text:
# Conference Summary: Mapping the Hidden Universe

## 1. The Universe Behind the Milky Way

Amazing! The gap in maps of the distribution of known galaxies caused by foreground obscuration is almost disappearing. We currently have coverage of about 90% of the sky.

Why do we care if we miss part of the sky? All the kinds of galaxies that make up the Universe are probably well represented at high latitudes, so why struggle to study extragalactic targets dimmed by intervening material? However, for some purposes it is not the individual galaxies that interest us so much as it is their distribution. We cannot study structures formed by galaxies that are larger than the bounding box of our surveys. Boundaries are created either by distance, the obscuration of the Milky Way, or observing exigencies. The obscuration boundary is nasty because it is often soft and it splits samples where we appreciate it the least; nearby where otherwise our knowledge is the best.

More fundamental than the distribution of light is the distribution of mass. We know from the microwave background dipole anisotropy that we are being tugged at 600 km/s toward a location in the sky uncomfortably close to the Galactic plane. Detailed mapping of the peculiar velocities of galaxies can provide a description of the underlying distribution of matter. Comparison can be made between the distribution of luminous objects and the inferred distribution of matter to gain a better understanding of the nature of the mass content of the Universe. Our ability to separate peculiar velocities from the Hubble flow fails linearly with distance so dynamical tests are best done in the nearby volume. Modeling could be seriously compromised if a massive veiled neighbor is missed.

Our host Renée Kraan-Korteweg showed beautiful maps of the current status of observations at low Galactic latitudes. Presumably examples of the maps have found their way into this book, which henceforth will be referenced as ‘proceedings’. The new information that is contributing to these improved maps is coming from a wide range of techniques, which is necessary because no one technique is fully adequate. We heard about:

$``$ Spectroscopic surveys of optically selected galaxies (Weinberger et al., proceedings; Fairall & Kraan-Korteweg, proceedings; Roman et al., proceedings; Pagani et al., proceedings; Wakamatsu et al., proceedings; Woudt et al., proceedings; Pantoja, proceedings).

$``$ Near or far infrared selection with either optical or HI spectroscopic follow up (Huchra et al., proceedings; Schröder et al., proceedings; Ragaigne et al., proceedings; Saunders et al., proceedings; Vauglin et al., proceedings; Nakanishi et al., proceedings).

$``$ X-ray selection with spectroscopic follow up (Ebeling et al., proceedings; Böhringer, proceedings).

$``$ Radio continuum selection (Green et al., proceedings).

$``$ Blind HI surveys (Henning, proceedings; Staveley-Smith, proceedings).

The need for this multi-pronged approach is evident enough. Infrared radiation penetrates the zone of obscuration although there can be overwhelming confusion at the lowest Galactic latitudes. Spirals galaxies are strong sources of far infrared emission and contain HI that can be observed for a redshift confirmation. Early type galaxies are rarely detected in the far infrared but these high surface brightness objects can be found with near infrared surveys and redshifts can be determined with low dispersion spectrographs on large optical telescopes if obscuration is not extreme. The dense environments of clusters of early type galaxies are found with the X-ray surveys. These clusters mark the deepest gravitational potential wells. Radio continuum surveys detect a wide range of galaxy types and can be cross-correlated with infrared surveys to winnow candidate lists at low latitudes. Blind HI surveys provides almost the only means of detecting low surface brightness late type galaxies and can provide unhindered detection of spiral galaxies at even the lowest Galactic latitudes.

Hence we have the tools to greatly diminish the restrictions caused by our vantage point in the Milky Way and the surveys are well under way. The current observational status is still a bit of a hodge-podge, varying with sector along the band of the Galactic plane. Roughly speaking, there is good completion now to $`b5^{}`$. In some directions toward the Galacic anti-center, there is good information right down to the Galactic equator.

Where do things stand? I will stick my neck out and claim that we are probably not missing a dynamically important individual galaxy from our current inventory. It is to be remarked that the two galaxies outside the Local Group with the largest influence on us are at very low Galactic latitudes; IC 342 and Maffei I. Their very names tell you that they are obscured (ie, not Messier or NGC objects). For an individual galaxy to be dynamically important it should be within $`5`$ Mpc and have a luminosity greater than $`10^{10}L_{}`$. It is unlikely that such an object would evade the filters described above.

On the other hand, our current maps of the collectivity of galaxies into large scale structure are incomplete. From continuity of observed structure, we can make reasonable guesses about where future pickings will be most abundant. Fortuitously, our galaxy is face-on to the biggest nearby structures, those linking to the Virgo and Fornax clusters, and edge-on to rather empty regions. Several filamentary strands penetrate this low density space, including one that contains our Galaxy. It is not until a redshift of about 3000 km/s that we run into serious structure in the zone of obscuration in the direction of the ‘Great Attractor’. Important structures run from the Centaurus Cluster through the plane to the Norma Cluster and from the Hydra Cluster off, ultimately, to the Perseus Cluster region. The low latitude Norma Cluster is rich and appears to be a particularly important nodal point (Woudt, proceedings). Behind this region there are hints of even bigger structures, possibly linking the huge Shapley Concentration and Horologium-Reticulum cluster complexes (Ebeling et al., proceedings).

These observations are leading to a better understanding of structure formation and evolution. Contributions to this effort heard/seen at this conference include D’Mellow et al. and Valentine et al. (proceedings), Hoffman (proceedings), and Zaroubi (proceedings). Interestingly, there are strong hints that roughly half the motion of the dipole anisotropy is generated beyond 6,000 km/s but probably within 15,000 km/s. Much of the action is at low Galactic latitudes.

Credit for the improved observational situation can be given to Renée Kraan-Korteweg, not only for her contributions to the observational programs but also for hosting two seminal meetings on the topic. The first meeting in Paris (Balkowski & Kraan-Korteweg 1994) focused attention on the problem and this second meeting has provided a stimulus for a lot of mid-course activity. A basic picture is beginning to jell. We wonder if Renée can find an equally spectacular third location for the rap-up conference a few years from now.

## 2. The Universe in HI

On this subject, I have an attitude. The important question is whether there are optically undistinguished objects that can be detected in HI and that constitute an important part of the inventory of objects in the Universe.

Let me first explain the source of my attitude. Two decades ago in the course of an HI survey (Fisher & Tully 1981$`a`$), I joined the ranks of only a few people and inspected every sky atlas print in considerable detail (about a half hour per print). There were many objects on the prints with such low surface brightnesses that they could barely be seen, yet these objects were detected with high efficiency with subsequent HI pointings. It seemed reasonable to us that there would be objects with yet lower surface brightnesses, objects that would be invisible against the sky at optical bands but that would have detectable HI. We looked hard but could not find them (Fisher & Tully 1981$`b`$). Every pointed observation in our program could be inspected for ‘second’ HI signals, signals due to something besides the primary target. Every on-target pointing was accompanied by an off-target pointing at a random position that could be inspected. In addition, we surveyed blank sky at over a thousand beams in selected regions like the equatorial plane of the Local Supercluster where dwarf galaxies might be expected.

We recorded serendipitous detections. In a majority of cases, the blind detections lie at the positions of obvious spiral galaxies. In almost all other cases, the detections lie at the positions of low surface brightness galaxies that were discernible on the sky surveys (also Huchtmeier, proceedings). In the rare remaining cases with significant HI signals, mapping of the HI sources revealed that the HI was associated with extended structures around individual galaxies or in groups and could be interpreted as tidal in origin. No invisible galaxies were found.

The speculation about the possible existence of a cosmologically important class of ultra low surface brightness galaxies was already in the air (Disney 1974) but seemed to us to be discounted by the observations mentioned above. Still, maybe those earlier HI observations were just not sensitive enough and maybe there were crouching giants below our flux limits. Since those early days, the much more sensitive Arecibo Telescope has observed tens of thousands of sight lines (Haynes et al. 1997 and others). Yes, there have been a couple of curious situations reported (eg, Giovanelli et al. 1991). But maybe the interesting thing is the lack of such reports. At this conference we have begun to hear results from the systematic survey with the Parkes Telescope multibeam system (Webster et al., proceedings; Waugh et al., proceedings; Drinkwater et al., proceedings; also Arecibo dual-beam: Rosenberg & Schneider and Schneider & Rosenberg, proceedings). These surveys are much to be appreciated because of their systematic nature. It is my impression that they are confirming what some of us have long suspected.

Aha, attitude. These new studies tend to accent the fact that they are making blind HI detections. The talks cited above announced faint end HI mass function indices $`1.3<\alpha <1.7`$. Caution however: in samples assembled from the field (Webster, Schneider), the mass function is constructed with contributions at the high mass end from distant giants and contributions at the low mass end from nearby dwarfs. How are these separate contributions to be normalized? We know we live in an overdense region locally. And the statistics at the low mass end are, frankly, terrible. Verheijen et al. (proceedings) find $`\alpha =1.1`$ in the better controlled, volume limited environment of the Ursa Major Cluster. Van Woerden et al. (proceedings) and Zwaan & Briggs (proceedings) discuss High Velocity Clouds and discount the suggestion that they are a significant extragalactic component.

Is the glass half full or half empty? The standard plots of the HI mass function show numbers of galaxies per mass bin and the ‘half full’ viewpoint stresses that numbers tend to rise toward low masses (albeit minimally according to Verheijen et al.). My Figure 1 combines the data in Fig. 2 of Verheijen et al. with data from the Parkes multi-beam survey of the Centaurus Group (Banks et al. 1999) and optically identified members of the Local Group. However, my ‘half empty’ plot converts from number of objects per bin to a histogram of HI mass per bin. Overwhelmingly, the global HI mass resides in a small number of big galaxies. Dwarf galaxies can have a lot of gas for their light and are reasonably numerous but still contribute only a tiny fraction of the neutral Hydrogen inventory in the zero redshift Universe. Driver (proceedings) makes a related point about luminosities and total mass. This highly probable conclusion about the location of HI reservoirs explains why a majority of blind HI detections are associated with big, visually obvious galaxies. Croutching giants are negligible in number. These conclusions are not new. Zwaan et al. (1997) have said basically the same thing.

