text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Four-fermion processes in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions have proven to be an important tool for studying the validity of the Standard Model and looking for signs of physics beyond. At centre-of-mass energies ($`\sqrt{s}`$) reached at LEP2, from 183 GeV to 209 GeV, pair-production of the gauge bosons of the weak interaction, the W- and Z-bosons, has been studied extensively . The cross-sections for these two processes are characterized by a steep increase near threshold. They have been measured by restricting the invariant masses of pairs of fermions to the W or Z mass, thereby selecting only some of all possible four-fermion final states. It is therefore interesting to extend the measurement into regions where the invariant masses of the fermion-pairs are not as restricted. Results on this have been reported from the LEP experiments for centre-of-mass energies up to 183 GeV . The present study provides results at higher energies with greatly increased luminosity. This extension provides an especially important test for the production of new particles with masses well below or above the W or Z mass.

In this paper we describe a selection for $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states that is sensitive to all invariant masses of fermion pairs. Restrictions are made only for low hadronic ($`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$) mass values to avoid the region of hadronic resonances and at very small masses of the electron111Charge conjugation is implied throughout this paper. pair ($`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$), where low efficiencies compromise the measurement. The final states of interest are produced via $`s`$-channel annihilation of the two incoming electrons into a Z or $`\gamma ^{}`$ and the radiation of a Z or $`\gamma ^{}`$ from either an incoming electron or an outgoing fermion, for example as shown in Figures 1a) and b). For the case of $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ final states, there is also a $`t`$-channel contribution, as shown in Figure 1c). In a large fraction of the $`t`$-channel events, one or both electrons cannot be detected, as their scattering angle is small and outside of the acceptance of the detector. We therefore define the following kinematic bounds to classify events as signal:

* The polar angles $`\theta `$, defined with respect to the incoming electron beam, of both leptons have to satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.95`$.
* The invariant mass of the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ system has to be larger than 5 GeV in order to avoid the complex region of hadronic resonances.
* For the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ final state, the invariant mass of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ system has to be larger than 2 GeV. For invariant masses below 2 GeV, the efficiency is too small to provide a reliable measurement. There is no restriction imposed on the invariant mass of the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ system in the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ analysis.
* Events stemming from multi-peripheral diagrams, involving the exchange of two photons (Figure 1d)), are not considered as signal. The interference between the signal diagrams and the multi-peripheral diagrams is small compared to the signal cross-section and is neglected.

In about 650 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data recorded with the OPAL detector in the years 1997 to 2000 at centre-of-mass energies between 183 GeV and 209 GeV, the cross-sections for the processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are measured within the kinematic bounds described above.

The paper is organized as follows. First, a description of the OPAL detector and the data sample is given. Then, the Monte Carlo generators used to simulate the signal and background events are described. Following this, the analyses used to select the signal events are detailed. After a description of the systematic studies, the measured cross-sections are given, together with a discussion of the results.

## 2 Description of Data and Detector

Data recorded with the OPAL detector in the years 1997 to 2000 at centre-of-mass energies between 183 GeV and 209 GeV are used in this analysis. The data taken in each year are analysed separately, except for 1999, where data were taken at centre-of-mass energies between 192 GeV and 202 GeV. Due to the large range of centre-of-mass energies these data are subdivided into two samples, one below and one above 197 GeV.

A detailed description of the OPAL detector can be found elsewhere  and only a brief description is given here. The central detector consists of a system of tracking chambers which provide charged particle tracking over 96% of the full solid angle, within a uniform magnetic field of 0.435 T parallel to the beam axis. The central detector is composed of a two-layer silicon microstrip vertex detector and three different drift chambers: a high-precision vertex chamber, a large-volume jet chamber, and a set of $`z`$ chambers which provide the track coordinates along the beam direction. A lead-glass electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), located outside the magnet coil, covers the full azimuthal range with excellent hermeticity in the polar angle range of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.82`$ for the barrel region, and $`0.82<|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.984`$ for the endcap region. The magnet return yoke is instrumented with hadron calorimetry (HCAL), and consists of barrel and endcap sections, along with pole-tip detectors, which together cover the region $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.99`$. Four layers of muon chambers cover the outside of the hadron calorimeter. Electromagnetic calorimeters close to the beam axis complete the geometrical acceptance down to 24 mrad, except for regions where a tungsten shield designed to protect the detectors from synchrotron radiation is located. These calorimeters include the forward detectors (FD), which are lead-scintillator sandwich calorimeters, and, at smaller angles, silicon-tungsten calorimeters  located on both sides of the interaction point. The silicon-tungsten calorimeters are used to evaluate the luminosity by observing small-angle Bhabha events.

## 3 Monte Carlo simulation

Four-fermion final states for the signal processes are generated with the grc4f  Monte Carlo (MC) program. For the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ final states, both $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel diagrams contribute. In the $`t`$-channel processes, the momentum transfer squared between the two electrons is in general small. The relevant value of the electromagnetic coupling constant $`\alpha `$ is therefore $`\alpha (0)1/137`$. For the $`s`$-channel diagrams, a scale of the order of $`\sqrt{s}`$ is important, leading to a larger value of $`\alpha (\sqrt{s})1/128`$. To account for interference effects, the $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel diagrams have to be generated simultaneously. Within the given kinematic limits of the signal definition, the $`s`$-channel contribution is only slightly larger than that from the $`t`$-channel and the interference between the two channels is negative and of the order of 15%. In grc4f v2.1, a fixed value of $`\alpha `$ is used in the generation of events. To investigate the impact of the chosen value of $`\alpha `$ on the selection efficiencies, two sets of signal Monte Carlo for $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ final states are generated using different values, $`\alpha =1/137`$ and $`\alpha =1/128`$, leading to an average 15% difference in the cross-section.

For $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events, only $`s`$-channel diagrams contribute, and a value of $`\alpha =1/128`$ is used. For comparison to grc4f, EXCALIBUR  and KORALW  are also used to produce $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ signal events.

Events from multi-peripheral diagrams with at least one electron inside the detector acceptance are produced using the TWOGEN  generator. As a check the generator PHOJET  is also used for multi-peripheral diagrams with both electrons inside the detector. Hadronization is performed with JETSET . Four-fermion final states not included in the signal definition and not stemming from multi-peripheral diagrams are generated with grc4f. Processes involving two fermions in the final state are simulated using KK2f  for multi-hadronic ($`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$) events. PYTHIA  is used as a cross-check. For the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, BHWIDE  is used. Background contributions from other processes are found to be negligible. All Monte Carlo events are passed through the full simulation of the OPAL detector , and then subjected to the same reconstruction and analysis procedures as data.

## 4 Event Selection

The event selection is done separately for $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states, but the two sets of selections are very similar. Final states are selected according to the signal topology, and cuts corresponding to the signal definition given in Section 1 are applied.

### 4.1 Selection of  $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ events

The selection makes use of the signal topology of two isolated electrons and two jets, which together sum to the total centre-of-mass energy. A kinematic fit is performed, making use of the four constraints coming from energy and momentum conservation. The number of events remaining after each selection cut for data, signal, and background, are listed in Table 1.

* Cut 0: Preselection
In the preselection at least seven tracks are required in the event and the visible energy, calculated using a method  that avoids double-counting of track momenta and energy deposition in the calorimeter, is required to be greater than half of the centre-of-mass energy. At least two tracks of opposite charge, each satisfying the following criteria, must be present and are considered as electron candidates:

+ The absolute value of the momentum $`p`$ has to be greater than 2 GeV.
    + The electron must not be identified as arising from a photon conversion, i.e. the output of the conversion neural network as described in  has to be less than 0.8.

Using a neural network electron finder  an output value is calculated for each electron candidate. From those candidates with no more than one track with opposite sign and momentum greater than 2 GeV within a cone of 10 half opening angle, the candidate with the highest output value is selected as the first electron.

From the candidates with charge opposite to that of the first electron and no track, except for the first electron, within a cone of 10 half opening angle, the one with the highest output value is taken as the second electron. No requirement is made on the minimum output value for the electrons.
* Cut 1: 4C kinematic fit
Excluding the two electron candidates selected in the preselection, and their associated calorimeter clusters, the rest of the event is forced into two jets using the Durham  jet finder. A four-constraint kinematic fit (4C fit) is applied to the energy and momenta of the two electron candidates and the two jets. We use the ECAL energy and the track angles for the electron candidates and the jet momenta as input to this fit. The fit probability is required to be greater than $`10^{10}`$ (see Figure 2a). This requirement greatly reduces background with missing energy, for example from $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\nu `$.
* Cut 2: Electron identification
The two electrons selected in the preselection are required to satisfy $`E/p>0.7`$, where $`E`$ is the energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter associated with the track (see Figure 2b).
* Cut 3: Momentum cuts
The sum of the momenta of the two electrons has to be greater than 30 GeV (see Figure 2c).
* Cut 4: Isolation
The angle between the two electron tracks is required to be greater than 5 (see Figure 2d), and the two electron tracks must not point to the same ECAL cluster, as otherwise their invariant mass is difficult to reconstruct.
* Cut 5: Invariant masses of electron and quark pairs
Corresponding to the signal definition, the invariant mass of the electron pair ($`m_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$) must be greater than 2 GeV, and the invariant mass of the quark pair ($`m_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}`$) greater than 5 GeV. The invariant masses are obtained from the kinematic fit.
* Cut 6: Multi-peripheral background
Multi-peripheral events typically have both electrons scattered at small angles. To reject these events, at least one of the electrons must have cos($`\theta _\mathrm{e})<`$ 0.7, where $`\theta _\mathrm{e}`$ is the scattering angle of the electron with respect to its incoming direction.

After these cuts, a total of 58 events is observed in the data, with an expectation of 58.6 events from Monte Carlo simulation. The selection efficiency is greater than 40% for $`m_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}<m_\mathrm{Z}`$, and around 20% for higher masses. The difference in efficiency is due to the $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel contributions. For $`m_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}>m_\mathrm{Z}`$, the $`t`$-channel is dominant. Here, the scattered electrons are forward peaked, and therefore have a lower efficiency than in the $`s`$-channel.

### 4.2 Selection of  $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ events

This selection is similar to the one applied for the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ final states, making use of the signal topology where two muons replace the two electrons. The number of events, after each cut for data, signal and background are listed in Table 2.

* Cut 0: Preselection
In the preselection, a multiplicity of at least seven tracks is required. The visible energy has to be greater than half of the centre-of-mass energy.

