text:
# Branching Ratios of 𝐵→𝐷_𝑠𝐾 Decays in Perturbative QCD Approach

## 1 Introduction

The rare $`B`$ decays are being measured at $`B`$ factories in KEK and SLAC. The generalized factorization approach has been applied to the theoretical treatment of non-leptonic $`B`$ decays . It is a great success in explaining many decay branching ratios . The factorization approach (F.A.) is a rather simple method. Some efforts have been made to improve their theoretical application  and to understand the reason why the F.A. has gone well . One of these method is the perturbative QCD approach (PQCD), where we can calculate the annihilation diagrams as well as the factorizable and nonfactorizable diagrams.

The rare decays $`BD_sK`$ are pure annihilation type decays. In the usual F.A., this decay picture is described as $`B`$ meson annihilating into vacuum and the $`D_s`$ and $`K`$ mesons produced from vacuum then afterwards. To calculate this decay in the F.A., one needs the $`D_sK`$ form factor at very large time like momentum transfer $`𝒪(M_B)`$. However the form factor at such a large momentum transfer is not known in F.A. This makes the F.A. calculation of these decays unreliable. The annihilation amplitude is a phenomenological parameter in QCD factorization approach (QCDF), and the QCDF calculation of these decays is also unreliable. In this paper, we will try to use the PQCD approach, where the annihilation amplitude is calculable, to evaluate the $`BD_sK`$ decays. By comparing the predictions with the experimental data, we can test the PQCD evaluation of the annihilation amplitude.

A $`W`$ boson exchange causes $`\overline{b}d\overline{c}u`$ or $`\overline{b}u\overline{d}c`$, and the $`\overline{s}s`$ quarks included in $`D_sK`$ are produced from a gluon. This gluon attaches to any one of the quarks participating in the $`W`$ boson exchange. This is shown in Figure 3. In the rest frame of $`B`$ meson, both $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks included in $`D_sK`$ have $`𝒪(M_B/2)`$ momenta, and the gluon producing them also has $`q^2𝒪(M_B^2/4)`$. This is a hard gluon. One can perturbatively treat the process where the four quark operator exchanges a hard gluon with $`s\overline{s}`$ quark pair. It is just the picture of PQCD approach.

In the next section, we explain the framework of PQCD briefly. In section 3, we give the analytic formulas for the decay amplitude of $`BD_sK`$ decays. In section 4, we show the predicted branching ratio from the analytic formulas and discuss the theoretical errors. It is found that the prediction are is in good agreement with the data, and PQCD approach correctly gives the annihilation amplitude in consequence. Finally, we conclude this study in section 5.

## 2 Framework

PQCD approach has been developed and applied in the non-leptonic $`B`$ meson decays  for some time. In this approach, the decay amplitude is separated into soft($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$), hard($`H`$), and harder($`C`$) dynamics characterized by different scales. It is conceptually written as the convolution,

$$\text{Amplitude}d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3\mathrm{Tr}\left[C(t)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(k_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{D_s}(k_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_K(k_3)H(k_1,k_2,k_3,t)\right],$$
(1)
where $`k_i`$’s are momenta of light quarks included in each mesons, and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ denotes the trace over Dirac and color indices. $`C(t)`$ is Wilson coefficient which results from the radiative corrections at short distance. In the above convolution, $`C(t)`$ includes the harder dynamics at larger scale than $`M_B`$ scale and describes the evolution of local $`4`$-Fermi operators from $`m_W`$, $`W`$ boson mass, down to $`t𝒪(\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B})`$ scale, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_Bm_b`$. $`H`$ describes the four quark operator and the spectator quark connected by a hard gluon whose $`q^2`$ is on the order of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B`$, and includes the $`𝒪(\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B})`$ hard dynamics. Therefore, this hard part $`H`$ can be perturbatively calculated. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ is the wave function which describes hadronization of the quark and anti-quark to the meson $`M`$. While the $`H`$ depends on the processes considered, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ is independent of the specific processes. Determining $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ in some other decays, we can make quantitative predictions here.

We consider the $`B`$ meson at rest for simplicity. It is convenient to use light-cone coordinate $`(p^+,p^{},𝐩_T)`$ to describe the meson’s momenta, where $`p^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p^0\pm p^3)`$ and $`𝐩_T=(p^1,p^2)`$. Using these coordinates we can take the $`B`$, $`D_s`$, and $`K`$ mesons momenta as $`P_1=\frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$, $`P_2=\frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}(1,r^2,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$, and $`P_3=\frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1r^2,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)`$, respectively, where $`r=M_{D_s}/M_B`$ and we neglect the $`K`$ meson’s mass $`M_K`$. Putting the light (anti-)quark momenta in $`B`$, $`D_s`$ and $`K`$ mesons as $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$, and $`k_3`$, respectively, we can choose $`k_1=(x_1P_1^+,0,𝐤_{1T})`$, $`k_2=(x_2P_2^+,0,𝐤_{2T})`$, and $`k_3=(0,x_3P_3^{},𝐤_{3T})`$. Then, integration over $`k_1^{}`$, $`k_2^{}`$, and $`k_3^+`$ in eq.(1) leads to

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Amplitude}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2b_3𝑑b_3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}\left[C(t)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(x_1,b_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{D_s}(x_2,b_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_K(x_3,b_3)H(x_i,b_i,t)S_t(x_i)e^{S(t)}\right],\end{array}$$
(2)
where $`b_i`$ is the conjugate space coordinate of $`k_{iT}`$, and $`t`$ is the largest energy scale in $`H`$, as the function in terms of $`x_i`$ and $`b_i`$. The large logarithms ($`\mathrm{ln}m_W/t`$) coming from QCD radiative corrections to four quark operators are included in the Wilson coefficients $`C(t)`$. The large double logarithms ($`\mathrm{ln}^2x_i`$) on the longitudinal direction are summed by the threshold resummation, and they lead to $`S_t(x_i)`$ which smears the end-point singularities on $`x_i`$. The last term, $`e^{S(t)}`$, contains two kinds of logarithms. One of the large logarithms is due to the renormalization of ultra-violet divergence $`\mathrm{ln}tb`$, the other is double logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}^2b`$ from the overlap of collinear and soft gluon corrections. This Sudakov form factor suppresses the soft dynamics effectively . Thus it makes perturbative calculation of the hard part $`H`$ applicable at intermediate scale, i.e., $`M_B`$ scale. We calculate the $`H`$ for $`BD_sK`$ decays in the first order in $`\alpha _s`$ expansion and give the convoluted amplitudes in next section.

## 3 Analytic formula

### 3.1 The wave functions

In order to calculate analytic formulas of the decay amplitude, we use the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{M,\alpha \beta }`$ decomposed in terms of spin structure. In general, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{M,\alpha \beta }`$ having Dirac indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are decomposed into 16 independent components, $`1_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$, $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }`$, $`(\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\gamma _{5\alpha \beta }`$. If the considered meson $`M`$ is $`B`$ or $`D_s`$ meson, to be pseudo-scalar and heavy meson, the structure $`(\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\gamma _{5\alpha \beta }`$ components remain as leading contributions. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{M,\alpha \beta }`$ is written by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{M,\alpha \beta }=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}\left\{(\overline{)}P_M\gamma _5)_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _M^A+\gamma _{5\alpha \beta }\varphi _M^P\right\},$$
(3)
where $`N_c=3`$ is color’s degree of freedom, $`P_M`$ is the corresponding meson’s momentum, and $`\varphi _M^{A,P}`$ are Lorentz scalar wave functions. As heavy quark effective theory leads to $`\varphi _B^PM_B\varphi _B^A`$, then $`B`$ meson’s wave function can be expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{B,\alpha \beta }(x,b)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}\left[(\overline{)}P_1\gamma _5)_{\alpha \beta }+M_B\gamma _{5\alpha \beta }\right]\varphi _B(x,b).$$
(4)
According to ref. , a pseudo-scalar meson moving fast is parameterized by Lorentz scalar wave functions, $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi _p`$, and $`\varphi _\sigma `$ as

$$D_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(z)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c(0)|0if_{D_s}P_\mu _0^1𝑑xe^{ixPz}\varphi (x),$$
(5)
$$D_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(z)\gamma _5c(0)|0=if_{D_s}m_{0D_s}_0^1𝑑xe^{ixPz}\varphi _p(x),$$
(6)
$$D_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(z)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }c(0)|0=\frac{i}{6}f_{D_s}m_{0D_s}\left(1\frac{M_{D_s}^2}{m_{0D_s}^2}\right)(P_\mu z_\nu P_\nu z_\mu )_0^1𝑑xe^{ixPz}\varphi _\sigma (x),$$
(7)
where $`m_{0D_s}=M_{D_s}^2/(m_c+m_s)`$. We ignore the difference between $`c`$ quark’s mass and $`D_s`$ meson’s mass in the perturbative calculation. This means, putting $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}M_{D_s}m_c`$, the terms proportional to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}/M_{D_s}`$ are neglected. In this approximation, the contributions of eq.(7) are of higher power than those of eqs.(5, 6) by $`𝒪\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}}{M_{D_s}}\right)`$ because of the factor $`1\frac{M_{D_s}^2}{m_{0D_s}^2}`$ in eq.(7), and we neglect the $`\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ component in the $`D_s`$ meson’s wave function. In addition, the eq.(5), eq.(6), and the relations

$$\frac{}{z_\mu }D_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(z)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c(0)|0=im_sD_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(z)\gamma _5c(0)|0,$$
(8)
$$\frac{}{z_\mu }D_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(0)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c(z)|0=im_cD_s^{}(P)|\overline{s}(0)\gamma _5c(z)|0,$$
(9)
with equations of motion lead to

