text:
# Non-Fermi liquid behavior from two-dimensional antiferromagnetic fluctuations: a renormalization-group and large-N analysis

## I Introduction

Materials in the vicinity of a quantum critical point (QCP) continue to be the subject of intensive investigations StewartRMP . Particular attention has been paid to the heavy fermion system $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$ which undergoes a phase transition from a paramagnetic, heavy-fermion metal to an antiferromagnetic metal as a function of chemical composition and pressure HvL1994 ; Schroder2000 . Another remarkable case is the stoichiometric compound $`\mathrm{YbRh}_2\mathrm{Si}_2`$ which is apparently located very close (on the magnetic side) of an antiferromagnetic QCP Trovarelli2000 . Hydrostatic pressure stabilizes the magnetic phase in that case. As the critical point is approached, these systems exhibit an enhancement of the specific heat coefficient $`C/T`$, magnetic susceptibility, resistivity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ and thermoelectric power, which is not easily described within the conventional theory of a three dimensional quantum critical antiferromagnet.

Neutron scattering experimentsRosch ; Schroder1998 ; Stockert1998 ; Schroder2000  on $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$ have revealed that the spin fluctuation spectrum of this compound has a two-dimensional character in a wide range of temperatures. Indeed, maxima of the neutron scattering intensity are observed along rod-like structures in reciprocal space along which spin fluctuations are independent of one component of the wavevector. This motivated Rosch et al.Rosch  to propose that the observed anomalies are the results of the coupling of three-dimensional electrons to quasi two-dimensional critical spin fluctuations. In such a situation, conventional Hertz-Moriya-Millis theoryhertz ; moriya ; millis ; sachdev  of quantum critical behavior leads to $`C/T\mathrm{ln}(1/T)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho T`$, consistent with experimental findings. A similar observation applies to the thermoelectric power ipaul . The microscopic reason for the two-dimensional nature of spin fluctuations is not clear however for $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$, while magnetic frustration might provide a natural explanationTrovarelli2000  in the case of $`\mathrm{YbRh}_2\mathrm{Si}_2`$ (for which inelastic neutron scattering data are not yet available).

The approach of Rosch et al.Rosch  requires fine tuning on a microscopic level (since a three- dimensional dispersion of the electrons will generically lead to three- dimensional critical fluctuations at the QCP) but it is internally consistent on a theoretical level. Indeed, the vertex corrections to the electron- spin fluctuation interaction is finite ipaul  in the case of a coupling to a three-dimensional fermion spectrum. (Note that the situation is different for two-dimensional fermions, which leads to a singular vertexchubukov ). Since the vertex is non-singular, the physics of long-wavelength magnetic fluctuations is described by a $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory with ohmic damping. The quartic term is marginally irrelevant for $`d=2`$, which is the upper critical dimension of this theory. Hence, the flow of the quartic term will lead to logarithmic deviations from mean-field critical behavior. These effects have not been investigated previously for the frequency-dependent response function in this context. Inelastic neutron scattering Schroder1998 ; Stockert1998 ; Schroder2000  on $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$ at the QCP ($`x_c0.1`$) have revealed an anomalous enhancement of the Landau damping. Whether logarithmic effects at the upper critical dimension could account for such an enhancement in the range of experimentally accessible frequencies is an outstanding open question which we address in this paper. We use the number of components ($`N`$) of the field as a control parameter, and perform a calculation of the dynamical susceptibility to order $`1/N`$. We find that, to this order, the sign of the corrections to Landau damping cannot explain the experimental data.

An alternative theoretical viewpoint on the physics at the QCP is that the spin-fluctuation self-energy at the QCP is purely local (i.e momentum independent) and has an anomalous power-law dependence on frequency and temperature. This was first proposedSchroder1998 ; Schroder2000  as a phenomenological fit to the inelastic neutron scattering data in the form: $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{q=Q}^1=\omega ^\alpha f(\omega /T)`$ with $`\alpha 0.70.8`$. Si et al.SiNature  have further developed this point of view in the framework of the extended dynamical mean-field (EDMFT) theory of the Kondo latticesismith ; kaju ; sengupta . It has been argued in this context that the separation of electronic degrees of freedom and long-wavelength magnetic fluctuations is not legitimateSiNature ; coleman\_poland , because the (Kondo) coherence scale below which electron degrees of freedom can be eliminated might vanish at the QCP. Recently however, Grempel and Si showedGrempelSi  that starting above the Kondo temperature the EDMFT of the Kondo lattice can be mapped, using bosonization tricks, onto the EDMFT of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory for magnetic modes (see also the earlier work by Sengupta and one of ussengupta ). They further suggested that, in two dimensions, this theory would lead to an anomalous Landau damping, with the power-law form mentioned above ($`\alpha <1`$). We study this effective theory in the EDMFT approximation, using both a strict 1/N expansion and a numerical solution using the large-N expansion as an ”impurity solver”. We find that, contrary to the statements of Ref. GrempelSi, , no anomalous power-law is generated. In fact, the EDMFT approximation to the $`\varphi ^4`$ field-theory in the marginal case does not correctly reproduce the logarithmic corrections to the damping rate found in our direct calculation for $`d=2`$, and leads only to subdominant $`O(\omega ^2)`$ corrections at low-energy. This extends to the marginal case the previous work of Motome and two of uspankov  on the the EDMFT approximation applied to critical behavior, in which it was indeed found that the approximation is better in higher dimensions, and becomes unreliable below the upper critical dimensions.

Hence, the general conclusion of our paper is that logarithmic effects at the upper critical dimensions in the conventional theory of an antiferromagnetic QCP cannot explain the behavior observed experimentally for $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$, at least at dominant order in the $`1/N`$ expansion.

This paper is organized as follows: in section II, we perform a general renormalization-group analysis of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory with damping. In section III, we take a large-$`N`$ perspective, and present an explicit solution up to next to leading order in the 1/N expansion. We also describe the local (EDMFT) approximation to this theory, up to order $`1/N`$. In section IV we discuss in more details the EDMFT approach, and solve numerically the EDMFT equations using a large-N impurity solver. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our work for the understanding of non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy-fermion materials close to an antiferromagnetic QCP.

## II Renormalization group analysis

### II.1 Model and general renormalization-group framework

In this paper, we consider the following field theoryhertz ; millis ; sachdev  for an $`N`$-component field $`\varphi _a`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$):

