text:
# Signals of the Abelian 𝑍' boson within the analysis of the LEP2 data

## 1 Introduction

The recently stopped LEP2 experiments have accumulated a huge amount of data on four-fermion processes at the center-of-mass energies $`\sqrt{s}130207`$ GeV . Besides the precision tests of the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles these data allow the estimation of the energy scale of a new physics beyond the SM.

Various approaches to detect manifestations of physics beyond the SM have been proposed in the literature. They could be subdivided into model-dependent and model-independent methods. The former usually means the comparison of experimental data with the predictions of some specific models which extend the SM at high energies. In this way some popular Grand Unified theories, the supersymmetry models as well as the theories of technicolor or extra dimensions are intensively discussed and the values of couplings, mixing angles, and particle masses are constrained. In particular, model-dependent bounds are widely presented in the LEP reports .

In the model-independent approach one fits some effective low-energy parameters such as four-fermion contact couplings. Below the scale of the heavy particle decoupling various theories beyond the SM can be described by the same set of effective contact interactions between the SM particles. The only difference is in the values of the corresponding coefficients, which can be fitted by experimental data. This idea is elaborated in the Effective Lagrangian method  as well as in the helicity ‘models’ introduced by the LEP Collaborations (LL, RR, …) . An advantage of the approach is the restricted set of parameters which describe the low-energy phenomenology of any model beyond the SM for a specified scattering process. Unfortunately, each effective model-independent parameter conceals a number of different scenarios of new physics. As a consequence, the model-independent approach gives a possibility to detect a signal of new physics, but it cannot distinguish the particle (defined by specific quantum numbers) responsible for the signal.

It seems to us that it is reasonable to develop the model-independent searches for the manifestations of heavy particles with specific quantum numbers. Such an approach is intended to detect the signal of some heavy particle (for example, the heavy neutral vector boson) by means of the data of the LEP2 or other experiments without specifying a model beyond the SM. In this way, it is also possible to derive model-independent constraints on the mass and the couplings of the considered heavy particle. To develop this approach one has to take into account some model-independent relations between the couplings of the heavy particle as well as some features of the kinematics of the considered scattering processes.

In the present paper we focus on the problem of model-independent searches for signals of the heavy Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson  by means of the analysis of the LEP2 data on the lepton processes $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. This particle is a necessary element of different models extending the SM. The low limits on its mass estimated for a variety of popular models ($`\chi `$, $`\psi `$, $`\eta `$, L–R models  and the Sequential Standard Model (SSM) ) are found to be in the wide energy interval 600–2000 GeV . In what follows we assume that the $`Z^{}`$ boson is heavy enough to be decoupled at the LEP2 energies.

In the previous papers  we argued that the low-energy $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the SM particles satisfy some model-independent relations, which are the consequences of renormalizability of a theory beyond the SM remaining in other respects unspecified. These relations, called the renormalization group (RG) relations, predict two possible types of the low-energy $`Z^{}`$ interactions with the SM fields, namely, the chiral and the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ bosons. Each $`Z^{}`$ type is described by a few couplings to the SM fields. Therefore, it is possible to introduce observables which uniquely pick up the $`Z^{}`$ virtual state .

The $`Z^{}`$ signal in the four-lepton scattering process $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ can be detected with a sign-definite observable, which is ruled by the center-of-mass energy and an additional kinematic parameter. The incorporation of the next-to-leading terms in $`m_Z^{}^2`$ allows to consider the $`Z^{}`$ effects beyond the approach of four-fermion contact interactions . As a consequence, the four-fermion contact couplings and the $`Z^{}`$ mass can be fitted separately.

The introduced observable can be computed directly from the differential cross-sections. However, the statistical errors of the available differential cross-sections of LEP2 experiments are of one order larger than the accuracy of the corresponding total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries. Fortunately, the differential cross-sections of the $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ processes at the LEP2 energies (including the one-loop radiative corrections) can be successfully approximated by a two-parametric polynomial of the cosine of the scattering angle. It gives a possibility to recalculate the observable from the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries reducing noticeably the experimental uncertainty.

Thus, the outlined analysis has to answer whether or not one could detect the model-independent signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson by treating the LEP2 data. As it will be shown, the LEP2 data on the scattering into $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ pairs lead to the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal at about 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level.

The paper is organized as follows. In sect. 2 the necessary information on the model-independent description of the $`Z^{}`$ interactions at low energies and the RG relations are given. In sect. 3 the observables to pick up uniquely the $`Z^{}`$ boson are introduced. In the last section the results on the LEP data fit and the conclusions as well as further prospects are discussed.

## 2 $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the SM particles

The Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson can be introduced in a model-independent (phenomenological) way by defining its effective low-energy couplings to the SM particles. Such a parameterization is well known in the literature . Since we are going to account of the $`Z^{}`$ effects in the $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ process at LEP2 energies $`\sqrt{s}m_Z^{}`$, we parameterize the $`Z^{}`$ interactions induced at the tree-level, only. As the decoupling theorem  guarantees, they are of renormalizable type, since the non-renormalizable interactions are generated at higher energies due to radiation corrections and suppressed by the inverse heavy mass ($`m_Z^{}`$ in our case). The SM gauge group $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is considered as a subgroup of the underlying theory group. So, the mixing interactions of the types $`Z^{}W^+W^{}`$, $`Z^{}ZZ`$, … are absent at the tree level. Under these assumptions the $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the fermion and scalar fields are described by the Lagrangian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left|\left(D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi )\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \right)\varphi \right|^2+`$ (1)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{f=f_L,f_R}{}}\overline{f}\gamma ^\mu \left(D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},f}{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Y}(f)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \right)f,`$
where $`\varphi `$ is the SM scalar doublet, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu `$ denotes the massive $`Z^{}`$ field before the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry, and the summation over the all SM left-handed fermion doublets, $`f_L=\{(f_u)_L,(f_d)_L\}`$, and the right-handed singlets, $`f_R=(f_u)_R,(f_d)_R`$, is understood. The notation $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ stands for the charge corresponding to the $`Z^{}`$ gauge group, $`D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},\varphi }`$ and $`D_\mu ^{\mathrm{ew},f}`$ are the electroweak covariant derivatives. Diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(\varphi )=\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\varphi ,1},\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\varphi ,2})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_L)=\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f_u},\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f_d})`$ and numbers $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(f_R)=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,f}`$ mean the unknown $`Z^{}`$ generators characterizing the model beyond the SM.

In particular, the Lagrangian (1) generally leads to the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing of order $`m_Z^2/m_Z^{}^2`$ which is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\varphi ,2}`$ and originated from the diagonalization of the neutral vector boson states. The mixing contributes to the scattering amplitudes and cannot be neglected at the LEP2 energies .