$$\varphi _p(x)=\varphi (x)+𝒪\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}}{M_{D_s}}\right).$$
(10)
Therefore the $`D_s`$ meson’s wave function can be expressed by one Lorentz scalar wave function,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{D_s,\alpha \beta }(x,b)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}\left[(\gamma _5\overline{)}P_2)_{\alpha \beta }+M_{D_s}\gamma _{5\alpha \beta }\right]\varphi _{D_s}(x,b),$$
(11)
where $`\varphi _{D_s}`$ is defined by

$$\varphi _{D_s}(x)=\frac{f_{D_s}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}\varphi (x)=\frac{f_{D_s}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}\varphi _p(x).$$
(12)
The wave function $`\varphi _M`$ for $`M=B,D_s`$ meson is normalized by its decay constant $`f_M`$

$$_0^1𝑑x\varphi _M(x,b=0)=\frac{f_M}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}.$$
(13)
In contrast to the $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons, for the $`K`$ meson, being light meson, the $`\gamma _5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ component remains because the factor corresponding to $`1\frac{M_{D_s}^2}{m_{0D_s}^2}`$ in eq.(7) is $`𝒪(1)`$. Then, $`K`$ meson’s wave function is parameterized by Lorentz scalar wave functions $`\varphi _K^{A,P,T}`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{K,\alpha \beta }(x_3,b_3)`$ $`=P_3^{}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^+}{2\pi }e^{ik_3z}K^+(P_3)|\overline{u}_{\beta i}(z)s_{\alpha j}(0)|0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i\delta _{ij}}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}[\gamma _5\overline{)}P_3\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_3)+m_{0K}\gamma _5\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_3)`$
$`+m_{0K}\gamma _5(\mathit{}\mathit{}1)\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_3)]_{\alpha \beta }`$ (14)
where $`v=(0,1,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)P_3`$, $`n=(1,0,\mathrm{𝟎}_T)z`$, and $`m_{0K}=M_K^2/(m_u+m_s)`$. In the numerical analysis we will use $`\varphi _K^{A,P,T}`$ which were calculated from QCD sum rule . They will be shown in section 4.

### 3.2 $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay

We first consider the neutral $`B^0`$ decay $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$. The effective Hamiltonian at the scale lower than $`M_W`$ related to this decay is given as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}\left[C_1(\mu )O_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )O_2(\mu )\right],$$
(15)
$$O_1=(\overline{b}d)_{VA}(\overline{u}c)_{VA},O_2=(\overline{b}c)_{VA}(\overline{u}d)_{VA},$$
(16)
where $`C_{1,2}(\mu )`$ are Wilson coefficients at renormalization scale $`\mu `$, and summation in $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_c`$ color’s index $`\alpha `$ and chiral projection, $`_\alpha \overline{q}_\alpha \gamma ^\nu (1\gamma _5)q_\alpha ^{}`$, are abbreviated to $`(\overline{q}q^{})_{VA}`$. The lowest order diagrams contributing to $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ are drawn in Fig.3 according to this effective Hamiltonian. As stated above, $`BD_sK`$ decays only have annihilation diagrams.

We get the following analytic formulas by calculating the hard part $`H`$ at first order in $`\alpha _s`$. Together with the meson wave functions, the amplitude for the factorizable annihilation diagram in Fig.3(a) and (b) results in $`F_a^{(i=2)}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}F_a^{(i)}=16\pi C_FM_B^2_0^1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3_0^{\mathrm{}}b_2𝑑b_2b_3𝑑b_3\varphi _{D_s}(x_2,b_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times [\{(1r^2)(12r^2(1r^2)x_3)\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_3)\\ \hfill +r\left(3r^22(1r^2)x_3\right)r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_3)\\ \hfill r(1r^2)(12x_3)r_K\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_3)\}E_f^i(t_a^1)h_a(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\\ \hfill \{(1r^2)x_2\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_3)\\ \hfill +2r(1r^2+x_2)r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_3)\}E_f^i(t_a^2)h_a(1x_3,1x_2,b_3,b_2)],\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`C_F=4/3`$ is the group factor of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)_c`$ gauge group, and $`r_K=m_{0K}/M_B`$, and the functions $`E_f^i`$, $`t_a^{1,2}`$, $`h_a`$ are given in the appendix. The explicit form for the wave functions, $`\varphi _M`$, is given in the next section. The amplitude for the nonfactorizable annihilation diagram in Fig.3(c) and (d) results in

$$\begin{array}{c}M_a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}64\pi C_FM_B^2_0^1𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3_0^{\mathrm{}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _{D_s}(x_2,b_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times [\{(1r^2)((1r^2)(1x_3)+r^2x_2)\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r\left(x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3)\right)r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r(x_2(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_2)\}E_m(t_m^1)h_a^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\\ \hfill \{(1r^2)((1+r^2)x_2r^2)\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r(2+x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r(x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_2)\}E_m(t_m^2)h_a^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)],\end{array}$$
(18)
where $`x_1`$ dependence in the numerators of the hard part are neglected by the assumption $`x_1x_2,x_3`$444 We don’t apply this approximation to the denominators of the propagator which are sensitive to the variable $`x_1`$. Because such a $`x_1`$ behaves as the cut off, the resultant branching ratio is smaller than it given in ref.  where the whole $`x_1`$ in the hard part are neglected.. The total decay amplitude for $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay is given as

$$A=f_BF_a^{(2)}+M_a,$$
(19)
where the overall factor is included in the decay width with the kinematics factor. The decay width is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0D_s^{}K^+)=\frac{G_F^2M_B^3}{128\pi }(1r^2)|V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}A|^2.$$
(20)
The decay width for CP conjugated mode, $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$, is the same value as $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$, just replacing $`V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}`$ with $`V_{cb}V_{ud}^{}`$. Since there is only one kind of CKM phase involved in the decay, there is no CP violation in the standard model.

### 3.3 $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$ decay

The effective Hamiltonian related to $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$ decay is given as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}\left[C_1(\mu )O_1(\mu )+C_2(\mu )O_2(\mu )\right],$$
(21)
$$O_1=(\overline{b}d)_{VA}(\overline{c}u)_{VA},O_2=(\overline{b}u)_{VA}(\overline{c}d)_{VA}.$$
(22)
The amplitude for the factorizable annihilation diagram results in $`F_a^{(i=1)}`$. The amplitude for the nonfactorizable annihilation diagram results in

$$\begin{array}{c}M_a^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_c}}64\pi C_FM_B^2_0^1𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3_0^{\mathrm{}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _{D_s}(x_2,b_2)\hfill \\ \hfill \times [\{(1r^4)x_2\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_2)+r(x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r(x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_2)\}E_m^{}(t_m^1)h_a^{(1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\\ \hfill \{(1r^2)((1r^2)(1x_3)r^2+r^2x_2)\varphi _K^A(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r\left(2+x_2+(1r^2)(1x_3)\right)r_K\varphi _K^P(x_3,b_2)\\ \hfill +r(x_2(1r^2)(1x_3))r_K\varphi _K^T(x_3,b_2)\}E_m^{}(t_m^2)h_a^{(2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)].\end{array}$$
(23)
Thus, the total decay amplitude $`A^{}`$ and decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$ decay is given as

$$A^{}=f_BF_a^{(1)}+M_a^{},$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0)=\frac{G_F^2M_B^3}{128\pi }(1r^2)|V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}A^{}|^2.$$
(25)
The decay width for CP conjugated mode, $`B^{}D_s^{}K^0`$, is the same value as $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$. Similar to the $`B^0`$ decay, there is also no CP violation in this decay within standard model.

## 4 Numerical evaluation

In this section we show numerical results obtained from the previous formulas. At the beginning, we give the branching ratios predicted from the same parameters and wave functions that are adopted in the other works. Secondly, we show the theoretical errors due to uncertainty of some parameters.

For the $`B`$ meson’s wave function, there is a sharp peak at the small $`x`$ region, we use

$$\varphi _B(x,b)=N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{M_B^2x^2}{2\omega _b^2}\frac{1}{2}(\omega _bb)^2\right],$$
(26)
which is adopted in ref. . This choice of $`B`$ meson’s wave function is almost a best fit from the $`BK\pi `$, $`\pi \pi `$ decays. For the $`D_s`$ meson’s wave function, we assume the same form as $`D`$ meson’s one except for the normalization

$$\varphi _{D_s}(x)=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}f_{D_s}x(1x)\{1+a_{D_s}(12x)\}.$$
(27)
Since $`c`$ quark is much heavier than $`s`$ quark, this function is peaked at $`c`$ quark side, i.e. small $`x`$ region, too. The wave functions $`\varphi _K^{A,P,T}`$ of the $`K`$ meson are expanded by Gegenbauer polynomials,

$`\varphi _K^A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}6x(1x)\left\{1a_1^K3\xi +a_2^K{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+5\xi ^2)\right\},`$ (28)
$`\varphi _K^P(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\left\{1+a_{p1}^K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+3\xi ^2)+a_{p2}^K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(330\xi ^2+35\xi ^4)\right\},`$ (29)
$`\varphi _K^T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}(12x)\left\{1+a_T^K3(3+5\xi ^2)\right\},`$ (30)
where $`\xi =2x1`$. The coefficients $`a_{1,2,p1,p2,T}^K`$ calculated from QCD sum rule are given in ref., and their values are

$$a_1^K=0.17,a_2^K=0.2,a_{p1}^K=0.212,a_{p2}^K=0.148,a_T^K=0.0527,$$
(31)
for $`m_{0K}=1.6\text{ GeV}`$. In addition, we use the following input parameters:

$$M_B=5.28\text{ GeV},M_{D_s}=1.969\text{ GeV},$$
(32)
$$f_B=190\text{ MeV},f_K=160\text{ MeV},f_{D_s}=241\text{ MeV},$$
(33)
$$m_{0K}=1.6\text{ GeV},\omega _b=0.4\text{ GeV},a_{D_s}=0.3.$$
(34)
With these values and eq.(13) we get the normalization factor $`N_B=91.745`$ GeV. We show the decay amplitudes calculated with the above parameters at Table 1. For the neutral decay $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$, the dominant contribution is the nonfactorizable annihilation diagrams, where the contribution $`M_a`$ is proportional to the Wilson coefficient $`C_2(t)`$, which is of order one. The factorizable annihilation diagram contribution is proportional to $`a_2=C_1+C_2/3`$, which is one order magnitude smaller. For the charged decay $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$, it is the inverse situation. The Wilson coefficient in $`M_a^{}`$ is $`C_1(t)`$, which is smaller than the one in $`F_a^{(1)}`$, $`a_1=C_1/3+C_2`$. Both amplitudes $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are at the same order magnitude here.