From all tracks with momentum greater than 5 GeV and no more than one track with opposite sign and momentum greater than 2 GeV within a cone of 10 half opening angle, the one with the highest momentum is selected as the first muon candidate.

From the tracks with charge opposite to that of the first muon candidate and no track, except for the first muon candidate, within a cone of 10 half opening angle, the one with the highest momentum is taken as the second muon candidate.
* Cut 1: 4C kinematic fit
Excluding the two muon candidates selected in the preselection, and their associated calorimeter clusters, the rest of the event is forced into two jets using the Durham  jet finder. A four-constraint kinematic fit (4C fit) is applied to the energy and momenta of the two muon candidates and the two jets. The track momenta of the muon candidates and jet momenta are used as input to this fit. The fit probability is required to be greater than $`10^{10}`$ (see Figure 3a).
* Cut 2: Muon identification
A muon identification criterion is applied to the two selected muon candidates. Muon identification makes use of three methods:

+ Tracks are considered as muon candidates if their trajectories match to a track segment in the muon chambers , .
    + Muons can also be identified by a selection that uses information from the HCAL and ECAL clusters ,.
    + Tracks associated with an ECAL cluster with energy smaller than 2 GeV are selected as muon candidates.

The first muon can be accepted using any of the above three selections. The second muon is accepted if it fulfils the first condition, or if it fulfils either of the other two conditions and the two following isolation criteria: the angle between the two muons must be greater than $`10^{}`$, and the angle between the second muon and any other track, except for the first muon, must be greater than $`30^{}`$.
* Cut 3: Momentum cuts
The sum of the momenta of the two muons has to be greater than 40 GeV (see Figure 3b).
* Cut 4: Isolation angles
The sum of the isolation angles of the two muons has to be greater than 40 (see Figure 3c). The isolation angle is the angle between the muon and any other track with the exception of the other muon.
* Cut 5: Invariant mass of quark pair
Corresponding to the signal definition, the invariant mass of the quark pair must be greater than 5 GeV.

After these cuts a total of 52 events is observed in the data and 52.3 events are expected from Monte Carlo simulation, mainly originating from signal, with only little contribution from background. The selection efficiency ranges from 30% for muon invariant masses ($`m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$) below 2 GeV, and is above 60% for masses above 30 GeV.

## 5 Systematic Uncertainties

Systematic uncertainties result from the determination of signal efficiencies and background levels, both of which are estimated from Monte Carlo samples. For both types of samples the agreement between the simulation and the data was investigated, and the difference taken into account as a systematic uncertainty. In addition, for the signal efficiency the predictions from the different Monte Carlo generators, and the dependence on the input parameters, were checked, and any differences in selection efficiencies taken into account as a systematic error.

### 5.1 Selection efficiency

Systematic uncertainties on the efficiency are calculated by varying the cuts used in the selection. Any difference in efficiency for the altered cut is taken as a systematic error. Below follows a more detailed description of how each cut was varied.

* The preselection requires a high multiplicity. The impact of a change of $`\pm 1`$ track in the preselection was studied for the signal MC.
* The isolation angle for the leptons is required to be greater than 10. The uncertainty in the measurement of the angles in the jet chamber is about 0.1. This has to be multiplied by $`\sqrt{2}`$ for the measurement of the angle between two tracks. The preselection cut is varied by this value to gauge its impact on the result.
* A direct shift of 0.2 is applied to the angle between the two electrons for the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ selection to account for possible biases in the angular reconstruction. This value was determined from studies comparing the angular reconstruction in the tracking and calorimeters.
* For the sum of the lepton momenta, the $`E/p`$ value in case of the electrons, and the sum of the isolation angles of the muons, the distribution of the variable is compared between data and MC. The MC distribution is corrected to the data and the change in efficiency is taken as a contribution to the systematic error.

The systematic errors are calculated at each centre-of-mass energy. No energy dependence is observed, therefore values derived from a comparison of the combined data and Monte Carlo samples are used for all energies. These values are shown in Table 3.

For the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ selection, the difference in efficiency from the Monte Carlo samples generated with values of $`\alpha =1/128`$ and $`\alpha =1/137`$ is 5.2%. For the calculation of the cross-section, the average efficiency of the two samples is used, and assigned a systematic error of 2.6%. To determine the systematic uncertainty arising from use of the grc4f generator, a comparison with EXCALIBUR is done. In EXCALIBUR, events can only be generated for four-fermion final states including multi-peripheral diagrams. For this reason, additional events are generated with grc4f, also including multi-peripheral diagrams. The selection efficiency for these two event samples is compared. A difference of 10.7% is found and is taken as a systematic error. The main reason for this difference is a larger fraction of events with small lepton scattering angles in EXCALIBUR than in grc4f. This type of event has a much smaller selection efficiency than events with large scattering angles and consequently leads to the observed difference.

For the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ selection, the expected cross-sections at each centre-of-mass energy agree well for the three MC generators grc4f, EXCALIBUR and KORALW. There is, however, a difference observed for the selection efficiencies. While the EXCALIBUR and KORALW efficiencies agree, there is a large difference relative to grc4f. This difference stems mainly from muons with momentum below 3 GeV, which have a small detection efficiency, and of which there are more in EXCALIBUR and KORALW than in grc4f. As EXCALIBUR and KORALW provide very similar efficiencies, the difference between grc4f and the mean efficiency of EXCALIBUR and KORALW is averaged over all centre-of-mass energies which leads to a systematic error of 7.8%.

### 5.2 Background

The same systematic studies as for the signal Monte Carlo are performed for the background Monte Carlo. The systematic uncertainties derived are given in Table 3. In addition for the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ analysis for the multi-hadronic events, a comparison of KK2f and PYTHIA resulted in a 4.5% difference in the number of selected events, which is also included in the systematic error. Due to the small amount of background in the final sample, these uncertainties result in only a 1.1% systematic error on the cross-section.

For the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, the cross-section of the background stemming from multi-peripheral processes is not well known and the final states for background and signal are identical. But the angular distributions, especially of the electrons, are quite different. The generator TWOGEN gives a good relative description of the electron angular distribution after applying cuts 4, 5 and 6. From the generator PHOJET, no events are expected after cut 4. This is not in good agreement with the data. Therefore, half of the background predicted by TWOGEN is used in the calculation of the cross-section and in Tables 1, 2 and 4. A systematic uncertainty of 100% is assigned to this background, covering both the full TWOGEN and the PHOJET prediction. This leads to a 10.0% systematic error on the measured cross-section.

For the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ selection, there is very little background in total. An error on the multi-hadronic background of 9.6% is assigned from the comparison of KK2f and PYTHIA. All of the systematic errors taken together result in a systematic error on the cross-section of 0.9%.

## 6 Results and Discussion

With the event selections described in Section 4, the number of data and expected background events are determined at several centre-of-mass energies, as given in Table 4. The signal efficiency is calculated by applying the signal selection to the signal Monte Carlo samples. For the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, the efficiency is slightly higher for the signal produced with $`\alpha =1/137`$ than for $`\alpha =1/128`$, as the $`t`$-channel contribution is smaller in the former. To account for the difference, the average of the two efficiencies is used in the calculation of the cross-section. The efficiencies at each centre-of-mass energy are listed in Table 4.

The measured cross-sections at each centre-of-mass energy for the processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ within the kinematic region described in Section 1 are given in Table 4. For the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, several generators are used to calculate the cross-section, and all generators agree within 1%.

The measured cross-sections, together with the theoretical predictions, are shown in Figures 4a) and b). The expected values appear to be at their maximum values within the studied region, and show only a small variation with the centre-of-mass energy. This is in contrast to the cross-section for pair-production of W and Z-bosons, which shows a very steep rise near threshold. As the change in the predicted cross-section over the measured range is much smaller than the error of each individual measurement, an average cross-section over the whole centre-of-mass energy range has also been calculated. This average does not take into account the predicted change with the centre-of-mass energy. Also, the average cross-section is calculated using the expected error at each energy rather than the observed one. This method gives more reliable results for measurements with a small number of expected events. The average cross-sections are $`\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{})`$ = (199 $`\pm `$ 27 $`\pm `$ 30) fb and $`\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ = (160 $`\pm `$ 26 $`\pm `$ 13) fb.

For the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, only $`s`$-channel diagrams contribute, and the final states are produced via $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z},\mathrm{Z}\gamma ^{},\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$. This can be seen in the distribution of the invariant masses $`m_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}`$ and $`m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$ in Figures 5 a) and b). The distribution of $`m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$ shows two peaks, one at zero, stemming from the $`\gamma ^{}`$, and one at $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$ from the Z decays. The data are well described by the MC. For the distribution of $`m_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}`$ the peak around the Z mass is dominant, as the branching ratio of the Z into quarks is much larger than that into charged leptons. One event is observed at a very large mass $`m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}=188`$ GeV. The probability to observe at least one event above an invariant mass of 110 GeV is 48%.

In the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, $`t`$-channel diagrams contribute in addition to the $`s`$-channel diagrams. The distribution of the invariant masses $`m_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$ are shown in Figures 6 a) and b). The $`t`$-channel contribution is clear in the distribution of $`m_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$. In contrast to $`m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$, there are several events observed at invariant masses well above the Z mass.

## 7 Conclusions

The cross-sections for the processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ have been measured at centre-of-mass energies between 183 GeV and 209 GeV, the highest centre-of-mass energies studied to date. Within chosen kinematic limits, the predictions from grc4f are in good agreement with the measurements. The distributions of the invariant masses of the fermion-antifermion pairs show the expected behaviour, with the $`t`$-channel contribution clearly visible in the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ channel.

