text:
# Electron - hole asymmetry and activation energy in quantum Hall ferromagnets

\[

## Abstract

We argue that the dissipative transport in ferromagnetic quantum Hall effect liquids at $`\nu =2N+1`$ is dominated by the thermal activation of pairs consisting of an electron and an antiskyrmion (topological texture which represents a hole with ’screened’ exchange interaction), thus manifesting the lack of electron-hole symmetry in quantum Hall ferromagnets. We find that the activation energy of such a pair is not the exchange energy, but is determined by the interplay between the excess Zeeman energy of a skyrmion and the charging energy of its topological texture.

\]

Due to the electron-electron exchange interaction, the system of two-dimensional (2D) electrons filling completely an odd-integer number of spin-polarized Landau levels (LL) form an incompressible liquid with ferromagnetic properties . The incompressibility of such a liquid is usually studied experimentally by measuring the activation energy, $``$, in the dissipative part of the conductivity tensor, $`\sigma _{xx}e^{/2T}`$. The activation energy (at, for instance, $`\nu =1`$) reflects the enhancement of a gap in the excitation spectrum of quantum Hall ferromagnets (QHF’s), as compared to the bare Zeeman energy of 2D electrons, $`\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}`$. For a long time, it was believed  that the experimentally observed $``$ is nothing but the activation energy, $`\mathrm{}_0`$, of a pair consisting of a free electron and a hole at the filled spin-polarized Landau level, which is determined by the intra-LL exchange interaction ($`\mathrm{}_0=𝑑zV(\lambda \sqrt{2z})e^z\sqrt{\pi /2}(e^2/\lambda \chi )`$ for $`\nu =1`$, $`\lambda =\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$).

However, there is growing experimental evidence that the energy required for activation of a dissipative current in QHF’s in 2D systems with a reduced value of bare Zeeman splitting is much less than $`\mathrm{}_0`$. The accumulation of this evidence is accompanied by extensive theoretical studies of skyrmions  \- charge carriers whose exchange interaction with the ground state electrons is ’screened’ by a topologically stable spin polarization texture. For $`\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{}_0`$, the activation energy of a skyrmion - antiskyrmion pair is determined by a smaller inter-LL exchange energy ($`\mathrm{}_i=𝑑zV(\lambda \sqrt{2z})e^z\mathrm{L}_1(z)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\pi /2}(e^2/\lambda \chi )`$ for $`\nu =1`$), which is the result of a local twist of the spin-polarization field and requires the mixing of different Landau levels.

Nevertheless, even despite the factor of two reduction, the activation energy of a skyrmion-antiskirmion pair is too large to explain the experimentally observed tendency  of a gap in quantum Hall ferromagnets with a small Zeeman energy to diminish, when $`\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}0`$. In the present paper, we propose an alternative scenario for the activation of charge carriers in QHF’s by exploiting the lack of electron-hole symmetry in such a system. Below, we argue that a dissipative current in QHF’s (in the thermodynamic limit) is provided by thermal activation of a couple consisting of one single-particle electron and an antiskyrmion (the latter represents a hole with an exchange interaction ’screened’ by a topological texture). Such an asymmetric pair has activation energy

$$=a\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}^{1/3}E_\mathrm{C}^{2/3}\mathrm{ln}^{1/3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_i}{E_\mathrm{C}^{2/3}\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}^{1/3}}\right),E_\mathrm{C}=\frac{e^2}{\chi \lambda },$$
(1)
(with$`a0.9`$), which is much smaller than even the inter-LL exchange energy. The same quantity, $``$ also determines the jump in the chemical potential of the 2D system across the unit filling factor. Together with the idea of the electron-’hole’ asymmetry, Eq. (1) for the transport activation energy represents the main result of this paper.

First, we would like to comment on the idea of the electron-hole asymmetry of thermodynamic properties of the QHF. When analyzing QHF’s, it is very tempting to restrict the microscopic analysis to only a couple of spin-split Landau levels  (spin-up/down $`n=0`$ for $`\nu =1`$). After such a premature projection onto the lowest LL, the symmetry between a single-particle electron at the excited-spin LL and a hole at a completely filled one is artificially created, and it dominates in the further analysis making all thermodynamic properties of a liquid symmetric ad hoc with respect to the electron-hole transformation. In particular, this places the energies of an electron/hole and also of a pair of a skyrmion and antiskyrnion symmetric with respect to the chemical potential of a liquid, which has, then, to be placed half-way between the energies of equivalent spin-split carriers. However, a more cautious analysis of the skyrmionic texture energy requires the mixing of Landau levels by the gradients of the exchange field and cannot be obtained without consistently taking into account other LL’s. Taking account of the higher LL’s can be done following various roots, and it results in both spin rigidity of a polarized liquid and in a topological term in its energy which strongly distinguishes between skyrmionic excitations corresponding to the addition or subtraction of a physical electron.

The formation of a skyrmion aims to reduce the exchange energy of a charged carrier (an electron or a hole at the filled LL) by smoothly adjusting the spinor wave functions of neighboring electrons in such a way that in the locally rotated spin-coordinate system there would be one completely filled spin-polarized LL. We describet he transformation $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi (𝐫)\\ 0\end{array}\right)=U(𝐫)\psi (𝐫)`$ to the local spin-coordinate system, where the spin-density matrix is diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1+\sigma ^3)/2`$, using unitary rotations, $`U`$ from the group U(2) . After such a tranformation, the LL in the rotated spin-coordinate system have to be slightly modified by taking into account an additional non-Abelian gauge field,

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫)=U(𝐫)\left(i\stackrel{}{}U^{}(𝐫)\right)\left(i\stackrel{}{}U(𝐫)\right)U^{}(𝐫),$$
(2)
which has all three independent spin-matrix components: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫)=\stackrel{}{a}^\alpha \sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\sigma ^{1,2,3}`$ stand for Pauli matrices). One of those three, defined as $`\stackrel{}{a}^3(𝐫)=\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫))`$, produces the same effect, as an additional ’magnetic field’ ,

$$b=\frac{c}{e}\left[_xa_y^3_ya_x^3\right]=i\frac{c}{e}\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }[\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_y]\right),$$
(3)
which changes the capacity to accommodate electrons in one ’gauge-transformed’ LL (as compared to a homogeneously polarized one) by $`q=\rho (𝐫)𝑑𝐫`$ real particles, where

$$\rho =\frac{\theta i}{2\pi }\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }[\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_y]\right),\mathrm{and}\theta =\frac{eB_z}{\left|eB_z\right|}.$$
(4)
The latter relation takes into account whether the additional field $`b`$ should be added, or subtracted from the external magnetic field value, which is the the first indication the ’electron’-’hole’ symmetry in the system is violated. Note that, for the reversed-spin LL in the rotated frame, the same $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(r)`$ of the same texture in $`U(𝐫)`$ produces the opposite effect, so that the total number of states available at one LL remains the same ($`\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$).

The texture with $`q=1`$ corresponds to one added particle and represents an electron with ’screened’ exchange interaction (skyrmion); $`q=1`$ is analogous to a ’hole’ (antiskyrmion). Both of them are topologically stable textures in the local spin-polarization field of a liquid, $`n^\alpha =\mathrm{tr}(U\sigma ^\alpha U^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which can be classified using the homotopy group $`\pi _2(\mathrm{U}(2)/[\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(1)])`$, that is, using the index of mapping of a 2D plane onto a unit sphere,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫}{8\pi }ϵ^{\beta \gamma \delta }ϵ_{zij}n^\beta _in^\gamma _jn^\delta }=\theta q.`$

The presence of a spurious gauge field $`\stackrel{}{a}^\alpha `$ also affects the energy of a liquid, due to the exchange interaction, and it results in two contributions to the energy of a twisted texture. One is generated by off-diagonal components $`\stackrel{}{a}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}^2`$ of the gauge field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Since, in the rotated coordinate system, the Landau level is full and the liquid is polarized along the axis $`𝐥_3`$, these two components enter only as perturbations in the second order, $`\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(1\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)`$, thus producing the spin-rigidity term in the energy. This term always increases the energy of a liquid when the texture is deformed. The other contribution comes from the diagonal (in the $`𝐥_3`$-basis) component of the non-Abelian gauge, and, as a diagonal term, it depends on the sign of the ’magnetic field’ $`b`$. In fact, what matters is whether the exchange field of a texture tends to twirl electrons in the same direction as the external field $`B_z`$, or opposite to it. Since the relative signs of $`b`$ and $`B_z`$ determine whether the texture carries extra electrons, this generates the ’electron’-’hole’ asymmetry for excitations in QHF’s and makes an additional difference between the energy shift of a polarized liquid upon adding or subtracting a real particle (electron).

In the following, we focus our attention on a single-carrier texture and study its energy using the standard root  of the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation applied to the partition function, $`𝒵=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/T}`$ of the interacting electron gas,

$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝔇\psi 𝔇\psi ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{T}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau E_{\mathrm{int}}\right\}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\psi ^{}\left(_\tau \mu +H_0\frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}}{2}\sigma ^z\right)\psi }`$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(i\stackrel{}{}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}\stackrel{}{A})^2,\beta =T^1,\mathrm{}=1,`$
$`E_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}V(𝐫𝐫^{})\psi _\alpha ^{}(𝐫)\psi _\alpha (𝐫)\psi _\beta ^{}(𝐫^{})\psi _\beta (𝐫^{})},`$
where $`\mu `$ is chemical potential placed somewhere in the gap of the single-particle excitation spectrum of the system, fields $`\psi `$ obey anti-periodic boundary conditions, as a function of imaginary time $`\tau `$, and $`V>0`$. Then, we expand the thermodynamic potential, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=E\mu N`$ with respect to the non-Abelian gauge field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i(𝐫)`$ and its derivatives. The whole procedure is equivalent to the self-consistent Hartree-Fock calculation, and the only, but essential difference of this work from what has been published earlier is that (i) we do not assume a premature projection of electron states onto the lowest Landau level, and (ii) after we find the presence of a topological term in the energy, we take it seriously.

The Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation reduces functional integration over fermionic fields to the functional integration over the exchange mean field $`Q(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})`$, $`Q^{}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=Q(𝐫^{},𝐫)`$:

$`e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau H_{\mathrm{int}}}}={\displaystyle DQe^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}F_{\mathrm{HS}}}}}`$

where

$`F_{\mathrm{HS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_0}{2}}\mathrm{tr}Q(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})Q^{}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})`$
$`+\sqrt{\mathrm{}_0V(𝐫𝐫^{})}\psi _\alpha ^{}(𝐫)Q_{\alpha \beta }(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})\psi _\beta (𝐫^{}).`$
After integrating out fermions, the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be represented in the form of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\frac{\mathrm{}_0}{2}Q(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})Q^{}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left\{H_0+\sqrt{\mathrm{}_0V(𝐫𝐫^{})}Q(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})\right\},`$
where Tr stands for the complete trace, including spatial and imaginary time integrations of a properly ordered product of matrices . For comparison, in a homogeneously polarized liquid, without taking into account the possibility to form topological textures, thermodynamic potential is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=|\epsilon _Z|N_\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{}_0N_\mathrm{h}\mu \left[N_\mathrm{e}N_\mathrm{h}\right].$$
(5)
When studying the textured state, we use the saddle-point method to find the value of a matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=U(𝐫)Q(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})U^{}(𝐫^{})`$, which describes the exchange within one completely filled LL in the rotated spin-frame. The use of a saddle-point $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ enables us to calculate the exchange part of the thermodynamic potential of the sea of electrons,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}}{T}}={\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\frac{\mathrm{}_0}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})}`$

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left\{_\tau \mu +H_0+H_\mathrm{\Omega }+\sqrt{\mathrm{}_0V(𝐫𝐫^{})}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})\right\}`$

for a given texture with a given number of added or missing particles, $`q`$. The non-Abelian gauge field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ determined by the texture is included into the perturbation term,

$`H_\mathrm{\Omega }=U(𝐫)H_0U^{}(𝐫)H_0=U(𝐫)[H_0,U^{}(𝐫)].`$

The saddle point equation for the exchange field of a full LL in the rotated spin-coordinate system can be obtained after applying the variational principle to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\tau ;𝐫,𝐫^{})=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{V(𝐫𝐫^{})}{\mathrm{}_0}}}G(\tau ,𝐱;\tau +0,𝐱^{}),`$

and, then, solved perturbatively by expanding the Green function, $`G\left[_\tau \mu +H_0+H_\mathrm{\Omega }+\sqrt{\mathrm{}_0V(𝐫𝐫^{})}\stackrel{~}{Q}\right]^1`$ over$`H_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An intermediate step of such a calculation, which is completely equivalent to the Hartree-Fock procedure, can be schematically represented as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}}{T}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(H_\mathrm{\Omega }G_0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(H_\mathrm{\Omega }G_0H_\mathrm{\Omega }G_0\right)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{tr}\left\{\left(G_0H_\mathrm{\Omega }G_0\right)_{\tau 𝐫,\tau 𝐫^{}}V(𝐫𝐫^{})\left(G_0H_\mathrm{\Omega }G_0\right)_{\tau 𝐫^{},\tau 𝐫}\right\}},`$

where $`G_0`$ is the electron Green function in a system with one completely filled homogeneously polarized LL  and indices after brackets indicate the ’outer’ coordinates/time, whereas inside each product the full integration is assumed. For the sake of convenience, we shall use the basis of LL’s and inter-Landau level operators $`a_{}=(p_x\pm i\theta p_y)\lambda /\sqrt{2}`$ (where $`\stackrel{}{p}=i\stackrel{}{}e\stackrel{}{A}/c`$, and $`\theta =eB_z/\left|eB_z\right|`$ indicates the direction of cyclotron rotation of a carrier), so that

$`H_\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _\mathrm{c}\left\{a_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_+a_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\right\},`$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=U(𝐫)[a_{},U^{}(𝐫)]=(\mathrm{\Omega }_x\pm i\theta \mathrm{\Omega }_y)\lambda /\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\omega _\mathrm{c}=|eB_z|/mc`$.

Using integral properties of Hermitian polynomials and recursion relations for Laguerre polynomials, $`\mathrm{L}_N^m`$, one finally arrives (for $`\omega _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$) at

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2\pi \lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\right)}`$

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫}{2\pi }\left\{\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(1\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)+\theta i\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }[\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_y]\right)\right\}}`$

where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the inter-LL exchange, which can be also calculated for larger odd-integer filling factors, $`\nu =2K+1`$, as

$`\mathrm{}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dzV(\lambda \sqrt{2z})e^z\times `$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \underset{M=K,K+1}{}}M\left[\mathrm{L}_M(z)\mathrm{L}_K^1(z)\mathrm{L}_{M1}(z)\mathrm{L}_{K1}^1(z)\right]\right\}`$
For the sake of a single-charged texture analysis, we use the parametrization $`U=\left(1+|w|^2\right)^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}w& 1\\ 1& w^{}\end{array}\right)`$ of a unitary matrix ($`w`$ can be related to the polarization vector as $`w=(n^x+in^y)/(1n^z)`$), and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ takes the form of a conformally-invariant Belavin-Polyakov (BP) action ,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫}{2\pi }\frac{|\stackrel{}{}w|^2+\theta i(_xw_yw^{}_yw_xw^{})}{\left(1+|w|^2\right)^2}}.`$

When the latter is taken alone, it is minimized  by the classical BP skyrmion, $`w_0=\left(x+i\theta qy\right)/R`$, where $`R`$ is the texture radius, and for one texture carrying $`q=1`$, or $`q=1`$ real particles,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}=\frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2}\left[|q|+q\right].$$
(6)
We would like to emphasize that the above calculation results in only one part of the total thermodynamic potential of the electron liquid, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=E\mu N`$: namely, the exchange energy of a texture. Since the total number of particles in the liquid is changed by the texture, an extra term $`\mu q`$ has to be added to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ in order to obtain the actual $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Besides that, the ’excess’ charge density, $`\rho `$ carried by the texture with $`R\lambda `$ is formed by many electrons, so that the thermodynamic potential has to be completed by the direct Coulomb energy term ,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\chi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\frac{\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi e^2}{\chi R}},\xi {\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{64}}.`$

One also has to bring forward the excess Zeeman energy of a texture,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{Z}=\frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}}{2}(1n^z)\frac{d𝐫}{2\pi \lambda ^2}=\frac{d𝐫}{2\pi }\frac{|\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}|/\lambda ^2}{\left(1+|w|^2\right)}.$$
(7)
Since, for the BP skyrmion solution, $`w_0`$, the integral in Eq. (7) logarithmically diverges at long distances, one has to study a modification of a topological texture by a conformally non-invariant $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{Z}`$. To that end, we expand the space of functions $`w`$ onto $`w=(x+i\theta qy)/[Rf(r)]`$, which incorporates a smooth cut-off function $`f(r)<1`$, $`f(0)=1`$ and $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$, and has the same topological charge $`q=\pm 1`$ and nominal radius $`R`$, as $`w_0`$. We find the cut-off function $`f(r)`$ by minimizing the functional$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{Z}`$ with respect to $`f(r)`$, which results in $`f(r>R)zK_1(z)`$, where $`z=(r/\lambda )\sqrt{2\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}/\mathrm{}_i}`$ and $`K_1`$ is the Bessel function, and gives us the minimal value for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{Z}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2}}\left[|q|+q\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{\lambda }}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{}_i}{\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}R^2/\lambda ^2}}\right),`$

where $`\eta =2e^{2C}`$, $`C`$ is the Euler number.

As the last step, we find the radius, $`R`$ of a texture by optimising the sum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ex}}+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{Z}(R)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{C}(R)`$ for a given $`q`$, so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\lambda }}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi E_\mathrm{C}}{\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_i\eta /\xi ^{2/3}}{E_\mathrm{C}^{2/3}\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}^{1/3}}}\right)^{1/3},`$

and we find that for a liquid with $`N_1`$ skyrmions and $`N_1`$ antiskyrmion the thermodynamic potential is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{q=\pm 1}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_i}{2}\left[|q|+q\right]+|q|\mu q\right)N_q,=\frac{3\xi }{2}\frac{e^2}{\chi R}.$$
(8)
Now, we can study the energy, $`E`$ of the QHF with a small number of charged excitations of all types: $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ single-particle (un-screened) electrons, $`N_\mathrm{h}`$ ’plain’ holes, $`N_1`$ skyrmions and$`N_1`$ anti-skyrmions (screened holes) added to exactly $`\nu =2N+1`$ state under the electrical neutrality condition, $`N_\mathrm{e}+N_1=N_\mathrm{h}+N_1`$. Using expressions in Eqs. (5),(8) and the fact that $`N=N_\mathrm{e}+N_1N_\mathrm{h}N_1=0`$, we find that

$$E=\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}N_\mathrm{e}+N_1+(\mathrm{}_i+)N_1+\mathrm{}_0N_\mathrm{h}.$$
(9)
The latter equation shows that when, formally, $`<\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`R\lambda `$ (which is a stronger restriction), the activation energy of a neutral pair of charged carriers in the thermodynamic limit is equal to $``$ and is determined by the thermally activated pair consisting of an electron and an antiskyrmion. Under the approximation specified above, this activation energy depends on the inter-LL exchange energy only weakly, that is, it is almost insensitive to the extent of the electron wave function across the heterostructure or quantum well, and also to the number $`K`$ of the highest occupied Landau level in the QHF ($`\nu =2K+1`$). The same energy parameter also determines the jump of the chemical potential of a liquid  upon the variation of the filling factor across the integer value. The result specified in Eq. (1) agrees with the activation transport gaps measured in heterostructures with a vanishing Zeeman splitting . It also explains a small value of $``$ observed in narrow quantum wells , where the limit $`\epsilon _\mathrm{Z}=0`$ is partly hindered by spin-orbit coupling effects . However, the energy factors which determine dynamical properties of QHF’s may differ very strongly and require a further analysis.

