text:
# Collective Singlet Excitations and Evolution of Raman Spectral Weights in the 2D Spin Dimer Compound SrCu2(BO3)2

\[

## Abstract

Raman light scattering of the two-dimensional quantum spin system SrCu2(BO3)2 shows a rich structure in the magnetic excitation spectrum, including several well-defined bound state modes at low temperature, and a scattering continuum and quasielastic light scattering contributions at high temperature. The key to the understanding of the unique features of SrCu2(BO3)2 is the presence of strong interactions between well-localized triplet excitations in the network of orthogonal spin dimers realized in this compound.

\]

Low-dimensional quantum spin systems with a quantum disordered ground state and a finite spin gap form a subject which is of both fundamental and applied interest to the physics community. This is due to the fascinating and diverse physics of the spin-liquid state, allowing to address issues related to the nature of quasiparticle excitations and the role of strong interaction effects. It is known that a gapped singlet ground state is realized in one dimension (1D) in dimerized or frustrated spin chains, and in even-leg spin ladders. Of even greater interest is the existence of a gap in two-dimensional (2D) spin systems, because of its potential relevance for the description of high-temperature superconductivity. Unfortunately, only very few 2D systems, such as CaV4O9, have been investigated, in which the spin gap is relatively large and not caused by anisotropies. Recently, the compound SrCu2(BO3)2 with a layered structure was identified as a 2D S=1/2 Heisenberg system with a unique exchange topology  leading to an exact dimer ground state, thus providing the opportunity to study the excitation spectrum of such a model quantum many-body system.

SrCu2(BO3)2 has a tetragonal unit cell (D2d) with Cu2+ ions that carry a localized spin S=1/2. The spins form dimers which consist of neighboring pairs of planar rectangular CuO4 plaquettes with a Cu-Cu distance of 2.9 Å. The strength of the antiferromagnetic intradimer exchange coupling is estimated to be J1=100 K . The spin dimers are connected orthogonally by a triangular BO3 unit. The distance between next-nearest Cu neighbors is 5.1 Å, and the interdimer exchange J2$``$68 K . The orthogonal arrangement of dimers thus represents a 2D frustrated quantum spin system . A sketch of the Cu-dimers is shown in the inset of Fig.1. The ground state in this exchange topology depends critically on the ratio J2/J1 . For small J2 the system consists of isolated dimers and the ground state is a product of singlets, while for small J1 the model can be mapped on a 2D square lattice of spins and a Néel-ordered state is expected. It has been shown that the critical ratio of coupling constants that separates a gapfull and a gapless state is $`J_2/J_1=0.7`$ . The experimental ratio of $`J_2/J_10.68`$ is just below this value, placing this material in the dimerized phase, close to the Néel boundary. Thermodynamic measurements support the existence of a dimer ground state and a spin gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=34 K . The magnetic specific heat and susceptibility both show maxima (T$`{}_{}{}^{\chi }{}_{max}{}^{}`$=15 K, T$`{}_{}{}^{c_p}{}_{max}{}^{}`$=8 K) and a rapid decrease toward lower temperatures with exponential tails at $`T0`$.

We have investigated the magnetic excitation spectrum of single crystals of SrCu2(BO3)2 by Raman scattering experiments. At low temperatures (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) we observe well-defined low-energy singlet modes which can be interpreted as collective bound state excitations of two and three elementary triplets. We demonstrate that the appearance of the collective modes reflects the strong triplet-triplet interactions present in the system. The spectral weight evolution for intermediate (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and high (T$`>`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) temperatures can be described by the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility and the magnetic specific heat.

The samples were investigated in quasi-backscattering geometry with light polarizations in the $`ab`$-plane of the freshly cleaved crystal. The ($`a^{}b^{}`$) axes are rotated by 45 within this plane. The experiments used the $`\lambda `$ = 488-nm excitation line of an Ar+ ion laser and a laser fluence below 20 W/cm2. The scattered light was analyzed using a XY-Dilor Raman spectrometer and a back-illuminated CCD detector. Measurements in a magnetic field were performed in 90 scattering geometry. In the analysis of our results the main emphasis has been on the role of interactions and their influence on the magnetic excitation spectrum. A detailed analysis of the phonon spectrum will be given elsewhere.

In the low energy region with Raman shifts comparable to the triplet gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=24cm-1, drastic changes and a large shift of spectral weight occur with decreasing temperature. This evolution leads finally to the appearance of several new modes. In Fig.1 Raman spectra of SrCu2(BO3)2 are shown to illustrate these effects at different temperatures and in two scattering configurations with light polarizations within the ab-plane of the crystal. The spectra in the upper panel (a) present data in $`(ab)`$:B2 and the lower panel (b) shows data in $`(a^{}b^{})`$:B1 scattering configuration. Symmetry components are denoted with respect to the D2d point group using $`b^{}`$=$`a`$+$`b`$.

At low temperatures (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) four well-defined modes with energies $`E^S`$= 30, 46, 56 and 70 cm-1 appear. The dominant intensity of these modes is observed in the $`(a^{}b^{})`$ scattering configuration. They neither split nor shift in an applied magnetic field up to 6 T as shown in the inset of Fig.1(b) and therefore are assigned to spin singlets. The only effect of the magnetic field is observed as a shift of a weak intensity shoulder at 24 cm-1 toward lower frequencies. This signal corresponds to the elementary spin gap. At higher temperatures (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) all modes are strongly damped. They are replaced by a continuum of scattering with a center of gravity near 50 cm-1 (Fig.1(a),T=7 K), corresponding roughly to the energy 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For even higher temperatures (T$`>`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) quasielastic scattering with a Lorentzian spectral function is detected. The latter two scattering intensities are observed in the $`(ab)`$ scattering configuration.

To understand these dramatic changes of the Raman spectra with temperature we compare them with observations related to the triplet excitation spectrum and then map the temperature dependence of the scattering intensity onto the corresponding thermodynamic data, i.e. the magnetic susceptibility and the magnetic part of the specific heat. To gain a deeper insight into the structure of the spectrum we will also identify the interactions leading to the formation of singlet bound states in the relevant Heisenberg model at T=0, and present estimates for their binding energies.

Recent ESR  and neutron scattering investigations  on SrCu2(BO3)2 at low temperatures observed triplet excitations with a spin gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=34 K. This triplet branch has a very small dispersion of only 2 K pointing to extremely localized excitations . In addition, a second triplet branch $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$=55 K with a larger dispersion of 17 K was observed. This branch can be interpreted as a triplet bound state of two elementary triplets (see discussion below). Frustration due to the interdimer coupling J2 can lead to the reduction of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=1.62 below 2 (corresponding to non-interacting magnons) .

The four modes that we observe in Raman scattering in SrCu2(BO3)2 for T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are clearly related in energy and temperature scale to the spin gap of the compound. A phonon origin of these modes can be ruled out due to their temperature dependence and the nonexistence of a structural phase transition below room temperature. On the other hand, in low-dimensional spin systems with strong triplet-triplet interactions, well defined modes can appear below the scattering continuum . In this case the light scattering process is better described as spin conserving ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$S=0) scattering on singlet bound states. Such states composed of two elementary triplets have been observed, e.g., in the low-temperature dimerized phases of $`\mathrm{CuGeO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{NaV}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ .

To illustrate the mechanism of bound state formation at T=0 in the 2D Heisenberg model $`H=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}J_{ij}𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ with $`J_{ij}>0`$ defined in the inset of Fig.1(a) (the Shastry-Sutherland model ), we have derived the effective bosonic representation in terms of triplets ($`𝐭_i^{}`$), excited above the singlets, formed on the stronger ($`J_1`$) bonds:

$`H=J_1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐭_i^{}𝐭_i+V{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(𝐭_i^{}\times 𝐭_i)(𝐭_j^{}\times 𝐭_j)+`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{iA}{}}\left\{i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐭_i^{}\times 𝐭_i)(𝐭_{i+\widehat{x}}^{}𝐭_{i\widehat{x}}^{}+\text{h.c.})\right\}+{\displaystyle \underset{iB}{}}\{\widehat{x}\widehat{y}\},`$ (2)
where $`V=\mathrm{\Gamma }=J_2/2`$. The site indices run over the square lattice formed by the dimers (singlet pairs of spins connected by $`J_1`$ bonds), and $`i,j`$ stands for nearest neighbors, while sub-lattice A(B) is formed by the vertical (horizontal) dimers. An important feature of Eq.(1) is the absence of quantum fluctuations (i.e. $`𝐭_i^{}𝐭_j^{}`$ terms), reflecting the fact that the ground state is an exact product of singlets. The triplet excitations would have been completely localized in the absence of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ term in Eq.(1), and hopping appears only in order $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/J_1)^6(J_2/J_1)^6`$, leading to a small bandwidth compared to the gap .