## Acknowledgements

We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their close cooperation with our experimental group. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and a grant under the MEXT International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, and T-038240,
Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, F.W.O.-Vlaanderen, Belgium.


format: text

text:
# Existence of superposition solutions for pulse propagation in nonlinear resonant media

## I Introduction

The generation of shape preserving excitations in nonlinear media has been the subject of extensive research in diverse areas of physics, ranging from hydrodynamics , particle physics  to quantum optics  and optical communications. Starting from the explanation of the solitary waves in shallow water, these solutions of the nonlinear wave equations have found ample experimental verifications. In optical context, the nonlinear nature of the coupled Maxwell- Schrödinger equations , describing the interaction of classical radiation with matter in a resonant media, has naturally generated tremendous interest in the study of the pulse  and pulse-train solutions. Recently the continuous pulse-train soliton solutions have been observed experimentally for the two-level system . For a detailed overview, the interested readers are referred to Refs.(), apart from the above references.
The common factor that governs the existence of the self-similar excitations in various nonlinear systems is the critical balance between nonlinearity and dispersion . This severely restricts the set of solutions, in most of the cases, to combinations of the Jacobian elliptic functions  and also leads to definite relationships between the amplitudes, widths and velocities of these modes. The periodic elliptic functions, characterized by the modulus parameter $`m`$ and smoothly interpolating between hyperbolic secant and tangent to periodic cosine and sine functions, for $`m`$ values one and zero respectively, describe localized pulses for $`m=1`$ and pulse-trains for $`0m<1`$.

In this light, the recent findings of a number of identities involving the superposition of elliptic functions  and their application to various nonlinear systems  makes it extremely interesting to find the implications of the same for the multi-level resonant media. A number of phenomena, like self  and electromagnetically induced transparencies , pulse sharpening , pulse cloning and dragging , just to name a few, are ascribable to the existence of shape-preserving excitations in resonant media. A great deal of attention, both analytical and numerical, has been paid to the cases in which the resonant atoms are asymptotically in the ground or excited state. Pulse train solutions, characteristic to excited media, have been studied, for two-level  and for three and five-level  configurations. Well-known techniques for generating solutions e.g., inverse scattering methods  and Bäcklund transformations  have also been employed for higher level atomic media, albeit under restrictive conditions on the propagation constants and other parameters of these systems. Further progress, in the understanding of the dynamics of the inhomogeneously broadened three level system, has recently been achieved by the derivation of an area theorem .

In this paper, we first show the existence of novel pulse train solutions, specific to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$-type, nonlinear, resonant media, taking recourse to the above mentioned identities, involving elliptic functions. Interestingly, these solutions can either be viewed as a linear superposition of cnoidal waves or as single cnoidal waves, with widely different, modulus dependent amplitudes for different pulse trains. We find that, for some of these exact solutions, the modulus parameter is controlled by the oscillator strengths of the atomic transitions, as compared to other pulse train solutions found so far, where $`m`$ appears as a free parameter. Interference effects, originating from the superposition nature of these solutions, lead to substantially different field intensities and population densities in different atomic levels. We then point out the existence of pulse train solutions in the four-level case, similar to the ones found in other multi-level systems.

## II Superposed pulse trains in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ systems

We start with the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, because of its wide applicability and then proceed to the four-level case, with the energy levels in the configuration of $`N`$, from which the other lower ones will follow under limiting conditions. Shape preserving solutions, in the form of superposition of a pair of different cnoidal waves (like a superposition of $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$), have been obtained earlier by Hioe and Grobe , for the three and five level systems. These exact solitary waves can have a variety of shapes, because of interference. The solutions to be discussed here are superpositions of an odd number of cnoidal waves of a given type (no combinations involving, say both $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$), with appropriately displaced arguments. As will be seen later in the text, these superposed solutions can have widely different amplitudes. This can be understood from the fact that, both $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ functions take values ranging from $`1`$ to $`1`$, whereas the $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ function has only positive values. Hence, the superposed solutions involving $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ functions can have a much smaller amplitude as compared to the one involving $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ function, whose amplitude can be substantially higher.

For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system consisting of the ground state $`i`$, excited state $`e`$ and the intermediate state $`f`$, we assume the fields to have slowly varying pulse envelopes: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{E}_\alpha }(\mathrm{z},\mathrm{t})=\stackrel{}{_\alpha }(\mathrm{z},\mathrm{t})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _\alpha \mathrm{t}\mathrm{k}_\alpha \mathrm{z})}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}..`$ In the rotating wave approximation, $`\stackrel{}{}_e`$, and $`\stackrel{}{}_f`$ act on transitions $`ei`$ and $`ef`$, respectively. The Rabi frequencies, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =2\frac{\stackrel{}{d_\alpha }\stackrel{}{_\alpha }}{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\stackrel{}{d_\alpha }`$ being the dipole matrix element of the $`\alpha `$-th transition, are also slowly varying functions of space and time. We assume, for simplicity that, all the fields are resonant with their respective transitions.

In slowly varying envelope approximations, the resonant coupled Maxwell-Schrödinger equations are

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}C_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_f}{2}}C_f{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e}{2}}C_i,`$ (1)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}C_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{}}{2}}C_e,`$ (2)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}C_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_f^{}}{2}}C_e`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ $`=`$ $`i\mu _fC_eC_f^{},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ $`=`$ $`i\mu _eC_eC_i^{}.`$ (6)
In above, we have neglected the relaxation terms, since the pulse widths are taken to be smaller than the relaxation times. $`C_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,i,f)`$ represents the probability amplitude of finding the atom in the state $`|\alpha >`$.

The parameter $`\mu _\alpha `$ is given by $`\mu _\alpha =4\pi 𝒩\frac{|d_\alpha |^2\omega _\alpha }{\mathrm{}c}=\frac{2\pi e^2𝒩f_\alpha }{mc}`$ where $`𝒩`$ is the density of the atoms and $`f_\alpha `$ being the oscillator strength for the transition of frequency $`\omega _\alpha `$. The atomic system is assumed to be continuously distributed in a non-dispersive host medium. The coordinate $`\tau =t\frac{z}{c}`$ measures time relative to the pulse center and $`\zeta =z`$.

We look for self-similar solutions of Eqs. (1) and (2) i.e., solutions depending upon a single variable, $`X=(q\zeta \mathrm{\Gamma }\tau )`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is the pulse duration and, as will be seen later, $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be related via the pulse velocity and another parameter, characterizing the solutions. The superposed pulse-train solutions, to be discussed here, appear in both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$ type media and can be made to satisfy a wide range of initial conditions, like no occupancy of the desired atomic levels to partial occupation of all the levels. It should be pointed out that partial occupation of levels necessarily implies initially induced coherence in the atomic system. We note that, the pulse train solutions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`V`$ and other odd-level systems , consisting of a matched pair of elliptic functions, do not satisfy the nonlinear equations of the $`N`$ system.

It can be shown that, the following ansatz solutions:

$$C_i=\stackrel{~}{S},C_f=b_f\stackrel{~}{C},C_e=b_e\stackrel{~}{D},\mathrm{\Omega }_f=A_f\stackrel{~}{S},\mathrm{\Omega }_e=A_e\stackrel{~}{C};$$
(7)
satisfy the Maxwell-Schrödinger equations, provided the functions $`\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ are as defined below and the constant coefficients $`b_f,b_e`$ and $`A_e,A_f`$ are appropriately related. $`\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ are linear superpositions of the Jacobi elliptic functions $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$, respectively: $`\stackrel{~}{S}=_{i=1}^p\mathrm{sn}[\mathrm{X}+\frac{4(\mathrm{i}1)\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{p}},\mathrm{m}]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ are analogously defined. Here, $`p`$ is an odd integer, $`K(m)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind and $`m`$ is the modulus parameter. The above solutions are possible for odd integral values of $`p`$, since the cross terms in the right hand side of Eqs.(1) and (2) are cancelled because of the identities of the type ,

$`\stackrel{~}{s_1}(\stackrel{~}{d_2}+\stackrel{~}{d_3})+\mathrm{c}yclicpermutations=0,`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{~}{c_1}(\stackrel{~}{s_2}+\stackrel{~}{s_3})+\mathrm{c}yclicpermutations=0,`$ (9)
$`\stackrel{~}{c_1}(\stackrel{~}{d_2}+\stackrel{~}{d_3})+\mathrm{c}yclicpermutations=0.`$ (10)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{s_1}\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{s_2}\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X}+\frac{4\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{p}},\mathrm{m})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s_3}\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X}+\frac{8\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{p}},\mathrm{m})`$ and other functions are similarly defined. Although, for definiteness, henceforth we consider only the $`p=3`$ case, the consistency conditions on the parameters, written below, are identical for all values of $`p`$. Introducing an additional parameter $`\mu =2q\mathrm{\Gamma }m`$, for future convenience, one finds,

$`|A_e|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu }},`$ (11)
$`|A_f|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu }}1],`$ (12)
$`b_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iqA_e}{\mu _e}},`$ (14)
$`b_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_f^{}}{A_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}};`$ (15)
and also the constraint, $`\mu _e=\mu _f`$. The positive definite character of the pulse intensity, requires that $`\mu _e\mu `$ .

The superposed character of the solutions, for higher values of $`p`$, leads to significant differences between different pulse-train and electron amplitudes, as will be explicated later. It also manifests in the conservation of probabilities for the electrons. For the $`p=3`$ case, $`_\alpha |C_\alpha |^2=1`$ leads to,

$$\frac{\mu _e\mu }{\mu _e}=\frac{\frac{1}{m}1+\frac{4}{m}(\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{q})}{\frac{1}{m}1+\frac{2}{m}[(\stackrel{~}{q}+1)^2\frac{m}{(\stackrel{~}{q}+1)^2}]}.$$
(16)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{q}=\mathrm{dn}(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{m})`$ and satisfies,

$$\stackrel{~}{q}^4+2\stackrel{~}{q}^32(1m)\stackrel{~}{q}(1m)=0.$$
(17)
The values of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ range from one to zero continuously, when $`m`$ varies between zero and one. It can be checked that, when, $`m=1`$, the conservation law is identically satisfied, making the above equation vacuous; in this case one obtains the pulse solutions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. For $`m=0`$, right hand side takes value one, which is ruled out on physical grounds. For other values of $`m`$, the above equation can be numerically solved to obtain the range of values of $`\mu `$ for a given $`\mu _e`$. It should be noted that, since $`\mu _e\mu `$, the variable $`\frac{\mu _e\mu }{\mu _e}`$ takes values between zero and one. It is found that for the superposed solutions to exist, the condition $`0.59\frac{\mu _e\mu }{\mu _e}<1`$ should be satisfied. As depicted in Fig.1,

FIG. 1. Graph of the modulus parameter $`m`$ versus $`x=\frac{\mu _e\mu }{\mu _e}`$.

the modulus parameter $`m`$ can lie between one and zero, for the above values of $`\frac{\mu _e\mu }{\mu _e}`$. Hence the choice of $`m`$ $`(0<m<1)`$ determines $`\mu `$ through Eq.(16), which in turn yields $`q\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, through $`\mu =2q\mathrm{\Gamma }m`$. Hence the solutions are characterized by the two free parameters $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It can be easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ has a much higher amplitude as compared to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$; hence the $`|e>`$ state has a higher population. The superposition nature of the solutions enables one to have these widely differing amplitudes. It can be checked that exchange of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ also leads to allowed solutions. In that case the $`|f>`$ state population can be made large as compared to $`|i>`$ and $`|e>`$ states.