Authors thank R.Nicholas, A.MacDonald, N.Cooper and I.Kukushkin for discussions. This work was supported by EPSRC, NATO CLG and EU High Field ICN.


format: text

text:
# Shear-induced vortex decoupling in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystals

## Abstract

Simultaneous transport and magnetization studies in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystals at elevated currents reveal large discrepancies, including finite resistivity at temperatures of 40K below the magnetic irreversibility line. This resistivity, measured at the top surface, is non-monotonic in temperature and extremely non-linear. The vortex velocity derived from magnetization is six orders of magnitude lower than the velocity derived from simultaneous transport measurements. The new findings are ascribed to a shear-induced decoupling, in which the pancake vortices flow only in the top few CuO2 planes, and are decoupled from the pinned vortices in the rest of the crystal.

Transport measurements are one of the most common methods to study vortex dynamics in superconductors. The derived resistivity $`\rho `$ describes the vortex motion as a function of temperature, field, and the applied current. In high-temperature superconductors the situation is more complicated due to their high anisotropy and layered structure. The corresponding resistivity has two main components, the in-plane resistivity $`\rho _{ab}`$ and the out-of-plane $`\rho _c`$, with typical ratio of $`\rho _c/\rho _{ab}10^4`$ in the normal state of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 (BSCCO) crystals . As a result, the measured resistance $`R`$ is a non-trivial function of sample geometry and contact configuration , which is further significantly complicated by the nonlinear current dependence of $`\rho _{ab}`$ and $`\rho _c`$. Yet it is generally assumed that the physical mechanism that governs the dissipation can be described in terms of current density, namely, the local values of $`\rho _{ab}`$ and $`\rho _c`$ are determined  by the corresponding in-plane and out-of-plane current densities $`j_{ab}`$ and $`j_c`$ (ignoring possible nonlocal effects ). In this paper we demonstrate that in highly anisotropic materials like BSCCO this assumption may not be valid. We find that at elevated currents an additional new term, the c-axis gradient of the in-plane current $`dj_{ab}/dz`$, becomes the dominant parameter in the description of the local dissipation. This current gradient induces large velocity gradients $`dv_{ab}/dz`$ of the pancake vortices in the different CuO2 planes, leading to their decoupling and to corresponding dramatic increase in $`\rho _c`$ and anisotropy $`\gamma `$. In the presence of inhomogeneous currents, this mechanism results in fundamental changes in the transport behavior, including large measurable reentrant resistance well below the magnetically determined irreversibility line (IL).

The studies were carried out on several high quality BSCCO crystals , with $`T_c90`$ K. Four wires were attached to the gold pads evaporated on freshly cleaved top ab surfaces, as shown schematically in the inset to Fig. 1a. The bottom surface of the crystals, free of electrical contacts, was attached to an array of 19 2DEG Hall sensors , $`30\times 30`$ $`\mu m^2`$ each, allowing simultaneous resistance $`R`$ and local magnetization measurements in the presence of transport current. In addition, several crystals were irradiated by very low doses of 5.8 GeV Pb ions to produce columnar defects with concentrations corresponding to matching fields of $`B_\varphi `$ = 5, 20, and 60 G. In order to focus on bulk vortex dynamics and to avoid complications due to surface barriers , most of the samples were prepared in a form of large square platelets with electrical contacts positioned far from the edges . Some of the crystals were cut into strip shape for comparison. Although detailed behavior varies from sample to sample, the qualitative features described below were observed in all the samples regardless of the surface barriers and the irradiation doses. Here we present data for as-grown crystal A of size $`1700\times 1300\times 10\mu m^3`$, which was subsequently cut into a strip, and for an irradiated crystal B $`1000\times 700\times 30\mu m^3`$ with $`B_\varphi `$ = 60 G.

Our main general observation is displayed in Fig. 1. Figure 1a shows the $`R(T)`$ of the unirradiated crystal A at various applied fields $`H_a`$ c-axis at elevated applied current of 30 mA. At lower currents, that are usually used in transport studies, $`R(T)`$ behaves monotonically with temperature as shown for comparison by the dashed line in Fig. 1a for 10 mA at 500 Oe. However, when $`I_a`$ is increased we find surprisingly a very pronounced reentrant behavior, in which $`R(T)`$ reaches a minimum at some characteristic temperature $`T_{min}`$, but then increases again, often by more than an order of magnitude, at lower $`T`$. At 100 Oe a sharp drop in $`R(T)`$ is observed at the first-order melting transition (FOT), $`T_m`$, followed

by a monotonic resistive tail in the quasi-ordered-lattice phase, as described previously . At 200 Oe the behavior is still monotonic similar to 100 Oe data. At 300 Oe, however, $`R(T)`$ decreases monotonically down to our noise level at about 55 K, but then reappears again between 46 and 34 K. This reentrant behavior is strongly pronounced at 400 Oe and up to fields above 1000 Oe. In addition, a sharp discontinuity in the derivative $`dR(T)/dT`$ is often observed at $`T_{min}`$ as shown in the inset to Fig. 1b. The irradiated samples display essentially similar properties, as shown in Fig. 1b, with a few consistent differences: (i) The resistive kink at the FOT is smeared by the low dose of columnar defects, consistent with previous studies , (ii) $`T_{min}`$ is generally shifted to higher temperatures, and (iii) the anomalous behavior appears at lower currents, as shown by the 15 mA data in Fig. 1b. The general form of $`R(T)`$ in Fig. 1 is somewhat reminiscent of the “peak effect” observed  in NbSe2 near $`H_{c2}`$, or at the melting transition  in YBa2Cu3O7. The behavior reported here, however, is much broader and is of a fundamentally different nature.

In the unirradiated crystals the reentrant features usually appear above 25 mA, close to our upper bound of 30 mA, limited by the contact resistance. The enhanced pinning in the irradiated samples causes the anomalous behavior to begin at $`I_a`$ as low as 10 mA, allowing a more systematic study. Figures 2a and 2b thus present $`R(T)`$

of crystal B at various $`I_a`$ at 200 and 500 Oe respective- ly. At low currents $`R(T)`$ is monotonic and only weakly current dependent, and has a rather well-defined temperature $`T_{R=0}`$ at which $`R(T)`$ drops below experimental resolution. All these qualities change drastically at higher currents. The appearance of non-monotonic $`R(T)`$ is accompanied by extreme non-linearity. An increase of $`I_a`$ by 30% or less may result in enhancement of $`R`$ by orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the same current increase causes a decrease of $`T_{R=0}`$ by tens of degrees K.

In order to elucidate the origin of this anomalous behavior we have carried out simultaneous local magnetization measurements in presence of $`I_a`$ as shown in Fig. 3a for $`T=30`$ K. The results seem to be paradoxical. Finite resistivity should be present only above the magnetically measured IL, which in Fig. 3a occurs above 1600 Oe. Below the IL the resistivity should be immeasurable in standard transport measurements. This is indeed the case at low $`I_a`$. However, at elevated currents, substantial $`R`$ is measured concurrently with the hysteretic magnetization well below the IL (in Fig. 3a). Figure 3b shows the corresponding field profile $`B_z(x)`$ obtained by the Hall sensors at 400 Oe on increasing and decreasing $`H_a`$ in presence of $`I_a`$. A clear Bean profile is observed . Fitting this profile to the theoretical $`B_z(x)`$ in platelet sample  results in critical current density $`J_c=2\times 10^4`$ $`A/cm^2`$, which translates into total critical current of $`I_c=4.2`$ A. Obviously, a transport current of 25 mA, which is less than 1% of $`I_c`$, cannot result in measurable resistance in the standard critical state models.

Figure 2 shows $`I_c(T)`$ determined from the Bean pro- files together with the $`R(T)`$ data. The reentrant resistance always occurs in the region where $`I_aI_c`$. We can also compare the electrical fields. In the magnetization measurements of Fig. 3 the slow sweep of $`H_a`$ of about 0.3 Oe/sec induces an average electrical field of $`4\times 10^{10}`$ V/cm in the sample, which corresponds to a very low vortex velocity of 10-4 cm/sec at 400 Oe, for example. The resistively measured electrical field, induced by the simultaneous transport current, on the other hand, is $`1.4\times 10^3`$ V/cm. This translates into vortex velocity of 350 cm/sec, which is 6 orders of magnitude higher. Clearly existence of such a high vortex flow rate induced applied by concurrently $`I_a`$ should have resulted in completely reversible magnetization, in sharp contrast to the data. So paradoxically we have a situation in which a transport current, which is two orders of magnitude lower than $`I_c`$, results in vortex velocity which is 6 orders of magnitude higher than the flux creep vortex velocity at $`I_c`$.