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{q,\omega }{}D_0^1(q,i\omega )\underset{a}{}\varphi _a^2(q,i\omega )+\frac{u_0}{4!}d^dx𝑑\tau [\underset{a}{}\varphi _a(x,\tau )^2]^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}$$
(1)
in which the free propagator reads, for imaginary frequencies: $`D_0^1(q,i\omega )=r+|\omega |+q^2`$. This theory describes the vicinity of an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point, corresponding to the (bare) value $`z=2`$ of the dynamical critical exponent. In this context, the dissipative term is induced by the coupling to electronic degrees of freedom (Landau damping). The $`q`$-vector is the difference from the ordering wavevector, and $`r`$ is a parameter which measures the distance to the critical point. We are particularly interested in this paper in the two-dimensional case, but we shall also briefly consider lower dimensions $`1d<2`$ (Sec. II.3). In this section, we shall use the following normalized coupling constant:

$$g_0S_du_0\mathrm{with}:S_d=\frac{2}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)(4\pi )^{d/2}}$$
(2)
When considering the bare theory, an (ultra-violet) cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on momenta is introduced. We consider the bare irreducible 2-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\chi ^1`$, which is the inverse of the correlation function (dynamical susceptibility $`\chi (q,i\omega )=\varphi (q,i\omega )\varphi (q,i\omega )`$). The renormalization group (RG) specifieszinn  how $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ changes upon a rescaling of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The corresponding RG equation is obtained by imposing that the renormalized 2-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=Z\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of the original cutoff (with $`Z`$ the field- or ”wave function” renormalization). Focusing first, for simplicity, on the field-theory (1) in the critical (massless) case, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies the following equation (all Green’s functions in this and the next subsection are at $`T=0`$):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[q,i\omega ;g_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=(\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda })^2Z_\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{q}{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }},\frac{Z_\lambda }{(\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda })^2}i\omega ;g_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\right]$$
(3)
In this expression, $`Z_\lambda `$ and the running coupling constant $`g_\lambda `$ are defined from the usual RG functions:

$$\lambda \frac{d}{d\lambda }g_\lambda =\beta (g_\lambda ),g_{\lambda =1}=g_0$$
(4)
$$\lambda \frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{ln}Z_\lambda =\eta (g_\lambda ),Z_{\lambda =1}=1$$
(5)
Let us emphasize a key aspect of Eq.(3), namely that the damping term does not require an independent renormalization so that the frequency dependence in the r.h.s of (3) involves only the wave-function renormalization $`Z_\lambda `$. This can be proven to hold to all orders, using a field theoretic RGaharony . For a use of this method in a different context see Ref.boyanovsky,

We have calculated the RG function $`\beta `$ at one-loop order and the function $`\eta `$ at two-loop order. The diagrams contributing to the 2-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ up to this order are depicted in Fig. 1. We obtain (with $`ϵ=d2`$):

$`\beta (g)=ϵg+b_2g^2+O(g^3)`$
$`\eta (g)=c_2g^2+O(g^3)`$
where the coefficients $`b_2`$ and $`c_2`$ read, in the N-component theory:

$$b_2=\frac{N+8}{6},c_2=\frac{(N+2)(12\pi ^2)}{144}$$
(6)
Details of calculation of the coefficient $`c_2`$ are given in Appendix A.

### II.2 The marginal case $`d=2`$: logarithmic corrections to Landau damping

We focus here on the marginal case $`d=2`$ at the quantum-critical point, and integrate the above RG equations in order to obtain the corrections to the Landau damping at $`T=0`$. Integrating the RG equations (4,5) using (II.1) yields, to this order:

$`g_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{g_0}{1b_2g_0\mathrm{ln}\lambda }}`$
$`Z_\lambda =\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_2g_0^2\mathrm{ln}\lambda }{1b_2g_0\mathrm{ln}\lambda }}\right)`$ (7)
As expected in the marginal case, $`g_\lambda `$ flows logarithmically to zero as $`\lambda 0`$, while $`Z_\lambda `$ tends to some (non-universal) constant $`Z^{}`$. To analyze the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we use the general RG equation (3), setting $`q=0`$ and choosing $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$ such that $`\omega Z_\lambda ^{}/(\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })^2=1`$. This leads to:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(q=0,i\omega ;g_0,\mathrm{\Lambda })=|\omega |\mathrm{\Psi }(g_\lambda ^{})$$
(8)
in which we use the notation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(g)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q=0,i\omega =i;g,\mathrm{\Lambda }=1)`$. We then expand the r.h.s of (8) in powers of $`g_\lambda ^{}`$, with: $`g_\lambda ^{}1/(b_2\mathrm{ln}\lambda ^{})2/[b_2\mathrm{ln}(Z^{}|\omega |/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)]`$. This expansion actually starts at second-order in $`g_\lambda `$, since the 2-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is subtracted to insure that one sits at the critical point (in other words, the tadpoles $`I_1`$ do not contribute to the frequency dependence). Noting that: $`I_2(q=0,i\omega =0;g_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_2(q=0,i\omega ,g_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=cg_\lambda ^2|\omega |`$, coefficient $`c`$ computed in Appendix A, we finally obtain a correction to the frequency dependence of the 2-point function at the $`T=0`$ QCP of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(q=0,i\omega )=|\omega |\left(1+\frac{\left[6\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}211\zeta (3)\right](N+2)}{12(N+8)^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}^2(|\omega |Z^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)$$
(9)
Hence, only subdominant corrections to the Landau damping are generated in the marginal case $`d=2`$. Furthermore, the positive coefficient in the above expression can be interpreted as an effective exponent $`\alpha =2/z>1`$. This is in agreement with the $`1/N`$ expansion, which we consider later in this paper.

### II.3 $`ϵ=2d`$ expansion of critical exponents and corrections to scaling

We consider here the case $`d<2`$, in which the quartic term is relevant, and the effective coupling $`g_\lambda `$ tends to a non-trivial fixed point. The case $`d=1`$ is relevant, for example, when consideringsachdev  an Ising chain in a transverse field ($`N=1`$) or a chain of quantum rotors ($`N>1`$) coupled to a dissipative environment.

We make use of the general RG equation (3) by choosing $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$ such that $`q/\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. For $`\lambda 0`$, we now have: $`g_\lambda g^{}`$ and $`Z_\lambda \lambda ^\eta `$ (with the critical exponent $`\eta \eta (g^{})`$. Hence, we obtain (at $`T=0`$) for the dynamical susceptibility $`\chi =\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ at low-frequency and small momentum:

$$\chi (q,\omega )=q^{2+\eta }\varphi (\omega /cq^{2\eta })$$
(10)
In this expression, $`\varphi `$ is a universal scaling function associated with the fixed point. From this expression, the dynamical critical exponent is identified as:

$$z=2\eta $$
(11)
An expression which holds to all orders, and is the result of the existence of a unique RG function, as explained above. This scaling form can actually be generalized to finite temperature in the quantum critical regime in the form:

$$\chi (q,\omega )=\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{\omega }{T},\frac{c_1q}{T^{1/z}})$$
(12)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a universal scaling function, and $`c_1`$ a non-universal constant. In particular, at zero-momentum, $`T\chi (q=0,\omega )`$ is an entirely universal scaling function of $`\omega /T`$. At small $`\omega /T`$, we expect an analytic dependence on $`\omega /T`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\omega )/T=𝒞_1i𝒞_2\omega /T+\mathrm{}`$. In contrast, at large $`\omega /T`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\omega )/T=i𝒞_3\omega /T`$, and the subdominant terms are not analytic, but are related to those in (19) below. Here $`𝒞_{13}`$ are all non-trivial universal constants. The value of $`𝒞_3`$ is determined in the $`ϵ`$ expansion by the computations in Appendix A ($`𝒞_3=1+c(ϵ/b_2)^2+\mathrm{}`$), and this universality is clearly related to the universal logarithmic correction in (9). The values of $`𝒞_{1,2}`$ require a computation of the damping at $`T>0`$, and accurate determination of these is likely to require a self-consistent treatment of the loop corrections, as discussed in Ref sachdevrg, . In particular, $`𝒞_2𝒞_3`$ and hence

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\underset{T0}{lim}\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,\omega )}{\omega }\underset{T0}{lim}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,\omega )}{\omega }.$$
(13)
So the Landau damping co-efficient is sensitive to the order of limits of $`\omega 0`$ and $`T0`$; we expect that similar considerations will also apply to the logarithmic corrections in $`d=2`$ noted in (9).