For the purpose of comparison, we consider the non-superposed $`p=1`$ case. Taking $`C_i=b_i\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ and replacing $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ by corresponding cnoidal waves one finds, after appropriately choosing the fields, that, the parameter relationships as obtained in Eqs.(12,15) are unchanged. However, the probability conservation now yields substantially different result:

$$\frac{1}{|b_i|^2}=\frac{\mu }{\mu _e}(\frac{1}{m}1)+1.$$
(18)
It is clear from the above expression that, for, $`b_i=1`$, no pulse train solutions are possible, as $`m=1`$, for this case. Since $`\mu /\mu _e`$ lies between zero and one, it follows from Eq.(18) that, $`|b_i|^2`$ takes values ranging from $`m`$ and $`1`$. It should be pointed that, like the previous case, $`0<m<1`$. One is then finally left with three free parameters, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`m`$ and $`b_i`$, in their appropriate range of values. It is possible to obtain another solution by exchanging $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ with $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$, in the above ansatz. This choice leads to the constraint,

$$\frac{1}{|b_i|^2}=(1\frac{\mu }{\mu _e})\frac{1}{m}.$$
(19)
## III Pulse train solutions of the $`N`$ system

In case of the $`N`$ system, one needs to consider seven coupled equations, due to the presence of an additional energy state $`|v>`$, in between the states $`|e>`$ and $`|f>`$, of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. Here, one has the additional parameter, $`\mu _v=\frac{2\pi e^2𝒩f_v}{mc}`$, $`f_v`$ being the corresponding oscillator strength. These nonlinear equations have been recently found to possess propagating pulse solutions . Introducing, the additional electron amplitude $`C_v=b_v\stackrel{~}{D}`$ and the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=A_v\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in the ansatz solutions, we only write below, the new and modified parametric relations, as compared to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system:

$`2q\mathrm{\Gamma }m`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _v,`$ (20)
$`|A_v|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu _f}}],`$ (22)
$`|A_e|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mu _f\mu _v}},`$ (23)
$`b_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iqA_v}{\mu _v}},`$ (25)
$`b_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_f^{}}{A_e^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu _f}}.`$ (26)
Note that here, $`\mu _v`$ determines $`2q\mathrm{\Gamma }m`$, unlike the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system. The positive definite character of the pulse intensities now requires the inequalities,

$$\mu _f\mu _e\mu _v.$$
(27)
In the present case, the conservation of probability yields,

$$\frac{\mu _e\mu _v}{\mu _f}=\frac{\frac{1}{m}1+\frac{4}{m}(\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{q})}{\frac{1}{m}1+\frac{2}{m}[(\stackrel{~}{q}+1)^2\frac{m}{(\stackrel{~}{q}+1)^2}]}.$$
(28)
This leads to the constraint on the oscillator strengths: $`0.59\frac{\mu _e\mu _v}{\mu _f}<1`$, for $`0<m<1`$. It is worth noting that, as compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system, in the present case the oscillator strengths determine modulus parameter $`m`$.

The uniform group velocity, as determined by our solutions is given by,

$$\frac{1}{v}=\frac{1}{c}+\frac{\mu _v}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m}.$$
(29)
As the width of the pulse train becomes shorter ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gets larger), the group velocity approaches the background medium velocity; however, for smaller values of $`m`$, the pulse train velocity can be significantly smaller than the medium velocity. We have checked that a different superposition type solution, e.g., $`C_i=\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and exchange of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ for other fields, do not alter the above conclusions. However, the population of different levels, as well as the field amplitudes can be substantially different, from the earlier case. It is straightforward to see, from Eqs.(20) and (28), that unlike the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system, the $`N`$-system is characterized by one free parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

It is worth noting that, for the two level case, corresponding to $`\mu _e=\mu _v=\mu _f`$, as well as for the $`V`$ system, for which $`\mu _e=\mu _v`$, the constraint equation originating from the probability conservation yields,

$$m=1+4(\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\stackrel{~}{q}).$$
(30)
Since $`0m1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}>0`$, it is easy to see that, the above equation can not be satisfied. Hence these type of excitations are exclusive to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$ type systems.

A better understanding of the above solutions can be provided by a dual interpretation of these excitations, through a set of generalized Landen transformations, found recently. For the $`p=3`$ case, the transformation formula yields,

$$\alpha \mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{x},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{m}})=[\mathrm{dn}(\alpha \mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{dn}(\alpha \mathrm{x}+\frac{4\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{dn}(\alpha \mathrm{x}+\frac{8\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})],$$
(31)
where $`\alpha =[\mathrm{dn}(0,\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{dn}(\frac{4\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{dn}(\frac{8\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})]`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=m\frac{(1\stackrel{~}{q})^2}{(1+\stackrel{~}{q})^2(1+2\stackrel{~}{q})^2},$$
(32)
with $`\stackrel{~}{q}=\mathrm{dn}(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{m})`$$`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. For the $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{x},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{m}})`$ and $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{m}})`$ functions, the formulae have same widths in right hand side as in $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{x},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{m}})`$; however, the amplitude $`\alpha `$ is replaced by $`\beta `$, given by

$$\beta =[\mathrm{cn}(0,\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{cn}(\frac{4\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})+\mathrm{cn}(\frac{8\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{m})}{3},\mathrm{m})].$$
(33)
The facts that, $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ takes only positive values and $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{x},\mathrm{m})`$ have values ranging from $`+1`$ to $`1`$, can be seen to be the reason behind the large value of $`\alpha `$ as compared to that of $`\beta `$. Hence, the superposed cnoidal waves can have widely varying amplitudes, which leads to significant differences in atomic level occupations.

## IV Pure cnoidal solutions for the $`N`$ system

Since the four-level system has not been systematically analyzed for pulse train solutions, we would like to point out that, like the two-level case, pure cnoidal waves, with comparable electron and field amplitudes, can also be obtained as solutions to the $`N`$ system. As has been mentioned earlier, matched pair type pulse train solutions of the odd-level atomic systems  are not solutions of the four-level system. It can be seen that, the following ansatz solutions:

$$C_i=b_i\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{f}=\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{e}=\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{v}=\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{v}\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),$$
(34)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_f=A_f\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}=\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m}),\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{v}=\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{v}\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m});$$
(35)
satisfy the Maxwell-Schrödinger equations, provided $`|b_i|^2<1`$ and the constant coefficients $`b_i,b_f,b_e,b_v`$ and $`A_e,A_f,A_v`$ are related. The consistency conditions on all the parameters are now modified:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2q\mathrm{\Gamma }m}{|b_i|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _v,`$ (36)
$`|A_v|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu _f}}],`$ (37)
$`|A_f|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e}{\mu _v}}1],`$ (38)
$`|A_e|^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mu _f\mu _v}},`$ (39)
$`b_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _vA_eb_i}{2\mu _e\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$ (40)
$`b_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iA_vb_i}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$ (41)
$`b_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{A_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _eb_i}{m\mu _f}},`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|b_i|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1m}{m}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _e\mu _v}{\mu _f}})].`$ (43)
For a given ground state occupancy, the modulus parameter $`m`$ is determined by Eq.(43). The velocity is now modified and depends upon $`|b_i|^2`$:

$$\frac{1}{v}=\frac{1}{c}+\frac{\mu _v|b_i|^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m}.$$
(44)
For the purpose of considering limiting cases of the $`N`$ system, we observe that, when the modulus parameter $`m`$ equals one, the cnoidal functions go over to hyperbolic ones, thereby yielding localized pulse solutions. The pulse trains are obtained, when $`0<m<1`$, the $`m=0`$ value being ruled out in the present case. Since $`\frac{\mu _e\mu _v}{\mu _f}`$ is positive, it is clear from Eq. (43) that, for the $`N`$ system, $`|b_i|^2`$ must be less than one, for the latter type of solutions. However, for the two level case, where $`\mu _e=\mu _v=\mu _f`$, the above restriction does not apply. In that case, $`b_i=1`$ and one obtains the cnoidal solutions, similar to a set of solutions, obtained by Crisp and Arecchi et al. in Ref. , in an inhomogeneous media. Exchanging $`\mathrm{dn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ with $`\mathrm{cn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ in the above ansatz, leads to $`|b_i|^2=m`$; in this case one obtains the solutions, analogous to another set of solutions given in Ref. , under inhomogeneous conditions. This is also clear from the analysis of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, which is obtained from the $`N`$ system under the condition, $`\mu _e=\mu _f`$, with $`\mu =\mu _v`$. The above point also indicates that for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, obtained as a limiting case, $`|b_i|^2<1`$, in order for the pulse train solution to exist. One obtains localized pulse solutions for $`|b_i|^2=1`$, since in that case $`m=1`$. For the $`V`$ system, for which $`\mu _e=\mu _v`$, the conclusions are similar to the two-level case. A comparison with Ref.  shows that the above solutions form a subclass of the matched pair solutions, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V`$ system. This result is expected since matched pair type superposition solutions are not possible for the $`N`$ system.

For the purpose of better appreciation of the relative amplitude variations of the superposed solutions, as compared to the pure cnoidal ones, Fig.2 depicts two of the pulse trains with their cnoidal constituents. The widely different amplitudes of the superposed $`\mathrm{dn}(X,m)`$ and $`\mathrm{sn}(X,m)`$ type cnoidal waves and their respective constituents are clearly visible.

FIG. 2a. Plot depicting the superposed $`\stackrel{~}{D}(X,m)`$ (solid curve) and its three

$`\mathrm{dn}(X,m)`$ constituents (dotted curves), for $`m=0.7`$.

FIG. 2b. Plot depicting the superposed $`\stackrel{~}{S}(X,m)`$ (solid curve) and its three

cnoidal constituents (dotted curve), for $`m=0.7`$.

Fig.3 shows, the superposed solutions with their non-superposed counterparts, clearly bringing out their differences.

FIG. 3a. Plots depicting the superposed solution $`\stackrel{~}{D}(X,m)`$ (solid curve) of Eq.(7) and its non-superposed counterpart (dotted curve) in the same units, for $`m=0.7`$. These plots represent the electron amplitudes in the state $`|e>`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system.