The $`Z^{}`$ couplings to a fermion $`f`$ are parameterized by two numbers $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,f}`$. Alternatively, the couplings to the axial-vector and vector fermion currents, $`a_Z^{}^l(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,l}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,l})/2`$ and $`v_Z^{}^l(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{L,l}+\stackrel{~}{Y}_{R,l})/2`$, can be used. Their values are determined by the unknown model beyond the SM. Assuming an arbitrary underlying theory one usually supposes that the parameters $`a_f`$ and $`v_f`$ are independent numbers. However, if a theory beyond the SM is renormalizable these parameters satisfy some relations. For $`Z^{}`$ boson this is reflected in the correlations between $`a_f`$ and $`v_f`$ . These correlations are model-independent in a sense that they do not depend on the underlying model. The detailed discussion of this point and the derivation of the RG relations are given in Ref. . Therein it is shown that two types of the $`Z^{}`$ boson interactions are admitted – the chiral and the Abelian ones. In the present paper we are interested in the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ couplings which are described by the relations:

$$v_fa_f=v_f^{}a_f^{},a_f=T_{3,f}\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\varphi ,1}=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\varphi ,2}\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi ,$$
(2)
where $`T_f^3`$ is the third component of the fermion weak isospin, and $`f^{}`$ means the isopartner of $`f`$ (namely, $`l^{}=\nu _l,\nu _l^{}=l,\mathrm{}`$).

The relations (2) ensure, in particular, the invariance of the Yukawa terms with respect to the effective low-energy $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ subgroup corresponding to the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson. As it follows from the relations, the couplings of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ to the axial-vector fermion currents have the universal absolute value proportional to the $`Z^{}`$ coupling to the scalar doublet. So, in what follows we will use the short notation $`a=a_l=\stackrel{~}{Y}_\varphi /2`$. Note also that the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing is expressed in terms of the axial-vector coupling $`a`$.

An important benefit of the relations (2) is the possibility to reduce the number of independent parameters of new physics. For example, they can be used to relate the coefficients of the effective Lagrangians . Due to a fewer number of independent $`Z^{}`$ couplings the amplitudes and cross-sections of different scattering processes are also related. As a result, one is able to pick up the characteristic signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$-boson in these processes and to fit successfully the corresponding $`Z^{}`$ couplings. In the present paper we take into account the RG relations (2) in order to introduce the observables convenient for detecting uniquely the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signals in LEP experiments and to obtain the corresponding experimental constraints on the signal.

## 3 Observables

### 3.1 The differential cross section

Let us consider the processes $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ ($`l=\mu ,\tau `$) with the non-polarized initial- and final-state fermions. In order to introduce the observable which selects the signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson we need to compute the differential cross-sections of the processes up to the one-loop level.

The lower-order diagrams describe the neutral vector boson exchange in the $`s`$-channel ($`e^+e^{}V^{}l^+l^{}`$, $`V=A,Z,Z^{}`$). As for the one-loop corrections, two classes of diagrams are taken into account. The first one includes the pure SM graphs (the mass operators, the vertex corrections, and the boxes). The second set of the one-loop diagrams improves the Born-level $`Z^{}`$-exchange amplitude by “dressing” the $`Z^{}`$ propagator and and the $`Z^{}`$–fermion vertices. We assume that $`Z^{}`$ states are not excited inside loops. Such an approximation means that the $`Z^{}`$-boson is completely decoupled. Then, the differential cross-section consists of the squared tree-level amplitude and the term from the interference of the tree-level and the one-loop amplitudes. To obtain an infrared-finite result, we also take into account the processes with the soft-photon emission in the initial and final states.

Various computational software for calculation of amplitudes and cross-sections has been developed. For example, the SM cross-sections in the LEP fits are usually generated with ZFITTER. However, ZFITTER requires severe modifications to incorporate the effects of heavy particles beyond the SM. Therefore, we perform the necessary calculations with other software. The Feynman diagrams and the amplitudes are generated with FEYNARTS. The algebraic reduction of the one-loop tensor integrals to the scalar integrals as well as the cross-section construction are carried out with FORMCALC. The scalar one-loop integrals are evaluated with LOOPTOOLS library within the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme. The unknown Higgs boson mass is set to 125GeV in accordance with the present day bounds.

In the lower order in $`m_Z^{}^2`$ the $`Z^{}`$ contributions to the differential cross-section of the process $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$ are expressed in terms of four-fermion contact couplings, only. If one takes into consideration the higher-order corrections in $`m_Z^{}^2`$, it becomes possible to estimate separately the $`Z^{}`$-induced contact couplings and the $`Z^{}`$ mass . In the present analysis we keep the terms of order $`O(m_Z^{}^4)`$ to fit both of these parameters.

Expanding the differential cross-section in the inverse $`Z^{}`$ mass and neglecting the terms of order $`O(m_Z^{}^6)`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _l(s)}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _l^{\mathrm{SM}}(s)}{dz}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}\left[A_{ij}^l(s,z)+B_{ij}^l(s,z)\zeta \right]a_ia_j`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}}C_{ijkn}^l(s,z)a_ia_ja_ka_n,`$
where the dimensionless quantities

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{m_Z^{}^2}},ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^2m_Z^2a^2}{4\pi m_Z^{}^2}},`$
$`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6,a_7)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^2m_Z^2}{4\pi m_Z^{}^2}}}(a,v_e,v_\mu ,v_\tau ,v_d,v_s,v_b)`$ (4)
are introduced. In what follows the index $`l=\mu ,\tau `$ denotes the final-state lepton.

The coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ are determined by the SM couplings and masses. Each factor may include the tree-level contribution, the one-loop correction and the term describing the soft-photon emission. The factors $`A`$ describe the leading-order contribution, whereas others correspond to the higher order corrections in $`m_Z^{}^2`$.

### 3.2 The observable

To take into consideration the correlations (2) we introduce the observable $`\sigma _l(z)`$ defined as the difference of cross sections integrated in some ranges of the scattering angle $`\theta `$ :

$`\sigma _l(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _z^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _l}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _1^z}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _l}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (5)
where $`z`$ stands for the cosine of the boundary angle. The idea of introducing the $`z`$-dependent observable (5) is to choose the value of the kinematic parameter $`z`$ in such a way that to pick up the characteristic features of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signals.

The deviation of the observable from its SM value can be derived by the angular integration of the differential cross-section and has the form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _l(z)\sigma _l^{\mathrm{SM}}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}\left[\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}^l(s,z)+\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^l(s,z)\zeta \right]a_ia_j`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ijkn}^l(s,z)a_ia_ja_ka_n.`$
There is an interval of values of the boundary angle, at which the factors $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}^l`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{11}^l`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}^l`$ at the sign-definite parameters $`ϵ`$, $`ϵ\zeta `$, and $`ϵ^2`$ contribute more than 95% of the observable value. It gives a possibility to construct the sign-definite observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})<0`$ by specifying the proper value of $`z^{}`$.

