text:
# ‘Algorithmic cooling’ in a momentum state quantum computer

## Abstract

We describe a quantum computer based upon the coherent manipulation of two-level atoms between discrete one-dimensional momentum states. Combinations of short laser pulses with kinetic energy dependent free phase evolution can perform the logical invert, exchange, CNOT and Hadamard operations on any qubits in the binary representation of the momentum state, as well as conditional phase inversion. These allow a binary right-rotation, which halves the momentum distribution in a single coherent process. Fields for the coherent control of atomic momenta may thus be designed as quantum algorithms.

Proposed schemes for quantum computation Deutsch (1985) have tended, quite naturally, to focus on quantum analogues of classical binary computing elements. The nuclear spins of a molecule, or of an ensemble of trapped atoms or ions, thus mimic the bits of a conventional computer. In this article, we address a less obvious system, in which information is represented by the momentum of a single atom or molecule, which is manipulated using laser pulses in a one-dimensional geometry that restricts each species to a ladder of equally spaced momentum states. Although any one laser pulse can change the species momentum, through photon absorption and stimulated emission, by only a single photon impulse, we find that sequences of pulses, interspersed with periods of momentum-dependent phase evolution, allow a full suite of quantum computational operations on the qubits comprising the binary representation of the momentum state.

The size of the momentum state quantum computer grows in proportion to the number of quantum states included, where conventional candidates instead scale with the number of qubits representing those states. The number of laser pulses needed to perform each logical operation increases similarly and, although the overall duration proves to be less drastically affected, momentum state systems therefore hold limited promise for real computing. Nonetheless, the scheme outlined here is based upon simple and readily-available elements, albeit in complex combinations, and could thus complement NMR systems Chuang et al. (1998); Jones et al. (1998a) as a testbed for experimental studies.

It is, however, in the design of complex fields for coherent control that we forsee the greatest potential, for if momentum-changing operations can form the basis of a quantum computer then the pulse sequences for optical manipulation may be optimized as quantum computational algorithms. In this respect, the momentum state quantum computer is an enthusiastic development of schemes for interferometric cooling Weitz and Hänsch (2000) and the coherent amplification of laser cooling Freegarde and Segal (2002).

Our scheme is based upon the motion in one dimension (henceforth taken to be vertical) of a sample of two-level atoms, such as an atomic beam interacting with transversely propagating laser beams, as shown in Fig. 1. We shall refer to four coherent operations:

| $`W_+(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ | a short upward laser pulse |
| --- | --- |
| $`W_{}(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ | a short downward laser pulse |
| $`F(\omega t)`$ | free evolution (electronic energy) |
| $`G(t/\tau )`$ | free evolution (kinetic energy), |

where $`\tau =2m/(\mathrm{}k^2)`$. Here, the short (and therefore spectrally broad) laser pulses couple the upper and lower atomic levels, between which population is transferred through Rabi cycling for the duration of the pulse. Conventionally, we describe the overall effect of the pulse through the phase $`2\alpha `$ of the Rabi cycle incurred, the population being inverted when $`2\alpha =\pi `$ (the so-called ‘$`\pi `$ pulse’), and restored when $`2\alpha =2\pi `$. Other fractions of a $`\pi `$ pulse will convert an initially pure state into a superposition. The phases $`\varphi `$ are determined by the relative optical phases of the laser pulses. The free evolution operations $`F(\omega t)`$ and $`G(t/\tau )`$ correspond simply to the components of the time-dependent wavefunction phase $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Et/\mathrm{})`$ that correspond to the electronic energy and vertical momentum component respectively. Weitz and Hänsch Weitz and Hänsch (2000) have shown how the electronic and kinetic energy contributions to the free phase evolution may be separated by appropriate insertion of pairs of $`\pi `$-pulses that invert the atomic population, as we discuss later.

In this one-dimensional geometry, the atom is constrained to a ladder of momentum states that are spaced at intervals of the photon momentum $`\mathrm{}k=\mathrm{}\omega /c`$ ($`\omega `$ being the frequency of the resonant transition) and alternate between the ground and excited electronic levels $`g`$ and $`e`$. We label these states according to their momentum components, in units of the photon impulse $`\mathrm{}k`$. We initially assume, for our analysis of the momentum state quantum computer, that these momenta take integer values, but this assumption will be relaxed when we later consider the consequences for atomic manipulation.

We now convert our representation of the ladder of states to binary, using the notation $`Q_n\mathrm{}Q_2Q_1Q_0`$, with the least significant bit on the right. This is the crucial step in our analysis; yet, apart from the correspondence of $`Q_0`$ to the electronic state of the atom, binary representation seems at first rather unpromising, for computational notation usually helps only when the bits themselves can be manipulated. While the momentum-changing laser pulses here move population by at most one state at a time, however, appropriate combinations prove to offer exactly such bit-wise manipulation.

The key, as in the interferometric cooling scheme of Ref. Weitz and Hänsch (2000), is the dependence of the phase of free evolution upon the momentum. For two levels $`p+\mathrm{\Delta }p/2`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }p/2`$ (in units of $`\mathrm{}k`$) and electronic energy difference $`E_{21}=\mathrm{}\omega `$, the relative phase $`\psi `$ evolves according to

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{21}t}{\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}k)^2t}{2m\mathrm{}}}\left[\left(p+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{2}}\right)^2\left(p{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{2}}\right)^2\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\omega t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k^2t}{m}}p\mathrm{\Delta }p.`$
Any pair of momentum states thus incur a relative phase that evolves according to their average momentum $`p`$. Cancellation of the electronic contribution to the phase, by inserting $`\pi `$ pulse pairs so that the states spend equal times in the ground and excited levels Weitz and Hänsch (2000), merely changes the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and hence the rate at which this proceeds.

We illustrate the capacity for bit-wise manipulation with the example of a three qubit right rotation,

$$\{Q_2,Q_1,Q_0\}\{Q_0,Q_2,Q_1\}.$$

In our largely diagrammatic description, which has its origins in Fig. 1(c), pulses or complete pulse sequences coupling adjacent levels are indicated by when they produce a superposition (e.g., a $`\pi /2`$ pulse), when they cause inversion (the $`\pi `$ pulse) and when $`2\alpha =0,2\pi `$ and so on. For periods of free evolution, we simply indicate the relative phases introduced between coupled states.

First consider a pair of upward-travelling $`\pi /2`$ pulses, separated by a period of free evolution that introduces between coupled states a relative phase adjusted to give in each case an integer power of $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\pi /2)`$. This forms a simple interferometer which, depending upon the original state momentum, can invert population, return it to its original state, or leave initially pure states coupled (see Fig. 1(c)). The sequence repeats every $`8\mathrm{}k`$.

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{ }$$
(2)
This and subsequent operations may be visualized, as in Fig. 2, as rotations of Bloch vectors representing the coupled states - a picture also suitable for NMR computers Gershenfeld and Chuang (1997); Jones et al. (1998b). Pure states are vertically up ($`|g`$) or down ($`|e`$), and are coupled by rotation about a horizontal axis, whose direction depends upon the optical phase. Free evolution corresponds to rotation about the vertical axis.

Two such sequences may now be combined with a further momentum-dependent phase between them to form a second interferometer for the states left in superpositions. The ladder of phases is offset either via the $`F(\omega t)`$ operation (such as a period of uncompensated free evolution that is dominated by the ‘electronic’ phase ), or by appropriate phasing of the subsequent laser pulses. The result is a conditional state exchange:

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{ }$$
(3)
Precisely which pair of adjacent states is exchanged by this operation depends upon the directions and relative phases of the $`\pi /2`$ pulses. As the penultimate step, we construct the two-qubit exchange operation EX(2,1):

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{ }$$
(4)
The right-rotation RR3 is completed by combining this sequence with the much simpler exchange EX(1,0) of qubits $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_0`$. This is given in Table 1 together with a range of other operations on the first three qubits from which, in conjunction with the one-bit operations $`W_+(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ and $`F(\omega t)`$, a complete set may be formed Barenco et al. (1995).

When only the ground electronic level is occupied ($`Q_0=0`$), the right-rotation is indistinguishable from a divide-by-two operation (e.g., $`100(=4)010(=2)`$) and provides a cooling mechanism. As shown in Fig. 3, the four ground states are coherently mapped onto the four lowest momentum states, two of which subsequently undergo spontaneous emission, leaving only states $`0`$, $`2`$ and $`4`$ populated. The coherent process, which pumps heat from kinetic to electronic energy, may then be repeated, further narrowing the momentum distribution.

At this point, we relax our earlier assumption of integer-valued momentum states, and find that the effect, whilst imperfect for non-integer momenta, nonetheless remains. The results of our simulations for the effect of this sequence on an initially flat distribution across fractional momentum states are shown in Fig. 4.

