\section{Introduction}
The impact of ultracold atomic and molecular quantum gases on present-day physics is associated with
 the extraordinary degree of control that such systems offer to investigate the fundamental behavior of quantum matter under various conditions~\cite{CHI10}. Recent experimental achievements in the field of ultracold Fermi gases are based mainly on the possibility of tuning the scattering length $a_s$, in particular to values much large than the mean interatomic distance, by changing an external magnetic field~\cite{GIO08}. This situation exists near the so-called Feshbach resonances.

Resonances in general refer to the energy-dependent enhancement of
interparticle scattering cross section due to the existence of
a metastable state. For Feshbach resonances, the metastable
state is described in terms of coupling of a bound state of a
subsystem to its environment. By tuning a magnetic field, it is
possible to obtain a quasidegeneracy between the relative energy of
two colliding atoms and that of a weakly bound molecular state. As
the quasibound state passes through a threshold, the scattering length
can be varied, in principle, from positive to negative infinity. The Feshbach
resonances were observed in bosons~\cite{Inouye98,Courteille98,Roberts98,Marte02},
in fermions between distinct spin states~\cite{Loftus02,Hara02,Dieckmann02}, and
in a single-component Fermi gas~\cite{Regal032}. In this manner the
interactions between the atoms can be strongly enhanced by an
external magnetic bias field, giving rise to the BEC-BCS crossover
phenomena~\cite{Eagles69,Leggett80,Nozieres85}. As a result of the
atomic physics of the Feshbach resonance, the nature of the Cooper
pairs in the BEC-BCS crossover is, however, not solely determined
by the interaction strength or scattering length but, in principle,
also depends on the width of the Feshbach resonance. In the limit of
an infinitely broad resonance, the properties of the gases can be
described by a single-channel theory that requires only the resonant
scattering length as an experimental input. In general, however, a
two-channel theory is needed. This is, in particular, true for the
description of the wave function of the Cooper pairs that plays an
important role in the BEC-BCS crossover.

   Near a resonance, fluctuations can be quite important since the system
is no longer in the dilute limit, and therefore one may expect
contributions from higher angular momenta and from quantum fluctuations or influence of collective modes. Generally, inclusion of
many-body effects in these systems is not easy, and one usually stops at the level of random phase approximation (RPA).

 In this paper, we aim at presenting a different scenario which
emphasizes the role of the exchange particle-hole fluctuations in addition to RPA in
the direct particle-hole channel. Our calculation is based on the induced interaction model of Babu and
Brown~\cite{Babu73,Quader87}, subsequently generalized and termed as the ``crossing-symmetric approach"~\cite{Ainsworth83}. This takes into account a properly
antisymmetrized, effective two-body interaction that reproduces the
correct low-energy physics and also suppresses any spurious ground
states. The physics is described in terms of the Landau interaction parameters and
scattering amplitudes to be discussed. In a previous study  Gaudio {\it{et al.}}~\cite{GAU07} considered $s$-wave scattering by including $\ell=0$ density and spin fluctuation. We shall study $s$- and $p$- wave scattering and include both $\ell=0$ density and spin fluctuations and $\ell=1$ current and spin-spin fluctuations.
\section{Theoretical approach}
\subsection{The crossing-symmetric method}
The crossing-symmetric method~\cite{Babu73,Ainsworth83,Quader87}
was formulated to calculate the effective quasiparticle
interactions in Fermi systems. Due to an appropriate compromise
between microscopic and phenomenological approaches, it has been
successfully applied to a number of Fermi systems: liquid
$^3$He~\cite{Babu73,Ainsworth83,Quader85}, $^3$He-$^4$He
mixtures~\cite{Yi83}, paramagnetic
metals~\cite{Ainsworth83}, heavy-fermion systems~\cite{Bedell85},
nuclear matter~\cite{Sjoberg73}, and ultracold atomic Fermi gases~\cite{GAU07}. It has been
known~\cite{Babu73,Bedell83,Bedell84,Bedell85} that a consistent
Fermi-liquid theory cannot be formulated in terms of short-range
effective interactions alone; collective excitations generated by
these must be exchanged between quasiparticles.\\

  The main point is that the contributions to Landau interaction
 $f_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}$ can be separated into two parts~\cite{Quader87}:
 \begin{equation}
  f_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}=d_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}+
  I_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}\left[f_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}\right],
 \end{equation}
 where the induced part $I_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}$, a function of
 the Landau interactions $f_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}$ themselves, is
 particle-hole reducible in the exchange particle-hole ($u$) channel, whereas the direct part $d_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}$ is not
 particle-hole reducible in either the direct particle-hole ($t$) channel or the crossed particle-hole ($u$) channel. It is important to note that the direct interaction is
 model dependent, as it gives information about the underlying Hamiltonian, and that the induced interaction is
 a purely quantum effect, arising from the exchange diagrams required to antisymmetrize the
 effective two-body scattering amplitude. \\

   For a two-component fermionic system, the Landau interaction can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
   F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\sigma\sigma^\prime}=F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s}+
   F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{a}\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{\sigma}^\prime,
\end{equation}
where $F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s}$ and $ F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{a}$ can be related to induced-interaction equations as follows~\cite{Quader87}:
\begin{eqnarray}
  &&F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s}=D_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{F_0^sU_0(q')F_0^s}{1+F_0^sU_0(q')}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{F_0^aU_0(q')F_0^a}{1+F_0^aU_0(q')}\nonumber\\
             &
             &+\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\frac{q'^2}{4k_F^2}\right]\left[\frac{F_1^sU_1(q')F_1^s}{1+F_1^sU_1(q')}+3\frac{F_1^aU_1(q')F_1^a}{1+F_1^aU_1(q')}
             \right]\label{eq:Fs},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
  &&F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{a}=D_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{F_0^sU_0(q')F_0^s}{1+F_0^sU_0(q')}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{F_0^aU_0(q')F_0^a}{1+F_0^aU_0(q')}\nonumber\\
             &&+\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\frac{q'^2}{4k_F^2}\right]\left[\frac{F_1^sU_1(q')F_1^s}{1+F_1^sU_1(q')}-\frac{F_1^aU_1(q')F_1^a}{1+F_1^aU_1(q')}
             \right]\label{eq:Fa}.
\end{eqnarray}
The momentum transfer in the crossed particle-hole
channel is $q^{\prime}=|\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^\prime|=k_F\sqrt{1-\cos{\theta_L}}$, with the Landau angle
$\theta_L=\cos^{-1}{(\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{p}^\prime)}$. $U_0(q^\prime)$ and $U_1(q^\prime)$ are the
Lindhard functions or density-density and current-current
correlation functions, respectively.
The first term in
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Fs}) and ~(\ref{eq:Fa}) is the so-called direct
interaction. The direct term is designed to convey the fact that two
quasi-particles can directly scatter via some effective potential
and repeatedly so , as in a $T$-matrix. It is of short range and
contains information about the underlying Hamiltonian of the system
under consideration. Thus, it is the ``driving" term. The induced term
is of somewhat longer range since two particles can scatter via an
interaction mediated by another particle. Equations.~(\ref{eq:Fs}) and (\ref{eq:Fa}) are nonlinear coupled
equations. To solve these, we need to do Legendre projections:
\begin{eqnarray}
     F_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s,a}=\sum_{l}F_{l}^{s,a}P_l(cos\theta_L),\\
     D_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{s,a}=\sum_{l}D_{l}^{s,a}P_l(cos\theta_L).
\end{eqnarray}
 Ainsworth {\it{et al.}}~\cite{Ainsworth83} treated $D_0^s$, $D_0^a$, and $D_1^s$
 phenomenologically so as to reproduce the empirical Landau
 parameters $F_0^s$, $F_0^a$, $F_1^s$, and $F_1^a$ and predicted
 the higher-order $F_{l}^{s,a}$'s ($l\geq$1). Then effective pairing interaction can
 be obtained~\cite{PAT75}:
 \begin{eqnarray}
    g_s^{eff}&=&\left[A_0^s-3A_0^a-(A_1^s-3A_1^a)\right]/4=A_s/4,\\
    g_t^{eff}&=&\left[A_0^s+A_0^a-(A_1^s+A_1^a)\right]/12=A_t/12,
 \end{eqnarray}
 where
 \begin{eqnarray}
   A_{l}^{s,a}= \frac{F_l^{s,a}}{1+F_{l}^{s,a}/(2l+1)}
 \end{eqnarray}
    is the $l$-partial wave symmetric (s), antisymmetric (a) scattering amplitude and $A_s$ and $A_t$ are the pairing-channel singlet and triplet scattering amplitude respectively. The vanishing of forward scattering of two particles of equal spin yields the Landau sum rule $\sum_l(A_l^s+A_l^a)=0$, which provides a test for obtained Landau parameters.