In general, one could choose the boundary angle $`z`$ in different schemes. In the previous papers  we considered just a few number of tree-level four-fermion contact couplings and specified $`z^{}`$ in order to cancel the factor at the vector-vector coupling. However, if one-loop corrections are taken into account there are a large number of additional contact couplings. So, we have to define some quantitative criterion $`F(z)`$ to estimate the contributions from sign-definite factors at a given value of the boundary angle $`z`$. Maximizing the criterion, one could derive the value $`z^{}`$, which corresponds to the sign-definite observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$. Since the observable is linear in the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$, we introduce the following criterion,

$$F=\frac{|\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}|+\omega _B|\stackrel{~}{B}_{11}|+\omega _C|\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}|}{\underset{\mathrm{all}\stackrel{~}{A}}{}\left|\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}\right|+\omega _B\underset{\mathrm{all}\stackrel{~}{B}}{}\left|\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}\right|+\omega _C\underset{\mathrm{all}\stackrel{~}{C}}{}\left|\stackrel{~}{C}_{ijkn}\right|},$$
(7)
where the positive ‘weights’ $`\omega _B\zeta `$ and $`\omega _Cϵ`$ take into account the order of each term in the inverse $`Z^{}`$ mass.

The numeric values of the ‘weights’ $`\omega _B`$ and $`\omega _C`$ can be taken from the present day bounds on the contact couplings  or . As the computation shows, the value of $`z^{}`$ with the accuracy $`10^3`$ depends on the order of the ‘weight’ magnitudes, only. So, in what follows we take $`\omega _B.004`$ and $`\omega _C0.00004`$.

The function $`z^{}(s)`$ is the decreasing function of the center-of-mass energy. It is tabulated for the LEP2 energies in Tables 1-2. The corresponding values of the maximized function $`F`$ are within the interval $`0.95<F<0.96`$.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}^l(s,z^{})<0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{11}^l(s,z^{})<0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}^l(s,z^{})<0`$, the observable

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})=\left[\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}^l(s,z^{})+\zeta \stackrel{~}{B}_{11}^l(s,z^{})\right]ϵ+\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}^l(s,z^{})ϵ^2$$
(8)
is negative with the accuracy 4–5%. Since this property follows from the RG relations (2) for the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson, the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ selects the model-independent signal of this particle in the processes $`e^+e^{}l^+l^{}`$. It allows to use the data on scattering into $`\mu \mu `$ and $`\tau \tau `$ pairs in order to estimate the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ coupling to the axial-vector lepton currents.

Although the observable can be computed from the differential cross-sections directly, it is also possible to recalculate it from the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries. The recalculation procedure has the proper theoretical accuracy. Nevertheless, it allows to reduce the experimental errors on the observable, since the published data on the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries are still more precise than the data on the differential cross-sections.

The recalculation is based on the fact that the differential cross-section can be approximated with a good accuracy by the two-parametric polynomial in the cosine of the scattering angle $`z`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma _l(s)}{dz}=\frac{d\sigma _l^{\mathrm{SM}}(s)}{dz}+(1+z^2)\beta _l+z\eta _l+\delta _l(z),$$
(9)
where $`\delta _l(z)`$ measures the difference between the exact and the approximated cross-sections. The approximated cross-section reproduces the exact one in the limit of the massless initial- and final-state leptons and if one neglects the contributions of the box diagrams.

Performing the angular integration, it is easy to obtain the expression for the observable:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})=\sigma _l(z^{})\sigma _l^{\mathrm{SM}}(z^{})=(1z^2)\eta _l\frac{2\beta _l}{9}z^{}(3+z^2)+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(z^{}),$$
(10)
and for the total and the forward-backward cross-sections:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}\sigma _l^{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{SM}}={\displaystyle \frac{8\beta _l}{9}}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(1),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB}}\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB},\mathrm{SM}}=\eta _l+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(0).`$ (11)
Then, the factors $`\beta _l`$ and $`\eta _l`$ can be eliminated from the observable:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1z^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{12}}z^{}(3+z^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}+\xi _l.`$ (12)
The quantity $`\xi _l`$,

$`\xi _l`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(z^{})(1z^2)\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{12}}z^{}(3+z^2)\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(1),`$ (13)
measures the theoretical accuracy of the approximation.

The forward-backward cross-section is related to the total one and the forward-backward asymmetry by means of the following expression

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}+\sigma _l^{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{\Delta }A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}.`$ (14)
As the computation shows, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(z^{})0.01\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(0)0.007\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^{\mathrm{FB}}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l(1)0.07\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}`$ at the LEP2 energies. Taking into account the experimental values of the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries at the LEP2 energies ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}0.1`$pb, $`\sigma _l^{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{SM}}2.7`$pb, $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}0.04`$, $`A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}0.5`$), one can estimate the theoretical error as $`\xi _l0.003\mathrm{pb}`$. At the same time, the corresponding statistical uncertainties on the observable are larger than 0.06pb. Thus, the proposed approximation is quite good and can be successfully used to obtain more accurate experimental values of the observable.

## 4 Data fit and Conclusions

To search for the model-independent signals of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$-boson we will analyze the introduced observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ on the base of the LEP2 data set. In the lower order in $`m_Z^{}^2`$ the observable (8) depends on one flavor-independent parameter $`ϵ`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^{\mathrm{th}}(z^{})=\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}^l(s,z^{})ϵ+\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}^l(s,z^{})ϵ^2,$$
(15)
which can be fitted from the experimental values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\mu (z^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\tau (z^{})`$. As we noted above, the sign of the fitted parameter ($`ϵ>0`$) is a characteristic feature of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal.

In what follows we will apply the usual fit method based on the likelihood function. The central value of $`ϵ`$ is obtained by the minimization of the $`\chi ^2`$-function:

$$\chi ^2(ϵ)=\underset{n}{}\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mu ,n}^{\mathrm{ex}}(z^{})\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}(z^{})\right]^2}{\delta \sigma _{\mu ,n}^{\mathrm{ex}}(z^{})^2},$$
(16)
where the sum runs over the experimental points entering a data set chosen. The $`1\sigma `$ confidence-level interval $`(b_1,b_2)`$ for the fitted parameter is derived by means of the likelihood function $`(ϵ)\mathrm{exp}[\chi ^2(ϵ)/2]`$. It is determined by the equations:

$$_{b_1}^{b_2}(ϵ^{})𝑑ϵ^{}=0.68,(b_1)=(b_2).$$
(17)
To compare our results with those of Refs.  we introduce the contact interaction scale

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=4m_Z^2ϵ^1.$$
(18)
This normalization of contact couplings is admitted in Refs. . We use again the likelihood method to determine a one-sided lower limit on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at the 95% confidence level. It is derived by the integration of the likelihood function over the physically allowed region $`ϵ>0`$. The exact definition is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=2m_Z(ϵ^{})^{1/2},_0^ϵ^{}(ϵ^{})𝑑ϵ^{}=0.95_0^{\mathrm{}}(ϵ^{})𝑑ϵ^{}.$$
(19)
We also introduce the probability of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal as the integral of the likelihood function over the positive values of $`ϵ`$:

$$P=_0^{\mathrm{}}L(ϵ^{})𝑑ϵ^{}.$$
(20)
Actually, the fitted value of the contact coupling $`ϵ`$ originates mainly from the leading-order term in the inverse $`Z^{}`$ mass in Eq. (8). The analysis of the higher-order terms allows to estimate the constraints on the $`Z^{}`$ mass alone. Substituting $`ϵ`$ in the observable (8) by its fitted central value, $`\overline{ϵ}`$, one obtains the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})=\left[\stackrel{~}{A}_{11}^l(s,z^{})+\zeta \stackrel{~}{B}_{11}^l(s,z^{})\right]\overline{ϵ}+\stackrel{~}{C}_{1111}^l(s,z^{})\overline{ϵ}^2,$$
(21)
which depends on the parameter $`\zeta =m_Z^2/m_Z^{}^2`$. Then, the central value on this parameter and the corresponding 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level interval are derived in the same way as those for $`ϵ`$.