From the RG expressions in Section II.1, the $`ϵ`$-expansion of the critical exponent $`\eta =2z`$ reads, to order $`ϵ^2`$:

$$\eta =\frac{(N+2)(12\pi ^2)}{4(N+8)^2}ϵ^2+O(ϵ^3)$$
(14)
We have also obtained the correlation length exponent at order $`ϵ`$:

$$\nu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{(N+2)}{4(N+8)}ϵ+O(ϵ^2)$$
(15)
Finally, we comment briefly on the next-to-leading corrections at $`T=0`$ to the Landau damping at the QCP. These are obtained from corrections to scaling, i.e. depend on the manner in which $`g_\lambda `$ flows to the fixed point:

$$g_\lambda =g^{}+(g_0g^{})\lambda ^\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{}$$
(16)
with:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\beta ^{}(g)=ϵ+O(ϵ^2)$$
(17)
The RG equation then yields the following form for the 2-point function, including corrections to scaling:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(q,\omega )=q^{2\eta }\left[\gamma _0(\omega q^z)+q^{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\gamma _2(\omega q^z)+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(18)
Taking the limit $`q0`$, this yields the following form of the Landau damping term:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(q=0,i\omega )=C_0|\omega |^{\frac{2\eta }{z}}+C_2|\omega |^{\frac{2\eta +\mathrm{\Omega }}{z}}+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
In the present case, the exact identity $`z=2\eta `$ implies that the dominant term is simply $`|\omega |`$, while a correction of the form $`|\omega |^{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\eta }}`$ is found. The logarithmic correction found above can be seen as the limiting behavior of this correction in the marginal case $`d=2`$ ($`ϵ=0`$).

## III Large-N analysis of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory of an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point in two dimensions ($`z=2`$)

In this section, we treat the field-theory (1) within the large-N expansion. For this purpose, we scale the coupling constant in (1) by $`1/N`$ and set:

$$u_0=\frac{6u}{N}$$
(20)
We denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ the contributions to the self-energy of order $`1/N^0`$ and $`1/N`$, respectively ($`\varphi \varphi ^1=D_0^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). The (skeleton) diagrams contributing to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ are depicted in Fig. 2. The corresponding expressions read:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(q,i\omega )=uT\underset{\nu _n}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}D(k,i\nu _n)$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q,i\omega )=2\frac{u}{N}T\underset{\nu _n}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{D(k+q,i\nu _n+i\omega _n)}{1+u\mathrm{\Pi }_0(k,i\nu _n)}$$
(22)
where:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )=T\underset{\nu _n}{}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}D(p,i\nu _n)D(p+q,i\nu _n+i\omega _n)$$
(23)
In this expression, $`D`$ denotes the full propagator to order $`1/N^0`$ (i.e including the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$). Hence, Eq. (21) should be viewed as a self-consistent equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

We first consider this equation at $`\omega =q=0`$, defining a ”gap” $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=r\mathrm{\Sigma }(q=0,i\omega =0)`$ related to the correlation length $`\xi `$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\xi ^2`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes ($`\xi `$ diverges) at the $`T=0`$ QCP. At the saddle point ($`N=\mathrm{}`$) level $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T=0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T)`$. We show in Appendix B that, at this order, the self-consistent equation for the gap reads (see also Ref. sachdev2, ):

$$\frac{(2\pi )^2}{u}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2})}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}`$ is a cutoff for $`q^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}/(2\pi T)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }/(2\pi T)`$. In the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{q^2}`$ Eq.(24) reduces to:

$$\frac{(2\pi )^2}{u}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(25)
We dropped the index in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}`$ as it is the only scale we use. In the limit $`u\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}1`$ the approximate solution of Eq.(25) issachdev2 :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi T\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2\pi T)}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2\pi T}$$
(26)
Hence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes faster than $`T`$ as $`T0`$. The contributions of the marginally irrelevant coupling are smaller than temperature (or energy) itself. As we shall now see, this also applies to the $`T=0`$ contributions to the Landau damping at the critical point, which is the main quantity of interest in this paper.

We perform a calculation of the damping rate at the $`T=0`$ QCP up to order $`1/N`$. At the saddle-point level ($`1/N^0`$), the propagator at the QCP reads: $`D(q,i\omega )=(|\omega |+q^2)^1`$. The polarization bubble $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )`$ defined by (23) can then be calculated exactly. Details are given in Appendix C. Here we present the result:

$`8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |+q^2}{q^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |+q^2}{|\omega |}}\right)+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|\omega |}}`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |+q^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }+s}{|\omega |+q^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }s}}\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2|\omega |+q^2}}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2|\omega |+q^2}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |+s}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |+s}}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |s}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |s}}\right)`$
where $`s=\sqrt{(|\omega |+q^2)^2+4q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{Li}_2(x)=_0^x𝑑y\mathrm{ln}(1y)/y`$. The above expression has the following asymptotics at $`\omega /\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, $`q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$:

$`42\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |}{q^2}}0`$
$`2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |}}0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}0`$
$`2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega |}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{|\omega |}}0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\omega ^2}}0`$ (28)
We use the explicit expression (27) into (22) and perform the frequency and momentum integrals numerically. The resulting self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q,i\omega )`$ is plotted in Fig.3. It is seen that the $`1/N`$ corrections to the damping rate are less singular than $`\omega `$ at low-frequency. Alternatively, the corrections can be put in the form of an effective, scale-dependent exponent $`\alpha (\omega )`$, defined by: $`\alpha (\omega )=\omega (\mathrm{ln}\chi ^1(i\omega ))/\omega `$ with $`\chi ^1(i\omega )=|\omega |\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q,i\omega =0)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q=0,i\omega =0)`$ the $`q=0`$ dynamical susceptibility at the QCP. This effective exponent is plotted on Fig. 4: it is seen to be only weakly dependent on frequency in the range where it is displayed. Hence, the logarithmic corrections in the marginal case can be mimicked by a power-law, but correspond to an effective exponent $`\alpha >1`$, in contrast to the experimental observation $`\alpha <1`$ for the two compounds mentioned above.

Incidentally, we would like to comment on the data analysis made in Ref. Schroder1998,  in order to support $`\omega /T`$ scaling of the inelastic neutron scattering data in $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{5.9}\mathrm{Au}_{0.1}`$. To this aim, we perform a similar analysis on our analytical result, by plotting $`T^\alpha \chi (\omega ,T)`$ versus $`\omega /T`$ (Fig. 5). In this plot, the frequency-dependent susceptibility at finite temperature and $`q=0`$ is approximated by: $`\chi (\omega ,T)^1i\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q=0,\omega )+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(q=0,\omega =0)`$ (this approximation does not include the temperature dependence of the Bose functions in the calculations which would be required to obtain the correct damping coefficient, as is required to obtain (13)). Such a scaling plot is attempted for a varying range of $`\alpha `$, and the optimal value of the exponent is chosen such as to yield the best collapseSchroder1998 , as measured by the standard deviation plotted in Fig. 6. It is seen that an excellent collapse is obtained with $`\alpha 1.09`$. We emphasize that $`\omega /T`$ scaling, in a strict asymptotic sense, does apply here, but with a trivial Gaussian exponent and scaling function: $`T\chi (\omega ,T)=i/\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega /T`$). The logarithmic corrections characteristic of the marginal case apparently mimic non-trivial scaling properties over quite an extended range of $`\omega /T`$. This should serve as a warning for the interpretation of the experimental results.