We emphasize that we do not observe any heating effects as confirmed by monitoring the location of the resistive transitions at $`T_c`$ and $`T_m`$ at various currents. Furthermore, and more importantly, since the two measurements are carried out simultaneously, the transport and the magnetization results should be affected by heating to the same extent, and therefore heating effects can be ruled out as a possible explanation of the observed large discrepancy between the two measurements.

We describe the observed phenomena in terms of shear-induced decoupling and shear-enhanced anisotropy. At elevated temperatures in the vortex-liquid phase the in-plane current density $`j_{ab}(z)`$ decreases approximately exponentially from the top surface to the bottom . In samples of typical dimensions the current at the bottom is about four orders of magnitude lower than at the top, due to high anisotropy $`\gamma `$ of BSCCO. As $`T`$ is decreased the pinning becomes more effective. At some temperature the current density at the bottom becomes comparable or lower than $`J_c`$. As a result the vortices at the bottom stop moving or reduce their velocity substantially, whereas the vortices at the top maintain their high velocity since the current density there is significantly above $`J_c`$. As a result, the velocity gradient between the planes $`dv_{ab}/dz`$ is increased. The thickness of the vortex pinned layer grows as $`T`$ is decreased resulting in progressively larger velocity gradients within the vortex mobile part at the top. The enhanced $`dv_{ab}/dz`$ results, in turn, in shear-induced phase slippage between the adjacent CuO2 planes reducing the Josephson coupling and leading to decoupling of the planes . As a result the $`\rho _c`$, and hence the measured $`R`$, are increased significantly causing the reentrant $`R(T)`$. This process is highly nonlinear, since larger $`I_a`$ results in larger $`dj_{ab}/dz`$, causing an increase in $`\rho _c`$ and $`\gamma `$, which lead in turn to even shallower current profile and thus extremely nonlinear $`R(I)`$. Since the onset of the enhanced shear is induced by pinning, low dose irradiation causes the anomalous behavior to set in at higher $`T`$ and lower $`I_a`$ as seen in Fig. 1. It is important to realize that the enhanced $`\rho _c`$ prevents the lower vortex pinned region from effectively shunting the current. In the case of full decoupling, for example, $`\rho _c`$ becomes comparable to the normal state $`\rho _c`$, which in BSCCO crystals of typical dimensions results in about $`10^4`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ resistance between two adjacent CuO2 planes. Thus the serial c-axis resistance of several decoupled layers in the upper part of the sample can be of the order of $`10^3`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, thus effectively insulating the lower zero-resistance region. Any velocity gradient $`dv_{ab}/dz`$ should, in principle, completely decouple the layers, since the time-averaged Josephson phase difference reduces to zero. More detailed analysis , however, shows that the pancake shear occurs through a ‘stick - slip’ process, which retains a finite Josephson coupling at low $`dv_{ab}/dz`$. Thus the Josephson current between the layers can be sustained at low $`dv_{ab}/dz`$, and is lost at higher rates of pancake shear.

The described mechanism is conceptually different from conventional electrodynamics in which the dissipation is determined only by the local vortex velocity, and not by the velocity gradient. The underlying physics is also very different from the process of nonlocal resistivity , in which a force applied to a pancake vortex results in a nonlocal drag of pancakes in adjacent layers. This drag, which is proportional  to $`d^2v_{ab}/dz^2`$, induces a more uniform vortex flow, in contrast to the described shear-induced decoupling which has an opposite effect of amplification of the velocity differences.

Since in most of the crystal thickness the vortices are

pinned, Bean profiles are obtained in the bulk upon sweeping $`H_a`$ (Fig. 3b). At the same time the transport current confined to the top planes is sufficient to create vortex flow in these planes, resulting in a measurable voltage drop, and explaining the apparent discrepancy between the transport and magnetization data. A similar mechanism probably occurs when the c-axis properties are probed by transverse ac susceptibility and transport in the zero-field-cooled state as reported previously . Our model also explains the hysteretic $`R(H)`$ in Fig. 3a. The field $`B`$ in the top planes is determined by the hysteretic Bean profile in the rest of the crystal. As a result, the measured $`R(H_a)`$ displays hysteresis, even though the vortices are mobile in the top planes. Consequently, this apparent hysteresis practically disappears when $`R`$ is plotted vs. the average field $`B`$ measured by the sensors, rather than vs. $`H_a`$.

Figure 4 summarizes the $`BT`$ diagram of sample A at 30 mA. A similar diagram is obtained for the irradiated crystal B. The resistance vanishes within our resolution at $`T_{R=0}`$, the position of which is highly current-dependent. The resistively determined FOT extends to fields of about 500 Oe in this sample. The anomalous reentrant $`R(T)`$ is observed in the broad region between $`T_{R=0}`$ and $`T_{min}`$, where vortices are pinned in the bulk. It is interesting to note that the decoupling process occurs first in the entangled vortex-solid phase above 500 Oe, where vortex cutting is apparently relatively easy. As $`I_a`$ is increased, the shear-induced decoupling expands also into the quasi-ordered-lattice phase below $`T_m`$ as is the case in Fig. 4. The non-linearities expand also partially into the liquid phase above $`T_{min}`$ and $`T_m`$, where the shear process can still modify $`\rho _c`$ at higher currents.

One can evaluate the number of the CuO2 planes participating in the flow of vortex pancakes. In Fig. 2b at 30 K, for example, the total critical current determined from the Bean profiles is $`I_c=3.7A`$. This translates into critical current of about 0.18 mA per (double) CuO2 plane of the sample. Thus, the top 140 planes would be sufficient to carry the entire $`I_a`$=25mA without observable dissipation. In order to obtain the large measured resistance the actual current in the planes has to be significantly above 0.18 mA. Furthermore, the lower part of the sample also carries a substantial portion of $`I_a`$. We therefore conclude that only a few tens of CuO2 planes at the top of the crystal participate in the described process. Current-induced decoupling was recently analyzed theoretically in absence of Josephson coupling . It was found that above some critical value of the current applied to the top plane, slippage between magnetically coupled planes occurs, leading to an abrupt increase in the vortex velocity in the top plane. Since in this model $`\rho _c`$ is infinite, there is no corresponding current redistribution. Computer simulations  of Josephson-coupled planes also show sharp current-induced decoupling. Vortex cutting was also observed in YBCO crystals at elevated currents in flux transformer measurements . The much lower anisotropy of YBCO, however, causes only a small change in the transport properties. In BSCCO in contrast the shear-induced decoupling leads to variations by orders of magnitude in the observed behavior.

In conclusion, we reveal large apparent discrepancies between simultaneously measured magnetization and transport properties, which reveal an important feature of vortex dynamics in the presence of inhomogeneous currents. In layered superconductors at elevated currents the c-axis resistivity becomes a strong function of the local current gradient $`dj_{ab}/dz`$, instead of being determined just by the current density. This mechanism results in a highly nonlinear reentrant resistance well below the irreversibility line.

This work was supported by Israel Ministry of Science, by US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), by CREST, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Japan.


text:
# One loop renormalisation of Lattice NRQCD currents for semileptonic 𝐵→𝐷^(∗) decays to order 𝑝⃗/𝑀

## I Introduction

Forthcoming $`B`$ physics experiments such as BaBar, Belle, CLEO III and LHC-b will greatly improve the accuracy with which we know the rates of different decay modes of the B meson, allowing improved determinations of the CKM matrix elements involving the $`b`$ quark. The exclusive decay $`\overline{B}Dl\overline{\nu }`$ gives access to $`V_{cb}`$. For example, at BaBar  the decay amplitude at zero recoil will be determined with a statistical error of less than 2% and with similar level of systematic errors, a factor of three improvement over CLEO and LEP data. In order to extract $`V_{cb}`$ we must divide out the form factor at zero recoil, introducing associated theoretical uncertainties. The form factors for $`BD`$ decays are calculable within lattice QCD *** There are a number of recent reviews of the status of lattice calculations , and it will be highly challenging for the community to produce model independent predictions of the form factors with sufficient statistical and systematic precision that theoretical uncertainty matches the improved experimental data.