Next we present estimates for the energies of the collective, two-particle excitations. The zero-momentum two-magnon bound state with S=0, constructed by exciting two triplets, has the form: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^S=_{i,j}\psi _{i,j}^S𝐭_i^{}𝐭_j^{}|0`$. Starting from the limit $`J_2/J_11`$, the dominant contribution to binding comes from the two-particle interaction ($`V`$ term in Eq.(1)), with corrections of order $`(J_2/J_1)^2`$ and higher. This interaction provides an effective attraction between two triplets. Assuming the triplets are localized the binding problem can be solved exactly, and the singlet binding energy defined as $`ϵ^S=2\mathrm{\Delta }E_2^S`$, is $`ϵ^S=Z^2J_2`$. Here $`E_2^S`$ is the energy of the singlet bound state, and we have estimated the renormalization factor $`Z`$ by evaluating the appropriate lowest order diagrams to be $`Z0.75`$ at $`J_2/J_1=0.65`$. We have found, by comparing neutron scattering data for the one-particle dispersion from  with the dispersion obtained by high-order perturbative expansions  that the ratio $`J_2/J_1=0.65`$ is consistent with the experimental results. Indeed, for this ratio the theoretical bandwidth (BW=difference between the energy at $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,0)`$) and gap are: $`BW0.04J_1,\mathrm{\Delta }0.36J_1`$ , consistent with the measured values $`BW0.3meV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }3meV`$ . From the same analysis we estimate $`J_261K42cm^1`$. For the higher value of $`J_2/J_1=0.678`$ the bandwidth is approximately twice as large  which would make this ratio inconsistent with the neutron scattering data. Putting everything together we have the estimate for the singlet binding energy $`ϵ^S=Z^2J_224cm^1`$. Our experimental value for the lowest singlet mode in Fig.1(b) with $`E_2^S`$=30 $`cm^1`$ is $`ϵ_{Raman}^S18cm^1`$.

The analysis based on the localized picture somewhat overestimates the binding since corrections of order $`(J_2/J_1)^2`$ and higher have been neglected. Such high-order corrections lead to the development of a strong dispersion as well as create several two-particle singlet modes with different energies, classified according to the group $`D_{2d}`$. Detailed calculations have recently been performed , providing quantitatively accurate results for the energies in the different symmetry sectors. Only the modes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3(xy)`$ symmetry contribute to the Raman intensity, and, as $`T0`$, their contribution grows for the ($`a^{}b^{}`$) and vanishes for the ($`ab`$) geometry , consistent with our observations. In addition, the calculated energies  are in excellent agreement with the two lowest ($`30cm^1`$ and $`46cm^1`$) singlet modes observed in our experiment, which we therefore interpret as two-particle bound states.

In SrCu2(BO3)2 the four modes in Fig.1(b) show ratios $`E^S`$/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=1.25 – 2.9. Two of the well-pronounced peaks (at $`56cm^1`$ and $`70cm^1`$) are above the two-particle threshold ($`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$). The smallness of the one-particle bandwidth makes it possible to resolve such higher energy peaks, since the weight of the scattering background is expected to be small. The pronounced sharpness of the peaks indicates that they can be interpreted as three-particle excitations, whose existence is indeed possible due to the localized nature of the states. A three-particle singlet bound state can be constructed as: $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^S=_{i,j,k}\varphi _{i,j,k}^S(𝐭_i^{}\times 𝐭_j^{})𝐭_k^{}|0`$, and its energy on the same level of approximation as discussed above (localized triplets) is: $`E_3^S=3\mathrm{\Delta }Z^3J_254cm^1`$, in very good agreement with the energy of the mode at $`56cm^1`$. The appearance of additional levels (as well as finite dispersion) at higher order is also expected. The total Raman scattering intensity, reflecting the presence of two- and three- particle singlets with spectral weights $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$, is: $`I_B(\omega )=I_2\delta (\omega E_2^S)+I_3\delta (\omega E_3^S)`$. In order to estimate the ratio of the two intensities we notice that while light couples directly to the singlet two-magnon state, the three-magnon state has to be created via the action of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (magnon number non-conserving) term in Eq.(1) (i.e. this term provides a vertex correction to the Raman operator $`R𝐭_i^{}𝐭_j^{}`$). Consequently, we estimate at T=0, $`I_3/I_2(J_2/J_1)^20.4`$, in good agreement with the experimental ratio of 0.32 (at T=1.5 K). Notice that in the hypothetical case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, when the excitations are completely localized, the three-particle states do not contribute to the Raman intensity. Thus the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ term plays an important role providing both a finite bandwidth and coupling to higher bound state modes. Let us also mention that three-particle bound states have been predicted theoretically in quasi-1D systems . Our work presents the first experimental evidence for their existence in a (2D) dimerized spin system.

The bound state modes experience strong damping with increasing temperature (see Fig. 1(b)), due to scattering on thermally excited triplet states. The decrease of the scattering intensity $`I_B`$ with temperature is governed by the density of excitations: $`I_B(T)(1Ae^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{k_BT}}),`$ where $`A`$ is a constant. In Fig.2(a) the integrated intensity of the bound states is shown together with a fit based on the equation above ($`A`$=215.7) and fixing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=34 K from experimental data. The macroscopic temperature-induced population of triplet states has a direct effect on the excitation spectrum. For intermediate temperatures (5-100 K, typical spectrum shown at 7 K in Fig.1(a)) a broad continuum of scattering is observed that is of magnetic origin . However, in comparison with a 2D antiferromagnet with a maximum of the two-magnon continuum at Emax=2.8 J  its energy is very small. The reason for the maximum appearing at only 50 cm$`{}_{}{}^{1}`$2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the smallness of the one-particle bandwidth in SrCu2(BO3)2. The temperature dependence of the two-magnon scattering intensity shows a pronounced increase in the temperature range where the intensity of the bound states is dropping (see the open triangles in Fig.2(b)). At higher temperatures (not shown here) it decreases again and is then superimposed on the intensity of quasielastic scattering. In Fig.2(b) we compare the integrated scattering intensity with the behavior of the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$(T). Calculations of the latter quantity exist, but their agreement with experiment is not fully satisfactory  and consequently we take $`\chi `$(T) directly from experiment . Notice that both the two-magnon continuum intensity and $`\chi `$(T) exhibit strong variations on the same temperature scale, even though we are not aware of a rigorous sum rule relating the two quantities.

Quasielastic scattering connected with fluctuations of the magnetic energy density is found at high temperatures (T$`>`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) in our Raman scattering experiments. It has the expected Lorentzian spectral function . To determine the evolution as a function of temperature we use the hydrodynamic form of the respective correlation function , which includes the magnetic specific heat $`c_m(T)`$ and the thermal diffusion constant $`D_T`$. In the high temperature approximation ($`\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT1`$) the result is : $`I(\omega )\frac{k_B}{\mathrm{}}\frac{c_mT^2D_Tk^2}{\omega ^2+(D_Tk^2)^2}`$ , where $`k`$ is the scattering wave-vector. A fit to this equation can then be used to estimate $`c_m(T)`$ from the integrated intensity, scaled by T2. In Fig.2(c) the result of this procedure is found in good agreement with the measured specific heat.

In conclusion, we have shown that the low-energy excitation spectrum of the 2D compound SrCu2(BO3)2 has a rich and complex structure. Our main result is that at low temperature (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) the spectrum contains several well pronounced singlet modes which are interpreted as collective two-particle and novel three-particle singlet bound states of strongly localized triplets. We have demonstrated that since quantum fluctuations are absent in the ground state (due to the unique dimer arrangement), the triplet-triplet interactions can lead to large binding energies and scattering intensities, and consequently make the collective modes observable. At intermediate (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and high (T$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) temperatures, where the quantum (interaction) effects are not important, the light scattering is dominated by a two-magnon continuum and quasielastic contributions. We relate the spectral weight evolution in these regimes to thermodynamic quantities.