We end this section by considering the local approximation to the damped $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in the marginal case, up to order $`1/N`$. In a previous paper, Motome and two of uspankov  have investigated the EDMFT approximation to the critical behavior of various models, and shown that this local approximation is quite satisfactory above the upper critical dimension (i.e here for $`d+z>4`$), when the quartic coupling is irrelevant. In this approach, all skeleton graphs are taken to be local. For arbitrary $`z`$ and $`d=2`$, the local propagator at the $`T=0`$ QCP reads:

$$D(i\omega )=\frac{qdq}{2\pi }\frac{1}{|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}+q^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}}{|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}}\right)$$
(29)
Performing the Fourier transform, this yields the asymptotic behavior at long (imaginary) time:

$$D(\tau )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}}{|\omega |^{\frac{2}{z}}}\right)e^{i\omega \tau }\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2|\tau |}_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}x^{\frac{2}{z}}\mathrm{cos}x=\frac{1}{4\pi z|\tau |}$$
(30)
The $`1/N`$ correction to the spin-fluctuation self-energy is:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\tau )=\frac{2u^2}{N}D(\tau )^3\frac{1}{N}\frac{2u^2}{(4\pi )^3z^3|\tau |^3}$$
(31)
which corresponds to the following low-frequency behavior (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ a cutoff of order $`1`$):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(i\omega )\frac{1}{N}\frac{2u^2}{(4\pi )^3z^3}(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{ln}|\omega |)\omega ^2$$
(32)
For real frequencies (31) corresponds to corrections to the Landau damping of the form $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\omega +i0^+)\omega ^2Sign(\omega )`$. This is much smaller (by a factor of order $`\omega `$, up to logarithms) than the corrections obtained from the direct calculation in $`d=2`$ detailed above (Fig. 3). Hence, we conclude that the local (EDMFT) approximation is not very reliable at the upper critical dimension (marginal case). As we shall see in the following section, a numerical solution of the EDMFT equations for the Kondo lattice using an approximate ”impurity solver” based on the large-N expansion leads to a similar conclusion: only subdominant corrections to the Landau damping rate are generated instead of the anomalous (power-law like) enhancement observed experimentally.

## IV ”Locally” critical point: self-consistent large-N solution of the EDMFT equations

### IV.1 EDMFT of the Kondo lattice and mapping onto a local spin-fluctuation model

It has been recently arguedSiNature ; coleman\_poland  that the understanding of non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy-fermion compounds close to a QCP requires a formalism in which electronic degrees of freedom and spin fluctuations can be treated on the same footing, at least as a starting point. This is a non-trivial task, which is however made easier in the context of the extended dynamical mean-field theory (EDMFT)sismith ; kaju ; sengupta  of the Kondo lattice model, which we consider here.

Let us consider the Kondo lattice Hamiltonian with an explicit exchange coupling between localized spins, chosen to be Ising-like:

$$H=\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_kc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+J_K\underset{i\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}\stackrel{}{S}_i.c_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{i\sigma ^{}}+\underset{i<j}{}I_{ij}S_i^zS_j^z$$
(33)
In this expression, $`J_K`$ is the (antiferromagnetic) Kondo coupling, and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ stands for the Pauli matrices. EDMFT maps this model onto a local impurity model with effective action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau {\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left[c_\sigma ^{}(\tau )𝒢_0^1(\tau \tau ^{})c_\sigma (\tau ^{})+S^z(\tau )\chi _0^1(\tau \tau ^{})S^z(\tau ^{})\right]`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau J_K{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}\stackrel{}{S}.c_\sigma ^{}\stackrel{}{\tau }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_\sigma ^{}`$
Both $`𝒢_0`$ and $`\chi _0`$ are effective ”Weiss fields” which must be determined in such a way that the following self-consistency conditions hold:

$`G(i\omega _n)`$ $``$ $`<c_\sigma ^{}(i\omega _n)c_\sigma (i\omega _n)>_S={\displaystyle dϵ\frac{\rho _0(ϵ)}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(i\omega _n)ϵ}}`$ (35)
$`\chi (i\nu _n)`$ $``$ $`<S^z(i\nu _n)S^z(i\nu _n)>_S={\displaystyle dϵ\frac{\rho _I(ϵ)}{M(i\nu _n)ϵ}}`$ (36)
In this expression, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(i\omega _n)`$ and $`M(i\nu _n)`$ are respectively the fermionic and local spin self-energies calculated within the impurity problem (34), i.e.:

$`G^1(i\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢_0^1(i\omega _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }_c(i\omega _n)`$ (37)
$`\chi ^1(i\nu _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _0^1(i\nu _n)+M(i\nu _n)`$ (38)
The densities of states $`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _I`$ associated respectively with the conduction band and to the spin interactions read: $`\rho _0(ϵ)=_k\delta (ϵϵ_k)`$, $`\rho _I(ϵ)=_q\delta (ϵI_q)`$. The self-consistency conditions (35,36) simply express that the impurity model Green’s functions and self-energies should coincide with their lattice counterpart (assuming momentum-independence of the self-energies). They can be recast into a more compact form, relating directly the local correlation functions to the two Weiss fields appearing in the effective action (34):

$`G(i\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dϵ\frac{\rho _0(ϵ)}{i\omega _n+G^1(i\omega _n)𝒢_0^1(i\omega _n)ϵ}}`$ (39)
$`\chi (i\nu _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dϵ\frac{\rho _I(ϵ)}{\chi ^1(i\nu _n)+\chi _0^1(i\nu _n)ϵ}}`$ (40)
The key question at this stage is whether the electronic degrees of freedom can be integrated out, particularly near the QCP. The local EDMFT framework allows to handle this issue in a more controlled manner. Indeed, electronic degrees of freedom can be integrated outsengupta  from the impurity model (34) using an expansion in the spin-flip part of the Kondo coupling à la Anderson-Yuval-Hammannanderson ; chakra . This can be conveniently performed, for example, using bosonization methodsKotliarSi ; grempel-roz ; GrempelSi . This leads to the following action for the spin degrees of freedom:

$$S=_0^\beta d\tau _0^\beta d\tau ^{}S^z(\tau )\left[\chi _0^1(\tau \tau ^{})+K(\tau \tau ^{})\right]S^z(\tau ^{})+_0^\beta d\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }S^x$$
(41)
In this expression, $`K(\tau \tau ^{})1/(\tau \tau ^{})^2`$ is a long-range interaction induced by the electronic modes. It corresponds to the bare Landau damping ($`K(i\nu _n)=\kappa |\nu _n|`$ at low-frequency). The coupling in front of the spin-flip term is proportional to the Kondo coupling: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _0J_K`$ (with $`\tau _0`$ a short-time cutoff). Hence, the problem has been mapped onto an quantum Ising model in a transverse field with long range interactionssengupta ; grempel-roz ; GrempelSi .

### IV.2 Numerical solution based on the large-N approximation

This mapping has been used in order to perform analyticalsengupta  and numericalgrempel-roz  studies of the behavior at the QCP in mean-field models with random exchange couplings $`I_{ij}`$. It was demonstrated that this case is formally similarfootnote1  to the Hertz-Moriya-Millis theory of an antiferromagnetic QCP in $`d=3`$. Recently, Grempel and Si have analyzed the EDMFT theory of the QCP in the two-dimensional case using this mappingGrempelSi . Their claim is that anomalous Landau damping ($`\omega ^\alpha ,\alpha <1`$) and $`\omega /T`$ scaling can be demonstrated in this case. Here, we present a solution of this problem in which the local impurity problem is solved using a large-N method. In contrast to the claims of Ref. GrempelSi, , we find that only subdominant corrections to the Landau damping are generated.

