text:
# Estimation of Stochastic Attribute-Value Grammars using an Informative Sample

## 1 Introduction

Abney showed that attribute-value grammars cannot be modelled adequately using statistical techniques which assume that statistical dependencies are accidental \[Abney, 1997\]. Instead of using a model class that assumed independence, Abney suggested using Random Fields Models (RFMs) for attribute-value grammars. RFMs deal with the graphical structure of a parse. Because they do not make independence assumptions about the stochastic generation process that might have produced some parse, they are able to model correctly dependencies that exist within parses.

When estimating standardly-formulated RFMs, it is necessary to sum over all parses licensed by the grammar. For many broad coverage natural language grammars, this might involve summing over an exponential number of parses. This would make the task computationally intractable. Abney, following the lead of Lafferty et al, suggested a Monte Carlo simulation as a way of reducing the computational burden associated with RFM estimation \[Lafferty et al., 1997\]. However, Johnson et al considered the form of sampling used in this simulation (Metropolis-Hastings) intractable \[Johnson et al., 1999\]. Instead, they proposed an alternative strategy that redefined the estimation task. It was argued that this redefinition made estimation computationally simple enough that a Monte Carlo simulation was unnecessary. They presented results obtained using a small unlexicalised model trained on a modest corpus.

Unfortunately, Johnson et al assumed it was possible to retrieve all parses licensed by a grammar when parsing a given training set. For us, this was not the case. In our experiments with a manually written broad coverage Definite Clause Grammar (DCG) \[Briscoe and Carroll, 1996\], we were only able to recover all parses for Wall Street Journal sentences that were at most $`13`$ tokens long within acceptable time and space bounds on computation. When we used an incremental Minimum Description Length (MDL) based learner to extend the coverage of our manually written grammar (from roughly $`60\%`$ to around $`90\%`$ of the parsed Wall Street Journal), the situation became worse. Sentence ambiguity considerably increased. We were then only able to recover all parses for Wall Street Journal sentences that were at most $`6`$ tokens long \[Osborne, 1999\].

We can however, and usually in polynomial time, recover up to $`30`$ parses for sentences up to $`30`$ tokens long when we use a probabilistic unpacking mechanism \[Carroll and Briscoe, 1992\]. (Longer sentences than $`30`$ tokens can be parsed, but the number of parses we can recover for them drops off rapidly).111We made an attempt to determine the maximum number of parses our grammar might assign to sentences. On a $`450`$MHz Ultra Sparc 80 with $`2`$ Gb of real memory, with a limit of at most $`1000`$ parses per sentence, and allowing no more than $`100`$ CPU seconds per sentence, we found that sentence ambiguity increased exponentially with respect to sentence length. Sentences with $`30`$ tokens had an estimated average of $`866`$ parses (standard deviation $`290.4`$). Without the limit of $`1000`$ parses per sentence, it seems likely that this average would increase. However, $`30`$ is far less than the maximum number of parses per sentence our grammar might assign to Wall Street Journal sentences. Any training set we have access to will therefore be necessarily limited in size.

We therefore need an estimation strategy that takes seriously the issue of extracting the best performance from a limited size training set. A limited size training set means one created by retrieving at most $`n`$ parses per sentence. Although we cannot recover all possible parses, we do have a choice as to which parses estimation should be based upon.

Our approach to the problem of making RFM estimation feasible for our highly ambiguous DCG is to seek out an informative sample and train upon that. We do not redefine the estimation task in a non-standard way, nor do we use a Monte Carlo simulation.

We call a sample informative if it both leads to the selection of a model that does not underfit or overfit, and also is typical of future samples. Despite one’s intuitions, an informative sample might be a proper subset of the full training set. This means that estimation using the informative sample might yield better results than estimation using all of the training set.

The rest of this paper is as follows. Firstly we introduce RFMs. Then we show how they may be estimated and how an informative sample might be identified. Next, we give details of the attribute-value grammar we use, and show how we go about modelling it. We then present two sets of experiments. The first set is small scale, and are designed to show the existence of an informative sample. The second set of experiments are larger in scale, and build upon the computational savings we are able to achieve using a probabilistic unpacking strategy. They show how large models (two orders of magnitude larger than those reported by Johnson et al) can be estimated using the parsed Wall Street Journal corpus. Overfitting is shown to take place. They also show how this overfitting can be (partially) reduced by using a Gaussian prior. Finally, we end with some comments on our work.

## 2 Random Field Models

Here we show how attribute-value grammars may be modelled using RFMs. Although our commentary is in terms of RFMs and grammars, it should be obvious that RFM technology can be applied to other estimation scenarios.