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with C. Pinettes, P.H.M. van Loosdrecht, G.S. Uhrig, C. Gros, R. Valentí, W. Brenig, W. Atkinson, P. Hirschfeld, and D. Tanner. Financial support by DFG/SFB 341 and NSF Grant DMR-9357474 (V.N.K.) is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An important advantage of the dynamical symmetry (DS) approach  in nuclear theory is the possibility to describe consistently various collective bands of heavy deformed nuclei . Generally, the DS concept is based on the assumption that the physical system possesses a “primary” symmetry with respect to a given group, called DS group. The Hamiltonian of the system reduces this symmetry to the group of invariance of the system (which for the nuclear system coincides with the angular momentum group SO(3)) and thus the energy spectrum is generated . The Lie algebra of the DS group is then reduced to the algebra of the group of invariance and is referred to as spectrum generating algebra. The basic idea of DS approach in heavy deformed nuclei is that their collective bands can be united into one or several multiplets, appearing in this reduction . It provides a natural way to study the interaction between a particular couple of bands as well as the attendant spectroscopic characteristics of nuclei.

Various classification schemes with band coupling have been developed on the basis of DS approach. Well known models, such as the Interacting Boson Model (IBM) , the symplectic models  and the Fermion Dynamical Symmetry Model , provide a good overall description of nuclear collective phenomena, covering the different regions of vibrational, rotational and transitional nuclei.

On the other hand, some models, based on the SU(3) dynamical symmetry, reproduce successfully the particular characteristics of rotational bands in deformed nuclei. Such models are the Pseudo-SU(3) Model , which has microscopic motivations, as well as the Vector-Boson Model (VBM) with SU(3) dynamical symmetry , which allows a relevant phenomenological treatment of the SU(3) multiplets in nuclei.

While in the SU(3) limit of the IBM the possible irreducible representations (irreps) ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) are restricted by the total number of bosons describing the specific nucleus, in the VBM the possible SU(3) irreps ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) are not restricted by the underlying theory. However, it has been shown recently  that some favored regions of ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) multiplets in the VBM could be outlined through the numerical analysis of the experimental data available for the ground ($`g`$) and the $`\gamma `$\- collective bands of even–even deformed nuclei. (The favored multiplets provide the best model descriptions.) As a result, a systematic behavior of the SU(3) symmetry properties of rotational nuclei has been established in terms of the VBM. It suggests the presence of a transition between a scheme, in which the $`g`$ and the $`\gamma `$ bands are coupled into one and the same ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) irrep and a scheme, where these two bands belong to different irreps. In addition it has been supposed that the fine systematic properties of rotational spectra could be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general dynamical symmetry.

As a first step in the recovering of the dynamical mechanism causing such a transition, one should study the way in which the SU(3) symmetry is reduced in the ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)- plane. In particular, it is of interest to reproduce the limits, in which the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ go to infinity, i.e. the cases, in which the SU(3) irreps are not finite anymore. These limits correspond to the so called SU(3) contraction process, in which the algebra of SU(3) goes to the algebra of the semi-direct product T$`{}_{5}{}^{}`$SO(3), i.e. $`SU(3)T_5SO(3)`$ (T5 is the group of 5-dimensional translations generated by the components of the SU(3)- quadrupole operators) . Generally, the contraction limit corresponds to a singular linear transformation of the basis of a given Lie algebra. The transformed structure constants approach a well-defined limits and a new Lie algebra, called contracted algebra, results  . The original and the contracted algebra are not isomorphic.

On the above basis it is expected that in the SU(3) contraction limit the space of the SU(3) irreps should undergo a respective limiting transition. As a result the SU(3) multiplets should be disintegrated to sets of various independent bands. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider this limit as a natural way in which the band-mixing interactions vanish. It is important to remark that the SU(3) contraction process is a situation in which a compact group goes to a non-compact one. Hence, one could try to interpret the vanishing $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band-mixing interaction as a transition from a compact to a non-compact DS group.

In the present work we realize the above considerations through the formalism of the VBM. Our purpose is to examine the various directions in the ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)-plane by investigating the respective changes in the structure of the SU(3) multiplets in terms of model defined spectroscopic characteristics of rotational nuclei. As such, we consider here the SU(3) energy splitting and the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transitions, which carry important information about the link between the two bands. It is known that the energy splitting of the multiplet determines to a great extent the systematic behavior of the SU(3) dynamical symmetry in deformed nuclei .

In the VBM relatively simple analytic expressions for the energies and the transition probabilities can be derived both for the lowest $`L=2`$ states of any ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)- multiplet and for all the states of any ($`\lambda ,2`$) multiplet. The analytic expressions for the $`L=2`$ states allow one to examine the SU(3) characteristics of nuclei in terms of two-dimensional surfaces in the ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)-plane, while in the ($`\lambda ,2`$) direction one is able to investigate the behavior of the full set of states in the multiplet, i.e. the states with $`L2`$. On the other hand, the $`L2`$ states of the irreps with $`\mu >2`$ can be treated numerically.

In such a way, a relevant combination of analytic and numerical analyses could be applied in order to reveal the systematic behavior of all the states of SU(3) irreps in the ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)-plane including the limiting cases of SU(3) group contraction. The collective scheme of the VBM is constructed by using the irreps with $`\lambda \mu `$ and comprises the following two SU(3) contraction limits:

(i) $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite;

(ii) $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu \lambda `$.

Below we provide a detailed study of the most important spectroscopic characteristics of the $`g`$ and the $`\gamma `$ band in the above limiting cases. It will be shown that our approach gives a reasonable interpretation of the corresponding experimental data and leads to rather clear conclusions about the rearrangement of collective rotational bands in heavy deformed nuclei.

In Sec. II the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling scheme of the VBM is briefly presented. In Sec. III we derive analytic expressions for the energies and the $`B(E2)`$-transition probabilities for the $`2_g`$ and $`2_\gamma `$ states of an arbitrary ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) multiplet. Using them, we obtain the analytic behavior of the energy splitting and the physically meaningful transition ratios in the SU(3) contraction limits (i) and (ii). In Sec. IV we derive expressions for the splitting and the transition ratios for the full set of states ($`L2`$) in the ($`\lambda ,2`$) multiplets and obtain their analytic form in the first limiting case ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$; $`\mu =2`$). In Sec. V all analytic results are examined numerically. Also, there we provide a numerical study of the second limiting case ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu \mathrm{}`$; $`\mu \lambda `$) for the states with $`L2`$. The results are discussed together with an analysis of experimental data. In Sec. VI the conclusions are given.

## 2 $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling in the VBM

The Vector-Boson Model (VBM) with SU(3) dynamical symmetry is founded on the assumption that the low-lying collective states of deformed even–even nuclei can be described by means of two distinct kinds of vector bosons, whose creation operators $`𝝃^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝜼^\mathbf{+}`$ are O(3) vectors and in addition transform according to two independent SU(3) irreps of the type $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(1,0)`$ . The vector bosons provide a relevant construction of the SU(3) angular momentum and quadrupole operators like the bosons in the Schwinger realization of SU(2) . Therefore, they can be considered as natural building blocks of a model scheme with SU(3) dynamical symmetry. Also, the vector bosons can be interpreted as quanta of elementary collective excitations of the nucleus .

In this model an SU(3)-symmetry reducing Hamiltonian is constructed by using three basic O(3) scalars, which belong to the enveloping algebra of SU(3) :

$$V=g_1L^2+g_2LQL+g_3A^+A.$$
(1)
Here $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are free parameters; $`L`$ and $`Q`$ are the angular momentum and quadrupole operators respectively; and $`A^+=𝝃_{}^{\mathbf{+}}{}_{}{}^{2}𝜼_{}^{\mathbf{+}}{}_{}{}^{2}(𝝃^\mathbf{+}𝜼^\mathbf{+})^2`$.

The basis states

$$|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \alpha ,L,M\end{array},$$
(2)
corresponding to the $`SU(3)O(3)`$ group reduction, are constructed by means of the above vector–boson operators and are known as the basis of Bargmann–Moshinsky .

The quantum number $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (2) distinguishes the various O(3) irreps, $`(L,M)`$, appearing in a given SU(3) irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ and labels the different bands of an SU(3) multiplet. It is an integer number determined through the following inequality

$$\mathrm{max}\{0,\frac{1}{2}(\mu L)\}\alpha \mathrm{min}\{\frac{1}{2}(\mu \beta ),\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +\mu L\beta )\},$$
(3)
where

$$\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \lambda +\mu L\text{ even}\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \lambda +\mu L\text{ odd}\hfill \end{array}$$

In the VBM the $`g`$\- and the lowest $`\gamma `$\- band belong to one and the same SU(3) multiplet, where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ are even and $`\lambda \mu `$. These bands are labeled by two neighboring integer values of the quantum number $`\alpha `$. (More precisely, the states of the $`g`$\- band are labeled by the largest value of $`\alpha `$ appearing in (3), while the $`\gamma `$\- band corresponds to the next smaller $`\alpha `$\- value.) The so defined multiplet is split with respect to $`\alpha `$.

