format: text

text:
# 𝐾_{𝑙3} transition form factors

## I Introduction

The central unknown quantity required for reliable calculations of weak decay amplitudes are the hadronic matrix elements. In this respect, the semileptonic $`K_{l3}`$ decay is an interesting process: pseudoscalar mesons are well-understood as Goldstone bosons, only the vector part of the weak interaction is involved, and there are experimental data available which allows one to judge various theoretical (model) calculations. These calculations generally fall into two different classes: effective theories using meson degrees of freedom, e.g. chiral perturbation theory , and models employing quark and gluon degrees of freedom, e.g. constituent quark models  and the Dyson–Schwinger approach .

In particular, the light-front approach has been a popular framework for a Hamiltonian approach to analyze exclusive hadronic processes , and the pseudoscalar-to-pseudoscalar weak transition form factors have been studied within a light-front constituent quark model in Ref. . One complication of the light-front formalism is that in the analysis of timelike exclusive processes one needs to take into account light-front nonvalence contributions, which are absent in a manifestly Poincarè invariant approach. Recently, an effective treatment has been presented  to incorporate such contributions, and a systematic program has been laid out  to take into account the nonvalence contributions. However, the systematic program explicitly requires all higher Fock-state components while there has been relatively little progress in computing the basic wave-functions of hadrons from first principles. Furthermore, the (nonperturbative) dressing of the quark-W vertex and the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking are yet underdeveloped aspects in this approach. In particular the latter aspect needs to be seriously considered for processes involving pions and kaons, which are the pseudo-Goldstone bosons associated with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking .

In this work we use the set of Dyson–Schwinger equations \[DSEs\] to calculate the $`K_{l3}`$ transition form factors. The DSEs provide us with a manifestly covariant approach which is consistent with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking , electromagnetic current conservation , and quark and gluon confinement . For recent reviews on the DSE and its application to hadron physics, see Refs. . Our calculation of the $`K_{l3}`$ transition form factors is analogous to recent calculations of the pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors in impulse approximation . Here we demonstrate that in the same framework, with a consistent dressing of the quark-W vertex, we can also describe the semileptonic decay of both the neutral and charged kaons, without any readjustment of the model parameters. In Sec. II we review the formulation that underlies a description of the meson form factors within a modeling of QCD through the DSEs, and discuss the details of the model. In Sec. III we present our numerical results for the form factors and decay widths. A discussion of our results is given in Sec. IV.

## II Meson form factors within the DSE approach

The matrix elements describing kaon semileptonic decays are

$`J_\mu ^{K^+}(P,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^0(p)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu u|K^+(k)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(f_+(Q^2)P_\mu +f_{}(Q^2)Q_\mu \right),`$ (2)
for the charged kaon, and for the neutral kaon

$`J_\mu ^{K^0}(P,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}(p)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu u|K^0(k)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`f_+(Q^2)P_\mu +f_{}(Q^2)Q_\mu ,`$ (4)
where $`P_\mu =(p+k)_\mu `$ and $`Q_\mu =(kp)_\mu `$, with $`PQ=m_\pi ^2m_k^2`$ for on-shell pions and kaons***We employ a Euclidean space formulation with $`Q^2<0`$ for timelike vectors, $`\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu =2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\gamma _\mu ^{}=\gamma _\mu `$.. Alternatively, we can decompose $`J_\mu ^{K^0}`$ into its transverse and longitudinal components

$`J_\mu ^{K^0}(P,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+(Q^2)T_{\mu \nu }(Q)P_\nu +f_0(Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{PQ}{Q^2}}Q_\mu ,`$ (5)
with $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ the transverse projection operator

$`T_{\mu \nu }(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mu Q_\nu }{Q^2}}\right).`$ (6)
In the isospin-symmetric limit, which we employ here, the form factors $`f_\pm (t=Q^2)`$ and $`f_0(t)`$ are the same for the $`K^+`$ and the $`K^0`$.

In impulse approximation, these matrix elements are given by

$`J_\mu ^{K^0}(P,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[S^d(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_K^{d\overline{s}}(q,qk)S^s(qk)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}(qk,qp)S^u(qp)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\pi ^{u\overline{d}}(qp,q)\right]},`$ (7)
where $`S^f`$ is the dressed quark propagator with flavor index $`f`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi (K)}`$ the pion (kaon) Bethe–Salpeter amplitude \[BSA\], and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}`$ the dressed $`s\overline{u}W`$ vertex, each satisfying their own DSE. Note that the coupling constant and the CKM matrix element $`V_{us}`$ are removed from the definition of the quark-W vertex.

### A Dyson–Schwinger Equations

The DSE for the renormalized quark propagator in Euclidean space is

$`S(p)^1`$ $`=`$ $`iZ_2/p+Z_4m(\mu )+Z_1{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^a}{2}}\gamma _\mu S(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^a(q,p),`$ (8)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ is the dressed-gluon propagator, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^a(q;p)`$ the dressed-quark-gluon vertex, and $`k=pq`$. The most general solution of Eq. (8) has the form $`S(p)^1=i/pA(p^2)+B(p^2)`$ and is renormalized at spacelike $`\mu ^2`$ according to $`A(\mu ^2)=1`$ and $`B(\mu ^2)=m(\mu )`$ with $`m(\mu )`$ the current quark mass. The notation $`^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ represents a translationally invariant regularization of the integral with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the regularization mass-scale; at the end of all calculations this regularization scale can be removed.

Mesons can be studied by solving the homogeneous Bethe–Salpeter equation \[BSE\] for $`q^a\overline{q}^b`$ bound states, with $`a`$ and $`b`$ flavor indices,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^{a\overline{b}}(p_+,p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}K(p,q;Q)S^a(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^{a\overline{b}}(q_+,q_{})S^b(q_{}),`$ (9)
where $`p_+=p+\eta Q`$ and $`p_{}=p(1\eta )Q`$ are the outgoing and incoming quark momenta respectively, and similarly for $`q_\pm `$. The kernel $`K`$ is the renormalized, amputated $`q\overline{q}`$ scattering kernel that is irreducible with respect to a pair of $`q\overline{q}`$ lines. This equation has solutions at discrete values of $`Q^2=m_H^2`$, where $`m_H`$ is the meson mass. Together with the canonical normalization condition for $`q\overline{q}`$ bound states, it completely determines $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$, the bound state BSA. The different types of mesons, such as (pseudo-)scalar, (axial-)vector, and tensor mesons, are characterized by different Dirac structures. The most general decomposition for pseudoscalar bound states is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{PS}(k_+,k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5[iE(k^2;kQ;\eta )+/QF(k^2;kQ;\eta )+/kG(k^2;kQ;\eta )+\sigma _{\mu \nu }Q_\mu k_\nu H(k^2;kQ;\eta )],`$ (10)
where the invariant amplitudes $`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are Lorentz scalar functions of $`k^2`$ and $`kQ`$. Note that these amplitudes explicitly depend on the momentum partitioning parameter $`\eta `$. However, so long as Poincaré invariance is respected, the resulting physical observables are independent of this parameter .

In order to describe weak (and electromagnetic) form factors one also needs the dressed $`q\overline{q}W`$ (and $`q\overline{q}\gamma `$) vertices. These vertices satisfy an inhomogeneous BSE: e.g. the $`s\overline{u}W`$ vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{u\overline{s}W}(p_+,p_{})`$ satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}(p_+,p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2(\gamma _\mu \gamma _\mu \gamma _5)+{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}K(p,q;Q)S^s(q_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}(q_+,q_{})S^s(q_{}).`$ (11)
### B Model Truncation

To solve the BSE, we use a ladder truncation, with an effective quark-antiquark interaction that reduces to the perturbative running coupling at large momenta

$$K(p,q;P)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)\frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^i}{2}\gamma _\nu ,$$
(12)
where $`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k=pq)`$ is the free gluon propagator in Landau gauge. The corresponding rainbow truncation of the quark DSE, Eq. (8), is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^i(q,p)\gamma _\nu \lambda ^i/2`$ together with $`Z_1g^2D_{\mu \nu }(k)𝒢(k^2)D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{free}}(k)`$. This combination of rainbow and ladder truncation preserves both the vector and axial-vector Ward–Takahashi identities. This ensures that pions are (almost) massless Goldstone bosons associated with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking ; in combination with impulse approximation for meson form factors, Eq. (7), it also ensures current conservation. Furthermore, this truncation was found to be particularly suitable for the flavor octet pseudoscalar and vector mesons since the next-order contributions in a quark-gluon skeleton graph expansion, have a significant amount of cancellation between repulsive and attractive corrections .

The model is completely specified once a form is chosen for the “effective coupling” $`𝒢(k^2)`$. We employ the Ansatz

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(k^2)}{k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2Dk^2}{\omega ^6}}\mathrm{e}^{k^2/\omega ^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\gamma _m(k^2)}{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau +\left(1+k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)^2\right]}},`$ (13)
with $`\gamma _m=12/(332N_f)`$ and $`(s)=(1\mathrm{exp}\frac{s}{4m_t^2})/s`$. The ultraviolet behavior is chosen to be that of the QCD running coupling $`\alpha (k^2)`$; the ladder-rainbow truncation then generates the correct perturbative QCD structure of the DSE-BSE system of equations. The first term implements the strong infrared enhancement in the region $`0<k^2<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ phenomenologically required  to produce a realistic value for the chiral condensate. We use $`m_t=0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\tau =\mathrm{e}^21`$, $`N_f=4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.234\mathrm{GeV}`$, and a renormalization scale $`\mu =19\mathrm{GeV}`$ which is well into the perturbative domain . The remaining parameters, $`\omega =0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`D=0.93\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ along with the quark masses, are fitted to give a good description of the chiral condensate, $`m_{\pi /K}`$ and $`f_\pi `$.