Let $`G`$ be an attribute-value grammar, $`D`$ the set of sentences within the string-set defined by $`L(G)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the union of the set of parses assigned to each sentence in $`D`$ by the grammar $`G`$. A Random Field Model, $`M`$, consist of two components: a set of features, $`F`$ and a set of weights, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Features are the basic building blocks of RFMs. They enable the system designer to specify the key aspects of what it takes to differentiate one parse from another parse. Each feature is a function from a parse to an integer. Here, the integer value associated with a feature is interpreted as the number of times a feature ‘matches’ (is ‘active’) with a parse. Note features should not be confused with features as found in feature-value bundles (these will be called attributes instead). Features are usually manually selected by the system designer.

The other component of a RFM, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is a set of weights. Informally, weights tell us how features are to be used when modelling parses. For example, an active feature with a large weight might indicate that some parse had a high probability. Each weight $`\lambda _i`$ is associated with a feature $`f_i`$. Weights are real-valued numbers and are automatically determined by an estimation process (for example using Improved Iterative Scaling \[Lafferty et al., 1997\]). One of the nice properties of RFMs is that the likelihood function of a RFM is strictly concave. This means that there are no local minima, and so we can be be sure that scaling will result in estimation of a RFM that is globally optimal.

The (unnormalised) total weight of a parse $`x`$, $`\psi (x)`$, is a function of the $`k`$ features that are ‘active’ on a parse:

$`\psi (x)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\lambda _if_i(x))`$ (1)
The probability of a parse, $`P(xM)`$, is simply the result of normalising the total weight associated with that parse:

$`P(xM)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\psi (x)`$ (2)
$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{y\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}\psi (y)`$ (3)
The interpretation of this probability depends upon the application of the RFM. Here, we use parse probabilities to reflect preferences for parses.

When using RFMs for parse selection, we simply select the parse that maximises $`\psi (x)`$. In these circumstances, there is no need to normalise (compute $`Z`$). Also, when computing $`\psi (x)`$ for competing parses, there is no built-in bias towards shorter (or longer) derivations, and so no need to normalise with respect to derivation length.222The reason there is no need to normalise with respect to derivation length is that features can have positive or negative weights. The weight of a parse will therefore not always monotonically increase with respect to the number of active features.

## 3 RFM Estimation and Selection of the Informative Sample

We now sketch how RFMs may be estimated and then outline how we seek out an informative sample.

We use Improved Iterative Scaling (IIS) to estimate RFMs. In outline, the IIS algorithm is as follows:

1. Start with a reference distribution $`R`$, a set of features $`F`$ and a set of weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`M`$ be the RFM defined using $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
2. Initialise all weights to zero. This makes the initial model uniform.
3. Compute the expectation of each feature w.r.t $`R`$.
4. For each feature $`f_i`$

1. Find a weight $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\lambda _i}`$ that equates the expectation of $`f_i`$ w.r.t $`R`$ and the expectation of $`f_i`$ w.r.t $`M`$.
    2. Replace the old value of $`\lambda _i`$ with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\lambda _i}`$.
5. If the model has converged to $`R`$, output $`M`$.
6. Otherwise, go to step 4

The key step here is 4a, computing the expectations of features w.r.t the RFM. This involves calculating the probability of a parse, which, as we saw from equation 2, requires a summation over all parses in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We seek out an informative sample $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_t\mathrm{\Omega }`$) as follows:

1. Pick out from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a sample of size $`n`$.
2. Estimate a model using that sample and evaluate it.
3. If the model just estimated shows signs of overfitting (with respect to an unseen held-out data set), halt and output the model.
4. Otherwise, increase $`n`$ and go back to step 1.

Our approach is motivated by the following (partially related) observations:

* Because we use a non-parametric model class and select an instance of it in terms of some sample (section 5 gives details), a stochastic complexity argument tells us that an overly simple model (resulting from a small sample) is likely to underfit. Likewise, an overly complex model (resulting from a large sample) is likely to overfit. An informative sample will therefore relate to a model that does not under or overfit.
* On average, an informative sample will be ‘typical’ of future samples. For many real-life situations, this set is likely to be small relative to the size of the full training set.

We incorporate the first observation through our search mechanism. Because we start with small samples and gradually increase their size, we remain within the domain of efficiently recoverable samples.

The second observation is (largely) incorporated in the way we pick samples. The experimental section of this paper goes into the relevant details.

Note our approach is heuristic: we cannot afford to evaluate all $`2^\mathrm{\Omega }`$ possible training sets. The actual size of the informative sample $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$ will depend both the upon the model class used and the maximum sentence length we can deal with. We would expect richer, lexicalised models to exhibit overfitting with smaller samples than would be the case with unlexicalised models. We would expect the size of an informative sample to increase as the maximum sentence length increased.

There are similarities between our approach and with estimation using MDL \[Rissanen, 1989\]. However, our implementation does not explicitly attempt to minimise code lengths. Also, there are similarities with importance sampling approaches to RFM estimation (such as \[Chen and Rosenfeld, 1999a\]). However, such attempts do not minimise under or overfitting.