To fit the parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\zeta `$ we start with the LEP2 data on the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries . Those data are converted into the experimental values of the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ with the corresponding errors $`\delta \sigma _l(z^{})`$ by means of the following relations:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l(z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}\left(1z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{4}}\left(3+z^2\right)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _l^\mathrm{T}`$
$`+\left(1z^2\right)\sigma _l^{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{\Delta }A_l^{\mathrm{FB}},`$
$`\delta \sigma _l(z^{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[A_l^{\mathrm{FB}}\left(1z^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{4}}\left(3+z^2\right)\right]^2(\delta \sigma _l^\mathrm{T})^2`$ (22)
$`+\left[\left(1z^2\right)\sigma _l^{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{SM}}\right]^2(\delta A_l^{\mathrm{FB}})^2.`$
We perform the fits assuming several data sets, including the $`\mu \mu `$, $`\tau \tau `$, and the complete $`\mu \mu `$ and $`\tau \tau `$ data, respectively. The results are presented in Table 3.

As is seen, the more precise $`\mu \mu `$ data demonstrate the signal of about 1$`\sigma `$ level. It corresponds to the Abelian $`Z^{}`$-boson with the mass of order 1.2–1.5TeV if one assumes the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{g}^2/4\pi `$ to be in the interval 0.01–0.02. No signal is found by the analysis of the $`\tau \tau `$ cross-sections. The combined fit of the $`\mu \mu `$ and $`\tau \tau `$ data leads to the signal below the 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level.

Note that the mean values of $`ϵ`$ have changed by 20% in comparison with the Winter 2002 data, whereas the uncertainties remain approximately the same. So, the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ signal will be probably picked up at no more than 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level when the final LEP2 data on $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ will be completed.

Being governed by the next-to-leading contributions in $`m_Z^{}^2`$, the fitted values of $`\zeta `$ are characterized by significant errors. The $`\mu \mu `$ data set gives the central value which corresponds to $`m_Z^{}1.1`$ TeV.

We also perform a separate fit of the parameters based on the direct calculation of the observable from the differential cross-sections. The complete set of the available data  is used (see Table 4).

The results are given in Table 5.

As is seen, the experimental uncertainties of the data on the differential cross-sections are of one order larger than the corresponding errors of the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries. These data also provide the larger values of the contact coupling $`ϵ`$. As for the more precise $`\mu \mu `$ data, three of the LEP2 Collaborations demonstrate positive values of $`ϵ`$. The combined $`ϵ`$ is also positive and remains practically unchanged by the incorporation of the $`\tau \tau `$ data.

Now, we compare the fits based on the differential cross-sections and the total cross-sections. As it was mentioned in the previous section, the indirect computation of the observable from the total cross-sections and the forward-backward asymmetries inspires some insufficient theoretical uncertainty about 2% of the statistical one. It also increases the statistical error because of the recalculation procedure. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of the fitted parameter $`ϵ`$ within the recalculation scheme is of one order less than that for the direct computation from the differential cross-sections. This difference is explained by the different accuracy of the available experimental data on the differential and the total cross-sections. If the final LEP2 differential cross-sections will be so accurate as the present data on the total cross-sections, the direct computation of the observable can reduce, in principle, the uncertainty of the fitted coupling $`ϵ`$.

To compare our results with the fits of the contact couplings presented by the LEP Collaborations in Refs.  let us briefly describe the approach used therein. Since only one parameter of new physics can be successfully fitted, the LEP Collaborations usually discuss eight ‘models’ (LL, RR, LR, RL, VV, AA, A0, V0) which assume specific helicity couplings between the initial-state and the final-state fermion currents. Each model is described by only one non-zero four-fermion coupling, while others are set to zero. For example, in the LL model the non-zero coupling of left-handed fermions is taken into account. The signal of new physics is fitted by considering the interference of the SM amplitude with the contact four-fermion term. Whatever physics beyond the SM exists, it has to manifest itself in some contact coupling mentioned. Hence, it is possible to find the low limit on the masses of the states responsible for the interactions considered. In principle, a number of states may contribute into each of the models. Therefore, the purpose of the fit described by these models is to find any signal of new physics. No specific types of new particles are considered in this analysis.

As it was shown, the characteristic signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson is related to the flavor-independent couplings to the axial-vector currents. To pick up the signal we construct the observable which is dominated by the axial-vector couplings. The contributions of the rest couplings are suppressed in the observable by the special choice of the kinematic parameters. In this regard, let us turn to the helicity ‘models’ of Refs.  and compare our results with the fit for the axial model (AA). As it follows from the present analysis, this model could be sensitive to the signals of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson. Of course, the parameters $`ϵ`$ in Refs.  (in what follows we will mark it as $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$) and $`ϵ`$ in the present paper are not the same quantity. First, they are normalized by different factors and related as $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}=ϵm_Z^2/4`$. Second, as we already noted, in the AA model the $`Z^{}`$ couplings to the vector fermion currents are set to zero, therefore it is able to describe only some particular case of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson. Moreover, in this model both the positive and the negative values of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$ are considered, whereas in our approach only the positive $`ϵ`$ values (which correspond to the negative $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$) are permissible. As the value of the four-fermion contact coupling in the AA model is dependent on the lepton flavor, the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ induces the axial-vector coupling which is universal for all lepton types. Considering the Winter 2002 data , it is interesting to note that the fitted value of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$ in the AA model for the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states ($`0.0025_{0.0023}^{+0.0018}\text{ TeV}^2`$) as well as the value derived under the assumption of the lepton universality ($`0.0018_{0.0019}^{+0.0016}\text{ TeV}^2`$) are similar to our results which correspond to $`0.0015\pm 0.0015\text{ TeV}^2`$ and $`0.0009^\pm 0.0012\text{ TeV}^2`$, respectively. As for the Summer 2002 data , the value of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$ under the assumption of the lepton universality is available only ($`0.0013^\pm 0.0017\text{ TeV}^2`$). It is close to our result for the $`\mu \mu `$ process ($`0.0011\pm 0.0015\text{ TeV}^2`$). However, the central value of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{EWWG}}`$ is about three times greater than the corresponding one for the combined $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ data ($`0.0004^\pm 0.0012\text{ TeV}^2`$). Thus, the signs of the central values in the AA model agree with our results, and the uncertainties are of the same order. The fitted values of the 95% confidence-level lower limit on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are again in a good accordance with the corresponding values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ for the AA model of . So, we come to a conclusion that the AA model is mainly responsible for signals of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson although a lot of details concerning its interactions is not accounted for within this fit.