FIG. 3b. Plots depicting the superposed $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ solution (solid curve) of Eq.(7) and its pure cnoidal counterpart (dotted curve), for $`m=0.7`$ and $`b_i=0.9869`$. With $`b_i=1`$ these plots represent the field strengths $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, in the same units.

Fig.4 reveals the same for different parameter values. One sees that, for $`m=0.3`$ the amplitude of superposed $`\mathrm{sn}(X,m)`$ solution attains a very small value. It is extremely interesting to observe that, the excited state probability density can be made very small and other densities enhanced, through these novel solutions, which is not possible through pure cnoidal waves. It is clear that, this desirable feature of the pulse trains owes its origin to the superposition nature of the solutions.

FIG. 4a. Plots depicting the superposed $`\stackrel{~}{D}(X,m)`$ (solid curve) and its non-superposed counterpart (dotted curve) in the same units, for $`m=0.3`$.

FIG. 4b. Plots depicting the superposed $`\mathrm{sn}(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{m})`$ solution (solid curve) and its pure

cnoidal counterpart (dotted curve), for $`m=0.3`$ and $`b_i=0.9568`$ .

It is natural to enquire the effect of detunings on the above solutions and to find if the previous methods of incorporating detuning (particularly the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system ) would also work for deriving the pulse train solutions.

## V Conclusions

In summary, we have found that delicate interference phenomena involving cnoidal waves give rise to certain novel shape-preserving excitations, exclusive to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`N`$ type multi-level atomic media. It was also observed that $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑}\mathrm{𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟}`$-type self-similar solutions, possible in odd-level systems, do not occur in the even-level $`N`$ system, although a variety of simple pulse-train solutions are possible in the latter case. Interestingly, the superposition nature of the above mentioned excitations of the nonlinear media, makes it possible for different atomic levels to have widely different population densities and different pulse trains possess significantly differing amplitudes, features not present in simple pulse-train solutions. For the $`N`$-system, the frequencies of the propagating pulses, which govern the spatio-temporal behavior of the atomic population densities, are not arbitrary, as have been the case so far, with the pulse-train solutions of various systems. The modulus parameter $`m`$, which appears in the velocities and also controls the period $`K(m)`$ is determined by the propagation constants. In light of the potential usefulness of the multi-level systems, starting from information storage  to quantum computation , we hope that, some of these desirable features of the excitations may find practical applications. It is interesting to observe that, presence of additional non-linearities leads to chirping of the pulse train of the two-level systems . The effect of similar non-linearities on the superposed and non-superposed pulse trains solutions, for the three and four-level systems is worth further investigation.

One of the authors (PKP) acknowledges useful discussions with Prof. A. Khare.


text:
# Frustration of the interlayer coupling by mobile holes in 𝐋𝐚_{𝟐-𝐱}𝐒𝐫_𝐱𝐂𝐮𝐎_𝟒 (𝐱<0.02)

## Abstract

We have studied the interlayer coupling in the antiferromagnetic (AF) phase of Sr and Zn doped $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ by analyzing the spin flip transition in the magnetization curves. We find that the interlayer coupling strongly depends on the mobility of the hole charge carriers. Samples with the same hole content as well as the same Néel temperature but a different hole mobility, which we adjusted by Zn co-doping, can have a very different interlayer coupling. Our results suggest that only mobile holes can cause a strong frustration of the interlayer coupling.

In $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ the 3D AF order is destroyed by a remarkably small amount of 2% holes ($`x=0.02`$Niedermayer et al. (1998). In this compound the S=1/2 Cu spins in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ planes form a 2D Heisenberg AF with a strong Cu–Cu in-plane exchange of $`J=135`$ meV, and a very weak interlayer coupling $`J_{}10^5J`$. Though the interlayer coupling is indispensable to establish the 3D AF order Aharony et al. (1988), almost nothing is known about its dependence on doping with holes and/or static spin vacancies. For $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ Thio et al. have demonstrated that $`J_{}`$ can be determined from a spin flip (SF) for $`Hc`$ due to the Dzyaloshinsky–Moriya (DM) Cu–spin canting Thio et al. (1988).

In recent years, great efforts have been made to map each stage of the suppression of the 3D order which is a precondition for the occurrence of superconductivity (SC) Niedermayer et al. (1998); Chou et al. (1993); Borsa et al. (1995); Hücker et al. (1998). The Néel temperature $`T_N`$ decreases from $`325`$ K for $`x=0`$ to about 80 K for $`x=0.019`$ and then drops to zero within a Sr range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x0.001`$ around $`x=0.02`$ Niedermayer et al. (1998); Hücker et al. (1998). At the same time for $`x0.008`$ the so called spin freezing regime (SFR) evolves at $`T<30`$ K Chou et al. (1993); Borsa et al. (1995). At $`x=0.02`$ the SFR crosses over to the cluster spin glass phase which reaches into the SC phase that appears at $`x=0.06`$ Niedermayer et al. (1998). In the AF phase for $`30\mathrm{K}<T<T_N`$ $`\mu `$SR and NQR probe a rapid decrease of the internal field $`H_{int}`$ with increasing $`x`$. However, in the SFR $`H_{int}`$ again rises and independent of $`x`$ reaches almost the value in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$. Recent neutron diffraction data prove the SFR to have a incommensurate AF spin modulation, which coexists with the commensurate AF order Matsuda et al. (2002).

Various models were suggested to describe the suppression of the AF order Aharony et al. (1988); Cho et al. (1993); Korenblit et al. (1999); Suh et al. (1998); Neto (1998). The frustration model Aharony et al. (1988) assumes that individual localized holes cause a frustration of the in-plane and the interlayer coupling. In the finite size scaling model Cho et al. (1993) holes segregate into domain walls which limit the 2D correlation length $`\xi _{2D}\sqrt{T_N}`$. The SFR was associated with the breakup of the domain walls when holes localize at low T Borsa et al. (1995). In contrast, recent neutron diffraction data support the existence of magnetic domain walls in particular for the SFR Matsuda et al. (2002).

To elucidate crucial parameters for the suppression of the 3D AF order in $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$, we have studied the interlayer coupling in Sr and/or Zn doped samples. Zn doping is used to reduce the mobility of the holes as well as to introduce spin vacancies. From our analysis of the SF transition we find that only mobile holes cause a drastic suppression of the interlayer coupling. Co-doping with Zn recovers an interlayer coupling almost as strong as in pure $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ due to the localization of holes. Surprisingly, samples with similar $`T_N`$ can have a completely different interlayer coupling, depending on the hole mobility and the number of spin vacancies.

The DC magnetization $`M(H)`$ of five polycrystals $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{1\mathrm{z}}\mathrm{Zn}_\mathrm{z}\mathrm{O}_4`$ (Tab. 1) was measured using a VSM ($`T_{max}=290`$ K, $`H_{max}=14`$ Tesla). Samples were annealed in vacuum (1/2h, 800oC), their preparation was described in Ref. Hücker et al., 1998.

In the LTO phase of $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ the $`\mathrm{CuO}_6`$-octahedra are tilted. As a consequence, nearest neighbor Cu spins are slightly canted against each other due to a DM superexchange term Thio et al. (1988). Below $`T_N`$ the canted moments $`M_{DM}c`$ of adjacent planes are AF ordered, but can be flipped for $`Hc`$. Because of this moments of the order of $`10^3\mu _B/`$Cu the $`M(H)`$ curves are non-linear in the AF phase as well as in the paramagnetic (PM) phase Thio et al. (1988); Thio and Aharony (1994). This can be seen in Fig. 1 where we compare $`M(H)`$ of $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ ($`T_N=312`$ K) and $`\mathrm{La}_{1.983}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.017}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ ($`T_N=132`$ K) as a function of $`T/T_N`$. In the PM phase ($`T/T_N>1`$) we find that the non-linear contribution can be described by a Brillouin term $`M_B`$. In the AF phase ($`T/T_N<1`$) the non-linear contribution is always a combination of $`M_B`$ and a term $`M_{SF}`$ which arises from the SF of the DM moments:

$$M=\{\begin{array}{cc}\chi _0H+M_B\hfill & (T>T_N)\hfill \\ \chi _0H+M_B+M_{SF}\hfill & (T<T_N)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\chi _0H`$ accounts for all linear terms. As we will see below, $`M_{SF}`$ is a function of the long range AF ordered fraction of the DM moment $`M_{DM}^{AF}(T)`$ AF order parameter, and $`M_B`$ is a function of the non-AF-ordered (NO) fraction $`M_{DM}^{NO}`$, both per Cu spin. Just below $`T_N`$ $`M(H)`$ for $`x=0`$ and $`x=0.017`$ is almost identical up to 14 Tesla and $`M_{SF}`$ is very small (grey shaded) while $`M_B`$ is still large. In contrast, at low $`T`$ the non-linear part of $`M(H)`$ strongly depends on $`x`$. For $`x=0`$ it is dominated by $`M_{SF}`$ whereas $`M_B0`$. For $`x=0.017`$ $`M_{SF}`$ is much smaller and of about the same order as $`M_B`$. Clearly visible is also a much larger $`H_{SF}`$ for $`x=0`$. At 14 Tesla $`M`$ is almost $`x`$-independent for all $`T/T_N`$ (inset Fig. 1).

The analysis of the SF enables to extract $`H_{SF}(T)`$ and $`M_{DM}^{AF}(T)`$. From the low $`T`$ limes $`J_{}`$ can be calculated Thio et al. (1988):

$$M_{DM}^{AF}(0)H_{SF}(0)S^2J_{}.$$
(2)
The SF takes place when $`H`$ acting on $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ (see left inset Fig. 2) overcomes the interlayer coupling, i.e. for $`Hcos\theta H_{SF}c`$ all $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ become ferromagnetically aligned $`c`$. In a single crystal ($`Hc`$) the SF causes a step like increase of $`M(H)`$ at $`HH_{SF}`$ by $`M_{SF}=M_{DM}^{AF}`$. In a polycrystal the crystallites are oriented randomly. If $`H_{SF}`$ is identical in all crystallites we obtain the following field dependence of $`M_{SF}`$ for $`HH_{SF}`$ from integration over all directions:

$$M_{SF}(H)=1/2M_{DM}^{AF}[1(H_{SF}/H)^2].$$
(3)
Obviously in a polycrystal $`M_{SF}`$ converges to $`1/2M_{DM}^{AF}`$ for $`H\mathrm{}`$. In Fig. 2 we show $`M_{SF}=MM_B\chi _0H`$ for $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ at 30 K. For large $`H`$ Eq. 3 (dashed line) yield a good fit to the data. Assuming a gaussian distribution of $`H_{SF}`$ in the polycrystal, integration of Eq. 3 over $`H_{SF}`$ yields the solid line in Fig. 2 which perfectly fits the data. The extracted parameters $`M_{DM}^{AF}=2.55\times 10^3`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`H_{SF}=5.2`$ Tesla are in fair agreement with single crystal data in Ref. Thio et al. (1988). Note, that in a polycrystal $`H_{SF}`$ is located slightly below the maximum of $`dM/dH`$ (inset).