Following Ref. sengupta, , we deal with the local action(41) for the transverse field Ising model by extending it to an $`N`$-component rotor model $`\stackrel{}{n}`$:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}_0^\beta d\tau \left[\frac{(_\tau \stackrel{}{n})^2}{g}+\lambda (\tau )(\stackrel{}{n}^2N)\right]+\frac{1}{2}_0^\beta d\tau _0^\beta d\tau ^{}\stackrel{}{n}(\tau )\left[\chi _0^1(\tau \tau ^{})+K(\tau \tau ^{})\right]\stackrel{}{n}(\tau ^{})$$
(42)
In this expression, $`g`$ plays a role to similar to that of the transverse field in the original Ising model (disordering term). We define a self-energy correction for the local spin susceptibility $`\chi (\tau )S^z(0)S^z(\tau )`$:

$$\chi (i\nu _n)=\frac{1}{\nu _n^2/g+K(i\nu _n)\chi _0^1(i\nu _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\nu _n)}$$
(43)
Let us first consider the problem at the saddle-point level ($`N=\mathrm{}`$), for a given Weiss function $`\chi _0`$. The self-energy is then frequency- independent (as noted by Grempel and SiGrempelSi ) and is given by the saddle-point value of the Lagrange multiplier:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(i\nu _n)=\lambda $$
(44)
such that:

$$\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau =0)=1$$
(45)
In this expression, $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the local susceptibility at the saddle-point ($`N=\mathrm{}`$) level:

$$\chi _{\mathrm{}}(i\nu _n)=\frac{1}{\nu _n^2/g+K(i\nu _n)\chi _0^1(i\nu _n)+\lambda }$$
(46)
Both $`\lambda `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ depend on the Weiss function $`\chi _0`$. We approximate the self-energy by its first two terms in the $`1/N`$ expansion:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\nu _n)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(i\nu _n)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(i\nu _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(i0)`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau )`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\nu _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }(i\nu _n)}}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Pi }(\tau )=\left[\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\right]^2`$ (49)
The EDMFT equations are thus solved by iterating (numerically) the following procedure. For a given $`\chi _0(i\nu _n)`$, the saddle-point quantities $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ are computed by solving Eqs. (45,46). Then, the self-energy is computed from (47,48,49). This is inserted into the EDMFT self-consistency condition in order to obtain the local susceptibility:

$$\chi (i\nu _n)=dϵ\frac{\rho _I(ϵ)}{\nu _n^2/g+K(i\nu _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\nu _n)ϵ}$$
(50)
From this, an updated value of the Weiss function is obtained as: $`\chi _0^1(i\nu _n)=\nu _n^2/g+K(i\nu _n)\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\nu _n)\chi ^1(i\nu _n)`$, and the procedure is iterated until convergence is reached.

The result of this numerical calculation for the (local) spin self-energy is displayed in Fig. 7. The behavior of the self-energy at low imaginary frequency is well fitted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(i\omega )\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}|\omega |`$ (inset) when one tunes the parameters to sit at criticality (Fig. 8). This corresponds to subdominant corrections to the Landau damping $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega +i0^+)\omega ^2\mathrm{sign}(\omega )`$. These findings are in agreement with the expansion of the EDMFT equations for the $`\varphi ^4`$ model at order $`1/N`$ discussed at the end of the previous section, and provide an independent check of this result. The method followed in the present section has been to use the large-N method as an approximate ”impurity solver” for the local problem. It can be easily checked that if, instead, the equations used here are all expanded up to order $`1/N`$, the equations of the local approximation presented in the previous section are recovered.

## V Conclusion

We analyzed two of the approaches to a critical theory of the antiferromagnetic metal to paramagnetic metal in the $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$ and $`\mathrm{YbRh}_2\mathrm{Si}_2`$ materials from the perspective of the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations.

In the context of the model of Rosch et. al.Rosch  we analyzed the corrections to mean field theory due to the marginally irrelevant fourth order coupling. We find that while there are logarithmic corrections to mean field theory which vanish as $`1/\mathrm{Log}^2|\omega |`$ the coefficient of this corrections is such that it can only be mimicked by a decreased Landau damping, in clear disagreement with experimental observations. In our view, this rules out this model, in spite of the fact that it can account nicely for many of the electronic properties of this systems.

We also analyze the ”local ” version of this model using the large N expansion. Again in this case, we find that it is not possible to account for the anomalous frequency dependence of the damping coefficient. This is in disagreement with reference GrempelSi  but in agreement with a recent EDMFT study of the Anderson lattice model.PingSun

The anomalous damping has been recently observed in NMR measurements in bothishida ; walstedt  $`\mathrm{YbRh}_2\mathrm{Si}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{CeCu}_{6x}\mathrm{Au}_x`$. While it has different temperature dependencies in each system, it is clearly enhanced above the fermi liquid temperature dependence. Possible resolution of this puzzle may require a better treatment of the effects of disorder or better treatments of models which retain the fermionic nature of the spin fluctuations as proposed by Coleman et. al.coleman\_poland  and Si et. al.SiNature

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D. Grempel and Q. Si for useful discussions and correspondence. The authors acknowledge the hospitality of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (UCSB, Santa Barbara), where part of this work was performed and supported under grant NSF-PHY99-07949 and NSF grant No. DMR-0096462. We also acknowledge the support of an international collaborative grant from CNRS (PICS 1062).

## Appendix A Computation of RG flow

The computations leading to the RG flow (II.1) are standard. Here we only provide some further details of the computation of the number $`c_2`$, and of the constant $`c`$ required to obtain the universal logarithmic correction in (9). These computations involve the $`|\omega |`$ term in the propagator in an essential and novel manner.

Repeating the standard field-theoretic derivation for the two-loop graph in Fig 1 we have:

$`I_2(q,i\omega =0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2(N+2)}{18}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq_1}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dq_2}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{(q_1^2+|\omega _1|)(q_2^2+|\omega _2|)}}`$ (51)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{((𝐪+𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐})^2+|\omega _1+\omega _2|)}}=g^2q^{2d2}({\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{2ϵ}}+𝒪(ϵ^0))`$
$`I_2`$ is to be evaluated for $`d<1`$, where it is convergent, and the result analytically continued to near $`d=2`$, where it is expected have the small $`ϵ`$ expansion shown on the r.h.s. The coefficient of the pole fixes the value of the constant $`c_2`$.

Note that we are evaluating $`I_2`$ in an external momentum $`𝐪`$, and in $`d=2`$ the pole on the r.h.s. corresponds to the appearance of $`q^2\mathrm{ln}q`$ term. In contrast, evaluation of $`I_2(0,i\omega )`$ (presented below) shows that no pole appears, and hence there is no $`|\omega |\mathrm{ln}|\omega |`$ term in $`d=2`$. This absence of such a pole is, of course, the reason for the absence of an independent renormalization constant for the damping term noted below (5), and for the $`\omega `$ dependence of $`I_2`$ noted above (9). It is also responsible for the exponent identity $`z=2\eta `$ for $`d<2`$.

