cs}\frac{i}{\frac{m_s}{m_s+m_c}\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q\overline{)}km_s}\left(i\frac{e}{3}\overline{)}ϵ\right)\right]$$

$$\times \frac{i\left(g^{\mu \sigma }+\frac{\left(pk\right)^\mu \left(pk\right)^\sigma }{m_w^2}\right)}{\left(pk\right)^2m_w^2}\overline{\mathrm{}}\frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\sigma \left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(4)
$$M_4=Tr\left[\frac{d^4q}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\chi (p,q)\left(i\frac{2e}{3}\overline{)}ϵ\right)\frac{i}{\left(\frac{m_c}{m_s+m_c}\overline{)}p+\overline{)}q\overline{)}k\right)m_c}i\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)V_{cs}\right]$$

$$\times \frac{i\left(g^{\mu \sigma }+\frac{\left(pk\right)^\mu \left(pk\right)^\sigma }{m_w^2}\right)}{\left(pk\right)^2m_w^2}\overline{\mathrm{}}\frac{ig}{2\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\sigma \left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(5)
where $`\chi (p,q)`$ is Bethe-Salpeter wave function of the meson $`D_s`$; $`p`$ is the momentum of $`D_s`$; $`ϵ,k`$ are the polarization vector and momentum of the emitted photon. In the quark model, the momenta of $`\overline{s},c`$-quarks inside the bound state, i.e., the $`D_s`$ meson, are:

$$p_s=\frac{m_s}{m_s+m_c}p+q;p_c=\frac{m_c}{m_s+m_c}pq,$$

where $`q`$ is the relative momentum of the two quarks inside the $`D_s`$ meson. As the $`D_s`$ meson is a nonrelativistic bound state in nature, so the higher order relativistic corrections may be computed precisely, but being an approximation for a $`S`$-wave state, and focusing the light on the radiative decay corrections only at this moment now, we ignore $`q`$ dependence, i.e., we may still have the non-relativistic spin structure for the wave function of the meson $`D_s`$ (a $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state) correspondingly:

$$\frac{d^4q}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\chi (p,q)=\frac{\gamma _5(/p+m)}{2\sqrt{m}}\psi \left(0\right).$$

Here $`\psi \left(0\right)`$ is the wave function at origin, and by definitions it connects to the decay constant $`f_{D_s}`$:

$$f_{D_s}=\frac{\psi \left(0\right)}{2\sqrt{m}},$$

where m is the mass of $`D_s`$ meson. Moreover we note that for convenience we take unitary gauge for weak bosons to do the calculations throughout the paper. With a straightforward computation, the amplitude can be simplified as:

$$M_1=\frac{4Ai}{\left(m^2m_w^2\right)\left(m^22pkm_w^2\right)}\times $$

$$\overline{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{m^2}{m_w^2}\right)\left[pϵ\left(\overline{)}k\overline{)}p\right)\left(2pkm^2\right)\overline{)}ϵ\right]\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(6)
$$M_2=\frac{4Ai}{\left(m^2m_w^2\right)\left(2k_1k\right)}\overline{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{m^2}{m_w^2}\right)\overline{)}ϵ\left(\overline{)}k_1+\overline{)}k+m_e\right)\overline{)}p\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(7)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}M_3+M_4\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{4Ai}{\left(pk\right)\left(m^22pkm_w^2\right)}\overline{\mathrm{}}\{[(pϵ)\overline{)}p+(pϵ\overline{)}kpk\overline{)}ϵ)s_2\\ & +& \hfill is_1\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }p_\alpha ϵ_\mu k_\beta \gamma _\nu ]+\frac{\left(\overline{)}p\overline{)}k\right)}{m_w^2}pϵ(m^2pk)\left\}\right(1\gamma _5)\nu _{\mathrm{}},\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`k_1`$ is the momentum of the charged lepton, and

$$A=\frac{\psi \left(0\right)\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}V_{cs}eg}{2\sqrt{m}2\sqrt{2}}=\frac{\psi \left(0\right)\left(\frac{G_Fm_w^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)V_{cs}e}{2\sqrt{m}};$$

$$s1=\frac{m_s+m_c}{6m_s}+\frac{m_s+m_c}{3m_c};s2=\frac{m_s+m_c}{6m_s}+\frac{m_s+m_c}{3m_c}.$$

As a matter of fact, there is infrared infinity when performing phase space integral about the square of matrix element at the soft photon limit. It is known that the infrared infinity can be cancelled completely by that of the loop corrections to the corresponding pure leptonic decay $`D_s\mathrm{}\nu `$.

In Eqs.(7) and (8), the infrared terms can be read out:

$$M^i=M_2^i+M_3^i+M_4^i=\frac{4Ai}{m_w^2}\overline{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{k_1ϵ\overline{)}p}{k_1k}\frac{pϵ\overline{)}p}{pk}\right]\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(9)
As the diagrams (g), (h), (i), (j) in Figs.3.3, 3.4 always have a further suppression factor $`m^2/m_{w}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ to compare with the other loop diagrams, and there is no infrared infinity in these four loop diagrams, we may ignore the contributions from these four diagrams safely. Furthermore we should note that in our calculations throughout the paper, the dimensional regularization to regularize both infrared and ultraviolet divergences is adopted, while the on-mass-shell renormalization for the ultraviolet divergence is used.

If Feynman gauge for photon is taken (we always do so in the paper), the amplitude corresponding to the diagrams (a), (b) of Fig.3.1 can be written as:

$$M_{\left(2\right)}\left(a\right)=\frac{2}{3}eA\frac{d^4l}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\left[\frac{4i\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }p_\alpha l_\beta 4\left(p_\mu l_\nu plg_{\mu \nu }+p_\nu l_\mu \right)+\frac{8m_c}{m_s+m_c}p_\mu p_\nu }{l^2\left(l^22plm_w^2\right)\left(l^2\frac{2m_c}{m_s+m_c}pl\right)\left[l^22l\left(pk_2\right)\right]}\right]$$

$$\times \overline{\mathrm{}}\left[2\left(pk_2\right)_\mu \gamma _\mu \overline{)}l\right]\left(\gamma _\nu \right)\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(10)
$$M_{\left(2\right)}\left(b\right)=\frac{1}{3}eA\frac{d^4l}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\left[\frac{4i\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }p_\alpha l_\beta +4\left(p_\mu l_\nu plg_{\mu \nu }+p_\nu l_\mu \right)\frac{8m_s}{m_s+m_c}p_\mu p_\nu }{l^2\left(l^22plm_w^2\right)\left(l^2\frac{2m_s}{m_s+m_c}pl\right)\left[l^22l\left(pk_2\right)\right]}\right]$$

$$\times \overline{\mathrm{}}\left[2\left(pk_2\right)_\mu \gamma _\mu \overline{)}l\right]\left(\gamma _\nu \right)\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(11)
where the $`l`$, $`k_2`$ denote the momenta of the loop and the neutrino respectively. These two terms also have infrared infinity when integrating out the loop momentum $`l`$.

After doing the on-mass-shell subtraction, the terms corresponding to vertex and self-energy diagrams (c), (d), (e), (f) can be written as:

$$M_{\left(2\right)}(c+d+e+f)=\frac{ieA}{4\pi ^2}\overline{\mathrm{}}\overline{)}p(1\gamma _5)\nu _{\mathrm{}}\times [ln\left(4\right)\frac{8}{9}+\frac{2}{9}\frac{m_sm_c}{m_s+m_c}ln\left(\frac{m_s}{m_c}\right)$$

$$+\left(\frac{2}{9}+\frac{8}{9}\frac{m_c}{m_s+m_c}\right)ln\left(\frac{m_s+m_c}{m_s}\right)+\left(\frac{8}{9}+\frac{8}{9}\frac{m_c}{m_s+m_c}\right)ln\left(\frac{m_s+m_c}{m_c}\right)$$

$$+\frac{2}{\epsilon _I}2\gamma +ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}\right)+ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m_e^2}\right)].$$
(12)
Now let us see the cancellation of the infrared divergencies precisely. The infrared parts of the decay widths which are from the interference of the self-energy and vertex correction diagrams with the tree diagrams:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{s,v}^{infrared}=\left(\frac{\alpha V_{cs}^2f_{D_s}^2G_F^2Mm_{\mathrm{}}^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)[\frac{34}{9}\frac{4}{9}\frac{m_sm_c}{m_s+m_c}ln\left(\frac{m_s}{m_c}\right)$$

$$\left(\frac{2}{9}+\frac{4}{9}\frac{m_c}{m_s+m_c}\right)ln\left(\frac{m_s+m_c}{m_s}\right)\left(\frac{4}{9}+\frac{4}{9}\frac{m_s}{m_s+m_c}\right)ln\left(\frac{m_b+m_c}{m_c}\right)$$

$$\frac{2}{\epsilon _I}+2\gamma ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m^2}\right)ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{m_e^2}\right)];$$
(13)
the infrared part of the decay widths from the interference of the ”box” correction diagrams with the tree diagrams:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{box}^{infrared}=\left(\frac{\alpha V_{cs}^2f_{D_s}^2G_F^2Mm_{\mathrm{}}^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)\left[\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon _I}\gamma \right)ln\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M^2}\right)ln\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M^2}\right)ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{M^2}\right)\right];$$
(14)
the infrared part of the decay width from the real photon emission:

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{real}^{infrared}=\left(\frac{\alpha V_{cs}^2f_{D_s}^2G_F^2Mm_{\mathrm{}}^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)$$

$$\left[\frac{2}{\epsilon _I}2\gamma +\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon _I}\gamma \right)ln\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M^2}\right)+\left(2+ln\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M^2}\right)\right)ln\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }E\right)^2}\right)\right].$$
(15)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is a small energy, which corresponds to the experimental resolution of a soft photon so that the phase space of the emitting photon in fact is divided into a soft and a hard part by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Where $`\mu `$ is the dimensional parameter appearing in the dimensional regularization. It is easy to check that when adding up all the parts: the real photon emission $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{real}^{infrared}`$ and the virtual photon corrections $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{s,v}^{infrared},\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{box}^{infrared}`$, the infrared divergences $`\frac{2}{\epsilon _I}\gamma `$ are canceled totally and the $`\mu `$ dependence is also cancelled. Hence we may be sure that we finally obtain the pure leptonic widths for the $`D_s`$ meson decays to the three families of leptons which are accurate up-to the ‘next’-order corrections and ‘infrared finite’ but depend on the experimental resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

## 3 Numerical Results and Discussion

First of all, let us show the ‘whole’ leptonic decay widths, i.e., the sum of the corresponding radiative decay widths and the corresponding pure leptonic decay widths with radiative corrections, and put them in Table (1). Why we put the radiative decay and the pure leptonic decay with radiative corrections together here is to make the width not to depend on the experimental resolution for a soft photon. The values for the parameters $`\alpha =1/132`$, $`\left|V_{cs}\right|=0.974`$, $`m_{D_s}=1.9686`$ GeV, $`m_s=1.5`$ GeV, $`m_c=1.7`$ GeV and $`f_{D_s}=0.24`$ GeV.

Table (1) The ‘Whole’ Leptonic Decay Widths (in unit GeV)

| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\left(10^{17}\right)`$ | 3.593 |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \left(10^{15}\right)`$ | 6.604 |
| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau \left(10^{14}\right)`$ | 5.807 |

For comparison, the width of each pure leptonic decay at tree level with the same parameters as those in Table (1) is put in Table (2).