If the glass is half empty rather than half full, that is an interesting result! We are left to conclude that there is a lower density cutoff for HI systems. Probably gas clouds below some threshold are ionized by the metagalactic radiation field. HI systems with densities above the cutoff might form stars in the way outlined by Legrand (proceedings); also see Young (proceedings). The star formation process is sufficiently well constrained over time that the HI density threshold translates into a surface density of star light that, by fluke, barely exceeds the blue light sky survey detection thresholds.

To sum up:

$``$ There are NO dynamically important components of the $`z=0`$ Universe that are detectable in HI but not in the optical. Still, classes of objects like Low Surface Brightness galaxies and Blue Compact Dwarfs can be found with fewer observational biases in HI. Of course, galaxies obscured by the Milky Way might only be found by HI.

$``$ Most of the HI mass in the $`z=0`$ Universe is locked up in galaxies with $`8.5<\mathrm{log}M_{HI}/M_{}<10`$. There are not enough low mass galaxies to make a major contribution to the global sum of HI. At the high mass end, evidently large HI reservoirs lead to highly efficient star formation and rapid depletion of the reservoirs. Hence, the histogram of HI mass per unit mass is more peaked than the equivalent histograms of light or total mass.

$``$ There must be an HI surface density cutoff at log $`n_H19.5`$ atoms/cm2. Neutral Hydrogen clouds can be maintained above this density and must form stars at a rate sufficient to produce a surface brightness detectable at optical bands. Below this threshold, gas clouds in the $`z=0`$ Universe must be ionized.

$``$ The conference has been most informative and entertaining, Guanajuato is a wonderful town and site for the meeting, and hurray to the organizers, Pat Henning, Heinz Andernach, all the people behind the scene, and, especially, Renée Kraan-Korteweg.

## References

Balkowski, C., & Kraan-Korteweg, R.C. 1994, Unveiling Large-Scale Structures Behind the Milky Way, ASP Conf. Ser. 67

Banks, G.D., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 612

Disney, M.J 1976, Nature, 263, 573

Fisher, J.R., & Tully, R.B. 1981$`a`$, ApJS, 47, 139

Fisher, J.R., & Tully, R.B. 1981$`b`$, ApJ, 243, L23

Giovanelli, R., Williams, J.P., & Haynes, M.P. 1991, AJ, 101, 1242

Haynes, M.P., et al., 1997, AJ, 113, 1197

Zwaan, M.A., Briggs, F.H., Sprayberry, D., & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 173


format: text

text:
# Relevance as Deduction: A Logical View of Information Retrieval (Abstract)

(July 19, 1996)

The problem of Information Retrieval is, given a set of documents $`D`$ and a query $`q`$, providing an algorithm for retrieving all documents in $`D`$ relevant to $`q`$. However, retrieval should depend and be updated whenever the user is able to provide as an input a preferred set of relevant documents; this process is known as relevance feedback. Recent work in IR has been paying great attention to models which employ a logical approach; the advantage being that one can have a simple computable characterization of retrieval on the basis of a pure logical analysis of retrieval. Most of the logical models make use of probabilities or similar belief functions in order to introduce the inductive component whereby uncertainty is treated. Their general paradigm is the following: find the nature of conditional $`dq`$ and then define a probability on the top of it. We just reverse this point of view; first use the numerical information, frequencies or probabilities, then define your own logical consequence. More generally, we claim that retrieval is a form of deduction. We introduce a simple but powerful logical framework of relevance feedback, derived from the well founded area of nonmonotonic logic. This description can help us evaluate, describe and compare from a theoretical point of view previous approaches based on conditionals or probabilities.

The first difficulty one encounters towards a logical approach to Information Retrieval is how one should view the algorithm which returns a set of relevant documents. Our proposal is to see such an algorithm as a proof. However, this proof is not classical because, as it is widely recognized, $`qd`$, where $`q`$ is a query and $`d`$ a document relevant to $`q`$, is not conveyed by the material implication (see \[vR86\],\[vR89\]). Also, as the set of data which this proof is based is subject to updating, nonmotonicity arises. Since there is no need of nesting implications, implication and deduction can be identified and therefore our starting point is to axiomatize a deduction $`q\text{ }d`$. The consequence relation $`\text{ }`$ will reflect the properties that relevance satisfies. A similar approach where nonmonotonic consequence relations are used to axiomatize a notion of aboutness appears in \[BH95\]. We shall then show how $`\text{ }`$ changes with relevance feedback.

A set of rules for the relevance relation $`\text{ }`$ appears in Table 1. This set of rules apart from Rational Monotonicity comprises the system $`P`$ (see \[KLM90\]) of preferential inference. Preferential inference along with the rule of Rational Monotonicity comprises the system $`R`$ of rational inference (see \[LM92\]). We propose preferential and rational inference as the simplest and strongest systems axiomatizing the notion of relevance.

However, it is well known that designing a nonmonotonic system is far from trivial. Moreover, nonmonotonicity does not correspond directly to statistical data as statistical operations are in general continuous or monotonic. A solution to this problem is given by a recent characterization of the systems of preferential and rational inference through systems of monotonic consequence relations (\[Geo96b\]) called priority relations. A presentation of priority relations follows. Our language of terms will contain only conjunction ($``$). The reason we do not employ a notion of negation is that there is no notion of negation which reflects our intuition in IR. The standard way to look at negation is ruled by the closed world assumption: if a term does not occur in a document then its negation occurs. However this makes documents possible worlds and deduction would turn out classical in our model. Hence negation will be replaced by another construction (see below). Documents will be identified with the conjunction of all terms that occur in them. So, if $`\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_n\}`$ are all documents occurring in a document $`d`$, then $`d=t_1\mathrm{}t_n`$. Our model is based on a recent characterization of nonmonotonicity by the second author through a family of relations among formulas called priority relations. A priority relation satisfies
1. $`t_1\text{ }t_1`$ (Reflexivity)    2. $`t_1t_2`$ and $`t_2\text{ }t_3`$ implies $`t_1\text{ }t_3`$ (Monotonicity)  3. $`t_1t_2`$ and $`t_2t_1`$ implies $`t_3\text{ }t_1`$ iff $`t_3\text{ }t_2`$, (Logical Equivalence)
where $``$ is classical. If a priority relation satisfies, in addition,
4. $`t_3\text{ }t_1`$ and $`t_3\text{ }t_2`$ implies $`t_3\text{ }t_1t_2`$, (Right Conjunction)  5. $`t_1\text{ }t_2`$ and $`t_2\text{ }t_3`$ implies $`t_1\text{ }t_3`$, (Transitivity)
it will be called preferential ordering. If a preferential ordering satisfies, in addition,
6. $`t_1\text{ }t_2`$ or $`t_2\text{ }t_1`$ (Connectivity)
it is called rational ordering.

We now have the following theorem (\[Geo96a\],\[Geo\]): Preferential and Rational inference relations are generated by preferential and rational orderings, respectively, through a maxiconsistent inference scheme. Moreover, this correspondence is bijective. This is a powerful machinery for handling nonmonotonic deductions. Once we build a preference (preferential or rational) ordering, we are able to define and compute the associated nonmonotonic consequence relation. Turning conjunction to union of sets of terms the defining conditions of priority relations become:
1. $`U\text{ }U`$ (Reflexivity)    2. $`UV`$ and $`U\text{ }W`$ implies $`V\text{ }W`$ (Monotonicity)  3. $`U\text{ }V`$ and $`U\text{ }W`$ implies $`U\text{ }VW`$, (Right Union)  4. $`U\text{ }V`$ and $`V\text{ }W`$ implies $`U\text{ }W`$, (Transitivity)  5. $`U\text{ }V`$ or $`V\text{ }U`$ (Connectivity)

One can think of these monotonic consequence relations as aboutness relations. That aboutness should be represented as a monotonic consequence relation appears already in (\[HD95\]) along with a mix of nonmonotonic rules. Moreover, the above duality theorem translates to the fact that relevance and aboutness are really dual notions. We shall now show how one can easily generate a preferential ordering from frequency information. We show how the user’s relevance defines a nonmonotonic consequence relation which is represented by a preferential ordering. In IR, a way to define the informative content of terms is given by the frequencies in the document collection (as in the Robertson Sparck Jones formula): this is enough for us to carry on deductions! A way of constructing a preferential ordering among terms is to divide the set of documents that the user distinguishes into two subsets, the positive set ($`D^+`$) and negative set ($`D^{}`$). Then the set of positive and negative examples will use frequencies to construct two rational orderings. Then these orderings will be combined in a preferential ordering which reflects our intuitions for relevance. Then a document $`d=t_1^{}\mathrm{}t_m^{}`$ will be relevant to query $`q=t_1\mathrm{}t_n`$ just in case $`t_1\mathrm{}t_n\text{ }t_1^{}\mathrm{}t_m^{}`$. The construction is the following. Denote with $`D_t^+`$ the set of positive relevant documents where $`t`$ occurs, similarly for the negative case. The frequency of $`t`$ relative to $`D^+`$ is $`|D_t^+|`$. Now define the following orderings

$$t_1\text{ }_pt_2\text{iff}|D_{t_1}^+||D_{t_2}^+|.$$

and

$$t_2\text{ }_nt_1\text{iff}|D_{t_1}^{}||D_{t_2}^{}|.$$

It can be shown that $`\text{ }_p`$ and $`\text{ }_n`$ are rational orderings. Now let

$$t_1\text{ }t_2\text{iff}t_1\text{ }_pt_2\text{and}t_1\text{ }_nt_2.$$

The consequence relation $`\text{ }`$ is a preferential ordering. It is now clear that if we perform an update of the sets of positive and negative relevant documents with relevance feedback then $`\text{ }`$ changes, too. In particular, this change is nonmonotonic.