The above scheme provides a good description of the energy levels and of the B(E2) transition ratios within and between the $`g`$\- and $`\gamma `$\- bands . The other collective bands, in particular the lowest $`\beta `$-band, do not belong to the same irrep. Therefore, they are not considered in the framework of this model.

## 3 The $`L=2`$ states in ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)-plane

### 3.1 $`L=2`$ energy splitting

Here we consider the $`L=2`$ energy levels of the $`g`$\- and the $`\gamma `$\- band in terms of the VBM. For any ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) multiplet ($`\mu 2`$), the $`2_g`$ and $`2_\gamma `$ states are the only possible ones appearing at angular momentum $`L=2`$. They are labeled by the quantum number $`\alpha `$ as follows \[See inequality (3)\]: $`\alpha _1=\mu /21`$ for $`2_\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _2=\mu /2`$ for $`2_g`$. Hence, for the $`L=2`$ states the Hamiltonian matrix is always two-dimensional and the corresponding eigenvalue equation has the form:

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}V_{1,1}\omega ^{(2)}& V_{1,2}\\ V_{2,1}& V_{2,2}\omega ^{(2)}\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(4)
where $`\omega ^{(2)}\omega ^{L=2}`$ are the eigenvalues and

$$V_{j,j^{}}\alpha _j,2|V|\alpha _j^{},2=\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \alpha _j,2,2\end{array}\left|V\right|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \alpha _j^{},2,2\end{array},$$
(5)
with $`j,j^{}=1,2`$, are the corresponding Hamiltonian matrix elements. We have derived these matrix elements in the form:

$`V_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}1),2|V|({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}1),2=6g_1+6g_2(2\lambda +2\mu +3)+g_3P(\lambda ,\mu ),`$ (6)
$`V_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},2|V|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},2=6g_16g_2(2\lambda +2\mu +3)+g_3Q(\lambda ,\mu ),`$ (7)
$`V_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}1),2|V|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},2=12g_2\mu 2g_3\mu (\mu 2),`$ (8)
$`V_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}},2|V|({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}1),2=12g_2\lambda +2g_3\lambda (\lambda +2\mu +2),`$ (9)
where

$`P(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\mu 2)(\mu +2)(\lambda +2\mu +2)+\mu (\mu 2)(\mu +1)(\mu +3),`$ (10)
$`Q(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \mu ^2(\lambda +2\mu +2)+\mu (\mu 1)(\mu +1)(\mu +2).`$ (11)
The energy levels $`E_2^g`$ and $`E_2^\gamma `$, corresponding to the $`2_g`$ and $`2_\gamma `$ states respectively, are determined as

$`E_2^g`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1^{(2)}\omega ^{(0)},`$ (12)
$`E_2^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2^{(2)}\omega ^{(0)},`$ (13)
where

$$\omega _i^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{V_{1,1}+V_{2,2}+(1)^i\sqrt{(V_{1,1}+V_{2,2})^24(V_{1,1}V_{2,2}V_{1,2}V_{2,1})}\right\},$$
(14)
$`i=1,2`$, are the solutions of the eigenvalue equation (4), and $`\omega ^{(0)}=g_3\mu ^2(\lambda +\mu +1)^2`$ is the zero-level eigenvalue, corresponding to the ground state $`0_g`$. After using Eqs. (6)–(9) we obtain the following analytic expressions for $`E_2^g`$ and $`E_2^\gamma `$:

$`E_2^g`$ $`=`$ $`6g_12Fg_32\sqrt{Ag_2^2+Bg_3^2Cg_2g_3},`$ (15)
$`E_2^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`6g_12Fg_3+2\sqrt{Ag_2^2+Bg_3^2Cg_2g_3},`$ (16)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`A(\lambda ,\mu )=9[(2\lambda +2\mu +3)^24\lambda \mu ];`$ (17)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`B(\lambda ,\mu )=[\lambda (\lambda +2\mu +2)+\mu (\mu +1)]^2`$ (18)
$``$ $`\lambda \mu (\lambda +2\mu +2)(\mu 2);`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`C(\lambda ,\mu )=6(2\lambda +2\mu +3)[\lambda (\lambda +2\mu +2)+\mu (\mu +1)]`$ (19)
$``$ $`6\lambda \mu (\lambda +3\mu );`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`F(\lambda ,\mu )=\lambda (\lambda +2\mu +2)+2\mu (\mu +1).`$ (20)
Hence, we derive a model expression for the energy splitting of the SU(3) multiplet. It is known that the splitting can be characterized by the ratio :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=\frac{E_2^\gamma E_2^g}{E_2^g}.$$
(21)
In terms of Eqs. (15) and (16) the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ obtains the following analytic form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=\frac{2}{(3g_1Fg_3)/\sqrt{Ag_2^2+Bg_3^2Cg_2g_3}1}.$$
(22)
The expressions, obtained so far, allow us to study analytically the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band-mixing interaction and the energy splitting at $`L=2`$ in the ($`\lambda ,\mu `$)-plane. In particular we are able to reproduce analytically the SU(3) contraction limits:

(i) $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite;

(ii) $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu \lambda `$. Since the difference $`\lambda \mu `$ is always finite, we take for definiteness $`\mu =\lambda `$.

In each of these limits we estimate the $`\lambda `$\- and/or $`\mu `$\- dependence of the matrix elements (6)–(9), as well as the analytic behavior of the splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$.

In case (i) the matrix elements are determined by the corresponding highest degrees of $`\lambda `$. Thus for $`\mu >2`$ the Hamiltonian matrix $`(V_{i,j})`$ obtains the following asymptotic form:

$$(V)_\lambda \mathrm{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^2& \\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
where the upper off-diagonal element (denoted by $``$) does not depend on $`\lambda `$. Then the relative contribution of the off-diagonal (band-mixing) terms in the eigenvalue equation (4) decreases with the increase of $`\lambda `$ as $`\lambda ^2/\lambda ^4=1/\lambda ^2`$. For $`\mu =2`$ the term $`V_{1,1}`$ is proportional to $`\lambda `$ instead of $`\lambda ^2`$ \[See Eqs. (6) and (10)\], so that in this particular case the off-diagonal contribution decreases as $`1/\lambda `$.

In the same limiting case the functions (17)–(20) have the following asymptotic behavior:

$$A_\lambda \mathrm{}=36\lambda ^2;B_\lambda \mathrm{}=\lambda ^4;C_\lambda \mathrm{}=12\lambda ^3;F_\lambda \mathrm{}=\lambda ^2.$$

After applying them in Eq. (22), we find the analytic limit of the splitting ratio (22):

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=\frac{2}{g_3/|g_3|1}.$$
(24)
We remark that the application of the VBM in rare earth nuclei and actinides requires $`g_3<0`$ , which gives in (24)

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=\mathrm{}.$$
(25)
Therefore, in this case the SU(3)-multiplet is completely split.

Consider now the limiting case (ii), $`\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}`$. Then the asymptotic form of the matrix $`(V_{i,j})`$ is:

$$(V)_{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\end{array}\right).$$
(26)
Here we find that the relative magnitude of the band-mixing interaction decreases as $`\lambda ^4/\lambda ^8=1/\lambda ^4`$, i.e., more rapidly in comparison to the previous case.

Furthermore, in the limiting case (ii) one has:

$$A_{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}=108\lambda ^2;B_{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}=13\lambda ^4;C_{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}=72\lambda ^3;F_{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}=5\lambda ^2.$$

Then the SU(3) splitting ratio goes to:

$$\underset{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=\frac{2}{(5/\sqrt{13})g_3/|g_3|1}.$$
(27)
For $`g_3<0`$ we obtain

$$\underset{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=2/(5/\sqrt{13}1)=5.17.$$
(28)
Therefore, in this case the band-mixing interaction vanishes, while the energy splitting between the two bands remains finite.

### 3.2 Transition ratios in the $`L=2`$ states

Here we turn to the electromagnetic transition probabilities for the states $`2_g`$, $`2_\gamma `$ and $`0_g`$. In particular it is of interest to consider the following B(E2) transition ratios:

$`R_1(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_g0_g)}};`$ (29)
$`R_2(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_\gamma 0_g)}}.`$ (30)
The first of them, $`R_1(2)`$, gives the relative magnitude of the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition probability with respect to the ground intraband one. Thus it naturally characterizes the link between the two bands within the multiplet. The second ratio represents one of the widely used collective characteristics of nuclei related to Alaga rules. Both quantities (29) and (30) can be obtained from the experimental data on deformed nuclei and therefore have a direct physical meaning.