\subsection{The driving term near a Feshbach resonance }
In the crossing-symmetric approach, the form of the direct interaction used to derive the induced
interactions must be determined. In general, it represents the sum of
all particle hole irreducible interactions. A self-consistent calculation
could be performed starting with a $T$-matrix direct interaction if a
more general interaction were used to derive the $T$-matrix
calculation. According to the proposal by Bedell and
Ainsworth~\cite{Ainsworth87}, the direct interaction is the Fourier
transform of an effective quasi-particle potential. From this
potential the quasiparticle scattering amplitude $f_\mathbf{k}(\phi)$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
     f_{\mathbf{k}}(\phi)=\frac{-m^*}{4\pi}\int e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}V_{eff}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{k})d^3\mathbf{r}
     \label{eq:sa},
\end{equation}
where $\hbar=1$, $q^2=|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}^\prime|^2=2k^2(1-\cos{\phi})$,
$2k^2=k_F^2(1-\cos{\theta})$ and the quasiparticle mass $m^*=m(1+F_1^s/3)$. The relative momentum of the
incoming (outgoing) particles is $\mathbf{k}$($\mathbf{k}^\prime$), and the angle between the incoming and scattering
plane is $\phi$. Equation~(\ref{eq:sa}) is restricted to the Fermi
surface; therefore $f_\mathbf{k}(\phi)$ depends on only two variables,
$\theta$ and $\phi$. According to the effective range expansion, the
effective potential $V_{eff}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{k})$ is, in general, nonlocal and can
be expanded in powers of $\mathbf{k}^2$,
\begin{equation}
   V_{eff}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{k})=U(\mathbf{r})+\frac{1}{3}\mathbf{k}^2\mathbf{r}^2W(\mathbf{r})+...,
\end{equation}
where $U(\mathbf{r})$ and $W(\mathbf{r})$ are local potentials. Keeping order of $\mathbf{k}$ to 2
yields a three-parameter approximation to $f_\mathbf{k}(\phi)$,
\begin{equation}
  f_{\mathbf{k}}(\phi)\simeq\frac{m^*}{m}\left[-a_s+3k^2a_t(1-cos\phi)-3\mathbf{k}^2b_t\right],
  \label{eq:sca}
\end{equation}
where $a_s=m\int \mathbf{r}^2U(\mathbf{r})d^3\mathbf{r}$, $a_t=(m/9)\int \mathbf{r}^4U(\mathbf{r})d^3\mathbf{r}$, and
$b_t=(m/9)\int r^4 W(\mathbf{r})d^3\mathbf{r}$. As pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Ainsworth87}, the triplet quasiparticle scattering volume $a_t$ and the nonlocal part of the effective potential $b_t$ are $p$ wave in nature and thus sample relatively little of the repulsive core of the bare interaction. Therefore they should not have a strong density dependence. The $a_t$ is a finite-range correction to the contact interaction; this allows some interaction between particles of the same spin. The nonlocal piece of the direct interaction results from the coupling of quasiparticle currents. The
direct interaction for particles of parallel spin is
\begin{eqnarray}
    d^{\uparrow\uparrow}(\theta,\phi)&=&-\frac{4\pi}{m^*}\left[f_\mathbf{k}(\phi)-f_\mathbf{k}(\phi+\pi)\right]\nonumber\\
                                     &=&\frac{12\pi}{m}k_{F}^2a_t(1-\cos{\theta})\cos{\phi}.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly for particles of opposite spin,
\begin{eqnarray}
    d^{\uparrow\downarrow}(\theta,\phi)&=&-\frac{4\pi}{m^*}f_\mathbf{k}(\phi)\nonumber\\
                                       &=&\frac{4\pi}{m}[a_s-\frac{3}{2}k_F^2a_t(1-\cos{\theta})(1-\cos{\phi})\nonumber\\
                                       &&+\frac{3}{2}k_F^2b_t(1-\cos{\theta})].
\end{eqnarray}
The standard Landau parameters are the $\mathbf{q}=0$ values of momentum
dependent functions $F_l^{s,a}(\mathbf{q})$. In the limit of
$\mathbf{q}\rightarrow0$, $\cos{\theta}=\cos{\theta_L}$, $\cos{\phi}=1$. $d^{\uparrow\uparrow}$, $d^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ could be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray*}
  d_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\uparrow\uparrow}&=&d_{0}^{\uparrow\uparrow}+d_{1}^{\uparrow\uparrow}P_1(\hat{\mathbf{p}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{p}^\prime})=\frac{12\pi}{m}k_F^2a_t(1-\cos{\theta_L}),\\
  d_{\mathbf{p}\mathbf{p}^\prime}^{\uparrow\downarrow}&=&d_{0}^{\uparrow\downarrow}+d_{1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}P_1(\hat{\mathbf{p}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{p}^\prime})=\frac{4\pi}{m}[a_s+\frac{3}{2}k_F^2b_t(1-\cos{\theta_L})].\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Solving the above equations, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
  d_0^{\uparrow\uparrow}&=&\frac{12\pi}{m}k_F^2 a_t,\nonumber \\
  d_0^{\uparrow\downarrow}&=&\frac{4\pi}{m}a_s+\frac{6\pi}{m}k_F^2 b_t,\nonumber\\
  d_1^{\uparrow\uparrow}&=&-\frac{12\pi}{m}k_F^2 a_t,\nonumber\\
  d_1^{\uparrow\downarrow}&=&-\frac{6\pi}{m}k_F^2 b_t.
\end{eqnarray}
The direct interactions $D^s$ and $D^a$ are linear combinations of
$d^{\uparrow\uparrow}$ and $d^{\uparrow\downarrow}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
 D^s&=&\frac{N(0)}{2}(d^{\uparrow\uparrow}+d^{\uparrow\downarrow}),\\
 D^a&=&\frac{N(0)}{2}(d^{\uparrow\uparrow}-d^{\uparrow\downarrow}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $N(0)=k_Fm^*/\pi^2$ is the density of states at Fermi surface.
 For a pure $s$-wave resonance, we set $a_t=0 , b_t=0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
 D_0^s=\frac{2\pi}{m}a_s N(0)=U_0/2, D_1^s=0\\
 D_0^a=-\frac{2\pi}{m}a_s N(0)=-U_0/2, D_1^a=0.
\end{eqnarray}
For a pure $p$-wave resonance, we set $a_s=0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
   D_0^s=\frac{3\pi k_F^2}{m}(2a_t+b_t)N(0), D_1^s=-D_0^s;\\
   D_0^a=\frac{2\pi k_F^2}{m}(2a_t-b_t)N(0), D_1^a=-D_0^a.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Connection to the usual scattering parameters}
The two-body scattering amplitude is
\begin{eqnarray}
 f(\theta)&=&\frac{1}{2ik}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)(e^{2i\eta_l}-1)P_l(\cos{\theta})\nonumber\\
          &=&\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)f_l(k)P_l(\cos{\theta}),
          \label{eq:c1}
\end{eqnarray}
 where the \emph{l}th angular momentum channel is given
 by~\cite{Landau94}
\begin{equation}
   f_l(k)=\frac{k^{2l}}{-a_l^{-1}+r_l k^2-ik^{2l+1}}.
   \label{eq:c2}
\end{equation}
According to the effective range expansion, we have
\begin{equation}
 k^{2l+1}\cot{\eta_l}=-\frac{1}{a_l}+r_l k^2+....
 \label{eq:c3}
\end{equation}
From the induced interaction description, as
$q=0$, $2k^2=k_F^2(1-\cos{\theta)}$. Equation~(\ref{eq:sca}) becomes
\begin{equation}
  f_\mathbf{k}(\theta)=\frac{m^*}{m}[-a_s-\frac{3}{2}k_F^2 b_t+\frac{3}{2}k_F^2 b_t\cos{\theta}]
  \label{eq:c4}
\end{equation}
Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:c1})-(\ref{eq:c4}), we
reach
\begin{eqnarray}
   \frac{m^*}{m  }\frac{1}{2}k_F^2
   b_t=\left|\frac{k^2}{-a_1^{-1}+r_1k^2-ik^3}\right|=\frac{k^2}{\sqrt{(k^3\cot{\eta_1})^2+k^6}}.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{graph1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The $s$-wave scattering length as a function of the magnetic
field $B$ on both sides of the Feshbach resonance in $^{40}z$K, using data
from Regal and Jin~\cite{Regal03}. The density here is
$n=5.8\times10^{13}cm^{-3}$, with $\Delta B=9.7G$, and the Feshbach
resonance occurs at $B_0=224.21G$. The scattering length is measured in terms of the Bohr radius. }\label{fig:graph1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{graph2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The scattering cross section of a $s$-wave resonance between
$^{40}$K atoms in $|f=9/2,m_f=-9/2>$ and $|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2>$
states. The data used~\cite{Regal032} for calculation are as follows: number density
is $n_{pk}=1.5\times10^{13}cm^{-3}$, with $\Delta B=7.8G$, and
the Feshbach resonance occurs at $B_0=202.1G$.}\label{fig:graph2}
\end{figure}
\section{Calculations and Results}
\subsection{Close to an $s$-wave resonance}