Table (2) The Pure Leptonic Decay Widths (in unit GeV) of Tree Level

| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e(10^{19}`$) | 1.521 |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (10^{15}`$) | 6.463 |
| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau (10^{14}`$) | 6.30 |

If the lifetime of $`D_s`$ meson is $`\tau \left(D_s\right)=0.469\times 10^{12}s`$, the corresponding branching ratios are showed in Tables (3), (4).

Table (3) Branching Ratios of the ‘Whole’ Leptonic Decays

| $`B_e\left(10^5\right)`$ | 2.56 |
| --- | --- |
| $`B_\mu \left(10^3\right)`$ | 4.706 |
| $`B_\tau \left(10^2\right)`$ | 4.138 |

Table (4) Tree Level Branching Ratios of The Pure Leptonic Decays

| $`B_e\left(10^7\right)`$ | 1.084 |
| --- | --- |
| $`B_\mu \left(10^3\right)`$ | 4.605 |
| $`B_\tau \left(10^2\right)`$ | 4.489 |

We can see that, the whole decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ in Table (1) are larger than the corresponding decay widths of tree lever in Table (2), while the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ in Table (1) is smaller than the one in Table (2). This means the sums of radiative leptonic decay and loop correction as the first order contributions of pure leptonic decay are positive for the decays with a $`e`$ or $`\mu `$ in the finial state, and negative for the one with a $`\tau `$ in the finial state. It also show that the contributions of loop corrections are negative, the dominate contributions of first order corrections to the pure leptonic $`D_s`$ decays are radiative decays when the lepton is $`e`$ or $`\mu `$, and is loop corrections when the lepton is $`\tau `$. So, the loop contributions are important for the decays $`D_s\mu \nu _\mu `$ and $`D_s\tau \nu _\tau `$, especially for the later. Through Table (3) and (4), we obtain that the rediative decay has a branching ratio $`Br\left(D_s\mu \nu _\mu \gamma \right)>1.01\times 10^4`$ and the loop correction to $`D_s\tau \nu _\tau `$ has a branching ratio $`Br>3.51\times 10^3`$.

To see the contributions of the radiative decays precisely we present the radiative decay widths with a cut of the photon energy, i.e., the widths of the radiative decays $`D_sl\nu \gamma `$ with the photon energy $`E_\gamma k_{min}`$ as the follows: $`k_{min}=0.00001`$ GeV, $`k_{min}=0.0001`$ GeV, $`k_{min}=0.001`$ GeV, $`k_{min}=0.01`$ GeV and $`k_{min}=0.1`$ GeV respectively in Table (5).

Table (5): The Radiative Decay Widths (in unit GeV) with cuts of the photon momentum

| $`k_{min}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GeV | $`10^{17}`$ | $`10^{16}`$ | $`10^{18}`$ |
| 0.00001 | 3.582 | 6.878 | 8.892 |
| 0.0001 | 3.581 | 5.484 | 6.452 |
| 0.001 | 3.580 | 4.091 | 4.025 |
| 0.01 | 3.578 | 2.704 | 1.708 |
| 0.1 | 3.474 | 1.363 | 1.020 |

The corresponding branching ratios of the radiative decay with cuts of photon momentum are showed in Table (6)

Table (6): The Radiative Decay branching ratios with cuts of the photon momentum and the results of Ref

| $`k_{min}`$ | $`Br_e`$ | $`Br_\mu `$ | $`Br_\tau `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GeV | $`10^5`$ | $`10^4`$ | $`10^6`$ |
| 0.00001 | 2.552 | 4.901 | 6.336 |
| 0.0001 | 2.552 | 3.908 | 4.597 |
| 0.001 | 2.551 | 2.915 | 2.868 |
| 0.01 | 2.549 | 1.927 | 1.217 |
| 0.1 | 2.475 | 0.971 | 0.727 |
| Ref | 10 | 1 |  |
| Ref | 17 | 1.7 |  |
| Ref | 7.7 | 2.6 | 320 |

Considering the possible experimental resolutions, our prediction of the radiative decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_se\nu _e\gamma \right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s\mu \nu _\mu \gamma \right)`$ are close to the values in Ref, but our prediction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(D_s\tau \nu _\tau \gamma \right)`$ is much smaller than the one in Ref. In our model, if we using a smaller cut $`k_{min}`$, the obtained $`Br\left(D_s\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}\gamma \right)`$ will become larger, but since the decay widths depend on $`Log\left(k_{min}\right)`$, the change of branching ratios will be not so much on the selecting of $`k_{min}`$, we can see this in Table (5) and (6), and for another example, if $`k_{min}=1\times 10^{10}`$, the $`Br\left(D_se\nu _e\gamma \right)=3.59\times 10^5`$, $`Br\left(D_s\mu \nu _\mu \gamma \right)=1.38\times 10^3`$, $`Br\left(D_s\tau \nu _\tau \gamma \right)=2.11\times 10^5`$, but it is very difficult to obtain so small a $`k_{min}`$ in experiment. We can conclude that the best radiative decay channel is easy to search is $`D_s\mu \nu _\mu \gamma `$.

For the convenience to compare with experiments, we present the photon spectrum of the radiative decays in Fig.4 and Fig.5. In addition, we should note that the widths are quite sensitive to the decay constant $`f_{D_s}`$, and are sensitive to the values of the quark masses $`m_s`$ and $`m_c`$.


format: text

text:
# Collective response of nuclei : comparison between experiments and extended mean-field calculations

## I introduction

Recent development of high resolution experiments offers the possibility for a deeper understanding of collective motion in quantum fermionic system like nuclei. These experiments enable to determine the fragmentation of the nuclear response with a very high resolution up to few keV . Understanding of the fine structure in the nuclear collective response, its fragmentation and damping mechanisms constitute a major challenge for theoretical models . One possible avenue is the development of quantum transport theories for nuclear dynamics .

In dynamics of nuclear motion, one usually distinguishes damping due to the coupling to the external and the internal degrees of freedom. The former one gives rise to cooling of the system by evaporation of particles, while the latter one leads to the dispersion of the well ordered motion through mixing with the internal degrees of freedom. In the latter case, one can again distinguish (i) the Landau damping due to spreading of the collective modes over non-collective particle-hole (p-h) excitation, (ii) the coherent mechanism due to coupling with low-lying surface modes , and (iii) the damping due to coupling with the incoherent 2p-2h states usually referred to as the collisional damping .

Most investigations of the nuclear response carried out so far are based on either the coherent damping mechanism or the collisional damping. The coherent mechanism is, particularly, important at low temperature, and accounts for the main feature of fragmentation of the response . On the other hand, the collisional damping is relatively weak at low temperature , but its magnitude becomes large with increasing temperature, as shown in recent calculations . In this work, we carry out investigations of nuclear collective response on the basis of a one-body stochastic transport theory, which incorporates both the coherent mechanism and the collisional damping in an consistent manner as demonstrated in  (also see ). We calculate the giant monopole, dipole and quadrupole responses in 40Ca, 90Zr, 120Sn and 208Pb , and compare the results with experiment in terms of Energy-Weighted Sum-Rules distribution. We find that both mechanisms play important role for a proper description of the fragmentation and the damping of giant resonance excitations.

In section II, we present a brief description of the linear response treatment of collective vibrations based the stochastic one-body transport theory . In section III, we discuss the details of the calculations and present the results and comparison with data in section IV. Finally, we give the conclusions in section V.

## II Linear Response Based on Stochastic Transport Theory

#### 1 Stochastic transport equation

In the stochastic transport theory, temporal evolution of the fluctuating single-particle density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ is determined by ,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\rho (t)[h(\rho ),\rho (t)]=K_I(\rho )+\delta K(t)$$
(1)
where the left hand side corresponds to the mean-field evolution in terms of the self-consistent mean-field Hamiltonian $`h(\rho )`$ expressed in terms of the fluctuating density, and the right hand side arises from the correlations due to residual interactions. The first term $`K_I(\rho )`$,which is usually referred to as the binary collision term, describes the coupling of single-particle excitations with more complicated two-particle two-hole states. It can be expressed as,

$$K_I(\rho )=_{t_0}^t[v,U_{12}(t,s)F_{12}(s)U_{12}^{}(t,s)]𝑑s$$
(2)
where $`U_{12}(t,s)`$ represents a product of the mean-field propagator $`U_{12}=U_1U_2`$ with $`U(t,s)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i/\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _s^t}h(\rho (t^{}))𝑑t^{}\right)`$ and

$`F_{12}=(1\rho _1)(1\rho _2)v\stackrel{~}{\rho _1\rho _2}\stackrel{~}{\rho _1\rho _2}v(1\rho _1)(1\rho _2).`$ (3)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\rho _1\rho _2}`$ Represents the anti-symmetric product of the single-particle density matrices and $`v`$ denotes the residual interactions. As seen from eq.(2), the collision term, in general, involves memory effects due to the time integration over the past history from an initial time $`t_0`$ to the present time $`t`$. The second term in the right hand side of eq.(1) is the initial correlation term,

$$\delta K(\rho )=Tr_2[v,\delta \sigma _{12}(t)].$$
(4)
where $`\delta \sigma _{12}(t)=U_{12}(t,t_0)\delta \sigma _{12}(t_0)U_{12}^{}(t,t_0)`$ represents the propagation of the initial correlations from $`t_0`$ to $`t`$. In the stochastic transport description, the initial correlations $`\delta \sigma _{12}(t)`$ are treated as a Gaussian random quantity. Consequently, the initial correlation term $`\delta K(t)`$ has a Gaussian distribution characterized by a zero mean and a second moment, which can be determined in accordance with the fluctuation-dissipation relation of the non-equilibrium statistical mechanics.

In the stochastic transport description, dynamical evolution is characterized by constructing an ensemble of solutions of the stochastic transport eq.(1). In this manner, the theory provides a basis for describing the average evolution, as well as, dynamics of density fluctuations. In the semi-classical approximation, a number of applications have been carried out for description of multi-fragmentation in heavy-ion collisions . Furthermore, as demonstrated in recent publications , the stochastic evolution involves a coherent dissipation mechanism arising from the coupling of single-particle motion with the mean-field fluctuations. This can be shown by considering the average evolution of the single-particle density matrix $`\rho (t)=\overline{\rho }(t)`$. The ensemble average of eq.(1) is calculated by expressing the mean-field and the density matrix as $`h(\rho )=h(\overline{\rho })+\delta h(t)`$ and $`\rho (t)=\overline{\rho }(t)+\delta \rho (t)`$, where $`\delta h(t)`$ and $`\delta \rho (t)`$ represent the fluctuating parts of the mean-field and the density matrix, respectively. Then, the ensemble averaging yields a transport equation for the evolution of the average density matrix,

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\overline{\rho }(t)[h(\overline{\rho }),\overline{\rho }(t)]=K_I(\overline{\rho })+K_C(\overline{\rho })`$ (5)
where $`K_I(\overline{\rho })`$ represents the incoherent collision term and the additional term arises from the correlations of the mean-field fluctuations and the density fluctuations,

$$K_C(\overline{\rho })=\overline{[\delta h(t),\delta \rho (t)]}$$
(6)
and it is referred to as the coherent collision term. For small fluctuations around the average evolution, the density fluctuations can be expressed in terms of RPA phonons, and the coherent term takes the form of a particle-phonon collision term. As a result, eq.(5) provides an extended mean-field description, which goes beyond the extended Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock theory by including a coherent collision term into the equation of motion in addition to the incoherent one ***In the following, we denote the average one-body density $`\overline{\rho }`$ by $`\rho `$..