In order to derive analytic expressions for the above ratios we calculate the matrix elements of the quadrupole operator $`Q_0`$ between the eigenstates

$`|\omega _i^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{i1}^{(2)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /21,2,2\end{array}+C_{i2}^{(2)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,2,2\end{array},i=1,2;`$ (35)
$`|\omega ^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{(0)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,0,0\end{array},`$ (38)
of the VBM Hamiltonian (1). (It should be remembered that the eigenvalues $`\omega _1^{(2)}`$, $`\omega _2^{(2)}`$ and $`\omega ^{(0)}`$ correspond to the $`2_g`$, $`2_\gamma `$ and $`0_g`$ states respectively.) After applying analytically the formalism developed in  we obtain the following matrix elements:

$`\omega _1^{(2)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (C_{21}^{(2)})^2+\mu (C_{22}^{(2)})^2+(2\lambda +2\mu +3)C_{21}^{(2)}C_{22}^{(2)}}{C_{11}^{(2)}C_{22}^{(2)}C_{21}^{(2)}C_{12}^{(2)}}};`$ (39)
$`\omega _1^{(0)}|Q_0|\omega _1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}C^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu C_{22}^{(2)}\lambda C_{21}^{(2)}}{C_{11}^{(2)}C_{22}^{(2)}C_{12}^{(2)}C_{21}^{(2)}}};`$ (40)
$`\omega ^{(0)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}C^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda C_{11}^{(2)}\mu C_{12}^{(2)}}{C_{11}^{(2)}C_{22}^{(2)}C_{12}^{(2)}C_{21}^{(2)}}}.`$ (41)
The wave-function coefficients are determined as

$`C_{i1}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{11}^{(2)}+2h_{i2}f_{21}^{(2)}+h_{i2}^2f_{22}^{(2)})^{\frac{1}{2}};`$ (42)
$`C_{i2}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{i2}C_{i1}^{(2)},i=1,2`$ (43)
$`C^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(f^{(0)})^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (44)
Here

$`f_{11}^{(2)}=\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /21,2\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /21,2\end{array}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}R(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mu 2}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu /2\\ l/2\end{array}\right)S^l(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{(l+1)(\mu l)}{\mu ^2(\lambda +l+6)}}`$ (51)
$`\times [(\mu l)(\lambda +2)(\lambda +3)(\lambda +5)\mu \lambda (\lambda +4)(\lambda +l+6)];`$ (52)
$`f_{21}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,2\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /21,2\end{array}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}R(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mu 2}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu /2\\ l/2\end{array}\right)S^l(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{(l+1)(\mu l)}{\mu }};`$ (59)
$`f_{22}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,2\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,2\end{array}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}R(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mu }{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu /2\\ l/2\end{array}\right)S^l(\lambda ,\mu )(l+1)(l+2);`$ (66)
$`f^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,0\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,\mu )\\ \mu /2,0\end{array}=R(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mu }{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu /2\\ l/2\end{array}\right)S^l(\lambda ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +\mu l)(\lambda +l+4)}{\mu (\lambda +3)(\lambda +\mu +4)}},`$ (73)
are the corresponding overlap integrals obtained by the general expression in , with

$`R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda +3)!!(\mu !!)^2,`$ (74)
$`S^l(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`((l1)!!)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +\mu l2)!!(\lambda +\mu +4)!!}{(\lambda +l+4)!!}}.`$ (75)
In addition \[see Eqs. (13)–(15) in ref. \]

$`h_{i2}={\displaystyle \frac{(V_{11}\omega _i^{(2)})}{V_{12}}}=[3g_2(2\lambda +2\mu +3)+g_3[(\lambda +\mu )^2+2\lambda +\mu ]+`$
$`(1)^i\sqrt{A(\lambda ,\mu )g_2^2+B(\lambda ,\mu )g_3^2C(\lambda ,\mu )g_2g_3}]/(6g_2\mu g_3\mu (\mu 2)),`$ (76)
with $`A(\lambda ,\mu )`$, $`B(\lambda ,\mu )`$ and $`C(\lambda ,\mu )`$ being defined in Eqs. (17)–(19).

By using the general expression for the B(E2) transition probability between two of the above eigenstates

$`B(E2;L_\nu L_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L^{}& 2& L\\ L& 0& L\end{array}\right)^2\left|\omega _{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}^{(L^{})}|Q_0|\omega _\nu ^{(L)}\right|^2`$ (79)
($`L,L^{}=0,2`$; $`\nu ,\nu ^{\prime \prime }=g,\gamma `$), we have studied analytically the transition ratios (29) and (30) in the two limiting cases considered in the previous subsection.

We have analyzed the explicit expressions for the overlap integrals (52)–(73) and the $`h_{i2}`$-factors (76). In this way we have deduced that in both limits, (i) and (ii), the overlap integrals increase to infinity. On the other hand one can verify that this behavior is compensated consistently in the ratios (29) and (30), where the total contribution of the integrals and the $`h_{i2}`$-factors is finite.

Thus, for the case (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite) we have obtained the following analytic limits of the transition ratios $`R_1(2)`$ and $`R_2(2)`$:

$`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_g0_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (80)
$`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_\gamma 0_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu +2}{2\mu }}\right)^2.`$ (81)
So, in this case we find that the relative magnitude of the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition is zero, while the ratio $`R_2(2)`$ obtains finite values depending on the quantum number $`\mu `$. We remark that for $`\mu =2`$ one has $`R_2(2)=10/7`$, which is the standard Alaga value.

In case (ii) ($`\mu =\lambda \mathrm{}`$) we obtain the following limits:

$`\underset{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_g0_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{(c_2^2+4c_2+1)^2}{(c_2^2+c_2+1)(c_21)^2}}0.172;`$ (82)
$`\underset{\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;2_\gamma 2_g)}{B(E2;2_\gamma 0_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{(c_2^2+4c_2+1)^2(c_1^2+c_1+1)}{(c_2^2+c_2+1)^2(c_11)^2}}0.304,`$ (83)
with $`c_1=4\sqrt{13}7.606`$ and $`c_2=4+\sqrt{13}0.394`$.

In this case one finds that both ratios, $`R_1(2)`$ and $`R_2(2)`$, remain finite.

We remark that all obtained limits do not depend on the model parameters. (It is assumed that $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, and $`g_3`$ are finite, with $`g_2<0`$ and $`g_3<0`$.)

## 4 The ($`\lambda ,2`$)-direction

### 4.1 SU(3) splitting in $`L2`$ states

For the $`(\lambda ,2)`$\- irreps the $`g`$\- and the $`\gamma `$-bands are the only possible ones appearing in the corresponding SU(3) multiplets. They are labeled by the quantum numbers $`\alpha _2=1`$ and $`\alpha _1=0`$ respectively \[See inequality (3)\]. In the even angular momentum states the Hamiltonian matrix is always two-dimensional, while for the odd states of the $`\gamma `$\- band one has a single matrix element. Hence for the $`(\lambda ,2)`$\- multiplets one is able to derive analytic expressions for the spectroscopic characteristics of the full set of states ($`L2`$) in a way similar to that of the previous section. That is why we do not explain in detail all steps of analytic calculations and report only the final results in this direction.

So, for a given $`(\lambda ,2)`$ multiplet the energy levels $`E^g(L)`$ and $`E^\gamma (L)`$ of the $`g`$ and the $`\gamma `$-band can be written in the following form:

$`E^g(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{A}L(L+1)|\stackrel{~}{B}|R^{(L)},`$ (84)
$`E^\gamma (L_{even})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{A}L(L+1)+|\stackrel{~}{B}|R^{(L)};`$ (85)
$`E^\gamma (L_{odd})`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{B}+(\stackrel{~}{A}+g_3)L(L+1),`$ (86)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}(g_1,g_2,g_3)=g_1(2\lambda +5)g_2g_3,`$ (87)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda ,g_2,g_3)=6(2\lambda +5)g_22(\lambda +3)^2g_3,`$ (88)
and

$$R^{(L)}=\sqrt{1+aL(L+1)+bL^2(L+1)^2}.$$
(89)
with

$`a=a(\lambda ,g_2,g_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\stackrel{~}{B}^2}}\left\{(\lambda +3)[(\lambda +3)g_36g_2]g_33(g_36g_2)g_2\right\},`$ (90)
$`b=b(\lambda ,g_2,g_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{B}^2}}\left(g_36g_2\right)^2.`$ (91)
Now we introduce the following energy ratio

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_L=\frac{E_L^\gamma E_L^g}{E_2^g},$$
(92)
which is more general compared to Eq.(21) and characterizes the magnitude of the energy splitting in any even angular momentum state of a given SU(3) multiplet.