For the Brillouin term $`M_B`$ in the PM phase of a polycrystal a similar geometrical consideration as for Eq. 3 yields the phenomenological formula:

$$M_B(H)=M_{DM}^{NO}_0^{\pi /2}tanh(kHsin\varphi )sin^2\varphi 𝑑\varphi .$$
(4)
where $`k=M_{DM}^{NO}N/(k_BT+J_{}N^2S^2)`$ is a phenomenological expression with $`N=(\xi _{2D}/a)^2`$ the number of 2D correlated Cu spins, which provides a rough estimate for $`\xi _{2D}`$. $`\varphi `$ is the angle between $`H`$ and the octahedra tilt axis which is normal to the DM plane (cf. inset Fig. 2). In the PM phase $`M_{DM}^{NO}`$ equals the full DM moment $`M_{DM}`$ and for $`H\mathrm{}`$ $`M_B`$ converges to $`\pi /4M_{DM}`$. With $`k`$ used as a simple fit parameter Eq. 4 describes also the remaining contribution $`M_B`$ of the non-AF-ordered fraction of $`M_{DM}`$ in the AF phase. Our analysis has shown that $`M_{DM}M_{DM}^{AF}+M_{DM}^{NO}`$. A neglect of $`M_B`$ would lead to inaccurate values for $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$, $`H_{SF}`$, and $`J_{}`$, in particular when $`M_BM_{SF}`$.

In Fig. 3 we show the $`T`$ dependence of $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ and $`H_{SF}`$ of the five samples studied (cf. Tab. 1). In pure $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ increases monotonous with decreasing $`T`$, and extrapolates to $`M_{DM}^{AF}(0)=2.7\times 10^3`$ $`\mu _\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{Cu}`$ for $`T0`$ K. Pure Sr doping causes a drastic reduction of $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$. In contrast, in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{Cu}_{0.85}\mathrm{Zn}_{0.15}\mathrm{O}_4`$, though $`T_N`$ is strongly reduced, at low temperatures $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ (per Cu atom) becomes even larger than in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$. Interestingly, a similar behavior is observed for the Sr/Zn co-doped sample, where the twofold role of Zn is to create spin vacancies and to reduce the mobility of the holes.

In $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ $`H_{SF}`$ increases with decreasing $`T`$ and below $`150`$ K becomes hysteretic, with its mean value saturating at 4.5 Tesla \[Fig. 3(b),(e)\]. Pure Sr doping strongly reduces $`H_{SF}`$ as well as the hysteretic $`T`$ range. In particular for 1.7% Sr only for $`T10`$ K a clear field hysteresis is observed. Both Zn doped samples show a relatively large field hysteresis \[see (c),(d)\]. Their maximum mean value for $`H_{SF}`$ is smaller than in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$, but in view of their relatively low $`T_N`$, $`H_{SF}`$ is large if compared to $`\mathrm{La}_{1.983}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.017}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$.

As one can see in in Fig. 3(a), in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ and for pure Sr doping $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ decreases below 30 K. Though this looks similar for all $`x`$, there is a qualitative difference. In $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ the hysteresis of the SF increases up to 2.2 Tesla at low $`T`$ and $`M(H)`$ becomes strongly distorted which causes deviations from the fit and makes it difficult to extract $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$. In contrast, in particular in the 1.7% Sr doped sample $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ drops between 30 K and 15 K where $`M(H)`$ is reversible. Therefore, we think that here the drop of $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ is connected to the SFR. As $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ AF order parameter, its drop in the SFR signals a degradation of the long range order, consistent with the neutron diffraction data in Ref. Matsuda et al., 2002. Obviously, this effect is absent in both Zn doped samples. For the Sr/Zn doped sample this evidences for a suppression of the SFR in $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ by Zn.

Following Eq. 2 we show in Fig. 4 the $`T`$-dependence of $`𝒥_{}^{}=M_{DM}^{AF}H_{SF}/S^2`$ which we call the effective interlayer coupling, where $`H_{SF}`$ are the mean values in Fig. 3(e). $`𝒥_{}^{}`$ accounts for the effects of doping ($`x,z`$) and temperature which counter the interlayer superexchange and only for $`T0`$ $`𝒥_{}^{}(0)=J_{}`$ (see Tab. 1). In $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ $`𝒥_{}^{}`$ increases with decreasing $`T`$ and for $`T0`$ we find $`𝒥_{}^{}(0)=2.9`$ $`\mu `$eV which is in good agreement with 2.6 $`\mu `$eV for a single crystal with $`T_N=240`$ K in Ref. Thio et al. (1988). As a function of Sr doping $`𝒥_{}^{}`$ drastically decreases, and for $`x=0.017`$ $`𝒥_{}^{}(0)`$ amounts to only 25% of the value in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$. If we compare this to $`\mathrm{La}_{1.983}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.017}\mathrm{Cu}_{0.9}\mathrm{Zn}_{0.1}\mathrm{O}_4`$ which has exactly the same $`T_N`$, the huge difference is apparent. Here, $`𝒥_{}^{}`$ rises steeply and reaches almost the same value as in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$. $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{Cu}_{0.85}\mathrm{Zn}_{0.15}\mathrm{O}_4`$ behaves similar.

With the hindsight that $`𝒥_{}^{}(0)`$ in $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ and the Zn doped samples is about the same, it is evident from Eq. 2 that the larger DM moments in the Zn doped samples have to result in correspondingly smaller critical fields $`H_{SF}`$ \[Fig. 3(a),(e)\]. To a certain extend the 15% ($`z=0.1`$) and 25% ($`z=0.15`$) larger DM moments can be explained by an enhanced octahedra tilt angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ tilt . Local strain around the non-Jahn-Teller-active Zn sites might amplify this effect.

From Fig. 4 it is obvious that the mechanism for the suppression of the 3D AF order is completely different for pure hole doping (Sr) on the one hand and non-magnetic impurity doping (Zn) as well as mixed Sr/Zn doping on the other hand. In $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ the hole mobility increases rapidly with increasing $`x`$, and just a small concentration of mobile holes reduces both, $`T_N`$ and $`𝒥_{}^{}`$. Co-doping with Zn reduces the hole mobility Hücker et al. (1998) and causes a drastic increase of $`𝒥_{}^{}`$, even if $`T_N`$ is low. In particular for the two samples doped by 1.7% Sr the influence of the hole mobility is apparent. Our data clearly demonstrate that at fixed Sr content $`x0.02`$ the interlayer coupling drastically increases if the hole mobility is reduced.

Localized holes are supposed to suppress $`T_N`$ much stronger than Zn because a hole located on an O-site ferromagnetically frustrates the AF Cu-O-Cu exchange Aharony et al. (1988). In contrast, a static spin vacancy does not perturb the AF order of the surrounding Cu spins Hücker and Büchner (2002). If we compare now the 10% Zn and 1.7% Sr co-doped sample with a $``$18% Zn doped sample, which would have the same $`T_N`$ of $``$135 K, it is evident that 1.7% localized holes suppress $`T_N`$ as effective as 8% Zn. This means that also for localized holes the effect of in-plane ferromagnetic frustrations on $`T_N`$ is strong, while their effect on the interlayer coupling is very weak (Fig. 4), which is in contrast to the frustration model Aharony et al. (1988). Obviously the suppression of the interlayer coupling in $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ is closely connected to a high hole mobility (cf. Ref. Hücker et al., 1998 for $`\rho `$ values).

Lets focus on the correlation length of the two samples with 1.7% Sr in the inset of Fig. 4. According to our analysis they have about the same $`\xi _{2D}`$ at $`T_N`$. However, the sample with localized holes shows a much faster increases of $`\xi _{2D}`$ with decreasing $`T`$ than the sample with mobile holes. In view of these results for $`TT_N`$ and the fact that the AF ordered moment at low $`T`$ stays much smaller in the purely Sr doped sample, we think that mobile holes hinder $`\xi _{2D}`$ to develop and frustrate the interlayer coupling in a way that cannot be explained with isolated localized holes.

Most of our observations presented in this paper can be naturally explained assuming dynamic magnetic antiphase boundaries for $`T30`$ K and static for $`T30`$ K. Evidence for static antiphase boundaries in the SFR was recently found by Matsuda et al. Matsuda et al. (2002). Below 30 K an incommensurate AF order was detected which coexists with the commensurate AF order. Dynamic antiphase domains were suggested to explain the drastic reduction of the AF order parameter with increasing $`x`$ for $`30K<T<T_N`$ Suh et al. (1998), but so far there is no direct evidence for that. Our discussion does not depend on a particular domain form or on the formation of charge stripes. We think that what is essential is the presence of mobile holes, as only these holes can affect many Cu-O-Cu-bonds and are able to excite at least antiphase boundary segments, i.e. strings of ferromagnetically frustrated Cu-O-Cu-bonds. In such an environment a frustration of the interlayer coupling is inevitable, as two antiphased domains in one $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$-plane cannot AF couple simultaneously to the adjacent plane, assuming that in particular in the case of dynamic antiphase boundaries 3D correlations are absent.