The decay amplitudes can be factorised into hadronic form factors and perturbative electroweak terms as follows:

$$M(BD^{()}l^{}\overline{\nu })=\frac{iG_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}\overline{u}_l\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)v_\nu H^{\mu ^{()}},$$
(1)
where

$$H^\mu =D(p^{})|V^\mu |B(p)=f_+(q^2)(p+p^{})^\mu +f_{}(q^2)(pp^{})^\mu ,$$
(2)
$$H^\mu ^{}=D^{}(p^{},ϵ)|V^\mu A^\mu |B(p)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{2iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{M_B+M_D^{}}ϵ_\nu ^{}p_\alpha ^{}p_\beta V(q^2)\\ (M_B+M_D^{})ϵ^\mu A_1(q^2)\\ +\frac{ϵ^{}q}{M_B+M_D^{}}(p+p^{})^\mu A_2(q^2)\end{array}\right\}.$$
(3)
These are often reparametrised in terms of form factors in the heavy quark effective theory,

$$D(p^{})|V^\mu |B(p)=\sqrt{M_BM_D}\left\{h_+(vv^{})(v+v^{})^\mu +h_{}(vv^{})(vv^{})^\mu \right\}$$
(4)
$$D^{}(p^{},ϵ)|V^\mu A^\mu |B(p)=\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_\nu ^{}v_\alpha ^{}v_\beta h_V(vv^{})\\ ϵ^\mu (vv^{}+1)h_{A_1}(vv^{})\\ +ϵ^{}vv^\mu h_{A_2}(vv^{})\\ +ϵ^{}vv^\mu h_{A_3}(vv^{})\end{array}\right\}$$
(5)
The weak (vector and axial) currents in a lattice-regulated theory differ from the continuum $`\overline{MS}`$ currents via their different ultra-violet cut-offs. A correction between the results in the two regularisation schemes is therefore required in order to use simulated lattice hadronic currents in the more commonly quoted continuum $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme. Lattice QCD and $`\overline{MS}`$ have the same infra-red behaviour, so that these correction factors should be dominated by the differing ultra-violet behaviour and one expects that these corrections are calculable within perturbation theory. Knowledge of these renormalisation constants enables the various elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa weak mixing matrix to be probed using experimental decay rates and lattice calculations of hadronic matrix elements in conjunction with standard electroweak perturbation theory.

This paper aims to make possible the accurate determination of $`BD`$ matrix elements by showing how to construct the $`\overline{MS}`$ currents when using the $`O(\frac{1}{M})`$ lattice NRQCD action to simulate both the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quarks. We perturbatively match the corrections to the weak currents between on-shell quark states in lattice NRQCD to the same current in continuum $`\overline{MS}`$ with fully relativistic quarks, working consistently to $`O(\frac{1}{M})`$ throughout. The paper will be constructed as follows: in Section II we will present the one loop correction to the continuum current evaluated between an incoming $`b`$ quark and outgoing $`c`$ quark, retaining all terms to order $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}`$. This is matched to continuum Euclidean NRQCD to $`O(\frac{1}{M})`$, giving a basis of continuum NRQCD operators for each of the currents $`V_0`$, $`V_k`$, $`A_0`$, $`A_k`$. In Section III we select a basis of operators in the Lattice theory and define the one-loop mixing matrix, giving the projection of each element of a basis for a given Lattice current at one loop on the basis of continuum NRQCD operators. Finally, we use these results to construct relativistic $`\overline{MS}`$ currents to this order from lattice operators in Section IV.

## II Continuum Calculation

We require the continuum renormalisation of the Vector and Axial currents involving an incoming $`b`$ quark with momentum $`p`$ and outgoing $`c`$ quark with momentum $`p^{}`$, i.e. $`\overline{u}_c(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }u_b(p)`$, where either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$. At one loop the graphs in Figures 1 to 3 contribute. The calculation was performed in Minkowski space using dimensional regularisation in Feynman gauge, the on-shell $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, and having introduced a fictitious gluon mass $`\lambda `$ to regulate infra-red divergences. The treatment allowed for non-zero external momenta, keeping terms linear in $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}`$ and $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{M}`$.

In general, we write the perturbative expansion of some quantity, $`Q`$, as

$$Q=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q^{[k]}\alpha _s^k.$$
(6)
We write the Feynman graph in Figure 1 as $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}}`$ and the leg corrections in Figures 2 and 3 as $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_{\psi _b}^{[1]}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha _s\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_{\psi _c}^{[1]}`$ respectively. Dropping the external spinors, the total current correction may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha _s\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }Z_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+\frac{1}{2}Z_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\right],$$
(7)
Here both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[1]}}`$, and $`Z_\psi `$ contain (cancelling) infra-red divergences of modulus $`\frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }4\mathrm{log}\frac{\lambda }{M}`$. The result is IR-finite, and we obtain that the $`\overline{MS}`$ current to one loop and $`O(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M})`$ is as follows  It is worth noting here that at higher orders in the $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}`$expansion the coefficients $`C_i`$ become functions of the recoil $`\omega =\frac{pp^{}}{m_cm_b}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=C_1\gamma ^\mu +C_2\frac{p^\mu }{m_b}+C_3\frac{p^\mu }{m_c}$$
(8)
where,

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi +2𝒞6\right]`$ (9)
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(1\xi )^2}}+2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\xi 3}{(1\xi )^3}}+𝒞\left\{2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^3}}\right\}\right]`$ (10)
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}+4\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^3}}+𝒞\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi ^2}{(1\xi )^2}}+2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{13\xi }{(1\xi )^3}}\right\}\right]`$ (11)
and

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\xi =\frac{m_c}{m_b}& ,& 𝒞=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& ;\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^\mu \hfill \\ 1& ;\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\hfill \end{array}& ,& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& ;\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^\mu \hfill \\ \gamma _5& ;\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(12)
The Gordon decomposition of the spinor gives that, for $`m_c=m_b`$,

$$\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu u=\frac{(p+p^{})^\mu }{2m}\overline{u}u$$
(13)
and so the Vector current between degenerate quarks is, of course, not renormalised.

In order to match these currents with Euclidean lattice NRQCD currents we first analytically continue this result to Euclidean space, then apply the Foldy-Wouthuysen expansion of the external spinors  to the appropriate order, taking care with the Euclideanised $`\gamma `$-matrices.

### A Analytic Continuation

We define the Euclideanisation as follows. Denoting the Minkowski gamma matrices and four vectors with a caret, $`\widehat{\gamma }`$, so that $`\{\widehat{\gamma }_\mu ,\widehat{\gamma }_\nu \}=2g_{\mu \nu }`$, we use the Dirac-Pauli representation:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\widehat{\gamma }^0& =& \widehat{\gamma }_0& =& \left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)\\ \widehat{\gamma }^j& =& \widehat{\gamma }_j& =& \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _j\\ \sigma _j& 0\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(14)
We also define the Euclidean four vectors in terms of the contravariant and covariant Minkowski vectors as:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}x^0& =& x_0& =& i\widehat{x}^0& =& i\widehat{x}_0\\ x^j& =& x_j& =& \widehat{x}^j& =& \widehat{x}_j\end{array}$$
(15)
We introduce Euclidean $`\gamma `$ matrices such that $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\gamma ^0& =& \gamma _0& =& \widehat{\gamma }^0& =& \widehat{\gamma }_0\\ \gamma ^j& =& \gamma _j& =& i\widehat{\gamma }^j& =& i\widehat{\gamma }_j\\ \gamma _5& =& \widehat{\gamma }_5& & & & \end{array}$$
(16)
For consistent notation in Euclidean space, we define Euclidean bilinear currents in terms of the Euclidean $`\gamma `$ matrices, so that

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}A^0& =& A_0& =& \widehat{A}^0& =& \widehat{A}_0\\ A^j& =& A_j& =& i\widehat{A}^j& =& i\widehat{A}_j\\ V^0& =& V_0& =& \widehat{V}^0& =& \widehat{V}_0\\ V^j& =& V_j& =& i\widehat{V}^j& =& i\widehat{V}_j\end{array}$$
(17)
Dropping terms in $`A_k`$ which are subsequently of higher order in $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}`$, and suppressing the spinors, this gives us in Euclidean space:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V^0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 4\right]2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V^k`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^k{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 4\right]i{\displaystyle \frac{p^k}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]i{\displaystyle \frac{p^k}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{1\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }A^0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^0\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8\right]+\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[6{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}12{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }A^k`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^k\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8\right].`$ (21)
### B Non-Relativistic Expansion

We now perform the Foldy-Wouthuysen expansion of the external spinors $`u_h`$ to order $`\frac{1}{m}`$ in terms of the Euclidean $`\gamma `$ matrices to produce two component spinors $`U_Q`$:

$$u_h(p)=\left[1\frac{i}{2m}\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}\right]u_Q$$
(22)
where

$$u_Q=\left[\begin{array}{c}U_Q\\ 0\end{array}\right]$$
(23)
and $`U_Q`$ is a two component spinor, and $`m`$ is the pole mass of the quark arising from the on-shell condition (more formally, $`m`$ is the one loop pole mass whenever it appears at tree level since we are working consistently to order one loop). Inserting this in the results for the continuum renormalisation and keeping terms to order $`\frac{1}{M}`$ results in the following mixed continuum currents, with the relevant two component spinors suppressed.

$`V^0`$ $`=`$ $`1_{\mathrm{pauli}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 6\right)\right]`$ (24)
$`V^k`$ $`=`$ $`\left[i\sigma _k{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p}{2m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p^{}}{2m_c}}i\sigma _k\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 4\right)\right]`$ (27)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{p_k}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{p_k^{}}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{1\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$
$`A^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p}{2m_b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p^{}}{2m_c}}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8\right)\right]`$ (29)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p}{2m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma p^{}}{2m_c}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left[6{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}12{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$
$`A_k`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma _k\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8\right)\right]`$ (30)
We therefore define continuum Euclidean operators $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^J`$ in Table I, to which we wish to match a corresponding set of lattice operators, and use the notation

$$c(p^{})|J^{\overline{MS}}|b(p)^{1\mathrm{loop}}=\underset{\alpha }{}Z_\alpha ^{\overline{MS}}U_c^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^JU_b.$$
(31)
The vector current is a conserved current for $`m_b=m_c`$ and, for this reason, the continuum renormalisation ( factor in square brackets in (24) ) is unity in the $`\xi 1`$ limit. The operator corresponding to the temporal component of the vector current, $`1_{\mathrm{pauli}}`$, is a conserved current of both the lattice NRQCD and HQET actions, and we shall see that the corresponding lattice renormalisation is also trivial in the $`m_b=m_c`$ limit.