By using Eqs.(84) and (85) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ in the following analytic form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_L=\frac{2|\stackrel{~}{B}|R^{(L)}}{6\stackrel{~}{A}|\stackrel{~}{B}|R^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{B}},$$
(93)
which in the SU(3) contraction limit goes to

$$\underset{\stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu =2}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_L=\frac{2}{g_3/|g_3|1}.$$
(94)
For $`g_3<0`$ one has

$$\underset{\stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu =2}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }E_L=\mathrm{}.$$
(95)
Thus we find that for all even states of a given $`(\lambda ,2)`$\- multiplet the SU(3) splitting goes to infinity in the same way \[see also Eqs.(24) and (25)\].

### 4.2 Transition ratios in the ($`\lambda ,2`$)-direction

For the ($`\lambda ,2`$)-direction the B(E2) transitions between the states of a given multiplet can be examined through the following \[more general compared to (29) and (30)\] transition ratios:

$`R_1(L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma L_g)}{B(E2;L_g(L2)_g)}},L=even,`$ (96)
$`R_2(L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma L_g)}{B(E2;L_\gamma (L2)_g)}},L=even,`$ (97)
$`R_3(L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma (L+1)_g)}{B(E2;L_\gamma (L1)_g)}},L=odd.`$ (98)
The first two ratios, $`R_1(L)`$ and $`R_2(L)`$, have the same physical meaning as the ratios (29) and (30) of the previous section. The third ratio, $`R_3(L)`$, involves the odd angular momentum states in the study. In such a way we investigate the transition characteristics of the full set of states in a given SU(3) multiplet.

In the case of a ($`\lambda ,2`$)-multiplet the Hamiltonian eigenstates are constructed as

$`|\omega _i^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{i1}^{(L)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}+C_{i2}^{(L)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 1,L\end{array},i=1,2,L=even;`$ (103)
$`|\omega _{odd}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{odd}^{(L)}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array},L=odd.`$ (106)
The necessary transition matrix elements are derived in the form

$`\omega _1^{(L)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{(L+1)(2L+3)}}[(\lambda +2L)(C_{21}^{(L)})^2`$ (107)
$`+`$ $`[2\lambda +5+L(L1)]C_{21}^{(L)}C_{22}^{(L)}`$
$`+`$ $`L(L1)(C_{22}^{(L)})^2]/[C_{11}^{(L)}C_{22}^{(L)}C_{21}^{(L)}C_{12}^{(L)}];`$
$`\omega _1^{(L2)}|Q_0|\omega _1^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\sqrt{L(2L1)}}}[(\lambda +4L)C_{11}^{(L2)}C_{22}^{(L)}`$ (108)
$``$ $`(\lambda +2L)C_{12}^{(L2)}C_{21}^{(L)}`$
$`+`$ $`2C_{12}^{(L2)}C_{22}^{(L)}]/[C_{11}^{(L)}C_{22}^{(L)}C_{21}^{(L)}C_{12}^{(L)}];`$
$`\omega _1^{(L2)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\sqrt{L(2L1)}}}[(\lambda +4L)C_{11}^{(L2)}C_{12}^{(L)}`$ (109)
$``$ $`(\lambda +2L)C_{12}^{(L2)}C_{11}^{(L)}`$
$`+`$ $`2C_{12}^{(L2)}C_{12}^{(L)}]/[C_{11}^{(L)}C_{22}^{(L)}C_{21}^{(L)}C_{12}^{(L)}];`$
$`\omega _1^{(L+1)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{(L+2)\sqrt{L+1}}}C_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(L)}[(2\lambda L+4)C_{22}^{(L+1)}`$ (110)
$`+`$ $`(\lambda L+1)C_{21}^{(L+1)}]/[C_{11}^{(L+1)}C_{22}^{(L+1)}C_{21}^{(L+1)}C_{12}^{(L+1)}];`$
$`\omega _1^{(L1)}|Q_0|\omega _2^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{(L+1)\sqrt{L}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(L)}}}\left[(\lambda L+3)C_{11}^{(L1)}(L1)C_{12}^{(L1)}\right],`$ (111)
with the wave-function coefficients

$`C_{i1}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(f_{11}^{(L)}+2h_{i2}^{(L)}f_{21}^{(L)}+(h^{(L)})_{i2}^2f_{22}^{(L)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},L=even;`$ (112)
$`C_{i2}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{i2}^{(L)}C_{i1}^{(L)},L=even,i=1,2`$ (113)
$`C_{odd}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{odd}^{(L)})^{\frac{1}{2}},L=odd.`$ (114)
The corresponding overlap integrals are obtained in the form

$`f_{11}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}=S^L(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{[(L^2+L+1)\lambda +L^3+4L^2+2L+2]}{L(L1)}};`$ (119)
$`f_{21}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 1,L\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}=S^L(\lambda )(\lambda +L+4);`$ (124)
$`f_{22}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 1,L\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 1,L\end{array}=S^L(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{[2(\lambda L+2)(\lambda +L+4)+(L+1)(L+2)]}{(\lambda L+2)}};`$ (129)
$`f_{\mathrm{odd}}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}(\lambda ,2)\\ 0,L\end{array}=S_{\mathrm{odd}}^L(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{(L+1)(L+2)(\lambda +2)}{2L(L1)}},`$ (134)
with

$`S^L(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L!(\lambda L+2)!!(\lambda +L+1)!!}{(2L+1)!!}}`$
$`S_{\mathrm{odd}}^L(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L!(\lambda L+1)!!(\lambda +L+2)!!}{(2L+1)!!}}.`$ (135)
Also we have

$`h_{i2}^{(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`[6g_2[(2\lambda +5)+L(L1)]+g_3[2(\lambda +3)^2L(L+1)]`$ (136)
$`+`$ $`(1)^i\stackrel{~}{B}R^{(L)}]/[12g_2L(L1)].`$
Eqs. (119)–(134) show that the overlap integrals increase to infinity with the increase of the quantum number $`\lambda `$. However, similarly to the previous section, one can verify that this behavior is compensated consistently in the ratios (96)–(98).

After using the above analytic form of the matrix elements (107)–(111) we have obtained the SU(3) contraction limits of the ratios $`R_1(L)`$, $`R_2(L)`$ and $`R_3(L)`$ \[Eqs. (96)–(98)\]:

$`\underset{\stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu =2}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma L_g)}{B(E2;L_g(L2)_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (137)
$`\underset{\stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu =2}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma L_g)}{B(E2;L_\gamma (L2)_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{(L1)(2L+1)}{(L+1)(2L+3)}};`$ (138)
$`\underset{\stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu =2}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{B(E2;L_\gamma (L+1)_g)}{B(E2;L_\gamma (L1)_g)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(L1)}{(L+2)}}.`$ (139)
Thus, we find that for all the states ($`L2`$) of the Hamiltonian the relative magnitude of the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transitions goes to zero. Also, we see that the ratios $`R_2(L)`$ and $`R_3(L)`$ go to the corresponding standard Alaga rules.

## 5 Results and Discussions

The theoretical results given above allow one to examine the mechanism of the SU(3) symmetry reduction in the space of the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ irreps as well as to identify its manifestation in reference to the experimental data on heavy deformed nuclei.

The analytic study of the Hamiltonian matrix elements shows \[Eqs. (23) and (26)\] how the increase in the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and/or $`\mu `$ is connected with the corresponding decrease in the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band-mixing interaction within the framework of the SU(3) symmetry. Generally this result illustrates the behavior of the energy-mixing in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$-plane. In both limits, (i) and (ii), the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ mixing decreases asymptotically to zero. Similar limiting behavior of the $`L2`$ matrix elements in $`(\lambda ,2)`$-direction has been established in our previous work (See Sec. IV–C of Ref. ). Thus in all limiting cases the SU(3) symmetry disappears completely and the two bands do not belong to the same SU(3) multiplet anymore.

It is appropriate at this point to elucidate the meaning of the above consideration in terms of the SU(3) group contraction process . This process corresponds to a renormalization of the quadrupole operator, $`QQ/\sqrt{C_2}`$, with

$$C_2=(\lambda +2\mu )(\lambda +2\mu +6)+3\lambda (\lambda +2)$$
(140)
being the eigenvalue of the second order Casimir operator of SU(3). The following commutation relations between the angular momentum and the renormalized quadrupole operators are then valid:

$`[L_m,L_n]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}C_{1m1n}^{1m+n}L_{m+n},`$ (141)
$`[L_m,Q_n]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}C_{1m2n}^{2m+n}Q_{m+n},`$ (142)
$`[Q_m,Q_n]`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{10}C_{2m2n}^{1m+n}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{m+n}}{C_2}}.`$ (143)
They differ from the standard SU(3) commutation relations by the factor $`C_2`$ in the right-hand side of (143). Taking into account Eq. (140), one finds that in both limits (i) and (ii), considered in the present work, the commutator (143) vanishes and the commutation relations of the algebra of the triaxial rotor group T$`{}_{5}{}^{}`$SO(3) hold. In such a way the vanishing $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band-mixing could be interpreted as a transition from a compact to a non-compact DS group.