Consider the following example. The following matrix is the matrix of occurrences between documents $`d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4`$ and terms $`t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4`$.

|  | $`t_1`$ | $`t_2`$ | $`t_3`$ | $`t_4`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`d_1`$ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $`+`$ |
| $`d_2`$ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | $`+`$ |
| $`d_3`$ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $``$ |
| $`d_4`$ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $``$ |

We have $`t_1\text{ }_p\{t_3,t_4\}\text{ }_pt_2`$ and $`t_4\text{ }_n\{t_1,t_3\}\text{ }_nt_2`$. Thus $`t_1\text{ }t_3\text{ }t_2`$ and $`t_4\text{ }t_2`$. For example, $`t_3t_4\text{ }d_1`$ and $`t_3t_4\text{ }d_3`$, that is the query $`t_3t_4`$ returns $`d_1`$ and $`d_3`$ as relevant documents, but not $`d_2`$ and $`d_4`$. This provides a model for computing the relevance of documents with respect a query on the basis of some evidence.

Consider now a new document $`d_5=t_1t_2`$. We have that $`d_5`$ is not totally ranked among the rest of the documents: we can decide just $`d_5\text{ }d_2`$ and $`d_4\text{ }d_5`$. Let $`U`$ be the number of undecided documents, $`D_p^+`$ be the set of positive documents $`d`$ such that $`d\text{ }d_5`$, $`D_n^{}`$ be the set of negative documents $`d`$ such that $`d_5\text{ }d`$, $`D_n^+`$ be the set of positive documents $`d`$ such that $`d_5\text{ }d`$, and $`D_p^{}`$ be the set of negative documents $`d`$ such that $`d\text{ }d_5`$. If we want to create such a linear ordering among documents we can use the the Robertson Spark Jones’ formula and relate it to the number of incomparable documents. Then

$$\frac{NU}{N}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{D_p^+\times D_n^{}}{D_p^{}\times D_n^+}\right).$$

can be used as a decision rule. In the above example, we get a negative value for $`d_5`$ which is then chosen as irrelevant.

A point whose importance should be stressed is that generation of a nonmonotonic consequence relation (relevance) through priority relations depends on a notion of negation. Only in presence of negation we are able to define maxiconsistent inference (see \[Geo96b\]). We shall now show how a recent approach to IR (\[AvRU96\]) using expected utility functions defines a natural notion of negation. Suppose that the user supplies two sets of documents representing positive and negative examples. Through theses sets and the frequencies of terms appearing in those sets one can construct for every term a contingency matrix. Using now entropy $`H`$ and Hintikka’s content $`C`$, one can define a weighting function from the set of terms to the interval $`[1,1]`$. Let $`w`$ be the weighting function. Set $`w(\neg t)=w(t)`$ and $`w(tt^{})=\mathrm{min}(w(t),w(t^{}))`$. Let

$$r(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}w(t)\hfill & \text{if }w(t)>0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

The function $`r`$ ranks terms according to their utility. Now the following relation

$$t_1\text{ }t_2\text{iff}r(t_1)r(t_2)$$

is a rational ordering, and the inference

$$t_1\text{ }t_2\text{iff}t_1t_3t_2,\text{for some}t_3\text{ }\neg t_1$$

is a rational nonmonotonic inference. The above relation can be readily extend to all boolean combinations of terms. However, we consider only conjunctions of positive terms. Then the rational inference can be effectively checked through the following equivalent definition ($`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are sets of terms)

| $`t_1\text{ }t_2`$ | iff | either $`t_2t_1`$, |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | or $`t_2t_1\text{ }\neg t_1`$. |

As an example consider three terms $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ and their contingency matrices based on a set of $`300`$ relevant documents and a set of $`700`$ irrelevant documents:

|  | $`Rel`$ | $`\overline{Rel}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`t_1`$ | 0 | 300 |
| $`\overline{t_1}`$ | 626 | 74 |

|  | $`Rel`$ | $`\overline{Rel}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`t_2`$ | 24 | 276 |
| $`\overline{t_2}`$ | 676 | 24 |

|  | $`Rel`$ | $`\overline{Rel}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`t_3`$ | 290 | 10 |
| $`\overline{t_3}`$ | 47 | 653 |

The weighting function now gives the following

| $`w(t_1)`$ | $`=`$ | $`.802`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`w(t_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`.885`$ |
| $`w(t_3)`$ | $`=`$ | $`.845`$ |
| $`w(t_1t_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`.885`$ |

| $`r(t_1)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`r(t_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`r(t_3)`$ | $`=`$ | $`.845`$ |
| $`r(t_1t_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |

We now have $`t_1\text{ }t_3`$, since $`.845.802`$, but $`t_1t_2\text{ }\sim ̸t_3`$, since $`.845.885`$. A table of all possible derivations between terms appears below:

| $`q\text{ }d`$ | $`t_1`$ | $`t_2`$ | $`t_3`$ | $`t_1t_2`$ | $`t_1t_3`$ | $`t_2t_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`t_1`$ | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N |
| $`t_2`$ | N | Y | N | N | N | N |
| $`t_3`$ | N | N | Y | N | N | N |
| $`t_1t_2`$ | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N |
| $`t_1t_3`$ | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N |
| $`t_2t_3`$ | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y |

This logical framework is just an initial suggestion for future research, which shows that nonmonotonicity, induction and IR can have many common features which are worthwhile to explore.


text:
# Fixed energy inversion of 5 eV e-Xe atom scattering

## I Introduction

A knowledge of the interaction between colliding quantum systems is central in many applications of scattering and has relevance for use in other diverse fields of study. Such interactions have been sought in various ways with the method of numerical inversion common. In the numerical inversion approach, the parameter values of a purely phenomenological parametric form, chosen a priori to be the (central, local) interaction between the colliding entities, are determined by variation until a best fit to measured data is found. Global inverse scattering methods  form an alternative procedural class with which to analyze the same data. With global inverse scattering methods, the interaction between the colliding pair is extracted from the data without a priori assumptions about the shape of the potential, although it may belong to a certain broad class, and the validity of the dynamical equation of motion (the Schrödinger equation) is assumed. Potentials so obtained we define hereafter as inversion potentials. Application of various global inverse scattering methods have been made in the past for electron-atom , for atom-atom , and for electron-molecule  systems, but none of those methods permitted extraction of spin-orbit effects. Recent developments  have provided means by which spin effects can be treated. In this paper we present and describe results for central and spin-orbit potentials obtained by global inverse scattering methods. In particular we consider an approach based upon the WKB approximation method  and one based upon the Newton-Sabatier (N-S) theory .

The data of interest come from the very high quality crossed beams experiment of Gibson et al. . In that study , a phase shift analysis was also made and the phase shifts so obtained were the input quantities to our studies. Those phase shifts are purely real in line with the unitarity constraint with the energy below the first threshold. Thus we have obtained purely real inversion potentials. Extension of the approach to deal with energies above threshold and, concomitantly with complex potentials, is straightforward. The key feature about inversion potentials, given numerical accuracy in calculations and stability of the solution, is that when used in Schrödinger equations they lead to the same phase shifts as are input.

The data set we have chosen to use is intriguing for a number of reasons. First, the differences between the values of $`\delta _l^+`$ and $`\delta _l^{}`$ (the $`\pm `$ superscripts denoting $`j=l\pm \frac{1}{2}`$) extracted by the phase shift analysis  are not large indicating that the spin-orbit interaction is not strong. As a result the approximation method of Leeb, Huber and Fiedeldey  (LHF hereafter) can be used with confidence. Indeed the LHF scheme is accurate through second order in Born approximation and has worked well in some nuclear scattering data analyses  where the spin-orbit effect is much stronger than in the case we study. With the LHF approximation, both the N-S and the semi-classical WKB methods of inverse scattering theory can be used to specify the electron-Xenon (e-Xe) potentials. Exact quantal inversion methods to get the spin-orbit interaction are known , but with this data the LHF approximation should be adequate and the inversion process is facilitated by its use. Second, the phase shifts of significance are not many in number and so this may be another case with which phase shift values at unphysical rational values of angular momentum are required in the inversion process to achieve a stable result . A third reason for interest is that the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave phase shifts from the analysis  of the scattering data have negative values. All other (physical) phase shifts of significance are positive quantities. As phase shifts are ambiguous to modulo $`\pi `$, an equivalent completely positive valued and monotonically decreasing phase shift set can be formed by the addition of $`2\pi `$ and $`\pi `$ to the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave values respectively. With either of the original or the modulated (integer $`l`$) phase shift sets as input, the N-S inversion method per se gives the same inversion potential. However, that potential has a short ranged repulsion; such being required  to give significant negative $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave phase shifts. The WKB inversion method on the other hand, does discriminate between these sets since to specify the WKB inversion potential interpolated functions, $`\delta _l(\lambda )`$, are required as input. Of course if the N-S method is extended to use phase shifts at rational values of the angular momentum, found for example by interpolation of the original sets  and of the those with $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave values adjusted by $`2\pi `$ and $`\pi `$ respectively, then the inversion potentials from the two cases must differ.