For our simulations, we have used matrix representations of the pulse and evolution operations. Although the matrices are in principle infinite, all non-zero terms cluster around the leading diagonal and any element $`m_{i,j}`$ differs from the diagonally displaced term $`m_{i+2n,j+2n}`$ only through its momentum dependence, so we may summarize the matrices as $`4\times 4`$ elements, given below and derived from the equations of Friedberg and Hartmann Friedberg and Hartmann (1993). Matrices that we use in practice must merely be expanded to cover the sequence of interactions and the momentum range that we wish to describe. The following matrices act on the states $`\{2,1,0,1\}`$.

For upward and downward travelling fractional $`\pi `$ pulses corresponding to Bloch vector rotation through ‘Rabi angle’ $`2\alpha `$ and optical phase $`\varphi `$, we have

$$W_+(\alpha ,\varphi )=(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array})$$
(5)
and

$$W_{}(\alpha ,\varphi )=(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & 0& 0\\ \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{i}e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}).$$
(6)
The matrices for free evolution according to the electronic and kinetic energies are respectively

$$F(\omega t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and

$$G\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{\mathrm{i}(p_0+2)^2t/\tau }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{\mathrm{i}(p_0+1)^2t/\tau }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{\mathrm{i}p_0^2t/\tau }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{\mathrm{i}(p_01)^2t/\tau }\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\tau =2m/(\mathrm{}k^2)`$. Weitz and Hänsch’s sequence for interferometric cooling thus becomes

$`W_+({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}})G\left({\displaystyle \frac{2TT^{}}{\tau }}\right)F\left(\omega (2TT^{})\right)W_{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})G\left({\displaystyle \frac{2T}{\tau }}\right)`$
$`F\left(2\omega T\right)W_{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}})G\left({\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{\tau }}\right)F\left(\omega T^{}\right)W_+({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}})`$
No attempt has yet been made to optimize the sequences given here: the phase corrections often serve only to demonstrate the exact equivalence to a quantum computer, and reductions in the complexity, duration or momentum sensitivity of each operation should be possible. Nor have we examined superpositions involving more than two states Hinderthür et al. (1999) or interactions at more than one wavelength Söding et al. (1997). Instead of the fractional Rabi coupling of electronic transitions assumed for simplicity, our scheme could be more robustly implemented using Raman transitions Weiss et al. (1993) for adiabatic passage Weitz et al. (1994); Featonby et al. (1998) between Zeeman or hyperfine levels, possible even with modulated c.w. lasers Cashen et al. (2002). The scheme, which we think of as a form of ‘algorithmic cooling’ Boykin et al. (2002) in its broadest sense, could in principle be extended to three dimensions. Owing to the non-resonant nature of the pulsed interactions, it would also be suitable for molecules, for which the large impulse per coherent cycle would be a particular advantage.


format: text

text:
# Long term persistence in the sea surface temperature fluctuations

## 1 Introduction

The oceans cover almost three quarters of the Earth’s surface and have the greatest capacity to store heat. Thus, they are able to regulate the temperature on land even in sites located far away from the coastline. This property of the oceans suggests that they may posses a strong temperature persistence, i.e. a strong tendency that the water temperature of a particular day will remain the same the next day. Persistence can be characterized by the auto-correlation function $`C(s)`$ of temperature variations separated by a time period $`s`$. Recently, quantitative studies of the persistence in atmospheric land temperatures revealed that atmospheric land temperature fluctuations exhibit long-range power law correlations $`C(s)s^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma 0.70`$ \[Koscielny-Bunde et al., 1996; Koscielny-Bunde et al., 1998; Pelletier, 1997; Pelletier et al., 1997; Talkner et al., 2000\]. In this Letter, we study the persistence in sea surface temperature (SST) records at many sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans using the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) method \[Peng et al., 1994; Kantelhardt et al., 2001\]. We find that for all time scales the SST fluctuations exhibit stronger correlations than atmospheric land temperature fluctuations. The long term persistence of the SST is characterized by a correlation exponent $`\gamma 0.4`$ for both oceans.

We have analyzed both types of SST data sets that are available, the monthly SST for the period $`18562001`$ and the weekly SST for the period $`19812001`$. For the period 1856-1981, the monthly SST data sets were obtained by Kaplan et al. \[Kaplan et al., 1998\] who used optimal estimation in space applying 80 empirical orthogonal functions to interpolate ship observations of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office database \[Parker et al., 1994\]. After 1981, the monthly data correspond to the projection of the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) optimal interpolation (OI) analysis \[Reynolds et al., 1993; Reynolds et al., 1994\]. The weekly SST’s also correspond to the NCEP OI analysis. The data are freely available from http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.

## 2 The Method

We focus on the temperature fluctuations around the periodical seasonal trend. In order to remove the periodical trend, we first determine the mean temperature $`T_a`$ for each month/week by averaging over all years in the time series. Then, we analyze the temperature deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_i=T_iT_a`$ from these mean values. The persistence in the temperature fluctuations can be characterized by the auto-correlation function,

$$C(s)\mathrm{\Delta }T_i\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i+s}=\frac{1}{Ns}\underset{i=1}{\overset{Ns}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }T_i\mathrm{\Delta }T_{i+s},$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the length of the record and $`s`$ is the time lag. A direct calculation of $`C(s)`$ is hindered by the level of noise present in the finite temperature series and by possible nonstationarities in the data. To reduce the noise, we study the temperature profile function,

$$Y_k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }T_i.$$
(2)
We can consider the profile $`Y_k`$ as the position of a random walker on a linear chain after $`k`$ steps. According to the random walk theory, the fluctuations $`F(s)`$ of the profile in a given time window of length $`s`$ are related to the correlation function $`C(s)`$. For the relevant case of long-range power law correlations,

$$C(s)s^\gamma ,0<\gamma <1,$$
(3)
the fluctuations increase as a power law \[Barabasi et al., 1995; Shlesinger et al., 1987\],

$$F(s)s^\alpha ,\alpha =1\gamma /2.$$
(4)
For uncorrelated data ($`\gamma 1`$), we have $`\alpha =1/2`$. To find how the fluctuations scale with $`s`$, we divide the profile into non-overlapping intervals of length $`s`$. We calculate the square fluctuations $`F_\nu ^2(s)`$ in each interval $`\nu `$ and obtain $`F(s)`$ by averaging over all intervals, $`F(s)F_\nu ^2(s)^{1/2}`$. Here, we use two methods that differ in the way fluctuations are measured. In the fluctuation analysis (FA), the square of the fluctuations is defined as $`F_\nu ^2(s)=(Y_{(\nu +1)s}Y_{\nu s})^2`$ where $`Y_{\nu s}`$ and $`Y_{(\nu +1)s}`$ are the values of the profile at the beginning and the end of each segment $`\nu `$, respectively. In the detrended fluctuation analysis, we determine in each interval the best polynomial fit of the profile and define $`F_\nu (s)`$ as the variance between the profile and the best fit in the intervals. Different orders $`n`$ of DFA (DFA1, DFA2, etc) differ in the order of the polynomial used in the fitting procedure. By construction, FA is sensitive to any kind of trend and thus equivalent to the Hurst and the power spectrum analyses. In contrast, DFA$`n`$ removes a polynomial trend of order $`n1`$ in the temperature record and thus, it is superior to the conventional methods.

To characterize the persistence, we have applied the FA and DFA methods to $`36`$ ($`46`$) monthly SST records and $`64`$ ($`35`$) weekly SST records in the Atlantic (Pacific) ocean.

## 3 Results and Discussion

Figure 1(a-c) show three typical plots of the monthly temperature profile function $`Y_t`$ for a land station (Prague), a site in the Atlantic ocean, and a site in the Pacific ocean, respectively. Parabolic-like profile functions which are concave (convex) may indicate the presence of a positive (negative) linear trend (see Eq. 2). However, Fig. 1(d) illustrates that pure correlated data may also lead to parabolic-like profile functions. Trends and correlations can be distinguished and characterized by comparing the FA and DFA results \[Kantelhardt et al., 2001; Govindan et al., 2001\]. Figure 2 shows log-log plots of the FA and DFA curves for the profiles shown in Fig. 1. Figure 2(a) shows that at large times Prague temperature fluctuations display a power law behavior. The fluctuation exponent obtained from the FA (0.81) is greater than the values given by the DFA1-5 (0.65). This difference is probably due to the effect of the well known urban warming of Prague. The fluctuation exponent $`\alpha 0.65`$ is consistent with the earlier finding, where the whole Prague record (218 years) has been analyzed \[Koscielny-Bunde et al., 1996; Govindan et al., 2001\]. Figure 2(a) shows that the FA (and the similar Hurst and power spectrum methods) may lead to spurious results because of the presence of trends, yielding a large overestimation of long range correlations. Figure 2(d) shows the FA and DFA results for the artificial data used in Fig. 1(d). Although the profile function suggested the presence of a trend, the FA and the DFA show no evidence of any trend (see references \[Hu et al., 2001; Vjushin et al., 2001\]). Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show the FA and DFA results for two typical sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, respectively. Here, for long time scales, FA and DFA curves are straight lines with roughly the same fluctuation exponent $`\alpha 0.8`$. This shows that (a) trends do not falsify the FA result and therefore may be regarded as much less important than for Prague temperatures, and (b) long range correlations also occur in SST’s. These correlations are stronger than the correlations in the atmospheric land temperatures, since the fluctuation exponent $`\alpha 0.8`$ corresponds to a correlation exponent $`\gamma 0.4`$. As in the case of atmospheric land temperatures \[Koscielny-Bunde et al., 1996\], the range of this persistence law seems to exceed one decade and is possible even longer than the range of the SST series considered.