In the vicinity of a Feshbach resonance, the $s$-wave scattering
length $a(B)$ is described approximately by~\cite{kokkelmans02}
\begin{equation}
  a(B)=a_{bg}\left(1-\frac{\Delta B}{B-B_0} \right),
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the applied field, $a_{bg}$ is the background scattering
length, and $B_0$ is the field at which the resonance occurs. The resonance width $\Delta
B$ is proportional to the strength of the coupling between the open
and close channels. For $^{40}$K, $a_{bg}=174a_0$~\cite{Markus03}, where $a_0$ is the Bohr radius. Based on this, we construct the driving terms and solve
Equations~(\ref{eq:Fs}) and (\ref{eq:Fa}). We find that the
scattering length tends to smooth out as it approaches the resonance, as
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:graph1}. On the BCS side far from the
resonance, the many-body results give exactly two-body physics. When
the system is driven to the resonance, two-body scattering gives a
diverging unrenormalized (bare) scattering length. Many-body exchange fluctuations greatly suppress the divergence of the scattering length. In this region, the exchange
fluctuations are quite strong and act as a feedback to the system. On the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) side far from the resonance, the medium effects reduce the effect of the interaction. This is similar to what occurs on the BCS side far from the resonance.
The suppression of divergence close to the resonance is also suggested
in the many-body renormalized scattering cross section, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:graph2}, where scattering occurs between  two hyperfine species, namely $|f=9/2,m_f=-9/2>$ and $|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2>$.
Here $f$ is the total angular momentum, and $m_f$ is the corresponding magnetic quantum number. As can be seen, away from the resonance, the medium effects are small. However, close to resonance, the medium effects strongly modify the scattering cross section.
\subsection{Close to a $p$-wave resonance}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{graph3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The scattering cross section of a $p$-wave resonance between
$^{40}K$ atom pairs in the state $|f=9/2,m_f=-9/2\rangle|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2>|\ell=1,m_{\ell}=0\rangle$ at
$T=3.2\mu K$.}\label{fig:graph3}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{graph4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The many-body scattering cross section of a $p$-wave resonance for $^{40}$K atom pairs
in the $|f=9/2,m_f=-9/2\rangle|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2\rangle|\ell=1,m_{\ell}=0\rangle$ state at various temperatures.
}\label{fig:graph4}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{graph5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The singlet and triplet scattering amplitudes ($A_s$ and $A_t$) for
a $p$-wave resonance between $^{40}$K atom pairs in the state
$|f=9/2,m_f=-9/2\rangle|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2\rangle|\ell=1,m_{\ell}=0\rangle$ at
$T=0.1\mu K$.}\label{fig:graph5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\scalebox{0.70}{\includegraphics[clip,angle=0]{graph6a.eps}}}
{\scalebox{0.70}{\includegraphics[clip,angle=0]{graph6b.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online) The singlet scattering amplitude $A_s$ for a $p$-wave resonance:
(a) without $s$-wave background and (b) with $s$-wave background where $U_0=-1.5$.}\label{fig:graph6}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.48}{\includegraphics[clip,angle=0]{graph7.eps}}}

\caption{(Color online) The triplet scattering amplitude $A_t$ for a $p$-wave resonance:
(a) without $s$-wave background; (b) with $s$-wave background where $U_0=-1.5$.}\label{fig:graph7}
\end{figure}
A $p$-wave resonance is distinct from an $s$-wave ($l=0$) resonance in
that the atoms must overcome a centrifugal barrier to couple to the
bound state. It is sensitive to the temperature and the magnetic field. We
need two parameters to characterize the $p$-wave resonance: scattering
volume $a_t$ and effective range $r_1$. The magnetic field
dependence of $a_t$ and $r_1$ is obtained from the fitting formula
given by Ticknor {\it{et al.}}~\cite{Ticknor04}. Therefore we can construct the driving
terms and solve equations~(\ref{eq:Fs}) and (\ref{eq:Fa}). The $p$-wave resonance could be tuned by the magnetic field to occur between two atoms in the hyperfine states of $|f,m_f>=|9/2,-9/2\rangle$ and $|f,m_f>=|9/2,-7/2\rangle$. The joint state of the atom pair will be written as $|f_1m_{f_1}\rangle|f_2m_{f_2}\rangle|\ell m_{\ell}\rangle$. The
many-body effects in a $p$ wave are less severe than in an $s$ wave, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:graph3}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:graph3}, we plot the scattering cross section for a $p$-wave resonance for $^{40}$K atom pairs in the state $|f=9/2,m_f=-7/2\rangle|\ell=1,m_{\ell}=0\rangle$. Here $\ell=1$ is the orbital angular momentum quantum number, and $m_{\ell}=0$ is the corresponding magnetic quantum number. Away from the resonance, the many-body corrections due to medium effects are small. Distinct correction only appears at a
region close to the Feshbach resonance. Figure~\ref{fig:graph4} shows the
temperature dependence of the many-body scattering cross section. We can see that the
lower the temperature is, the higher the resonance peak is. As the
temperature rises, the resonance cross section broadens. The position of the resonance changes slightly with temperature due to the temperature dependence of the scattering cross section. The resonance at $T=5.0\mu$K (green dots) shows a double-peak feature resulting from the strong energy dependence of the cross section. The pairing-channel scattering amplitudes ($A_s$ and $A_t$) are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:graph5}. The triplet scattering amplitude $A_t$ is
negative on the BCS side, indicating a $p$-wave superfluid pairing. On the BEC side, the
singlet scattering amplitude is negative, indicating the formation of $s$-wave
molecules. The $p$-wave Feshbach resonances offer a means to experimentally study anisotropic interactions in systems other than identical fermions. On resonance the $p$-wave cross section becomes comparable to the background $s$-wave scattering. This means that it could have an equally important role in determining the collisional behavior and mean-field interaction of the quantum gases. Utilizing $p$-wave Feshbach resonances, the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) group has successfully created $p$-wave molecules~\cite{GAE07}.
\subsection{Close to a $p$-wave resonance with an $s$-wave background}

For a $p$-wave resonance, the JILA group~\cite{Regal032} found that
there exists non-negligible off-resonant scattering in the ultracold Fermi gas of $^{40}$K. Our model can
be employed to study the situation when the singlet correlation ($s$-wave scattering) and
the triplet correlation ($p$-wave scattering) are both present. This situation can occur when the resonant magnetic field for $p$ waves and $s$ waves are well separated. By tuning the magnetic field around $p$-wave resonance one can realize a $p$-wave resonance with an $s$-wave background. The driving terms can then be modeled as
\begin{eqnarray}
   D_0^s&=&\frac{3\pi}{m}k_F^2(2a_t+b_t)N(0)+\frac{2\pi}{m}a_sN(0)\nonumber,\\
   D_0^a&=&\frac{3\pi}{m}k_F^2(2a_t-b_t)N(0)-\frac{2\pi}{m}a_sN(0)\nonumber,\\
   D_1^s&=&-\frac{3\pi}{m}k_F^2(2a_t+b_t)N(0)\nonumber,\\
   D_1^a&=&-\frac{3\pi}{m}k_F^2(2a_t-b_t)N(0).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $s$-wave background interaction is characterized by $U_0=\frac{4\pi}{m}a_sN(0)$. By fixing $U_0$
and varying the parameters $1/k_F^3a_t$ and $1/k_F^3b_t$, we can evaluate the pairing channel
scattering amplitudes ($A_s$ and $A_t$) in full parameters space through solving crossing-symmetric equations~(\ref{eq:Fs}) and (\ref{eq:Fa}). From the obtained Landau parameters $F_l^{s,a}$, by $s$-$p$ approximation~\cite{PAT75}, one can straightforwardly construct pairing-channel scattering
amplitudes via
\begin{eqnarray}
  A_{singlet}&=&A_0^s-3A_0^a-A_1^s+3A_1^a,\nonumber\\
  A_{triplet}&=&A_0^s+A_0^a-A_1^s-A_1^a.
\end{eqnarray}
The calculated singlet
scattering amplitude is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:graph6}. When
there is no background $s$-wave scattering, the singlet scattering
amplitude becomes very large when it crosses the unitary limit (strongly interacting regime) of either
parameter $1/k_F^3a_t$ or $1/k_F^3b_t$, as suggested in Fig.~\ref{fig:graph6}$(a)$. To investigate the effects of the $s$-wave background on the $p$-wave resonance, we choose $U_0=-1.5$ for illustration such that it has a noticeable effect. In the presence of background
$s$-wave scattering, the singlet scattering amplitude becomes negative and shows a pronounced peak when it
crosses the unitary limit of both parameters $1/k_F^3a_t$ and
$1/k_F^3b_t$. Away from the unitarity limit, the singlet scattering amplitude $A_s$ is
mainly negative, manifesting trends of  background $s$-wave pairing. The purpose of
introducing $U_0$ is to introduce background singlet pairing interaction.
The competition between the $p$-wave scattering and background $s$-wave scattering
determines the sign of the singlet scattering amplitude. When the $p$-wave interaction is weak,
the properties of the system are dominated by $s$-wave behavior with a constant negative
singlet pairing amplitude, as can be seen in the Fig.~\ref{fig:graph6}$(b)$.