#### 2 Linear response based of extended mean-field theory

In this section, we consider the small amplitude limit the transport eq.(5) and give a brief description of the linear response formalism including both the incoherent and the coherent damping terms. A details description of the formalism can be found in recent publications .

The linear response of the system to an external perturbation can be described by considering the small amplitude limit of the transport eq.(5). The small deviations of the density matrix $`\delta \rho (t)=\rho (t)\rho _0`$ around a finite temperature equilibrium state $`\rho _0`$ are determined by the linearized form of the transport eq.(5),

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\delta \rho [h_0,\delta \rho ][\delta U+A,\rho _0]=\delta K^I(\rho )+\delta K^C(\rho )$$
(7)
In this expression $`A(t)=A\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{\omega }t)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ is a one-body harmonic excitation operator containing a small imaginary part $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega +i\eta `$, and $`\delta K_I(\rho )`$ and $`\delta K_C(\rho )`$ represents the linearized form of the non-Markovian incoherent and coherent collision terms, respectively.

The steady state solution of eq. (7) can be obtained by using a development in terms of the RPA functions,

$$\delta \rho (t)=[Q^+,\rho _0]\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{\omega }t)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(8)
where $`Q^+=_{\lambda >0}z_\lambda ^+`$ $`O_\lambda ^{}z_\lambda ^{}O_\lambda `$. In this expression, $`O_\lambda ^{}`$ and $`O_\lambda `$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the RPA state $`\lambda `$ of energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda `$ , which are determined by the finite temperature RPA equations ,

$`\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda O_\lambda ^{}=[h_0,Q_\lambda ^{}]+h_\lambda ^{},`$ (9)
where $`h_\lambda ^{}=(h/\rho )\rho _\lambda ^{}`$. Substituting the expression (8) into eq.(7) gives rise to a set of coupled equations for the amplitudes $`z_\lambda ^+`$ and $`z_\lambda ^{}`$ coefficients that can be recast into a matrix form ,

$$\left(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z^+\hfill \\ z^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill A\\ \hfill A^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
where $`z^+`$ and $`z^{}`$ are the amplitude vectors with components $`z_\lambda ^+`$ and $`z_\lambda ^{}`$, $`A`$ is the forcing vector with components $`A_\lambda =\mathrm{Tr}[O_\lambda ,A]\rho _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)`$ denotes the self-energy matrix. In the small amplitude limit, the self-energy can be separated into the incoherent part and the coherent part, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_I\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_C\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)`$. According to , the expression of the incoherent part, which also contains the RPA energy, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{I}{}_{\lambda \mu }{}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _\lambda \delta _{\lambda \mu }+K_{\lambda \mu }^{++}(\stackrel{~}{\omega })\hfill & \hfill K_{\lambda \mu }^+(\stackrel{~}{\omega })\\ K_{\lambda \mu }^+^{}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{})\hfill & \hfill \omega _\lambda \delta _{\lambda \mu }K_{\lambda \mu }^{++^{}}(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{})\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
In the Hartree-Fock representation, the elements of the incoherent self-energy are given by,

$$K_{\lambda \mu }^{++}\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{ijk\mathrm{}}{}\frac{k\mathrm{}\left|[O_\lambda ,v]\right|ijij\left|[O_\mu ^{},v]\right|k\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}}𝒩_{ijk\mathrm{}}$$
(12)
and

$$K_{\lambda \mu }^+\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{ijk\mathrm{}}{}\frac{k\mathrm{}\left|[O_\lambda ,v]\right|ijij\left|[O_\mu ,v]\right|k\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}}𝒩_{ijk\mathrm{}}$$
(13)
with $`𝒩_{ijk\mathrm{}}=(1n_i)(1n_j)n_kn_{\mathrm{}}n_in_j(1n_k)(1n_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}=\epsilon _i+\epsilon _j\epsilon _k\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\epsilon _i`$ and $`n_i`$ denote energies and Fermi-Dirac occupation numbers of the single-particle states. The collisional self-energy is non diagonal, and therefore it introduces a coupling between different RPA modes through their decay channels, so-called collisional coupling. In the following, we will neglect the non-diagonal part, which in general introduces a small correction to the strength distributions.

According to , the expression of the coherent self-energy is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^C(\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|<i|[Q_\mu ,h_\lambda ^{}]|j>|^2}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda ϵ_j+ϵ_i}}_{\lambda ,ij}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|<i|[Q_\mu ,h_\lambda ]|j>|^2}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }+\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda ϵ_j+ϵ_i}}_{\lambda ,ji}`$
where

$`_{\lambda ,ij}=(N_\lambda ^0+1)(1n_j^0)n_i^0N_\lambda ^0n_j^0(1n_i^0)`$ (16)
and $`N_\lambda ^0`$ denotes the finite temperature boson occupation factors for the RPA modes $`N_\lambda ^0=1/[exp(\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda /T)1]`$. In general, the coherent self-energy is also non-diagonal, and it couples different RPA modes. Here, we neglect this coupling and retain only the diagonal part. The coherent mechanism, which arises from coupling of the single-particle excitations with the mean-field fluctuations in the stochastic transport theory, correspond to the coherent mechanism described in  and its finite temperature extension using the Matsubara formalism in .

We can deduce the response function associated with an excitation operator $`A`$ , by calculating the expectation value $`<A>=\mathrm{Tr}A\delta \rho (t)`$ with the help of the expression (8). The corresponding strength distribution is obtained by the imaginary part of the response function and it can be expressed as,

$$S(\stackrel{~}{\omega })=\frac{1}{\pi }Im\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{},\hfill & A\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\right)\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill A\\ \hfill A^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
The strength function includes both damping mechanisms, i.e. the collisional damping due to coupling with the incoherent 2p-2h states and the coherent mechanism due to coupling with a low-lying phonon and p-h states.

In our previous studies, we investigated the nuclear collective response in the basis of the incoherent damping mechanism. We found that at low temperature, in particular for light and medium weight nuclei, the incoherent damping mechanism has a sizeable influence on the strength functions, and it becomes more important at higher temperatures. On the other hand, in particular for heavy nuclei, the coherent mechanism due to coupling of giant resonance with phonons plus p-h states, plays a dominant role for describing the properties of cold giant resonance. In this paper, we want to clarify the relative importance of the incoherent and the coherent mechanisms in collective response in cold nuclei. For this purpose, we present three different calculations by incorporating only the coherent mechanism, only the incoherent mechanism and including both mechanisms in to the calculations, and compare the results with the experimental data.

## III Details of the calculation

### A RPA calculation

In order to obtain the solution of equation (10), we first solve the RPA equation (9) in a discrete basis. In order to account partially for the states in the continuum, particle and hole states are obtained by diagonalizing the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian in a large harmonic oscillator representation  which includes respectively 12 major shell for 40Ca and 15 major shells for other nuclei. We use a fixed imaginary part for the forcing frequency $`\eta =\eta _s=0.5`$ MeV. The Hartree-Fock and RPA calculations are performed using the effective Skyrme force SLy4. We use the standard excitation operators for isoscalar and isovector resonances for $`L1`$ (for a review see ),

$`\begin{array}{c}A_{LM}=\frac{Z}{A}_{i=1}^Ar_i^LY_{LM}\hfill \\ \\ A_{LM}=\frac{N}{A}_{i=1}^Zr_i^LY_{LM}\frac{Z}{A}_{i=1}^Nr_i^LY_{LM}\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
where $`Y_{LM}`$ are the spherical harmonics, and for isoscalar giant monopole resonance, we employ

$`A_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{Z}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}}r_i^2Y_{00}`$ (22)
The energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR) is given by,

$`m_1={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\mathrm{}\omega _\lambda \left|0\left|A\right|\lambda \right|^2`$ (23)
When the states $`\lambda `$ are specified in the RPA, it can be calculated from the Hartree-Fock ground state according to $`m_1=\frac{1}{2}<[F^{},[H,F]]>_0`$. For the Skyrme interactions, it leads to the following expression,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}m_1^{GMR}=\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{Z^2}{A}r^2_{HF}\hfill \\ \\ m_1^{GDR}=\frac{9}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{NZ}{A}(1\kappa )\hfill \\ \\ m_1^{GQR}=\frac{50}{4\pi }\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{Z^2}{A}r^2_{HF}\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
where $`r^2_{HF}`$ denotes the root-mean square radius (rms) obtained from the Hartree-Fock ground state. In the case of the Giant Dipole Resonance, the Thomas-Reich Kuhn (TKR) sum rule is violated due to the non-local term in Skyrme forces, and the modification factor is giving by ,

$$\kappa =\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[t_1(1+\frac{1}{2}x_1)+t_2(1+\frac{1}{2}x_2)\right]\frac{1}{A}\rho _n(r)\rho _p(r)d^3r,$$
(30)
where $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _p`$ are the neutron and proton one-body density.

In the following, we compare the result of calculations with the experimental EWSR by employing the standard expression and parameters of the sum-rule . In the standard approach, the rms radius is approximated using a Wood-Saxon shape for the one-body density, which leads to the following expression,

$`r^2_{WS}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}R_0(1.+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi a}{c}}\right]^2)`$ (31)
where $`R_0`$ correspond to the surface position and a is the diffuseness. Different parameters used in the calculations are reported in table I. In table II, we compare the sum rules obtained by the parameterization (31) and $`\kappa =0`$ and those results obtained from the RPA calculations of (23). The smallness of the difference insures the quality of the RPA calculations.

### B Computation of self-energies

#### 1 Coherent mechanism.

In order to incorporate the effect of coupling to surface modes, we calculate the RPA response for multipolarities up to $`L=5`$. The coherent self-energy given by eq. (14) is then calculated by coupling collective states to low-lying states that exhaust at least 1$`\%`$ fraction of the EWSR. Energies and EWSR of collective modes used in the calculation are reported in table III. We note that, in particular, energies of collective $`3^{}`$ states are overestimated in the RPA calculations. The percentage of the EWSRs are normalized to the RPA sum-rules. In the calculations of the matrix elements in eq.(14), we employ the full SLy4 interaction.

#### 2 Incoherent mechanism

We have shown in previous calculation that Skyrme interaction are not adequate to compute the incoherent part of the self-energy due to the presence of high momentum component (also, see ). As in previous application , we use a modified Skyrme interaction which is obtained by introducing a Gaussian cut-off factor in the matrix elements of the Skyrme force $`v_S`$,

$$<ij|v|kl>=<ij|v_S|kl>\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\beta ^2|<𝐪^2>|}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)$$
(32)
in this expression, $`\beta `$ describes an effective range of the interaction and the quantity $`<𝐪^2>`$ provides a measure for the relative momentum which is defined by the relation $`<ij|\delta (𝐫)|kl><𝐪^2>=<ij|𝐪^2\delta (𝐫)+\delta (𝐫)𝐪^2|kl>`$ with $`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐪=(𝐩_1𝐩_2)/2`$. A quantitative discussion of the influence of $`\beta `$ can be found in . In the following, we use $`\beta =1.4`$ fm. The size of the HO basis used to expend the particle and hole (HF) states have been chosen large enough to ensure a convergency of the results with in few per cent.