In contrast to Prague, there is a pronounced short-time regime which ends roughly at 10 months. This regime can be better revealed by the analysis of the weekly SST series. Figure 3 shows the FA and DFA results for $`4`$ sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This figure shows that for short times, the SST exhibits a persistence which is considerably stronger than both the SST long term persistence and the atmospheric land temperature persistence. The typical SST short-time fluctuation exponent is $`\alpha 1.2`$. However, in the northern Atlantic (latitudes from 30o to 50o north) we have found even higher fluctuation exponents. Figure 3(d) shows the results for a typical site in the northern Atlantic, yielding $`\alpha 1.4`$. The fact that $`\alpha `$ is above $`1`$ means that the variance of the original temperature fluctuations in a time window $`s`$ increases as $`s^{\alpha 1}`$, i.e. as $`s^{0.4}`$ in the Northern Atlantic and $`s^{0.2}`$ in the rest of the oceans for time scales below $`10`$ months. This non-stationary behavior must be contrasted with the atmospheric land temperature fluctuations where the variance stays constant and the persistence decays with a nearly universal exponent $`\gamma 0.7`$. Non-stationary behavior has also been found in the analysis of marine stratocumulus cloud base height records \[Kitova et al., 2002\].

We like to suggest the following interpretation for the difference in the short-term persistence between the Northern Atlantic and the rest of the oceans. In the northern Atlantic, the dominant mode of interannual variability in the atmospheric circulation is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) \[Hurrell, 1995; Thompson et al., 1998\]. This weather phenomenon highly influences the climate in the eastern part of North America and northern Europe and is usually characterized by the NAO index which is based on the normalized difference in sea level pressure between Ponta Delgada, Azores (26o W, 38o N) and Akureyri, Iceland (18o W, 66o N). The NAO index varies from positive values in winters to negative values in other seasons. During the last twenty years, the NAO index has displayed a persistent and exceptionally strong positive phase \[Hurrell, 1995\]. Since the sea level pressure and the SST are coupled variables, it is likely that the observed persistence in the NAO index is also revealed by the greater fluctuation exponent found in SST’s in the same period.

In order to find how representative the values of the fluctuation exponents are, we have studied the distribution of the short- and long-term exponents for both the Atlantic and the Pacific ocean. For the long-term exponents, we exclude those sites in the tropical Pacific region where the El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO) takes place \[Tziperman et al., 1994; Cane et al., 1986\]. The reason for this is that ENSO is a cyclic phenomenon which warms the east equatorial Pacific ocean every three to six years. This cycle cannot be detrended and strongly affects the DFA results on scales between $`2`$ and $`20`$ years. At small scales below $`2`$y, higher order DFA is able to remove the trend. At larger scales, well above $`20`$y, the oscillations cancel each other and the fluctuations again become dominant. However, for obtaining reliable results on the scaling above $`20`$y, we need data covering far more than $`200`$y. Those data are not available, and therefore we cannot specify the long-term exponents in the ENSO region. Figure 4 shows the results from our fluctuation analysis for a typical site in the tropical Pacific region, both for the weekly and the monthly data. Below $`2`$y, the exponent is close to $`1.2`$, and is therefore similar to the short-term exponent for the rest of the sites. Above $`2`$y, the influence of the oscillations shows up. First, the exponent crosses over to a larger value, and then, above $`3`$y for DFA1 and above $`8`$y for DFA5, crosses over to a very low value. This effect of oscillations on the DFA analysis was recently described in \[Kantelhardt et al., 2001; Hu et al., 2001\]. We expect that at much larger scales, the exponent will gradually increase approaching the value $`\alpha 0.8`$ as for the sites outside the ENSO regime. However, the data sets are too short to observe this effect.

Figure 5 summarizes our results for the short- and long-term exponents for both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. As said before, for the short-term exponents, sites in the ENSO region are included in the histogram, while for the long-term exponents they are not. The histogram shows that the short term exponents for the Northern Atlantic ($`\alpha =1.38\pm 0.04`$) where the NAO takes place, are well distinct from the short term exponents of the remaining sites ($`\alpha =1.17\pm 0.08`$). For the asymptotic long-term exponents ($`\alpha =0.8\pm 0.08`$) there is not such a clear distinction between the Northern Atlantic area and the rest.

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have studied the persistence of the sea surface temperature in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. We found that, in contrast to land stations, there exist two pronounced scaling regimes. In the short-time regime that roughly ends at 10 months, the fluctuations of the temperature profile, in a given time window $`s`$, scales as $`s^\alpha `$, with an exponent $`\alpha `$ in the northern Atlantic ($`\alpha 1.4`$) that differs from the rest of the oceans ($`\alpha 1.2`$). This behavior is well distinct from the temperature fluctuations on land, where $`\alpha `$ is close to $`0.65`$ above typically 10 days. The fact that in the short-time regime $`\alpha `$ is well above $`1`$ points to an intrinsic non-stationary behavior where the variance of the original temperature fluctuations in a time window of size $`s`$ increases with $`s`$ as $`s^{\alpha 1}`$. This non-stationary behavior crosses over to stationary behavior at time scales above $`10`$ months, where now the fluctuation exponent reaches the value $`\alpha 0.8`$ for all sites considered in both oceans. This result reveals that pronounced long term correlations govern the SST, with an exponent $`\gamma 0.4`$. The persistence in the SST is due to the capacity of the oceans to store heat \[Levitus et al., 2001\]. The oceans also contribute to the temperature persistence on land but in a less direct way, i.e. by coupling to the atmosphere. This may be the reason why the persistence of atmospheric land temperatures is less pronounced. In the view of our results, it is interesting that coastline stations (like Melbourne, Sidney, and New York) show the same persistence exponent like inland stations (like Prague and Luling). Finally, we also like to emphasize that the scaling laws we find here may serve as further non-trivial test-bed for the state-of-the-art global climate models (see \[Govindan R., 2002\]).

Acknowledgments: We like to acknowledge financial support from CONICET (Argentina), the Israel Science Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemainschaft.


text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-02/38

Does the LMA MSW solar solution imply

the Dirac nature of neutrinos?***Work supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN), grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001–2002).

Wojciech Królikowski

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL–00–681 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

Operating with the bilarge neutrino mixing, we show that in the option of Dirac neutrinos the fermion universality — expressed by the proportionality of neutrino masses to charged-lepton masses — predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, consistently with the LMA MSW solar solution. In contrast, in the option of Majorana neutrinos the fermion universality — introduced as the seesaw proportionality of neutrino masses to charged-lepton masses squared — predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$, what is consistent rather with the LOW MSW solar solution. Thus, the favored LMA MSW estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ might be a signal from the Dirac nature of neutrinos.

PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff , 14.60.Pq , 12.15.Hh .

October 2002

As is well known , the bilarge form of mixing matrix for three active neutrinos $`\nu _{eL}`$, $`\nu _{\mu L}`$, $`\nu _{\tau L}`$ ,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}c_{23}& c_{12}c_{23}& s_{23}\\ s_{12}s_{23}& c_{12}s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
with $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, where $`\theta _{12}33^{}`$ (the favored LMA MSW solar solution) and $`\theta _{23}45^{}`$, is globally consistent with the observed neutrino deficits for solar $`\nu _e`$’s  and atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s  as well as with the negative Chooz experiment for reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s . It cannot explain, however, the possible LSND effect for accelerator $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$’s  that, if confirmed by the MiniBooNE experiment, may require the existence of a third neutrino mass-squared scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$ beside the solar and atmospheric scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^25\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (the favored LMA MSW solar solution) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The form (1) follows from the general shape à la Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa of the neutrino mixing matrix  by putting $`\theta _{13}=0`$, consistent with the negative result of Chooz experiment. The choice of $`s_{13}=0`$ eliminates from $`U`$ the CP violating Dirac phase $`\delta `$ as it appears in $`U`$ only in the form $`s_{13}\mathrm{exp}(i\delta )`$.

The neutrino mixing matrix $`U=\left(U_{\alpha i}\right)`$ defines the unitary transformation

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL}$$
(2)
between the active-neutrino flavor and mass fields, $`\nu _{\alpha L}(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and $`\nu _{iL}(i=1,2,3)`$, respectively. If the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal in the flavor representation, $`U`$ is at the same time the diagonalizing matrix for $`M^{}M`$, where $`M=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ is the neutrino mass matrix,

$$U^{}M^{}MU=\mathrm{diag}(|m_1|^2,|m_2|^2,|m_3|^2).$$
(3)
Here $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ denote generically complex neutrino masses, $`m_1=|m_1|`$, $`m_2=|m_2|\mathrm{exp}(2i\varphi _2)`$, $`m_3=|m_3|\mathrm{exp}(2i\varphi _3)`$. We order $`|m_1||m_2||m_3|`$.