Within this model, the quark propagator reduces to the perturbative propagator in the ultraviolet region. However, in the infrared region both the wave function renormalization $`Z(p^2)=1/A(p^2)`$ and the dynamical mass function $`M(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)`$ deviate significantly from the perturbative behavior, due to chiral symmetry breaking. It is interesting to note that the typical results obtained using the rainbow DSE, a significant enhancement of $`M(p^2)`$ below $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and also an enhancement of $`A(p^2)`$, have recently been confirmed by lattice simulations ; with the present ladder DSE model, the functions $`Z`$ and $`M`$ are in semiquantitative agreement with the forms obtained in lattice simulations .

The vector meson masses and electroweak decay constants one obtains in this model are in good agreement with experiments . Without any readjustment of the parameters, one gets remarkable agreement with the most recent Jlab data for $`F_\pi `$ , and also for other electromagnetic charge radii and form factors . The strong decays of the vector mesons into a pair of pseudoscalar mesons are also well-described within this model . Here we apply the same approach to the kaon semileptonic decay.

## III Numerical results

To calculate the form factors $`f_\pm (t)`$, we start by solving the quark DSE in rainbow approximation, and subsequently use its solution to solve the homogeneous BSE, Eq. (9), for the pseudoscalar bound states, and the inhomogeneous BSE, Eq. (11), for the quark-W vertex, using the ladder truncation, Eq. (12). With these BS amplitudes and quark propagators, we then calculate the form factors in impulse approximation using Eq. (7). In the SU(3) flavor limit, $`f_+=F_\pi `$, the pion electromagnetic form factor, and $`f_{}=0`$. We therefore expect $`f_+`$ to be of order one for small $`t`$. On the other hand, $`f_{}`$, which is a measure of the constituent mass ratio $`M_s/M_u`$ , is expected to be significantly smaller. This expectation is indeed confirmed by our calculations, see Fig. 1.

In the physical region, $`m_l^2<t<(m_Km_\pi )^20.13\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, our results for $`f_\pm (t)`$ are almost linear. The experimental data are often analyzed in terms of $`f_+`$ and $`f_0`$, using a linear parametrisation

$`f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`f(0)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_\pi ^2}}t\right).`$ (14)
Such a linear parametrisation for both $`f_+`$ and $`f_0`$ implies that $`f_{}`$ is independent of $`t`$, since $`f_0`$ is related to $`f_\pm `$ via

$`f_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_+(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}}f_{}(t).`$ (15)
To within a few percent, $`f_{}`$ is indeed almost constant in the physical region, $`0<t<0.13\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, as can be seen from Fig. 1. Our results are summarized in Table I, where we have included a slope parameter $`\lambda `$ for $`f_{}(t)`$ as well.

Our results agree quite well with the available data for $`f_+(t)`$, see Fig. 2. Also the results for other observables compare reasonably well with the experimental data, given the error bars, and the differences between the form factor parameters extracted from the charged and the neutral kaon decay, see Table I. The partial decay width for $`K\pi e\nu _e`$ and $`K\pi \mu \nu _\mu `$ is obtained by integrating the decay rate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F|V_{us}|^2}{24\pi ^3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{t}}\right)^2K(t)\left[K^2(t)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_l^2}{2t}}\right)|f_+(t)|^2+m_K^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{3m_l^2}{8t}}|f_0(t)|^2\right],`$ (16)
where

$`K(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_K}}\left((m_K^2+m_\pi ^2t)^24m_K^2m_\pi ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (17)
and $`m_l`$ is the lepton mass. Again, we find good agreement with the data, see Table I.

For comparison, we have also included the results from some other model calculations  and from 1-loop chiral perturbation theory . Our results compare quite well with chiral perturbation theory, not only for the slope parameters, but also for the curvature of the form factors. A prediction from current algebra is the value of $`f_0(t)`$ at the Callan–Treiman point, $`t=m_K^2m_\pi ^2`$, namely $`f_K/f_\pi =1.22`$. The reason we get $`f_0(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)=1.18`$ instead of $`1.22`$ is related to our value of $`f_K`$: we obtain $`f_K=109\mathrm{MeV}`$ in our model , compared to the experimental value $`113\mathrm{MeV}`$. Because our approach satisfies constraints coming from current conservation and the axial-vector Ward–Takahashi identity, it is not surprising that we indeed agree with these predictions from chiral perturbation theory.

Outside the physical region, $`f_\pm (t)`$ and $`f_0(t)`$ are clearly not linear, as shown in Fig. 3. In the region we considered, our result for $`f_+(t)`$ is very well approximated by a monopole, with monopole mass $`m^2=0.87\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The reason for this monopole behavior is easy to understand: the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}`$ has a resonance peak in its transverse vector components at the $`K^{}`$ mass, because the homogeneous version of Eq. (11) has a solution at $`Q^2=m_K^{}^2`$, corresponding to the $`K^{}`$ vector meson. The longitudinal part of the quark-W vertex has a resonance peak at the location of the $`u\overline{s}`$ scalar bound state. We tentatively identify this with the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ meson; however, in contrast to vector states, the use of ladder approximation is expected to be inadequate for scalars . Near these bound states, the vertex behaves like

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}(p_+,p_{};Q)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\text{regular}}(p_+,p_{};Q)+{\displaystyle \frac{r_VT_{\mu \nu }(Q)}{Q^2+m_K^{}^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^K^{}(p_+,p_{};Q)+{\displaystyle \frac{r_SQ_\mu }{Q^2+m_{K_0^{}}^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{K_0^{}}(p_+,p_{};Q),`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{K_0^{}}`$ are the bound state BSAs, and $`r_V`$ and $`r_S`$ the residues of the vertex at these poles . In our model we have actual poles in the quark-W vertex, rather than resonance peaks, because we have not included meson loop corrections in our kernel, and therefore we do not generate a width for the $`K^{}`$ nor the $`K_0^{}`$. In the spacelike region and at small timelike $`t=Q^2`$ we expect these corrections to be small. However, they will modify our results significantly close to the resonance peak.

As can be seen from Eq. (7), these poles in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{s\overline{u}W}`$ lead a similar behavior of $`J_\mu ^{K^0}`$ near these poles. From Eq. (5) it is clear that the vector meson pole leads to a pole in $`f_+(t)`$, but not in $`f_0(t)`$, whereas the scalar meson induces a pole in $`f_0(t)`$ but not in $`f_+(t)`$

$`f_0(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mu J_\mu ^{K^0}}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}},`$ (19)
$`f_+(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(Q^2P_\mu +(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)Q_\mu \right)J_\mu ^{K^0}}{Q^2P^2(m_K^2m_\pi ^2)^2}}.`$ (20)
Note that $`f_{}(t)`$ will in general be sensitive to both the scalar and the vector meson bound state.

The present model has a vector bound state at $`t=0.876\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (cf. the experimental mass $`m_K^{}^2=0.796\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Thus the monopole behavior of the form factor $`f_+(t)`$ in Fig. 3 simply reflects the existence of this pole. A similar behavior was found in the pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors . The physical $`f_+(t)`$ can be expected to rise more slowly with $`t`$ than our present calculations due to meson loop corrections, and will develop a nonzero imaginary part above the threshold for intermediate $`\pi K`$ states.

The scalar form factor $`f_0(t)`$ does also exhibit the expected pole behavior, and we are able to identify the scalar and the vector poles separately, see Fig. 3. The lowest $`u\overline{s}`$ scalar bound state in this model has a mass of $`m^2=0.80\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, which is rather low compared to the $`K_0^{}(1430)`$ with a mass $`m^2=2.04\mathrm{GeV}^2`$; on the other hand, it could be an indication that there exists a light scalar resonance $`\kappa (900)`$, as has been speculated . Something similar happens in in the $`u/d`$ quark sector: in rainbow-ladder truncation, one typically finds a scalar $`u/d`$ bound state around $`m=0.6`$ to $`0.7\mathrm{GeV}`$ , just below the $`\rho `$ mass. This bound state could either correspond to a broad $`\sigma `$, or to the $`f_0`$ and/or $`a_0`$, in which case the calculated mass is about 30 to 40% too low. It is known that the leading perturbative corrections to the ladder kernel cancel to a large extent in both the pseudoscalar and vector channel, but not in the scalar channel; we therefore expect in the scalar channel significant repulsive corrections to the ladder kernel which could increase the mass of the scalar bound state . We also expect meson loop corrections to be more important in the scalar channel than in the vector channel. Therefore, our calculation for $`f_0(t)`$ should not be trusted quantitatively in the timelike region beyond the Callan–Treiman point, $`t=0.23\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

In the spacelike asymptotic region $`f_+`$ and $`f_0`$ seem to behave differently: a monopole fit does not work for $`f_0`$. In order to fit $`f_0`$, we either need to add a nonzero constant, or use at least two monopoles. Simple power counting indicates that $`J_\mu ^{K^0}`$ scales like $`1/Q`$; inserting this behavior in Eqs. (19) and (20) implies that $`f_+(t)`$ falls like $`1/t`$, but $`f_0(t)`$ goes to a constant (up to logarithmic corrections) at large spacelike $`t`$ (remember that $`P`$ scales like $`Q`$ in the asymptotic region). This behavior of $`f_+`$ agrees with the pQCD predictions for the electromagnetic pion and kaon form factor ; the behavior of $`f_0`$ can be understood if one realizes that the combination $`f_0(t)\frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{t}`$ does fall like $`1/t`$ if $`f_0(t)`$ goes to a constant.