Thus we give two new elements in this paper. First we deduce by inverse scattering theories, central and spin-orbit potentials for 5 eV electron-Xenon atom scattering. Second, we show that information additional to the physical phase shifts (i.e. those determined by usual phase shift analyses of scattering data) is needed to identify the the most likely physical inversion potential. In the next section we give a pr$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$cis of the LHF approximation for phase shifts as well as of the inverse scattering methods used, the N-S and the WKB semi-classical schemes specifically. Then in Sec. III, we discuss the origins and characteristics of the 5 eV e-Xe scattering phase shifts that have been used as input to our inversion studies. The e-Xe potentials that result are presented and discussed in Sec. IV and we draw conclusions in Sec. V.

## II Fixed energy inversion methods

In this section we give brief outlines of the methods used in the calculations, the results of which we report later. First we set out the LHF scheme by which the spin-orbit interaction can be defined from two independent (spin-less) inversion calculations. This identifies not only the special phase shift sets $`\{\widehat{\delta }_l\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l\}`$ of the method, but also defines the central and spin-orbit potentials in terms of the results of inversions of those new phase shift sets, $`\widehat{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ respectively. Then we give the salient features of the Newton-Sabatier and the semi-classical WKB inverse scattering theories which we have used to specify the ($`\widehat{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$) potentials.

### A The LHF approximation

While exact quantal inverse scattering theories that yield central and spin-orbit interactions from input scattering phase shift sets exist , Leeb, Huber, and Fiedeldey  developed an approximation scheme to transform the input phase shift sets so that more facile quantal inverse scattering methods, such as the N-S scheme  and the semi-classical WKB approximation , can be used to give results from which central and spin-orbit potentials can be extracted. Those more facile schemes do not allow for an angular momentum dependence in the intrinsic equation of motion, such as given by a spin-orbit potential. They are designed only to provide central local potential functions.

The LHF method is based on the assumption that the contribution of the spin-orbit potential to the phase shifts can be evaluated using a Distorted Wave Born Approximation. This technique has been formulated specifically for spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles incident on spin zero targets and is accurate to second order in the Born expansion . The approximation identifies first the special phase shift sets $`\{\widehat{\delta }_l\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l\}`$, and then defines the central and spin-orbit potentials in terms of the results, $`\widehat{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ respectively, from inversion of those new phase shift sets.

For spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles incident on a spin $`0`$ target, and allowing central and spin-orbit Schrödinger potentials, the scattering is defined by reduced radial Schrödinger equations

$$\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho ^2}+1\frac{1}{E}\left[V_{cen}(\rho )+a_l^\pm V_{so}(\rho )\right]\psi _l^\pm (\rho )=0,$$
(1)
where, with $`\rho =kr`$,

$$a_l^\pm =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}<𝐬l>=\{\begin{array}{cc}l& j=l+\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ (l+1)& j=l\frac{1}{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
If the spin-orbit term is relatively weak, the usual scattering phase shifts, $`\delta _l^\pm `$, can be expanded in powers of $`a_l^\pm `$. Specifically

$$\delta _l^\pm =\delta _l^{cen}+a_l^\pm C_l^{(1)}(k)+(a_l^\pm )^2C_l^{(2)}(k)+\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
While the leading term, $`\delta _l^{cen}`$, is due solely to the central component of the potential, $`V_{cen}`$, higher terms must be considered to define the spin-orbit properties. But the specific analytic forms of the coefficients, $`C_l^{(n)}`$, do not have to be known to extract the central and spin-orbit potential values. The LHF approximation is initiated by considering combinations of $`\delta ^+`$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ from which separate inversion potentials can be estimated. The relevant combinations are

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l=\frac{1}{2l+1}\left\{(l+1)\delta _l^++l\delta _l^{}\right\}=\delta _l^{cen}+l(l+1)C_l^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(4)
and

$$\widehat{\delta }_l=\frac{1}{2l+1}\left\{l\delta _l^++(l+1)\delta _l^{}\right\}=\delta _l^{cen}C_l^{(1)}+(l^2+l+1)C_l^{(2)}+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
To first order in $`a_l^\pm `$, these new phase shifts and their inversion potentials, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\widehat{V}`$, are

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_l=\delta _l^{cen}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}V_{cen}`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\delta }_l=\delta _l^{cen}C_l^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{V}V_{cen}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{so}.`$ (7)
As these new sets of phase shifts can be inverted independently using any of the conventional techniques, the central and spin-orbit components can be identified then by

$`V_{cen}(r)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}(r)`$ (8)
$`V_{so}(r)`$ $``$ $`2[\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\widehat{V}(r)].`$ (9)
### B The N-S method

Since the Newton-Sabatier inverse scattering theory and applications have been widely reported, only pertinent points of the scheme are presented herein. A full treatment on the development of this method is given elsewhere .

The N-S method is one of the most successful of the fixed energy inversion methods. Very recently, it has been applied successfully to electron-helium atom scattering  using as input, experimental phase shifts of Nesbet  at low $`\mathrm{}`$-values and dipole polarization phase shifts at the higher $`\mathrm{}`$-values. But it is known  that fixed energy inverse scattering theory requires the $`S`$ matrix (equivalently the phase shifts) as a function of the angular momentum variable if one is to define uniquely the scattering potential. This equates to knowing the $`S`$ matrix exactly at all of the (infinite) set of physical $`l`$-values as then the unit step in the quantum number is infinitesimal against the range. Most studies of the fixed energy inverse scattering problem, and notably those involving the N-S method, have been applied using only the values of the $`S`$ matrix specified at a finite set ($`l_{max}`$) of physical angular momentum values. In cases where there are relatively few important partial wave phase shift values to be used, it may be necessary to extend  the usual N-S formulation to include rational values of angular momenta to form the matrix inherent in the N-S scheme .

However it serves to consider for this section, just the integer values of angular momentum for which the Schrödinger equations take the form ($`\rho =kr`$ being dimensionless)

$$D^u(\rho )\varphi _l^u(\rho )=l(l+1)\varphi _l^u(\rho )$$
(10)
where the operator

$$D^u(\rho )=\rho ^2\left[\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+1U(\rho )\right]$$
(11)
with $`U(\rho )=V(\rho )/E_{cm}`$, where $`E_{cm}=\left(\mathrm{}k\right)^2/\left(2\mu \right)`$ and $`\rho =kr`$. The solutions are subject to boundary conditions

$$\varphi _l^u(\rho )\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{}A_l\mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \frac{1}{2}l\pi +\gamma _l\right)$$
(12)
with $`\gamma _l`$ being the relevant phase shifts to be taken as input quantities. The N-S method gives as output

$$U(\rho )=U_0(\rho )\frac{2}{\rho }\frac{d}{d\rho }\frac{1}{\rho }K(\rho ,\rho )$$
(13)
wherein $`U_0`$ is a reference potential and $`K(\rho ,\rho )`$ is the Jost transformation kernel which can be written as the infinite sum of solution function products,

$$K(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\underset{l}{}c_l\varphi _l^u(\rho )\varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho ^{})$$
(14)
The solution functions (to $`D^u`$ ) can be expressed by the Newton equations

$$\varphi _l^u(\rho )=\varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho )\underset{l^{}}{}c_l^{}L_{ll^{}}(\rho )\varphi _l^{}^u(\rho )$$
(15)
where

$$L_{ll^{}}(\rho )=_0^\rho \varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho ^{})\varphi _l^{}^{u_0}(\rho ^{})\frac{1}{\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑\rho ^{}$$
(16)
These equations are of central importance. From them one can determine the unknown quantities, $`A_l`$ and $`(c_lA_l)`$, by matching asymptotically to the defined boundary condition solutions for $`\rho \rho _0`$, $`\rho _0`$ being the value at which the unknown quantal interactions are presumed to be vanishingly small. There is also a presumption that the solution functions of the reference potential are completely known so that the initiating L-matrices can be defined exactly. The reference solutions are obtained from

$$D^{u_0}(\rho )\varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho )=l(l+1)\varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho )$$
(17)
with

$$\varphi _l^{u_0}(\rho )\underset{\rho \mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{sin}\left(\rho \frac{1}{2}l\pi +\delta _l^0\right)$$
(18)
where $`\delta _l^0`$ is a reference input phase shift. With the normalization and expansion coefficients so given, the complete solution functions can be determined from Eq. (15) at all $`\rho <\rho _0`$. Thereby one gets the Jost transformation kernels and thence the sought after potential.

### C The WKB method

In the WKB approximation with $`\lambda =l+\frac{1}{2}`$, scattering phase shifts are defined  by

$$\delta (\lambda )=\frac{\pi }{2}\lambda kr_0+_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}\left[K_\lambda (r^{})k\right]𝑑r^{}$$
(19)
where $`K_\lambda (r)`$ describes the local momentum through the interaction region and $`r_0`$ is the classical turning point. Thus the scattering potential is embedded in $`K_\lambda (r^{})`$ and inversion amounts to an integral transformation. To effect such a transformation it is convenient to consider the deflection function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\lambda )=2\frac{d\delta (\lambda )}{d\lambda },$$
(20)
where now $`\lambda `$ is taken as the angular momentum variable. This deflection function satisfies an Abel-like equation, found by applying the Sabatier transformation,

$$\sigma =kr\left[1\frac{V_{WKB}(r)}{E}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(21)
to Eq. (19). One finds

$$\delta (\lambda )=\frac{1}{2E}_\lambda ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{Q(\sigma )}{\sqrt{\sigma ^2\lambda ^2}}\sigma 𝑑\sigma ,$$
(22)
where $`Q(\sigma )`$ is a quasi-potential defined by

$$Q(\sigma )=2E\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sigma }{kr}\right).$$
(23)
The Abel-like integral equation for $`\delta (\lambda )`$ can be inverted to give

$$Q(\sigma )=\frac{4E}{\pi }\frac{1}{\sigma }\frac{d}{d\sigma }_\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta (\lambda )}{\sqrt{\sigma ^2\lambda ^2}}\lambda 𝑑\lambda ,$$
(24)
which can be written in terms of the deflection function as

$$Q(\sigma )=\frac{2E}{\pi }_\sigma ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\lambda )}{\sqrt{\sigma ^2\lambda ^2}}𝑑\lambda .$$
(25)
Provided there is a one to one mapping of the transcendental equation

$$kr=\sigma \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Q(\sigma )}{2E}\right),$$
(26)
and the energy $`E`$ exceeds that at which ‘orbiting’ occurs, i.e.

$$E>V(r)+\frac{1}{2}r\frac{dV}{dr},$$
(27)
then the Sabatier transformation equation provides the relationship from which the scattering potential can be found, namely

$$V_{WKB}(r)=E\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{Q(\sigma )}{E}\right]\right\}.$$
(28)
For large $`\sigma `$, the quasi-potentials decrease so that with $`\sigma kr`$, $`Q(\sigma )V(r)`$. As $`\sigma 0`$ however, the quasi-potentials diverge and the transforms then lead to the lower limits $`rr_0`$ (the turning point radius), $`V(r)E`$. However, in practical cases the validity of the WKB approximation breaks down at a radius larger than $`r_0`$, when the transcendental relationship between $`\sigma `$ and $`r`$ becomes ambiguous.