The drastic reduction of $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ in $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ with increasing $`x`$ for $`30\mathrm{K}<T<T_N`$ as well as its further reduction in the SFR can be explained in this framework too. Just those regions of the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ planes with AF interlayer coupling contribute to the spin flip ($`M_{SF}`$), while regions with ferromagnetically frustrated interlayer coupling can be aligned continuously with increasing field ($`M_B`$). Both contributions must result from correlated regions with relatively large $`\xi _{2D}`$ as it is possible to align the full DM moment at any temperature (cf. Fig. 1 for high $`H`$ up to $`H=14`$ Tesla). Interestingly, no significant change of the mean value $`H_{SF}`$ is observed upon the transition into the SFR, whereas the decrease in $`M_{SF}`$ and a corresponding increase in $`M_B`$ was very clear. Obviously, just the fraction of regions with AF interlayer coupling decreases and not their interlayer coupling. This suggests that in the SFR coupled and frustrated regions are spatially separated, which is consistent with the observation of two $`\mu SR`$ frequencies in the SFR of the $`\mathrm{La}_{1.983}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.017}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ sample Wagener98  and recent neutron diffraction data in Ref. Matsuda et al., 2002. The reduction of $`M_{DM}^{AF}`$ in the SFR could be the consequence of a more destructive or a more even distribution of antiphase boundaries when they become statically ordered. We think that on either side of an in-plane antiphase boundary the DM moments point into opposite directions. At first glance this looks like DM moments cancel out, but it is important to consider both, their arrangement in the planes as well as between the planes. In-plane phase boundaries cause jumps in the AF in-plane phase but do not necessarily destabilize in-plane correlations, whereas they certainly result in a frustration of the interlayer coupling.

On the basis of our experimental data we come to the conclusion that the drastic suppression of the interlayer coupling and hence of $`T_N`$ in $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ is a real magnetic decoupling of the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ planes due to the ferromagnetic frustration of the interlayer coupling by in-plane magnetic antiphase boundaries. We have shown that an important condition for this effect is a high hole mobility, and that the ferromagnetic frustration effect of localized holes on the interlayer coupling is small.

We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Vojta and F. Essler. Work at Brookhaven was supported by the Material Science Division, Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# Newly observed two-body decays of 𝐵 mesons in a hybrid perspective

## Abstract

In consistency with $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays, recently observed $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$ are studied in a hybrid perspective in which their amplitude is given by a sum of factorizable and non-factorizable ones.

preprint:   YITP-02-63

(Quasi) two-body decays of $`B`$ mesons have been studied extensively by using the factorization . However, recently measured rates  for the color mismatched spectator (CMS) decays, $`\overline{B}_d^0D^{()0}\pi ^0`$, are much larger than the expectation by the factorization. It suggests that non-factorizable contributions can play an important role in these decays. In addition, very recently, $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$ and $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ have been observed . The rate for the former is again much larger than the expectation by the factorization, i.e., it has been expected to be strongly suppressed (the helicity suppression) since it is described by an annihilation diagram in the weak boson mass $`m_W\mathrm{}`$ limit. It means that the non-factorizable contribution is dominant in this decay. The latter is a pure spectator decay, $`\overline{b}\overline{u}+(c\overline{s})`$, but does not satisfy the kinematical condition of color transparency , so that it is not very clear if the factorization works well in this decay. Therefore, it is meaningful to study a possible role of non-factorizable contributions in the newly observed $`\overline{B}_d^0D^{()0}\pi ^0`$, $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$ and $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ in consistency with the $`bc`$ type of decays, $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$.

We, first, review briefly our (hybrid) perspective (see Ref. for more details). Our starting point is to assume that the amplitude can be decomposed into a sum of factorizable and non-factorizable ones, ($`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$, respectively). $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ is estimated by using the factorization while $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is assumed to be dominated by dynamical contributions of various hadron states and calculated by using a hard pion (or kaon) approximation in the infinite momentum frame (IMF) . In this approximation, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is given by a sum of the surface term ($`M_\mathrm{S}`$) which is given by a sum of all possible pole amplitudes and the equal-time commutator term ($`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}`$) which arises from the contribution of non-resonant (multi-hadron) intermediate states . Corresponding to the above decomposition of the amplitude, the effective weak Hamiltonian, $`H_w(G_F/\sqrt{2})\{c_1O_1+c_2O_2\}+h.c.`$, (where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are the Wilson coefficients), is decomposed into a sum of the BSW Hamiltonian , $`H_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$, and an extra term, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$, i.e., $`H_wH_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}+\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$, by using the Fierz reshuffling, where $`H_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$ is given by a sum of products of colorless currents and might provide the factorizable amplitude. However, the “external” hadron states which sandwich $`H_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$ might interact sometimes with each other through hadron dynamics (like a re-scattering, etc.). In this case, corresponding part of the amplitude is non-factorizable and should be included in $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$, so that the values of the coefficients, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, in $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ arising from $`H_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$ might not be the same as the original $`a_1^{(\mathrm{BSW})}=c_1+c_2/N_c`$ and $`a_2^{(\mathrm{BSW})}=c_2+c_1/N_c`$ in $`H_w^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$, where $`N_c`$ is the color degree of freedom. Therefore, we will treat $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ as adjustable parameters later. The extra term $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ which is given by a color singlet sum of colored current products provides non-factorizable amplitudes in the present perspective, although, in Ref. , contributions from $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ have been included in the factorized amplitudes by considering the effective colors.

Explicit expression of factorized and non-factorizable amplitudes for the $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays have already been given in Ref.  in which $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ with contributions of low lying meson poles are taken into account. In the same way, we can calculate the amplitude for the $`\overline{b}\overline{u}+(c\overline{s})`$ decays, $`B^0D_s^{()+}\pi ^{}`$. These amplitudes, however, include many parameters, i.e., form factors, decay constants of heavy mesons, asymptotic matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ (matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ taken between single hadron states with infinite momentum), phases, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_I`$, of $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}^{(I)}(\overline{B}D\pi )`$, ($`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$), relative to $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ and the relative phase ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) between $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ which has not been considered in our previous studies. The other parameters involved are known or can be estimated by using related experimental data and asymptotic flavor symmetries .

To obtain improved values of the above amplitudes, we update values of parameters involved. Asymptotic matrix elements of axial charges are estimated as follows, i.e., $`|\rho ^0|A_{\pi ^+}|\pi ^{}|1.0`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho \pi \pi )_{\mathrm{exp}}150`$ MeV . Here we take $`\rho ^0|A_{\pi ^+}|\pi ^{}=1.0`$ and the other ones can be related to it by using related asymptotic flavor symmetries, for example, $`\sqrt{2}D^+|A_{\pi ^+}|D^0=\rho ^0|A_{\pi ^+}|\pi ^{}`$, etc., as in our previous study . As the values of the CKM matrix elements  and the decay constants, we take $`V_{cs}V_{ud}0.98`$, $`V_{cd}0.22`$, $`V_{cb}0.040`$, $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|0.090`$ and $`f_\pi 130.7`$ MeV, $`f_K160`$ MeV from Ref. . The decay constant, $`f_{J/\psi }406`$ MeV, can be obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi e^+e^{})_{\mathrm{exp}}=5.26\pm 0.37`$ keV . The updated values of the decay constants of heavy mesons, $`f_D0.226`$ GeV, $`f_{D_s}0.250`$ GeV and $`f_B0.198`$ GeV, are taken from the lattice QCD , and $`f_D^{}f_D`$ and $`f_{D_s^{}}f_{D_s}`$ are assumed as expected by the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) . The form factors, $`F_0^{(D\overline{B})}(m_\pi ^2)`$ and $`A_0^{(D^{}\overline{B})}(m_\pi ^2)`$, are estimated by using the HQET and the data on the semi-leptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons  as $`F_0^{(D\overline{B})}(m_\pi ^2)0.74`$ and $`A_0^{(D^{}\overline{B})}(m_\pi ^2)0.65`$. The form factors, $`F_0^{(\pi \overline{B})}(q^2)`$ and $`F_1^{(\pi \overline{B})}(q^2)`$, are estimated by using extrapolation formulas based on the lattice QCD . We here take $`F_0^{(\pi B)}(m_D^2)0.28`$, $`F_0^{(\pi B)}(m_{D_s}^2)0.32`$, $`F_1^{(\pi B)}(m_D^{}^2)0.34`$, $`F_1^{(\pi B)}(m_\psi ^2)0.50`$ and $`F_1^{(KB)}(m_\psi ^2)0.59`$. The annihilation amplitudes which contain $`F_0^{(D\pi )}(m_B^2)`$ and $`A_0^{(D^{}\pi )}(m_B^2)`$ will be small and neglected because of the helicity suppression.

The asymptotic matrix element of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ is parameterized by

$$\frac{D^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}|\overline{B}_d^0}{V_{cb}V_{ud}f_\pi }=B_H\times 10^5(\mathrm{GeV}),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}`$ is a component of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ which is given by a sum of $`\stackrel{~}{O}_1^{(ud;cb)}=V_{ud}V_{cb}\{2_a(\overline{d}t^au)_L(\overline{c}t^ab)_L\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_2^{(ud;cb)}=V_{ud}V_{cb}\{2_a(\overline{c}t^au)_L(\overline{d}t^ab)_L\}`$ with the color $`SU_c(3)`$ generator $`t^a`$. To evaluate the $`\overline{B}D^{}\pi `$ amplitudes, we assume

> Table 1. Factorized and non-factorizable amplitudes for the $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$, $`J/\psi \pi `$ and $`B^0D_s^{()+}\pi ^{}`$ decays. The CKM matrix elements are factored out.

| Decay | $`A_{\mathrm{FA}}(\times 10^5`$ GeV) | $`A_{\mathrm{NF}}(\times 10^5`$ GeV) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.94a_1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{1/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{3/2}}\right\}B_H`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^0`$ | $`1.14\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_D}{0.226\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{1/2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{3/2}}\right\}B_H`$ |
| $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.94a_1\left\{1+0.48\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_D}{f_\pi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{a_1}}\right)\right\}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{3/2}}B_H`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.68a_1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.694B_H`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^0`$ | $`1.07\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}}{0.226\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.983B_H`$ |
| $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.68a_1\left\{1+0.52\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}}{f_\pi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{a_1}}\right)\right\}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.696B_H`$ |
| $`B^{}J/\psi K^{}`$ | $`3.60a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.548B_H`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0J/\psi \overline{K}^0`$ | $`3.60a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.548B_H`$ |
| $`B^{}J/\psi \pi ^{}`$ | $`3.08a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.692B_H`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0J/\psi \pi ^0`$ | $`2.18a_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.489B_H`$ |
| $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.95a_1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1}B_H`$ |
| $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ | $`1.54a_1e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ | $`0.70B_H`$ |

$$D^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}|\overline{B}_d^0=D^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}|\overline{B}_d^0$$
(2)
as expected by the HQET. All the other asymptotic matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ involved in the non-factorizable amplitudes are combined with the ones in Eq.(2), i.e.,