The propagators of inner quark and gluon in Figure 2 and 3 are usually proportional to $`1/x_i`$. One may suspect that these amplitudes are enhanced by the endpoint singularity around $`x_i0`$. This can be explicitly found in eq.(58, 59), where the Bessel function $`\mathrm{Y}_0`$ diverges at $`x_i0`$ or $`1`$. However this is not the case in our calculation. First we introduce the transverse momentum of quark, such that the propagators become $`1/(x_ix_j+k_T^2)`$. Secondly, the Sudakov form factor $`\mathrm{Exp}[S]`$ suppresses the region of small $`k_T^2`$. Therefore there is no singularity in our calculation. The dominant contribution is not from the endpoint of the wave function. As a proof, in our numerical calculations, for example, an expectation value of $`\alpha _s`$ in the integration for $`M_a`$ results in $`\alpha _s/\pi =0.10`$, which gives the dominant contribution to $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay. Therefore, the perturbative calculations are self-consistent.

Now we can calculate the branching ratio according to eqs. (19, 20, 24, 25). Here we use CKM matrix elements and the life times,

$$|V_{ud}|=0.9734\pm 0.0008,|V_{ub}|=(3.6\pm 0.7)\times 10^3,$$
(35)
$$|V_{cb}|=(41.2\pm 2.0)\times 10^3,|V_{cd}|=0.224\pm 0.016,$$
(36)
$$\tau _{B^\pm }=1.67\times 10^{12}\text{ s,}\tau _{B^0}=1.54\times 10^{12}\text{ s}.$$
(37)
The predicted branching ratios are

$$\mathrm{Br}(B^0D_s^{}K^+)=4.57\times 10^5,$$
(38)
$$\mathrm{Br}(B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0)=2.01\times 10^8.$$
(39)
The $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay is observed at Belle and BaBar,

$`\mathrm{Br}(B^0D_s^{}K^+)`$ $`=(4.6{}_{1.1}{}^{+1.2}\pm 1.3)\times 10^5,`$ Belle, (40)
$`\mathrm{Br}(B^0D_s^{}K^+)`$ $`=(3.2\pm 1.0\pm 1.0)\times 10^5,`$ BaBar. (41)
For the $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$ decay, there is only upper limit given at $`90`$% confidence level,

$$\mathrm{Br}(B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0)<1.1\times 10^3.$$
(42)
It is easy to see that our results are consistent with the data.

Despite the calculated perturbative annihilation contributions, there is also hadronic picture for the $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay: $`B^0D^{}\pi ^+(\rho ^+)`$ then $`D^{}\pi ^+(\rho ^+)D_s^{}K^+`$ through final state interaction. Our numerical results show that the PQCD contribution to this decay is already enough to account for the experimental measurement. It implies that the soft final state interaction is not important in the $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay. This is consistent with the argument in ref..

The branching ratios obtained from the analytic formulas may be sensitive to various parameters, such as parameters in eqs.(31), eqs.(34). It is important to give the limits of the branching ratio when we choose the parameters to some extent. Table 2 shows the sensitivity of the branching ratio to $`30`$% change of parameters in eqs.(31), eqs.(34).

It is found that uncertainty of the predictions on PQCD is mainly due to $`m_{0K}`$ and $`\omega _b`$. Below we show the limits of the branching ratio within the suitable ranges on $`m_{0K}`$ and $`\omega _b`$. The appropriate extent of $`m_{0K}`$ can be found in ref.,

$$1.4\text{ GeV}m_{0K}1.8\text{ GeV}.$$
(43)
$`a_{p1,p2,t}^K`$ in the wave functions $`\varphi _K^{P,T}`$ are given as functions with respect to $`m_{0K}`$, $`a_2^K`$, and some input parameters, $`\eta _3`$, $`\omega _3`$ in ref.. Within eq. (43), the branching ratios normalized by the decay constants and the CKM matrix elements result in

$$\mathrm{Br}(B^0D_s^{}K^+)=(4.57_{0.10}^{+0.26})\times 10^5\left(\frac{f_Bf_{D_s}}{190\text{ MeV}241\text{ MeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{|V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}|}{0.04120.9734}\right)^2,$$
(44)
$$\mathrm{Br}(B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0)=(2.01_{0.18}^{+0.16})\times 10^8\left(\frac{f_Bf_{D_s}}{190\text{ MeV}241\text{ MeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{|V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}|}{0.00360.224}\right)^2.$$
(45)
From the $`BK`$ transition form factor $`f_+^K(0)`$, the appropriate extent of $`\omega _b`$ can be obtained. $`f_+^K(0)`$ calculated from PQCD at $`m_{0K}=1.6`$ GeV in the region

$$0.35\text{ GeV}\omega _b0.46\text{ GeV},$$
(46)
is consistent with $`f_+^K(0)`$ by QCD sum rules given in ref. . The branching ratios calculated at the region of eqs. (46) are found within

$$\mathrm{Br}(B^0D_s^{}K^+)=(4.57_{0.59}^{+0.77})\times 10^5\left(\frac{f_Bf_{D_s}}{190\text{ MeV}241\text{ MeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{|V_{cb}^{}V_{ud}|}{0.04120.9734}\right)^2,$$
(47)
$$\mathrm{Br}(B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0)=(2.01_{0.10}^{+0.20})\times 10^8\left(\frac{f_Bf_{D_s}}{190\text{ MeV}241\text{ MeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{|V_{ub}^{}V_{cd}|}{0.00360.224}\right)^2.$$
(48)
In the factorizable contribution, the $`B`$ meson’s wave function is integrated and normalized by the decay constant $`f_B`$. Thus, in the factorizable dominant decay, $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$, its branching ratio is insensitive to the change of $`\omega _b`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In two-body hadronic $`B`$ meson decays, the final state mesons are moving very fast, since each of them carry more than 2 GeV energy. There is not enough time for them to exchange soft gluons. The soft final state interaction is not important in the two-body $`B`$ decays. This is consistent with the argument based on color-transparency . We thus neglect the soft final state interaction in the PQCD approach. The PQCD with Sudakov form factor is a self-consistent approach to describe the two-body $`B`$ meson decays. Although the annihilation diagrams are suppressed comparing to other spectator diagrams, but their contributions are not negligible in PQCD approach .

In this paper, we calculate the $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ and $`B^+D_s^+\overline{K}^0`$ decays, which occur purely via annihilation type diagrams. The branching ratios are still sizable. The $`B^0D_s^{}K^+`$ decay has been observed in the $`B`$ factories . This is the first channel measured in $`B`$ decays via annihilation type diagram. The fact that the predicted branching ratio is in good agreement with the data means that PQCD approach gives the annihilation amplitude correctly, the soft final state interaction is probably small in $`B`$ decays, and it is one of the evidences to justify PQCD approach.

## Acknowledgments

We thank our PQCD group members: C.-H. Chen, Y.-Y. Keum, E. Kou, T. Kurimoto, H.-n. Li, T. Morozumi, S. Mishima, M. Nagashima, A.I. Sanda, N. Sinha, R. Sinha, M.Z. Yang and T. Yoshikawa for fruitful discussions. This work is partly supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grant (No. 90103013 and 10135060). The research of K.U. is supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science under the Predoctoral Research Program. This work was supported by a Grand-in Aid for Special Project Research (Physics of CP violation) and by a Grand-in-Aid for Science Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (No. 12004276).

## Appendix A Some functions

The definitions of some functions used in the text are presented in this appendix. In the numerical analysis we use one loop expression for strong coupling constant,

$$\alpha _s(\mu )=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)},$$
(49)
where $`\beta _0=(332n_f)/3`$ and $`n_f`$ is number of active flavor at appropriate scale. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is QCD scale, which we use as $`250`$ MeV at $`n_f=4`$. We also use leading logarithms expressions for Wilson coefficients $`C_{1,2}`$ presented in ref.. Then, we put $`m_t=170`$ GeV, $`m_W=80.2`$ GeV, and $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV.