There are two possible options: neutrinos are Majorana particles with the mass term $`\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha \beta }\overline{(\nu _{\alpha L})^c}M_{\alpha \beta }\nu _{\beta L}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$, where $`M`$ is symmetric but generically complex, or they are Dirac particles with the mass term $`_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\nu _{\alpha R}}M_{\alpha \beta }\nu _{\beta L}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.=_{\alpha \beta }\overline{(\nu _{\alpha L}+\nu _{\alpha R})}M_{\alpha \beta }(\nu _{\beta L}+\nu _{\beta R})`$, where $`M`$ is Hermitian.

In the first option, Eq. (3) implies that the unitary $`U`$ diagonalizes symmetric $`M`$ in the complex orthogonal way

$$U^TMU=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(4)
where $`U^T=U^{}=U^{}`$. Two phases $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ in $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ (thus present also in $`M`$) are known as Majorana phases. The complex orthogonal transformation inverse to Eq. (4) is

$$M=U^{}\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^T,$$
(5)
i.e., $`M_{\alpha \beta }=_iU_{\alpha i}^{}m_iU_{\beta i}^{}`$. If the symmetric $`M`$ is real, then the unitary $`U`$ is real (as in the case of Eq. (1)), giving real neutrino masses $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$. Then, the CP violating Majorana phases are trivial. In general, these phases can be shifted in Eq. (4) from $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ to $`U`$ replaced in such a way by $`UP`$ with $`P=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2),\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _3))`$.

In the second option, Eq. (3) shows that the unitary $`U`$ diagonalizes Hermitian $`M`$ in the familiar unitary way

$$U^{}MU=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(6)
giving $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ real (then, the phases $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ in $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ are trivial). The unitary transformation inverse to Eq. (6) is

$$M=U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^{}$$
(7)
i.e., $`M_{\alpha \beta }=_iU_{\alpha i}m_iU_{\beta i}^{}`$.

In the case of Eq. (1), where $`U^{}=U`$, Eq. (5) or (7) leads (in both options) to the following mass matrix elements (with $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ real, in the first option when $`M^{}=M`$):

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1c_{12}^2+m_2s_{12}^2,`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2)c_{23}^2+m_3s_{23}^2,`$
$`M_{\tau \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2)s_{23}^2+m_3c_{23}^2,`$
$`M_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1m_2)c_{12}s_{12}c_{23}=M_{\mu e},`$
$`M_{e\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1m_2)c_{12}s_{12}s_{23}=M_{\tau e},`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_1s_{12}^2+m_2c_{12}^2m_3)c_{23}s_{23}=M_{\tau \mu },`$ (8)
where $`c_{23}1/\sqrt{2}s_{23}`$ and $`c_{12}0.84`$ , $`s_{12}0.54`$.

For the bilarge form (1) of $`U`$ the following neutrino oscillation probabilities hold (in the vacuum):

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`1(2c_{12}s_{12})^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`1(2c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{23}^4\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}(2c_{23}s_{23})^2\left(s_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{31}+c_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}\right),`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`(2c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21},`$
$`P(\nu _\tau \nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`(2c_{12}s_{12})^2s_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`(2c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{23}^2s_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}+(2c_{23}s_{23})^2(s_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{31}+c_{12}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}),`$ (9)
where

$$x_{ji}1.27\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2L}{E},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2m_j^2m_i^2(i,j=1,2,3)$$
(10)
($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2`$, $`L`$ and $`E`$ are measured in eV2, km and GeV, respectively). Here, $`U^{}=U`$ and so, the possible CP violation is ignored. Thus, $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )=P(\nu _\beta \nu _\alpha )`$, the second equality following from the CPT theorem. In the formulae (9), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ (and hence, $`x_{21}x_{32}x_{31})`$, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ from the first Eq. (9) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ experimentally, implying $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ from the second Eq. (9), where the term with $`\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}`$ can be ignored. Therefore, the hierarchy of $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$ is " normal": $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ (and not "inverse": $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$).

In the option of Majorana neutrinos, postulating that the seesaw mechanism  works, we can write the mass matrix for active neutrinos $`\nu _{eL},\nu _{\mu L},\nu _{\tau L}`$ in the form

$$M=M^{(D)}\frac{1}{M^{(R)}}M^{(D)T}=U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^{}$$
(11)
with the bilarge mixing matrix $`U`$ as given in Eq. (1). Here,

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\nu )}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{(\nu _L)^c},\overline{\nu _R})\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M^{(D)}\\ M^{(D)T}& M^{(R)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ (\nu _R)^c\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(12)
with $`\nu _L=(\nu _{eL},\nu _{\mu L},\nu _{\tau L})^T`$ and $`(\nu _R)^c=((\nu _{eR})^c,(\nu _{\mu R})^c,(\nu _{\tau R})^c)^T`$ is the generic mass term for Majorana neutrinos, where $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ and $`(\nu _{\alpha R})^c(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ are the active and (conventional) sterile neutrinos, respectively. In the simplest effective seesaw model, we put

$$M^{(D)}=U\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)U^{},M^{(R)}=U\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })U^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(13)
with $`0<\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (here, in the case of large mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`M^{(R)}`$, possible differences between its three eigenvalues are assumed to be negligible). Then, from Eq. (11)

$$m_i=\frac{\lambda _i^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(i=1,2,3).$$
(14)
Introducing in this option the fermion universality for neutrinos and charged leptons by the straightforward assumption that in Eq. (14) $`\lambda _i`$ are charged-lepton masses,

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`m_e=0.510999\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu =105.658\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau =1777.03\mathrm{MeV},`$ (15)
we obtain from Eq. (14)

$$m_1=2.611\times 10^1\frac{\mathrm{MeV}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},m_2=1.116\times 10^4\frac{\mathrm{MeV}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},m_3=3.158\times 10^6\frac{\mathrm{MeV}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(16)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=m_2^2m_1^2=1.246\times 10^8{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{MeV}^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=m_3^2m_2^2=9.972\times 10^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{MeV}^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.250\times 10^5.`$ (17)
Making use of the SuperKamiokande estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, we predict from Eqs. (17) that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }5.8\times 10^{10}\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^23.7\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(18)
The prediction (18) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$  lies not very far from the experimental estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^27\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ based on the LOW MSW solar solution, whereas the favored experimental estimation based on the LMA MSW solar solution is much larger: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The estimate (18) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gives from Eqs. (16) the neutrino masses

$$m_14.5\times 10^9\mathrm{eV},m_21.9\times 10^4\mathrm{eV},m_35.5\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(19)
In the option of Dirac neutrinos we can write the neutrino mass matrix in the form

$$M=M^{(D)}=U\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U^{}$$
(20)
with the bilarge mixing matrix $`U`$ as presented in Eq. (1).

Expressing in this option the fermion universality for neutrinos and charged leptons by the straightforward assumption of proportionality

$$m_i=\zeta \lambda _i(i=1,2,3),$$
(21)
where $`\lambda _i`$ are charged-lepton masses as given in Eqs. (15), we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=m_2^2m_1^2=1.116\times 10^4\zeta ^2\mathrm{MeV}^2`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=m_3^2m_2^2=3.147\times 10^6\zeta ^2\mathrm{MeV}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3.548\times 10^3.`$ (22)
With the use of SuperKamiokande estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we predict from Eqs. (22) that

$$\zeta 3.1\times 10^{11},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^21.1\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(23)
The prediction (23) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is not very different from the favored experimental estimation $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ based on the LMA MSW solar solution. The estimate (23) for $`\zeta `$ implies by means of Eqs. (21) the neutrino masses

$$m_11.6\times 10^5\mathrm{eV},m_23.3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},m_35.5\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(24)
In conclusion, the straigthforward formulation (21) of the fermion universality for neutrinos and charged leptons implies in the option of Dirac neutrinos the prediction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, not inconsistent with its most probable LMA MSW estimation $`5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$. In contrast, the straigthforward seesaw formulation (14) and (15) of this universality leads in the option of Majorana neutrinos to the prediction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$, not inconsistent with its less probable LOW MSW estimate $`7\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$. Thus, on the ground of fermion universality, the favored LMA MSW estimation might be considered as a signal from the Dirac nature of neutrinos.