It worth to mention the recent paper by Chivukula and Simmons  who derived model-dependent bounds on the mass of the $`Z^{}`$ boson for flavor-changing technicolor models. It has been obtained that in these models $`m_Z^{}`$ is heavier than about 1 TeV. It is interesting to note that this value is very close to our model-independent result which corresponds to the flavor-conserved case.

As it follows from the present analysis, the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson has to be light enough to be discovered at the LHC. On the other hand, the LEP2 data on the processes $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ do not provide the necessary statistics for the detection of the model-independent signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson at more than 1$`\sigma `$ confidence level. So, it is of interest to find the observables for other scattering processes in order to increase the data set. In this regard, let us note the paper  where the helicity ‘models’ were applied to the Bhabha scattering $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}(\gamma )`$. As it was shown therein, the AA model demonstrates the $`2\sigma `$–level deviation from the SM. However, these deviations could not be interpreted directly as the signal of the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ boson because of the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, it seems to us perspective to find the observable for the Abelian $`Z^{}`$ search in the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$.


format: text

text:
# Fluctuation conductivity in layered 𝑑-wave superconductors near critical disorder

## I Introduction

A phase transition at $`T=0`$ is usually addressed as a quantum phase transition (QPT).sachdev  In general, QPT’s are driven by quantum fluctuations controlled by a non-thermal parameter, namely by impurities, pressure or magnetic fields.baron  In the case of high temperature superconductors (HTSC) a phase transition can be driven both by disorder or doping.fukuzumi ; karpinska  As function of disorder the transition is observed for magnetic and nonmagnetic impurities, when the impurity concentration is high enough to destroy the phase coherence in the system. As function of doping the standard phase diagram of HTSC presents two possible QPT’s, corresponding to the end points of the superconducting region, one in the underdoped region and the other one in the overdoped region.schneider1 ; schneider  In the underdoped limit the transition is of superconductor-insulator type,fukuzumi  whereas in the overdoped limit the transition is of superconductor-normal state (metal) type.momono

Modelling high temperature superconductors (HTSC) as two dimensional (2D) systems can be justified by the presence of CuO2 planes in their structure. However, when transport properties in the critical region around the superconducting phase transition are considered, the theoretical approach has to take into account the quasi-2D nature of the system, as it is known that an important contribution to the conductivity is given by unusual strong fluctuations. Different from metallic superconductors (MS), HTSC present a strong anisotropy, leading to differences in the temperature dependance of the transverse and in-plane resistivities, a property which is hard to explain based on the conventional theory of Fermi liquids.anderson  With this in mind, the simplest way to include the third dimension of the system ($`c`$-axis) is to consider a layered structure in which adjacent CuO2 are coupled through a tunnelling like term. In the presence of disorder the role of fluctuations increases, their effect on the transport properties being very important even for the case of MS.larkin  In HTSC, fluctuations are amplified respect to the MS case, their effects being of main importance as transport along $`c`$-axis is considered,varlamov  scattering by virtual Cooper pairs increasing the transverse resistivity, in contrast with the usual effect observed in isotropic MS. The analysis of the fluctuations effects in superconducting materials can not distinguish the general symmetry of the order parameter, which is of $`s`$-wave type in MS and of $`d`$-wave type in HTSC.scalapino ; tsuei  The differences between the two types of symmetry reduce to a constant numerical prefactor, which from the experimental point of view is hard to examine. A more important role is played by the system dimensionality.skocpol  However, the analysis of the fluctuation conductivity in systems with a $`p`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter such as Sr2RuO4,maeno  reveals the possibility of tracing the pair symmetry in such systems.adachi

QPT’s are fundamentally different from finite temperature phase transitions as a dynamical critical exponent, $`z`$, needs to be considered in order to apply the scaling theory to quantum criticality.hertz  For the case of HTSC the idea of quantum criticality was largely explored, indications of a 2D superconductor to insulator phase transition with a $`z=1`$ critical exponent in the underdoped regime, and a three dimensional (3D) superconductor to normal state phase transition with $`z=2`$ in the overdoped regime being identified.schneider1 ; schneider  The disorder induced QPT in $`d`$-wave HTSC was analyzed both at $`T=0`$herbut  and at finite temperature,crisan  considering a two dimensional (2D) system and a dynamical critical exponent $`z=2`$. For the 2D case, a detailed discussion of the in-plane conductivity was done by Herbutherbut  at $`T=0`$ and by Dalidovich and Phillips,phillips1 ; phillips2  with the main conclusion that the dc conductivity will have a nonuniversal singular part at the transition point in the quantum critical regime.

In this work we will analyze the disorder induced QPT in 3D $`d`$-wave HTSC considering a layered structure of the system. Such an analysis will give us the possibility to study the dimensional crossover of the system as function of the interlayer distance ($`s`$). Despite the fact that a layered system is by definition an anisotropic 3D system, at large interlayer distances ($`s\mathrm{}`$) the system approaches a quasi 2D-structure, such that by varying $`s`$ between 0 and $`\mathrm{}`$ we basically interpolate between 3D and 2D. In the critical region fluctuation effects dominate the in-plane and c-axis conductivities, which in our calculation are considered of the Aslamazov-Larkinlarkin  form. On the other hand, for a quasi-3D system, at small separation between adjacent layers, the conductivity conserve the nonuniversal behavior in the quantum critical regime observed in the 2D case.phillips2

The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents our model for the fluctuation propagator in the presence of disorder for the case of a layered $`d`$-wave superconductor. Section III presents the general equations of the renormalization group approach along with their solutions for two particular regimes, namely, the quantum disorder (QD) and quantum critical (QC) regimes. Section IV presents analytical solutions for the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities for the case of large and small interlayer separation in both QD and QC regimes. Finally, we give our conclusions.

## II Fluctuation propagator in layered systems

We consider that a layered $`d`$-wave superconductor in the presence of disorder can be described by a BCS type Hamiltonian with an additional term corresponding to a random interaction potential

$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}\epsilon (𝐤)a_\sigma ^{}(𝐤)a_\sigma (𝐤)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪}{}}V(𝐤,𝐤^{})a_\sigma ^{}(𝐤_+)a_\sigma ^{}^{}(𝐤_{})a_\sigma ^{}(𝐤_{}^{})a_\sigma (𝐤_+^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_{}U_i(𝐫_{})a_\sigma ^{}(𝐫_{},i)a_\sigma (𝐫_{},i)},`$ (1)
where $`𝐤_\pm =𝐤\pm 𝐪/2`$ and $`a_\sigma (𝐫_{},i)`$ represents the annihilation operator of an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ in the $`i`$-th layer of the system. We assume that the electronic spectrum in the layered system has the form

$$\epsilon (𝐤)=\epsilon (𝐤_{})+J\mathrm{cos}(k_zs)E_F,$$
(2)
where $`𝐤(𝐤_{},k_z)`$, $`𝐤_{}(k_x,k_y)`$, and $`J`$ is the effective hopping energy between two adjacent layers situated at a distance $`s`$. The attractive interaction leading to superconductivity, $`V(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$, is assumed to be separable

$$V(𝐤,𝐤^{})=|g|f(𝐤)f(𝐤^{}),$$
(3)
with $`f(𝐤)=[\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)]h_d(k_zs)`$ for the case of $`d`$-wave symmetry, $`h_d(k_zs)`$ being a function reflecting the $`z`$ axis dispersion of the system. The life time of the quasiparticle, $`\tau `$, is introduce assuming the Born approximation for the scattering potential and that the random potenatial obeys the Gaussian ensemble

$`\overline{u_i(𝐫_{})}=0`$
$`\overline{u_i(𝐫_{})u_j(𝐫_{}^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi N(0)\tau }}\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐫_{}𝐫_{}^{}),`$ (4)
where the overline denotes the random average and $`N(0)`$ the density of states at the Fermi surface. Under such assumptions the quasiparticle Green’s function is given by

$$G(𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{i\omega _n\left[1+\left(2\tau |\omega _n|\right)^1\right]\epsilon (𝐤)},$$
(5)
where $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ is the standard fermionic Matsubara frequency.