## IV Results

We carry out calculations of strength functions for the giant monopole (GMR), the giant dipole (GDR) and the giant quadrupole (GQR) response at zero temperature. The resulting strength distributions are presented for 40Ca (figure 1), 90Zr (figure 2), 120Sn (figure 3) and 208Pb (figure 4). The left panels of figures show the result of RPA calculations (dashed lines) and the calculations performed by including only the coherent self-energy (thin lines) and only the incoherent self-energy (thick lines). The result of calculations performed by including both self-energies are shown on the right panel of figures (thick lines).

### A Interplay between incoherent and coherent mechanism

In order to quantitatively discuss the effects of different contributions, it is useful to compute moments of the strength in a given energy interval,

$`m_{i[E_{min},E_{max}]}={\displaystyle _{E_{min}}^{E_{max}}}\left(\mathrm{}\omega \right)^iS(w)𝑑\omega `$ (33)
From these moments, we can define various mean energies $`\overline{E_i}=m_i/m_{i2}`$. An estimation of the spreading of the strength is given by the width $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\sqrt{m_2/m_0\left(m_1/m_0\right)^2}`$. In figure 5, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\overline{E_1}\overline{E_1}^{RPA}`$ between the mean energy obtained in different calculations and the mean-energy calculated in the RPA is plotted as a function of the mass number for the different multipolarities. In figure, calculations by including the coherent mechanism, the incoherent mechanism and the coherent plus incoherent are indicated by dashed lines, dashed-dotted lines and solid lines, respectively. In figure 6, a similar plot is presented for the deviation of the width from the RPA response, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{RPA}`$. In these calculations, moments of the strength functions are evaluated over the energy interval 0-40 MeV. From the results of calculations, we can draw the following conclusions:

* Shift of mean-energy:

+ The incoherent mechanism induces a reduction of the mean energy, while the coherent part acts in the opposite way. The origin of this phenomenon can be found by looking carefully in figures from 1 to 4. Indeed, we note that both coherent and incoherent self-energies induces a shift of the main peaks towards lower energy. However, at the same time, a part of strength is shifted toward higher energy in the coherent case, which gives rise to a global increase of the average mean-energy. Such a behavior can be understood by looking at self-energies themselves. An example, in figure 7, the coherent (thin lines) and the incoherent (thick lines) self-energies are shown for the GQR in 40Ca. We see that the energy dependence of the real part of the self-energy is different in two different mechanisms. While the incoherent mechanism induces a global shift of the strength towards lower energies, the real part of the coherent self-energy change of sign in the vicinity of the collective energy. This introduces a shift toward lower energy of the low energy part of the strength while the high energy part is pushed towards higher energies. In some cases, we may even expect that a single resonance is splitted into two peaks, as it happens for the GQR in 40Ca.
    + For the GQR and GMR in lighter nuclei, the shift introduced by the incoherent mechanism is stronger that the coherent one. On contrary, the tendency goes the opposite direction for heavier nuclei. For the GDR , both effect are comparable.
    + In all cases, the effect of the incoherent mechanism is of the same order of magnitude as that of the coherent mechanism and can not be neglected in contrast to the usual assumption .
* Increase of spreading width:

+ Both the coherent and incoherent self-energy induces an increase of the spreading.
    + In the case of the GQR and GMR, the coherent damping is always much larger than the incoherent one while for the GDR both are of same order. For instance, in the GQR case, where the strength is in general not Landau fragmented, we can see that the coupling to surface modes induces a splitting of the main pic of the RPA into different peaks. In the calcium case, this effect can be related to to the presence of two collective low-lying 3- states strongly coupled to the GQR.
    + The fact that the coherent mechanism induces a larger damping can be seen by looking at bottom panel of figure 7. In this particular example, we see that the imaginary part of the self-energy is larger for the coherent mechanism than for the incoherent case, which gives a larger damping width.
    + When the strength is already largely Landau fragmented (like in the GMR of 40Ca) both incoherent and coherent effects seems almost negligible.
    + The magnitude of the coherent mechanism becomes larger for heavier nuclei.
* Additivity of coherent and incoherent effects:

+ The shift in the mean energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and the increase of the width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, are approximately given by the sum of these quantities obtained by considering the coherent and incoherent mechanisms separately.

The effects of both, coherent as well as incoherent mechanisms appears to be more significant for the lighther nuclei as seen from figures 1-4. This may be due to the fact that in ligther nuclei a large fraction of nucleons resides in the vicinity of nuclear surface relative to the heavier ones, where the predominant effects of both coherent as well as incoherent mechanisms occur. Moreover, in light nuclei the energy of the collective states is higher leading to an increase of the damping width.

### B Fragmentation of response

With the high precision experiments, it is possible to determine fragmentation and fine structure of the strength functions. In order to characterize systematically the shape of strength functions, we present properties of giant resonances spectra in tables IV \- XV. Depending on the fragmentation of each response, we report average mean energies and width for different energy intervals. When the strength is divided into several main peaks, we consider energy intervals around the main peaks. Besides the average properties, we also report the main peak positions. We emphasize that, in particular for the GQR response, the coherent mechanism induces an additional fragmentation of the strength. The incoherent mechanism also introduces such a fragmentation, but it is much weaker than the coherent effect. The incoherent damping strongly the peak positions. In any case, for a proper description of the fragmentation and the fine structure of the strength distributions, both the coherent and the incoherent mechanisms should be taken into the description.

### C Low-lying states

The RPA calculations, most often, overestimate the mean-energy of low-lying states. We find that the incoherent mechanism reduces systematically the mean-energy of the GQR states for medium and heavy nuclei. In table IX, XII and XV, we can see that the mean-energy of the low-lying 2+ states is shifted by -1.3 MeV for 90Zr and 120Sn, and by -0.7 MeV in 208Pb. Such a shift is absent in the calculations with the coherent damping mechanism, while it remains when the both mechanisms are included into the description.

### D Comparison with experiment

When the strength is highly fragmented, a direct comparison to experimental data is hardly possible. Experiments are often analyzed using a fitting plus folding procedure of spectra which mix different multipolarities. From this procedure, one extract energy ($`E_\alpha `$) , width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$) and percentage of the EWSR ($`(\%EWSR)_\alpha `$). In order to compare with experimental data, we convert the experimental data into percentages of the EWSR in given energy intervals, which is determined according to

$`\begin{array}{cc}(\%EWSR)_{[E_{min},E_{max}]}=\hfill & _\alpha (\%EWSR)_\alpha \hfill \\ & \\ & \times _{E_{min}}^{E_{max}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha /2\pi }{\left(EE_\alpha \right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^2/4}\hfill \end{array}`$ (37)
In this expression, $`\alpha `$ runs over different states of considered multipolarity, and a Lorentzian shape is assumed for each mode in the calculations. We note that Gaussian shapes rather than Lorentzian only slightly change the reported values. In tables IV \- XV, we compare the results of our calculations for the percentage of EWSR with experiments in the energy interval around the peak energy of the corresponding giant resonance. In all cases, our calculations provide a good description for the experiments. In general, the introduction of coherent and incoherent mechanisms gives a better description of available experimental data. However, in some cases, the percentage of the EWSR obtained in RPA already gives the good order of magnitude. We pay particular attention to the GQR excitations in 40Ca and 208Pb, since both have been extensively studied experimentally and have given long-standing discussions .

#### 1 Splitting of the $`2^+`$ resonance in $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$

The GQR response in 40Ca is known to be split into two components with energy around 13.5 and 18 MeV with almost an equal fraction of the EWSR (around 30 $`\%`$ to 40 $`\%`$ for both peaks). The description of this fragmentation by microscopic calculations is a problem. Only recently , microscopic calculations assuming ground state correlations and coupling to low lying states reproduce a global splitting. However, these calculations describe the global trend of the response and do not provide an explanation for the equal partition of the strength.

Looking at table VI, we see that, our calculation with the coherent and incoherent mechanism not only reproduce splitting of the strength into two main components (see figure 1) but also give rise to an equal splitting around the main peak (31 $`\%`$ in the interval 10-16 MeV and 33.6 $`\%`$ in the interval 16-22 MeV), that matches with the experimental data. When only the coherent self-energy is included, the calculations can not reproduce the splitting, but give the percentage of the EWSR, which are comparable to those obtained in ref.  i.e. a too high percentage of the EWSR for the second peak and a too low for the first one.

This particular example demonstrates the necessity of taking both coherent and incoherent damping mechanisms at the same time and illustrates the complementarity of the two effects. Indeed, without the coherent mechanism splitting of the strength is not found while without the incoherent damping the EWSR is not reproduced.

#### 2 Fine structure in 208Pb

The calculated strength obtained in our microscopic calculations for the GQR of 208Pb is displayed in bottom panel of figure 4. As in the case of 40Ca, global shape of the strength exhibits a splitting of the GQR response into two main peaks at 10.8 MeV and 13.8 MeV. The first peak is well known and is correctly reproduced by our calculations, while the RPA alone does not give a correct description. However the fraction of the EWSR is slightly smaller as compared to the experiment (see bottom of table XV). The second peak has never been observed but is also present in second RPA calculations .

Our calculation, which assume a rather large value of the smoothing parameter only gives a global shape of the strength distributions. In order to reveal the fine structure on top of the global shape, we also perform calculation s with smaller smoothing parameter $`\eta =\eta _s=0.025`$ MeV which corresponds to experimental resolution. The corresponding strength distribution is presented in figure 8 for the collective energy region 7.6 - 11.8 MeV. The calculated response is compared with the inelastic electron scattering data . This experimental data presents a well-defined fine structure which is also observed with a one-to-one correspondence in (p,p’) experiments . In figure 8, we see that the calculations agree with the part of spectral properties of the peaks in the vicinity of the collective energy. However, we note that below 9 MeV, the fine structure is almost absent in our description. The peak positions observed experimentally and obtained in our calculations are reported in table XVI. We can see from this table that fine structures are already present in the coherent case while they are absent in the incoherent one. When both effects are included, it seems that part of the peaks are perfectly located as compared to recent (p,p’) experiments. It has been recently discussed that other peaks might be coming from dipole excitations . It is also possible that missing peaks might be due to the fact that part of the two-body correlations are neglected in the present description or coming from higher order correlations.

## V Conclusion

In this article, we carry out a systematic investigation the effect of coherent and incoherent damping mechanisms on the collective response in spherical nuclei at zero temperature. Our calculations indicate that both mechanisms play important roles in a proper description of the nuclear collective response. An extensive comparison with experimental data is presented in terms of the fraction of exhausted EWSR for the GMR, GQR and GDR for a number of nuclei. We show that the presented calculations are in reasonable agreement with the observed collective response. A special attention has been given to the GQR response in calcium and lead nuclei where a large amount of experimental and theoretical work exists. In particular, we show that, while the usual mean-field theory is unable to explain the equal splitting of the 2+ state, the inclusion of both coherent and incoherent damping mechanism provides an explanation for fragmentation of the GQR response. Furthermore, by reducing smoothing parameter in the calculations, we observe the appearance of fine structure on top of the global fragmentation in the strength functions. A comparison with high resolution experiment shows that part of the observed peaks energies are located very close to the calculated energies.

Our study demonstrates the importance of coupling to low-lying surface modes for the understanding of fine structures in collective response. For this purpose, the extended mean-field description that includes both the incoherent and and the coherent mechanisms in an consistent manner appears as a promising tool for the understanding of fine-structure properties in the fragmentation of giant resonance excitations. It will be interesting to carry our similar investigations at finite temperature.