## IV Discussion

Using the rainbow-ladder truncation of the set of DSEs with a model for the effective quark-antiquark interaction that has been fitted to the chiral condensate and $`f_\pi `$, we study the $`K_{l3}`$ decay in impulse approximation. Our results, both for the form factors and for the decay width, are in good agreement with experimental data, without any readjustment of the parameters; they also compare quite well with chiral perturbation theory. Note however that in chiral perturbation theory the pion charge radius is used as input, in order to fix a low-energy constant, which is important for these form factors as well, in particular for $`\lambda _+`$. In our calculation, the only model parameters are in the infrared behavior of the effective quark-antiquark interaction, which were fitted to the chiral condensate and the pion decay constant ; the pion charge radius follows from a calculation similar to the one presented here for the $`K_{l3}`$ decay .

Our approach is based on previous work by Kalinovsky et al. , and the results are quite similar. However, an important difference with this earlier study is that we dress the quark-W vertex by solving the inhomogeneous BSE for this vertex. The main advantage of doing so is that we thus automatically include effects coming from intermediate vector and scalar mesons. Another difference is that here we use actual solutions of a DSE for the propagators and BS amplitudes in Eq. (7), rather than phenomenological parametrisations, which reduces the number of parameters in the calculation.

We have demonstrated explicitly that both $`f_+(t)`$ and $`f_0(t)`$ exhibit resonance peaks in the timelike region due to the existence of vector and scalar bound states respectively. The effects of meson loops are not included in our present calculation, which is why we find a pole behavior rather than a resonance peak. In Ref.  it was already demonstrated that non-analytic effects from such loops could contribute significantly to the behavior of the form factors, not only beyond the threshold for $`\pi K`$ production, but also in the physical region. We hope to be able to incorporate these effects in future work.

Our results are also similar to those obtained recently by Ji and Choi  in a light-front calculation, at least for $`f_+(t)`$, which dominates this decay, even though details of the calculation are quite different. In light-front calculations of timelike processes one has to include particle-number-nonconserving Fock states to recover the Lorentz covariance, which complicates the calculation . Since our approach is manifestly covariant, such contributions are automatically included in our impulse approximation. Another difference is that we use momentum-dependent quark self-energies, consistent with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, whereas in Ref.  constituent quarks with fixed masses are used. Recently, the effects of a running quark mass (instead of a fixed constituent mass) have been explored in a light-front calculation of the pion form factor . It would be interesting to see the effect of such a running mass on the $`K_{l3}`$ form factors, in particular on $`f_{}(t)`$, which in general appears to be quite sensitive to details of the calculation.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank P.C. Tandy, C.D. Roberts, K. Maltman, S.R. Cotanch, and H. Choi for stimulating discussions and useful suggestions. This work was supported by the US DOE under grants No. DE-FG02-96ER40947 and DE-FG02-97ER41048, and benefited from the resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.


text:
# Utility of 𝑠𝑢(1,1)-Algebra in a Schematic Nuclear 𝑠𝑢(2)-Model

## 1 Introduction

One of the recent interests in nuclear theory is to investigate so-called thermal effect in nucleus and the dissipative process of the collective motion based on the quantum many-body theory or the quantum field theory. To deal with the thermal effects in the quantum field theory, it is well known that there are some methods such as the imaginary-time formalism, the real-time formalism in thermo field dynamics and so on. Four of the present authors (Y.T., J.P., A.K. & M.Y.) have proposed a method to describe the thermal effects and dissipation in many-body systems. As for the description of the thermal effects in quantum many-particle systems, one of the key points in our formalism is to use the mixed-mode coherent state, which we have defined in the series of our papers, as a trial state in the time-dependent variational approach. Furthermore, we learned that the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure which the Hamiltonian has in the system under consideration plays an essential role when the non-equilibrium time-evolution and/or the dissipative process are realized in the quantum many-particle systems. Usually, so-called phase space doubling is carried out in order that the Hamiltonian has the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure. However, in general, the degree of freedom introduced by the phase space doubling cannot be interpreted as the environment or heat bath. We have given a formalism to describe the thermal effects and dissipation in a system in which the relevant and the irrelevant degrees of freedom interact each other and the irrelevant degree of freedom can be regarded as the environment. Further, we have shown that the boson mapping theory presents the powerful technique to find the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic behavior in the system governed by the $`su(2)`$-algebra. The recent review of the series of our work is seen in Ref.?

In this paper, we apply the above-mentioned formulation to the nuclear $`su(2)`$-model which interacts with the environment represented by a harmonic oscillator. Main purpose in this paper is to show the utility of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra. As was mentioned previously, with the help of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure, we will find the possibility of the description of the dissipative process. We are restricted ourselves in this paper to the zero temperature system. Namely, we will adopt a coherent state as a trial state instead of the mixed-mode coherent state in the time-dependent variational principle. Further, the exact solution for the time-dependent variational equation of motion will be obtained with the help of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra. It is shown that the solution is given in terms of the elliptic function. This solution is similar to that encountered in the investigation of nuclear collective motions in the classical $`su(2)`$-models. However, the physical situation is different.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we introduce the nuclear $`su(2)`$-model interacting with a harmonic oscillator. The $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure is found by means of the Schwinger boson representation for the $`su(2)`$-algebra. The coherent state, which presents the classical counterpart of the original quantum many-body system, is introduced in §3. By the use of the canonicity conditions, the state is parameterized in terms of the canonical variables. Thus, it is shown that the equations of motion derived by the time-dependent variational principle are nothing but the canonical equations of motion. In §4, the equation of motion is solved in a certain case, and it is shown that the solution is expressed in terms of Jacobi’s elliptic function. The implication to the dissipative process is discussed in §5. The last section is devoted to a concluding remarks.

## 2 Nuclear $`su(2)`$-model and the construction of $`su(1,1)`$-algebra

Let us start with the following Hamiltonian :

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega \left(a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+2ϵ\widehat{S}_0G\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}(\widehat{S}_+^2+\widehat{S}_{}^2)`$ (2.1)
$`+\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{}}(a\widehat{S}_++\widehat{S}_{}a^{}).`$
Here, $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are boson creation and annihilation operators, respectively, and the set $`(\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_\pm )`$ composes the $`su(2)`$ algebra :

$`[a,a^{}]=1,[a,\widehat{S}_{0,\pm }]=0,`$
$`[\widehat{S}_+,\widehat{S}_{}]=2\mathrm{}\widehat{S}_0,[\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_\pm ]=\pm \mathrm{}\widehat{S}_\pm .`$ (2.2)
In the case $`\omega =\chi =\gamma =0`$, this model Hamiltonian is known as that of the pairing model in which the interaction is active for particle-particle pair with coupled angular momentum being 0. In the case $`\omega =G=\gamma =0`$, this corresponds to the Lipkin model which consists of two energy-levels with the same degeneracy. The level spacing is $`2\mathrm{}ϵ`$ and the interaction is active for particle-hole pair with coupled angular momentum being 0. These are the schematic nuclear models governed by the $`su(2)`$-algebra. We call these models the nuclear $`su(2)`$-models. In the case $`G=\chi =0`$, this model is nothing but the Jaynes-Cummings model if the representation of the $`su(2)`$-algebra is adopted as the spin 1/2 one. The Jaynes-Cummings model is well known in the field of quantum optics. In general, we will regard in this paper the above model given in Eq.(2.1) as a schematic nuclear model including both the relevant and the irrelevant degree of freedom which are represented by the $`su(2)`$-generators and $`a`$-boson, respectively. Namely, this model will be regarded as a typical model that the many-body system represented by the nuclear $`su(2)`$-model interacts with the environment represented by $`a`$-boson. Other possibility to interpret this model is as follows : This model in Eq.(2.1) can be interpreted as a schematic nuclear model including both the collective and the intrinsic degree of freedom which are represented by $`a`$-boson and the $`su(2)`$-generators, respectively.

In this paper, we use the Schwinger boson representation for the $`su(2)`$-generators. The new boson operators $`(b,b^{})`$ and $`(c,c^{})`$ are introduced and the $`su(2)`$-generators are expressed in terms of these two kinds of boson operators :

$$\widehat{S}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(c^{}cb^{}b),\widehat{S}_+=\mathrm{}c^{}b,\widehat{S}_{}=\mathrm{}b^{}c.$$
(2.3)
The Casimir operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{su(2)}`$ is written as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{su(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}+\widehat{S}_{}\widehat{S}_+)=\widehat{S}(\widehat{S}+\mathrm{}),`$ (2.4)
$`\widehat{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}(c^{}c+b^{}b).`$
Further, the following operators can be also defined in terms of the original boson operators $`(a,a^{})`$ and the Schwinger boson $`(b,b^{})`$ as

$$\widehat{T}_0=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}(bb^{}+a^{}a),\widehat{T}_+=\mathrm{}b^{}a^{},\widehat{T}_{}=\mathrm{}ab.$$
(2.5)
These operators compose the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra, and the Casimir operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{su(1,1)}`$ is also defined as follows :

$`[\widehat{T}_+,\widehat{T}_{}]=2\mathrm{}\widehat{T}_0,[\widehat{T}_0,\widehat{T}_\pm ]=\pm \mathrm{}\widehat{T}_\pm ,`$ (2.6)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{su(1,1)}=\widehat{T}_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{T}_+\widehat{T}_{}+\widehat{T}_{}\widehat{T}_+)=\widehat{T}(\widehat{T}\mathrm{}),`$ (2.7)
$`\widehat{T}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}(bb^{}a^{}a).`$
It should be noted that the two algebras are not independent in this model. Actually, we can calculate the commutation relations : $`[\widehat{S},\widehat{T}_0]=[\widehat{S},\widehat{T}]=[\widehat{T},\widehat{S}_0]=0`$. However, we obtain $`[\widehat{S},\widehat{T}_\pm ]0`$ and $`[\widehat{T},\widehat{S}_\pm ]0`$.