Notice finally that the charged-lepton mass spectrum (15) can be neatly parametrized by means of mass matrix of the form :

$$M^{(e)}=\frac{1}{29}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu ^{(e)}\epsilon ^{(e)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 4\mu ^{(e)}(80+\epsilon ^{(e)})/9& 0\\ 0& 0& 24\mu ^{(e)}(624+\epsilon ^{(e)})/25\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
which predicts $`m_\tau =1776.80`$ MeV (versus $`m_\tau ^{\mathrm{exp}}=1777.03_{0.26}^{+0.30}`$ MeV ), when the experimental values of $`m_e`$ and $`m_\mu `$ are used as an input (then, $`\epsilon ^{(e)}=0.172329`$ and $`\mu ^{(e)}=85.9924`$ MeV are also determined). The fermion universality for neutrinos and charged leptons may be formulated in a straigthforward way by the assumption that the Dirac mass matrix $`M^{(D)}`$ for neutrinos gets — after its diagonalization $`U^{}M^{(D)}U`$ is performed — the form (25) with the parameters $`\mu ^{(e)}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(e)}`$ replaced by new ones, $`\mu ^{(\nu )}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}`$. This leads to the prediction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the order $`10^8\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or $`10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, if neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac, respectively, and the estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ is used. Then, $`\mu ^{(\nu )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }1.3\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}`$, or $`\mu ^{(\nu )}2.7\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, respectively. If in both options $`\epsilon ^{(\nu )}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(e)}`$ are neglected, then $`m_1=0`$ and $`m_{2,3}=\left(\mu ^{(\nu )}/\mu ^{(e)}\right)^2\lambda _{2,3}^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }5.8\times 10^{10}`$ GeV when $`\mu ^{(\nu )}=\mu ^{(e)}`$, or $`m_1=0`$ and $`m_{2,3}=\zeta \lambda _{2,3}`$ with $`\zeta =\mu ^{(\nu )}/\mu ^{(e)}3.1\times 10^{11}`$, respectively. Here, $`\lambda _i`$ are charged-lepton masses as in Eq. (15). The form (25) of fermion mass matrix has a theoretical background described recently in Ref. , connected with the origin of three and only three fundamental fermion generations.

References

 For recent reviews cf: C. Giunti, Talk at the 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 2002, Amsterdam, hep--ph/0209103; M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir, hep--ph/0202056.

 V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant and B.P. Wood, hep-ph/0204253; J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez–Garcia and C. Peña–Garay, hep--ph/0204314v2; G.L. Fogli et al., hep--ph/0208026; and references therein.

 S. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3999 (2000).

 M. Appolonio et al., Phys. Lett. B 420, 397 (1998); B 466, 415 (1999).

 G. Mills, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 91, 198 (2001); cf. also cf. K. Eitel, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 91, 191 (2001) for negative results of KARMEN2 experiment .

 Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870 (1962).

 M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, edited by F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman, North Holland, 1979; T. Yanagida, Proc. of the Workshop on Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe, KEK, Japan, 1979; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).

 W. Królikowski, hep-ph/0208210.

 W. Królikowski, Acta Phys. Pol. B 33, 2559 (2002) (also hep--ph/0203107); and references therein.

 The Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000).


text:
# Subleading Isgur-Wise Function of Λ_𝑏→Λ_{𝑐1} using QCD sum rules

## I Introduction

The ground state bottom baryon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ weak decays  provide a testing ground for the standard model (SM). They reveal some important features of the physics of bottom quark. The experimental data on these decays have been accumulated to wait for reliable theoretical calculations. With the discovery of the orbitally excited charmed baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2593)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2625)`$ , it would be of great interest for one to investigate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ semileptonic decays into these baryons.

From the phenomenological point of view, these semileptonic transitions are interesting since in principle they may account for a sizeable fraction of the inclusive semileptonic rate of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decay. In addition, the properties of excited baryons have attracted attention in recent years. Investigation on them will extend our ability in the application of QCD. It can also help us foresee any other excited heavy baryons that have not been discovered yet.

The heavy quark symmetry  is a useful tool to classify the hadronic spectroscopy containing a heavy quark $`Q`$. In the infinite mass limit, the spin and parity of the heavy quark and that of the light degrees of freedom are separately conserved. Coupling the spin of light degrees of freedom $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ with the spin of heavy quark $`s_Q=1/2`$ yields a doublet with total spin $`J=j_{\mathrm{}}\pm 1/2`$ (or a singlet if $`j_{\mathrm{}}=0`$). This classification can be applied to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q`$-type baryons. For the charmed baryons the ground state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ contains light degrees of freedom with spin-parity $`j_{\mathrm{}}^P=0^+`$, being a singlet. The excited states with $`j_{\mathrm{}}^P=1^{}`$ are spin symmetry doublet with $`J^P`$($`1^{}/2`$,$`3^{}/2`$). The lowest states of such excited charmed states, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{3/2}`$, have been observed to be identified with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2593)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2625)`$ respectively .

However, the difficulties in the SM calculations are mainly due to the poor understanding of the nonperturbative aspects of the strong interaction (QCD). The heavy quark effective theory (HQET) based on the heavy quark symmetry provides a model-independent method for analyzing heavy hadrons containing a single heavy quark . It allows us to expand the physical quantity in powers of $`1/m_Q`$ systematically, where $`m_Q`$ is the heavy quark mass. Within this framework, the classification of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ exclusive weak decay form factors has been greatly simplified. The decays such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\overline{\nu }`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{()}l\overline{\nu }`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{()}\pi l\overline{\nu }`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_bp(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$  have been studied.

To obtain detailed predictions for the hadrons, at this point, some nonperturbative QCD methods are also required. We have adopted QCD sum rules  in this work. QCD sum rule is a powerful nonperturbative method based on QCD. It takes into account the nontrivial QCD vacuum which is parametrized by various vacuum condensates in order to describe the nonperturbative nature. In QCD sum rule, hadronic observables can be calculated by evaluating two- or three-point correlation functions. The hadronic currents for constructing the correlation functions are expressed by the interpolating fields. In describing the excited heavy baryons, transverse covariant derivative is included in the interpolating field. The static properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ denotes the generic $`j_{\mathrm{}}^P=1^{}`$ charmed state) have been studied with QCD sum rules in the HQET in Ref.  and Ref. , respectively. Recently, the leading order Isgur-Wise (IW) function is also calculated in the HQET QCD sum rule in Ref. .

In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ decay, $`1/m_Q`$ corrections are very important. At the heavy quark limit of $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, the transition matrix elements should vanish at zero recoil since the light degrees of freedom change their configurations. Nonvanishing contribution to, say, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })`$ at zero recoil appears at $`1/m_Q`$ order. Since both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ are heavy enough, the behavior of the matrix elements near the zero recoil is very important. That explains why people pay attention to the next-to-leading order (NLO) contributions. The same situation occurs in heavy mesons. As for $`BD_1(D_2^{})\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay, leading and subleading Isgur-Wise (IW) functions have been computed using QCD sum rule in Ref. . They showed that the branching ratio is enhanced considerably when the subleading contributions are included.

In HQET, $`1/m_Q`$ corrections appear in a two-fold way. At the Lagrangian level, subleading terms are summarized in $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. $`\lambda _1`$ parametrizes the kinetic term of higher derivative, while $`\lambda _2`$ represents the chromomagnetic interaction which explicitly breaks the heavy quark spin symmetry. At the current level, $`1/m_Q`$ corrections come from the small portion of the heavy quark fields which correspond to the virtual motion of the heavy quark. In this work, the subleading IW function from the latter case, i.e., at the current level, is analyzed in the HQET QCD sum rules.

In Sec. II, the weak transition matrix elements are parametrized by the leading and subleading IW functions. By evaluating the three-point correlation function, we give the subleading IW function in Sec. III. We present, in Sec. IV, the numerical analysis and discussions. The summary is given in Sec. V.

## II Weak Transition Matrix Elements and the Subleading Isgur-Wise Functions

The weak transition matrix elements for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ are parametrized by the 14-form factors as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{1}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|V_\mu |\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(1/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}(v^{},s^{})\left[F_1\gamma _\mu +F_2v_\mu +F_3v_\mu ^{}\right]\gamma _5u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s),`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{1}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|A_\mu |\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(1/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}(v^{},s^{})\left[G_1\gamma _\mu +G_2v_\mu +G_3v_\mu ^{}\right]u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s),`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{3}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|V_\mu |\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(3/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}^\alpha (v^{},s^{})\left[v_\alpha (K_1\gamma _\mu +K_2v_\mu +K_3v_\mu ^{})+K_4g_{\alpha \mu }\right]u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s),`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{3}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|A_\mu |\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(3/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}^\alpha (v^{},s^{})\left[v_\alpha (N_1\gamma _\mu +N_2v_\mu +N_3v_\mu ^{})+N_4g_{\alpha \mu }\right]\gamma _5u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s),`$ (5)
where $`v(v^{})`$ and $`s(s^{})`$ are the four-velocity and spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1})`$, respectively. And the form factors $`F_i`$, $`G_i`$, $`K_i`$ and $`N_i`$ are functions of $`yvv^{}`$. In the limit of $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$, all the form factors are related to one independent universal form factor $`\xi (y)`$ called Isgur-Wise (IW) function. A convenient way to evaluate hadronic matrix elements is by introducing interpolating fields in HQET developed in Ref.  to parametrize the matrix elements in Eqs. (II). With the aid of this method the matrix element can be written as

$$\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }b=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}=\xi (y)v_\alpha \overline{\psi }_v^{}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\psi _v$$
(6)
at leading order in $`1/m_Q`$ and $`\alpha _s`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is any collection of $`\gamma `$-matrices. The ground state field, $`\psi _v`$, destroys the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ baryon with four-velocity $`v`$; the spinor field $`\psi _v^\alpha `$ is given by

$$\psi _v^\alpha =\psi _v^{3/2\alpha }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\gamma ^\alpha +v^\alpha )\gamma _5\psi _v^{1/2},$$
(7)
where $`\psi _v^{1/2}`$ is the ordinary Dirac spinor and $`\psi _v^{3/2\alpha }`$ is the spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger spinor, they destroy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{3/2}`$ baryons with four-velocity $`v`$, respectively. To be explicit,