## III Specification of sets of phase shifts

The 5 eV e-Xe phase shifts determined by Gibson $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}.\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$  have interesting structure notably that while the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave phase shifts are negative, for all other $`l`$-values they are positive. The filled circles in Fig. 1 depict the the phase shifts that have been extracted from the data. The top most graph identifies the phase shifts associated with the $`j=l+\frac{1}{2}`$ angular momentum set while the bottom panel contains those associated with $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$. It is evident from the data displayed in this figure that the there is only a small difference between the $`\delta _l^\pm `$ sets. The largest difference occurs with the $`p`$-wave phase shifts, and that is only of order $`0.1^c`$.

As the phase shift analyses of the e-Xe scattering data gave negative values for the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave phase shifts, one can expect  scattering potentials that have a short ranged repulsion. But for e-Xe scattering it is known that the potential should be attractive at all radii and especially so near the origin where the incoming electron should feel essentially only the presence of the nucleus. Then one would expect the phase shifts for low $`l`$-values to be positive. Such can be formed with the phase shift values having a monotonic decrease with $`l`$ by the addition of $`2\pi `$ to $`\delta _0^{(+)}`$ and $`\pi `$ to $`\delta _1^\pm `$. We define such modulated values as the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shifts hereafter. Naturally multiples of any integer amount may be used, but this new set is the simplest. The new ($`\pi `$-adjusted) values are shown by the open circles in Fig. 1. Associated with such phase shifts are purely attractive interactions which are expected in the physical potentials for electron-atom scattering.

To investigate the effect of additional input on the form of the inversion potentials, the two data sets were interpolated. Several interpolations were made seeking suitable input for the different inversion schemes. A many point interpolation was made on each phase shift set to obtain the input for the WKB inversion scheme. Values of the phase shift functions had to be found at quite small step sizes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$, since in the WKB we have to evaluate not only the deflection functions but also integrate over them (numerically). A step size $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ of $`0.01`$ was used. Also two extended sets of input phase shift values were generated for use with the N-S scheme. One had $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=0.5`$ and the other $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=0.2`$. This was done to assess the effect of differing numbers of non-physical input on the N-S inversion potentials. The sets of interpolated phase shifts obtained using $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=0.2`$ are displayed in Fig. 1, with the solid and dashed curves giving the results of those (spline) interpolations. Clearly the phase shift functions so specified are no longer equivalent and so we expect any inversion process that requires such functions as input to give different inversion potentials.

## IV Results and discussion

The results we have obtained using the N-S inverse scattering theory are discussed first and, subsequently, those found from our WKB study of the chosen two phase shift functions are considered. We present in three subsections, the potentials that result, the phase shifts found from solutions of the Schrödinger equations containing those potentials, and the cross sections that ensue in each case.

### A The results from N-S inverse scattering theory

Our N-S studies have lead to six inversion potentials; three found by using the original phase shift values of Gibson et al.  and the other three obtained by using the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shifts. For each case, we first calculated the N-S inversion potentials using as input solely the phase shifts corresponding to the physical $`l`$ angular momentum set $`l0,1,2,\mathrm{},7`$. Such results we identify as case 1 results, e.g. case 1 inversion potentials from the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift sets. Two other calculations have been made with N-S inversion. First the N-S inverse scattering theory equations have been solved using the discretization $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=0.5`$; the results we identify by the designation case 2. The third set of N-S calculations were made using $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=0.2`$ to give what we term case 3 results.

#### 1 The N-S inversion potentials

Physical arguments dictate that the e-Xe scattering potential for 5 eV electrons should be real (the energy is below the first threshold) and to be attractive, with long range behavior of $`|\alpha |/r^4`$ and a short ranged one of $`Ze^2/r`$. One may also expect that the intermediate range potential would be essentially a monotonic function between the extremes as the charge density of the atom is believed to be a smooth function

The potentials resulting from the inversion of the phase shifts based upon the original set  are all strongly repulsive at small radii and hence are not considered physically significant. They also have marked oscillation in both their central and spin-orbit results. When used in the Schrödinger equations however, the solutions do reproduce the input phase shifts quite well; comparable to the results we show subsequently. But as the inversion potentials are not consistent with the form of e-Xe potential dictated by knowledge of that scattering system, we consider those inversion results no further.

In Fig. 2 the potentials obtained by inversion of the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift values are displayed. The top and bottom segments portray the central and spin-orbit components of the potentials respectively. The dashed, long dashed, and solid curves represent the case 1, case 2, and case 3 potentials respectively. The dashed curves in this figure are identical to the results of inversion found using the original phase shift values of Gibson et al.  That is as should be since within the N-S inversion scheme made with just the phase shift values specified at the physical angular momenta, modulo $`\pi `$ adjustment means that one uses exactly the same expansion wave functions in defining the internal matrices. But the other cases have quite different outcomes. The potentials shown in Fig. 2 tend to the physical expectation and clearly demonstrate that the inclusion of greater numbers of phase shifts at non-integer angular momentum lead to smoother, more realistic potential forms. The inversion potential found using the phase shifts at solely the physical angular momenta does not represent a structure expected for 5 eV electrons on Xe atoms as it has the short ranged repulsion. However between 0.75 and 2.5 a.u., that (case 1 central) potential has an attractive well with a depth of -1.3 a.u. while beyond 2.5 a.u. it behaves approximately as $`r^4`$. The spin-orbit component of the case 1 potential is very small, is weakly attractive in the vicinity of 1 a.u., mildly repulsive between 1 and 2.5 a.u., and after that it is essentially zero.

Obviously the most realistic potential comes with the case 3 potentials found using the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift sets. That concurs with the hypothesis that the inverse scattering theory result stabilizes with increase in the number of non-integer angular momenta phase shifts commensurate with numerical accuracy of evaluation. Essentially the angular momentum step size should be small in comparison to the number of significant partial wave input data ($`l_{max}`$). This case 3 potential, shown in Fig. 2 by the solid lines, has exactly the structure one would associate with e-Xe scattering. At small radii it is strongly attractive and of $`r^1`$ form, with a smooth transition to a long range $`r^4`$ tail. There is a smooth transition between those regions. The spin-orbit results also are more reasonable. The case 3 (with $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shifts as input), spin-orbit potential is not as extensive as the others. But the spin-orbit potentials are all small in general (save for the naturally occurring divergence at the origin) and so these three results do not by themselves indicate convergence. The reproduction of phase shifts and observables, however, tend to suggest that the results we show are reasonable.

#### 2 Reproduction of the phase shifts

An indication of the success of an inversion scheme is to reproduce the input phase shifts from solutions of the Schrödinger equations using the inversion potentials. In this case such reproduction is reasonably good but not exact; perhaps being a measure of the LHF approximation.

In Fig. 3, the original phase shift values  are portrayed by the filled circles and are compared with those obtained (at integer angular momenta) using each of the three inversion potentials defined by the $`\pi `$-adjusted input sets. Case 1 results lie within the filled circles, case 2 values are shown by the open squares, and case 3 gave the results portrayed by the open circles. The three lines now are meant only to guide the eye by connecting the phase shift values arising from use of the three inversion potentials.

The best reproduction of the phase shifts defined from experiment  is found by using the case 1 inversion potential, notwithstanding that the potential contains unphysical characteristics. Essentially, the inversion scheme in this case produces a potential that has been defined from just the two sets of eight phase shift values found by Gibson et al. at the physical values of $`l=0`$ to $`l=7`$. Case 2 and 3 potentials, on the other hand, were built using many more phase shifts specified at non-integer $`l`$-values and as the inversion potentials then seek to reproduce all of those extra values equally well, small variations in the results at the 8 physical $`l`$-values from the sets of Gibson et al. can result. The choice of those additional (unphysical) phase shifts then is crucial if the resulting potentials are to reproduce the eight physical values very well. One has to balance the need for a sufficiently large basis so that the inversion potential has stabilized to the proper (physically credible) limit, against the numerical accuracy one needs to achieve with reproduction of the physical phase shifts and scattering data.

A source of possible error in addition is the choice that must be taken for the phase shift at the unphysical point $`\delta _0^{j=\frac{1}{2}}`$. That value is needed in the calculations of both $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$ and $`\widehat{\delta }`$ and also in the N-S scheme. This choice has the potential to introduce error since its value influences the interpolation. A poor choice of this value can become evident when the inversion potential is used to recalculate the phase shifts, particularly for the low-$`l`$ partial waves. A reasonable choice seems to be to set the phase shift $`\delta _0^{j=\frac{1}{2}}`$ equal to $`\delta _0^{j=+\frac{1}{2}}`$. Admittedly this is an arbitrary point. In this study, two choices were considered; the first being to take $`\delta _0^{j=\frac{1}{2}}=\delta _0^{j=+\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the other to use an Akima spline to determine the value by extrapolation. In this study allowing the Akima spline to determine this point was slightly more successful.