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Richter for providing the (e,e’) data. One of us (S. A.) gratefully acknowledges GANIL Laboratory for a partial support and warm hospitality extended to him during his visits to Caen. This work is supported in part by the US DOE grant No. DE-FG05-89ER40530.


text:
# Integrable discretizations of the sine-Gordon equation

## 1 Introduction

In the framework of integrable nonlinear evolution equations, Hirota recovered almost 25 years ago the Bianchi superposition formula for the solutions of the sine-Gordon equation, showing that it can be considered as an integrable doubly discrete (both in space and time) version of the sine-Gordon equation . He found also its Lax pair, Bäcklund transformations and $`N`$-soliton solutions. In the following, this study was generalized to include the discrete (in space or time) case , soliton solutions were obtained by using the dressing method , the related inverse spectral transform was studied  and the nature of the numerical instabilities of the solutions was discussed .

Here we are interested in the spectral transform for the discrete and doubly discrete sine-Gordon equation with solutions decaying to $`0`$ ($`\mathrm{mod}\pi `$) at space infinity .

The aim of this paper is twofold.

From one side, we re-examine the scattering theory of the spectral problem introduced by Orfanidis in  which depends on a discretized space variable $`n`$. According to the usual scheme, we introduce two summation equations which define a couple of Jost solutions $`\mu _n`$ and $`\nu _n`$ characterized by their asymptotic behaviour, respectively, at $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`n+\mathrm{}`$. These summation equations are, as usual, used to define the spectral data. However, we show that, in contrast with the continuous case, in order to study the analytical properties of the Jost solution $`\nu _n`$ it is necessary to introduce an additional summation equation that only in the continuous limit reduces to the previous one. Then, we find the conditions on the potential that ensure the existence and analyticity properties of the Jost solutions, we formulate the inverse problem as a Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem on the real axis and we derive the time evolution of the spectral data, paying special attention to the nature of the singularity of the time evolution of the solutions at $`t=0`$.

From the other side, we show that both in the semi-discrete and doubly-discrete case, the equations of the matrix Orfanidis spectral problem can be decoupled and reduced to a scalar problem, giving as principal spectral problem the “exact discretization” of the Schrödinger operator introduced by Shabat

$$\phi _{n+2}=g_n\phi _{n+1}(1+\lambda )\phi _n$$
(1.1)
and obtained iterating the Darboux transformations. Then, following a procedure analogous to that used in  for getting a 2+1 generalization of the sine-Gordon equations, we do not consider a Lax pair but a Lax triplet, i.e. we derive the discrete sine-Gordon equations as a compatibility condition of (1.1) with a pair of auxiliary spectral problems.

The spectral theory for the operator (1.1) was exhaustively studied in  for a potential $`g_n`$, not necessarily real, satisfying

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(1+|n|)|g_{n1}2|<\mathrm{}.$$
(1.2)
and applied to a discrete version of the KdV. However, one must be advised that the solutions of the discrete sine-Gordon equations are related to the potential $`g_n`$ via an equation that can be considered a discretized version of a Riccati equation and can be solved in terms of a continous fraction. Moreover, the potential $`g_n`$ is complex and the problem of characterizing the spectral data is left open.

By using this theory we introduce the spectral data, we find their time evolution and, therefore, according to the usual inverse scattering scheme, the Cauchy initial value problem is linearized. In particular, we show that the time evolution is discontinuous at the initial time $`t=0`$.

We are also able to find the couple of doubly discrete auxiliary spectral operators that in triplet with the doubly discrete Schrödinger operator gives the Hirota-Bianchi fourth order doubly discrete sine-Gordon equation.

The whole theory can be trivially extended to the sinh-Gordon case. Then, the potential $`g_n`$ is real and the characterization equations for the spectral data are easily obtained in analogy with the continuous case.

## 2 Orfanidis Lax pair

Let us consider the Lax pair proposed by Orfanidis

$`\chi _{n+1,m}`$ $`=M_{n,m}\chi _{n,m}`$ (2.1)
$`\chi _{n,m+1}`$ $`=N_{n,m}\chi _{n,m}`$ (2.2)
with

$`M_{n,m}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\left(\theta _{n+1,m}\theta _{n,m}\right)/2}& ik\\ ik& e^{i\left(\theta _{n+1,m}\theta _{n,m}\right)/2}\end{array}\right)`$ (2.5)
$`N_{nm}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{\gamma }{ik}e^{i\left(\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m}\right)/2}\\ \frac{\gamma }{ik}e^{i\left(\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m}\right)/2}& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (2.8)
with $`\theta _{n,m}`$ real, $`k`$ the spectral parameter and $`\gamma `$ a real constant. The compatibility condition

$$F\chi _{n+1,m}=E\chi _{n,m+1}$$

where $`E`$ shifts $`n`$ and $`F`$ shifts $`m`$ gives by inserting in it (2.1) and (2.2) $`M_{n,m+1}N_{n,m}=N_{n+1,m}M_{n,m}`$. From it we have the Bianchi-Hirota equation

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\theta _{n+1,m+1}\theta _{n+1,m}\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m}}{4}\right)=\gamma \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\theta _{n+1,m+1}+\theta _{n+1,m}+\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m}}{4}\right).$$
(2.9)
If we introduce

$$\theta _{i,j}=\theta _i(t+\tau j),t=m\tau ,$$
(2.10)
change the constant $`\gamma `$ as follows

$$\gamma \tau \gamma $$
(2.11)
and take the limit $`\tau 0`$ and $`m\mathrm{}`$ at $`t`$ fixed we get the semi-discrete sine-Gordon equation in the light cone coordinates

$$_t\theta _{n+1}_t\theta _n=4\gamma \mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta _{n+1}+\theta _n\right).$$
(2.12)
Notice that this equation can be obtained as compatibility condition of the Lax pair

$`\chi _{n+1}`$ $`=M_n\chi _n`$ (2.13)
$`_t\chi _n`$ $`=N_n\chi _n`$ (2.14)
with

$`M_n`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\left(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n\right)/2}& ik\\ ik& e^{i\left(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n\right)/2}\end{array}\right)`$ (2.17)
$`N_n`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{\gamma }{ik}e^{i\theta _n}\\ \frac{\gamma }{ik}e^{i\theta _n}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.20)
Notice also that in both cases, doubly discrete and space discrete cases, the principal spectral problem (2.1) is the same.

## 3 Direct scattering problem

### 3.1 Jost solutions and summation equations

Let us rewrite the spectral problem (2.1) as

$$\chi _{n+1}(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1)\chi _n=Q_n\chi _n$$
(3.1)
where the Pauli $`\sigma `$ matrices are defines as usual, i.e.

$$\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.2)
and

$$Q_n=e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma _3(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n)}\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(3.3)
and let us consider it for $`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$.

If $`G_n`$ is a Green function, i.e. if $`G_n`$ satisfies

$$G_{n+1}(1+ik\sigma _1)G_n=\delta _{n,0}\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(3.4)
a matrix solution of (3.1) is given by the solution of the following summation equation

$$\chi _n=w_n+\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}G_{nj}Q_j\chi _j$$
(3.5)
where $`w_n`$ is a solution of the homogeneous equation

$$w_{n+1}(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1)w_n=0.$$
(3.6)
We represent $`G_n`$ and $`\delta _{n,0}`$ as Fourier integrals

$`G_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{|p|=R}}p^{n1}\widehat{G}(p)𝑑p,`$ (3.7)
$`\delta _{n,0}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{|p|=R}}p^{n1}𝑑p.`$ (3.8)
Inserting into (3.4) we get

$$((p1)\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1)\widehat{G}(p)=\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(3.9)
and therefore

$$\widehat{G}(p)=\frac{1}{(p1)^2+k^2}((p1)\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1).$$
(3.10)
Notice that $`\widehat{G}(p)`$ has a pole at $`p=1\pm ik`$ and notice also that at large $`p`$

$$\left(\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1}{p}\right)^1=\underset{j=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^j}{p^j}$$
(3.11)
and therefore at large $`p`$

$$\widehat{G}(p)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^j}{p^{j+1}}.$$
(3.12)
We consider $`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$ and for different choices of $`R`$, i.e. for $`R>1`$ and $`R<1`$, we get different Green functions, $`G`$ and $`H`$, and, correspondingly, different summation equations defining different Jost solutions, $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$.

For $`R>1+k^2`$ the integrand in (3.7) inside the disk $`|p|R`$ contains a pole at $`p=0`$ for $`n0`$ and the poles $`p=1\pm ik`$ and it is analytic outside the disk. The integral can be computed evaluating the residuum at $`p=\mathrm{}`$ by using (3.12) and we get

$$G_n=\mathrm{\Theta }(n1)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{n1}$$
(3.13)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(n)`$ is the discrete version of the Heaviside function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(n)=\{\begin{array}{c}1n0\\ 0n<0\end{array}.$$
(3.14)
Therefore

$$\varphi _n=w_n+\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}Q_j\varphi _j.$$
(3.15)
If $`R<1`$ we have to subtract to the previous integral the residua at the poles $`p=1\pm ik`$. We have

$$H_n=\mathrm{\Theta }(n1)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{n1}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}+\sigma _1)(1+ik)^{n1}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _1)(1ik)^{n1}.$$
(3.16)
Since

$$\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^n=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}+\sigma _1)(1+ik)^n+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _1)(1ik)^n$$
(3.17)
we have

$$H_n=\mathrm{\Theta }(n)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{n1}$$
(3.18)
and the summation equation becomes

$$\psi _n=w_n\underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}Q_j\psi _j.$$
(3.19)
It is convenient to choose

$$w_n=(\mathrm{𝟏}i\sigma _2)(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _3)^n$$
(3.20)
so that $`\varphi _n`$ and $`\psi _n`$ satisfy the following boundary conditions

$`\varphi _n`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}i\sigma _2\right)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _3\right)^nn\mathrm{}`$ (3.21)
$`\psi _n`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}i\sigma _2\right)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _3\right)^nn+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.22)
In order to study the analytical properties of the Jost solutions with respect to the spectral parameter $`k`$, it is necessary to introduce the modified matrix Jost solutions

$`\mu _n`$ $`=\varphi _n\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _3\right)^n`$ (3.23)
$`\nu _n`$ $`=\psi _n\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _3\right)^n`$ (3.24)
and, then, to consider separately the two columns of these matrices, which we denote as follows

$$\mu _n=(\mu _n^{},\mu _n^+),\nu _n=(\nu _n^+,\nu _n^{}).$$
(3.25)
They satisfy the difference equations

$`\left(1ik\right)\mu _{n+1}^\pm `$ $`=\left[\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1+Q_n\right]\mu _n^\pm `$ (3.26)
$`\left(1\pm ik\right)\nu _{n+1}^\pm `$ $`=\left[\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1+Q_n\right]\nu _n^\pm `$ (3.27)
and have constant asymptotic behaviour

$`\mu _n`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}i\sigma _2\right)n\mathrm{}`$ (3.28)
$`\nu _n`$ $`\left(\mathrm{𝟏}i\sigma _2\right)n+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.29)
### 3.2 Existence and analyticity of the Jost solutions $`\mu ^\pm `$

We will show that the Jost solutions $`\mu _n^\pm (k)`$ defined by the summation equations

$`\mu _n^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1ik)^{nj}}}Q_j\mu _j^+(k)`$ (3.32)
$`\mu _n^{}(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1+ik)^{nj}}}Q_j\mu _j^{}(k)`$ (3.35)
are analytic, correspondingly, in the upper half plane and in the lower half plane of the spectral parameter $`k`$ and continuous for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}0`$ and $`k_{\text{Im}}0`$.