The function $`E_f^i`$, $`E_m`$, and $`E_m^{}`$ including Wilson coefficients are defined as

$$E_f^i(t)=a_i(t)\alpha _s(t)e^{S_D(t)S_K(t)},$$
(50)
$$E_m(t)=C_2(t)\alpha _s(t)e^{S_B(t)S_D(t)S_K(t)},$$
(51)
$$E_m^{}(t)=C_1(t)\alpha _s(t)e^{S_B(t)S_D(t)S_K(t)},$$
(52)
where

$$a_1(t)=\frac{C_1(t)}{N_c}+C_2(t),a_2(t)=C_1(t)+\frac{C_2(t)}{N_c},$$
(53)
and $`S_B`$, $`S_D`$, and $`S_K`$ result from summing both double logarithms caused by soft gluon corrections and single ones due to the renormalization of ultra-violet divergence. The above $`S_{B,D,K}`$ are defined as

$$S_B(t)=s(x_1P_1^+,b_1)+2_{1/b_1}^t\frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}\gamma _q(\mu ^{}),$$
(54)
$$S_D(t)=s(x_2P_2^+,b_3)+2_{1/b_2}^t\frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}\gamma _q(\mu ^{}),$$
(55)
$$S_K(t)=s(x_3P_3^+,b_3)+s((1x_3)P_3^+,b_3)+2_{1/b_3}^t\frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}\gamma _q(\mu ^{}),$$
(56)
where $`s(Q,b)`$, so-called Sudakov factor, is given as

$`s(Q,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{1/b}^Q}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}}[\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(2\gamma _E1\mathrm{log}2)+C_F\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{\mu ^{}}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^{})}{\pi }}`$ (57)
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{67}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{27}}n_f+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta _0\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _E}{2}}\}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^{})}{\pi }}\right)^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{\mu ^{}}}],`$
$`\gamma _E=0.57722\mathrm{}`$ is Euler constant, and $`\gamma _q=\alpha _s/\pi `$ is the quark anomalous dimension.

The functions $`h_a`$, $`h_a^{(1)}`$, and $`h_a^{(2)}`$ in the decay amplitudes consist of two parts: one is the jet function $`S_t(x_i)`$ derived by the threshold resummation, the other is the propagator of virtual quark and gluon. They are defined by

$`h_a(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)=S_t(1x_3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\right)^2H_0^{(1)}(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)x_2(1x_3)}b_2)`$
$`\times \{H_0^{(1)}(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)(1x_3)}b_2)J_0(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)(1x_3)}b_3)\theta (b_2b_3)+(b_2b_3)\},`$ (58)
$`h_a^{(j)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)=`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\mathrm{H}_0^{(1)}(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)x_2(1x_3)}b_1)\mathrm{J}_0(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)x_2(1x_3)}b_2)\theta (b_1b_2)`$
$`+(b_1b_2)\}\times (\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{K}_0(M_BF_{(j)}b_1),& \text{for}F_{(j)}^2>0\\ \frac{\pi i}{2}\mathrm{H}_0^{(1)}(M_B\sqrt{|F_{(j)}^2|}b_1),& \text{for}F_{(j)}^2<0\end{array}),`$ (59)
where $`\mathrm{H}_0^{(1)}(z)=\mathrm{J}_0(z)+i\mathrm{Y}_0(z)`$, and $`F_{(j)}`$s are defined by

$$F_{(1)}^2=(1r^2)(x_1x_2)(1x_3),F_{(2)}^2=x_1+x_2+(1r^2)(1x_1x_2)(1x_3).$$
(60)
We adopt the parametrization for $`S_t(x)`$ of the factorizable contributions,

$$S_t(x)=\frac{2^{1+2c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2+c)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c)}[x(1x)]^c,c=0.3,$$
(61)
which is proposed in ref. . In the nonfactorizable annihilation contributions, $`S_t(x)`$ gives a very small numerical effect to the amplitude. Therefore, we drop $`S_t(x)`$ in $`h_a^{(1)}`$ and $`h_a^{(2)}`$. The hard scale $`t`$’s in the amplitudes are taken as the largest energy scale in the $`H`$ to kill the large logarithmic radiative corrections:

$$t_a^1=\mathrm{max}(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)(1x_3)},1/b_2,1/b_3),$$
(62)
$$t_a^2=\mathrm{max}(M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)x_2},1/b_2,1/b_3),$$
(63)
$$t_m^j=\mathrm{max}(M_B\sqrt{|F_{(j)}^2|},M_B\sqrt{(1r^2)x_2(1x_3)},1/b_1,1/b_2).$$
(64)


format: text

text:
# Nucleosynthesis as a result of multiple delayed detonations in Type Ia Supernovae

## 1 Introduction

The undeniable influence of Type Ia Supernovae explosions in, among others, the chemical evolution of the galaxy and cosmology makes the quest of solid theoretical models as an urgent task. Guided by the insight gained from two decades of modelization of spherically symmetric models, modern multidimensional calculations try to make a reliable picture of the explosion on physical basis, minimizing the number of free parameters. Nevertheless, even supossing that the exploding object is a CO white dwarf near to the Chandrasekhar-mass limit the subject is not firmly resolved yet. In particular, there remain uncertainties in the immediate pre-explosive stage and in the mechanism/s by which the thermonuclear flame is spreaded through the white dwarf. In this regard a difficult point is related with the acceleration of the combustion. We know that the explosion is triggered by a thermonuclear flame whose initial velocity is clearly subsonic. We also know, from parametrized calculations, that after several sound-crossing times the effective velocity of the deflagration must reach a significant fraction of of the local sound speed in order to synthesize the adequate amount of nuclear species to explain both light curve and spectra. This translates into an increase factor of thousands over the pure laminar value at maximum effective velocity. The physical mechanism behind this huge factor is currently attributed to flame surface corrugation by hydrodynamical instabilities (mainly Rayleigh-Taylor and turbulence). A branch in this scenario could be achieved if the already fast deflagration turns into a steady detonation at late times, when flame density is below $`\rho 410^7`$ g.cm-3. This is the so called delayed-detonation scenario which, in calculations carried out in spherical symmetry, have provided some of the best models for SNIa in the past .

In this short paper we present the results of a calculation concerning the delayed detonation model carried out in three dimensions by using a SPH code. We describe the main features of the evolution of the model with more emphasis in the nucleoshynthetical side.

## 2 Description of the model

The initial model is a white dwarf of $`1.36`$ M in hydrostatic equilibrium. The first stages of the explosion were followed by using a 1D hydrocode until the central density declined to $`\rho _c=410^7`$ g.cm$`3`$. From here on the model was mapped into a 3D distribution of 250,000 particules and its evolution followed with the SPH. In addition, the velocity field around the flame front was perturbed at the beginning in order to seed the hydrodynamical instabilities. This allows us to describe the large scale deformation of the flame in a self-consistent way although a lot of surface is lost owing to the limited resolution of the code. To take into account these hidden lengthscales a subgrid model has to be set. We assume that the main effect of the smallest lengthscales is to increase the laminar velocity of the flame, $`v_\mathrm{l}`$, until a first effective value $`v_\mathrm{b}>v_\mathrm{l}`$. Afterwards the final effective velocity $`v_{\mathrm{e}ff}>v_\mathrm{b}`$ is directly computed from the hydrocode .

During the progression of the calculation the geometrical features of the flame front were tracked by calculating the main scaling parameters of the surface such as $`l_{\mathrm{m}in}`$, $`l_{\mathrm{m}ax}`$ and flame fractal dimension $`D`$ by using the method described in . As discussed in  the local evolution of $`D`$ can be used as a practical criteria to turn the deflagration into a detonation. In particular, we have allowed such transition in those regions of the flame with fractal dimension higher than 2.5 once flame mean density is $`\rho _{\mathrm{f}lame}210^7`$ g.cm-3.

The relevant features of the evolution of the model are summarized in Table 1. Basically the explosion proceeded in two phases. From t=0 s to t=1.54 s the combustion propagated subsonically as a deflagration. However, a considerable acceleration of the flame was seen because the effective flame velocity passed from $`v_{\mathrm{e}ff}810^3c_s`$ for $`t<0.7s`$ to $`v_{\mathrm{e}ff}0.14c_s`$ at $`t=1.41s`$. At the end of this phase the total energy was already positive, although too low to represent a normal supernovae explosion. At t=1.54 s a detonation was artificially induced in those regions of the flame surface which had a large fractal dimension. In consequence multiple detonations emerged from unconnected points spreaded on a very irregular surface.

Information about the nucleosynthetic yields is provided in Table 1 and figures 1,2. The ejected amount of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{N}i`$ is enough to power the light curve of a typical Type Ia supernovae and the amount of silicon and other intermediate-mass elements is consistent with the spectrum near maximum light. A clear difference with respect 1D calculations is that the abundance distribution in velocity space show a lot of dispersion in comparison. The isotopic composition of the ejecta, calculated by postprocessing the dynamical model, is depicted in figure 2. Although we see a large production of vanadium there is not overproduction of problematic isotopes such as $`{}_{}{}^{54}Fe`$ or $`{}_{}{}^{58}Ni`$. This is a feature of multidimensional models where electron captures proceed,on average, at lower density owing to the buoyancy of high entropy ashes. The ejected amount of carbon and oxygen is somewhat high, being distributed in isolated pockets within the star but not close to the center. Our results suggest that the three-dimensional version of the delayed detonation model is also able to reproduce the main observational features of Type Ia Supernovae.

This work has been benefited from the MCYT grants EPS98-1348 and AYA2000-1785 and by the DGES grant PB98-1183-C03-02.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)  requires five physical Higgs bosons: two neutral CP–even ($`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$), one heavy neutral CP–odd ($`A^0`$), and two charged ones ($`H^\pm `$) . The existence of heavy neutral Higgs bosons would provide a conclusive evidence of physics beyond the SM. Therefore, searching for Higgs bosons is one of the main goals of future collider projects like TEVATRON, LHC or an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider.

In this talk, we consider the decay of the CP–odd Higgs boson $`A^0`$ into two sfermions, $`A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j`$. The decays into sfermions can be the dominant decay modes of Higgs bosons in a large parameter region if the sfermions are relatively light . In particular, third generation sfermions $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$ can be much lighter than the other sfermions due to their large Yukawa couplings and their large left–right mixing. We have calculated the full electroweak corrections in the on–shell scheme and have implemented the SUSY–QCD corrections from . We will show that the electroweak corrections are significant and need to be included.