#### 3 The cross section from the N-S inversion potentials

Although the potentials all look reasonably good, particularly that found from case 3 with the $`\pi `$-adjusted input phase shifts, the further test of the inversion results is to see how accurately use of the potentials reproduce experimental data. This is displayed in Fig. 4 wherein the experimental data (with error bars) as found by Gibson et al.  are compared with the cross sections calculated from the three inversion potentials obtained using the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift sets. Those results found using the case 1, case 2, and case 3 inversion potentials are depicted by the dashed, long dashed , and solid curves respectively. Further we display the results here on a linear scale to distinguish the bulk of the results in relationship to the error bars. Later when discussing the WKB calculated cross sections, we will display also the case 3 N-S comparison with data shown on a semi-logarithmic plot. That emphasizes the comparison of results with data at the large scattering angles and particularly in the vicinity of the minima as 120. As one might expect from the reproduction of the phase shifts, we see in Fig. 4 that a good reproduction of the cross-section data is found with the case 1 results. That result passes through the error bars of most data points. The case 2 cross section has similar structure to the experimental data, but the shape is slightly at variance falling just outside the error bars associated with a number of the data. The case 3 cross section however is in excellent agreement with most of the experimental data. In general it falls within most of the data error bars except at the larger scattering angles; the latter indicative of the phase shifts at integer values of $`l`$ not being reproduced with sufficient accuracy.

### B The results from semi-classical WKB inversion theory

The WKB inversion results have been obtained by forming the $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\lambda )`$ and $`\widehat{\delta }(\lambda )`$ phase shift functions and using them to evaluate two quasi-potentials. The potentials that result are discussed in the first subsection. Subsequently we present and discuss the phase shift reproductions and the cross sections that result on using those inversion potentials.

#### 1 The WKB inversion potentials

The inversion potentials we have found using the semi-classical WKB methods are presented in Fig. 5. Once again the central potential is shown in the top section of the figure; the spin-orbit potential in the bottom. Clearly two very different structures have been generated. The result from using the $`\pi `$-adjusted functions has physically sensible characteristics but that found using the deflection function defined from the original phase shifts does not. Indeed the inversion procedure based upon the original phase shift set does not lead to a spin-orbit potential one can identify as anything sensible and so that is not displayed.

The $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift data sets give smooth monotonic phase shift functions and hence work well with the WKB scheme. Furthermore it leads to the form of potential (the continuous lines in Fig. 5) one would expect for the central component of an e-Xe interaction, i.e. a smooth function which is highly attractive toward the origin and has an attractive $`r^4`$ long range behavior. The spin-orbit component of the potential would also be small and short ranged. Essentially the potential from this WKB analysis that is displayed in Fig. 5 has this desired prescription. However, given that the input was not optimally smooth at large angular momenta (close inspection of the input data showed that there were small oscillations in the phase shift functions), there are small oscillations at large radii in the WKB inversion potential. Nevertheless, by smoothing, the long range WKB inversion potential does behave on average like $`r^4`$ and the central component of this WKB inversion potential resembles that found using the N-S scheme.

Only the central potential found from WKB inversion of the original phase shift data  is shown in Fig. 5 (by the long dashed line). Quite evidently it is nonsensical. It exhibits ambiguous behavior at many radii, resulting from a loss of 1:1 correspondence between $`\sigma `$ and $`r`$ in this case. Apparently if the input phase shift function contains a large degree of curvature then that input is unsuitable for use with the WKB procedure. This is emphasized when one considers the deflection function, quasi-potential, and the associated $`\sigma `$ vs $`r`$ plots. The deflection function resulting from differentiating the phase shift function defined from interpolation of the original phase shift values, has a rapid variation as is evident from the top panel in Fig. 6. Consequently the quasi-potential will also be quite structured and that is shown in the middle panel of Fig. 6. As a result the stability condition breaks down at a fairly large radius. This condition, the correspondence between $`\sigma `$ and $`r`$, is displayed in the bottom section of Fig. 6. Clearly between 3 and 5 a.u. there is an ambiguous relation with $`\sigma `$ and so one finds ambiguous values of the associated WKB inversion potential in that region. Indeed one can only hope to ascribe a sensible result with this input to the WKB inversion for radii then in excess of 4 - 5 a.u.

The realistic e-Xe potentials found by using the $`\pi `$-adjusted phase shift sets and with both the N-S (case 3) and WKB inversion schemes, are compared in Fig. 7. The potentials found using the N-S scheme are shown by the solid curves while those found by WKB inversion are displayed by the filled circles. The latter are taken to the limit radius at which the 1:1 correspondence between $`\sigma `$ and $`r`$ is maintained. Overall the (semi-classical) WKB potentials compare very well with those found using the (full quantal) N-S scheme. Clearly the central potentials look almost exactly the same. There are differences between those two which become apparent when the observables are calculated. On the other hand, the spin-orbit WKB potential is very smooth and weak in comparison to the corresponding N-S component. Also it is repulsive at all radii while the N-S potential has a small attractive well between approximately 0.3 and 0.6 a.u.

#### 2 Reproduction of the phase shifts

Despite the very pleasing form generated for the potential using the WKB scheme, the reproduction of the phase shifts, although reasonable, is not as good as those generated using the N-S scheme. However this discrepancy is not disconcerting given that the WKB scheme is a semi-classical approximation. The phase shifts found from our WKB calculation are shown by the open circles in Fig. 8, and joining lines have been included solely to guide the eye. The data of Gibson et al.  again are represented by the filled black circles. As with the N-S case, part of the discrepancy between the calculated values and the data may be due to the ambiguity with the interpolation required to specify the phase shift functions and particularly for points below $`l=1`$ for the $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$ input set.

A spline was used to determine the deflection function, and that influences the quasi-potential and ultimately also the potential. Given that points found from the $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$ input set are extrapolated for values of $`\lambda <\frac{1}{2}`$, ambiguity in those values is inevitable. That ambiguity persists when these splined values are used to determine the input functions $`\stackrel{~}{\delta _l}(\lambda )`$ and $`\widehat{\delta _l}(\lambda )`$. That may result in a poor reproduction of the physical phase shifts, particularly of the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave values when the solutions of the Schrödinger equations specified with the relevant WKB potentials are found to complete the study loop.

#### 3 The cross section from the WKB inversion potentials

Already, from the reproduction of the phase shifts, we suspect that with the WKB method, reproduction of the cross section will not be as good as that obtained using the relevant N-S inversion potentials. This is indeed true. The solid curve shown in Fig. 9 depicts the WKB cross section result which is compared therein against the Gibson et al. data  and also against the cross section determined by using the preferred case 3 N-S inversion potential (shown by the dashed curve). We now present the results in a semi-logarithmic plot since WKB cross section is similar in magnitude to the data, however it does not display quite the right structure at any scattering angle. The reproduction simply is not as good as that found using the N-S scheme. This figure also emphasizes the mismatch of the case 3 N-S inversion results at large angles that we commented on earlier.

## V Conclusions

Inversion potentials for the 5 eV electron-Xenon atom interaction have been found using both the full quantal N-S and the semi-classical WKB inverse scattering theories. The results from application of the N-S inversion were very good. Several inputs were used in this approach, each containing a different number of phase shift values. From solutions of the Schrödinger equations specified with each of the potentials, ‘inversion’ phase shifts were extracted that reproduced well the starting (physical) phase shift values and also the empirical cross section. However, when the input was taken solely to be the (physical) phase shifts at integer-$`l`$ values of angular momenta, the inversion potential contains a marked repulsion at small radii. That is not physical. With increased numbers of input data specified at non-integer values of angular momentum, inversion produced a potential with sensible (physically credible) characteristics.

As two disparate inversion methods find central e-Xe potentials that are essentially the same and have pertinent physical properties of the scattering system, we are confident that the N-S approach has (nearly) converged and that the central potential obtained by expanded $`\pi `$-adjusted physical phase shift sets is the appropriate candidate for the local Schrödinger interaction. The spin-orbit potential is reasonable but more detailed investigations are needed before the characteristics found for it can be adopted with confidence.

The similarity between the WKB and N-S inversion potentials also implies that the introduction of unphysical phase shifts in the N-S calculation is essential if a stable inversion potential is to be obtained in this case. That would be so with other energies measured  and, by implication, for any such electron-atom scattering at eV energies. There is the difficulty however, of accurately specifying the phase shifts for non-integer angular momenta. Obviously some kind of a priori information regarding the colliding system is necessary. In this instance simply $`\pi `$-adjusting the given phase shift data sufficed.


text:
# Collective excitation frequencies of a Bose – Einstein condensate with electromagnetically induced 1/𝑟 attraction

## Abstract

We investigate collective excitations of an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate in a recently discovered regime \[D. O’Dell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5687 (2000)\] of a balance between electromagnetically induced $`1/r`$ attraction and a short-range interatomic repulsion. The corresponding frequencies for monopole, dipole, and quadrupole modes are calculated numerically in the zero temperature case.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 34.20.Cf, 34.80.Qb.

Theoretical as well as experimental studies of dilute atomic Bose – Einstein condensates (BECs) have made an impressive progress since 1995, when quantum degeneration in alkali metal wapours was reached at the first time . These systems are interesting especially due to a presence of an interaction between atoms weak enough to provide a development of quite precise theories describing the properties of these non-ideal degenerate Bose-gases. The interatomic potentials act on a short range, moreover, at ultralow temperatures they are effectively described by contact pseudo-potentials containing a single parameter, the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$ . Here we consider $`a>0`$, i.e. the short-range potential provides mutual repulsion of atoms.