To investigate $p$-wave pairing, we plot the triplet scattering amplitude $A_t$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:graph7}. Interestingly, the triplet scattering amplitude $A_t$ is sensitive
to parameter $1/k_F^3a_t$ but insensitive to parameter $1/k_F^3b_t$ except
building up a bump near the unitarity regime in the presence of background $s$-wave scattering. Remarkably, in the absence of background $s$-wave scattering $A_s$ is antisymmetric with
respect to parameter $1/k_F^3a_t$ while symmetric with respect to parameter
 $1/k_F^3b_t$. These properties are closely related to the parametrization and symmetrical features in Equation (28), where $s$-wave scattering only contributes to the $\ell=0$ channel in the driving terms. The background $s$-wave
scattering shows its existence by shifting the triplet scattering amplitude in total
toward the negative side. In addition, it enhances the effect of parameter  $1/k_F^3b_t$,
especially near resonance. The antisymmetry of $A_t$ with respect to parameter $1/k_F^3a_t$
is lost; in contrast, the symmetry of $A_t$ with respect to parameter $1/k_F^3b_t$ is still preserved.
It is necessary to point out that when both $A_s$ and $A_t$ are negative, the actual pairing
symmetry depends on their relative magnitude.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
By using the crossing-symmetric method to treat many-body Fermi systems, one generally
solves nonlinear coupled crossing-symmetric equations for four-point vertex functions
in particle-particle, particle-hole, and exchange particle-hole channels. In appropriate limits
on the Fermi surfaces, these vertex functions become the Landau quasiparticle interaction $F(q)$
and the scattering amplitude $A(q)$. For isotropic systems, these can be expressed in Legendre polynomials giving Landau parameters $F_l^s$ and $F_l^a$ in spin-symmetric ($s$) and spin-antisymmetric ($a$) channels. From the obtained Landau parameters, one can calculate several
thermodynamic, transport, and pairing properties of a system.\\

We study $s$- and $p$-wave Feshbach resonance with the crossing-symmetric method.
Our findings are as follows: (1) many-body exchange effects may be important
close to a Feshbach resonance. Renormalized physical quantities get
smoothed out at the Feshbach resonance. In particular, we find that the particle-hole exchange fluctuations introduce an effective scattering length which has been substantially reduced close to resonances. (2) For a $p$-wave resonance, the triplet
scattering amplitude is negative on the BCS side, indicating
a triplet($p$-wave) superfluid pairing. (3) Background off-resonant scattering has
some effects on the singlet and triplet scattering amplitudes, which may
influence the pairing symmetry of the ground state.

\begin{acknowledgments}
 We are grateful for stimulating discussions with K. S. Bedell and S. Gaudio. This work was supported by the NSFC under Grants No. 10934010 and No. 60978019, the NKBRSFC under Grants No. 2009CB930701, No. 2010CB922904, No. 2011CB921502, and No. 2012CB821300, and the NSFC-RGC under Grants No. 11061160490 and No. 1386-N-HKU748/10.
\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
The first observation of the $X(3872)$ decay into $J/\psi \gamma$ was reported by the BELLE collaboration in \cite{Abe:2005ix}. Later on this decay mode was confirmed by the BABAR collaboration in \cite{Aubert:2006aj} and more recently again in BELLE in \cite{Bhardwaj:2011dj}. Theoretically this decay mode had already some early attention and was studied in \cite{Barnes:2003vb,Braaten:2003he,Swanson:2004pp,Braaten:2005ai} assuming either a charmonium state or a molecular state. A thorough discussion of the different models used and the results can be seen in \cite{thomas1}, which has also been updated recently in \cite{thomas2}. A recent work assuming the $X(3872)$ to be a charmonium state is presented in \cite{Badalian:2012jz} and assuming it to be a tretaquark in \cite{Dubnicka:2011mm}. In \cite{marina} it is assumed to be a mixture of a charmonium and a molecular component, and uscing QCD sum rules a good rate is obtained for the $J/\psi\gamma$ decay mode versus the $J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ one, which is evaluated in \cite{navarra}. In \cite{thomas1} the authors consider, like in the work of  \cite{Braaten:2003he},  the $X(3872)$ resonance to be a molecule of $D^0 \bar D^{*0} -c.c.$ and, in addition, they include the possibility of a $c \bar c$ admixture. In \cite{thomas1} an effective Lagrangian is postulated to provide the coupling of the $X(3872)$ to the  $D^0 \bar D^{*0}$ components, with an unknown wave function. The effective coupling needed in the loops for radiative decay of the $X(3872)$ is obtained using the Weinberg compositness condition  \cite{composite,hanhart}, reformulated in \cite{sumrule} as $g^2=-(\frac{\partial}{\partial_s}G)^{-1}$, where $G$ is the loop function of the $D^0$ and  $\bar D^{*0}$ propagators. The procedure has been shown to provide a fair description of the molecular states in other works \cite{Faessler:2007gv,Branz:2008cb,Dong:2009yp}. The results of \cite{thomas1} are tied to unknowns on the regularization of the loop functions, the $\Lambda_M$ parameter used in \cite{thomas1}, and the binding. The results obtained for the $X(3872)$ decay into the  $J/\psi \gamma$ channel are of  about 125-250 KeV taking reasonable values for the $\Lambda_M$ parameter between 2 and 3 GeV.

In \cite{thomas2} the authors include the charge components of $D^+ D^{*-}-c.c.$, which were found necessary to explain the ratio of $X(3872)$ to $J/\psi \rho$ and $J/\psi \omega$ in \cite{Gamermann_Oset,sumrule}.  The novelty with respect to the previous work of \cite{thomas1} is that the authors use a smaller $\Lambda_M$ cut off, of the order of 0.5 GeV to regularize the loop function, such that the wave function of the $D^0 \bar D^{*0} -c.c.$ is much more extended in space. The final results of the new evaluations differ quantitatively from those of \cite{thomas1} and are now in the range of 2-17 KeV. It is then clear that a more systematic approach to the problem has to be done if one wishes to obtain accurate numbers from the molecular picture of the $X(3872)$. This is the purpose of the present paper.

A consistent dynamical picture of the $X(3872)$ in the coupled channels of $D \bar  D^* -c.c.$ was elaborated in \cite{Gamermann_Oset} using an extrapolations to SU(4) of chiral Lagrangians used in the study of pseudoscalar meson interaction with vector mesons \cite{roca}. This is equivalent to extending to $SU(4)$ the local hidden gauge approach of \cite{hidden1,hidden2,hidden3,hidden4} with a particular $SU(4)$ breaking. Given the subtlety of the small binding for the neutral $D^0 \bar  D^{*0} -c.c.$ component versus the about 7 MeV binding for the charged $D^+  D^{*-} -c.c.$ components, a coupled channel approach considering these explicit channels with their exact mass and not assuming isospin symmetry, was done in \cite{danisospin}, concluding that the coupling of the resonance to the neutral and charged components was very similar, which tells us that in strong processes the $X(3872)$ behaves as a rather good I=0 object. The $D_s ^+  D_s^{*-} -c.c.$ components were also included in \cite{Gamermann_Oset,danisospin}. On the other hand, the study of the wave functions of the resonance for each of its channels indicated that the couplings provided essentially the wave function at the origin, which indicates that the neutral component, extending further away in space than the charged components, because of the small binding, and having the same strenght at the origin, will have a larger probability in the wave function. But this has not repercussion in strong processes, of short range, or electromagnetic ones where there is production of real photons radiated from the components of the wave function, because they see the strength of the wave functions at the origin. In sum, the charged $D^+  D^{*-} -c.c.$ components have to be considered in the study of these processes.

In the present work we follow the approach of \cite{danisospin,sumrule} where all the couplings are accurately determined from the unitary coupled channel approach and are tied to the binding of the  $X(3872)$, which is generated dynamically as a composite state  of $D \bar D^*$ in this picture. The mechanisms for radiative decay are then basically the same as in \cite{thomas2}, except that we also have contribution from the $D_s \bar D^*_s$ components and have, although not much, different couplings of the resonance to the neutral and charged $D \bar  D^*$ components. The work is also technically different. Our approach has not ambiguities about the regularization of the loops, and most of the terms are shown to be convergent. Some terms are formally divergent, but we can isolate the divergence into a term proportional to the same loop function G which appears in scattering. The function G is regularized in the scattering problem in order to fit the position of the resonance, so when it comes to evaluate the radiative decay it is already fixed. This makes the scheme fully selfconsistent and predictive, since one does not have to rely upon unknown parameters that have proved to have a strong repercussion in the numerical results from the former studies.

Traditionally the $X(3872)$ could be considered as a $J^P=1^{++}$ or       $J^P=2^{-+}$ state, and there is a work similar to the one of \cite{thomas2} but assuming $J^P=2^{-+}$  \cite{Harada:2010bs}. Here we will continue to use the  $J^P=1^{++}$,  which is supported by recent analysis of data in  \cite{hanhart1++,Ke:2011jf}.

Our work proceeds as follows: in the next section we present the formalims for the work with the Feynman diagrams used and the scheme to evaluate them. In section \ref{res} we present the results for $X(3872)\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma,J/\psi\omega,J/\psi\rho$ and compare them to experiment, discussing the role of the charged components of the $X(3872)$ wave function. In section \ref{conclusions} we summarize our results.