We now turn to the evaluation of $`I_2`$ in (51) in an external momentum $`𝐪`$. First, we evaluate the integral over $`q_2`$ by the standard Feynman parameter method

$`I_2(q,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2(N+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d/2)}{18(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq_1}{(2\pi )^d}_0^1𝑑x\frac{1}{(q_1^2+|\omega _1|)}}`$ (52)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[(𝐪+𝐪_1)^2x(1x)+|\omega _2|(1x)+|\omega _1+\omega _2|x\right]^{2d/2}}}.`$
Similarly, performing the integral over $`q_1`$ with a Feynman parameter $`y`$ we obtain

$`I_2(q,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2(N+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3d)}{18(4\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[x(1x)]^{ϵ/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑yy^{ϵ/2}`$ (53)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[q^2x(1x)y(1y)+|\omega _1+\omega _2|x(1x)(1y)+|\omega _1|y(1x)+|\omega _2|xy]^{1+ϵ}}}`$
Now we perform the integral over $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ by using the useful formula

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2\frac{1}{[A+B|\omega _1|+C|\omega _2|+D|\omega _1+\omega _2|]^\sigma }=\frac{4A^{2\sigma }(B+C+D)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma 2)}{(B+C)(C+D)(B+D)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )}.$$
(54)
The formula (54) is derived by explicitly performing the integrals over $`\omega _{1,2}`$ over different regions in the $`\omega _{1,2}`$ plane delineated by changes in signs of $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, and $`\omega _1+\omega _2`$. Note that (54) is to be evaluated at $`\sigma =1+ϵ`$. Consequently, we obtain from (54) the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma 2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)=1/ϵ+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$, which gives us the requisite pole in $`ϵ`$ appearing on the r.h.s. of (51). So we may safely set $`d=2`$ in the remaining terms in (53). In this manner, combining (51), (53) and (54) we obtain

$$c_2=\frac{(N+2)}{36}_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\frac{(1y)\left[x(1x)(1y)+y(1x)+xy\right]}{[x(1y)+y][(1x)(1y)+y]}=\frac{(N+2)(12\pi ^2)}{144}.$$
(55)
Let us now present a few details of the evaluation of $`I_2(0,i\omega )`$. In this case, (53) is replaced by

$`I_2(0,i\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2(N+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3d)}{18(4\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[x(1x)]^{ϵ/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑yy^{ϵ/2}`$ (56)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[|\omega +\omega _1+\omega _2|x(1x)(1y)+|\omega _1|y(1x)+|\omega _2|xy]^{1+ϵ}}}.`$
Now, instead of (54), we need the following integral

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[A|\omega _1|+B|\omega _2|+C|\omega +\omega _1+\omega _2|]^\sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{4|\omega |^{2\sigma }ABC\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma 2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )}}`$ (57)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{A^{1\sigma }}{(A^2B^2)(A^2C^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{1\sigma }}{(B^2A^2)(B^2C^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C^{1\sigma }}{(C^2A^2)(C^2B^2)}}\right].`$
As below (54), we need to evaluate (57) at $`\sigma =1+ϵ`$ and pick out a possible pole in $`ϵ`$. Indeed, a possible pole does appear to be present in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma 2)`$ pre-factor in (57). However, careful evaluation shows that that the residue of such a pole vanishes, and (57) in fact has a smooth $`\sigma 1`$ limit:

$`\underset{\sigma 1}{lim}(\text{57})=4ABC|\omega |\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}A}{(A^2B^2)(A^2C^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}B}{(B^2A^2)(B^2C^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}C}{(C^2A^2)(C^2B^2)}}\right]`$ (58)
The $`ϵ0`$ limit of the remaining terms in (56) is straightforward, and this establishes the claimed absence of a $`|\omega |\mathrm{ln}|\omega |`$ term in $`I_2(0,i\omega )`$ in $`d=2`$. Evaluating the constant $`c`$ in $`I_2(0,i\omega )=I_2(0,0)cg^2|\omega |`$ we obtain:

$$c=\frac{(N+2)}{36}𝒫_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\frac{x^2(1y)}{(12x)\left[y^2x^2(1y)^2\right]}\mathrm{ln}\left(x\frac{1y}{y}\right)=\frac{(N+2)(6\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}211\zeta (3))}{1728}$$
(59)
We performed integrations in Eq.(59) by changing variables to $`x^{}=x`$, $`y^{}=x(1y)/y`$ and integrating first over $`x^{}`$ and then over $`y^{}`$.

## Appendix B Gap equation

In this appendix we derive the gap equation Eq.(24). We need to evaluate:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T)=uT\underset{\omega _n}{}\frac{qdq}{2\pi }D(q,i\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi }uT\underset{\omega _n}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{|\omega _n|+\mathrm{\Delta }}{|\omega _n|+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}}$$
(60)
We consider a $`q^2`$ cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_q^2`$, which from now on we denote as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and a frequency cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega 2\pi nT`$ which is to be taken to infinity. For this choice of the sharp cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega `$ one can show:

$$S_1(T)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega <\omega _n<\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega }{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{|\omega _n|+\mathrm{\Delta }}{|\omega _n|+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\omega )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\omega )}$$
(61)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(2\pi T)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\omega =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega /(2\pi T)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }/(2\pi T)`$. Taking the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\omega \mathrm{}`$ we have:

$$S_1(T)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})}2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\omega $$
(62)
The finite $`T`$ self energy is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T)=\frac{1}{4\pi }uTS_1(T)`$, and the zero temperature $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T=0)`$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T=0)=\frac{1}{4\pi }uTS_1(T)|_{T0}=\frac{u\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(2\pi )^2}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega }1)$$
(63)
Noticing that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T=0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(T)`$ we write Eq.(24).

## Appendix C Polarization bubble $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$

Here we show in detail how we compute $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )`$ in $`d=2`$ with $`z=2`$. We use a finite cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`q^2`$ in a momentum integration, and we use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega \mathrm{}`$ as a frequency cutoff. We use the Feynman parameterization to find:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d\nu }{2\pi }D(p,i\nu )D(p+q,i\nu +i\omega )}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{2\pi }}`$ $`\left(l(x,q,\nu ,i\omega )^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }+l(x,q,\nu ,i\omega )]^1\right)`$ (64)
where $`l(x,q,\nu ,i\omega )=x(1x)q^2+x|\nu |+(1x)|\nu +\omega |`$ and $`D^1=|\omega |+q^2`$ at the QCP. Integrating out frequency we get:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,i\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}𝒫{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{4x}{12x}}`$ $`\{\mathrm{ln}\left[(1x)(q^2x+|\omega |)\right]`$ (65)
$`\mathrm{ln}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q^2}}(q^2|\omega |+s)x)(q^2x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|\omega |q^2+s))\right]\}`$
where $`s=\sqrt{(|\omega |+q^2)^2+4q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. It is easy to show:

$$𝒫_0^1dx\frac{4x}{12x}\mathrm{ln}(ax+b))=22\frac{a+b}{a}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a+b}{b}2\mathrm{ln}b\mathrm{Li}_2(\frac{a}{a+2b})+\mathrm{Li}_2(\frac{a}{a+2b})$$
(66)
for $`a+b>0`$ and $`b>0`$. From Eq.(65) and Eq.(66), after simple algebra, Eq.(27) follows.


format: text

text:
# Observation of a Narrow Meson Decaying to 𝑫_𝒔⁺𝝅^𝟎 at a Mass of 2.32 𝐆𝐞𝐕/𝒄^𝟐

thanks: Deceased

The BABAR Collaboration

## Abstract

We have observed a narrow state near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in the inclusive $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ invariant mass distribution from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data at energies near 10.6 GeV. The observed width is consistent with the experimental resolution. The small intrinsic width and the quantum numbers of the final state indicate that the decay violates isospin conservation. The state has natural spin-parity and the low mass suggests a $`J^P=0^+`$ assignment. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 91 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ recorded by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring.

preprint: BABAR-PUB-03/011preprint: SLAC-PUB-9711

We have found a narrow state decaying to $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ at a mass near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This result is obtained from a 91 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data sample recorded both on and off the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance by the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring.