$`J/\psi |\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cd;cb)}|\overline{B}_d^0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}}{V_{cs}}}\right)J/\psi |\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cs;cb)}|\overline{B}_s^0`$ (3)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}}{V_{ud}}}\right)D^{()0}|\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}|\overline{B}_d^{()0}`$ (4)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}}{V_{cs}V_{ub}}}\right)D_s^{()+}|\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cs;ub)}|B_u^{()+},`$ (5)
by inserting commutation relations, $`[V_{K^0},\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cs;cb)}]=(V_{cs}/V_{cd})\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cd;cb)}`$, $`[V_{D^0},\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cd;cb)}]=(V_{cd}/V_{ud})\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(ud;cb)}`$, $`[V_{\overline{D}^0},\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cs;cb)}]=(V_{cb}/V_{ub})\stackrel{~}{H}_w^{(cs;ub)}`$, between related asymptotic states (single hadron states with infinite momentum) and using asymptotic $`SU_f(3)`$ and $`SU_f(4)`$ relations, $`\overline{B}_s^0|V_{K^0}|\overline{B}_d^0=1`$, $`D^0|V_{D^0}|J/\psi =1`$, etc. To obtain the last equality in Eq.(5), we have used the $`CP`$-invariance which is always assumed in this note and $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0|\stackrel{~}{O}_+|\{q\overline{q}\}_0=0`$ from a quark counting , where $`\stackrel{~}{O}_\pm =\stackrel{~}{O}_1\pm \stackrel{~}{O}_2`$. The $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0`$’s denote the low lying mesons.

> Table 2. A typical result on the branching ratios ($`\times 10^3`$) for $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays, where the values of the parameters involved are given in the text. $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ are given by $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, respectively. $`_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ are taken from Ref. .

| Decays | $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ | $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ | $`_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ | 4.0 | 3.1 | $`3.0\pm 0.4`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^0`$ | 0.10 | 0.24 | $`0.27\pm 0.06`$ |
| $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ | 5.6 | 5.6 | $`5.3\pm 0.5`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{}`$ | 3.1 | 2.6 | $`2.76\pm 0.21`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^0`$ | 0.09 | 0.22 | $`0.22\pm 0.10`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^{}`$ | 4.1 | 4.7 | $`4.6\pm 0.4`$ |
| $`B^{}J/\psi K^{}`$ | 0.82 | 0.99 | $`1.01\pm 0.05`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0J/\psi \overline{K}^0`$ | 0.75 | 0.91 | $`0.87\pm 0.05`$ |
| $`B^{}J/\psi \pi ^{}`$ | 0.030 | 0.039 | $`0.042\pm 0.007`$ |
| $`\overline{B}^0J/\psi \pi ^0`$ | 0.014 | 0.018 | $`0.021\pm 0.005`$ |

In this way, we can obtain $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ in the second and third columns, respectively, of Table 1, where we have neglected small contributions of annihilation terms in $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and excited meson poles in $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$.

We now look for values of parameters, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_I`$, ($`I=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$), and $`B_H`$, which reproduce the measured branching ratios for the $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays. $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are treated as adjustable parameters with values around $`a_1^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$ and $`a_2^{(\mathrm{BSW})}`$. The phase $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_I`$ is restricted in the region $`|\stackrel{~}{\delta }_I|<90^{}`$ since resonant contributions have already been extracted as pole amplitudes in $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`B_H`$ are treated as free parameters. The result is not very sensitive to $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_I`$, and the coefficients, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, favor values close to the ones taken in Ref.  which is based on the factorization. The above implies that the non-factorizable contribution is not very important in the color favored decays. We can reproduce the experimental data ($`_{\mathrm{exp}}`$) compiled by the Particle Data Group 2002  taking values of parameters in the range, $`1.00a_11.13`$, $`0.28a_20.31`$, $`24^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|32^{}`$, $`|\delta _{1/2}|70^{}`$, $`10^{}|\delta _{3/2}|90^{}`$ and $`0.09B_H0.25`$. To see more explicitly a role of the non-factorizable contribution, we list a typical result on the branching ratios (near the best fit to $`_{\mathrm{exp}}`$) for $`a_1=1.08`$, $`a_2=0.29`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1=0.0^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_3=\pm 90^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pm 28^{}`$ and $`B_H=0.19`$ in Table 2, where we have used $`\tau (B^{})=1.67\times 10^{12}`$ s and $`\tau (\overline{B}^0)=1.54\times 10^{12}`$ s from Ref. . $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ are given by $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}=M_{\mathrm{FA}}+M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$, respectively. As seen in Table 2, $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ in which $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is discarded is hard to reproduce the data on the CMS decays, $`\overline{B}D^{()0}\pi ^0`$. If we add $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$, however, we can get a much better fit to the data including the CMS decays. In the color favored $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$ decays, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is rather small (but it can interfere efficiently with the main amplitude, $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$). In the $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ decay, however, it is very small. In the $`\overline{B}J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays, the color suppression does not work so well that $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is not dominant in contrast with the $`\overline{B}D^{()0}\pi ^0`$ although all of them are the CMS decays.

Next, we study the $`B^0D_s^{()+}\pi ^{}`$ decays comparing with the $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ which has been studied above. Using the same values of parameters as the above, i.e., $`a_1=1.08`$, $`a_2=0.29`$, $`B_H=0.19`$, we obtain

$`|M_{\mathrm{NF}}(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})|0.09|M_{\mathrm{FA}}(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})|,`$ (6)
$`|M_{\mathrm{NF}}(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})|0.08|M_{\mathrm{FA}}(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})|,`$ (7)
which imply that the factorization works considerably well in these decays although they do not satisfy the condition of the color transparency. Neglecting the rather small $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ in the $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ and using the same values of parameters as the above, we obtain

$$|M(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})|0.074|M(B^{}D^0\pi ^{})|,$$
(8)
where we have used $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{exp}}0.090`$ . The measured branching ratio for the $`B^{}D^0\pi ^{}`$ decay  leads us to

$$(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})2.7\times 10^5,$$
(9)
which reproduces well the recent measurements ,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{BABAR}}=(3.1\pm 2.0)\times 10^5,\hfill \\ (B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{BELLE}}=(2.4_{0.8}^{+1.0}\pm 0.7)\times 10^5.\hfill \end{array}`$In the same way, we obtain $`(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})1.7\times 10^5`$, which is again compatible with the experimental upper limits .

In the $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$ decay, $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ is strongly suppressed because of the helicity suppression, so that $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ dominates the decay in the present perspective, i.e.,

$`M(\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{})M_{\mathrm{NF}}(\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{})`$ (10)
$`iV_{cb}V_{ud}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{f_K}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{D^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|\overline{B}_d^0}{V_{cb}V_{ud}f_\pi }}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\delta }_1}.`$ (11)
The same value of parameters as the above leads to

$$(\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{})2.8\times 10^5,$$
(12)
which should be compared with the measured values ,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}(\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{})_{\mathrm{BABAR}}=(3.2\pm 2.0)\times 10^5,\hfill \\ (\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{})_{\mathrm{BELLE}}=(4.6_{1.1}^{+1.2}\pm 1.3)\times 10^5.\hfill \end{array}`$

In summary, we have studied the recently observed decays, $`\overline{B}D^{()0}\pi ^0`$, $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$, in consistency with the $`bc`$ type of decays, $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$, providing their amplitude by a sum of factorized and non-factorizable ones. To study the non-factorizable amplitudes, we have used the asymptotic $`SU_f(3)`$ and $`SU_f(4)`$ symmetries which may be broken. The size of the symmetry breaking can be estimated from the value of the form factor, $`f_+(0)`$, in the matrix element of related vector current, where $`f_+(0)=1`$ in the symmetry limit. From the measured values of the form factors, $`f_+^{(\pi D)}(0)=0.71\pm 0.06`$  and $`|f_+^{(\pi D)}(0)/f_+^{(\overline{K}D)}(0)|=1.00\pm 0.13`$ , the asymptotic $`SU_f(4)`$ symmetry seems to be broken to the extent of 30 $`\%`$ while the asymptotic $`SU_f(3)`$ still works well. However, such a large symmetry breaking has not caused any serious problem in the present study since $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ is much smaller than $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ except for some decays in which $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ is strongly suppressed and whose experimental errors are still large. For more precise studies, of course, more detailed informations of the symmetry breaking will be needed.

The amplitude with final state interactions has been included in the non-factorizable one. For the color favored $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$ decays, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ has been rather small and, therefore, the final state interactions seem to be not very important (but not necessarily negligible) in these decays. In the $`\overline{B}D^{()0}\pi ^0`$ which are the CMS decays, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ has been dominant since $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ is suppressed because of the color suppression. In the $`\overline{B}J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$, which also are the CMS decays, however, the color suppression has not worked so well that $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ has not been dominant in contrast with the $`\overline{B}D^{()0}\pi ^0`$ decays. In the $`B^0D_s^{()+}\pi ^{}`$ which are the color favored $`\overline{b}\overline{u}+(c\overline{s})`$ type of spectator decays, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ has been small. The values of parameters which reproduce the measured branching ratios for the $`\overline{B}D^{()}\pi `$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$ decays have lead to $`(B^0D_s^{()+}\pi ^{})`$ consistent with the very recent measurements. It means that the factorization works considerably well in these decays although they do not satisfy the condition of color transparency. In the $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$ which is the annihilation decay, $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ has been dominant and reproduced the very recent measurements within their large errors. All the above suggest that dynamical contributions of hadrons should be carefully treated in hadronic weak decays of $`B`$ mesons.

In the CMS decays, $`\overline{B}^0D^{()0}\pi ^0`$, $`J/\psi \overline{K}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi `$, the annihilation decay, $`\overline{B}^0D_s^+K^{}`$, and the $`\overline{b}\overline{u}+(c\overline{s})`$ type of spectator decay, $`B^0D_s^+\pi ^{}`$, both of the theoretical and experimental ambiguities are still large although their measured rates have been reproduced considerably well by taking account of the non-factorizable contributions. More theoretical and experimental studies on these decays will be needed.

The author would like to appreciate Prof. T. Onogi for discussions. He also thanks the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University. Discussions during the YITP workshop, YITP-W-02-08, “TEA (Theoretical-Experimental-Astronomical Particle Physics) 02”, were useful to complete this work.