At tree–level the Higgs sector depends on two parameters, for instance $`m_{A^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. $`m_{A^0}`$ is the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson $`A^0`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{v_2}{v_1}`$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two neutral Higgs doublet states . In the chargino and neutralino systems there are the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$, the $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass parameters $`M^{}`$ and $`M`$, respectively. We assume that the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is related to $`M`$ by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=(\alpha _s(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}})/\alpha _2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WM`$.

## 2 Tree–level Width

The decay width for $`A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j`$ depends on the left–right mixing. This mixing is described by the sfermion mass matrix in the left–right basis $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_L,\stackrel{~}{f}_R)`$, and in the mass basis $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_1,\stackrel{~}{f}_2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{b}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$,

$`_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& a_fm_f\\ a_fm_f& m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_R}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\end{array}\right)=\left(R^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\right)^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\end{array}\right)R^{\stackrel{~}{f}},`$ (5)
where $`R_{i\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ is a 2 x 2 rotation matrix with rotation angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, which relates the mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2})`$ to the gauge eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =L,R`$, by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i=R_{i\alpha }^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha `$ and

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{L}\}}^2+(I_f^{3L}e_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_f^2,`$ (6)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_R}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\{\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{E}\}}^2e_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_f^2,`$ (7)
$`a_f`$ $`=`$ $`A_f\mu (\mathrm{tan}\beta )^{2I_f^{3L}}.`$ (8)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ are soft SUSY breaking masses, $`A_f`$ is the trilinear scalar coupling parameter, $`I_f^{3L}`$ and $`e_f`$ are the third component of the weak isospin and the electric charge of the sfermion $`f`$, and $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle.
The mass eigenvalues and the mixing angle in terms of primary parameters are

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_R}^2\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_R}^2)^2+4a_f^2m_f^2}\right)`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_fm_f}{\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2)^2+a_f^2m_f^2}}}(0\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}<\pi ),`$ (10)
and the trilinear breaking parameter $`A_f`$ can be written as

$`m_fA_f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}+m_f\mu (\mathrm{tan}\beta )^{2I_f^{3L}}.`$ (11)
At tree–level the decay width of $`A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{tree}}(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_C^f\kappa (m_{A^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2)}{16\pi m_{A^0}^3}}|G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}|^2`$ (12)
with $`\kappa (x,y,z)=\sqrt{(xyz)^24yz}`$ and the colour factor $`N_C^f=3`$ for squarks and $`N_C^f=1`$ for sleptons respectively. The Higgs–Sfermion–Sfermion couplings for the pseudoscalar Higgs boson $`A^0`$ are given by

$`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}h_f\left(A_f\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\beta & \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\beta & \end{array}\right\}+\mu \left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{sin}\beta & \\ \hfill \mathrm{cos}\beta & \end{array}\right\}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)_{ij}`$ (19)
for $`\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{up}& \\ \text{down}& \end{array}\right\}`$–type sfermions respectively. $`h_f`$ denotes the Yukawa couplings
$`h_t=gm_t/(\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta ),h_b=gm_b/(\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$ and $`h_\tau =gm_\tau /(\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$ for top, bottom and tau, respectively.

## 3 Electroweak Corrected Decay Width

The one–loop corrected (renormalized) amplitude $`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{ren}}`$ can be expressed as

$`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{ren}}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}+\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}=G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}+\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(v)}+\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(w)}+\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(c)},`$ (20)
where $`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ denotes the tree–level $`A^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$$`\stackrel{~}{f}_j`$ coupling in terms of the on–shell parameters, $`\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(v)}`$ and $`\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(w)}`$ are the vertex and wave–function corrections, respectively. Here we only show the diagrams of the vertex graphs (Fig. 1). Note that in addition to the one–particle irreducible vertex graphs also one–loop induced reducible graphs with $`A^0`$$`Z^0`$ mixing have to be considered. Since all parameters in the coupling $`G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ have to be renormalized, the counter term correction reads

$`\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta h_f}{h_f}}G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}h_f\delta \left(A_f\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\beta & \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\beta & \end{array}\right\}+\mu \left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{sin}\beta & \\ \hfill \mathrm{cos}\beta & \end{array}\right\}\right).`$ (25)
The Yukawa coupling counter term can be decomposed into corrections to the electroweak coupling $`g`$, the masses of the fermion $`f`$ and the gauge boson $`W`$ and the mixing angle $`\beta `$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta h_f}{h_f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta g}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_f}{m_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_W}{m_W}}+\left\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{cos}^2\beta \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}^2\beta \end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}.`$ (28)
For the trilinear coupling we get with eq. (11)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta A_f}{A_f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (m_fA_f)}{m_fA_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_f}{m_f}},`$ (29)
$`\delta (m_fA_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (m_f\mu \{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cot}\beta & \\ \hfill \mathrm{tan}\beta & \end{array}\})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ (33)
$`+\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}.`$
In the on–shell scheme the renormalization condition for the electroweak gauge boson sector reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta g}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_W}{m_W}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_Z}{m_Z}}\right)`$ (34)
with $`m_W`$ and $`m_Z`$ fixed as well as the fermion and sfermion masses as the physical (pole) masses. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we use the condition  Im$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{A^0Z^0}(m_A^2)=0`$ which gives the counter term

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Z\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{A^0Z^0}(m_{A^0}^2).`$ (35)
The higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ is renormalized in the chargino sector  where it enters in the 22–element of the chargino mass matrix $`X`$,

$`X=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M& \sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)\delta \mu =(\delta X)_{22},`$ (38)
and the counter term of the sfermion mixing angle, $`\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, is fixed such that it cancels the anti–hermitian part of the sfermion wave–function corrections ,

$`\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\delta Z_{12}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\delta Z_{21}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2\right)}}\mathrm{Re}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_2}^2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}^2)\right).`$ (39)
The one–loop corrected decay width is then given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_C^f\kappa (m_{A^0}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2)}{16\pi m_{A^0}^3}}\left[|G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\delta G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}\right)\right],`$ (40)
The infrared divergences in eq. (40) are cancelled by the inclusion of real photon emission, see the last two Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1. The decay width of $`A^0(p)\stackrel{~}{f}_i(k_1)+\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j(k_2)+\gamma (k_3)`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ee_f)^2N_C^f|G_{ij}^{\stackrel{~}{f}}|^2}{16\pi ^3m_{A^0}}}\left[\left(m_{A^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_i}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2\right)I_{12}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_i}^2I_{11}m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2I_{22}I_1I_2\right]`$
with the phase–space integrals $`I_n`$ and $`I_{mn}`$ defined as

$`I_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k_1}{2E_1}\frac{d^3k_2}{2E_2}\frac{d^3k_3}{2E_3}\delta ^4(pk_1k_2k_3)\frac{1}{(2k_3k_{i_1}+\lambda ^2)\mathrm{}(2k_3k_{i_n}+\lambda ^2)}}.`$ (42)
The corrected (UV– and IR–convergent) decay width is then given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{corr}}(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^0\stackrel{~}{f}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_j\gamma ).`$ (43)
In the following numerical examples, we assume $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1,2}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{U}_{1,2}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}_{1,2}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{L}_{1,2}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{E}_{1,2}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_3}=\frac{9}{8}M_{\stackrel{~}{U}_3}=\frac{9}{10}M_{\stackrel{~}{D}_3}=M_{\stackrel{~}{L}_3}=M_{\stackrel{~}{E}_3}`$ for the first, second and third generation soft SUSY breaking masses and $`AA_t=A_b=A_\tau `$. We take $`m_t=175`$ GeV, $`m_b=5`$ GeV, $`m_Z=91.2`$ GeV, $`m_W=80`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23`$ for Standard Model values and the gaugino unification relation $`M^{}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM`$.
In

Fig. 2 we show the $`m_{A^0}`$–dependence of the relative correction to $`A^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$, separated into leading Yukawa and the remaining electroweak corrections using $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =7`$ and $`\{M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1},M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}},A,M,\mu \}=\{1500,300,500,120,260\}\text{GeV}`$ as input parameters. As can be seen for larger values of $`m_{A^0}`$, the remaining electroweak corrections can become bigger than the leading Yukawa corrections and need to be included.

In Fig. 3, in addition to the tree–level and electroweak corrected decay width for $`A^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ we have also included SUSY–QCD corrections from . As input set we have taken the same parameters as in Fig. 2. Note that the electroweak corrections can be of the same size as the QCD corrections.

In Fig. 4 we show the tree–level (black dash-dotted line), the full electroweak (green dashed line) and the full one–loop corrected (electroweak and SUSY–QCD, red solid line) decay width of $`A^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ as a function of $`A`$. As can be seen electroweak corrections do not strongly depend on the parameter $`A`$ and are almost constant about 8%. As input parameters we have chosen the values given above and $`m_{A^0}=700`$ GeV.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have calculated the full electroweak one–loop corrections to $`A^0\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$. We found that in a wide region of parameter space electroweak corrections can go beyond $`10\%`$ and therefore have to be included.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge support from EU under the HPRN-CT-2000-00149 network programme and the “Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung” of Austria, project No. P13139-PHY.


text:
# Thermal Conductance for Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes

## I Introduction

Since its original discovery, carbon nanotubes have received a great deal of attention due to fundamental physical interest on nano-scale systems, as well as due to nanotubes potential for useful industrial applications . A very important recent advance has been the fabrication of high-purity crystalline bundles of nearly mono-disperse single wall carbon nanotubes. This allows better experimental control and produces accurate data. It also provides opportunities and points to new directions for theoretical analysis of SWNT. So far, the electronic and mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes have been extensively investigated while there also exist several new measurements of thermal properties of these systems. The purpose of this work is to present our theoretical and numerical analysis of thermal conductance of SWNT.