Experimental information on the spectrum of the $`c\overline{s}`$ meson states is limited. The $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ ground state, the $`D_s^+`$ meson, is well-established, as is the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ ground state, the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$. Only two other $`c\overline{s}`$ states have been observed thus far Hagiwara et al. (2002). The $`D_{s1}(2536)^+`$ has been detected in its $`D^{}K`$ decay mode and analysis of the $`D^{}`$ decay angular distribution prefers $`J^P=1^+`$ Alexander et al. (1993). The $`D_{sJ}^{}(2573)^+`$ was discovered in its $`D^0K^+`$ decay mode and so has natural spin-parity. The assignment $`J^P=2^+`$ is consistent with the data, but is not established Kubota et al. (1994).

The spectroscopy of $`c\overline{s}`$ states is simple in the limit of large charm-quark mass De Rujula et al. (1976); Isgur and Wise (1991). In that limit, the total angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{j}=\stackrel{}{l}+\stackrel{}{s}`$ of the light quark, obtained by summing its orbital and spin angular momenta, is conserved. The $`P`$-wave states, all of which have positive parity, then have $`j=3/2`$ or $`j=1/2`$. Combined with the spin of the heavy quark, the former gives total angular momentum $`J=2`$ and $`J=1`$, while the latter gives $`J=1`$ and $`J=0`$. The $`J^P=2^+`$ and $`J^P=1^+`$ members of the $`j=3/2`$ doublet are expected to have small width Godfrey and Kokoski (1991), and are identified with the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2573)^+`$ and $`D_{s1}(2536)^+`$, respectively, although the latter may include a small admixture of the $`j=1/2`$, $`J^P=1^+`$ state. Theoretical models typically predict masses between 2.4 and 2.6 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the remaining two states Godfrey and Isgur (1985); Godfrey and Kokoski (1991); Di Pierro and Eichten (2001), both of which should decay by kaon emission. They would be expected to have large widths Godfrey and Kokoski (1991); Di Pierro and Eichten (2001) and hence should be difficult to detect.

The experimental and theoretical status of the $`P`$-wave $`c\overline{s}`$ states thus can be summarized by stating that experiment has provided good candidates for the two states that theory predicts should be readily observable, but has no candidates for the two states that should be difficult to observe because of their large predicted widths.

The BABAR detector is a general purpose, solenoidal, magnetic spectrometer, which is described in detail elsewhere Aubert et al. (2002). The detector components employed in this analysis are discussed briefly here. Charged particles are detected and their momenta measured by a combination of a cylindrical drift chamber (DCH) and a silicon vertex tracker (SVT), both operating within a 1.5-T solenoidal magnetic field. A ring-imaging Cherenkov detector (DIRC) is used for charged-particle identification. Electrons are identified and photons measured with a CsI electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC).

The objective of this analysis is to investigate the inclusively-produced $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass spectrum by combining charged particles corresponding to the decay $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ 111The inclusion of charge-conjugate configurations is implied throughout this letter. with $`\pi ^0`$ candidates reconstructed from a pair of photons. Events of interest are required to contain at least three reconstructed tracks yielding a net charge of $`\pm 1`$ and at least two photons each of which must have energy greater than 100 MeV, and to have a ratio of the second to the zeroth Fox-Wolfram moment Fox and Wolfram (1978) less than 0.9. Charged-kaon candidates are selected based on the Cherenkov-photon information from the DIRC together with the measured energy loss in the SVT and DCH.

A $`K^+K^{}`$ candidate pair is combined with a third track that fails the kaon criteria (and so is treated as a pion) in a geometrical fit to a common vertex. An acceptable $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ candidate must have a fit probability greater than 0.1% and a trajectory consistent with originating from the $`e^+e^{}`$ luminous region. Background from $`D^0K^+K^{}`$, which is evident from the corresponding $`K^+K^{}`$ mass distribution, is removed by requiring that the $`K^+K^{}`$ mass be less than 1.84 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

A candidate $`\pi ^0`$ is formed by constraining a photon pair to emanate from the intersection of the $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ candidate trajectory and the beam envelope, performing a one-constraint fit to the $`\pi ^0`$ mass, and requiring a fit probability greater than 1%. A given event may yield several acceptable $`\pi ^0`$ candidates. We retain only those candidates for which neither photon belongs to another acceptable $`\pi ^0`$ candidate.

Finally, to reduce combinatorial background from the continuum and eliminate background from $`B`$-meson decay, each $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ candidate must have a momentum $`p^{}`$ in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass frame greater than 2.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

The upper histogram in Fig. 1(a) shows the $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ mass distribution for all candidates. Clear peaks corresponding to $`D^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ mesons are seen. To reduce the background further, only those candidates with $`K^+K^{}`$ mass within 10 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the $`\varphi (1020)`$ mass or with $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ mass within 50 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the $`\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{}(892)`$ mass are retained; these densely populated regions in the $`D_s^+`$ Dalitz plot do not overlap. The decay products of the vector particles $`\varphi (1020)`$ and $`\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{}(892)`$ exhibit the expected $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _h`$ behavior required by conservation of angular momentum, where $`\theta _h`$ is the helicity angle. The signal-to-background ratio is further improved by requiring $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _h|>0.5`$. The lower histogram of Fig. 1(a) shows the net effect of these additional selection criteria. The $`D_s^+`$ signal ($`1.955<m(K^+K^{}\pi ^+)<1.979`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) and sideband ($`1.912<m(K^+K^{}\pi ^+)<1.934\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`1.998<m(K^+K^{}\pi ^+)<2.020`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) regions are shaded. The $`D_s^+`$ signal peak, consisting of approximately 80,000 events, is centered at a mass of $`(1967.20\pm 0.03)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (statistical error only).

Figure 1(b) shows the mass distribution for all two-photon combinations associated with the selected events. The $`\pi ^0`$ signal ($`122<m(\gamma \gamma )<148`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$) and sideband ($`90<m(\gamma \gamma )<110`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`160<m(\gamma \gamma )<180`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$) regions are shaded. Candidates in the $`D_s^+`$ signal region of Fig. 1(a) are combined with the mass-constrained $`\pi ^0`$ candidates to yield the mass distribution of Fig. 1(c). A clear, narrow signal at a mass near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is seen. The shaded histogram represents the events in the $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ mass sidebands combined with the $`\pi ^0`$ candidates. In Fig. 1(d) the mass distributions result from the combination of the $`D_s^+`$ candidates with the photon pairs from the $`\pi ^0`$ signal and sideband regions of Fig. 1(b) (the sideband distribution is again shaded). In this case, all photon pairs in the signal region of Fig. 1(b) are used. In Figs. 1(c) and 1(d) the 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ signal is absent from the sideband distributions indicating quite clearly that the peak is associated with the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ system. No other signal in the region up to 2.7 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is evident in these plots, except for a small $`D_s^{}(2112)^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$ signal in Fig. 1(c).