Following the original procedure introduced by Aslamazov and Larkinlarkin  the fluctuation propagator in the presence of disorder can be calculated as

$$K^1(𝐪,i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{gN(0)}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,i\omega _n),$$
(6)
where in this definition $`\omega _n=2n\pi T`$ denotes a bosonic Matsubara frequency and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,i\omega _n)=T\underset{\omega _m}{}\underset{𝐤}{}|f(𝐤)|^2G(𝐤,i\omega _m)G(𝐪𝐤,i\omega _ni\omega _m).$$
(7)
Note that the summation over momenta $`𝐤`$ in Eq. (7) has to be done assuming a cylindrical symmetry of the Fermi surface to ensure that the correct symmetry imposed by the layered structure of the system is well considered. The calculation of the fluctuation propagator is straightforward

$`K(𝐪,i\omega _n)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0(T,D)+\gamma |\omega _n|+\xi _0^2q_{}^2+4\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{q_zs}{2}\right)}},`$
where $`\mu _0(T,D)=2\pi ^2(T\tau )/3+(DD_c)/D_c`$ gives the distance to the phase transition point ($`D=1/\tau `$ represents the disorder variable and $`D_c=1.76T_{c0}`$, $`T_{c0}`$ being the superconducting critical temperature in a clean system), $`\gamma \tau `$, $`\xi _0^2=l^2/2`$ ($`l=v_F\tau `$), $`\xi _{c0}^2=(J\tau s)^2/2`$. According to the Thouless criterion the phase transition occurs at $`K^1(0,0)=0`$, meaning that in our case it can be driven both by disorder or temperature. At the quantum critical point (T=0) the phase transition is induced by disorder, $`\mu _0(T=0,D=D_c)=0`$. On the other hand, in the weak disorder limit, $`D<D_c`$, the phase transition occurs at a finite temperature such that $`\mu _0(T=T_c,D)=0`$. The layered structure of the considered system is well reflected in the form of the fluctuation propagator $`K(𝐪,i\omega _n)`$ as it is easy to see from Eq. (II). At large interlayer separation, $`s\mathrm{}`$, the last term in the denominator of the right hand side of the equation becomes small and the fluctuation propagator corresponding to a quasi-2D system is recovered. When the interlayer separation is small, $`s0`$, it is easy to see that the fluctuation propagator will have the form corresponding to the 3D case. The crossover between 2D and 3D is then possible as a function of the interlayer separation, $`s`$.

The general form of the action describing the phase fluctuations in the critical region of the phase transition can be obtained following the standard procedureambegaokar  to decouple the standard BCS action as

$`S_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\varphi ^{}(q)K^1(q)\varphi (q)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{q_1\mathrm{}q_4}{}}\varphi (q_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (q_4)\delta \left(q_1+q_2+q_3+q_4\right),`$ (9)
where $`\varphi (q)`$ are the fluctuation field operators, and $`u`$ measure the interaction between fluctuations. In the above equation, $`q(𝐪,\omega _n)`$ and

$$\underset{q}{}\mathrm{}k_BT\underset{n}{}\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d},$$

$`d`$ being the system dimensionality.

## III Renormalization-Group analysis of the transport properties

For a detailed analysis of the transport properties in the critical region of a QPT we will use the general formalism of the renormalization group approach introduced by Hertzhertz  and developed lately by Millis.millis  The main idea in the transport properties evaluation is that according to the renormalization group approach the conductivity obeys the scaling relationwang ; phillips2

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(\mu _0,T,\omega ,u)=e^{(d2)l^{}}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{}[T(l^{}),\omega (l^{}),u(l^{})],$$
(10)
where the scaling $`l^{}`$ is defined such as the renormalization procedure stop at $`l^{}`$ given by $`\mu (l^{})=1`$. The asterisk denotes that the conductivity is considered at the fixed point, i.e., for $`l=l^{}`$. For the most general case the renormalization group equations corresponding to the action given by Eq. (II) can be obtained performing the standard scaling $`k=k^{}/b`$ and $`\omega _n=\omega _n^{}/b^z`$ ($`b=\mathrm{ln}(l)`$) as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{dl}=(z2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(l),$$
(11a)
$$\frac{dT(l)}{dl}=zT(l),$$
(11b)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=2\mu (l)+\frac{K_d\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)u(l)}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{T(l)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mu (l)\right)\right]1},$$
(11c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du(l)}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4(d+z)\right]u(l)`$ (11d)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2K_d\mathrm{\Lambda }^dT^2(l)}{4T(l)\mathrm{sinh}^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{T(l)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mu (l)\right)\right]}}u^2(l),`$
where $`z`$ denotes the dynamical critical exponent, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/\gamma `$, $`K_d`$ is a dimension dependent constant, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ is a momenta cutoff. The set of Eqs. (11) admit an unstable Gaussian fixed point at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T=\mu =u=0`$. In the following we will consider separately the quantum disorder and quantum critical regimes, as the renormalization group equations lead to different solutions near the Gaussian fixed point.

### III.1 Quantum disorder regime

In the quantum disorder regime ($`\mu _0T`$) for the case $`d=3`$ and $`z=2`$ the renormalization group equations can be solved relatively easy. The first two equations, (11a) and (11b), lead to simple solutions, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)=const.`$ and $`T(l)=Te^{2l}`$, respectively. Because $`d+z>4`$, $`u`$ is irrelevant and as a consequence the second term in Eq. (11c) can be neglected leading to $`\mu (l)=\mu _0e^{2l}`$. Accordingly, the renormalization procedure will be stopped at

$$l^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{\mu _0},$$
(12)
$`\mu _0`$ being the initial value of the distance to the phase transition point. The system temperature at the fixed point becomes

$$T(l^{})=\frac{T}{\mu _0}.$$
(13)
Note that a solution for the interaction term can be obtained as $`u(l^{})\sqrt{\mu _0}`$, a result which is in agreement with the initial discussion of the interaction irrelevance in the $`d=3`$, $`z=2`$ case.