\section{Formalism}
\label{form}
In \cite{Gamermann_Oset, x3872}, the interaction between pseudoscalars and vector mesons is studied including the charm sector. The potential is like the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction between pseudoscalar mesons but including the vector meson fields \cite{roca}. In \cite{Gamermann_Oset, danisospin}, all the different currents within the $SU(4)$ scheme are classified in terms of $SU(3)$ currents, and the breaking symmetry parameters are introduced to account for the suppression of the heavy meson exchange. Within this formalism, the $X(3872)$ is a dynamically generated resonance from the interaction of $D\bar{D}^*$, having an eigenstate of positive $C$-parity with isospin $I=0$. It also has some component of $D_s\bar{D}_s^*$. In fact, the basis of positive $C$-parity and $I=0$ for these two channels corresponds to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:states}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|(D^*\bar{D}-\bar{D}^*D), I=0, I_3=0\rangle=\frac{1}{2}|(D^{*+}D^--D^{*-}D^++D^{*0}\bar{D}^0-\bar{D}^{*0}D^0)\rangle\\
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|(D^*_s\bar{D}_s-\bar{D}^*_sD_s), I=0, I_3=0\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|(D^{*+}_sD^-_s-D^{*-}_sD^+_s)\rangle\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In \cite{danisospin} it was found that the $X(3872)$ had couplings to the charged and neutral components of $DD^{*}$ that were very close to each other, implying an approximate $I=0$ character for the state. Since the masses and bindings used in \cite{Gamermann_Oset, danisospin} have been updated, we have redone the calculation of \cite{Gamermann_Oset, danisospin} with updated masses, assuming the present binding of $0.2\ MeV$ of the $X(3872)$ with respect to the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}-c.c$ component. The result of the couplings are shown in table \ref{tab:x3872}.
\begin{table}[htpb]
\centering
\begin{Tabular}{lr}
Channel&$|g_{R\to PV}|$ [MeV]\\\hline
$(K^-K^{*+}-c.c.)/\sqrt{2}$&$-53$\\
$(K^0\bar{K}^{*0}-c.c.)/\sqrt{2}$&$-49$\\
$(D^-D^{*+}-c.c.)/\sqrt{2}$&$3638$\\
$(D^0\bar{D}^{*0}-c.c.)/\sqrt{2}$&$3663$\\
$(D^-_s D^{*+}_s-c.c.)/\sqrt{2}$&$3395$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}
\caption{Couplings $g_R$ of the pole at $(3871.6-i0.001)$ MeV to the channels ($\alpha_H=-1.27$ here). Table taken from Ref. \cite{danisospin}.}
\label{tab:x3872}
\end{table}

From the couplings in Table \ref{tab:x3872}, we observe that there is some isospin violation, which is however very small, less than $1\%$. Intuitively, one might think that the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ component is the only relevant, because the binding of the $D⁰\bar{D}^{*0}$ is very small, of the order of $0.2\ MeV$ and the wave function extends much further than for the charged component, which is bound by about $8\ MeV$. However, as we mentioned, the relevant interactions in most processes are short ranged and then the wave functions at the origin, proportional to the couplings, are what matters. In this sense it is found in \cite{Gamermann_Oset, danisospin} that in the limit of the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ binding going to zero, all couplings go to zero, but the ratio of the couplings of the charged and neutral components goes to a constant close to one, which guarantees that the charged component will play an important role in physical processes. The conclusion is that the wave function of the $X(3872)$ is very close to the isospin $I=0$ combination of $D^0\bar{D}^{*0} - c.c.$ and $D^+D^{*-} - c.c.$ and has a sizable fraction of the $D^+D^{*-} - c.c.$ of Eq. (\ref{eq:states}).

From this table we can also see that the couplings to the $K^-K^{*+}-c.c.$ and $K^0\bar{K}^{*0}-c.c.$ channels represent less than the $1\%$ of the contributions from the other channels (the $\pi^-\rho^+-c.c.$ has even smaller strenght). Therefore, we will treat the $X(3872)$ as if it were dynamically generated only from the last three channels in Table \ref{tab:x3872}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{xjps1.pdf}
\caption{Different types of Feynmann diagrams for the decay of the $X(3872)$ into $J/\psi\gamma$.}
\label{fig:diag}
\end{figure}

In this picture, the $X(3872)$ decays into $J/\psi \gamma$ through the diagrams shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diag}. From this figure we observe that there are  four kinds of different Feynman diagrams, all of them with an anomalous vertex coupling two vectors and a pseudoscalar (VVP),  depending on whether the diagram contains a PPV or a 3V vertex, or the photon emerges from the anomalous vertex. To begin with, there are three different channels: $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$, $D^+D^{*-}$ and $D^+_s D^{*-}_s$, which lead to $12$, plus another $12$ for the complex congujate, Feynman diagrams to evaluate. The formalism used is very similar to the one of \cite{hideko} where the authors study the radiative decay of the dynamically generated resonance $K^{*}_2(1430)$ \cite{geng} into $K\gamma$, via diagrams containing anomalous vector-vector-pseudoscalar vertices. The VPP, 3V and V$\gamma$ vertices are evaluated using the local hidden gauge approach \cite{hidden1,hidden2,hidden3,hidden4} which automatically incorporates vector meson dominance, by means of which the photons couple to other hadrons converting itself into $\rho^0,\omega,\phi$ and $J/\psi$. As a consequence of this, we are also able to evaluate the rates of the $X(3872)$ decay into $J/\psi \rho,~J/\psi \omega$ and the ratios of the decay rates, which can be compared to existing data.

In summary, the Lagrangians we need in order to evaluate the amplitude are listed below:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\mathcal{L}&_{VVP}=\frac{G'}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\langle\partial_\mu V_\nu \partial_\alpha V_\alpha P\rangle\label{lag1}\\
&\mathcal{L}&_{V\gamma}=-M_V^2\frac{e}{g}A_\mu\langle V^\mu Q\rangle\label{lag2}\\
&\mathcal{L}&_{PPV}=-ig\langle V^\mu [P,\partial_\mu P]\rangle\label{lag3}\\
&\mathcal{L}&_{3V}=ig\langle (V^\mu \partial_\nu V_\mu -\partial_\nu V_\mu V^\mu)
V^\nu)\rangle\ ,\label{lag4}
\end{eqnarray}
with $e$ the electron mass ($e^2/4\pi=\alpha$), $G' = 3g'^2/(4\pi^2f)$, $g' = -G_V M_\rho/(\sqrt{2}f^2)$, $G_V=f/\sqrt{2}$ and $g=M_V/2f$. The constant $f$ is the pion decay constant $f_{\pi}=93\ MeV$, $Q=diag(2,-1,-1,2)/3$ and $M_V$ is the mass of the vector meson, for which we take $M_{\rho}$.

The P and V matrices contain the 15-plet of the pseudoscalars and the 15-plet of vectors respectively in the physical basis considering $\eta$, $\eta'$ mixing \cite{gamphi3770}
\begin{equation}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1cm}
\renewcommand{#1}\tabular{#2}}{2}
P=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}} & \pi^+ & K^+&\bar{D}^0\\
\pi^- &\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{6}}-\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}} & K^{0}&D^-\\
K^{-} & \bar{K}^{0} &-\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{3}}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\eta'&D^-_s\\
D^0&D^+&D^+_s&\eta_c
\end{array}
\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
and $V_\mu$ represents the vector nonet:
 \begin{equation}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1cm}
\renewcommand{#1}\tabular{#2}}{2}
V_\mu=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\omega+\rho^0}{\sqrt{2}} & \rho^+ & K^{*+}&\bar{D}^{*0}\\
\rho^- &\frac{\omega-\rho^0}{\sqrt{2}} & K^{*0}&D^{*-}\\
K^{*-} & \bar{K}^{*0} &\phi&D^{*-}_s\\
D^{*0}&D^{*+}&D^{*+}_s&J/\psi
\end{array}
\right)_\mu\ .
\end{equation}

From Eqs. (\ref{lag1}), (\ref{lag2}), (\ref{lag3}) and (\ref{lag4}) we can write the vertices involved in the diagram of type (1) of Fig. \ref{fig:diag} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ts}
\begin{split}
&t_{RVP}=g_X\ \epsilon^{(V)\mu}\epsilon^{(X)}_{\mu}\\
&t_{V_p\gamma}=P\ M_{V_p}^2\frac{e}{g}\ \epsilon_\mu^{(\gamma)}\epsilon^{(V_p)\mu}\\
&t_{PP_lJ/\psi}=P_V\ g\ (2q-p)_\mu\epsilon^{(J/\psi)\mu}\\
&t_{VV_pP_l}=A\ G'\ \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\ (P-q)_\alpha\epsilon_{\beta}^{(V)}k_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(V_l)}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $g_X=3638/\sqrt{2}, 3663/\sqrt{2}, 3395/\sqrt{2}\ MeV$, for $D^-D^{*+}$, $\bar{D}^0D^{*0}$, $D^-_sD^{*+}$ and $-3638/\sqrt{2},$ $-3663/\sqrt{2},-3395/\sqrt{2}\ MeV$, for $D^+D^{*-}$, $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$, $D^+_sD^{*-}_s$ respectively and $P$, $P_V$ and $A$ are numerical factors.

The $V_p\to\gamma$ conversion essentially replaces, up to a constant, $\epsilon_\delta^{(V_p)}$ by $\epsilon_\delta^{(\gamma)}$. Therefore, we can write the amplitude of the diagram (1) depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:diag} as
\begin{eqnarray}
-it_1&&=-\mathrm{B}eg_XG'\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4}\epsilon^{(V)\beta'}\epsilon^{(X)}_{\beta'}\epsilon^{(J/\psi)\mu}(2q-p)_\mu\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(P-q)_\alpha\epsilon_\beta^{(V)}k_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(\gamma)}\nonumber\\&&\times \frac{1}{q^2-m_P^2}\frac{1}{(q-p)^2-m_{P_l}^2}\frac{1}{(P-q)^2-m_V^2}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{B}=PAP_V$ (the values of $B$ for each case are shown in Table \ref{tab:coef}). Summing over the polarizations of the internal vector, we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_\lambda \epsilon^{(V)}_\beta\epsilon^{(V)}_{\beta'}=-g_{\beta\beta'}+\frac{(P-q)_\beta(P-q)_{\beta'}}{m_V^2}\ .
\end{equation}
When contracting with the antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$, the term $(P-q)_\beta(P-q)_{\beta'}$ disappears. Thus, we have an integral like
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{ (2q-p)_\mu (p+k-q)_\alpha}{(q^2-m_P^2+i\epsilon)((q-p)^2-m_{P_l}^2+i\epsilon)((p+k-q)^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon)}\nonumber\\&&=
i(ag_{\mu\alpha}+bk_\mu k_\alpha+cp_\alpha k_\mu +d k_\alpha p_\mu+e p_\alpha p_\mu)\label{eq:lor}
\end{eqnarray}
because of Lorentz covariance. After contracting with the antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ and applying the Lorentz condition $p_\mu\epsilon^{(J/\psi)\mu}=0$, only the coefficients $a$ and $c$ remain to be evaluated. The $a$ coefficient is related to the logarithmically divergent part of the integral in Eq. (\ref{eq:lor}) and therefore the evaluation of this coefficient needs a special  treatment as we will see later on. We arrive to an amplitude of the form
\begin{equation}
t_1=\mathrm{B}eG'g_X\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(a\epsilon_\alpha^{(J/\psi)}+cp_\alpha k\cdot\epsilon^{(J/\psi)})\epsilon^{(X)}_\beta k_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(\gamma)}\ .
\end{equation}