Let us now analyze the behavior of the splitting and transition ratios of Secs. 3 and 4 in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$-plane. For this purpose we use the analytic expressions for numerical calculations. In the particular case of $`L2`$ states in ($`\mu =\lambda \mathrm{}`$) direction, which is not accessible analytically, we apply numerically the algorithm developed in Ref. . All calculations are carried out for the same set of fixed model parameters $`g_1=1`$, $`g_2=0.2`$, $`g_3=0.25`$. These values belong to the corresponding parameter regions obtained for a group of rare earth nuclei and actinides \[See Table 2 in Ref. \]. In this respect they can be considered as an overall set of model parameters. Also, it should be emphasized that in the SU(3) contraction limiting cases the various sets of (finite) parameter values give the same asymptotic behavior of the model quantities.

In Fig. 1 the splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ \[Eq. (22)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. In the limiting case (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite) the two-dimensional surface shows a rapid increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$, while in case (ii) ($`\mu =\lambda \mathrm{}`$) the splitting ratio gradually saturates towards the constant value $`5.17`$ \[See Eq. (28)\]. In Fig. 2 the splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ \[Eq. (92)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=2,4\mathrm{}12`$. In the case $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu =2`$ the energy splitting goes to infinity with almost equal values for all angular momenta (Fig. 2(a)). In case (ii) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ trends to finite values which increase with $`L`$ (Fig. 2(b)). So, in the first limiting case the complete reduction of the SU(3) symmetry leads to a large energy separation between the bands in the multiplet, while in the second case (for finite angular momenta) the bands remain close to each other, but their mutual disposition does not depend on the Hamiltonian parameters anymore, so that it should not be associated with any band coupling.

The experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ ratios of several rare earth nuclei and actinides are given in Table 1. They vary within the limits $`5\mathrm{\Delta }E_220`$, for the rare earths and $`13\mathrm{\Delta }E_225`$, for the actinides. The behavior of the splitting ratios is clear: The $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ ratio generally increases towards the middle of the rotational region. This is illustrated in Table 1 through the number of the nucleon pairs (or holes) in the valence shells, $`N`$. (The number $`N`$ is a well established characteristic of nuclear collectivity used in the IBM .) A clearly pronounced increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ with increasing $`N`$ is observed for the isotopes of Sm, Gd, Er, Yb, and W. Similar behavior of the energy splitting is observed in the $`L>2`$ states of these nuclei . One concludes that the data show that the SU(3) splitting increases toward the midshell regions.

We turn now to the analysis of the interband transition ratios. In Fig. 3 the theoretical ratio $`R_1(2)`$, Eq. (29), is plotted as a two-dimensional function of the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. In the limiting case (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite) the $`R_1`$ surface shows a rapid decrease to zero. In case (ii) ($`\mu =\lambda \mathrm{}`$) $`R_1(2)`$ decreases gradually and saturates towards the constant value $`0.172`$ \[See Eq. (82)\]. In Fig. 4 the transition ratio $`R_1(L)`$ \[Eq. (96)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=2,4\mathrm{}12`$. In the case $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu =2`$ it goes to zero with almost equal values for all angular momenta (Fig. 4(a)). In case (ii) $`R_1(L)`$ obtains finite values which decrease with $`L`$ (Fig. 4(b)). Thus in the first limiting case the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition link vanishes rapidly, while in the second case (for finite angular momenta) the relative magnitude of the interband transition probability remains non-zero. However, as in the energy splitting, the $`R_1`$-ratios do not depend on the Hamiltonian parameters anymore. Therefore, they should not be treated in terms of the SU(3) symmetry anymore.

The experimental $`R_1(2)`$-values for several rare earth nuclei and actinides are given in Table 1. Here one observes a rather spectacular decrease of $`R_1(2)`$ towards the midshell regions. The best examples (with the largest number of available data) occur in the cases of the Gd, Er and Yb isotopes. Note that the decrease in the experimental $`g`$$`\gamma `$ transition probabilities is well consistent with the corresponding increase in the SU(3) splitting. In this way, the experimental data strongly support the VBM predictions in the SU(3) contraction limit.

The two-dimensional surface obtained for the theoretical $`R_2(2)`$ ratio, Eq. (30), is shown in Fig. 5. We see that $`R_2(2)`$ gradually decreases with $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ and trends towards the finite values, obtained in the limiting cases (i) and (ii) \[See Eqs. (81) and (83)\]. In Fig. 6 the transition ratio $`R_2(L)`$ \[Eq. (97)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=2,4\mathrm{}12`$. In the case $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu =2`$ it gradually goes to the Alaga values for the corresponding angular momenta (Fig. 6(a), see also Eq. (138)). In case (ii) $`R_2(L)`$ trends to finite values which (in the numerically investigated $`\lambda `$\- range) exhibit a complicated behavior as a function of $`L`$ (Fig. 6(b)). In both limiting cases the lack of dependence on the Hamiltonian parameters indicates the complete reduction of the SU(3) symmetry. The experimental data on $`R_2(2)`$, given in Table 1, show a slightly expressed trend of decreasing towards the midshells, but one could not draw any definite conclusions about the systematic behavior of this quantity.

In Fig. 7 the transition ratio $`R_3(L)`$ \[Eq. (98)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for the odd angular momenta $`L=3,5\mathrm{}11`$. For $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, $`\mu =2`$ it goes to the corresponding Alaga values in a way similar to the $`R_2(L)`$\- ratio (Fig. 7(a), see also Eq. (139)). In the second direction, (ii), $`R_3(L)`$ saturates to finite values (Fig. 7(b)). It is clear that towards the SU(3) contraction limit the B(E2) transition characteristics of the odd $`\gamma `$ band states should be consistent with the even angular momentum ones.

In order to assess quantitatively the results presented so far, we provide a numerical analysis of the SU(3) multiplets in $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$\- plane on the basis of the experimental energy and transition ratios given in Table 1. More precisely we determined the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ together with the Hamiltonian parameters $`g_1`$ $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$, by fitting them in the numerical procedure of Ref.  so as to reproduce the experimental $`g`$\- and $`\gamma `$\- band levels up to $`L=8`$, for lantanides and $`L=18`$, for actinides together with the values of the experimental ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$, $`R_1(2)`$ and $`R_2(2)`$. (Only for two nuclei, 160Gd and 162Dy, the $`R_1(2)`$ ratios have not been used in the fits due to the uncertainty of the experimental data.)

The “favored” values of the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ obtained for the various isotopes are given in the fourth column of Table 1. Generally the quantum number $`\lambda `$ vary in the range $`14\lambda 68`$, while $`\mu `$ obtains the values $`2\mu 6`$.

So, one finds that while $`\mu `$ is closed in narrow limits, the quantum number $`\lambda `$ exhibits a well pronounced systematic behavior. The favored $`\lambda `$-values as well as the SU(3) splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ increase with the increase of the valence pair number $`N`$, i.e. towards the middle of the valence shells in rotational nuclei. For example, the small splitting observed in the nuclei 152Sm ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=7.9`$), 154Gd ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=7.1`$) and 162Er ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=7.8`$) which are situated near the beginning of the respective group of rotational isotopes, is associated with the small $`\lambda `$\- values, $`\lambda =1416`$ and the relatively large interband transition ratios $`R_1(2)=0.070.08`$. On the other hand, for the middshell nuclei 172,174Yb with large splitting values, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=1820`$ and small $`R_1(2)0.01`$, we obtain large $`\lambda `$-values, $`\lambda 6070`$. Also, large $`\lambda `$ values, $`\lambda 60`$ have been obtained for the 234,238U isotopes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=2022`$. Well pronounced systematic behavior of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ is observed in the Er and Yb isotopes.

The above results are consistent with the numerical analyses carried out in . It should be mentioned that the involvement of the interband transition ratio $`R_1(2)`$ in the present fits leads to an increase in the quantum number $`\mu `$ above the $`\mu =2`$ values. Actually, some trend of small increase in $`\mu `$ (up to $`\mu =6`$) with the increase of $`\lambda `$ is indicated for various isotope groups (See, for example the Yb isotopes in Table 1). Nevertheless, in almost all nuclei under study the quantum number $`\lambda `$ is essentially larger than $`\mu `$, which is natural for the well deformed nuclei. Several exceptions are observed in the nuclei far from the midshell region, such as 158Dy (with $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(16,6)`$) and 186W (with $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(24,10)`$) where the interband transition ratios are very large $`R_1(2)0.10.2`$.