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(y1)\xi (y),G_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(y+1)\xi (y),`$ (8)
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`G_2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\xi (y),K_1=N_1=\xi (y),`$ (10)
$`(\mathrm{others})=0.`$
In general, the IW form factor is a decreasing function of the four velocity transfer $`y`$. Since the kinematically allowed region of $`y`$ for heavy to heavy transition is very narrow around unity,

$$1y\frac{M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2+M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}^2}{2M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}}1.3,$$
(11)
and hence it is convenient to approximate the IW function linearly as

$$\xi (y)=\xi (1)(1\rho _\xi ^2(y1)),$$
(12)
where $`\rho _\xi ^2`$ is the slope parameter which characterizes the shape of the leading IW function.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_Q`$ corrections come in two ways. One is from the subleading Lagrangian of the HQET while the other comes from the small portion of the heavy quark field to modify the effective currents. We only consider the latter case here.

Including $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_c`$, the weak current is given by

$$\overline{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }b=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{i}{2m_c}\stackrel{}{D}/\mathrm{\Gamma }+\frac{i}{2m_b}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{D}/)h_v^{(b)}.$$
(13)
Keeping the Lorentz structure, the subleading terms are expanded in general as

$`\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}i\stackrel{}{D}/\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_v^{}^\alpha (\tau _1^{(c)}v_\alpha v/+\tau _2^{(c)}v_\alpha v^{}/+\tau _3^{(c)}\gamma _\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_v,`$ (14)
$`\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }i\stackrel{}{D}/h_v^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_v^{}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau _1^{(b)}v_\alpha v/+\tau _2^{(b)}v_\alpha v^{}/+\tau _3^{(b)}\gamma _\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }_v,`$ (15)
where $`\tau _i^{(Q)}`$ are the subleading IW functions to be evaluated.

The matrix elements of these currents modify Eq. (10) as

$`\sqrt{3}F_1`$ $`=`$ $`(y1)\xi ϵ_c\left[(y1)(\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(c)})+3\tau _3^{(c)}\right]+ϵ_b\left[(y1)(\tau _1^{(b)}\tau _2^{(b)})\tau _3^{(b)}\right],`$ (16)
$`\sqrt{3}F_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi +ϵ_c\left[2y\tau _1^{(c)}+2\tau _2^{(c)}\right]+ϵ_b\left[2\tau _1^{(b)}+2\tau _2^{(b)}\right],`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{3}F_3`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_b\left[(1+y)\tau _2^{(b)}+\tau _3^{(b)}\right],`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{3}G_1`$ $`=`$ $`(y+1)\xi ϵ_c\left[(y+1)(\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(c)})+3\tau _3^{(c)}\right]+ϵ_b\left[(y+1)(\tau _1^{(b)}+\tau _2^{(b)})+\tau _3^{(b)}\right],`$ (19)
$`\sqrt{3}G_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi +ϵ_c\left[2y\tau _1^{(c)}+2\tau _2^{(c)}\right]2ϵ_b\left[\tau _1^{(b)}+\tau _2^{(b)}\right],`$ (20)
$`\sqrt{3}G_3`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ_b\left[(y1)\tau _2^{(b)}+\tau _3^{(b)}\right],`$ (21)
$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`\xi +ϵ_c\left[\tau _1^{(c)}\tau _2^{(c)}\right]+ϵ_b\left[\tau _1^{(b)}\tau _2^{(b)}\right],`$ (22)
$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ϵ_c\left[\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(c)}\right]+ϵ_b\left[\tau _1^{(b)}+\tau _2^{(b)}\right],`$ (23)
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`N_2=2ϵ_c\tau _1^{(c)},`$ (24)
$`K_3`$ $`=`$ $`N_3=2ϵ_b\tau _2^{(b)},`$ (25)
$`K_4`$ $`=`$ $`N_4=2ϵ_b\tau _3^{(b)},`$ (26)
where $`ϵ_Q1/2m_Q`$. It is quite convenient to define

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ $``$ $`(\gamma _\alpha +v_\alpha ^{})\gamma _5\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\gamma _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ $``$ $`(\gamma _\alpha +v_\alpha ^{})\gamma _5\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right).`$ (29)
Possible contractions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ are listed in the Appendix. From the Eqs. (7) and (15), Eq. (II) can be reexpressed in terms of $`\tau _i^{(Q)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{1}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(1/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}(v^{},s^{})[\xi v^\alpha v^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}ϵ_c(\tau _1^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(c)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ (31)
$`+ϵ_b(\tau _1^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(b)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })}]u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s),`$
A similar expression can be obtained for the spin-3/2 final states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{3}{2}}(v^{},s^{})|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(v,s)}{\sqrt{4M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(3/2)}M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}}^\alpha (v^{},s^{})[\xi v_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ_c(\tau _1^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(c)}g_{\alpha \beta })\gamma ^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (34)
$`+ϵ_b(\tau _1^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(b)}g_{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\beta ]u_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(v,s).`$
## III QCD sum rule evaluation

As a starting point of QCD sum rule calculation, let us consider the interpolating field of heavy baryons. The heavy baryon current is generally expressed as

$$j_{J,P}^v(x)=ϵ_{ijk}[q^{iT}(x)C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J,P}\tau q^j(x)]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J,P}^{}h_v^k(x),$$
(35)
where $`i,j,k`$ are the color indices, $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix, and $`\tau `$ is the isospin matrix while $`q(x)`$ is a light quark field. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J,P}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J,P}^{}`$ are some gamma matrices which describe the structure of the baryon with spin-parity $`J^P`$. Usually $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ with least number of derivatives are used in the QCD sum rule method. The sum rules then have better convergence in the high energy region and often have better stability. For the ground state heavy baryon, we use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/2,+}=\gamma _5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/2,+}^{}=1`$. In the previous work , two kinds of interpolating fields are introduced to represent the excited heavy baryon. In this work, we find that only the interpolating field of transverse derivative is adequate for the analysis. Nonderivative interpolating field results in a vanishing perturbative contribution. The choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ with derivatives for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{3/2}`$ is then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/2,}`$ $`=`$ $`(a+bv/)\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/2,}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{}{D}/_t}{M}}\gamma _5,`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3/2,}`$ $`=`$ $`(a+bv/)\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3/2,}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M}}(i\stackrel{}{D}_t^\mu +i\stackrel{}{D}/_t\gamma _t^\mu ),`$ (37)
where a transverse vector $`A_t^\mu `$ is defined to be $`A_t^\mu A^\mu v^\mu vA`$, and $`M`$ in Eq. (37) is some hadronic mass scale. $`a`$, $`b`$ are arbitrary numbers between 0 and 1.