Now we want to evaluate  the $a$ and $c$ coefficients. We do it using the formula of the Feynman parametrization for $n=3$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\alpha\beta\gamma}=2\int^1_0 dx\int^x_0 dy\frac{1}{[\alpha+(\beta-\alpha)x+(\gamma-\beta)y]^3}\ .\label{eq:fein}
\end{equation}
In the integral of Eq. (\ref{eq:lor}), we can perform the above parametrization with
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha&=&(q-p)^2-m_{P_l}^2\nonumber\\
\beta&=& q^2-m_P^2\nonumber\\
\gamma&=&(p+k-q)^2-m_V^2\label{eq:abc}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
We define a new variable $q'=q+p(x-y-1)-ky$, such that the integral of Eq. (\ref{eq:lor}) can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
4\int^1_0 dx\int^x_0 dy  \int \frac{d^4 q'}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{(q'+p(1-x+y)+ky)_\mu(k-q'-p(y-x)-ky)_\alpha}{(q'^2+s_1)^3}\ ,\label{eq:int2}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
s_1=-m_{P_l}^2 +(m_{P_l}^2-m_P^2)x+(k^2+m_P^2-m^2_V)y+p^2(x-y)(1-x+y)+2pky(x-y)-k^2y^2\label{eq:s}\ .
\end{equation}
From Eq. (\ref{eq:int2}), we must take the $iag_{ \mu\alpha}$ and $icp_\alpha k_\mu$ terms. The $c$ coefficient can be evaluated very easily, since
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{d^4 q'}{(q'^2+s_1)^3}=\frac{i\pi^2}{2s_1}
\end{equation}
and we have
\begin{eqnarray}
c=\frac{1}{8\pi^2} \int^1_0 dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{y(x-y)}{s_1}\ .\label{eq:c2}
\end{eqnarray}
The evaluation of the $a$ coefficient is a little bit more elaborated. We have the identity
\begin{equation}
iag_{\mu\alpha}=-4\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy \frac{d^4q'}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{q'_\mu q'_\alpha}{(q'^2+s_1+i\epsilon)^3}\ ,
\end{equation}
and after taking the trace
\begin{equation}
ia=-\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy \frac{d^4q'}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{q'^2}{(q'^2+s_1+i\epsilon)^3}\ .
\end{equation}
This part is logarithmically divergent and we will relate it to the two-meson function loop $G(P)$:
\begin{equation}
G(P=p+k)=i\int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{q^2-m_P^2+i\epsilon}\frac{1}{(p+k-q)^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon}\ .
\end{equation}
Multiplying the integrand by the factor $((q-p)^2-m_{P_l}^2)/((q-p)^2-m_{P_l}^2)$ and using the Feynmann parametrization rule with the change of variable $q'=q+p(x-y-1)-ky$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
G(P)=2i\int^1_0 dx \int^x_0 dy \int\frac{d^4 q'}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{q'^2+(ky)^2+2pky(y-x)+p^2(x-y)^2-m_{P_l}^2}{(q'+s_1)^3}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
a=\frac{G(P)}{2}+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{(ky)^2+2pky(y-x)+p^2(x-y)^2-m_{P_l}^2}{s_1+i\epsilon}\ .
\end{eqnarray}

Now, we want to calculate the amplitude for the second diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:diag} containing the three-vector vertex. The only difference with the previous diagram is the 3V vertex. Thus, the amplitudes corresponding to the 3V vertex and the anomalous vertex are, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
t_{VV_lV_p}&=V_3g\ \lbrace(q-p+k)_\mu\epsilon_\nu^{(V_l)}\epsilon^{(V)\mu}\epsilon^{(V_p)\nu}-(p+2k-q)_\nu\epsilon_\mu^{(V)}\epsilon^{(V_l)\nu}\epsilon^{(V_p)\mu}\\&+(2(p-q)+k)_\nu\epsilon_\mu^{(V)}\epsilon^{(V_l)\mu}\epsilon^{(V_p)\nu}\rbrace\\
t_{V_lJ/\psi P}&=AG'\ \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(q-p)_\alpha\epsilon_{\beta}^{(V_l)}p_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(J/\psi)}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $V_3$ and $A$ are numerical factors.

Thus, we can write the amplitude of the diagram (2) in Fig. \ref{fig:diag} as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
-it_2&=-eG'g_X\mathrm{C}\ \int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}
\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (q-p)_\alpha\epsilon_\beta^{(V_l)}p_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(J/\psi)}\epsilon^{(X)}_{\nu'}\epsilon^{(V)\nu'} \\&\times
\lbrace(q-p+k)_\mu\epsilon_\nu^{(V_l)}\epsilon^{(V)\mu}\epsilon^{(\gamma)\nu}-(p+2k-q)_\nu\epsilon_\mu^{(V)}\epsilon^{(V_l)\nu}\epsilon^{(\gamma)\mu}\\&+(2(p-q)+k)_\nu\epsilon_\mu^{(V)}\epsilon^{(\gamma)\nu}\epsilon^{(V_l)\mu}\rbrace\frac{1}{q^2-m_P^2+i\epsilon}\frac{1}{(q-p)^2-m_{V_l}^2+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\&\times \frac{1}{(p+k-q)^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C=V_3PA$. In this process the $\bar{D}^{*0}$ is very close to be on-shell with zero three momentum. To be consistent with the approach of \cite{danisospin}, which is neglecting the three-momentum compared to the mass of the vector meson, $\vert\vec{q}\,\vert/m_V\simeq 0$,  $\epsilon^{(V)0}\simeq 0$, we perform the sum over polarizations as
\begin{equation}
\sum_\lambda \epsilon^{(V)\mu}\epsilon^{(V)\nu'}\simeq \delta^{(\mu\nu')_{\mathrm{spatial}}}=\delta^{ij}
\end{equation}
We also can keep the covariant formalism and remember at the end that $\mu,\nu'$ are spatial.  The way to proceed is very similar to that of the previous diagram. The second term of the $3V$ vertex proportional to $(p+2k-q)_\beta$ does not contribute, since we have $(q-p)_\alpha p_\gamma (p+2k-q)_\beta =q_\alpha(p+2k)_\beta p_\gamma\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$, which applying Lorentz covariance in the integral turns into a term like $(a'p_\alpha k_\beta+b'p_\beta k_\alpha)p_\gamma\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=0$. Therefore, we have two kinds of integrals:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{q_\alpha (q-p+k)_{\nu'} }{(q^2-m_P^2+i\epsilon)((q-p)^2-m_{V_l}^2+i\epsilon)((p+k-q)^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon)}\nonumber\\&&=i(a_1g_{\alpha\nu'}+b_1k_\alpha k_{\nu'}+c_1p_\alpha k_{\nu'}+d_1 p_{\nu'} k_\alpha+e_1 p_{\nu'} p_\alpha)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{q_\alpha 2(p-q)_{\nu} }{(q^2-m_P^2+i\epsilon)((q-p)^2-m_{V_l}^2+i\epsilon)((p+k-q)^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon)}\nonumber\\&&=i(a_2g_{\alpha\nu}+b_2k_\alpha k_{\nu}+c_2p_\alpha k_{\nu}+d_2 k_{\alpha} p_\nu+e_2 p_{\alpha} p_\nu)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that only the coefficients proportional to $a_1, b_1, d_1, a_2 $ and $d_2$ survive. Thus, we finally get
\begin{equation}
t_2=-\mathrm{C}eG'g_X\ \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\lbrace (a_1\epsilon^{(X)}_\alpha+(b_1 k^\mu+d_1 p^\mu) \epsilon^{(X)}_\mu k_\alpha)\epsilon^{(\gamma)}_\beta+(a_2\epsilon_\alpha^{(\gamma)}+d_2\epsilon_\mu^{(\gamma)} p^\mu k_\alpha)\epsilon_\beta^{(X)}\rbrace p_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(J/\psi)}\ ,
\end{equation}
where now
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a_1&=-\frac{G(P)}{4}-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{(ky)^2+2pky(y-x)+p^2(x-y)^2-m_{V_l}^2}{s_2+i\epsilon}\\
b_1&=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{y(y+1)}{s_2+i\epsilon}\\
d_1&=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{y(y-x)}{s_2+i\epsilon}\\
a_2&=-2a_1\\
d_2&=-2d_1\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
s_2=-m_{V_l}^2+(m^2_{V_l}-m_P^2)x+(k^2-m_V^2+m_P^2)y+p^2(x-y)(1-x+y)+2kyp(x-y)-k^2y^2\ .
\end{equation}
In order to evaluate diagrams (3) and (4) in Fig. (\ref{fig:diag}), we only have to do the exchanges $k \leftrightarrow p$ and $\epsilon^{(\gamma)}\leftrightarrow \epsilon^{(J/\psi)}$ in the amplitudes of diagrams (1) and (2).