The above quantitative considerations show that the changes in the SU(3) characteristics of nuclei (especially the quantum number $`\lambda `$) towards the middle of given rotational region could be associated with the corresponding decrease in the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band mixing interaction towards the SU(3) contraction limits. In terms of our study the strong $`g`$$`\gamma `$ splitting, observed near the middle of rotational regions, corresponds to the weak mutual perturbation of the bands. This is consistent with the respectively good rotational behavior of the $`g`$-band, which in this case could belong to a separate SU(3) multiplet. \[See the experimental energy ratios, $`R_4=E_4^g/E_2^g`$, given in Table 1.\]

We remark that present analyses are based mainly on data in the rare earth region. Actually Table 1 includes only nuclei for which the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition probabilities are measured. That is why only four actinides (230,232Th, 234,238U) are considered. Nevertheless, they give an indication for similar behaviors of the splitting and the interband transition ratios as the ones in rare earth nuclei. On the other hand, the generally stronger energy splitting, observed in the actinide region (See also ), suggests a generally weaker $`g`$$`\gamma `$ coupling compared to the rare earth nuclei.

We are now able to discuss the physical significance of the considered SU(3) contraction limits as well as to depict the physically meaningful directions in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$\- plane, which could be appropriate for studying the transition between the different band coupling schemes. The theoretical analyses and experimental data show that the limiting case (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite) has a rather clear physical interpretation. It is consistent with the observed continuous increase of the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band splitting and the corresponding continuous decrease of the interband transition probabilities towards the midshell regions in rare earth nuclei. The limiting case (ii) ($`\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}`$) does not have any similar direct interpretation. It suggests finite values for the splitting and the interband transition probabilities, while the bands do not interact in the framework of SU(3) symmetry. In addition, it is well known that the case $`\lambda =\mu `$ does not correspond to deformed nuclei, for which the inequality $`\mu <\lambda `$ is satisfied. Nevertheless the study of this limit is useful from the following viewpoint: It implies that the strong suppression of the band interaction as well as the transition between the different band coupling schemes could be realized at reasonable (finite) SU(3) splitting. Based on the above considerations, we deduce that the possibly interesting physically meaningful directions in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$–plane should be associated with a consistent increase in the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. Thus, any particular direction of interest could be easily estimated by using its intermediate behavior between the two considered limiting cases.

Some discussion concerning the Interacting Boson Model (IBM) classification scheme  is appropriate at this point. In Ref.  it has been suggested that for deformed nuclei both the VBM scheme (with $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling) and the IBM one (with $`\beta `$$`\gamma `$ band coupling) could be considered as complementary schemes. It has also been pointed out that the SU(3) scheme of the VBM is naturally applicable to nuclei with weak energy splitting, while strong splitting invokes the SU(3) scheme of the IBM, in which the $`g`$\- band is situated in a separate irrep. Furthermore, the theoretical results and the experimental data given in the present work suggest that the VBM band coupling scheme is more appropriate near the ends of the rotational regions, while in the midshell regions the coupling scheme of the IBM is realized. In this respect the detailed comparison of both band-coupling mechanisms would be of interest. For example, the analytic expressions for the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition probabilities, obtained in the framework of the IBM in , would be useful. \[See Eqs. (5) and (6) of .\] They give a behavior of the transition ratios $`R_1(L)`$, $`R_2(L)`$ and $`R_3(L)`$ \[Eqs. (96), (97) and (98)\] in the infinite valence pair number limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$) similar to the behavior obtained in the limiting case (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu =2`$) \[Eqs. (137), (138) (139)\] of the present VBM scheme.

As an extension of the present studies it would be worthwhile to examine, in a similar way, the link between the $`\gamma `$\- and the $`\beta `$\- band. Furthermore, besides the VBM scheme, one could refer in this case to the modifications of the IBM in which higher-order terms conserving the SU(3) symmetry are added . The consistent study (within both models) of the ways in which the SU(3) symmetry is reduced could give important information about the rearrangement of rotational bands into different SU(3) irreps.

In the above context, we emphasize that the analyses implemented in the presented paper give a general prescription to handle the fine behavior of the band coupling interactions in any collective algebraic scheme in heavy deformed nuclei. Actually, the group contraction process should play a major role in a transition between two different band coupling schemes. The transition from the compact SU(3) group to the non-compact T$`{}_{5}{}^{}`$SO(3) rotor group could be considered as a starting point in a process of reconstruction of various multiplets in a more general symplectic group of dynamical symmetry. (It is interesting to mention that the meaning of SU(3) contraction has been also discussed (though in a rather different aspect) in reference to a possible phase transition between a superconductor and rigid rotor collective motion of nuclei .)

## 6 Conclusions

We have derived analytic expressions for the energies and $`B(E2)`$ transition probabilities in the ground- and $`\gamma `$-band states of even deformed nuclei within the Vector-Boson Model with SU(3) dynamical symmetry. On this basis we applied both analytic and numeric analyses to examine the behavior of the corresponding energy splitting and B(E2) transition ratios in the two SU(3) contraction limits of the model, (i) ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, with $`\mu `$ finite), and (ii) ($`\lambda =\mu \mathrm{}`$). It has been shown that in both limits the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band mixing decreases asymptotically to zero. In case (i) this is associated with the corresponding continuous increase in the splitting of the multiplet and the rapidly vanishing $`g`$$`\gamma `$ interband transition link. Case (ii) gives finite values for the energy splitting and the interband transition ratios which, however, should not be associated with any band coupling. The latter result implies that a strong reduction of the band interaction could be possible at finite SU(3) splitting. Thus, the present analyses outline the possible directions in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$-plane in which the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling is reduced.

The experimental data on the ground- and $`\gamma `$\- band states in deformed even–even nuclei show clearly a pronounced increase in the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band splitting and a corresponding decrease in the interband transition probabilities towards the midshell regions. They suggest that the SU(3) contraction effects in the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling scheme should be sought in the best rotational nuclei, in which the mutual perturbation of the bands is weak. So, the experimental data and their quantitative estimation in the VBM framework strongly support our theoretical analyses.

Based on the presented investigation, we conclude that the transition from the $`g`$$`\gamma `$ band coupling scheme to a scheme in which the $`g`$-band is situated in a separate irrep should be realized towards the midshell regions. In this respect the complementarity of the classification schemes of the Vector-Boson Model with SU(3) dynamical symmetry and the IBM becomes clear. The consistent study of the rearrangement of collective bands in deformed nuclei, including the $`\beta `$\- excited bands, will be the subject of forthcoming work.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to P. Van Isacker for stimulating discussions and D. N. Kadrev for the help in collecting the experimental data. This work has been supported by the Bulgarian National Fund for Scientific Research under contract no MU–F–02/98.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. The theoretical energy splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ \[Eq. (22)\] is plotted as a two-dimensional function of the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ for $`g_1=1`$, $`g_2=0.2`$ and $`g_3=0.25`$.

Figure 2. The theoretical energy splitting ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ \[Eq. (92)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=2,4\mathrm{}12`$ with $`g_1=1`$, $`g_2=0.2`$ and $`g_3=0.25`$ in the cases: (a) $`\mu =2`$; (b) $`\mu =\lambda `$.

Figure 3. The theoretical $`R_1(2)`$ ratio \[Eq. (29)\] is plotted as a two-dimensional function of the quantum numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ for $`g_2=0.2`$ and $`g_3=0.25`$.

Figure 4. The theoretical $`R_1(L)`$ ratio \[Eq. (96)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=2,4\mathrm{}12`$ with $`g_2=0.2`$ and $`g_3=0.25`$ in the cases: (a) $`\mu =2`$; (b) $`\mu =\lambda `$.

Figure 5. The same as Fig. 3 but for the theoretical $`R_2(2)`$ ratio \[Eq. (30)\].

Figure 6. The same as Fig. 4 but for the theoretical $`R_2(L)`$ ratio \[Eq. (97)\].

Figure 7. The theoretical $`R_3(L)`$ ratio \[Eq. (98)\] is plotted as a function of the quantum number $`\lambda `$ for $`L=3,5\mathrm{}11`$ with $`g_2=0.2`$ and $`g_3=0.25`$ in the cases: (a) $`\mu =2`$; (b) $`\mu =\lambda `$.