Unlike the lattice correction, the pure HQET contribution to the vector current renormalisation at zero recoil remains trivial with non-identical quark masses at leading order in $`\frac{1}{m_b}`$ and $`\frac{1}{m_c}`$. As a result the above expressions (24) and (30) are the same as the renormalisation at zero recoil for the continuum heavy quark effective theory, commonly referred to as $`\eta _V`$ and $`\eta _A`$ respectively . This is somewhat fortuitous since it will allow us, in section V, to use the existing result for the BLM scale $`\mu `$  for the processes contributing to expressions (24) and (30), with $`\mu _V0.92\sqrt{m_bm_c}`$ and $`\mu _A0.51\sqrt{m_bm_c}`$.

## III Lattice Calculation

### A Lattice action, currents, and Feynman rules

We use the usual Wilson plaquette action  defined in terms of the usual SU(3) gauge links $`U_\mu (x)`$, and the tadpole improved  $`O(\frac{1}{M})`$ lattice NRQCD action ,

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{\mathrm{NRQCD}}=\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)\psi ^{}(x+a\widehat{t})\left(1\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right)\left(1\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)^n\frac{U_t^{}(x)}{u_0}\left(1\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)^n\left(1\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right)\psi (x)\end{array}$$
(32)
where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2M_0}},`$ (33)
$`\delta H`$ $`=`$ $`c_B{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2M_0}}\sigma B,`$ (34)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\chi (x)=\frac{1}{u_0}\underset{i=x,y,z}{}\left(U_i(x)\chi (x+\widehat{i})+U_i^{}(x\widehat{i})\chi (x\widehat{i})2u_0\chi (x)\right),$$
(35)
and

$`B_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\left\{_{jk}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}_{jk}(x)\right\},`$ (36)
$`_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4ag^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pm \mu ,\beta =\pm \nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[P_{\alpha \beta }(x)P_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x)\right]}{2i}},`$ (37)
$`P_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_0^4}}U_\alpha (x)U_\beta (x+\widehat{\alpha })U_\alpha ^{}(x+\widehat{\beta })U_\beta ^{}(x).`$ (38)
In the final results quoted in this paper, $`u_0`$ is taken from the plaquette and to one loop order in perturbation theory $`u_0^{[1]}=\frac{\pi }{3}`$. However, sufficient information will presented to allow a reader to change these results for different values of $`u_0`$. To this order in $`\alpha _s`$ any dynamical quarks present in the simulation do not appear in the perturbation theory. This calculation is therefore applicable to both quenched and dynamical simulations. It is well known how to perform perturbative calculations of the renormalisation of weak currents in NRQCD , and the Feynman rules in the Euclidean lattice theory used here are the same as those published by Morningstar and Shigemitsu . This paper completes a programme of work previously discussed at two lattice conferences .

Inspection of the continuum currents suggests the basis for the lattice current operators given in Table II. The momentum dependent operators are reproduced on the lattice with gauge covariant derivatives,

$$_\mu \chi (x)=\frac{1}{2u_0}\left[U_\mu (x)\chi (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x\widehat{\mu })\chi (x\widehat{\mu })\right]$$
(39)
which introduces additional quark gluon vertices that are not present in the continuum theory, as well as a tadpole improvement counter term. For convenience in simulations, we define the lattice operators in terms of the bare mass, $`M_q`$. Since we require that the one-loop renormalised kinetic mass in NRQCD matches the one-loop renormalised mass in the relativistic theory Lorentz invariance implies that the kinetic and pole masses are consistent in the relativistic theory, we must introduce additional $`Z_m`$ factors for lattice currents wherever the bare mass $`M_q`$ appears at tree level. The mass ratio $`\xi `$ appears in the continuum coefficients only at order $`\alpha _s`$, and hence the bare ratio $`\frac{M_c}{M_b}`$ can be used to this order.

We have additional Feynman rules associated with the current operators involving derivatives (and hence gauge links), giving both one and two gluon couplings. The conventions for momenta involved in current insertions of an operator $`𝒪`$ both at leading order, and couplings to both 1 and 2 gluons of polarisation $`j`$ are as given in figure 4.

The Feynman rules associated with the spatial vector and temporal axial currents at the vertex are simply the insertion of the appropriate Pauli structure. The Feynman rules associated with the spatial vector current insertions are as follows

$`𝒪_1^{V_k}(\mathrm{tree})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2M_b}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{sin}k_j\sigma _k\sigma _j`$ (40)
$`𝒪_1^{V_k}(1\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2M_b}}\mathrm{cos}\left[k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_j\right]\sigma _k\sigma _j`$ (41)
$`𝒪_1^{V_k}(2\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{4M_b}}\mathrm{sin}\left[k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_{1_j}+q_{2_j})\right]\sigma _k\sigma _j`$ (42)
$`𝒪_3^{V_k}(\mathrm{tree})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{M_b}}\mathrm{sin}k_k`$ (43)
$`𝒪_3^{V_k}(1\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{M_b}}\mathrm{cos}\left[k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_j\right]\delta _{jk}`$ (44)
$`𝒪_3^{V_k}(2\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{2M_b}}\mathrm{sin}\left[k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_{1_j}+q_{2_j})\right]\delta _{jk}`$ (45)
where the 1 and 2 gluon couplings are to gluons of polarisation $`j`$.

The rules associated with the leftward derivative currents are both the obvious analogues of the above and not in fact required since the diagrams involving the second current may be switched for those of the first current with the masses swapped and momenta reversed, halving the required coding effort. The Feynman rules associated with the first temporal axial lattice current are as follows,

$`𝒪_1^{A_0}(\mathrm{tree})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_b}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{sin}k_j\sigma _j`$ (46)
$`𝒪_1^{A_0}(1\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2M_b}}\mathrm{cos}\left(k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_j\right)\sigma _j`$ (47)
$`𝒪_1^{A_0}(2\mathrm{gluon})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4M_b}}\mathrm{sin}\left(k_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_{1j}+q_{2j})\right)\sigma _j`$ (48)
while, as above, the rule for the second current is not required.

### B Mixing Matrix

We define the 1-loop mixing matrix of the lattice theory for each of the four currents $`J\{V_0,V_k,A_0,A_k\}`$ as follows:

$$c(p^{})|𝒪_\alpha ^J|b(p)^{1\mathrm{loop}}=\underset{\beta }{}_{\alpha \beta }^JU_c^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^JU_b,$$
(49)
where the range of the summation over $`\beta `$ depends on the dimension of the basis for each continuum current. To avoid ambiguity, we shall denote the symbols for lattice Feynman diagrams in bold font to differentiate them from symbols used in the continuum calculation (although the different symbols do not in fact appear in the same equations). For both the temporal vector and spatial axial currents the mixing matrix is rank one, and we have (where $`J`$ is either $`V_0`$ or $`A_k`$):

$$^J=1+\alpha _s\left[\frac{1}{2}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}+𝚲^{J[1]}\right],$$
(50)
$`𝐙_\psi ^{[1]}`$ gives the relevant leg correction, whose relation to the self energy diagram (Figure 5) is described in appendix A, where we have followed closely the conventions of Morningstar . $`𝚲^{J[1]}`$ corresponds to contributions from the Feynman diagram of Figure 6 where gluon couplings from each of the $`_t`$, $`\frac{p^2}{2m}`$, and $`\frac{\sigma 𝐁}{2m}`$ terms in the action are included at each vertex.

For the spatial vector current (and indeed the temporal axial current) the mixing matrix is non-trivial. We denote the vertex correction to each of the lattice currents $`𝒪_\alpha ^{V_k}`$ from the sum of Feynman diagrams represented in Figures 6 and 8 by $`𝚲_\alpha ^{V_k[1]}`$. At one loop the the vertex correction overlaps with each of the corresponding continuum operators, giving rise to the non-trivial mixing problem

$$𝚲_\beta ^{V_k[1]}=\underset{\beta }{}𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{V_k[1]}\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^{V_k}.$$
(51)
We resolve the Pauli and momentum structure of $`𝚲_1^{V_k[1]}`$ using the following projections with $`jk`$, then setting the spatial momenta to zero:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝚲_{11}^{V_k[1]}=2iM_b\sigma _j\sigma _k\frac{}{p_j}𝚲_1^{V_k[1]}& 𝚲_{12}^{V_k[1]}=2iM_c\sigma _k\sigma _j\frac{}{p_j^{}}𝚲_1^{V_k[1]}\\ 𝚲_{13}^{V_k[1]}=iM_b\frac{}{p_k}𝚲_1^{V_k[1]}\frac{1}{2}𝚲_{11}^{V_k[1]}& 𝚲_{14}^{V_k[1]}=iM_c\frac{}{p_k^{}}𝚲_1^{V_k[1]}\frac{1}{2}𝚲_{12}^{V_k[1]}.\end{array}$$
(52)
We may use the bare lattice mass for convenience in place of the the pole mass in these projections since we are evaluating one-loop coefficients, the difference being $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$. Mixing matrix elements $`𝚲_{2\beta }`$ are related to $`𝚲_{1\beta }`$ by $`M_bM_c`$, and it will be seen later that $`𝚲_{3\beta }`$ and $`𝚲_{4\beta }`$ are not required for our calculation. Hence we write the contributions to the mixing matrix for the spatial vector current as follows,

$$_{\alpha \beta }^{V_k}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\alpha _s\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\left\{𝐙_{m_b}^{[1]}+𝐙_{m_b}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}\right\}\left\{\delta _{\alpha 1}+\delta _{\alpha 3}\right\}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\\ +\left\{𝐙_{m_c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{m_c}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}\right\}\left\{\delta _{\alpha 2}+\delta _{\alpha 4}\right\}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{V_k[1]}+𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{TI}^{V_k}[1]}\end{array}\right].$$
(53)
where the the $`𝐙_m`$ factors arise from matching the bare mass in the lattice current to the pole mass in the continuum current to order $`\alpha _s`$, and the tadpole improvement counter terms are