The Hamiltonian (2.1) is then expressed by using the $`su(2)`$\- and the $`su(1,1)`$-generators together with their Casimir operators. The Hamiltonian is recast into

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_2,`$ (2.8)
$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega \left(a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+2ϵ\widehat{S}_0G\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`\omega \left(\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\right)`$
$`+2ϵ(\widehat{S}\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+\mathrm{})G(\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T})(2\widehat{S}\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+\mathrm{}),`$
$`\widehat{H}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{}}(a\widehat{S}_++\widehat{S}_{}a^{})=\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{T}_{}c^{}+c\widehat{T}_+),`$ (2.10)
$`\widehat{H}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}(\widehat{S}_+^2+\widehat{S}_{}^2).`$ (2.11)
In any case, we have the commutation relation, $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{S}]=0`$. Thus, $`\widehat{S}`$ is a constant of motion. Besides $`\widehat{S}`$, we have conserved variables in some cases : (i) If $`\chi =0`$, that is, the case of no particle-hole interaction, then $`\widehat{H}`$ does not contain $`\widehat{S}_\pm `$. Thus, we can derive $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{T}]=0`$, so that $`\widehat{T}`$ is a constant of motion in addition to $`\widehat{S}`$. (ii) If $`\gamma =0`$, that is, there is no interaction between the relevant and the irrelevant motion, then $`\widehat{H}`$ does not contain any linear term with respect to $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$. Thus, we obtain $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}]=0`$ because $`\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}=\mathrm{}a^{}a`$. Namely, we have another constant of motion $`\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}`$ in addition to $`\widehat{S}`$. (iii) If $`\chi =\gamma =0`$, then $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{T}]=[\widehat{H},\widehat{T}_0]=0`$. Thus the variables $`\widehat{T}`$ and $`\widehat{T}_0`$ are conserved independently.

In any case, the operators $`\widehat{S}`$, $`\widehat{T}`$, $`\widehat{T}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$ commute each other. However, $`\widehat{S}_0`$ is expressed in terms of the other three operators as $`\widehat{S}_0=\widehat{S}\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+\mathrm{}`$. Thus, it is enough to introduce the simultaneous eigenstate, $`|s,t,t_0`$, for $`\widehat{S}`$, $`\widehat{T}`$ and $`\widehat{T}_0`$ with the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{}s`$, $`\mathrm{}t`$ and $`\mathrm{}t_0`$, respectively. Except for the normalization constant, the eigenstate is given as

$$|s,t,t_0=(a^{})^{t_0t}(b^{})^{t_0+t1}(c^{})^{2stt_0+1}|0.$$
(2.12)
Here, $`a|0=b|0=c|0=0`$. The eigenvalue equations are written as

$`\widehat{S}|s,t,t_0=\mathrm{}s|s,t,t_0,\widehat{T}|s,t,t_0=\mathrm{}t|s,t,t_0,\widehat{T}_0|s,t,t_0=\mathrm{}t_0|s,t,t_0,`$
$`\widehat{S}_0|s,t,t_0=\mathrm{}(stt_0+1)|s,t,t_0.`$ (2.13)
As for the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra, the case $`t1/2`$ will only be treated from now on. In this case, the eigenstate $`|s,t,t_0`$ is expressed by the use of $`\widehat{S}_+`$ and $`\widehat{T}_+`$ as

$$|s,t,t_0=𝒩(\widehat{T}_+)^{t_0t}(\widehat{S}_+)^{2stt_0+1}(b^{})^{2st_0+t}|0.$$
(2.14)
Then, we can show the following relations :

$$\widehat{S}_{}(b^{})^{2st_0+t}|0=\widehat{T}_{}(b^{})^{2st_0+t}|0=0.$$
(2.15)
Therefore, $`\widehat{S}_+`$ and $`\widehat{T}_+`$ play a role of the raising operators from the state $`(b^{})^{2st_0+t}|0`$.

## 3 Construction of coherent state and classical counterpart

In the previous section, we have introduced the eigenstate with respect to the operators $`\widehat{S}`$, $`\widehat{T}`$, $`\widehat{T}_0`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$. Then, $`\widehat{S}_+`$ and $`\widehat{T}_+`$ are regarded as the raising operators. Thus, it is allowed to construct the following coherent state :

$$|c=N_c\mathrm{exp}\left(VU^1/\mathrm{}\widehat{T}_+\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(UYW^1/\mathrm{}\widehat{S}_+\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}WU^1b^{}\right)|0.$$
(3.1)
Here, $`V`$, $`W`$ and $`Y`$ are complex variables, $`U=\sqrt{1+|V|^2}`$ and $`N_c`$ is a normalization factor. The state $`|c`$ is rewritten as

$`|c`$ $`=`$ $`N_c\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}}Yc^{}+VU^1b^{}a^{}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}}WU^1b^{}\right)|0`$
$`=`$ $`|c_c|c_{ab},`$
$`|c_c=e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}|Y|^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}}Yc^{}\right)|0,`$
$`|c_{ab}=U^1e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}|W|^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(VU^1b^{}a^{}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}}WU^1b^{}\right)|0.`$
By introducing the following new operators,

$$a^{}=UaVb^{},b^{}=UbVa^{}\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}W,c^{}=c\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}Y,$$
(3.3)
it is shown that the state $`|c`$ is vacuum for $`a^{}`$, $`b^{}`$ and $`c^{}`$ :

$$a^{}|c=b^{}|c=c^{}|c=0.$$
(3.4)
Inversely, $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are expressed as

$$a=Ua^{}+Vb^{}+\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}W^{}V,b=Va^{}+Ub^{}+\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}WU,c=c^{}+\sqrt{2/\mathrm{}}Y.$$
(3.5)
By the use of the above relations, we can easily calculate the expectation values of the $`su(2)`$\- and the $`su(1,1)`$-generators and their Casimir operators. For example,

$`T=c|\widehat{T}|c=|W|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}},`$
$`S=c|\widehat{S}|c=\left(|W|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\right)|V|^2+|W|^2+|Y|^2,`$
$`T_0=c|\widehat{T}_0|c=\left(|W|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\right)\left(1+2|V|^2\right).`$ (3.6)
It is here noted that the dynamical variables are $`(V,V^{},W,W^{},Y,Y^{})`$. As is similar to the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory with canonical form, it is convenient to parameterize the coherent state in terms of canonical variables. For this purpose, we impose the following canonicity conditions :

$`c|i\mathrm{}_{\varphi _0}|c=T_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}},c|i\mathrm{}_{T_0}|c=0,`$
$`c|i\mathrm{}_\varphi |c=T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}},c|i\mathrm{}_T|c=0,`$
$`c|i\mathrm{}_\psi |c=S,c|i\mathrm{}_S|c=0.`$ (3.7)
The sets of variables $`(T_0,\varphi _0),(T,\varphi )`$ and $`(S,\psi )`$ are those of the canonical variables. The above canonicity conditions can be easily solved by the use of the following relation :

$`c|i\mathrm{}_z|c`$ $`=`$ $`i[(|W|^2+\mathrm{}/2)(V^{}_zVV_zV^{})`$ (3.8)
$`+(W^{}_zWW_zW^{})+(Y^{}_zYY_zY^{})].`$
As a result, the original variables are expressed by the canonical variables as

$`V=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T}{2T}}}e^{i\varphi _0}e^{i\psi /2},`$
$`W=\sqrt{T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}}e^{i\varphi _0/2}e^{i\varphi /2}e^{i\psi /2},`$
$`Y=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})}e^{i\psi /2}.`$ (3.9)
Thus, we can obtain the expectation values of various operators with respect to $`|c`$ in terms of the canonical variables :

$`c|\widehat{S}_0|c=ST_0T+\mathrm{},`$
$`c|\widehat{S}_+|c=\sqrt{2(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})}\sqrt{T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T_0+T}{2T}}}e^{i(\varphi _0+\varphi )/2},`$
$`c|\widehat{T}_0|c=T_0,`$
$`c|\widehat{T}_+|c=\sqrt{(T_0T)(T_0+T)}e^{i\varphi _0}e^{i\psi /2},`$
$`c|\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}|c=(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})(T_0+T),`$
$`c|a^{}a|c=(T_0T)/\mathrm{},`$
$`c|\widehat{S}_+^2|c=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2T}}\right)(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})e^{i(\varphi _0+\varphi )},`$
$`c|\widehat{S}_{}^2|c=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2T}}\right)(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})e^{i(\varphi _0+\varphi )},`$
$`c|\sqrt{\mathrm{}}a^{}\widehat{S}_{}|c=\sqrt{(T_0T)(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})}e^{i\varphi _0},`$
$`c|\sqrt{\mathrm{}}a\widehat{S}_+|c=\sqrt{(T_0T)(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})}e^{i\varphi _0}.`$ (3.10)
Thus, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian with respect to $`|c`$ is given by

$`H=c|\widehat{H}|c`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_1+H_2`$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`c|\widehat{H}_0|c=\omega (T_0T+\mathrm{}/2)+2ϵ(ST_0T+\mathrm{})`$
$`G(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})(T_0+T)`$
$`=f(T_0,T;S),`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`c|\widehat{H}_1|c=2\gamma \sqrt{(T_0T)(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0`$
$`=g(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0,`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`c|\widehat{H}_2|c=\chi (1\mathrm{}/(2T))(T_0+T)(2ST_0T+\mathrm{})\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi )`$ (3.11)
$`=h(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi ).`$
Here, $`\widehat{H}_0`$, $`\widehat{H}_1`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2`$ have been defined in Eqs.(2.9)$``$(2.11).