The baryonic decay constants in the HQET are defined as follows,

$`0|j_{1/2,+}^v|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\psi _v,`$ (39)
$`0|j_{1/2,}^v|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{1/2}\psi _v^{1/2},`$ (40)
$`0|j_{3/2,}^{v\mu }|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}f_{3/2}\psi _v^{3/2\mu },`$ (41)
where $`f_{1/2}`$ and $`f_{3/2}`$ are equivalent since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{3/2}`$ belong to the same doublet with $`j_{\mathrm{}}^P=1^{}`$. The QCD sum rule calculations give

$$f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^2e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/T}=\frac{1}{20\pi ^4}_0^{\omega _c}𝑑\omega \omega ^5e^{\omega /T}+\frac{1}{6}\overline{q}q^2e^{m_0^2/8T^2}+\frac{\alpha _sGG}{32\pi ^3}T^2,$$
(42)
and

$`M^2f_{1/2}^2e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}/T^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _c^{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{3N_c!}{4\pi ^47!}}\omega ^7(24a^2+40b^2)e^{\omega /T^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sGG}{32\pi ^3}}T^4(a^2+b^2)`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N_c!}{2\pi ^2}}\left[\overline{q}qT^5(16ab)\overline{q}g\sigma GqT^3ab\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}g\sigma Gq}{4\pi ^2}}T^3(3ab).`$
In the above equations, $`T^{()}`$ are the Borel parameters and $`\omega _c^{()}`$ are the continuum thresholds, and $`N_c=3`$ is the color number. In the heavy quark limit, the mass parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$ are defined as

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}=M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Q1}}m_Q,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q}m_Q.$$
(45)
The main point in QCD sum rules for the IW function is to study the analytic properties of the 3-point correlators,

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\frac{1}{2}}(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)`$ $`=`$ $`i^2{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ze^{i(k^{}xkz)}0|𝒯j_{1/2,}^v^{}(x)\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}(0)\overline{j}_{1/2,+}^v(z)|0}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{hadron}}(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)}{\sqrt{3}}}[\xi v^\alpha v^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}ϵ_c(\tau _1^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(c)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ (49)
$`+ϵ_b(\tau _1^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(b)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })}],`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\frac{3}{2}}^\mu (\omega ,\omega ^{},y)`$ $`=`$ $`i^2{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ze^{i(k^{}xkz)}0|𝒯j_{3/2,}^{v^{}\alpha }(x)\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}(0)\overline{j}_{3/2,+}^v(z)|0}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{hadron}}(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{\mu \alpha }[\xi v_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ_c(\tau _1^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(c)}g_{\alpha \beta })\gamma ^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (52)
$`+ϵ_b(\tau _1^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(b)}g_{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\beta \left]\right({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}).`$
The variables $`k`$, $`k^{}`$ denote residual “off-shell” momenta which are related to the momenta $`P`$ of the heavy quark in the initial state and $`P^{}`$ in the final state by $`k=Pm_Qv`$, $`k^{}=P^{}m_Q^{}v^{}`$, respectively.

The coefficient $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)_{\mathrm{hadron}}`$ in Eq. (III) is an analytic function in the “off-shell energies” $`\omega =vk`$ and $`\omega ^{}=v^{}k^{}`$ with discontinuities for positive values of these variables. It furthermore depends on the velocity transfer $`y=vv^{}`$, which is fixed at its physical region for the process under consideration. By saturating with physical intermediate states in HQET, one finds the hadronic representation of the correlators as following

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{\mathrm{hadron}}(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)=\frac{f_{1/2}f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^{}}{(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\omega ^{})(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\omega )}+\text{higher resonances}.$$
(53)
In obtaining the above expression the Dirac and Rartia-Schwinger spinor sums

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+={\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{2}{}}}u(v,s)\overline{u}(v,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{4}{}}}u^\mu (v,s)\overline{u}^\nu (v,s)=\left(g_t^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma _t^\mu \gamma _t^\nu \right){\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}},`$ (55)
have been used, where $`g_t^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu `$.

In the quark-gluon language, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}`$ in Eq. (III) is written as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu 𝑑\nu ^{}\frac{\rho ^{\mathrm{pert}}(\nu ,\nu ^{},y)}{(\nu \omega )(\nu ^{}\omega ^{})}+(\mathrm{subtraction})+\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{cond}}(\omega ,\omega ^{},y),$$
(56)
where the perturbative spectral density function $`\rho ^{\mathrm{pert}}(\nu ,\nu ^{},y)`$ and the condensate contribution $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{cond}}`$ are related to the calculation of the Feynman diagrams depicted in Fig. 1 . In Eq. (56), the $`\gamma `$-structures of spin-1/2 and 3/2 are the same as those in Eq. (III), respectively. Subleading IW functions, $`\tau _i^{(Q)}`$, obtained from spin-1/2 and 3/2 are therefore identical.

The six $`\tau _i^{(Q)}`$ ($`Q=c,b,i=1,2,3`$) are not independent. From the fact that

$$i_\alpha (\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)})=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}(i\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }i\stackrel{}{D}_\alpha )h_v^{(b)}=(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}v_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}v_\alpha ^{})\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)},$$
(57)
Eq. (15) implies

$$(\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _1^{(b)})v_\alpha v_\beta +(\tau _2^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(b)})v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+(\tau _3^{(c)}+\tau _3^{(b)})g_{\alpha \beta }=(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}v_\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}v_\beta ^{})v_\alpha \xi (y).$$
(58)
The above expression relates $`\tau _i^{(c)}`$ with $`\tau _i^{(b)}`$ as

$`\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _1^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\xi ,`$ (60)
$`\tau _2^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\xi ,`$ (61)
$`\tau _3^{(c)}+\tau _3^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (62)
Other relations are obtained from the equation of motion of the heavy quark, $`vDh_v^{(Q)}=0`$:

$`\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}iv\stackrel{}{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }h_v^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_v^{}^\alpha \left(y\tau _1^{(c)}+\tau _2^{(c)}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_v=0,`$ (64)
$`\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }iv\stackrel{}{D}h_v^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_v^{}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\tau _1^{(b)}+y\tau _2^{(b)}+\tau _c^{(b)}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_v=0,`$ (65)
From the above 5 equations in Eq. (58), (III), all the six subleading IW functions are reduced to only one independent form factor. We just pick up $`\tau _1^{(b)}(y)\tau (y)`$, then others are

$`\tau _1^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\xi \tau ,`$ (67)
$`\tau _2^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`y\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\xi +y\tau ,`$ (68)
$`\tau _3^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`y(y\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{})\xi (y^21)\tau ,`$ (69)
$`\tau _2^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`(y\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{})\xi y\tau ,`$ (70)
$`\tau _3^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`y(y\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{})\xi +(y^21)\tau ,`$ (71)
Now that all the subleading IW functions are related to $`\tau (y)`$, we have only to extract the coefficient of $`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{\mu \alpha }v_\alpha v_\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\beta `$ for spin 3/2) in Eqs. (III) and (56).

The QCD sum rule is obtained by equating the phenomenological and theoretical expressions for $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In doing this the quark-hadron duality needs to be assumed to model the contributions of higher resonance part of Eq. (53). Generally speaking, the duality is to simulate the resonance contribution by the perturbative part above some thresholds $`\omega _c`$ and $`\omega _c^{}`$, that is

$$\mathrm{res}.=_{\omega _c}^{\mathrm{}}_{\omega _c^{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\nu d\nu ^{}\frac{\rho ^{\mathrm{pert}}(\nu ,\nu ^{},y)}{(\nu \omega )(\nu ^{}\omega ^{})}.$$
(72)
In the QCD sum rule analysis for $`B`$ semileptonic decays into ground state $`D`$ mesons, it was argued by Neubert in , and Blok and Shifman in  that the perturbative and the hadronic spectral densities can not be locally dual to each other, and therefore the necessary way to restore duality is to integrate the spectral densities over the “off-diagonal” variable $`\nu _{}=\sqrt{\frac{y+1}{y1}}(\nu \nu ^{})/2`$, keeping the “diagonal” variable $`\nu _+=(\nu +\nu ^{})/2`$ fixed. It is in $`\nu _+`$ that the quark-hadron duality is assumed for the integrated spectral densities. The same prescription shall be adopted in the following analysis. On the other hand, in order to suppress the contributions of higher resonance states a double Borel transformation in $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ is performed to both sides of the sum rule, which introduces two Borel parameters $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$.

Combining Eqs. (53), (56), our duality assumption and making the double Borel transformation, one obtains the sum rule for $`\xi (y)`$ as follows;

$`Mf_{1/2}f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^{}e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}/2T^{}}e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/2T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)C_\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y1}{y+1}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _c(y)}}𝑑\nu _+{\displaystyle _{\nu _+}^{\nu _+}}𝑑\nu _{}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _+\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\nu _{}}{2T^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _++\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\nu _{}}{2T}}\right)\rho (\nu _+,\nu _{};y)`$ (75)
$`+\widehat{B}_{2T^{}}^\omega ^{}\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega \mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{cond}},`$
where $`\nu =\nu _++\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\nu _{}`$, $`\nu ^{}=\nu _+\sqrt{\frac{y1}{y+1}}\nu _{}`$, and

$`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}[\xi v^\alpha v^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}ϵ_c(\tau _1^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(c)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}\hfill \\ +ϵ_b(\tau _1^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v^\alpha v^\beta +\tau _3^{(b)}g^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })}](\mathrm{for}\mathrm{spin}1/2),\hfill \\ \xi v_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ_c\left(\tau _1^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(c)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(c)}g_{\alpha \beta }\right)\gamma ^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \\ +ϵ_b\left(\tau _1^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta +\tau _2^{(b)}v_\alpha v_\beta ^{}+\tau _3^{(b)}g_{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\beta (\mathrm{for}\mathrm{spin}3/2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (80)
Now the remaining thing is to evaluate the relevant diagrams in Fig. 1. The leading contributions are given in . For the subleading corrections to the perturbative spectral density function $`\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{};y)`$, we have