Of particular interest to this work is the recent experimental measurements of thermal conductance of nanotubes $`\kappa (T)`$. This quantity describes the thermal current induced by a temperature gradient, and we will analyze a two-terminal measurement of it. Hence, maintaining temperatures at the left and right lead to be $`T_L,T_R`$ respectively, $`\kappa (T)`$ is defined as $`\kappa (T)\dot{Q}/T`$, where $`\dot{Q}`$ is the thermal current flowing through the nanotube. The experimentally measured thermal conductance of carbon nanotubes indicates that the most essential contribution comes from phonons. The data of Ref.  on aligned multiwall nanotubes suggested that at low temperature up to $`120K,`$ $`\kappa (T)`$ can be well fit by quadratic form in $`T`$, i.e. $`\kappa (T)T^2`$. On the other hand, the measurements of specific heat $`C(T)`$, which is proportional to $`\kappa (T)`$, also showed a power law dependence, however with a power larger than unity but slightly less than two. Finally, measurements on crystalline ropes of SWNT indicates a linear temperature dependence up to $`30K`$ and an upward bend near $`30K`$ on the $`\kappa (T)`$ versus $`T`$ curve . How to interpret these experimental observations presents a challenge to theory. Indeed, although there exist a vast literature on theoretical analysis of thermal transport of both electrons and phonons in the context of mesoscopic physics, direct investigation on carbon nanotubes is rare.

The precise temperature power law in thermal conductance of nanotubes is expected to depend on, among other things, the detailed phonon dispersion. In this work we will calculate the dispersion for several SWNT and investigate its consequence. We neglect electrons as their contribution to $`\kappa (T)`$ of nanotubes can only be observed at temperature less than $`1K`$ . Our analysis of SWNT is based on the Tersoff-Brenner$``$s empirical potential for carbon to calculate the phonon dispersion. We then apply a Landauer-Buttiker-type formalism to compute the lattice thermal conductance in various SWNTs, for which the thermal transmission coefficient is assumed to take a Breit-Wigner form. The predicted $`\kappa (T)`$ shows a quadratic form in temperature for both zigzag and armchair SWNT. Using one experimental data to fix an overall shift of $`\kappa (T)`$, our predicted $`\kappa (T)`$ is consistent with the experimental data of Ref. as the tube-tube interactions are so weak that we could compare our calculations for single wall carbon tubes with the experimental results on multiwall tubes. As pointed out in Ref. , since the tube-tube interactions are also weak, the measured $`\kappa (T)`$ is linear below $`30K`$ and shows an upward bend slightly near $`30K`$, i.e. the curve appears to be also parabolic-like from $`8K`$ to $`100K`$. When the carbon-carbon bond length is slightly varied, our results indicate that $`\kappa (T)`$ does not change qualitatively, implying that the anharmonic effect does not alter its qualitative behavior.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we outline the analysis of phonon dispersion and $`\kappa (T)`$. Section III presents the numerical data while a brief summary is given in the last section.

## II Lattice Thermal Conductance

We start by writing down a multi-probe formula for thermal current transmission in the same spirit as the familiar Landauer-Buttiker formula  for electron transport. As discussed above we neglect contributions from electrons and deal with the lattice vibration as a phonon gas. The thermal current is therefore driven by a temperature gradient and carried by phonons from the probe to another. The thermal current can be written as

$$\dot{Q}^\alpha =\frac{1}{h}𝑑E\text{ }E\text{ }\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta (E)\text{ }A_{\alpha \beta }(E)$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ label the leads, $`h`$ is the Planck constant, $`E`$ is the phonon energy, and $`f_\beta (E)=1/(e^{\frac{E}{k_BT_\beta }}1),`$ is the phonon distribution function with temperature $`T_\beta `$ at lead $`\beta `$ . The thermal transmission function $`A_{\alpha \beta }(E)`$ is defined as

$$A_{\alpha \beta }(E)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }S_{\alpha \beta }^{}(E)S_{\alpha \beta }(E),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the scattering matrix for phonons. Eqs.(1,2) are similar to the Landauer-Buttiker formula  for electron transport. Let the energy of the $`s`$-th branch of phonon be $`\mathrm{}\omega _s`$. The thermal current can be rewritten as

$$\dot{Q}^\alpha =\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{s}{}𝑑\omega _s\text{ }\mathrm{}\omega _s\text{ }\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta (\mathrm{}\omega _s)\text{ }A_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{}\omega _s)$$
$`(3)`$
or

$$\dot{Q}^\alpha =\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{s}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝐪𝐯_s(𝐪)\text{ }\mathrm{}\omega _s(𝐪)\text{ }\underset{\beta }{}f_\beta (𝐪)\text{ }A_{\alpha \beta }(𝐪),$$
$`(4)`$
where $`𝐯_s(𝐪)=_𝐪\omega _s(𝐪)`$ is the group velocity.

For the special case of two probe measurement in one dimension, one can easily confirm that Eq.(4) is reduced to the form which has been used to study the quantized thermal conductance of dielectric quantum wires . We have

$$\dot{Q}=\underset{s}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\omega _s(k)v_s(k)(f_Rf_L)\zeta _s(k),$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\omega _s(k)`$ and $`v_s(k)=\frac{\omega _s(k)}{k}`$ are the frequency and the velocity of normal mode $`s`$ of the wire with wave vector $`k`$, respectively, $`\zeta _s(k)`$ is the phonon transmission probability through the wire, and $`f_\alpha `$ is the phonon distribution function at the right or left lead indicated by $`\alpha `$ $`(=R,L)`$. We refer interested readers to Refs. for more details about the present formulation. For the SWNT the thermal conductance, $`\kappa =\dot{Q}/T`$, can be numerically computed through the following form

$$\kappa =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{2\pi }\underset{s}{}_{\omega _s(0)}^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{}\omega (f_R(\omega )f_L(\omega ))\zeta _s(\omega )/\mathrm{\Delta }T.$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_RT_L`$ is the temperature difference between the two leads, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is the length of the SWNT, and $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum of phonon modes in SWCNs, which was investigated elsewhere.

To proceed, it is clear that the phonon frequencies of SWNT at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point and the transmission function $`\zeta _s(\omega )`$ are required. There are a number of methods which can be applied to obtain the phonon frequencies, and we will present our calculation of this quantity in the next section. On the other hand, it is rather complicated to accurately determine the phonon transmission function. For a perfect infinite harmonic lattice the thermal conductivity diverges because every mode transmits perfectly. The contacts play an important role as in case of electron transport. Even for perfect phonon transmission, the thermal conductance is finite due to the contact resistance. Defects, boundary scatterings, phonon-phonon interactions and other scattering mechanisms in the conductor inevitably introduce thermal resistances. The transmission function $`\zeta _s(\omega )`$ is contributed by lattice imperfection and conductor boundary, and the anharmonic effect due to interactions can be included in terms of the renormalized temperature-dependent dispersion relation. To obtain $`\zeta _s(\omega )`$ for SWNT one should in principle solve the scattering of a phonon wave by the atoms of the nanotube which is a nontrivial problem not solved so far. However if the length of a conductor is much larger than its cross-section size, $`\zeta _s(\omega )`$ can be approximately obtained by solving linear elastic equations assuming the conductor to be an uniform elastic medium. In 1D, the continuum mechanics results indicate that $`\zeta _s(\omega )`$ is dominated by sharp resonances reminiscent of a resonance transmission of phonon modes: $`\zeta _s(\omega )=1`$ at resonant energies and sharply becomes much smaller for other energies. Guided by this observation and for simplicity of analysis, we shall investigate the consequence of such a resonance transmission of phonon modes for carbon nanotubes by parameterizing $`\zeta _s`$ into a Breit-Wigner form,

$$\zeta (E)=\frac{D^2}{(EE_0)^2+D^2},$$
$`(7)`$
where $`D`$ and $`E_0`$ are the width of the resonance and position of a resonance. Both of these parameters are closely related to the effects of defects and boundary scatterings. Furthermore, instead of directly considering anharmonic effects, we will investigate its consequence by simply varying the carbon-carbon bond length to observe how much the thermal conductance can vary.

## III Lattice Vibrations

To calculate the phonon spectra $`\omega _s`$ at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point for armchair and zigzag carbon nanotubes, we shall make use of the Tersoff-Brenner empirical potentia for carbon. Although this empirical potential only gives an approximation to the vibration frequency of nanotubes, it does capture the basic and qualitative characteristics of their phonon spectra. Tersoff-Brenners potential is also numerically efficient to allow investigations of large systems which is required for our study. The parameters for this potential have been determined before and there are two sets of them which have been widely used  for structure analysis of carbon:

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& R_{ij}^{(e)}\text{Å}& D_{ij}^{(e)}\text{eV}& \beta _{ij}/\text{Å}& S_{ij}& \delta _i& R_{ij}^{(1)}\text{Å}& R_{ij}^{(2)}\text{Å}& \alpha _0& c_0& d_0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 1^{st}& 1.315& 6.325& 1.5& 1.29& 0.80469& 1.7& 2.0& 0.011304& 19.0& 2.5\\ 2^{nd}& 1.39& 6.0& 2.1& 1.22& 0.5& 1.7& 2.0& 2.0813\times 10^4& 330& 3.5\end{array}`$

The meaning of the symbols refers to Ref.. We have checked that for SWNT the second set of Brenner$``$s parameters gave results closer to those obtained by using Tersoff parameter. We shall use in our calculations the second set values shown in the table. In addition, experimental measurements have shown that phonon modes of SWNT have frequencies up to $`1700cm^1`$. We have numerically confirmed that if the equilibrium distance parameter $`R_{ij}^{(e)}=1.33`$Å, which is a value in between the first and second Brenners$``$s parameter sets (see table), the obtained vibration frequencies at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point is consistent with experimental data. On the other hand, all the parameter sets give similar total binding energy. For instance, for the armchair (4,4) nanotube, the binding energy per atom is found to be -6.8920, -7.0881, -6.9993 and -7.0456 eV using Tersoffs potential, the first Brenners potential, the second Brenners potential and our modified second Brenners potential, respectively. Fig. 1 presents a comparison between these empirical potentials. In all subsequent numerical analysis we shall utilize the revised value of $`R_{ij}^{(e)}`$.