$`𝐙_m^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`u_0^{[1]}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2naM_0}}\right)`$ (54)
$`𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{TI}^{V_k}[1]}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }u_0^{[1]}.`$ (55)
Similarly, for the temporal axial current we project the vertex corrections on to the continuum basis using,

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝚲_{11}^{A_0[1]}=2M_b\sigma _j\frac{}{p_j}𝚲_1^{A_0[1]},& 𝚲_{12}^{A_0[1]}=2M_c\sigma _j\frac{}{p_j^{}}𝚲_1^{A_0[1]}.\end{array}$$
(56)
There is also a tadpole improvement counter term for the temporal axial current,

$$𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{TI}^{A_0}[1]}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }u_0^{[1]}.$$
(57)
We write the contributions to the mixing matrix for the temporal axial current as follows,

$$_{\alpha \beta }^{A_0}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\alpha _s\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\{𝐙_{m_b}^{[1]}+𝐙_{m_b}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}\}\delta _{\alpha 1}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\\ +\{𝐙_{m_c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{m_c}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}\}\delta _{\alpha 2}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{A_0[1]}+𝚲_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{TI}^{A_0}[1]}\end{array}\right].$$
(58)
The major task in the renormalisation is to calculate the terms in the above mixing matrices numerically using the Feynman rules for the lattice action.

The integrands for each of the Feynman graphs (and their first and second derivatives with respect to both $`p_i`$ and $`p_j^{}`$ where appropriate) were coded in two independent ways in order to verify the correctness of the calculation.

A C++ class was written to encode the Pauli algebra, and wrapped in a Taylor series class giving the first few entries of the (double) expansion in $`p_j`$ and $`p_k^{}`$. The standard operators were overloaded and standard functions applied the chain rule to their arguments. This enabled the Feynman diagrams to be constructed easily from the Feynman rules, with the Pauli manipulations taken care of by the code. The leading entries in the double Taylor series gave the first few derivatives with respect to $`p_j`$ and $`p_k^{}`$. Additionally much faster Fortran codes were written with the Pauli manipulations carried out manually, and all derivatives with respect to the external momenta taken by hand. VEGAS  was used to evaluate the one loop integrals.

The lattice effective theory is constructed to have the same infra-red physics as the relativistic continuum theory, so that we find the same (cancelling) logarithmic infra-red divergences in the lattice renormalisation in the lattice diagrams as were present in continuum theory. These arise from graphs where a temporally polarised gluon is exchanged via the $`_t`$ coupling in the action. To handle the infra-red divergent graphs we always perform the integral over $`k_0`$ analytically, and then integrate infra-red finite sums of graphs, e.g. $`\frac{1}{2}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}+𝚲_{11}^{[1]}`$, over the remaining three dimensions corresponding to the spatial components of the loop momentum.

## IV Matching and Results

We wish to form a linear combination of the lattice currents such that they match the continuum currents at one loop. We reconstruct the $`\overline{MS}`$ continuum currents from the lattice currents as follows,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}c(p^{})|J^{\overline{MS}}|b(p)^{1\mathrm{loop}}& =& \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}Z_\alpha ^{\overline{MS}}(^J)_{\alpha \beta }^1c(p^{})|𝒪_\beta ^J|b(p)^{1\mathrm{loop}}\\ & =& \underset{\beta }{}\left[Z_\beta ^{\mathrm{tree}}+\alpha _s\rho _\beta ^J\right]c(p^{})|𝒪_\beta ^J|b(p)^{1\mathrm{loop}}\end{array}$$
(59)
where $`Z_\beta ^{\mathrm{tree}}\{0,1\}`$ is the tree level piece of $`Z_\beta ^{\overline{MS}}`$

In what follows we shall present results for the $`\rho _\beta `$ for each of the currents in turn as a function of both the bare lattice mass $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ and the mass ratio $`\xi =\frac{M_c}{M_b}`$. For reasons of practicality, we make the stabilisation parameters for each quark, $`n_c`$ and $`n_b`$, implicit functions of the mass as indicated in table III.

### A Temporal Vector Current

For the temporal vector current we have

$`V_0^{\overline{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{1+\alpha _s\rho ^{V_0}\right\}𝒪^{V_0},`$ (60)
$`\rho ^{V_0}`$ $`=`$ $`B^{V_0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲^{V_0[1]},`$ (61)
$`B^{V_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 6\right],`$ (62)
We plot the renormalisation coefficient $`\rho ^{V_0}`$ in figure 10. In table IV we give the correction as a function of $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ for $`\xi =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5`$ and $`1.0`$, useful ratios for lattice simulations. Since the lattice current is conserved, the one-loop renormalisation coefficient vanishes, for all $`M_b`$ in the case $`\xi =1`$, as clearly shown by figure 10.

Luke’s theorem  shows that there is no $`O(\frac{1}{M})`$ correction to form factors involving the vector current in HQET at zero recoil. Luke’s theorem is a non-perturbative observation based upon the symmetries of HQET. The required symmetries are satisfied by Lattice NRQCD, and the theorem should certainly be manifested in the one-loop coefficients at zero-recoil. Demonstrating this is less trivial than in HQET however, since $`M`$ dependence arises out of terms in the action as well as through current insertions, and we proceed by numerically calculating the $`M`$ dependence of the lattice NRQCD contribution to the renormalisation. In figure 11 we display the lattice one loop renormalisation $`\rho ^{V_0}B^{V_0}`$ plotted versus $`(\frac{1}{M_c}\frac{1}{M_b})^2`$, for various values of $`\xi =\frac{M_c}{M_b}`$. This plot shows that the leading correction is linear in $`(\frac{1}{M_c}\frac{1}{M_b})^2`$ in the $`\frac{1}{M}0`$ region, with a universal slope. This is consistent with the absence of the $`\frac{1}{M}`$ term, as expected by Luke’s theorem applied to lattice NRQCD.

Of course the analogue of Luke’s theorem should be held non-perturbatively by lattice NRQCD, and a fit of the dependence of the non-perturbative lattice form factor on $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ near the static limit should be made on simulation data to check the consistency with Luke’s theorem.

### B Spatial Axial Current

For the spatial axial current,

$`A_k^{\overline{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{1+\alpha _s\rho ^{A_k}\right\}𝒪^{A_k},`$ (63)
$`\rho ^{A_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B^{A_k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲^{A_k[1]},`$ (64)
$`B^{A_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8\right].`$ (65)
We plot the renormalisation coefficient $`\rho ^{A_k}`$ in figure 12, and give the correction as a function of $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ for $`\xi =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5`$ and $`1.0`$ in table V.

### C Temporal Axial Current

For the temporal axial current we have

$$A_0^{\overline{MS}}=\left\{1+\alpha _s\rho _1^{A_0}\right\}𝒪_1^{A_0}+\left\{1+\alpha _s\rho _2^{A_0}\right\}𝒪_2^{A_0}$$
(66)
where

$`\rho _1^{A_0}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1^{A_0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲_{11}^{A_0[1]}𝚲_{21}^{A_0[1]}𝐙_{m_b}^{[1]}𝚲_{11}^{\mathrm{TI}^{A_0}[1]}𝐙_{m_b}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ (67)
$`\rho _2^{A_0}`$ $`=`$ $`B_2^{A_0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲_{12}^{A_0[1]}𝚲_{22}^{A_0[1]}𝐙_{m_c}^{[1]}𝚲_{22}^{\mathrm{TI}^{A_0}[1]}𝐙_{m_c}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ (68)
and

$`B_1^{A_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 86{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}12{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$ (69)
$`B_2^{A_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 8+6{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}+12{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$ (70)
We plot the renormalisation coefficients $`\rho _1^{A_0}`$ and $`\rho _2^{A_0}`$ in figures 13 and 14. The various contributions to $`\rho _1^{A_0}`$ for $`\xi =0.3`$ are given in table VI allowing the reader to see relatively easily the change that must be applied to obtain the coefficients with a different tadpole improvement prescription, such as the mean link in Landau gauge. The diagonal elements $`𝚲_{\beta \beta }`$ of the mixing matrix both contain infra-red divergences which exactly cancel those of the wavefunction renormalisation, and have associated tadpole improvement counter terms associated with the $`u_0`$ factor in the derivative operator. It is, in fact, interesting to observe the tadpole improvement programme in action; there are large cancellations between the $`𝐙_m^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ and $`𝐙_m^{[1]}`$ terms and between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}^{\mathrm{TI}^{A_0}[1]}`$ and the $`\frac{1}{2}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}+𝚲_{11}^{A_0[1]}`$ terms. This cancellation is even more manifest when we isolate the tadpole graph contributions within $`𝚲_{11}^{A_0[1]}`$ and $`𝐙_m^{[1]}`$. The two overall correction coefficients are tabulated as a function of $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ for $`\xi =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5`$ and $`1.0`$ in tables VII and VIII.