### III.2 Quantum critical regime

The quantum critical regime is defined by $`\mu _0T`$. In this case the integration of the renormalization group equations is more complicated as the critical region around the phase transition consists of two different domains, associated to quantum and classical effects. The crossover between the two domains is characterized by $`\stackrel{~}{l}=[\mathrm{ln}(1/T)]/2`$, such that $`T(\stackrel{~}{l})=1`$. The integration over the scaling has to be split in two domains, corresponding to quantum ($`l<\stackrel{~}{l}`$) and classical ($`\stackrel{~}{l}<l<l^{}`$) behavior. Consider now Eq. (11c), which will lead to the general equation for the scaling $`l^{}`$ at which the renormalization procedure is stopped ($`\mu (l^{})=1`$). An approximate solution of this equation can be obtained in two steps. First we introduce a new scaling variable, $`l^{}=l\stackrel{~}{l}`$, and secondly we neglect $`\mu (l)`$ in the exponential term occurring in the right hand side of the equation. The equation can be rewritten as

$$\frac{d\mu (l^{})}{dl^{}}=2\mu (l^{})+\frac{K_3u}{\mathrm{exp}\left[e^{2l^{}}\right]1},$$
(14)
and admits the following solution

$`\mu (l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_3u}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e1}{\mathrm{exp}\left[e^{2l^{}}\right]1}}\right)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{K_3u}{2}}\left(1e^{2l^{}}\right).`$
Without loss of generality we assumed in both Eqs. (14) and (15) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1`$. The renormalization procedure will be stopped at $`l^{}`$ satisfying the following condition

$$\frac{2}{K_3u}=1e^{2(l^{}\stackrel{~}{l})}+2(l^{}\stackrel{~}{l})e^{2(l^{}\stackrel{~}{l})}.$$
(16)
Finding an exact analytical solution for the above equation is not possible, so we chose to solve the equation iteratively, the solution within double logarithmic accuracy being of the form

$$l^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{2}{TK_3u\mathrm{ln}[2/(K_3u)]}\right].$$
(17)
The corresponding renormalized temperature is

$$T(l^{})=\frac{2}{K_3u\mathrm{ln}[2/(K_3u)]}.$$
(18)
In the following we will turn our attention to the system’s conductivity. We will evaluate the main contribution to the conductivity in the framework of the renormalization group approach.

## IV Fluctuation conductivity in layered systems

The main contribution to the system conductivity will be calculated following Aslamazov and Larkinlarkin  based on the Kubo formula. The layered structure of the system is associated to the conductivity anisotropy in the system and accordingly we will have to estimate different contributions for the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities. Following Varlamov et al.varlamov  the main contribution to the conductivity tensor can be calculated as

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{}=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{1}{i\omega }[Q_{\alpha \beta }]^R(\omega ),$$
(19)
where $`Q_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ represents the electromagnetic response operator which contribute to the fluctuation conductivity of the layered system. In Eq. (19) the subscripts $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ represents the polarization directions and $`R`$ denotes the retarded part of the operator. A diagrammatic evaluation of the electromagnetic response operator (see Ref. varlamov, ) leads to the following general form of the conductivity

$`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \xi _0^4m^2}{R_QT(l^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\omega }{2T(l^{})}\right)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _{\pi /s}^{\pi /s}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_z}{2\pi }}v_\alpha v_\beta \left[ImK^R(𝐪,\omega )\right]^2,`$ (20)
where $`R_Q=\pi \mathrm{}/(2e^2)`$, and $`v_\alpha =[\epsilon (p)/p_\alpha ]`$. In Eq. (IV) the initial integration over momenta was considered based on the cylindrical symmetry of the system. Accordingly, the in-plane and respectively the $`c`$-axis conductivities become

$$\sigma _{}^{}=\frac{8\pi \gamma \xi _0^4T(l^{})}{R_Q\mu _0^3}𝑑\omega f\left(\frac{\mu _0\omega }{2\gamma T(l^{})}\right)\frac{d^2q_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_{\pi /s}^{\pi /s}\frac{dq_z}{2\pi }\frac{q_{}^2}{\left\{\left[1+\frac{\xi _0^2}{\mu _0}q_{}^2+\frac{4}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{q_zs}{2}\right)\right]^2+\omega ^2\right\}^2}$$
(21)
and

$$\sigma _c^{}=\frac{8\pi \gamma \xi _0^4T(l^{})}{R_Q\mu _0^3}𝑑\omega f\left(\frac{\mu _0\omega }{2\gamma T(l^{})}\right)\frac{d^2q_{}}{(2\pi )^2}_{\pi /s}^{\pi /s}\frac{dq_z}{2\pi }\frac{m^2J^2s^2\mathrm{sin}^2(q_zs)}{\left\{\left[1+\frac{\xi _0^2}{\mu _0}q_{}^2+\frac{4}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{q_zs}{2}\right)\right]^2+\omega ^2\right\}^2},$$
(22)
where $`f(x)=x^2/[\mathrm{sinh}^2(x)]`$. A similar way to investigate the system conductivity was done in Ref. adachi, , with the specification that the final result for the in-plane conductivity is obtained replacing the original layered symmetry of the system with an isotropic 3D one. However, our approach is different, as the original cylindrical symmetry of the system is conserved in the conductivity calculation. The analytical structure of the integrand in both Eqs. (21) and (22) allows us to distinguish between the QD and QC regimes.

### IV.1 Quantum disorder regime

In the quantum disorder regime, $`\mu _0T`$, the main contribution in the integration over the frequency variable in both parallel and $`c`$-axis conductivities is associated to the $`\omega =0`$ point. Based on this approximation the two conductivities can be calculated as

$$\sigma _{}^{}=\frac{2\pi ^2\gamma ^2T^2(l^{})}{9R_Qs\mu _0^2}\frac{1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2}{\left\{\left[1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\right]^4\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\right\}^{3/2}},$$
(23)
and

$$\sigma _c^{}=\frac{2\pi ^2\gamma ^2T^2(l^{})}{9R_Qs\mu _0^3}\frac{s^2\xi _0^2m^2J^2}{\left\{\left[1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\right]^4\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\right\}^{3/2}}.$$
(24)
A better understanding of the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities is achieved in the limit of large and small separation between adjacent layers of the system.

#### IV.1.1 Large interlayer separation, $`s\mathrm{}`$

For the large interlayer separation case, $`s\mathrm{}`$, which from the dimensional point of view approaches a quasi 2D system, the system’s conductivities evaluated at the fix point are

$$\sigma _{}=\frac{2\pi ^2\gamma _1^2}{9R_Qs}\frac{T^2}{\mu _0^6}$$
(25)
and

$$\sigma _c=\frac{2\pi ^2\gamma _1^2\xi _0^2m^2J^2s}{9R_Q}\frac{T^2}{\mu _0^7}.$$
(26)
Note that Eqs. (26) and (25) were obtained using the renormalized values for the system’s temperature in the QD regime. The in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities have both the same temperature dependence but different disorder dependence close to the QPT point.