In order to improve mass resolution, the nominal $`D_s^+`$ mass Hagiwara et al. (2002) has been used to calculate the $`D_s^+`$ energy for the distributions of Fig. 1(d), for the $`D_s^+`$ signal distribution of Fig. 1(c), and for all subsequent mass distributions involving $`D_s^+`$ candidates.

The $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass distribution for $`p^{}(D_s^+\pi ^0)>3.5`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ is shown in Fig. 2(a). Similar distributions produced for $`p^{}`$ values ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ show the same prominent peak at the same mass value. The fit function drawn on Fig. 2(a) comprises a Gaussian function describing the $`2.32`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ signal and a third-order polynomial background distribution function. The fit yields $`1267\pm 53`$ candidates in the signal Gaussian with mass $`(2316.8\pm 0.4)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and standard deviation $`(8.6\pm 0.4)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (statistical errors only). The systematic uncertainty in the mass is conservatively estimated to be less than 3 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The broad peak in Fig. 2(a) centered at 2.16 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is due to random $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\gamma `$ combinations where $`D_s^{}(2112)^+D_s^+\gamma `$.

The signal, which we label $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$, is observed in both the $`\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{0}K_{}^{+}`$ decay modes of the $`D_s^+`$. In addition, a sample of $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ decays is selected by adding $`\pi ^0`$ candidates (refit to the $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ vertex) to each $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ candidate. The purity of this $`D_s^+`$ sample is enhanced by requiring a $`\pi ^0`$ fit probability of at least 10% and selecting the $`K^\pm `$, $`\overline{K}^0`$, $`\varphi `$, or $`\rho ^+`$ mass regions for the relevant two-body subsystems. Each resulting $`D_s^+`$ candidate is combined with a second $`\pi ^0`$ candidate with lab momentum greater than 300 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. A clear $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ signal is observed as shown in Fig. 2(b). A Gaussian fit yields $`273\pm 33`$ events with a mean of $`(2317.6\pm 1.3)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and width $`(8.8\pm 1.1)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (statistical errors only). The mean and width are consistent with the values obtained for the $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+`$ decay mode. The mass distribution of the $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ sample (not shown) peaks at $`(1967.4\pm 0.2)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (statistical error only).

We use a Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the possibility that the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ signal could be due to reflection from other charmed states. This simulation includes $`e^+e^{}c\overline{c}`$ events and all known charm states and decays. The generated events were processed by a detailed detector simulation and subjected to the same reconstruction and event-selection procedure as that used for the data. No peak is found in the 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ signal region. In addition, no signal peak is produced when the $`K^\pm `$ and $`\pi ^\pm `$ identities are deliberately exchanged.

Mass resolution estimates for the $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ system are obtained directly from the data using a fit to the mass distribution $`D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$. The measured width from this mode is consistent with that of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ signal. A simulation of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ decay to $`K^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ yields a similar mass resolution after event reconstruction and selection criteria have been satisfied. We conclude that the intrinsic width of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ is small ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$ MeV).

The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _h`$ distribution of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ decay with respect to its direction in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass frame has been investigated. The efficiency-corrected distribution is consistent with being flat, as expected for a spin-zero particle, or for a particle of higher spin that is produced unpolarized.

We have also performed a search for the decay $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+D_s^+\gamma `$. Shown in Fig. 3(a) is the $`D_s^+\gamma `$ mass distribution obtained by combining a $`D_s^+`$ candidate in the signal region of Fig. 1(a) with a photon with an energy of at least 150 MeV that does not belong to a $`\gamma \gamma `$ combination in the signal region of Fig. 1(b). The requirement that the $`p^{}`$ of the $`D_s^+\gamma `$ system be greater than 3.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ is also imposed. There is a clear $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$ signal, but no indication of $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ production.

The $`D_s^+\gamma \gamma `$ mass distribution for $`p^{}(D_s^+\gamma \gamma )>3.5`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, excluding any photon that belongs to the $`\pi ^0`$ signal region of Fig. 1(b), is shown as the upper histogram of Fig. 3(b). No signal is observed near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The shaded histogram corresponds to the subset of combinations for which either $`D_s^+\gamma `$ combination lies in the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$ region, defined as $`2.096<m(D_s^+\gamma )<2.128`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Again, no $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ signal is evident, thus demonstrating the absence of a $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\gamma `$ decay mode at the present level of statistics.

The $`D_s^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ mass distribution, excluding any photon that belongs to any $`\pi ^0`$ candidate, is shown as the upper histogram of Fig. 3(c). The shaded histogram corresponds to the subset of combinations in which the $`D_s^+\gamma `$ mass falls in the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$ region. No signal is observed near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in either case. A small peak, however, is visible near a mass of 2.46 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This mass corresponds to the overlap region of the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+D_s^+\gamma `$ and $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$ signal bands that, because of the small widths of both the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$ and $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ mesons, produces a narrow peak in the $`D_s^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ mass distribution that survives a $`D_s^{}(2112)^+`$ selection.

If the peak in the $`D_s^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ mass distribution of Fig. 3(c) were due to the production of a narrow state with mass near 2.46 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ decaying to $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\pi ^0`$, the kinematics are such that a peak would be produced in the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass distribution at a mass near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. Such a $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass peak, however, would have a root-mean-square of $`15`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, which is significantly larger than that obtained for the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ signal. In addition, Monte Carlo studies indicate that if the apparent signal at 2.46 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ were due to a state that decays entirely to $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\pi ^0`$, it would produce only one-sixth the signal we observe at 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

Although we rule out the decay of a state of mass 2.46 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ as the sole source of the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass peak corresponding to the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$, such a state may be produced in addition to the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$. However, the complexity of the overlapping kinematics of the $`D_s^{}(2112)^+D_s^+\gamma `$ and $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+D_s^+\pi ^0`$ decays requires more detailed study, currently underway, in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion.

The decay of any $`c\overline{s}`$ state to $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ violates isospin conservation, thus guaranteeing a small width. It is possible that the decay proceeds via $`\eta \pi ^0`$ mixing, as discussed by Cho and Wise Cho and Wise (1994). For a parity-conserving decay only a spin-parity assignment in the natural $`J^P`$ series $`\{0^+,1^{},2^+,\mathrm{}\}`$ is allowed. The low mass compared to those of the $`D_{s1}(2536)^+`$ and the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2573)^+`$ favors $`J^P=0^+`$. In this case, decay to $`D_s^+\gamma `$ is excluded. However, decay of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ to $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\gamma `$ is allowed and might compete with decay by pion emission. The shaded mass distribution of Fig. 3(b) suggests that this mode is absent, at least at the present level of statistics. This may simply indicate that decay by pion emission is favored over radiative decay.

Further studies are under way. If, however, the tentative $`J^P=0^+`$ assignment is confirmed, the low mass, small width, and decay mode of the $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ are quite different from those predicted by potential models Godfrey and Isgur (1985); Godfrey and Kokoski (1991); Di Pierro and Eichten (2001).

In summary, in 91 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of data collected by the BABAR experiment we have observed a narrow state in the inclusive $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ mass distribution near 2.32 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. We find no evidence for the decay of this state to $`D_s^+\gamma `$, $`D_s^{}(2112)^+\gamma `$, or $`D_s^+\gamma \gamma `$. Since a $`c\overline{s}`$ meson of this mass contradicts current models of charm meson spectroscopy Godfrey and Isgur (1985); Godfrey and Kokoski (1991); Di Pierro and Eichten (2001), either these models need modification or the observed state is of a different type altogether, such as a four-quark state.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), FOM (The Netherlands), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.