### D Spatial Vector Current

For the spatial vector current we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_k^{\overline{MS}}& =& \left\{1+\alpha _s\rho _1^{V_k}\right\}𝒪_1^{V_k}+\left\{1+\alpha _s\rho _2^{V_k}\right\}𝒪_2^{V_k}+\alpha _s\rho _3^{V_k}𝒪_3^{V_k}+\alpha _s\rho _4^{V_k}𝒪_4^{V_k}\end{array}$$
(71)
where

$`\rho _1^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1^{V_k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲_{11}^{V_k[1]}𝚲_{21}^{V_k[1]}𝐙_{m_b}^{[1]}𝚲_{11}^{\mathrm{TI}^{V_k}[1]}𝐙_{m_b}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ (72)
$`\rho _2^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B_2^{V_k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{𝐙_{\psi _c}^{[1]}+𝐙_{\psi _b}^{[1]}\}𝚲_{12}^{V_k[1]}𝚲_{22}^{V_k[1]}𝐙_{m_c}^{[1]}𝚲_{22}^{\mathrm{TI}^{V_k}[1]}𝐙_{m_c}^{\mathrm{TI}[1]}`$ (73)
$`\rho _3^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B_3^{V_k}𝚲_{13}^{V_k[1]}𝚲_{23}^{V_k[1]}`$ (74)
$`\rho _4^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B_4^{V_k}𝚲_{14}^{V_k[1]}𝚲_{24}^{V_k[1]}`$ (75)
and

$`B_1^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`B_2^{V_k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1\xi }}\mathrm{log}\xi 4\right]`$ (77)
$`B_3^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right]`$ (78)
$`B_4^{V_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{1\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi \mathrm{log}\xi }{(1\xi )^2}}\right].`$ (79)
Since the $`𝒪_3`$ and $`𝒪_4`$ do not appear at tree level, we can see that it is in fact unnecessary to calculate $`𝚲_{3\beta }^{V_k}`$ and $`𝚲_{4\beta }^{V_k}`$. We plot the renormalisation coefficients $`\rho _1^{V_k}\mathrm{}\rho _4^{V_k}`$ in figures 15 to 18. The various contributions to $`\rho _1^{V_k}`$ and $`\rho _3^{V_k}`$ are given for $`\xi =0.3`$ in table IX and table X. The four overall correction coefficients are given as a function of $`\frac{1}{M_b}`$ for $`\xi =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5`$ an $`1.0`$ in tables XI to XIV.

## V Relevant Momentum Scale for $`\alpha _s`$

In section I we argued that the regularisation scheme correction is dominated by ultra-violet physics and is therefore calculable within perturbation theory. This is addressed in this section by attempting to calculate the appropriate scale for $`\alpha _s`$ in the correction to $`V_0`$ and $`A_k`$.

The Lepage-Mackenzie $`q^{}`$ scale  for some one-loop process whose Feynman amplitude $`A=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I(k)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{log}(aq^{})^2=\frac{\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I(k)\mathrm{log}(ak)^2}{\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I(k)}.$$
(80)
When a one-loop expression is made up of two sub-processes, $`A=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I_A(k)`$ and $`B=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I_B(k)`$ we may combine the $`q^{}`$’s as follows,

$$\mathrm{log}(aq^{})_{A+B}^2=\frac{\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I_A(k)\mathrm{log}(ak)^2+\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I_B(k)\mathrm{log}(ak)^2}{\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}I_A(k)+\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(I_B(k)}$$
(81)
or more conveniently,

$$q_{A+B}^{}=\left[(q_A^{})^A\times (q_B^{})^B\right]^{\frac{1}{A+B}}.$$
(82)
Here we shall calculate the Lepage-Mackenzie $`q^{}`$ from lattice perturbation theory, and then use this rule to combine it with the continuum BLM scales from section II B to obtain an overall scale.

The combination of lattice graphs containing the cancelling IR divergences proved troublesome using 4 dimensional numerical integration, so we used the (non-rigorous) Hernandez and Hill prescription  to deal with the $`k_0`$ integral, and integrated the remaining spatial momenta numerically.

We present the results for $`q_{V_0}^{}`$ in table XV. The overall scale is reassuringly large, and is dominated by the continuum scale due to the typical relative size of the corrections. We therefore believe that the use of Hernandez and Hill prescription to obtain numerical stability constitutes an irrelevant error in the overall scale. We note that $`\alpha _V(q^{})0.22`$ for $`q^{}3GeV`$, which is the case in a typical simulation regimes for $`V_0`$ .

We present the results for $`q_{A_k}^{}`$ in table XVI. There is a line (straddled by the bold highlighted data in table XVI ) in the $`\xi M_b`$ plane where $`q^{}`$ becomes poorly behaved. It can be seen in table XVII that the individual scales $`q_{A_k}^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ and $`q_{A_k}^{\mathrm{cont}}`$ are large at this point, but that the overall one-loop correction is near vanishing. The location of this uncontrolled behaviour is not dependent on our use of the Hernandez and Hill prescription, however the details of the behaviour will, of course, be somewhat dependent. The zero in the overall correction introduces a vertical asymptote for $`\mathrm{log}(aq^{})^2`$, due to the vanishing denominator in (81) and consequently a limit of infinity or zero for $`q^{}`$ depending on the direction of approach. The resultant low scale on one side of the zero in the correction is not considered problematic by the authors, since it is a breakdown of the mean scale interpretation of (80), that occurs whenever the correction is small.§§§As noted by Morningstar , the integrand $`I_A(k)+I_B(k)`$ must be either strictly positive or strictly negative for the mean value theorem to guarantee $`0aq^{}2\pi `$. Exact cancellation of the integrals is likely to exacerbate the problem.

The prescription used to set the scale at which to evaluate $`\alpha _s`$ in a mixing calculation is considered an open question by the authors, however we remain encouraged by the reliability of the perturbation theory suggested by the scales determined thus far.

## VI Summary

We have shown how to construct the $`\overline{MS}`$ weak decay currents for $`BD^{()}`$ transitions from operators in the lattice NRQCD effective theory at and around the zero recoil point for a wide range of phenomenologically relevant lattice mass parameters. These constants are of use to both recent  and future  calculations of the semileptonic decay form factors. The one-loop coefficients typically have modulus $`0.3`$ in the usual simulation regime. The lattice temporal vector current is not renormalised in the degenerate quark case (this is not the case for Wilson fermions), with the result that the current correction for physical $`\frac{m_c}{m_b}`$ ratios is particularly small. For two of the currents we have estimated the Lepage-Mackenzie $`q^{}`$ scales, and find that it is large, giving overall one-loop corrections of order $`5`$%, and suggesting perturbation theory is converging adequately. With further suppression, the next (and higher) order corrections in the operator renormalisation could well be below the expected statistical error of the BaBar data.  Certainly, the two loop renormalisation correction to HQET operators is known to be $`O(1\%)`$ .

## VII Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Junko Shigemitsu for many useful conversations, and cross checking the mass renormalisation. We made use of unpublished notes by Colin Morningstar for checking our continuum calculation. Peter Boyle is supported by PPARC grant PP/CBA/62 . Both Peter Boyle and Christine Davies fondly acknowledge the hospitality of the UCSB, Santa Barbara where some of this work was carried out.

## A Self Energy Calculation

To one loop the graph topologies shown in figures 5 and 9 contribute to the lattice self energy. The diagrams contain contributions from both the temporally polarised gluon vertex, and from spatially polarised gluons via the $`\frac{p^2}{2m}`$ term and via the $`\sigma B`$ term. The lattice self energy must satisfy cubic invariance in the spatial momenta, and we write the first terms of a double taylor series for the self-energy as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{lat}}(ap_0,a\stackrel{}{p})=g^2\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\mathrm{\Omega }_1iap_0+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\frac{p^2a}{2M_0a}+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(A1)
where clearly,

$`g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,0)`$ (A2)
$`g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{ap_0}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,0)`$ (A3)
$`g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`aM_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_j^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,0)`$ (A4)
to order $`\alpha `$ then the small $`\frac{v^2}{c^2}`$ expansion of the heavy quark propagator is

$`G_r^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`G^1(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }(ap_0,a\stackrel{}{p})`$ (A6)
$`=`$ $`ip_0+{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2M_0}}ip_0{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2M_0}}g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0iap_0g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_1{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2M_0}}g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ (A7)
$`=`$ $`Z_\psi (ia\overline{p}_0+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2a^2}{2Z_m^{\mathrm{kin}}Ma}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}_0^2a^2}{2}})`$ (A8)
where to order $`g^2`$ and $`\frac{v^2}{c^2}`$ we have,

$`i\overline{p}_0`$ $`=`$ $`ip_0g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (A9)
$`Z_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`1g^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ (A10)
$`Z_m^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+g^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ (A11)
The contributions from the tadpole diagram figure 9 to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ explicitly cancel in $`Z_\psi `$ due to the equation of motion of the external spinor. In the $`Z_m`$ calculation, both the tadpole and normal topologies contribute. In order to compute $`Z_m`$ it was necessary to code a routine to compute the second derivative of the self energy with respect to one of the external spatial momentum components. This was fairly involved, due to the nature of the lattice Feynman rules. There are cancelling infra-red divergences in both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, so that the integral over the $`k_0`$ was performed analytically and the remaining three dimensions integrated numerically. Our numbers for both the $`Z_\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, and $`Z_m`$ agree within statistical error with those of Morningstar and Shigemitsu .