The equations of motion are derived from the time-dependent variational principle :

$$\delta _{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑tc|i\mathrm{}_t\widehat{H}|c=0.$$
(3.12)
With the help of the canonicity conditions (3), the derived equations of motion have the form of canonical equations of motion :

$`\dot{T}_0={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\varphi _0}}=g(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0+h(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _0+\varphi ),`$
$`\dot{\varphi }_0={\displaystyle \frac{H}{T_0}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{h(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi ),`$ (3.13)
$`\dot{T}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\varphi }}=h(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _0+\varphi ),`$
$`\dot{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{H}{T}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f(T_0,T;S)}{T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g(T_0,T;S)}{T}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{h(T_0,T;S)}{T}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi ),`$ (3.14)
$`\dot{S}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\psi }}=0,`$
$`\dot{\psi }={\displaystyle \frac{H}{S}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f(T_0,T;S)}{S}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g(T_0,T;S)}{S}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{h(T_0,T;S)}{S}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi ).`$ (3.15)
Let us consider simple cases : (i) If $`\chi =0`$, then $`h(T_0,T;S)=0`$. In this case, from Eq.(3.14), the quantity $`T`$ is conserved in addition to $`S`$. This fact is, of course, originated from the fact $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{T}]=0`$ mentioned in §2. It is thus necessary to solve the time-evolution of $`T_0`$ :

$`\dot{T}_0=g(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0,`$
$`\dot{\varphi }_0={\displaystyle \frac{f(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0.`$ (3.16)
The expectation value of the total Hamiltonian, which is a constant of motion, is expressed as

$$H=f(T_0,T;S)+g(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0=E_0.$$
(3.17)
From Eqs.(3.17) and (3), we obtain

$$\left(\frac{\dot{T}_0}{g(T_0,T;S)}\right)^2+\left(\frac{E_0f(T_0,T;S)}{g(T_0,T;S)}\right)^2=1.$$
(3.18)
Namely,

$$\dot{T}_0^2=[g(T_0,T;S)]^2[E_0f(T_0,T;S)]^2.$$
(3.19)
(ii) If $`\gamma =0`$, then $`g(T_0,T;S)=0`$. In this case, from Eqs.(3.13) and (3.14), the quantity $`T_0T`$ is conserved in addition to $`S`$. It is thus necessary to solve the time-evolution of $`T_0T`$. However it is enough to know the time-dependence for $`T_0`$ because $`\dot{T}_0\dot{T}=0`$ :

$`\dot{T}_0=h(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _0+\varphi ),`$
$`\dot{\varphi }_0={\displaystyle \frac{f(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h(T_0,T;S)}{T_0}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi ).`$ (3.20)
The expectation value of the total Hamiltonian is expressed as

$$H=f(T_0,T;S)+h(T_0,T;S)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _0+\varphi )=E_0.$$
(3.21)
From Eqs.(3) and (3.21), we obtain

$$\left(\frac{\dot{T}_0}{h(T_0,T;S)}\right)^2+\left(\frac{E_0f(T_0,T;S)}{h(T_0,T;S)}\right)^2=1.$$
(3.22)
Namely,

$$\dot{T}_0^2=[h(T_0,T;S)]^2[E_0f(T_0,T;S)]^2.$$
(3.23)
Our next task is to solve the equation of motion (3.19) or (3.23) which have the same form.

## 4 Utility of elliptic function for a solution of equations of motion

In the previous section, it has been shown that in the simple cases the equation of motion for $`T_0`$ which has a form in Eq.(3.19) or (3.23) should be solved. Hereafter, let us consider the case (i), that is, $`\chi =0`$, in which the particle-hole interaction is not active. In the region $`T_0T\mathrm{}/2`$ and the adequate model parameters, the right-hand side of Eq.(3.19) is always non-negative. However, we regard the right-hand side of Eq.(3.19) as a function of $`T_0`$ with arbitrary parameter set :

$`\dot{T}_0^2=F(T_0)`$ $`=`$ $`[g(T_0,T;S)]^2[Ef(T_0,T;S)]^2`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`G^2(T_0\tau _0)(T_0\tau _1)(T_0\tau _2)(T_0\tau _3),`$
where we used the knowledge that the function $`F`$ is the function of fourth order for $`T_0`$ and the coefficient of $`T_0^4`$ is negative : $`F(T_0)=G^2T_0^4+\mathrm{}`$. It should be noted here that, in case (ii), if the parameters satisfy an inequality $`\chi ^2(1\mathrm{}/(2T))^2<G^2`$, the same situation as the case (i) is realized. From the fact $`F(T_0\pm \mathrm{})<0`$, it is concluded that the two real solutions for $`F(T_0)=0`$ except for $`\dot{T}_00`$ must exist because the physical region $`F>0`$ must exist. In addition to this fact, in the second line in Eq.(4.1), we assume that there exist four real solutions for $`F(T_0)=0`$ which are denoted as $`\tau _0`$, $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$ with $`\tau _0<\tau _1<\tau _2<\tau _3`$. We can numerically check the existence of four real solutions for $`F(T_0)=0`$. For example, if the parameters are adopted as $`\mathrm{}G/ϵ=1/2`$, $`\omega /ϵ=1`$, $`\gamma \sqrt{\mathrm{}}/ϵ=0.1`$ and $`E_0/ϵ=0`$ and the variables are $`S/\mathrm{}=5`$ and $`T/\mathrm{}=1/2`$, the above-mentioned situation is realized. Further, in this parameter set, the physical region is given in $`\tau _0<T_0<\tau _1`$. Thus, hereafter, the physical region is taken as $`\tau _0<T_0<\tau _1`$. Then, $`T_0`$ corresponding to the physical value is parameterized as follows :

$$T_0=\tau _0(\tau _0\tau _1)x^2,1x1.$$
(4.2)
Thus, we can derive the equation for $`x`$ from Eq.(4.1) :

$$\dot{x}^2=\frac{G^2}{4}(\tau _0\tau _2)(\tau _0\tau _3)(1x^2)(1k_1x^2)(1k_2x^2),$$
(4.3)
where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are defined as

$$k_1=\frac{\tau _0\tau _1}{\tau _0\tau _2},k_2=\frac{\tau _0\tau _1}{\tau _0\tau _3},0k_2k_11.$$
(4.4)
Further, if we set

$$x(t)=\frac{m(t)}{\sqrt{1k_2+k_2m^2(t)}},(1m1)$$
(4.5)
the variable $`m(t)`$ satisfies the following differential equation :

$`\dot{m}^2=Z^2(1m^2)(1k^2m^2),`$ (4.6)
$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{K}{\pi }}\omega _0,`$ (4.7)
where $`\omega _0`$, $`K`$ and $`k`$ are defined as

$`\omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}\sqrt{(\tau _0\tau _2)(\tau _1\tau _3)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{K}},`$
$`K={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\sqrt{(1x^2)(1k^2x^2)}}}=K(k),`$
$`k=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{1k_2}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\tau _0\tau _1)(\tau _2\tau _3)}{(\tau _0\tau _2)(\tau _1\tau _3)}}}.(0k1)`$ (4.8)
Here, $`K`$ and $`k`$ are the complete elliptic integral of the first kind and the modulus, respectively. If we take the initial value $`m(t=0)=0`$, that is, $`T_0(t=0)=\tau _0`$, we thus obtain the following solution for $`m(t)`$ :

$$m(t)=\mathrm{sn}(Zt,k),$$
(4.9)
where $`\mathrm{sn}(Zt,k)`$ is Jacobi’s elliptic function :

$$Zt=_0^{m(t)}\frac{dm}{\sqrt{(1m^2)(1k^2m^2)}}.$$
(4.10)
As a result, we obtain $`T_0`$ as a function of time $`t`$ :

$$T_0=\tau _0\frac{(\tau _0\tau _1)(\tau _0\tau _3)\mathrm{sn}^2(Zt,k)}{(\tau _1\tau _3)+(\tau _0\tau _1)\mathrm{sn}^2(Zt,k)}.$$
(4.11)
It should be noted that, if the physical region is given by $`\tau _2<T_0<\tau _3`$, the solution for $`T_0`$ is also expressed in terms of Jacobi’s elliptic function similar to Eq.(4.11).

In the Fourier series representation for Jacobi’s elliptic function, the function $`k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(Zt,k)`$ is expressed as

$$k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(Zt,k)=1\frac{E}{K(k)}\frac{\pi ^2}{K(k)^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{n}{\mathrm{sinh}(n\pi K(k^{})/K(k))}\mathrm{cos}(n\omega _0t),$$
(4.12)
where $`k^{}=\sqrt{1k^2}`$ and $`E`$ represents the complete elliptic integral of the second kind :

$$E=_0^1\sqrt{\frac{1k^2x^2}{1x^2}}𝑑x.$$
(4.13)
From Eqs.(4.11) and (4.12), it can be seen that the time-dependent variable $`T_0`$ has a fundamental period $`t_0`$ given by

$$t_0=\frac{2\pi }{\omega _0}.$$
(4.14)
## 5 Discussion

As was mentioned in §1, it is interesting to investigate the dissipative process which is governed by the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure. In this model-Hamiltonian we are treating in this paper, the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic structure is hidden and appears by means of the Schwinger boson representation for $`su(2)`$-generators. In the previous section, the parameter $`\chi `$, which is the strength of the particle-hole interaction, is taken as 0. It has been shown that in this case there exists a fundamental period $`t_0`$ in the solution expressed by the elliptic function. However, if this period is long compared with the typical time scale we consider, the dissipative situation may be realized. In this section, we will investigate this possibility.