$`\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{};y)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{B}_{1/\omega ^{}}^z^{}\widehat{B}_{1/\omega }^z\widehat{B}_{1/z^{}}^\omega ^{}\widehat{B}_{1/z}^\omega \mathrm{\Xi }^{\mathrm{pert}}`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{6N_c!ai}{\pi ^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}^7\theta }}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Theta }(2y\omega ^{}\omega \omega ^2\omega ^2)`$ (84)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{2v^\alpha v^{}_{}{}^{}\beta }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta }}({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}\theta A^3B^3}{3!3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\theta A^2B^4}{2!4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\theta A^4B^2}{4!2!}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2v^\alpha v^\beta }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta }}({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\theta }A^4B^2}{4!2!}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\theta }A^2B^4}{2!4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{2A^3B^3}{3!3!}})g^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{A^3B^3}{3!3!}}],`$
from the perturbative diagram Fig. 1 (a), where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`iϵ_c\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(c\mathrm{\Gamma })}+iϵ_b\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(b\mathrm{\Gamma })},`$ (86)
$`A`$ $``$ $`\omega ^{}\omega e^\theta ,B\omega e^\theta \omega ^{},`$ (87)
$`e^\theta `$ $``$ $`y+\sqrt{y^21}.`$ (88)
For the condensate contributions we just give results when $`T^{}=T`$ for simplicity;

$`\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega ^{}\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega \mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{q}q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ibg^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }}{2\pi ^2(1+y)^2}}\left[64\overline{q}qT^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\overline{q}g\sigma GqT^3(4y+5/2)\right]`$ (92)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ibv^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }}{4\pi ^2(1+y)^3}}[128\overline{q}qT^5(3v+2v^{})^\beta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\overline{q}g\sigma Gq\{(6y+7/2)v^\beta +(y3/2)v^\beta \}],`$
$`\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega ^{}\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega \mathrm{\Xi }^{\overline{q}g\sigma Gq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ib\overline{q}g\sigma GqT^3}{12(1+y)^3}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }\left[2g^{\alpha \beta }(2y^2+3y+1)+(10y+6)v^\alpha v^\beta +4yv^\alpha v^\beta \right],`$ (93)
$`\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega ^{}\widehat{B}_{2T}^\omega \mathrm{\Xi }^{\alpha _sGG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ia\alpha _sGGT^4}{192\pi ^3(1+y)^5}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }[8(y+1)^2(y2)\{g^{\alpha \beta }+5v^\alpha (v+v^{})^\beta \}`$ (96)
$`+24(y1)v^\alpha v^\beta 16(y+1)(y+4)v^\alpha v^\beta ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ia\alpha _sGGT^4}{512\pi ^3(1+y)^4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }\left[2(1+y)g^{\alpha \beta }+6v^\alpha (v+v^{})^\beta \right].`$
Note that these results are from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ were the final state, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ would be replace by a proper $`\gamma `$-structure, leaving all the other things unchanged.

## IV Results and Discussions

For the numerical analysis, the standard values of the condensates are used;

$`\overline{q}q`$ $`=`$ $`(0.23\mathrm{GeV})^3,`$ (97)
$`\alpha GG`$ $`=`$ $`0.04\mathrm{GeV}^4,`$ (98)
$`\overline{q}g\sigma Gq`$ $``$ $`m_0^2\overline{q}q,m_0^2=0.8\mathrm{GeV}^2.`$ (99)
There are many parameters engaged in the QCD sum rule calculations. The key point in the numerical analysis is to find a reasonable parameter space where the QCD sum rule results are stable. First, the continuum threshold $`\omega _c^{}`$ in $`f_{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2})}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$) can differ from that in $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$). However, it is expected that the values of $`\omega _c`$ and $`\omega _c^{}`$ would not be different significantly. This is because the mass difference $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is fairly small , $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$. Indeed the central values of them were close to each other in the sum rules analysis for $`f_{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2})}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$) and $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$). One more thing to be noticed here is that the continuum threshold $`\omega _c`$ in Eq. (75) can be a function of $`y`$ in general. But for simplicity, we take it to be a constant $`\omega _c(y)=\omega _c=\omega _c^{}=\omega _0`$ in the numerical analysis. In this sense, we use only one constant continuum threshold throughout the analysis. An alternative choice of $`\omega _c(y)=(1+y)\omega _0/2y`$ is suggested in Ref. . We find that this choice yields almost no numerical differences. This is because the kinematically allowed region is very narrow around the zero recoil.

Second, there are input parameters of $`a`$ and $`b`$ in the interpolating fields in Eq. (37). They are the parameters that generalize pseudoscalar or axial-vector nature of the light degrees of freedom ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/2,3/2}`$ in Eq. 37). In Ref. , a particular choice of $`(a,b)=(1,0)`$ gives the best stability for the mass parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}`$. We adopt the same choice of $`(a,b)=(1,0)`$ in the present analysis.

Third, there are two Borel parameters $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ distinct in general, corresponding to $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ,\omega ^{},y)`$, respectively. We have taken $`T_1=T_2`$ in the analysis. In Ref.  for $`B`$ into excited charmed meson transition, the authors found a $`10\%`$ increase in the leading IW function at zero recoil when $`T_2/T_1=1.5`$ as compared to the case when $`T_1=T_2`$. It seems quite reasonable for one to expect that in the case of heavy baryon, the numerical results should be similar for the small variations around $`T_2/T_1=1`$.

In short, we adopt the same parameters used in  where the mass parameter and the leading IW function are calculated. It makes sense because the observables involved are directly related to the subleading IW function $`\tau (y)`$ through Eq. (73).

In Fig. 2, $`\tau `$ is plotted as a function of $`(y,T)`$. Figure 3 shows the stability of $`\tau (y=1)`$ for the Borel parameter. The sum rule window is

$$0.1T1.0(\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(100)
The upper and lower bounds are fixed such that the pole contribution amounts to 50% while the condensate one to 12%. One notes that the window given in Eq. (100) overlaps those obtained in the Refs. . Of course, this reflects the self-consistency of the sum rule analysis. In Fig. 4, we present the shape of $`\tau (y)`$ for a fixed Borel parameter. We found that

$`\tau (y)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau (1)[1\rho ^2(y1)],`$ (101)
$`\tau (1)`$ $`=`$ $`1.27_{+0.18}^{0.17}\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{for}\omega _0=1.4\pm 0.1\mathrm{GeV},`$ (102)
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`2.76_{+0.008}^{0.004},\mathrm{for}\omega _0=1.4\pm 0.1\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (103)
## V Summary

Subleading contributions of $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}`$ weak form factors are important because some of the form factors do not survive at the heavy quark limit, and other remaining form factors vanish at zero recoil. Using the QCD sum rules, we calculate the subleading IW function $`\tau (y)`$ which appears in the current matching in the HQET at $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$. We obtain $`\tau (y)`$ given by

$$\tau (y)=1.27[12.76(y1)]\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(104)
The best stability is attained when the continuum threshold $`\omega _0=1.4`$ GeV. The parameter space for the analysis is the same as previous one for the leading IW function. The fact that by using the same set of parameters the present sum rule window for the mass parameter, leading and NLO IW function overlaps the previous ones ensures the self-consistenncy of the QCD sum rules. Our results can be applied directly to the decay mode $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$, along with the use of the previous LO IW function, but a complete analysis at $`𝒪(1/m_Q)`$ requires the information on another NLO contributions from the HQET Lagrangian.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the BK21 Program of the Korean Ministry of Education. The work of GTP was supported in part by Yonsei University Research Fund of 2000.

## A Contractions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$

After a simple algebra, possible contractions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ are given by

$`v^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A1)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[2yv^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A2)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(y1)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _52v^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A3)
$`g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[3\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A4)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[2yv^\mu +2\gamma ^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A5)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(y+1)\gamma ^\mu 2v^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A6)
$`g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(cA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[3\gamma ^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A7)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(y1)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _52v^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A8)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(1y)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5+2v^\mu \gamma _52(y+1)v^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A9)
$`g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bV)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[\gamma ^\mu \gamma _52v^\mu \gamma _5\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A10)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(y+1)\gamma ^\mu 2v^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A11)
$`v^\alpha v^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[(y+1)\gamma ^\mu 2v^\mu +2(y1)v^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A12)
$`g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }^{(bA)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v^{}/}{2}}\right)\left[\gamma ^\mu +2v^\mu \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\right),`$ (A13)
where $`V(A)\gamma ^\mu (\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5)`$.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1
Feynman diagrams for the three-point function with derivative interpolating fields. Double line denotes the heavy quark.

Fig. 2
Three dimensional plot of $`\tau `$ as a function of $`y`$ and $`T`$ in units of GeV. The continuum threshold is chosen to be $`\omega _c(y)=1.4`$ GeV.

Fig. 3
$`\tau (1)`$ as a function of the Borel parameter $`T`$. Each graph corresponds to $`\omega _0=1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6`$ GeV, respectively, from the top.

Fig. 4
$`\tau (y)`$ at a fixed Borel parameter $`T=0.34`$. Each graph corresponds to $`\omega _0=1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6`$ GeV, respectively, from the top.