Let us write the solution of the integral equation (3.32) in the form of a Neumann series

$$\mu _n^+(k)=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^{\mathrm{}}(k)C_n^{\mathrm{}}(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}C_n^{\mathrm{},(1)}(k)\\ C_n^{\mathrm{},(2)}(k)\end{array}\right)$$
(3.36)
where

$$C_n^0(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right),C_n^{\mathrm{}+1}(k)=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1ik)^{nj}}Q_jC_j^{\mathrm{}}(k)$$
(3.37)
or, in component form, taking into account the identity (3.17)

$`C_n^{\mathrm{}+1,(1)}(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}\{[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nj1}](e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)C_j^{\mathrm{},(1)}(k)`$
$`[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nj1}](e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)C_j^{\mathrm{},(2)}(k)\}`$ (3.38)
$`C_n^{\mathrm{}+1,(2)}(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}\{[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nj1}](e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)C_j^{\mathrm{},(1)}(k)`$
$`+[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nj1}](e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)C_j^{\mathrm{},(2)}(k)\}.`$ (3.39)
The series (3.36) is formally a solution of the discrete integral equation (3.32). One can prove by induction on $`\mathrm{}`$ that for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}0`$

$$\left|C_n^{\mathrm{},(j)}(k)\right|\frac{2^{\mathrm{}}}{\left|1ik\right|^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}\left[\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{l+1}\theta _l)}1\right|\right]^{\mathrm{}},j=1,2.$$
(3.40)
Indeed, for each component $`j=1,2`$ we have

$`\left|C_n^{\mathrm{}+1,(j)}(k)\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left|1ik\right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}|e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{l+1}\theta _l\right)}1|\left[\right|1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nl1}\left|\right|C_l^{\mathrm{},(1)}(k)|`$
$`+|1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{nl1}|\left|C_l^{\mathrm{},(2)}(k)\right|]`$
where we used that the potential $`\theta _n`$ is real. Moreover

$$\left|1\pm \left(\frac{1+ik}{1ik}\right)^{nl1}\right|1+\left|\frac{1+ik}{1ik}\right|^{nl1}2$$
(3.41)
since $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}>0`$ and $`nl10`$. Therefore we have

$$\left|C_n^{\mathrm{}+1,(j)}(k)\right|\frac{1}{\left|1ik\right|}\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{l+1}\theta _l\right)}1\right|\left[\left|C_l^{\mathrm{},(1)}(k)\right|+\left|C_l^{\mathrm{},(2)}(k)\right|\right]$$
(3.42)
and we can use the inductive hypothesis to get

$$\left|C_n^{\mathrm{}+1,(j)}(k)\right|\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}\frac{2^{\mathrm{}+1}}{\left|1ik\right|^{\mathrm{}+1}}\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{l+1}\theta _l\right)}1\right|\left(\underset{l_1=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{l_1+1}\theta _{l_1}\right)}1\right|\right)^{\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.43)
The use of the summation by parts formula, according to which for any real non-negative sequence $`\left\{b_j\right\}_{j=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}`$ such that the series $`_{j=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}b_j`$ is convergent and for any $`m_0`$

$$\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n}{}}b_k\left(\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{k1}{}}b_j\right)^m\frac{1}{m+1}\left(\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}b_j\right)^{m+1},$$
(3.44)
completes the proof of (3.40).

Therefore for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}0`$

$$\left|C_n^{\mathrm{},(j)}(k)\right|\frac{P\left(n\right)^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}!},j=1,2$$
(3.45)
where

$$P(n)=2\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j)}1\right|$$
(3.46)
and we conclude that the Neumann series (3.36) for $`\mu _n^+(k)`$ is uniformly convergent (with respect to $`n`$ and $`k`$ in the upper half-plane) and

$$\left|\mu _n^{+,(j)}(k)\right|e^{P(\mathrm{})}j=1,2$$
(3.47)
provided the potential $`\theta _n`$ is such that

$$P(\mathrm{})=2\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left|e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j)}1\right|<+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.48)
In the same way one can prove that $`\mu _n^{}`$ is analytic for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}<0`$ and continuous for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}0`$.

### 3.3 Existence and analyticity of the Jost solutions $`\nu ^\pm `$

Let us now consider the summation equations defining the Jost solutions $`\nu ^\pm `$, which can be rewritten as

$`\nu _n^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+ik}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn+1}}{(1ik)^{jn+1}}}Q_j\nu _j^+(k)`$ (3.51)
$`\nu _n^{}(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1ik}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn+1}}{(1+ik)^{jn+1}}}Q_j\nu _j^{}(k)`$ (3.54)
showing explicitly that their kernel is singular at $`k=\pm i`$, i.e. in both the lower and upper half planes of $`k`$. This dissymmetry of the summation equations for the Jost solutions $`\nu ^\pm `$ with respect to $`\mu ^\pm `$ is peculiar of the discrete case, since it disappears in the continuous limit. In fact, in order to study the analytic properties of the Jost solutions one needs to define the same solutions by introducing alternative summation equations, which can be obtained by exploiting the special structure of the potential $`Q_n`$ and the symmetry property of the spectral problem (3.1) for $`nn`$.

By using the relation

$$Q_n+\sigma _1Q_n\sigma _1+\sigma _1Q_n\sigma _1Q_n=0$$
(3.55)
one can easily verify that

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1+Q_n)^1=\frac{1}{1+k^2}(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1+\sigma _1Q_n\sigma _1)$$
(3.56)
and therefore the spectral problem (3.1) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{1+k^2}(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1+\sigma _1Q_n\sigma _1)\chi _{n+1}=\chi _n.$$
(3.57)
If we introduce

$$\chi _{n+1}=(1+k^2)^n\xi _n$$
(3.58)
we have

$$\xi _{n+1}=(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1+\sigma _1Q_n\sigma _1)\xi _n$$
(3.59)
and, consequently, using the same procedure we followed above for $`\varphi _n`$ we get

$$\xi _n=\xi _{0n}+\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}\sigma _1Q_j\sigma _1\xi _j$$
(3.60)
and coming back to $`\chi _n`$

$$\chi _n=w_n+\underset{\mathrm{}=n+1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}(1+k^2)^n\mathrm{}(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1)^{\mathrm{}n1}\sigma _1Q_\mathrm{}1\sigma _1\chi _{\mathrm{}}$$
(3.61)
where we choose $`w_n`$ as in (3.20).

One can check explicitly that $`\psi _n`$ defined in (3.19) satisfies this summation equation by moving in (3.19) the $`j=n`$ term of the sum from the right side to the left side, by applying from the left $`(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1+Q_n)^1(\mathrm{𝟏}+ik\sigma _1)`$ and then by using on the right (3.56), (3.55) and the spectral equation for $`\psi _n`$.

Therefore from (3.61) by considering the transformation (3.24) we get the following alternative summation equations for $`\nu ^\pm (k)`$

$`\nu _n^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn1}}{(1ik)^{jn}}}\sigma _1Q_{j1}\sigma _1\nu _j^+(k)`$ (3.64)
$`\nu _n^{}(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{𝟏}ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn1}}{(1+ik)^{jn}}}\sigma _1Q_{j1}\sigma _1\nu _j^{}(k).`$ (3.67)
Following a procedure analogous to that one used for the $`\mu ^\pm (k)`$ one can prove that the $`\nu ^\pm (k)`$ are also analytic, correspondingly, in the upper half plane and in the lower half plane of the spectral parameter $`k`$ and continuous for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}0`$ and $`k_{\text{Im}}0`$ provided the potential satisfies the condition (3.48).

Finally, let us note that, taking into account the explicit expression of the Green’s functions, one can easily obtain the asymptotic behavior of the Jost solutions at large $`k`$

$`\mu _n^+(k)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\nu _n^+(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left|k\right|\mathrm{}\text{ }k_{\mathrm{Im}}>0`$ (3.72)
$`\mu _n^{}(k)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\nu _n^{}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left|k\right|\mathrm{}\text{ }k_{\mathrm{Im}}<0.`$ (3.77)
### 3.4 Scattering data

Let us define the Wronskian of any two vectors $`v`$ and $`w`$ as

$$W(v,w)=det(v,w).$$
(3.78)
The vector-valued sequences $`v_n`$ and $`w_n`$ are linearly independent if $`W(v_n,w_n)0`$ for all $`n`$.

In particular, if $`v_n`$ and $`w_n`$ are any two solutions of the scattering problem (3.1), their Wronskian satisfies the recursive relation

$$W(v_{n+1},w_{n+1})=\left(1+k^2\right)W(v_n,w_n).$$
(3.79)
Hence, for any positive integer $`j`$

$`W(\varphi _n^+(k),\varphi _n^{}(k))`$ $`=\left(1+k^2\right)^jW(\varphi _{nj}^+(k),\varphi _{nj}^{}(k))`$
$`=\left(1+k^2\right)^nW(\mu _{nj}^+(k),\mu _{nj}^{}(k))`$ (3.80)
and

$`W(\psi _n^+(k),\psi _n^{}(k))`$ $`=\left(1+k^2\right)^jW(\psi _{n+j}^+(k),\psi _{n+j}^{}(k))`$
$`=\left(1+k^2\right)^nW(\nu _{n+j}^+(k),\nu _{n+j}^{}(k)).`$ (3.81)
Taking into account (3.28) and (3.29), for $`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$ in the limit $`j\mathrm{}`$ we get

$$W(\varphi _n^+(k),\varphi _n^{}(k))=2\left(1+k^2\right)^n,W(\psi _n^+(k),\psi _n^{}(k))=2\left(1+k^2\right)^n$$
(3.82)
which shows that the eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n^+`$ and $`\varphi _n^{}`$ are linearly independent, as well as $`\psi _n^+`$ and $`\psi _n^{}`$. Since the discrete scattering problem (3.1) is a second-order difference equation, there are at most two linearly independent solutions for any fixed value of $`k`$ and consequently we can write $`\varphi _n^+`$ and $`\varphi _n^{}`$ as linear combination of $`\psi _n^+`$ and $`\psi _n^{}`$ or vice-versa. The coefficients of this linear combinations depend on $`k`$. Hence the relations ($`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$)

$$\varphi _n^\pm (k)=b^\pm (k)\psi _n^\pm (k)+a^\pm (k)\psi _n^{}(k)$$
(3.83)
which define the scattering data $`a^\pm (k)`$, $`b^\pm (k)`$.