The lattice vibration frequencies of the SWCN at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point can be obtained by diagonalizing the dynamical matrix given by

$$D_{\alpha \beta }(k,lk^{})=\frac{1}{M}\underset{l}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }(0k,lk^{})e^{i𝐪(𝐑(0k)𝐑(lk^{})},$$
$`(10)`$
where $`𝐪`$ is the wave vector, the perturbation of $`R_\alpha (lk)`$ is taken to be $`0.001`$Å, and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \beta }(lk,l^{}k^{})={\displaystyle \frac{^2E_b}{R_\alpha \left(lk\right)R_\beta \left(l^{}k^{}\right)}}.`$

Once the phonon modes are obtained, we are able to calculate thermal conductance by Eq. (6). Here we would like to point out that although there have been a number of studies dedicated to the lattice vibrations of carbon nanotubes so far, it is not suitable for us to adopt directly the phonon data in literature. This is because in our situation we need frequency data for different sizes of carbon nanotubes as well as the data of frequencies when the carbon-carbon bond length is simply varied in order to retrieve the anharmonic effects. In principle, we can use ab initio molecular dynamics method to get the frequencies if the system is not too big. Since in the present case the system contains hundreds of atoms, it is not easy to obtain useful data on the basis of ab initio simulations, and for a practical purpose it is better to invoke an empirical potential to compute the phonon spectra of SWNCs with larger sizes.

## IV Results

As discussed in the introduction, we are investigating long SWCNs such that the left end is at temperature $`T_L`$ and the right end is at temperature $`T_R.`$ Let us first consider the basic characteristic of $`\kappa (T)`$. At very low temperatures where only the massless modes (i.e. $`\omega _s(0)=0`$) are relevant, $`\kappa /T`$ is simply a constant independent of temperature. At slightly higher temperature, the high frequency modes set in because a SWNT is a quasi-one dimensional system in which each unit cell contains so many atoms that there are many modes with nonzero cutoff frequencies. Therefore $`\kappa /T`$ will deviate from the constant behavior when temperature is increased.

The inset of Fig. 2 shows the temperature dependence of thermal conductance for the armchair (11,11) and the zigzag (11,0) carbon nanotubes when the transmission is perfect, i.e., by setting $`\varsigma _s=1`$ for all the phonon modes. For these cases our results indicate that $`\kappa (T)`$ increases, approximately, in a parabolic fashion as a function of temperature. We found that anharmonic effect has only a slight influence on the temperature dependence of $`\kappa (T)`$, and this is shown by calculating $`\kappa (T)`$ for different values of carbon-carbon bond length which generates different phonon spectra at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. Fig. 2 shows $`\kappa (T)`$ for three different bond lengths 1.42Å, 1.44Å and 1.46Å for a zigzag (11,0) system. This result clearly shows that the basic shape of $`\kappa (T)`$ is not changed qualitatively by varying the bond length. The magnitude of $`\kappa (T)`$ is however dependent on bond length as expected: the longer the bond length the lower the thermal conductance value.

In a real SWNT system the flow of thermal current is not perfect due to scattering of phonons by various lattice imperfections. It is thus inevitable that $`\varsigma _s<1`$ in general and only at resonances do we have $`\varsigma _s=1`$ \[see Eq. (7)\]. Nevertheless, as long as the transmission resonances are sharp for a large number of modes, which is the case shown by previous numerical calculations for various one-dimensional wires, we do not expect qualitative changes of behavior from that shown in Fig. 2. On the other hand, it is interesting to examine the opposite situation, namely the transmission is dominated by a single resonance, i.e. the transmission coefficient $`\varsigma _s`$ is centered at a single mode $`E_0`$ with a resonance width $`D`$ \[see Eq.(7)\]. Therefore for a small $`D`$ only very few terms in the summation of Eq.(6) have substantial contribution to $`\kappa (T)`$, while a large $`D`$ should give a similar result as those of Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows this behavior for a number of values of $`D`$ by fixing $`E_0=D`$ for simplicity. Indeed, a large $`D`$ which essentially gives $`\varsigma _s=1`$ for a wide range of modes, gives a parabolic temperature dependence for $`\kappa (T)`$. For small values of $`D`$ , on the other hand, not only the value of $`\kappa `$ is reduced because only a few modes contribute, but also the temperature dependence changes qualitatively. This exercise indicates the importance of the quality of phonon wave transmission.

Recently the thermal conductance of the carbon nanotubes has been experimentally measured. In both experiments, the results show clearly that the tube-tube interactions are quite weak, implying that it would be reasonable at some extent that is also capable of comparing the measured results for multi-wall carbon nanotubes with the calculated ones for single wall tubes without generating qualitative deviations, as it indeed is. Our result is found to be qualitatively consistent with the experimental data  as shown in Fig. 4 where the circles are the measured data and the dotted and dashed lines are our calculated results. The solid line is a least square fit to the experimental data in the range of $`10K`$ to $`120K`$ which gives $`\kappa =`$ $`0.00089T^{1.97}(WK^1M^1)`$. Hence the experimental data indicate a parabolic dependence on temperature. Surprisingly, our calculated value of $`\kappa `$ is even quantitatively reasonable considering the various approximation used in our analysis: since the Lorentz number $`\frac{k_B^2\pi ^2}{3h}10^{12}(JK^2S^1)`$, the size of nanotube is on the order of $`nm10^9(M),`$ and at $`T=100K`$ our calculated $`\kappa 100`$ in units of Lorenz number (e.g. Fig. 2), gives the same order of magnitudes in magnitude as the measured data. To plot our calculated curves in Fig. 4, we have used one experimental data point at $`T=120K`$ to fix the scale of $`\kappa `$. It is clear that for both zigzag and armchair tubes, the predicted curves qualitatively agree with the measured data quite reasonably. In Ref.  , the measured $`\kappa (T)`$ is linear below 30K and an upward bend slightly near 30K, i.e. the curve appears also to be parabolic-like from 8K to 100K. The linear dependence below 30K in Ref. may be the results of particular phonon scattering mechanisms or the imperfection phonon transmission. As a result, our results appear to suggest that the thermal transport in nanotubes might primarily be mediated by lattice vibrations, and the electron contribution is less important.

## V Summary

We have studied the properties of the thermal conductance of single-walled carbon nanotubes by means of a Landauer-Buttiker-like thermal conductance formalism using a modified Tersoff-Brenner potential. We found that the thermal conductance of the SWCN increases almost parabolically with increasing temperature at perfect transmission at low temperature. Our results are qualitatively consistent and quantitatively on the same order of magnitude as the measured data because the tube-tube interactions in these carbon nanotubes are weak. This allows us to suggest that in the experimental device the phonon transmission is quite ideal, which is consistent with the fact that the high quality of the nanotubes was ensured in the measurements. It also suggests that it is the phonon contribution which gave, to a large extent, the observed behavior of temperature dependence of the thermal transport in SWCNs. In addition, our results suggest that the anharmonic contribution to the thermal conductance of SWCN is only quantitative but not qualitative.

Although the simple analysis presented in this paper has given a qualitative understanding of the experimental data of Ref., a number of further improvements to theory are desirable. An extremely difficult subject is the calculation of phonon transmission function for carbon nanotubes. Our choice in this work is the phenomenological Breit-Wigner formula motivated by one-dimensional theory of linear elasticity. For realistic nanotube devices, especially those with lattice imperfections, it will be useful to accurately compute the transmission coefficient. Another improvement to the present work involves a more accurate analysis of the phonon frequency, perhaps from first principle methods. Finally, since experimental measurements are usually performed for a bundle of carbon nanotubes, if the tube-tube interaction is not weak it is also interesting to investigate the effect of inclusion of tube-tube interactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of authors (Q.R.Z.) is grateful to Prof. S.S. Xie concerning the experimental data obtained by his lab. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the NSF of China (Grant No. 90103023 and 10104015), State Key Project for fundamental Research of China and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (G.S. and Q.R.Z.), RGC grant(HKU 7215/99P) from the Hong Kong SAR(J.W.), and NSERC of Canada and FCAR of Quebec (H.G.).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1. The carbon-carbon two-body empirical potential as a function of the bond length for four sets of parameters. Our numerical analysis is based on the modified Brenner II potential.

Fig.2. Thermal conductance $`\kappa `$ versus temperature for different C-C bond lengths for zigzag (11,0) SWCN assuming perfect phonon transmission. Inset: The temperature-dependence of the thermal conductance for armchair (11,11) and zigzag (11,0).

Fig.3. Thermal conductance $`\kappa `$ versus temperature for different resonance width ($`D`$) fixing $`D=E_0`$ in unit of $`cm^1`$.

Fig.4. Comparison of theoretical and experimental results.


text:
# Characterization of the anticipated synchronization regime in the coupled FitzHugh–Nagumo model for neurons

## Abstract

We characterize numerically the regime of anticipated synchronization in the coupled FitzHugh-Nagumo model for neurons. We consider two neurons, coupled unidirectionally (in a master-slave configuration), subject to the same random external forcing and with a recurrent inhibitory delayed connection in the slave neuron. We show that the scheme leads to anticipated synchronization, a regime in which the slave neuron fires the same train of pulses as the master neuron, but earlier in time. We characterize the synchronization in the parameter space (coupling strength, anticipation time) and introduce several quantities to measure the degree of synchronization.