#### IV.1.2 Small interlayer separation, $`s0`$

In the case of small interlayer separation, $`s0`$, the system approaches a quasi 3D system. A simple calculation of the system’s conductivities at the fixed point leads to

$$\sigma _{}=\frac{\pi ^2\gamma _1^2}{596R_Q\xi _{c0}}\frac{T^2}{\mu _0^{11/2}}$$
(27)
and

$$\sigma _c=\frac{\pi ^2\gamma _1^2\xi _0^2m^2J^2s^4}{36R_Q\xi _{c0}^3}\frac{T^2}{\mu _0^{11/2}}.$$
(28)
Different from the large interlayer separation case, in the quasi-3D case the temperature and disorder dependence of the two conductivities is the same.

### IV.2 Quantum critical regime

In the QC regime, $`\mu _0T`$, we approximate $`f(x)1`$, as in this situation $`x1`$. The analytical forms of the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities are obtained as

$$\sigma _{}=\frac{\pi \gamma T}{2R_Qs\mu _0}\frac{1}{\left\{\left[1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\right]^4\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\right\}^{1/2}}$$
(29)
and

$`\sigma _c={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \gamma T\xi _0^2m^2J^2s}{2R_Q\mu _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\left\{\left[1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\right]^4\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\right\}^{1/2}}{\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\left\{\left[1+\frac{2}{\mu _0}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^2\right]^4\frac{4}{\mu _0^2}\left(\frac{\xi _{c0}}{s}\right)^4\right\}^{1/2}}}.`$ (30)
In the following we will consider a simplified form of the two obtained equations in the limit of large and small interlayer separation in order to discuss the temperature and disorder dependence of the conductivity.

#### IV.2.1 Large interlayer separation, $`s\mathrm{}`$

For the large interlayer separation between two adjacent planes of the layered structure the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities can be approximated as

$$\sigma _{}=\frac{4\pi \gamma _1}{R_Qs\left(K_3u\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{K_3u}\right)^3}\frac{1}{\mu _0T^2}$$
(31)
and

$$\sigma _c=\frac{2\pi \gamma _1\xi _o^2m^2J^2s}{R_Q\left(K_3u\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{K_3u}\right)^3}\frac{1}{\mu _0^2T^2}.$$
(32)
As in the QD regime, the temperature dependence of the two conductivities at large separation between adjacent layers of the system is the same, however, the disorder dependence of the two conductivities differs.

#### IV.2.2 Small interlayer separation, $`s0`$

Let us consider now the small interlayer separation case, resembling the quasi 3D-system. The in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities are obtained as

$$\sigma _{}=\frac{2\pi \gamma _1}{R_Q\xi _{c0}\left(K_3u\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{K_3u}\right)^3}\frac{1}{\mu _0^{1/2}T^2}$$
(33)
and

$$\sigma _c=\frac{\pi \gamma _1\xi _0^2m^2J^2s^4}{R_Q\xi _{c0}^3\left(K_3u\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{K_3u}\right)^3}\frac{1}{\mu _0^{1/2}T^2}.$$
(34)
Once again for the quasi-3D case the temperature and disorder dependence of the two conductivities is similar.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion we presented a detailed analysis of the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities close to the QPT points identified in $`d`$-wave superconductors. We considered that the system is well described by a layered structure of coupled planes, a model which allowed us to analytically obtained the two components of the system’s conductivity. For our model, the system dimensionality is fixed at $`d=3`$ despite the fact that large interlayer separation resemble a quasi-2D dimensional system; at small interlayer separation the anisotropic 3D system is recovered. The system’s dimensionality, $`d=3`$, together with the dynamical critical exponent, $`z=2`$, makes the results of our calculation suitable to describe the QPT in the overdoped region of HTSC phase diagram. However, the possibility to interpolate between quasi-2D and 3D systems due to the layered structure of the system can provide a better understanding of the disorder induced phase transition in HTSC in both underdoped and overdoped regions of the phase diagram.

Our estimation of the system’s conductivity was based on the renoprmalization group approach. The analysis of the possible QPT’s in $`d`$-wave superconductors was done by Schneiderschneider1 ; schneider  based on a detailed revision of experimental data for correlation length, magnetic penetration depth, specific heat and resistivity. His conclusions are different for the two QPT points observed in the underdoped and overdoped region of the phase diagram. In the underdoped region a quantum superconductor-insulator transition was identified, whose characteristics are $`d=2`$ and $`z=1`$. On the other hand, in the overdoped region a superconductor-normal state transition was identified with $`d=3`$ and $`z=2`$. The choice of our system symmetry and implicitly the form of our fluctuation propagator forced us to consider a fix dimensionality of the system, namely $`d=3`$, meaning that the point d=2 is not accessible to our approximation. We also considered $`z=2`$ according to the experimental data. However, as we can vary the interlayer separation distance we were able to approach a quasi-2D system and show that a possible QPT is present even in this situation, both as function of disorder or temperature. In the $`d=3`$, $`z=2`$ limit the analysis of the renormalization group equations is straightforward, leading to a Gaussian fixed point. In this situation the quadratic term in the system action, describing direct interaction between fluctuations, is irrelevant, meaning that for a certain range of temperature and disorder around the fixed point we can calculate the systems’s conductivity in the perturbative renormalization group.

We considered two different regimes in our approximations, namely the quantum disorder regime, $`T\mu _0`$, and the quantum critical regime, $`T\mu _0`$. Analytical results were presented for both type of conductivities in two different limits, for large and small separation between the component layers of the system. As a general rule the temperature dependence of the these conductivities is similar for all situations in our calculation, as long as we consider the same regime. On the other hand, for both large and small interlayer separation limits, when we lower the temperature the system resistivity should be nonmonotonic, a dip at a temperature of the order $`T\mu _0`$ being present. A similar result was reported in Ref. phillips2,  for the case $`d=2`$ and $`z=2`$, which actually can be seen as a extreme limit of our calculation. The situation changes as we investigate the disorder dependence of the conductivities. At small separation between adjacent layers, when we approach a quasi-3D system both in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities diverge at the critical disorder point following the same power law, whatever we are in the quantum disorder or quantum critical regime. At large separation, when the system resemble a quasi-2D one, the behavior of the in-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivities at the QCP are different as function of disorder. Despite the fact that both conductivities diverge at the critical disorder point following power laws, the divergence observed for the $`c`$-axis conductivity is stronger.

The case of a pure 2D system was previously considered by Dalidovich and Phillipsphillips2  at finite temperature, and by Herbut at $`T=0`$.herbut  Our result for the in-plane conductivity, at large separation between adjacent layers of the system, is similar to the one obtained in Ref. phillips2, . Some differences occurs due to the different system dimensionality and a difference between the form of the quasiparticle propagator consider here and in Ref. phillips2, . However, the main result for the two dimensional case, which states that the in-plane conductivity in the quantum critical regime is non universal and increase as function of temperature when the QCP ($`T0`$) is approached was also proved in our calculation. Moreover, our investigation presents qualitative results also for the quasi-3D case, which is relevant for the case of $`d`$-wave superconductors, where, despite the fact that conduction in the superconducting phase is attributed to the CuO planes, the system is a 3D one.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (MC) would like to acknowledge stimulating discussions with A. A. Varlamov, P. Phillips, and A.-M. Tremblay. We acknowledge financial support from the Romanian Ministry of Education.