In terms of the Jost solutions, they can also be written as

$$\frac{\mu _n^\pm (k)}{a^\pm (k)}=\rho ^\pm (k)\left(\frac{1\pm ik}{1ik}\right)^n\nu _n^\pm (k)+\nu _n^{}(k)$$
(3.84)
where we introduced the reflection coefficients

$$\rho ^\pm (k)=\frac{b^\pm (k)}{a^\pm (k)}.$$
(3.85)
Notice that from (3.84), by using (3.29), we can get the asymptotics of $`\mu _n^\pm `$ for $`n+\mathrm{}`$

$$\mu _n^\pm (k)b^\pm (k)\left(\frac{1\pm ik}{1ik}\right)^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\pm 1}{1}\right)+a^\pm (k)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{1}\right).$$
(3.86)
Calculating $`W(\varphi _n^+(k),\varphi _n^{}(k))`$ using (3.83) results in

$$W(\varphi _n^+(k),\varphi _n^{}(k))=\left(a^+(k)a^{}(k)b^+(k)b^{}(k)\right)W(\psi _n^+(k),\psi _n^{}(k))$$
(3.87)
and taking into account (3.82) yields

$$a^+(k)a^{}(k)b^+(k)b^{}(k)=1k.$$
(3.88)
Moreover,

$$W(\varphi _n^\pm (k),\psi _n^\pm (k))=2\left(1+k^2\right)^na^\pm (k)$$
(3.89)
or, equivalently,

$$a^\pm (k)=\frac{1}{2}W(\mu _n^\pm (k),\nu _n^\pm (k))$$
(3.90)
which proves, from one side, that $`a^+(k)`$ can be analytically continued in the upper half plane (respectively $`a^{}(k)`$ can be analytically continued in the lower half plane) and, from the other side, that the zeros of $`a^+(k)`$ in the upper half plane (respectively of $`a^{}(k)`$) correspond to bound states of the scattering problem.

We note that for real potentials $`\theta _n`$, if $`\chi _n(k)`$ satisfies the scattering problem (3.1), then

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n(k)=i\sigma _2\chi _n^{}(k^{})$$
(3.91)
satisfies the same equation. Taking into account the boundary conditions (3.21) and (3.22), we conclude that if the potential $`\theta _n`$ is real the Jost solutions obey the symmetry conditions

$$\varphi _n^{}(k)=i\sigma _2\left(\varphi _n^+(k^{})\right)^{}\psi _n^{}(k)=i\sigma _2\left(\psi _n^+(k^{})\right)^{}.$$
(3.92)
Moreover, one can easily show by using (3.89) that

$$a^{}(k)=\left(a^+(k^{})\right)^{}$$
(3.93)
and by using (3.83) for $`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$ that

$$b^{}(k)=\left(b^+(k)\right)^{}.$$
(3.94)
The scattering coefficients can also be given as explicit sum of the Jost solutions. The formulae are derived as follows. First, we rewrite for $`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$ the summation equation (3.32) as

$`\mu _n^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1ik)^{nj}}}Q_j\mu _j^+(k)`$ (3.97)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn+1}}{(1+ik)^{jn+1}}}Q_j\mu _j^+(k)`$ (3.98)
and, then, using (3.54) we obtain

$`\mu _n^+(k)\nu _n^{}(k)a^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(1a^+(k)\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1ik)^{nj}}}Q_j\mu _j^+(k)`$ (3.101)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn+1}}{(1+ik)^{jn+1}}}Q_j\left[\mu _j^+(k)\nu _j^{}(k)a^+(k)\right].`$ (3.102)
Inserting in it (3.84) we have

$`b^+(k)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^n\left[\nu _n^+(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1ik\sigma _1\right)^{jn+1}}{(1ik)^{jn+1}}}Q_j\nu _j^+(k)\right]`$
$`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(1a^+(k)\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+ik\sigma _1\right)^{nj1}}{(1ik)^{nj}}}Q_j\mu _j^+(k).`$ (3.105)
From (3.51) it follows that the term in square brackets in the left-hand side is $`(1,1)^T`$ and therefore we obtain using (3.17)

$`a^+(k)`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}[(e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)\mu _j^{+,(1)}(k)`$
$`+(e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)\mu _j^{+,(2)}(k)]`$ (3.106)
$`b^+(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1ik)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik}{1ik}}\right)^{j1}[(e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)\mu _j^{+,(1)}(k)`$
$`+(e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j\right)}1)\mu _j^{+,(2)}(k)].`$ (3.107)
These (discrete version of) integral representations, together with the symmetry relations (3.93) and (3.94) completely determine the scattering coefficients.

The discrete scattering problem (3.1) can possess discrete eigenvalues (bound states). These occur whenever $`a^+(k_j^+)=0`$ for some $`k_j^+`$ in the upper half plane or $`a^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{})=0`$ for some $`k_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ in the lower half plane. Indeed, for such values of the spectral parameter from (3.89) it follows that $`W(\varphi _n^+(k_j^+),\psi _n^+(k_j^+))=0`$ and $`W(\varphi _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{}),\psi _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{}))=0`$ and therefore the eigenfunctions are linearly dependent, i.e.

$`\varphi _n^+(k_j^+)`$ $`=b_j^+\psi _n^+(k_j^+)j=1,\mathrm{},J^+`$ (3.108)
$`\varphi _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ $`=b_{\mathrm{}}^{}\psi _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{})\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},J^{}`$ (3.109)
for some complex constants $`b_j^\pm `$. In terms of the modified Jost solutions (3.108), (3.109) can be written as

$$\mu _n^+(k_j^+)=b_j^+\left(\frac{1+ik_j^+}{1ik_j^+}\right)^n\nu _n^+(k_j^+),\mu _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{})=b_{\mathrm{}}^{}\left(\frac{1ik_{\mathrm{}}^{}}{1+ik_{\mathrm{}}^{}}\right)^n\nu _n^{}(k_{\mathrm{}}^{}).$$
(3.110)
Note that when the potential $`\theta _n`$ is real, (3.93) implies that if $`k_j^+`$ is a zero of $`a^+(k)`$ in the upper half-plane, then $`k_j^{}=\left(k_j^+\right)^{}`$ is a zero of $`a^{}(k)`$ in the lower half-plane and therefore $`J^+=J^{}`$.

## 4 Inverse Scattering problem

Let us assume $`a^+(k)`$ has $`J^+`$ simple zeros $`\left\{k_j^+\right\}_{j=1}^{J^+}`$ in the upper half plane and $`a^{}(k)`$ has $`J^{}`$ simple zeros $`\left\{k_j^{}\right\}_{j=1}^J^{}`$ in the lower half plane. Then, by (3.110) it follows

$`\text{Res}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^+(k)}{a^+(k)}};k_j^+)`$ $`=\mu _n^+(k_j^+)\left({\displaystyle \frac{da^+}{dk}}|_{k=k_j^+}\right)^1=C_j^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik_j^+}{1ik_j^+}}\right)^n\nu _n^+(k_j^+)`$ (4.1)
$`\text{Res}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}(k)}{a^{}(k)}};k_j^{})`$ $`=\mu _n^{}(k_j^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{da^{}}{dk}}|_{k=k_j^{}}\right)^1=C_j^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1ik_j^{}}{1+ik_j^{}}}\right)^n\nu _n^{}(k_j^{})`$ (4.2)
where

$$C_j^+=b_j^+\left(\frac{da^+}{dk}|_{k=k_j^+}\right)^1,C_j^{}=b_j^{}\left(\frac{da^{}}{dk}|_{k=k_j^{}}\right)^1.$$
(4.3)
Taking into account the analytic properties of the Jost solutions and of the scattering coefficients $`a^\pm (k)`$, as well as the asymptotic behavior (3.72), we can use the Cauchy-Green formula to obtain from the “jump” conditions (3.84)

$`\nu _n^{}(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{J^+}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+ik_j^+}{1ik_j^+}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{C_j^+}{kk_j^+}}\nu _n^+(k_j^+)`$ (4.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^+(\zeta )}{\zeta k+i0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+i\zeta }{1i\zeta }}\right)^n\nu _n^+(\zeta )𝑑\zeta `$ (4.7)
$`\nu _n^+(k)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{J^{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1ik_j^{}}{1+ik_j^{}}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{C_j^{}}{kk_j^{}}}\nu _n^{}(k_j^{})`$ (4.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}(\zeta )}{\zeta ki0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1i\zeta }{1+i\zeta }}\right)^n\nu _n^{}(\zeta )𝑑\zeta .`$ (4.11)
Equations (4.7) and (4.11) define a Riemann-Hilbert problem on the line which, in principle, allows one to solve the inverse problem, i.e. to reconstruct the Jost solutions from the scattering data.

In order to complete the inverse problem, we need to reconstruct the potential from the scattering data. Let us rewrite the difference equations (3.27) in matrix form

$$\left[1+ik\sigma _3\right]\nu _{n+1}=\left[1+ik\sigma _1+Q_n\right]\nu _n$$
(4.12)
and let us write the asymptotic expansion at large $`k`$ of $`\nu _n=(\nu _n^+,\nu _n^{})`$

$$\nu _n(k)=\nu _n^{(0)}+\frac{\nu _n^{(1)}}{ik}+\mathrm{}$$
(4.13)
where, strictly speaking, the expansion of the first column is performed for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}>0`$ while the expansion of the second one is performed for $`k_{\mathrm{Im}}<0`$. Inserting this expansion into (4.12) and taking into account that, according to (3.72) and (3.77), $`\nu _n^{(0)}=1i\sigma _2`$ yields

$$Q_n=\frac{1}{2}\left[\nu _{n+1}^{(1)}\sigma _3\sigma _1\nu _n^{(1)}\right]\left(1+i\sigma _2\right).$$
(4.14)
## 5 Time evolution of spectral data

The time evolution of the Jost solutions and, consequently, of the scattering data is fixed by (2.14).

Since the matrix $`\mu _n(1+i\sigma _3k)^n`$ is a general solution of (2.13) there exists a $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t;k)`$ such that

$$\chi _n(t;k)=\mu _n(t;k)(1+i\sigma _3k)^n\mathrm{\Omega }(t;k),$$
(5.1)
satisfies both (2.13) and (2.14).

Inserting (5.1) into (2.14), if $`\theta _nr\pi `$ ($`r`$) for $`n\pm \mathrm{}`$, by evaluating the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ we get, recalling (3.28),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t;k)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\sigma _3\frac{\eta \gamma }{k}t\right)$$
(5.2)
where $`\eta =(1)^r`$.

Then, we evaluate the limit for $`n+\mathrm{}`$ by using (3.86) and we obtain the time evolution of spectral data ($`k=k_{\mathrm{Re}}`$)

$$b_t^\pm (k)=\frac{2i\eta \gamma }{ki0\eta \gamma t}b^\pm (k),a_t^\pm (k)=0$$
(5.3)
i.e.

$$b^\pm (k,t)=b^\pm (k,0)e^{2i\frac{\eta \gamma }{k}t},a^\pm (k,t)=a^\pm (k,0).$$
(5.4)
For the discrete spectral data one gets that the locations of poles at $`k=k_j^\pm `$ are fixed while

$$C_j^\pm (t)=C_j^\pm (0)e^{2i\frac{\eta \gamma }{k_j^\pm }t}.$$
(5.5)
Notice that the switching on of the time evolution introduces a singularity at $`k=0`$. One can prove that this does not spoil the good properties of the spectral transform. In the following section where the matrix spectral problem is reduced to a scalar problem this will be shown explicitly.

## 6 Lax triplet

### 6.1 Semi-discrete case

We can write the spectral problem (3.1) in component-form and decouple the two equations to get

$`\chi _{n+2}^{(1)}`$ $`=g_n\chi _{n+1}^{(1)}(1+k^2)\chi _n^{(1)}`$ (6.1)
$`\chi _n^{(2)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ik}}\left[\chi _{n+1}^{(1)}e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n)}\chi _n^{(1)}\right]`$ (6.2)
with

$$g_n=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n)}+e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+2}\theta _{n+1})}$$
(6.3)
i.e. we recover the discrete Schrödinger equation whose scattering theory was given in . In this case the time evolution is fixed by the pair of spectral problems

$`k^2_t\chi _n^{(1)}`$ $`=\gamma e^{i\theta _n}\chi _{n+1}^{(1)}+\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{n+1}+\theta _n\right)}\chi _n^{(1)}`$ (6.4)
$`_t\chi _{n+1}^{(1)}`$ $`=e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n\right)}_t\chi _n^{(1)}+\gamma e^{i\theta _{n+1}}\chi _n^{(1)}.`$ (6.5)
The compatibility requirement for the three spectral problems (6.1 ), (6.4) and (6.5) furnishes after one integration the semi-discrete sine-Gordon equation (2.12).