Recently, a new kind of atomic BEC has been proposed in Ref.. Namely, it is shown that the particular configurqation of intense off-resonant laser beams gives rise to an effective $`1/r`$ interatomic attraction between atoms located well within the laser wavelength (since inelastic collisions destroy very rapidly BECs of number densities more than $`10^{14}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, a long-wavelength infrared laser has to be considered). The directions and polarizations of different incident laser beams can be chosen in such a way that the static (near-zone) $`1/r^3`$ component of dipole-dipole interaction energy is effectively ”averaged out”, and only $`1/r`$ attraction remains. Finally, the two-particle interaction energy including both usual short-range interactions and such an ”electromagnetically induced gravitation” reads as

$$U_{12}(𝐫)=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{M}\delta (𝐫)\frac{u}{r},$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the atomic mass and the long-range interaction constant $`u`$ is expressed in SI units as

$$u=\frac{11Iq^2\alpha ^2}{4\pi ϵ_0^2c}.$$

The laser beam intensity and wavenumber are denoted by $`I`$ and $`q`$, respectively; $`\alpha `$ is the atomic polarizability at the frequency $`q/c`$ (practically, because the external radiation belongs to the IR range, $`\alpha `$ is equal to the static polaqrizability). A useful parameter $`a_{}=\mathrm{}^2/(Mu)`$ can be called the Bohr radius for the gravitation-like potential. Practically, the ”gravitation” is weak enough, so always $`a_{}a`$.

In Ref. it is shown that a self-bound solution of the modified Gross – Pitaevskii equation taking into account the gravitation-like interatomic potential exists. A cloud of atoms located in a radiation field of necessary geometry giving rise to $`1/r`$ attraction is stable without any confining external potential of magnetic or optical trap. The situation is similar to that of astrophysics where we have stars — objects those are stable due to a balance between gravitation and a Boltzmannian gas pressure. In our case the pressure arises from the two sources: interatomic repulsion due to the short-range potential and the ”quantum pressure” corresponding to the kinetic energy term in the Schrödinger equation.

Let us consider a zero-temperature case. Expressing the BEC order parameter through condensate density $`n`$ and phase $`\varphi `$ as usual , $`\mathrm{\Psi }=n\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$, we rewrite the complex Gross – Pitaevskii equation as a set of two real equations:

$$\frac{n}{t}+(n𝐯)=0,$$
(2)
$$M\frac{𝐯}{t}+\left(\frac{1}{2}Mv^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\sqrt{n}}^2\sqrt{n}+\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m}n+U_g\right)=0,$$

where the local ”gravitation potential” is

$$U_g(𝐫)=ud^3𝐫^{}\frac{n(𝐫^{})}{\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|}.$$

The velocity field is introduced by the relation $`𝐯=\mathrm{}\pi /M`$.

If $`N\sqrt{a_{}/a}`$ ($`N`$ is the total number of atoms in the BEC) then the set of Eqs.(2) admits an analytical steady state solution . Indeed, in such a limiting case the kinetic energy term is small and can be omitted; the ”gravitation” is balanced by the $`s`$-wave scattering. The density of such a self-bound degenerate bosonic cloud is equal to

$$n_0(𝐫)=\frac{N}{4R_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi r/R_0)}{r}\theta (R_0r)=0,$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heavyside function, $`R_0=\pi \sqrt{a_{}a}`$ is the radius of the cloud boundary (in Ref. there is an arythmetic error in the numerical coefficient in the expression for $`R_0`$).

In the present paper, we calculate the eigenfrequencies of oscillations of such a self-bound cloud. We introduce small perturbations $`n_1`$ and $`𝐯_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of the density and velocity, respectively: $`n=n_0+n_1`$, $`𝐯=𝐯_1`$. procedure of linearizing of Eqs.(2) is standard . We choose the time dependence of perturbation in the form of $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$. We calculate the eigenfrequenciues $`\omega `$ within the Thomas – Fermi approximation, i.e., we neglect the kinetic energy term in the equation for the velocity, After elimination of the variable $`𝐯_1`$, we get finally

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2n_1(\stackrel{~}{𝐫})+\stackrel{~}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{r})}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\stackrel{~}{}\left(n_1(\stackrel{~}{𝐫})\frac{1}{4\pi }d^3\stackrel{~}{𝐫}^{}\frac{n_1(𝐫^{})}{\left|\stackrel{~}{𝐫}\stackrel{~}{𝐫}^{}\right|}\right)\right]=0.$$
(4)
Eq.(4) is written using dimensionless quantities

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐫}=\frac{\pi }{R_0}𝐫,\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega \sqrt{\frac{R_0^5M^2}{\pi ^4N\mathrm{}^2a}}.$$
(5)
It is convenient to introduce the ”gravitation potential perturbation” variable

$$\xi (\stackrel{~}{𝐫})=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^3\stackrel{~}{𝐫}^{}\frac{n_1(𝐫^{})}{\left|\stackrel{~}{𝐫}\stackrel{~}{𝐫}^{}\right|},$$
(6)
so that $`n_1=\stackrel{~}{}^2\xi `$. Then Eq.(4) can be identically transformed to

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\stackrel{~}{}^2\xi +\stackrel{~}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{r})}{r}\left(\stackrel{~}{}^2\xi +\xi \right)\right]=0.$$
(7)
To solve this equation, firstly, we note that the orbital momentum $`l`$ and its projection $`m`$ to an arbitrary axis are conserved. So we can set

$$\xi =\xi _l(\stackrel{~}{r})Y_{lm}(\vartheta ,\phi ),$$

where $`Y_{lm}`$ is the spherical harmonic. The only remaining thing now is to set the boundary condition for Eq.(7). They can be derived from the tailoring of the inner and outer solutions at $`\stackrel{~}{r}=\pi `$ (i.e., $`r=R_0`$). First of all, a perturbation does not change the total number $`N`$ of atoms. So, for monopole modes, the radial derivative of the potential perturbation vanishes at $`\stackrel{~}{r}>\pi `$. For modes with $`l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ at the same distances $`\xi _l`$ decreases as $`r^{(l+1)}`$. Hence, the boundary conditions are

$$\frac{d\xi _0}{d\stackrel{~}{r}}|_{\stackrel{~}{r}=\pi }=0$$
(8)
for the monopole mode and

$$\frac{1}{\xi _l}\frac{d\xi _l}{d\stackrel{~}{r}}|_{\stackrel{~}{r}=\pi }=\frac{l+1}{\pi }$$
(9)
for the other modes ($`l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$).

We solved Eq.(7) numerically by expansion in series:

$$\xi _l(\stackrel{~}{r})=\underset{k}{}C_{lk}j_l(\gamma _{lk}\stackrel{~}{r}/\pi ).$$

Here $`j_l`$ is the spherical Bessel function . To satisfy the boundary conditions, one must choose the coefficient $`\gamma _{lk}`$ equal to the $`k`$-th root of the equation

$$j_l^{}(\gamma )=0,$$
(10)
where

$$l^{}=1,l=0,$$

$$l^{}=l1,l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.$$

For $`l=1`$, the lowest frequency is exactly zero. Indeed, the lowest dipole mode corresponds to a translation of a self-bound BEC as a whole in a space free of any external trap potential.

We calculated numerically the four lowest frequencies for $`l=0,1,`$ and 2. The estimated numerical uncertainty is of order of one per cent. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is equal to

$`0.617,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.27},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.85},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.39},\mathrm{}`$ for $`l=0`$,

$`0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.898},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.51},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.06},\mathrm{}`$ for $`l=1`$,

$`0.391,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.10},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.71},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.28},\mathrm{}`$ for $`l=2`$.

Finally, we note that calculation of quantum depletion in a BEC self-bound by ”electromagnetically induced gravitation” could be interesting.

This work is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 99–02–17076) and the State Program ”Universities of Russia” (project 015.01.01.04).


text:
# What Can We Learn from QED at Large Couplings?

## Introduction

It is well known that the content of a relativistic field theory (let us take QCD as an example) may be expressed in terms of functional averages of operators of the type

$$𝒟[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi },A]𝒪[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi },A]e^{S_{\mathrm{QCD}}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{\Psi },A]}.$$
(1)
Even though it is not possible to perform these integrals exactly, we have learnt an awful lot over the years by studying Eq. (1) in various approximations. For example, if there is a small parameter (e.g. $`g`$, $`1/N_c`$…) one may develop well-ordered expansions of Eq. (1). Alternatively one can use stationary phase methods to approximate the integral – relevant, for example, if one is interested in elucidating the importance of classical configurations. Also, these methods are used in order to gain understanding of the behaviour of very high orders of perturbation theory (HOPT). One may study the symmetries of the theory (e.g. chiral perturbation theory) in order to relate observables, or one can study its equations of motion (e.g. Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) studies). Finally, much progress has been made in recent years by actually evaluating Eq. (1) directly by discretizing it, as is done in Lattice QCD.

We have reported elsewhere on yet another technique, the so-called “worldline variational approach”, in which the path integral is approximated, in a rigorous and systematically correctable way, via a variational principle. This approach was initially applied to relativistic field theory in a scalar model aws wc  and more recently to quenched QED aws qed2 . The common property that QED shares with QCD is that they are both renormalizable gauge field theories, in contrast to the scalar model which is super-renormalizable. Of course QCD, even after quenching (i.e. neglecting pair creation), differs from quenched QED by the fact that it is asymptotically free whereas quenched QED has a constant coupling. However, many of the above-mentioned approximative schemes for dealing with Eq. (1) should be applicable within either theory. Quenched QED therefore serves, and is often used, as a test-ground for these methods. In this talk we compare results for a particular quantity characterising quenched QED, namely its anomalous mass dimension, obtained via a) the variational approach, b) via perturbation theory, c) via Dyson-Schwinger equation studies and d) via HOPT. Surprisingly, we find that these results are not entirely consistent with each other, which indicates that our present understanding of these methods may be incomplete.