The fundamental period $`t_0`$ is given in Eq.(4.14). Therefore, if the angular frequency $`\omega _0`$, which has been given in Eq.(4), is infinitesimal or very small value, the period $`t_0`$ substantially becomes infinity. Thus, the periodicity disappears. In order to realize this situation, it is necessary that the modulus $`k`$ is close to 1 because the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, $`K`$, reveals the behavior of a logarithmic divergence with $`k1`$. As a result, $`\omega _0`$ is close to 0 and $`t_0`$ becomes infinity. If $`\tau _1\tau _2`$, then $`k1`$ is realized. In this case, Jacobi’s elliptic function $`\mathrm{sn}(Zt,k=1)`$ is expressed in terms of the hyperbolic tangent, namely,

$$\mathrm{sn}(Zt,1)=\mathrm{tanh}Zt.$$
(5.1)
Thus, the solution $`T_0`$ is expressed by

$$T_0=\tau _0\frac{\tau _0\tau _3}{\frac{\tau _1\tau _3}{\tau _0\tau _1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}^2Zt}+1}.$$
(5.2)
This is a monotonically increasing function from $`\tau _0`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`\tau _1`$ at $`t\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the periodicity is lost.

In this special case, the energy of the degree of freedom represented by $`a`$-boson increases monotonically, that is,

$$E_a=c|\mathrm{}\omega (a^{}a+1/2)|c=\omega \left(T_0T+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\right)$$
(5.3)
increases for time because $`T_0`$ increases monotonically. Here, it is possible to introduce a “coordinate” $`x`$ which is defined and expressed in terms of the canonical variables :

$`\widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\omega }}}(a+a^{}),`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`c|\widehat{x}|c=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\omega }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}}(W^{}V+WV^{})`$ (5.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{m\omega }}}\sqrt{T{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T}{2T}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \varphi _0}{2}}.`$
It is seen that the amplitude of $`x`$ increases monotonically. Thus, $`x`$ reveals the behavior of the amplified oscillation. If the degrees of freedom represented by $`a`$-boson and by the $`su(2)`$-generators are regarded as the environment and the relevant degree of freedom, respectively, the process in which the energy of the relevant motion dissipates to the environment is described. This is nothing but the dissipative process. This process may be interpreted as the “cooling” process for the relevant motion, although we do not treat the system at finite temperature. Actually, if the state $`|c`$ is replaced into the mixed-mode coherent state, the thermal effect may be treated in this framework.

## 6 Concluding remarks

We have investigated the nuclear $`su(2)`$-model interacting with the harmonic oscillator. By the use of the Schwinger boson representation for the $`su(2)`$-algebra, the $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic behavior was come in sight. In this model we have considered in this paper, it is allowed to obtain the exact solution for the classical equation of motion. It has been shown that the solution is expressed in terms of Jacobi’s elliptic function. The solution has a fundamental period. However, if the period is so long, it may be possible to realize the dissipative process. In this paper, we are restricted ourselves to deal with the zero temperature case. If we apply our formalism to the finite temperature system, it is necessary to replace the coherent state into the mixed-mode coherent state. We have already investigated the mixed-mode coherent state in the many-body system composed of three kinds of boson operators. The investigation of the behavior in the nuclear $`su(2)`$-model interacting with the environment at finite temperature is left as a future problem.

## Acknowledgements

Main part of this work was completed when two of the present authors (Y. T. & M. Y.) stayed at Coimbra in September, 2000. They express their sincere thanks to Professor J. da Providência, co-author of this paper, for his kind invitation to Coimbra.


text:
# Embed Zee Neutrino Mass Model into SUSY

## 1 Introduction

We have seen substantial amount of experimental evidences from solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments that neutrinos in fact have masses. Among the experiments, SuperKamiokande  provided the strongest evidence for the atmospheric neutrino deficit, especially the impressive zenith angle distribution. The neutrino oscillation of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ provides the best explanation for the atmospheric neutrino deficit. On the other hand, the solar neutrino deficit is best explained by $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$.

So where do we stand if neutrinos do in fact oscillate?

1. Neutrino oscillation necessarily implies neutrinos have masses and of different masses.
2. However, we do not know the absolute values of the masses. We only know the mass differences. The mass difference required to explain the atmospheric neutrino deficit is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2310^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$

while a few solutions to the solar neutrino deficit exist. For example, the LMA solution requires a mass difference of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^210^5\mathrm{eV}^2(\mathrm{MSW}).$$
3. Though we do not know the absolute mass scale of the neutrinos, we have indirect constraints from various sources. The cosmological constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{hot}}\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ implies $`m_\nu \stackrel{<}{}3`$ eV, assuming neutrinos make up the hot dark matter. The end point of Tritium decay also constrains $`m_{\nu _e}\stackrel{<}{}2.2`$ eV. Nevertheless, the best constraint comes from the neutrinoless double beta ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$)decay. The absence of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay put an upper bound on the effective neutrino mass, as

$$m_\nu _e\underset{i}{}m_{\nu _i}V_{e_i}^2\stackrel{<}{}0.2\mathrm{eV}.$$

We know of two widely separated mass scales in neutrinos: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2`$. Two possibilities of arranging the three neutrino masses exist: (1) $`m_1m_2m_3`$ or (2) $`m_1m_2m_3`$, assuming $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$:

## 2 Types of neutrino mass

There are three types of neutrino mass according to the structure of the mass term.

(i) Dirac neutrino mass: $`\overline{\psi _L}_D\chi _R+h.c.`$, in which $`\chi _R`$ is the right-handed neutrino field. This is analogous to the Dirac mass term for charged leptons. However, this term is not allowed in the SM, because the bare mass term is forbidden by gauge invariance and the SM does not have the right-handed neutrino field. Even in the case of charged leptons, the Dirac mass term must be derived from the Yukawa term with a Higgs field or equivalent, in order that gauge invariance is fulfilled before the symmetry breaking, followed by spontaneous symmetry breaking that the Higgs field develops a VEV.

(ii) Left-handed marjorana neutrino mass: $`\psi _L^TC^1_L\psi _L`$, where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator. Again, this bare mass term is not allowed in the SM due to gauge invariance. Therefore, it must be derived from a Yukawa term with a Higgs field or equivalent. However, in this case a $`I=1,Y=2`$ Higgs field is required to generate such a mass term. SM does not have such a Higgs field.

(iii) Right-handed marjorana mass: $`\chi _R^TC^1_R\chi _L`$. In the SM, there is no right-handed neutrino field.

Therefore, to generate nonzero neutrino mass one has to include new physics beyond the SM. In both (i) and (iii) a right-handed field has to be introduced while the case (ii) does not necessarily require a right-handed field.

The hierarchy between the small neutrino mass and the charged lepton mass tells us something special about the mechanism that generates the neutrino mass, otherwise a fine tuning of the small Yukawa coupling for neutrinos is needed. A natural way to generate small neutrino mass is the see-saw mechanism, making use of a very large mass scale. Suppose there exist heavy right-handed neutrino fields $`\chi _R`$’s that couple to the left-handed neutrino fields via the usual Yukawa coupling. After electroweak symmetry breaking,

$$=\overline{\nu _{L_i}}\left(_D\right)_{ij}\chi _{R_j}+\chi _{R_i}^TC^1\left(_R\right)_{ij}\chi _{R_j}+h.c.,$$
(1)
where the first term is the Dirac mass term for the neutrinos and the last term is the majorana mass for the right-handed fields. We can then write the mass matrix as

$$\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu _L}\overline{\chi _R^{(c)}})\left(\begin{array}{cc}_L=0_D& \\ _D^T_R& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L^{(c)}\\ \chi _R\end{array}\right)+h.c.$$
(2)
After diagonalizing the mass matrix, the mass matrix of the light neutrinos is given by

$$M_\nu =_D_R^1_D^T,$$
(3)
where $`_R^1`$ is the inverse of the majorana mass matrix. If $`_R`$ is sufficiently large, it naturally obtains small neutrino mass. Or equivalently, in terms of a dim-5 operator:

$$=\frac{y_{ij}}{M_R}(L_iH_2)(L_jH_2).$$

To explain the observed neutrino mass the scale of $`_R10^{1013}`$ GeV for a typical Yukawa coupling. Such an intermediate scale arouses a lot of theoretical speculations and interests. Should the $`\chi _R`$ related to SUSY breaking or early unification (a prediction of the Type I string theory is that the string scale is around $`10^{11}`$ GeV.)

Another natural way to generate small neutrino masses is to make use of loop suppression. This need not introduce right-handed neutrino fields, though new physics is still needed to generate the neutrino mass. One nice example is the Zee model .

## 3 Zee mass model

Zee model  provides an economical way to generate small neutrino masses with a favorable texture . The model consists of a charged gauge singlet scalar $`h^\text{-}`$, which couples to lepton doublets $`\psi _{Lj}`$ via the interaction

$$f^{ij}\left(\psi _{Li}^\alpha 𝒞\psi _{Lj}^\beta \right)ϵ_{\alpha \beta }h^{},$$
(4)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are the SU(2) indices, $`i,j`$ are the generation indices, $`𝒞`$ is the charge-conjugation matrix, and $`f^{ij}`$ are Yukawa couplings antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$. Another ingredient of the model is an extra Higgs doublet (in addition to the one that gives masses to charged leptons) that develops a VEV and thus provides mixing between the charged Higgs boson and the Zee singlet. The one-loop diagram for the Zee model is depcited in Fig. 1.