We have
\begin{equation}
t_3=\mathrm{B}eG'g^c_X\ \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(a\epsilon_\alpha^{(\gamma)}+dk_\alpha(p\cdot\epsilon^{(\gamma)}))\epsilon^{(X)}_\beta p_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(J/\psi)}\ ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
a=\frac{G(P)}{2}+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{(py)^2+2pky(y-x)-m_{P_l}^2}{s_3+i\epsilon}\
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
d=\frac{1}{8\pi^2} \int^1_0 dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{y(x-y)}{s_3}\ ,\label{eq:c2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
s_3=-m_{P_l}^2 +(m_{P_l}^2-m_P^2)x+(p^2+m_P^2-m^2_V)y+2pky(x-y)-p^2y^2\label{eq:s}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
for diagram (3), and
\begin{equation}
t_4=-\mathrm{C}eG'g_X\ \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\lbrace (a_1\epsilon^{(X)}_\alpha+(c_1 k^\mu+e_1 p^\mu) \epsilon^{(X)}_\mu p_\alpha)\epsilon^{(J/\psi)}_\beta+(a_2\epsilon_\alpha^{(J/\psi)}+c_2\epsilon_\mu^{(J/\psi)} k^\mu p_\alpha)\epsilon_\beta^{(X)}\rbrace k_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(\gamma)}\ ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
a_1&=&-\frac{G(p)}{4}-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{(py)^2+2pky(y-x)-m_{V_l}^2}{s_4+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\
e_1&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{y(y+1)}{s_4+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\
c_1&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0dy\frac{y(y-x)}{s_4+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\
a_2&=&-2a_1\nonumber\\
c_2&=&-2c_1\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
s_4=-m_{V_l}^2+(m^2_{V_l}-m_P^2)x+(p^2-m_{V}^2+m_P^2)y+2kyp(x-y)-p^2y^2\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
for diagram (4).
\begin{table}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram&P&V&\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{P_l}$&\ B\\
\hline
1&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{0}$&\ $\frac{4}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{+}$&\ $\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&$D^{+}_s$&\ $\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{1}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{0}$&\ $-\frac{4}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{-}$&\ $-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&$D^{-}_s$&\ $-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
\hline
3&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^0$&\ $0$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^+$&\ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&$D^+_s$&\ $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{3}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&\ $D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$0$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^-$&\ $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&$D^-_s$&\ $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\hspace{1cm}\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram &P &V &\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{V_l}$ &\ C\\
\hline
2&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $0$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&\ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{2}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $0$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&\ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$\\\hline
4&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $-\frac{4}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^+_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&\ $-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{4}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $\frac{4}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
&$D^-_s$&$D^{*+}_s$&$D^{*-}_s$&\ $\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\caption{Coefficients B and C of the different diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:diag}}
\label{tab:coef}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{Different types of Feynmann diagrams for the decay of the $X(3872)$ into $J/\psi\rho$ and $J/\psi\omega$.}
\label{fig:diag2}
\end{figure}

This formalism also allows us to evaluate the amplitudes for the decays $X\rightarrow J/\psi\rho$ and $X\rightarrow J/\psi\omega$ (Fig. \ref{fig:diag2}). We can proceed in complete analogy with the radiative decay to determine these amplitudes, simply removing the final photon and leaving the vector meson in the final state, the $\rho^0$ or the $\omega$. Moreover, we must take into account that the $\rho^0$ and the $\omega$ do not couple to the strange $D$ mesons, so that we have again four different kinds of diagrams, but only two channels plus their complex conjugate, that is 16 Feynman diagrams to evaluate. Doing this, we can observe that the new amplitudes have the same structure of the previous ones and can be obtained, up to a coefficient, directly with the substitutions $e\leftrightarrow g$ and $\epsilon^{(\gamma)}\leftrightarrow\epsilon^{(\rho, \omega)}$. For instance, in the case of the diagram (1a) of Fig. \ref{fig:diag2}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:trhoomega}
\begin{split}
t_{1a}=\mathrm{B'}gG'g_X\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(a\epsilon_\alpha^{(J/\psi)}+cp_\alpha k\cdot\epsilon^{(J/\psi)})\epsilon^{(X)}_\beta k_\gamma\epsilon_\delta^{(\rho, \omega)}\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $a$ and $c$ the same as before
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a&=\frac{G(P)}{2}+\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\int^1_0dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{(ky)^2+2pky(y-x)+p^2(x-y)^2-m_{P_l}^2}{s_1+i\epsilon}\ ,\\
c&=\frac{1}{8\pi^2} \int^1_0 dx\int^x_0 dy \frac{y(x-y)}{s_1}\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $B'=P_VA$ of Eqs. (\ref{eq:ts}).
However, since we are dealing with different vertices, the new numerical coefficients, that we call $\mathrm{B'}$ and $\mathrm{C'}$, are now different and they are written in the tables \ref{tab:coef2} and \ref{tab:coef3}.

\begin{table}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram&P&V&\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{P_l}$&\ $B'$\\
\hline
1&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{+}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{1}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{-}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
3&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^0$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^+$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{3}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&\ $D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^-$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\hspace{1cm}\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram &P &V &\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{V_l}$ &\ $C'$\\
\hline
2&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{2}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
4&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{4}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\caption{Coefficients $B'$ and $C'$ of the different diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:diag2} in the case of a $\rho$ meson in the final state.}
\label{tab:coef2}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htpb]
\centering
\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram&P&V&\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{P_l}$&\ $B'$\\
\hline
1&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{+}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{1}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{-}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
3&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^0$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^+$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{3}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&\ $D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^-$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\hspace{1cm}\subfloat{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-3pt}
\begin{Tabular}{lrrrr}
Diagram &P &V &\ \ \ \ $\mathrm{V_l}$ &\ $C'$\\
\hline
2&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{2}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
4&$D^0$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&$D^{*0}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^+$&$D^{*-}$&$D^{*+}$&\ $\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
$\mathrm{\bar{4}}$&$\bar{D}^0$&$D^{*0}$&$\bar{D}^{*0}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
&$D^-$&$D^{*+}$&$D^{*-}$&\ $-\frac{1}{2}$\\
\hline
\end{Tabular}}
\caption{Coefficients $B'$ and $C'$ of the different diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:diag2} in the case of a $\omega$ meson in the final state.}
\label{tab:coef3}
\end{table}

\section{Results}
\label{res}
Following the procedure in section \ref{form} we can obtain the total decay amplitude for the radiative decay of the $X$ meson and evaluate the correspondent decay width for this channel by means of the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ww}
\Gamma=\frac{|\vec{k}|^2}{8\pi M_{X}^{2}}\bar{\sum}\sum|t|^2\ ,
\end{equation}
where we sum over the polarizations of the final states and average over the $X$ meson polarizations.

To evaluate the amplitude we use the dimensional regularization for the loop function. The subtraction constants used are $\alpha=\alpha_S=-1.27$, where the subscript $S$ identifies the strange channel, and they are chosen to fit the mass of the $X(3872)$ \cite{danisospin}.

Applying Eq. (\ref{eq:ww}),  we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)=149.5\ keV\ .
\end{equation}

In order to make an estimation of the theoretical uncertainty on this quantity we perform a suitable variation of the parameters used to compute the total amplitude: the coupling $G'$ for the $VVP$ vertex (Eq. (\ref{lag1})), the axial-vector-pseudoscalar couplings $g_X$ for the three channels, and the two subtraction constants in the loop function, $\alpha$ and $\alpha_S$.

We allow the constant $f$, contained in $G'$, to vary, but keeping the relationship $G_V=f/\sqrt{2}$ and replacing $M_V=M_{\rho}$ by $M_{D^*}$. The couplings $g_X$ for the neutral and strange channels are also varied, independently, by $10\%$. On the other hand, the variation of the coupling for the charged channel is such that the ratio between it and the one for the neutral channel is kept constant, in order to preserve the isospin of the $X(3872)$.
Then, we let the subtraction constants $\alpha$ and $\alpha_S$ vary between $-1.60$ and $-1.27$. This range is motivated by the range chosen for $f$. Indeed, going to higher values of the constant $f$ causes a decrease of the potential in the Lippman-Schwinger equation used to evaluate the scattering amplitude which determines the position of the resonance. One would need to go to more negative values of the subtraction constants $\alpha$ and $\alpha_S$ in the loop function, which appears in the $a$ coefficients, to keep the pole representing the resonance in the same position. The range is thus chosen such as to produce an effect in the pole position similar to that induced by the change in $f$.

We obtain the result
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gamma1}
\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)=(117\pm 40)\ keV\ .
\end{equation}

We can also evaluate the branching ratios for the decays $X\rightarrow J/\psi\rho$ and $X\rightarrow J/\psi\omega$. These two decays, if we consider the $\rho$ and the $\omega$ with fixed masses, are not allowed because of the phase space, but they can occur when their mass distributions are taken into account and they are observed in the decays $X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi$ and $X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi\pi$ respectively. The two and three pions states are produced in the decays of the $\rho$ and the $\omega$.