Synchronization phenomena is a fascinating subject that has attracted a lot of attention in the last years. Recently, Voss has shown that it is possible to synchronize autonomous dynamical systems in a master–slave configuration in such a way that the slave system can actually anticipate (i.e. predict) the trajectory of the master system. This result is surprising at first sight for two facts: the dynamics of the master is not modified by the presence of the slave, and the slave integrates its equations of motion at the same speed than the master does. This remarkable phenomenon is achieved by the introduction of appropriate delay lines in the dynamics of the slave system. More precisely, one of the schemes devised by Voss considers master $`𝐱(t)`$ and slave $`𝐲(t)`$ (vector) dynamical systems, whose dynamics follow the general form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{𝐱}(t)& =& 𝐟(𝐱(t))\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{𝐲}(t)& =& 𝐟(𝐲(t))+𝐊[𝐱(t)𝐲(t\tau )].\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The function $`𝐟(𝐱)`$ defines the dynamical system under consideration, $`𝐊`$ is the coupling strength matrix and $`\tau `$ is the delay time in the feedback loop of the slave system. As stated before, these equations admit the “anticipated” manifold $`𝐲(t)=𝐱(t+\tau )`$ as a (structurally) stable solution. This has been shown to be possible even in systems in which the dynamics, being chaotic, is highly unpredictable. Implementations of this result have been demonstrated theoretically  and experimentally  in unidirectionally coupled laser systems as well as in electronic circuits . Some understanding of the anticipation mechanism can be achieved by the study of simple maps .

We have recently extended this result  by considering non–autonomous systems in which the dynamics is subjected to the effect of an external perturbation. Namely, we consider dynamical equations as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{𝐱}(t)& =& 𝐟(𝐱(t))+𝐈(t)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{𝐲}(t)& =& 𝐟(𝐲(t))+𝐈(t)+𝐊[𝐱(t)𝐲(t\tau )].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`𝐈(t)`$ is an external input acting on both the master and slave systems (see scheme in Fig. 1).

Remarkably, although the manifold $`𝐲(t)=𝐱(t+\tau )`$ is no longer an exact solution of the equations (2) (except in the case of a periodic input $`𝐈(t)=𝐈(t+\tau )`$), it will be shown that the slave can actually predict some interesting part of the dynamics of the master.

We have considered as our dynamical system $`𝐱`$ a simple model for neuronal response. Neurons are classical prototypes of excitable systems: their response to an external perturbation is highly non-linear and depends on its magnitude and timing. If the perturbation is small the system evolves back to the steady state; but if the perturbation exceeds a certain threshold, the system fires a pulse-like spike (action potential). Following the onset of the excitation, there is an interval during which another perturbation does not induce a new pulse (refractory period). Real neurons are complicated non-linear systems involving a large number of variables. Nevertheless, the essential features of their excitable behavior can be captured with a much-reduced description. The FitzHugh-Nagumo model provides the simplest representation of excitable firing dynamics and it has been widely used as a prototypic model.

In this paper we study numerically the anticipated synchronization of two identical FitzHugh-Nagumo neurons, unidirectionally coupled, in the presence of a common external random forcing (see the schematic diagram shown in Fig. 1). The model equations are:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{x_1}& =& x_1(x_1a)(x_11)x_2+I(t)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{x_2}& =& ϵ(x_1bx_2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{y_1}& =& y_1(y_1a)(y_11)y_2+I(t)+\kappa [x_1(t)y_1(t\tau )]\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{y_2}& =& ϵ(y_1by_2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where x=($`x_1`$,$`x_2`$) are the variables associated to the master neuron, y=($`y_1`$,$`y_2`$) are the variables associated to the slave neuron, and $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`ϵ`$ are constant parameters. $`\kappa `$ controls the strength of the coupling and $`\tau `$ is the delay time associated to the feedback loop in the slave neuron. Note that only the fast variables $`x_1`$, $`y_1`$ are coupled. The external common forcing $`I(t)`$ is a Gaussian random process of mean $`I_0`$ and delta–correlated in time (white noise): $`[I(t)I_0][I(t^{})I_0]=D\delta (tt^{})`$, $`D`$ being the noise intensity.

By choosing the mean value of the noise $`I_0`$ just below the threshold of the excitable system, a highly complex dynamics is observed. Spikes develop at random times in a completely unpredictable manner, see Fig. 2. The same figure shows that although the exact details of the master dynamics are not reproduced by the slave, still it manages to anticipate the response of the master by firing its pulses just before the master does.

We now proceed to quantify the degree of synchronization. To this end we have measured the relative number of errors, $`R`$, made by the slave when anticipating the dynamics of the master. Notice in Fig. 2 that the slave neuron occasionally fires an extra spike, which does not correspond to a spike fired by the master, but every spike fired by the master has a corresponding anticipated spike fired by the slave. Thus, an error is defined as a pulse in the slave that has no corresponding pulse in the master.

Figure 3 displays $`R`$ in a gray scale in the parameter space ($`\kappa `$, $`\tau `$). The dark (white) region represents a region where good (bad) synchronization occurs. In order not to miss too much detail, errors larger than $`R=0.1`$ have been uniformly plotted as white, while black indicates $`R=0`$, and the gray levels run between these two values. Two different synchronization mechanisms are present in Fig. 2. The first one appears for very low coupling intensity (the black region near the ordinate axis $`\kappa =0`$). This is not a regime of anticipated synchronization, but it corresponds to the synchronization of trajectories by common random forcing  which leads simply to $`𝐱(t)=𝐲(t)`$.

Beyond this regime of synchronization by common random forcing, a finite value of the coupling $`\kappa `$ is required in order to achieve anticipated synchronization. However, a very large value of the coupling worsens the quality of the synchronization. This counter-intuitive result can be explained since the dynamics of the slave system becomes chaotic for such large values of the coupling and cannot follow the dynamics of the master. The existence of minimum and maximum values for the coupling in order to exhibit good anticipated synchronization agrees with what was previously found in autonomous chaotic systems  and in linear maps .

To quantify the anticipation time, we have computed the mean value $`t`$ and standard deviation $`\sigma `$ of the time difference $`t_i^mt_i^s`$, where $`t_i^m`$ are the times when the master neuron fires a pulse, and $`t_i^s`$ are the times when the slave neuron fires the corresponding pulse (hence the erroneous pulses fired by the slave are not taken into account). The data shown in the next figures are the result of averaging over a few thousand spike events.

Figure 4(a) plots the mean anticipation time $`t`$ as a function of $`\tau `$ for different values of the coupling $`\kappa `$. The results for large $`\kappa `$ fall mainly on the line $`t=\tau `$ corresponding to the anticipated solution $`𝐲(t)=𝐱(t+\tau )`$. Notice that if $`\kappa `$ is small (’+’ in Fig. 4(a)) it appears that $`t`$ could even be larger than $`\tau `$. However this result does not take into account that the quality of the synchronization is poor in this case (it corresponds to the grey region near the vertical axis in Fig. 3) and that the standard deviation $`\sigma `$ is large (see Fig. 5) indicating a bad synchronization quality. Notice, finally, that for each value of $`\kappa `$ there is a maximum anticipation time, in agreement with the rather sharp transition between synchronized and desynchronized regimes shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 4(b) plots the mean anticipation time $`t`$ as a function of $`\kappa `$ for different values of $`\tau `$. The main result is that for each value of $`\tau `$ there is an interval of values of $`\kappa `$, $`\kappa _{min}<\kappa <\kappa _{max}`$, such that $`t\tau `$ (the plateaus in Fig. 4(b)). For small values of the coupling, $`\kappa <\kappa _{min}`$ it is $`t0`$, and this reflects that the two neurons are synchronized (not anticipately) due to the common external forcing (this parameter region corresponds to the dark region close to the vertical axis of Fig. 3). If $`\kappa >\kappa _{max}`$ the anticipation is lost due to the chaotic behavior of the slave.

More information about the quality of the anticipated synchronization is obtained by looking at the dispersion in the values of $`t_i^mt_i^s`$. In Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) we plot the standard deviation, $`\sigma `$, in the same cases as in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b). Of course, the best synchronization quality can be defined as the one with a small number of errors and a small dispersion in synchronization time. In this sense, one can see in Fig. 5(a) that $`\sigma `$ is an increasing function of $`\tau `$, indicating that the dispersion (and the quality of the synchronization) worsens for large $`\tau `$. Notice also in Fig. 5(b) that in the interval of coupling strength where good synchronization occurs, $`\kappa _{min}<\kappa <\kappa _{max}`$, $`\sigma `$ decreases significantly.

In conclusion, we have studied numerically the regime of anticipated synchronization in coupled FitzHugh-Nagumo model neurons subjected to the same random external forcing. A difference with previous studies is that the anticipated synchronization manifold is not an exact solution of the dynamical equations. However, we have shown that the slave can predict the pulse firing quite accurately. We have introduced the normalized number of errors and the mean anticipation time to measure the degree of synchronization. We have shown that the anticipation phenomenon is robust and exists on a wide parameter region.

We would like to end by pointing out that synchronous neuronal oscillations underlie many cortical processes. Whether the results of this paper are of any interest to biological systems is open to speculation, but we hope that our numerical results will stimulate the search for anticipated synchronization in real biological neurons.

The work is supported by MCyT (Spain) and FEDER, projects BFM2001-0341-C02-01 and BMF2000-1108. C. Masoller acknowledges partial support from the Universitat de les Illes Balears.