The Zee model can provide a mass matrix of the following texture

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_{e\mu }& m_{e\tau }\\ m_{e\mu }& 0& ϵ\\ m_{e\tau }& ϵ& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`ϵ`$ is small compared with $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$, which is able to provide a compatible mass pattern that explains the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. Diagonal elements are guaranteed to vanish while the $`m_{\mu \tau }`$ entry, denoted by $`ϵ`$, has to be suppressed by some means. Moreover, $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }`$ is required to give the maximal mixing solution for the atmospheric neutrinos.

First, take $`ϵ=0`$ the matrix can be diagonalized by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{Le}\\ \nu _{L\mu }\\ \nu _{L\tau }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{m_{e\mu }}{\sqrt{2}m}& \frac{m_{e\mu }}{\sqrt{2}m}& \frac{m_{e\tau }}{m}\\ \frac{m_{e\tau }}{\sqrt{2}m}& \frac{m_{e\tau }}{\sqrt{2}m}& \frac{m_{e\mu }}{m}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{L_1}\\ \nu _{L_2}\\ \nu _{L_3}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
with the eigenvalues $`m,m,0`$ for $`\nu _{L_1},\nu _{L_2},\nu _{L_3}`$, respectively, and $`m=\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}`$. The atmospheric mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, is to be identified with $`m^2=m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2`$. The transition probabilities for $`\nu _{L_\mu }`$ are

$`P_{\nu _{L_\mu }\nu _{L_e}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`P_{\nu _{L_\mu }\nu _{L_\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2)L}{4E}}\right).`$
If $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }`$, then $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$. This provides the maximal mixing solution for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly.

If we choose a nonzero $`ϵ`$, but keep $`ϵm_{e\mu ,e\tau }`$. Then after diagonalizing the matrix we have the following eigenvalues

$`m_{\nu 1}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}},`$
$`m_{\nu 2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}},`$
$`m_{\nu 3}`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}}.`$
The mass-square difference between $`m_{\nu 1}^2`$ and $`m_{\nu 2}^2`$ can be fitted to the solar neutrino mass. If one takes the LMA solution and requires

$$4ϵ\frac{m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }}{\sqrt{m_{e\mu }^2+m_{e\tau }^2}}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^22\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,$$

giving (we have used $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }`$)

$$\frac{ϵ}{m_{e\mu }}5\times 10^3.$$

## 4 Neutrino mass in SUSY

The original Zee model was not embedded into any grand unified theories or supersymmetric models. It would be very interesting if the Zee model naturally exists in some GUT or SUSY theories. In fact, the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with a minimal extension, namely, the $`R`$-parity violation, contains the Zee model. The right-handed sleptons in SUSY have the right quantum numbers to play the role of the charged Zee singlet. The $`R`$-parity-violating (RPV) $`\lambda `$-type couplings could provide the terms in Eq.(4). It is also easy to see that the RPV bilinear $`\mu `$-type couplings ($`\mu _iLH_2`$) would allow the second Higgs doublet $`H_2`$ in SUSY to be the second ingredient of the Zee model.

However, in RPV SUSY framework, there are three other sources for neutrino masses, in addition to the Zee model contribution. They are (i) the tree-level mixing with the higgsinos and gauginos, (ii) the one-loop diagram that involves the usual mass mixing between the left-handed and right-handed sleptons proportional to $`m_{\mathrm{}}(A_{\mathrm{}}^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$, and (iii) the one-loop diagram that again involves the mixing between the left-handed and right-handed sleptons but this time via the $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu _i`$ couplings. They may deviate from the texture of the Zee mass matrix of Eq. (5).

The tree-level mixing among the higgsinos, gauginos, and neutrinos gives rise to a $`7\times 7`$ neutral fermion mass matrix $`_𝒩`$ under SVP :

$$_𝒩=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}_\mathcal{1}& \mathcal{0}& ^{}𝓋_\mathcal{2}/\mathcal{2}& ^{}𝓋_\mathcal{1}/\mathcal{2}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}\\ \mathcal{0}& _\mathcal{2}& 𝓋_\mathcal{2}/\mathcal{2}& 𝓋_\mathcal{1}/\mathcal{2}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}\\ ^{}𝓋_\mathcal{2}/\mathcal{2}& 𝓋_\mathcal{2}/\mathcal{2}& \mathcal{0}& \mu & \mu _\mathcal{1}& \mu _\mathcal{2}& \mu _\mathcal{3}\\ ^{}𝓋_\mathcal{1}/\mathcal{2}& 𝓋_\mathcal{1}/\mathcal{2}& \mu & \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}\\ & & & & & & \\ \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mu _\mathcal{1}& \mathcal{0}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{1}\mathcal{1}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{1}\mathcal{2}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{1}\mathcal{3}}\\ \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mu _\mathcal{2}& \mathcal{0}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{2}\mathcal{1}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{22}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{23}}\\ \mathcal{0}& \mathcal{0}& \mu _\mathcal{3}& \mathcal{0}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{31}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{32}}& (𝓂_\nu ^\mathcal{0})_{\mathcal{33}}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
whose basis is $`(i\stackrel{~}{B},i\stackrel{~}{W},\stackrel{~}{h}_2^0,\stackrel{~}{h}_1^0,\nu _{L_e},\nu _{L_\mu },\nu _{L_\tau })`$.

In the above $`7\times 7`$ matrix, the whole lower-right $`3\times 3`$ block $`(m_\nu ^0)`$ is zero at tree level. They are induced via one-loop contributions. We can write the mass matrix in the form of block submatrices:

$$_𝒩=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \xi ^T\\ & \\ \xi & m_\nu ^0\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where $``$ is the upper-left $`4\times 4`$ neutralino mass matrix, $`\xi `$ is the $`3\times 4`$ block, and $`m_\nu ^0`$ is the lower-right $`3\times 3`$ neutrino block in the $`7\times 7`$ matrix. The resulting neutrino mass matrix after block diagonalization is given by

$$(m_\nu )=\xi ^{\text{-}1}\xi ^T+(m_\nu ^0).$$
(9)
The first term here corresponds to the tree level contributions, which are see-saw suppressed.

Through this gaugino-higgsino mixing, nonzero $`\mu _i`$’s give tree-level see-saw type contributions to $`(m_\nu )_{ij}`$ proportional to $`\mu _i\mu _j`$, given by

$$(m_\nu )_{ij}=\frac{v^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta (g^2M_1+g^{}_{}{}^{}2M_2)}{2\mu [2\mu M_1M_2v^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta (g^2M_1+g^{}_{}{}^{}2M_2)]}\mu _i\mu _j.$$
(10)
A diagonal $`(m_\nu )_{kk}`$ term is always present for a nonzero $`\mu _k`$. To eliminate these tree-level terms requires either very stringent constraints on the parameter space or extra Higgs superfields beyond the MSSM spectrum. This is a major difficulty of the present MSSM formulation of supersymmetric Zee model.

Zee mechanism. The Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 1. The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}`$ is the charged Zee singlet. To complete the diagram the charged Higgs boson $`h_1^\text{-}`$ from the Higgs doublet $`H_1`$ is on the other side of the loop and a $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}`$-$`h_1^\text{-}`$ mixing at the top of the loop is provided by a $`F`$ term of $`L_k`$: $`\mu _km_\mathrm{}_kh_1^\text{-}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}^{}h_2^0/h_1^0`$, where $`h_2^0`$ takes on its VEV, for a nonzero $`\mu _k`$. Thus, the neutrino mass term $`(m_\nu ^0)_{ij}`$ has a

$$\mu _km_\mathrm{}_k\lambda _{ijk}(m_\mathrm{}_j^2m_\mathrm{}_i^2)$$
(11)
dependence, where $`m_\mathrm{}_i`$’s are the charged lepton masses.

$`LR`$ slepton mass mixing comes from the one-loop diagram with two $`\lambda `$-coupling vertices and the usual $`(A^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$-type $`LR`$ slepton mixing. Neglecting the off-diagonal entries in $`A^E`$, the contribution to $`(m_\nu ^0)_{ij}`$ with the pair $`\lambda _{ilk}`$ and $`\lambda _{jkl}`$ is proportional to

$$\left[(A_k^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )+(1\delta _{kl})(A_l^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\right]m_\mathrm{}_km_\mathrm{}_l\lambda _{ilk}\lambda _{jkl}.$$
(12)
$`LR`$ slepton mass mixing via RPV couplings comes from a $`F`$ term of $`L_i`$: $`\mu _i\lambda _{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{L_j}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}^{}h_2^0`$, where $`h_2^0`$ takes on the VEV. This is similar to the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}\text{-}h_1^\text{-}`$ mixing in the Zee model, except that this time we have a $`\lambda `$-type coupling in place of the Yukawa coupling. With a specific choice of a set of nonzero $`\mu _i`$’s and $`\lambda `$’s, this type of mixing gives rise to the off-diagonal $`(m_\nu ^0)_{ij}`$ terms only and, therefore, of particular interest to our perspectives of Zee model. Taking the pair $`\lambda _{ilk}`$ and $`\lambda _{jhl}`$ for the fermion vertices and a $`F`$ term of $`L_g`$ providing a coupling for the scalar vertex in the presence of a $`\mu _g`$ and a $`\lambda _{ghk}`$, a $`(m_\nu ^0)_{ij}`$ term is generated and proportional to

$$\mu _gm_\mathrm{}_l\lambda _{ghk}\lambda _{ilk}\lambda _{jhl}.$$
(13)
When we allow only one nonzero $`\lambda `$ at a time, the only contribution comes from $`\lambda _{ijj}`$ but not from those with distinct indices. Suppose we have nonzero $`\lambda _{ijj}`$ and $`\mu _j`$, there is a contribution to the off-diagonal $`(m_\nu ^0)_{ij}`$ with a $`\mu _jm_\mathrm{}_j\lambda _{ijj}^3`$ dependence.