Thus, the decay widths, convoluted with the spectral functions, are given by the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:convolution}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{\rho/\omega}= \frac{1}{N}\int^{(m_{\rho/\omega}+2\Gamma_{\rho/\omega})^2}_{(m_{\rho/\omega}-2\Gamma_{\rho/\omega})^2} d\tilde{m}^2\left(-\frac{1}{\pi}\right)\ Im\left[\frac{1}{\tilde{m}^2-m_{\rho/\omega}^2+i\tilde{\Gamma}_{\rho/\omega}\tilde{m}}\right]
\Gamma_X(\tilde{m})\theta(m_X-m_{J/\psi}-\tilde{m})\ ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal}
N=\int^{(m_{\rho/\omega}+2\Gamma_{\rho/\omega})^2}_{(m_{\rho/\omega}-2\Gamma_{\rho/\omega})^2} d\tilde{m}^2\left(-\frac{1}{\pi}\right)\ Im\left[\frac{1}{\tilde{m}^2-m_{\rho/\omega}^2+i\tilde{\Gamma}_{\rho/\omega}\tilde{m}}\right]\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_X(\tilde{m})$ given by Eq. (\ref{eq:ww}), changing $m_{\rho}$ and $m_{\omega}$ by $\tilde{m}$.

In Eqs. (\ref{eq:convolution}) and (\ref{eq:normal}), $m_{\rho}=775.49\ MeV$ and $m_{\omega}=782.65\ MeV$ are the masses of the mesons, $\Gamma_{\rho}=149.1\ MeV$ and $\Gamma_{\omega}=8.49\ MeV$ are the on shell widths and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Gamma}_{\rho/\omega}=\Gamma_{\rho/\omega}\left(\frac{\tilde{q}}{q_{\rho/\omega}}\right)^3\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{q}$ and $q_{\rho/\omega}$ are the off shell and on shell momentum of the mesons in the center of mass reference frame:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\tilde{q}=\frac{\sqrt{\tilde{m}^2-4m_{\pi}^2}}{2}\theta(\tilde{m}-2m_{\pi})\ ,\\
&q_{\rho/\omega}=\frac{\sqrt{m_{\rho/\omega}^2-4m_{\pi}^2}}{2}\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We call $\Gamma_X$ the total decay width of the $X$ into $J/\psi\rho$ or $J/\psi\omega$ to simplify the notation and $m_{\pi}$ is the pion mass.

Using Eq. (\ref{eq:convolution}) we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rhoomega}
\begin{split}
&\Gamma_{\rho}=821.9\ keV\ ,\\
&\Gamma_{\omega}= 1096.6\ keV\ ,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and when the error anlysis that leads to Eq. (\ref{eq:gamma1}) is done, the band of values becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rhoomega2}
\begin{split}
&\Gamma_{\rho}=(645\pm 221)\ keV\ ,\\
&\Gamma_{\omega}=(861\pm 294)\ keV\ .\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}

With the results of Eq. (\ref{eq:rhoomega}) we can evaluate the ratio
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ratio}
R=\frac{\mathcal{B}(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi\pi)}{\mathcal{B}(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi)}=\frac{\Gamma_{\omega}}{\Gamma_{\rho}}=1.33\ .
\end{equation}
However, the experiment gives the ratio
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ratioexp}
R^{exp}=\frac{\mathcal{B}(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)}{\mathcal{B}(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-)}=1.0\pm 0.4\pm 0.3_{(sys)}
\end{equation}
and, to compare our result with this, we must take into account that the $\omega$ decays into $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ with a branching ratio $B_{\omega,3\pi}=0.892$.

Hence, our ratio to compare with $R^{exp}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ratiotheo}
R^{th}=\frac{\Gamma_{\omega}}{\Gamma_{\rho}}\times B_{\omega,3\pi}=1.19\ ,
\end{equation}
well within the experimental error.

The result we obtain for the ratio
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ratio2}
\frac{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)}{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi)}=0.18\ ,
\end{equation}
is also compatible with the two values known from the experiment $(0.14\pm 0.05)$ \cite{Abe:2005ix} and $(0.22\pm 0.06)$ \cite{Aubert:2006aj}.

We can also estimate the theoretical errors for the two ratios in Eqs. (\ref{eq:ratiotheo}) and (\ref{eq:ratio2}), by evaluating the $\gamma$, $\rho$ and $\omega$ decays with the same set of parameters, and varying these parameters in the range used to evaluate $\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:ratioerror}
&R^{th}=(0.92\pm 0.13)\\
&\frac{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)}{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi)}=(0.17\pm 0.02)\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}

The uncertainties in the ratios are smaller than for the absolute values and they are of the order of the $15\%$.

Finally, we do another exercise removing the $D^+D^{*-}-c.c$ and $D_S^+D_S^{*-}-c.c$ and letting only the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}-c.c$ contribution. The results that we obtain are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:widthsneutral}
&\Gamma_{\gamma}= 0.46\ keV\\
&\Gamma_{\rho}= 9104.9\ keV\\
&\Gamma_{\omega}= 368.9\ keV\\
&R^{th}= 0.04\\
&\frac{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\gamma)}{\Gamma(X\rightarrow J/\psi\pi\pi)}=5.05\cdot 10^{-5} \ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}

As we can see, the two ratios that we have to compare with experiment grossy diverge from the experimental values and $\Gamma_{\rho}$ by itself becomes much bigger than the width of the $X(3872)$ ($\Gamma_X<1.2\ MeV$).

In table \ref{tab:comp} we compare our results with a variety of results available in the literature using different models. It would be interesting to test these models with the new information on the experimental ratios to help discriminate among them.

The ratio of $J/\psi\gamma$ to $J/\psi\pi\pi$ is also evaluated in \cite{thomas2}, where the Weinberg compositeness condition \cite{composite} is used to determine the couplings but other assumptions are made, and they find  a range of values from $0.18$ to $1.57$ depending on the model they consider. We should stress that once the $X$ is obtained in our case and, hence,  the couplings are determined, there is no freedom in our approach, which makes unique predictions, up to the small uncertainties tied to the limited range of variation of the parameters. This comparison helps gauge the value of the results obtained here.

We should note that our results are based on the central value of the masses in the PDG and a binding of the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}-c.c$ of $B=0.2\ MeV$. However the error on the mass of the $X(3872)$ is as big as that value. This is important to note because the coupling goes as $B^{\frac{1}{4}}$ according to the Weinberg compositeness condition \cite{composite}. When in the future the binding can be more accurately determined we can also obtain more accurate values of the absolute rates. On the other hand, the values of the ratios will be essentially unaltered.

\begin{table}[ tp ]%
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline %
\textbf{model} & $\boldsymbol{\Gamma\ [keV]}$ \\\hline
$c\bar{c}$ & $11$ \cite{Braaten:2003he}\\
$c\bar{c}$ & $139$ \cite{Swanson:2004pp}\\
molecule & $8$ \cite{Swanson:2004pp}\\
molecule & $125-250$ \cite{thomas1}\\
$c\bar{c}$ & $11-71$ \cite{thomas2}\\
molecule $+\ c\bar{c}$ & $2-17$ \cite{thomas2}\\
$2^{-+}$ & $1.7-2.1$ \cite{Harada:2010bs}\\
$c\bar{c}$ & $45-80$ \cite{Badalian:2012jz}\\
tetraquark & $10-20$ \cite{Dubnicka:2011mm}\\
present work & $77-158$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results from previous works for the decay width of the $X(3872)$ into $J/\psi\gamma$, using different models.}
\label{tab:comp}
\end{table}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
In this paper we have exploited the picture of the $X(3872)$ as a composite state of $D\bar{D}^* -c.c.$ dynamically generated by the interaction of the $D$ and $D^*$ states. The couplings of the state to the different $D \bar{D}^* -c.c.$ channels have been calculated before within this model and are used here. The coupling for the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}-c.c$ is similar to the one that would be obtained using the compositeness condition of Weinberg, since the state is barely bound in the $D^0 \bar{D}^{*0}$ component, but the dynamics of the model produces also couplings for the $D^+D^{*-}-c.c$ and $D_S^+D_S^{*-}-c.c$ states.
Using an extension to SU(4) with an explictit breaking of this symmetry of the local hidden gauge approach, used before successfuly in the study of related processes, one can determine the widths of the $X(3872)$ to $J/\psi \rho$, $J/\psi \omega$ and $J/\psi \gamma$ and compare with the ratios determined experimentally in recent works. We find a very good agreement with the experimental results. The absolute numbers obtained for the
different widths are also reasonable and their sum within errors, $(1.6\pm 0.6)\ MeV$, is compatible with the recent total X(3972) upper limit of the width, $\Gamma=1.2\ MeV$.

We have also conducted a test neglecting the charged and strange components of the wave
function and thus having only the $D^0 \bar{D}^{0*} -c.c.$ component. We obtain ratios in
great disagreement with experiment and an absolute value for the $X(3872)$ partial width
into $J/\psi \rho$ which largely exceeds the experimental upper bound for the total width
of the $X(3872)$. This exercise confirms the relevance of the charged channels and the
approximate I=0 character of this resonance, contrary to the appealing picture of the
$D^0 \bar{D}^{0*} -c.c.$ state, which has a larger probability to be found because it is less
bound than the charged components. We showed that in these processes it is the wave
function at the origin what matters, or more concretely the couplings, which are related
to it, and not the probability.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Dian-Yong Chen for useful informations.

 This work is partly supported by the DGICYT contract FIS2011-28853-C02-01, FEDER funds from the European Union,
 the Generalitat Valenciana in the program Prometeo, 2009/090, and
the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics 3
Project under Grant Agreement no. 283286.