In Ref. aws qed2  we derived from the variational approach an analytic, implicit, result for the anomalous mass dimension $`\gamma _m(\alpha )`$ of quenched, dimensionally regularized, QED within the MS scheme:

$$\alpha =\frac{4}{3}(1+\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}})\mathrm{cot}\frac{\pi /2}{1+\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}}.$$
(2)
This is a remarkable result. At small couplings it should (approximately) agree with the known result of perturbation theory 111$`\gamma _m(\alpha )`$ has been calculated to fourth order in $`\alpha `$ within SU(N) aws alpha4 ; by suitable choice of Casimirs (i.e. $`C_A=0`$, $`C_F=1`$ and, for a quenched theory, $`N_f=0`$) the result for U(1) may be extracted from this. Recently, Broadhurst aws broadhurst  has also calculated $`\gamma _m(\alpha )`$ to fourth order directly within QED. Indeed, as may be seen in Fig. 1 (taken from Ref. aws qed2 ), the variational result agrees with perturbation theory to within $``$ 20 % for couplings where 4$`th`$ order perturbation theory appears applicable, i.e. for $`\alpha `$ less than about 1. We have also plotted an estimate of perturbation theory up to 5$`th`$ order term of the perturbative expansion 222The 5$`th`$ order estimate has been derived using the Padé approximation methods of Ref. aws Pade .

It is interesting to note that for a value of $`\alpha `$ around $`1`$ the various orders of perturbation theory appear to ‘fan out’. It is tempting to speculate that this effect arises because of a finite radius of convergence of the perturbation expansion. This would be unexpected: the general wisdom from HOPT studies is that, as a first rough estimate, the $`n^{th}`$ order contribution to a perturbative expansion should scale roughly like the number of diagrams at that order. For the quenched QED propagator, the number of diagrams at order $`n`$ is given by

$$N_n=\frac{(2n)!}{2^nn!}=(2n1)!!\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}^{n+1/2}e^nn^n$$
(3)
and hence the radius of convergence (= $`lim_n\mathrm{}|N_n|^{1/n}`$) of the perturbative expansion vanishes. More sophisticated analysesaws large orders  confirm this general result (although, apparently, the high order behaviour of $`\gamma _m`$ does not itself appear to ever have been calculated explicitly within quenched QED).

The final curve plotted in Fig. 1 is the prediction of a Dyson-Schwinger equation calculation within the rainbow approximation. This was obtained, for the dimensionally regularized theory within the MS scheme, in Ref. aws qed2 ; aws qed3  and was found to be identical with the well known result for $`\gamma _m`$ in the theory regularized with a hard cut-off, i.e. $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}\sqrt{1\frac{3}{\pi }\alpha }`$. At small couplings this agrees with perturbation theory but then diverges from the latter in a region where (4th order) perturbation theory still appears to be applicable. Above $`\alpha =\pi /3`$, $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ becomes complex, which is also the value $`\alpha _{cr}`$ of the coupling at which the famous chiral symmetry breaking of quenched QED occurs. Note also that the perturbative expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ has a finite radius of convergence given by $`\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{DS}}=\alpha _{cr}`$. It is, however, not a great surprise that $`\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ is finite in this calculation as the rainbow approximation contains exactly one diagram at each order and hence does not reproduce the factorial growth (Eq. 3) in the number of diagrams. Nevertheless, the coincidence of $`\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ and $`\alpha _{cr}^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ is interesting and one wonders if it will persist in Dyson-Schwinger calculations when going beyond the rainbow approximation. Also, if in the exact theory $`\alpha _{con}`$ actually vanishes one wonders what will happen to $`\alpha _{cr}`$ in that case.

The variational result plotted in Fig. 1 appears to show no sign of chiral symmetry breaking. Indeed it is easy to derive that at large couplings $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}\sqrt{3\pi /8}\sqrt{\alpha }`$. However, it turns out that a perturbative expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ also has a finite radius of convergence, not too different from the one mentioned above. We shall discuss this, as well as the large order behaviour of the perturbative expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$, below. It is important to note that in this case a finite radius of convergence is not a trivial result of the approximation, as it was for rainbow QED: it can be shown aws wc  that each diagram, at any order in perturbation theory, is represented in some approximate way within the variational approximation; i.e. a perturbative expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ would receive contributions from $`(2n1)!!`$ diagrams at order $`n`$.

## The radius of convergence of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$

Equation (2) is an implicit equation for $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ which can easily be solved numerically for arbitrary $`\alpha `$. Importantly it can also be solved for complex $`\alpha `$, so the determination of $`\alpha _{con}`$ amounts to a search for nontrivial analytic structure in the complex $`\alpha `$ plane. In Fig. 2 we show a plot of the (negative) real part of $`\gamma _m`$ as a function of the (complex) coupling. Branch cuts, limiting the region of convergence of the perturbation expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$, are clearly visible for negative $`e\alpha `$. Note that, as opposed to the Dyson-Schwinger equation result $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}`$, there are no cuts on the real axis (also for positive $`e\alpha `$, which is not shown in Fig. 2). Hence, in Fig. 1, $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ is real for all $`\alpha `$ while $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ terminates at $`\alpha _{con}`$ aws mrs .

The position of the cuts in Fig. 2 can be obtained straightforwardly by searching for the value of $`\gamma _m`$ at which Eq. (2) has two distinct solutions infinitesimally close to each other; i.e. the value of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ at which the derivative with respect to $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ of Eq. (2) vanishes. One obtains that the branchpoints are located at $`\alpha =0.496127\pm 0.619172i`$, which yields a radius of convergence for the perturbation expansion of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ of $`\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{var}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.79342}`$.

## The behaviour of $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$ at large orders in perturbation theory

The radius of convergence of the perturbative expansion of the anomalous mass dimension can also be obtained, of course, by directly examining the behaviour of its expansion coefficients at large orders, i.e. if we expand

$$\gamma _m=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\alpha ^n,$$
(4)
then radius of convergence is given by

$$\alpha _{con}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|c_n|^{1/n}.$$
(5)
For $`n`$ up to $`30`$, it is possible to obtain these expansion coefficients by direct substitution of Eq. (4) into Eq. (2). The results are tabulated in Table 1, where it is clearly seen that although $`|c_n|^{1/n}`$ does perhaps tend to a finite limit, the rate of convergence is rather slow (and non-uniform).

In order to find the $`c_n`$’s for higher values of $`n`$, it proves to be advantageous to convert Eq. (2) into a differential equation in order to eliminate the cotangent. We obtain

$$1+\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}=\left(\alpha +\frac{2\pi }{3}\right)\gamma _{m}^{\mathrm{var}}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{3\pi }{8}\alpha ^2\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}}\right)^{}.$$
(6)
If we now substitute Eq. (4) for $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$, and $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_n\alpha ^n`$ for $`1/(1+\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}})`$ (hence $`a_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ and $`a_n=_{k=1}^{n1}c_{nk}a_n`$) we may solve for the coefficients $`c_n`$ and $`a_n`$ in an iterative manner. The results are shown in Fig. 3.

The slow rate of convergence, as well as its non-uniformity, is clearly visible in this figure. Indeed, numerically one finds that for large $`n`$ the points in Fig. 3 are fitted exceedingly well by the functional form

$$c_n\left(\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{var}}\right)^n\frac{e^\beta }{n^{3/2}}\mathrm{sin}\left[\left(a+\frac{5\pi }{7}\right)n\frac{3\pi }{7}+b\right],$$
(7)
with $`\beta 1.376`$, $`a2.32\times 10^3`$ and $`b8.268\times 10^2`$. These values of $`c_n`$ may be compared to the equivalent expansion coefficients obtained from the Dyson-Schwinger equation result:

$$c_n^{\mathrm{DS}}\left(\alpha _{con}^{\mathrm{DS}}\right)^n\frac{e^{1.27}}{n^{3/2}}.$$
(8)
In fact, the variational result and the rainbow Dyson-Schwinger result for the $`c_n`$’s are surprisingly similar, not only in their functional form but even in the numerical coefficients. The main difference is the occurance of the sine function in the former. It is because of this sine that the branchcut, which for $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{DS}}`$ lies on the real axis, has moved into the complex plane for $`\gamma _m^{\mathrm{var}}`$.

## Conclusion

In this contribution we have compared predictions for the anomalous mass dimension of quenched QED obtained through the use of a variety of techniques: the worldline variational approach, perturbation theory up to $`O[\alpha ^4]`$ (as well as a Padé estimate for the $`O[\alpha ^5]`$ term), rainbow Dyson-Schwinger equation studies and general expectations from studies of high order perturbation theory. Both the rainbow DSE’s and the variational approach yield a cut in $`\gamma _m`$ as a function of the coupling. In the former this cut is on the real axis, and is associated with chiral symmetry breaking, while in the latter it has moved (a long way) off the real axis, so that in that calculation there is no obvious sign of chiral symmetry breaking. In either case, the cuts necessitate a finite radius of convergence for the perturbative expansion of $`\gamma _m(\alpha )`$, and one can argue that circumstantial evidence for this may be seen in the perturbative result as well. General expectations from HOPT, on the other hand, suggest that the radius of convergence should be zero. Clearly, as quenched QED is the prototype gauge theory for the investigation of chiral symmetry breaking, efforts should be made to clarify these disagreements. It may even be the case that the eventual resolution of these issues will teach us something about the limitations of one or more of these approximate techniques for dealing with nonperturbative gauge field theories.