We conclude that a minimal set of RPV couplings needed to give the zeroth order Zee matrix is

$$\{\lambda _{12k},\lambda _{13k},\mu _k\}.$$

As at least one of the two $`\lambda `$’s has the form $`\lambda _{ikk}`$ ($`\lambda _{kik}`$), all types of contributions that have been discussed above are there. We want to make the contribution from the Zee mechanism dominate over the others, or at least to suppress the diagonal entries in $`(m_\nu )`$. This necessarily requires suppression of the contributions from the tree-level see-saw mechanism and from the $`(A^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$-type $`LR`$ slepton mixing. So, it is the Zee mechanism and the $`LR`$ mixing via RPV couplings are required to be the dominant ones.

## 5 Scenarios and conditions to maintain Zee Texture

Because of space limitation we only show the best scenario: $`\{\lambda _{123}`$, $`\lambda _{133}`$, and $`\mu _3\}`$. The resulting neutrino mass matrix is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}C_4^{}m_\tau ^2\lambda _{133}^2& C_2^{}m_\tau m_\mu ^2\mu _3\lambda _{123}+C_5m_\tau \mu _3\lambda _{123}\lambda _{133}^2& C_2^{}m_\tau ^3\mu _3\lambda _{133}+C_5m_\tau \mu _3\lambda _{133}^3\\ & 0& 0\\ & & C_1\mu _3^2\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
where

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta (g^2M_1+g^{}_{}{}^{}2M_2)}{2\mu [2\mu M_1M_2v^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta (g^2M_1+g^{}_{}{}^{}2M_2)]}},`$
$`C_4^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(A_\tau ^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )f(M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2),`$
$`C_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{tan}\beta }{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}f(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2),`$
$`C_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{sin}\beta }{\sqrt{2}}}f(M_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2),`$ (15)
where $`f(x,y)=\frac{1}{xy}\mathrm{log}(y/x)`$.

In the above, we have neglected terms suppressed by $`m_e/m_\mu `$ or $`m_e/m_\tau `$. In order to maintain the zeroth order Zee texture, we need $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$ to dominate over the other entries. Moreover, we need $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}(5\times 10^{11}\text{GeV})`$.

Requiring the tree-level gaugino-higgsino mixing contribution to be well below $`m_{e\mu }`$ gives

$$\mu _3^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \mu ^2M_1(1\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}^1).$$
(16)
For the $`(A_k^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ $`LR`$ slepton mixing contribution to be much smaller than $`m_{e\mu }`$, we have

$$\lambda _{133}^2\frac{\text{Max}(M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2)}{(A_\tau ^E\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )}(2.5\times 10^9\text{GeV}^1).$$
(17)
This corresponds to $`m_{ee}`$. It tells us that $`\lambda _{133}`$ can hardly be much larger than $`10^3`$. On the other hand, $`\lambda _{123}`$ is constrained differently because it does not contribute to this type of neutrino mass term.

From the tree-level Zee-scalar mediated $`\mu `$ decay, the constraint is

$$\frac{\lambda _{123}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2}10^8\text{GeV}^2,$$
(18)
which tells us that $`\lambda _{123}`$ can be as large as order of $`0.01`$ for scalar masses of order of $`O(100)`$ GeV.

Both $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$ have two terms. Let us look at $`m_{e\mu }`$ first. For the first term in $`m_{e\mu }`$ (the one with a $`C_2^{}`$ dependence) in Eq. (14) to give the required value of atmospheric neutrino mass, we need

$$m_{e\mu }\frac{\mu _3\lambda _{123}}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }\frac{1}{\text{max}(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2)}(7\times 10^7\text{GeV}^2)(5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{GeV})$$
(19)
or

$$(\mu _3\mathrm{cos}\beta )\lambda _{123}\mathrm{cos}^3\beta \text{max}(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2)(7\times 10^5\text{GeV}^1).$$
(20)
This result looks relatively promising. If we take $`\mathrm{cos}\beta =0.02`$, all the involved scalar masses at $`100\text{GeV}`$ and $`\lambda _{123}`$ at the corresponding limiting $`0.01`$ value, $`\mu _3\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ has to be at $`5.6\times 10^4\text{GeV}`$ to fit the requirement. This means pushing for larger $`M_1`$ (and $`M_2`$) and $`\mu `$ values but may not be ruled out.

The corresponding first term in $`m_{e\tau }`$ has a $`\lambda _{133}`$ dependence in the place of $`\lambda _{123}`$ with an extra enhancement of $`m_\tau ^2/m_\mu ^2`$, in comparison to $`m_{e\mu }`$. That is to say, requiring $`m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }`$ gives, in this case,

$$\lambda _{133}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\tau ^2}\lambda _{123}.$$
(21)
This gives a small $`\lambda _{133}`$ easily satisfying Eq. (17). The small $`\lambda _{133}`$ also suppresses the second terms in both $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$, the $`C_5`$ dependent terms in Eq. (14).

To produce the neutrino mass matrix beyond the zeroth order Zee texture, the subdominating first-order contributions are required to be substantially smaller in order to fit the solar neutrino data. Here, it is obvious that it is difficult to further suppress the tree level gaugino-higgsino mixing contribution to $`m_{\tau \tau }`$, which makes it even more difficult to get the scenario to work. Explicitly, the requirement for the solar neutrino is

$$\mu _3^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \mu ^2M_1(1\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}^1).$$
(22)
## 6 A general version of supersymmetric Zee model

The conditions for maintaining the Zee neutrino mass matrix texture is extremely stringent, if not impossible, mainly because of the tree-level mixings via the bilinear RPV couplings. An alternative without the bilinear RPV couplings is to introduce an additional pair of Higgs doublet superfields. Denoting them by $`H_3`$ and $`H_4`$, bearing the same quantum numbers as $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively, RPV terms of the form

$$ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\lambda _k^HH_1^\alpha H_3^\beta E_k^c$$

can be introduced. With a trivial extension of notations we obtain a Zee diagram contribution to $`(m_\nu )_{ij}`$ through $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ as follows :

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{h_3^0}{h_1^0}(m_\mathrm{}_j^2m_\mathrm{}_i^2)\lambda _{ijk}\lambda _k^HA_k^Hf(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}}^2).$$
(23)
Here the slepton $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}`$ keeps the role of the Zee singlet. Notice that the second Higgs doublet of the Zee model, corresponding to $`H_3`$ here, is assumed not to have couplings of the form $`L_iH_3E_j^c`$. The condition for the $`LR`$ slepton mixing contribution to be below the required $`m_{e\mu }`$ would be the same as discussed in the last section.

However, there is a new contribution to $`(m_\nu )_{kk}`$ given by

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{h_3^0^2}{h_1^0^2}m_\mathrm{}_k^2(\lambda _k^H)^2A_k^Hf(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}}^2).$$
(24)
This is a consequence of the fact that the term $`\lambda _k^HH_1^\alpha H_3^\beta E_k^c`$ provides new mass mixings for the charged Higgsinos and the charged leptons. The essential difference here is that unlike the $`\mu _i`$ terms the $`\lambda _k^HH_1^\alpha H_3^\beta E_k^c`$ term does not contribute to the mixings between neutrinos and the gauginos and higgsinos on tree level.

Similar to the above we are interested in only the minimal set of couplings $`\{\lambda _{12k},\lambda _{13k},\lambda _k^H\}`$ with a specific $`k`$. For expression (23) to give the right value to $`m_{e\mu }`$, we need

$$\lambda _{12k}\lambda _k^H\frac{\text{Max}(M_{h_1^\text{-}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R_k}}^2)}{A_k^H}\frac{h_1^0}{h_3^0}(7\times 10^7\text{GeV}^1),$$
(25)
and similarly for $`m_{e\tau }`$, it requires $`\lambda _{13k}=(m_\mu ^2/m_\tau ^2)\lambda _{12k}`$. This condition is easy to satisfy when we take $`h_3^0/h_1^0=0.1`$. For Eq. (23) to dominate over Eq. (24), it requires

$$\lambda _{12k}\lambda _k^H\frac{h_3^0}{h_1^0}\frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_\mu ^2},\lambda _{13k}\lambda _k^H\frac{h_3^0}{h_1^0}\frac{m_\mathrm{}_k^2}{m_\tau ^2}.$$
(26)
The most favorable scenario is then the $`k=1`$ case, where $`m_\mathrm{}_k`$ is just the $`m_e`$. The above requirements are then easily satisfied. Also, the requirement for suppression of the $`LR`$ slepton mixing is the same as before, and we also have Eq. (18) from the tree-level Zee-scalar induced muon decay. All these constraints can now be easily satisfied. Hence, such a supersymmetric Zee model looks very feasible.

## 7 Conclusions

Zee model provides a viable texture that explains the data. The minimal extension of MSSM with $`R`$-parity violation actually contains the Zee model, with the right-handed sleptons $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R`$ as the charged singlet, $`\lambda _{ijk}`$ couplings providing lepton-number violation, and $`H_u`$ providing the mixing.

However, there are other sources of neutrino mass in RPV SUSY, some of which wipe away the favorable texture. In order for the Zee contribution to dominate over the others we pick the best minimal scheme $`\{\lambda _{12k},\lambda _{13k},\mu _k\}`$, $`k=3`$, and determine the requirements on the parameter space, which turns out quite stringent but still possible.

Finally, we offered a further consideration that abandons the bilinear RPV couplings but introduces two additional Higgs doublets. This model turns out quite feasible.

I would like to thank Otto Kong for the pleasant collaboration on the work presented here.