Note that, if we introduce

$$\alpha _n=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1}\theta _n)},$$
(6.6)
the equation defining $`g_n`$ can be rewritten as

$$g_n=\alpha _{n+1}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n},$$
(6.7)
that can be considered as a discrete Riccati equation, which can be solved for $`\alpha _n`$ in terms of a continuous fraction of $`g_n`$ (see ).

Note also that for $`\theta _n`$ vanishing at large $`n`$ ($`\mathrm{mod}\pi `$) we have from (6.3) that $`g_n20`$ and the spectral theory developed in  is applicable. However, the condition required to be satisfied by $`g_n2`$ in  is stricter than (3.48).

We conclude that the Orfanidis matrix spectral problem can be reduced to a scalar Schrödinger spectral problem if the potential $`\theta _n0`$ ($`\mathrm{mod}\pi `$) sufficiently rapidly.

### 6.2 Time evolution of spectral data

The evolution of the spectral data can be determined by considering the first and the third Lax operators, i.e. the spectral problem (6.1) and (6.4).

In order to meet the notations used in  we introduce the eigenfunction as follows

$$\chi _n^{(1)}(k)=(1+ik)^n\xi _n(k).$$
(6.8)
The principal spectral problem (6.1) reads

$$(1+ik)\xi _{n+2}+(1ik)\xi _n=g_n\xi _{n+1}$$
(6.9)
while the auxiliary spectral problem (6.4) becomes

$$k^2_t\xi _n=\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1}+\theta _n)}\xi _n(1+ik)\gamma e^{i\theta _n}\xi _{n+1}.$$
(6.10)
We need the Jost solution $`\mu _n^+(k)`$ introduced in , which is analytic in the upper half-plane and is defined via the following discrete integral equation

$$\mu _n^+(k)=1\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left[1\left(\frac{1+ik}{1ik}\right)^{jn}\right](g_{j1}2)\mu _j^+(k)$$
(6.11)
and which has the following asymptotic behaviour for $`n+\mathrm{}`$

$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _n^+(k)=1,k_{\mathrm{Im}}0$$
(6.12)
and for $`n\mathrm{}`$

$$\mu _n^+(k)a^+(k)+\left(\frac{1ik}{1+ik}\right)^nb^+(k),k_{\mathrm{Im}}=0$$
(6.13)
where $`a^+(k)`$ is the inverse of the transmission coefficient and $`b^+(k)`$ is the reflection coefficient.

Then we look for a solution of (6.10) of the form

$$\xi _n(t;k)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t;k)\mu _n^+(t;k)$$
(6.14)
If we substitute (6.14) into (6.10), we get

$$k^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_t\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mu _n^++_t\mu _n^+\right]=\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1}+\theta _n)}\mu _n^+(1+ik)\gamma e^{i\theta _n}\mu _{n+1}^+.$$
(6.15)
If $`\theta _nr\pi `$ ($`r`$) for $`n\pm \mathrm{}`$, taking into account the asymptotic behaviour of $`\mu _n^+`$ as $`n+\mathrm{}`$ we get, first,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_t\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\frac{i\eta \gamma }{k+i0\eta \gamma t},\eta =(1)^r$$
(6.16)
and, then, by considering the limit for $`n\mathrm{}`$ ($`k_{\mathrm{Im}}=0`$) the evolution equation for the spectral data

$`a_t^+(k)`$ $`=0`$ (6.17)
$`b_t^+(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2i\eta \gamma }{ki0\eta \gamma t}}b^+(k),`$ (6.18)
which can be trivially integrated to

$`a(t;k)`$ $`=a(0;k)`$ (6.19)
$`b(t;k)`$ $`=b(0;k)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2i\eta \gamma }{k}}t\right].`$ (6.20)
Let us now study in details the behaviour of the Jost solutions at $`k=0`$ when the time is switched on. For the sake of simplicity, let us take $`\eta \gamma =1`$, i.e. let us scale the time.

In  the Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem defining the Jost solutions was given as

$`\mu _n^{}(t;k)`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}(t;s)\rho ^+(t,s)}{sk+i0}}𝑑s`$ (6.21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^+(t;k)}{a^+(k)}}`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}(t;s)\rho ^+(t,s)}{ski0}}𝑑s.`$ (6.22)
For the sake of simplicity, we omit a possible contribution from the discrete part of the spectrum. It can be added without difficulty along the same lines followed for the Orfanidis spectral problem.

For convenience we introduce

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(k)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(k)_t\xi _n^{}(k)=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(k)\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(k)\mu _n^{}(k)\right]_t`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k+i0t}}\mu _n^{}(k)+_t\mu _n^{}(k).`$ (6.23)
Deriving (6.21) with respect to time we have

$`_t\mu _n^{}(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}(s)\rho ^+(s)}{sk+i0}}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{si0t}}𝑑s`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_t\mu _n^{}(s)\right)\rho ^+(s)}{sk+i0}}𝑑s`$ (6.24)
and therefore

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k+i0t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n^{}(s)\rho ^+(s)}{sk+i0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{si0t}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k+i0t}}\right)𝑑s`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1is}{1+is}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n(s)\rho ^+(s)}{sk+i0}}.`$ (6.25)
Since

$$\frac{1}{si0t}\frac{1}{k+i0t}=\frac{ks}{\left(k+i0t\right)\left(si0t\right)}$$
(6.26)
we have finally

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(k)=\frac{1}{k+i0t}S_n(t)+\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left(\frac{1is}{1+is}\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_n(s)\rho ^+(s)}{sk+i0}$$
(6.27)
where

$$S_n(t)=1+\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left(\frac{1is}{1+is}\right)^n\frac{\mu _n^{}(s)\rho ^+(s)}{si0t}=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mu _n^+(0)}{a^+(0)}\text{for }t>0\\ \mu _n^{}(0)\text{for }t<0\end{array}.$$
(6.28)
In order to study the singularity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(k)`$ at $`k=0`$ one can try to solve the integral equation by iteration and see at each step how the singularity $`1/\left(ki0t\right)`$ is transformed.

Let us first consider the case $`t>0`$. Iterating once yields an integral equation that contains the distribution

$$\frac{1}{si0}\frac{1}{sk+i0}=\frac{1}{ki0}\left(\frac{1}{sk+i0}\frac{1}{si0}\right).$$
(6.29)
Therefore in this case the iteration renormalizes the coefficient of the singularity $`1/\left(ki0t\right)`$ but does not change the nature of the singularity at $`k=0`$.

Let us now consider the case $`t<0`$. In this case in iterating we get in the integral

$$\frac{1}{s+i0}\frac{1}{sk+i0}$$
(6.30)
which is a distribution continuous at $`k=0.`$ Therefore in this case we can conclude that the singularity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(k)`$ can be singled out and it is just

$$\frac{i}{ki0t}\mu _n^{}(0).$$
(6.31)
Recalling the definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ we conclude that, for $`t<0`$, $`_t\mu _n^{}(k)`$, thanks to the continuity of $`\mu _n^{}(k)`$ at $`k=0`$, is less singular than $`1/k`$.

In conclusion, $`k_t\mu _n^{}(k)`$ and, therefore, $`k^2_t\xi _n^{}(k)`$ appearing in the auxiliary spectral problem, are continuous at $`k=0`$. Analogously of course for $`k_t\mu _n^+(k)`$ and $`k^2_t\xi _n^+(k)`$. They are, however, discontinuous at $`t=0`$, i.e. $`g_n(t)`$ and, consequently, $`\theta _n(t)`$ evolve according to different laws for $`t0`$, which is not surprising since the sine-Gordon equation is not an evolution equation.

### 6.3 Doubly discrete case

Analogously in the system of the two spectral problems (2.1) and (2.2) the two components $`\chi _{n,m}^{(1)}`$ and $`\chi _{n,m}^{(2)}`$ of $`\chi _{n,m}`$ can be decoupled. Of course $`\chi _{n,m}^{(1)}`$ satisfy the same discrete version of the Schrödinger spectral problem as $`\chi _n^{(1)}`$, i.e.

$$\chi _{n+2,m}^{(1)}=g_{n,m}\chi _{n+1,m}^{(1)}(1+k^2)\chi _{n,m}^{(1)}$$
(6.32)
where

$$g_{n,m}=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1,m}\theta _{n,m})}+e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+2,m}\theta _{n+1,m})},$$
(6.33)
while the time evolution is fixed by the couple of spectral problems

$`k^2\chi _{n,m+1}^{(1)}`$ $`=\left(k^2+\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1,m}+\theta _{n,m+1})}\right)\chi _{n,m}^{(1)}\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m})}\chi _{n+1,m}^{(1)}`$ (6.34)
$`\chi _{n+1,m+1}^{(1)}`$ $`=\chi _{n+1,m}^{(1)}+e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1,m+1}\theta _{n,m+1})}\chi _{n,m+1}^{(1)}`$
$`+\left(\gamma e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n,m+1}+\theta _{n,m})}e^{\frac{i}{2}(\theta _{n+1,m}\theta _{n,m})}\right)\chi _{n,m}^{(1)}.`$ (6.35)
The compatibility among the three spectral problems (6.32), (6.34) and (6.35) furnishes, after an integration, the Hirota-Bianchi doubly discrete sine-Gordon equation.

### 6.4 Time evolution of spectral data

Following a procedure analogous to that followed in the semi-discrete case we look for a solution of (6.34) of the form

$$\xi _{n,m}(k)=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(k)\mu _{n,m}^+(k)(1+ik)^n$$
(6.36)
where $`\mu _{n,m}^+(k)`$ is the Jost solution introduced in . Taking into account the asymptotic behaviours (6.12) and (6.13), if $`\theta _{n,m}r\pi `$ ($`r`$) for $`n\pm \mathrm{}`$, we obtain, respectively, for $`n+\mathrm{}`$ the time evolution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{m+1}(k)\mathrm{\Omega }_m^1(k)=1\frac{i\eta \gamma }{k}$$
(6.37)
and for $`n\mathrm{}`$ the time evolution of the spectral data ($`k_{\mathrm{Im}}=0`$)

$`a_{m+1}(k)=a_m(k)`$ (6.38)
$`b_{m+1}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{(\eta \gamma ik)}{(\eta \gamma +ik)}}b_m(k)`$ (6.39)
where $`\eta `$ is defined as above.

If we introduce

$$a_m=a(t+\tau m),b_m=b(t+\tau m),t=n\tau ,$$
(6.40)
change the constant $`\gamma `$ as follows

$$\gamma \tau \gamma $$
(6.41)
and take the limit $`\tau 0`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$ at $`t`$ fixed we recover, as expected, the time evolution of the spectral data for the semi-discrete sine-Gordon equation.

### 6.5 Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by PRIN 2000 “Sintesi” and was performed in the framework of the INTAS project 99-1782. The authors acknowledge useful critical remarks by an anonymous referee.