## 4 The Grammar

The grammar we model with Random Fields, (called the Tag Sequence Grammar \[Briscoe and Carroll, 1996\], or TSG for short) was developed with regard to coverage, and when compiled consists of 455 Definite Clause Grammar (DCG) rules. It does not parse sequences of words directly, but instead assigns derivations to sequences of part-of-speech tags (using the CLAWS2 tagset. The grammar is relatively shallow, (for example, it does not fully analyse unbounded dependencies) but it does make an attempt to deal with common constructions, such as dates or names, commonly found in corpora, but of little theoretical interest. Furthermore, it integrates into the syntax a text grammar, grouping utterances into units that reduce the overall ambiguity.

## 5 Modelling the Grammar

Modelling the TSG with respect to the parsed Wall Street Journal consists of two steps: creation of a feature set and definition of the reference distribution.

Our feature set is created by parsing sentences in the training set ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$), and using each parse to instantiate templates. Each template defines a family of features. At present, the templates we use are somewhat ad-hoc. However, they are motivated by the observations that linguistically-stipulated units (DCG rules) are informative, and that many DCG applications in preferred parses can be predicted using lexical information.

The first template creates features that count the number of times a DCG instantiationis present within a parse.333Note, all our features suppress any terminals that appear in a local tree. Lexical information is included when we decide to lexicalise features. For example, suppose we parsed the Wall Street Journal AP:

###### 1

unimpeded by traffic

A parse tree generated by TSG might be as shown in figure 1. Here, to save on space, we have labelled each interior node in the parse tree with TSG rule names, and not attribute-value bundles. Furthermore, we have annotated each node with the head word of the phrase in question. Within our grammar, heads are (usually) explicitly marked. This means we do not have to make any guesses when identifying the head of a local tree. With head information, we are able to lexicalise models. We have suppressed tagging information.

For example, a feature defined using this template might count the number of times the we saw:

AP/a1

A1/app1

in a parse. Such features record some of the context of the rule application, in that rule applications that differ in terms of how attributes are bound will be modelled by different features.

Our second template creates features that are partially lexicalised. For each local tree (of depth one) that has a PP daughter, we create a feature that counts the number of times that local tree, decorated with the head-word of the PP, was seen in a parse. An example of such a lexicalised feature would be:

A1/app1

PP/p1:by

These features are designed to model PP attachments that can be resolved using the head of the PP.

The third and final template creates features that are again partially lexicalised. This time, we create local trees of depth one that are decorated with the head word. For example, here is one such feature:

AP/a1:unimpeded

A1/app1

Note the second and third templates result in features that overlap with features resulting from applications of the first template.

We create the reference distribution $`R`$ (an association of probabilities with TSG parses of sentences, such that the probabilities reflect parse preferences) using the following process:

1. Extract some sample $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ (using the approach mentioned in section 3).
2. For each sentence in the sample, for each parse of that sentence, compute the ‘distance’ between the TSG parse and the WSJ reference parse. In our approach, distance is calculated in terms of a weighted sum of crossing rates, recall and precision. Minimising it maximises our definition of parse plausibility.444Our distance metric is the same one used by Hektoen \[Hektoen, 1997\] However, there is nothing inherently crucial about this decision. Any other objective function (that can be represented as an exponential distribution) could be used instead.
3. Normalise the distances, such that for some sentence, the sum of the distances of all recovered TSG parses for that sentence is a constant across all sentences. Normalising in this manner ensures that each sentence is equiprobable (remember that RFM probabilities are in terms of parse preferences, and not probability of occurrence in some corpus).
4. Map the normalised distances into probabilities. If $`d(p)`$ is the normalised distance of TSG parse $`p`$, then associate with parse $`p`$ the reference probability given by the maximum likelihood estimator:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(p)}{_{x\mathrm{\Omega }_t}d(x)}}`$ (4)

Our approach therefore gives partial credit (a non-zero reference probability) to all parses in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$. $`R`$ is therefore not as discontinuous as the equivalent distribution used by Johnson et al. We therefore do not need to use simulated annealing or other numerically intensive techniques to estimate models.

## 6 Experiments

Here we present two sets of experiments. The first set demonstrate the existence of an informative sample. It also shows some of the characteristics of three sampling strategies. The second set of experiments is larger in scale, and show RFMs (both lexicalised and unlexicalised) estimated using sentences up to $`30`$ tokens long. Also, the effects of a Gaussian prior are demonstrated as a way of (partially) dealing with overfitting.

### 6.1 Testing the Various Sampling Strategies

In order to see how various sizes of sample related to estimation accuracy and whether we could achieve similar levels of performance without recovering all possible parses, we ran the following experiments.

We used a model consisting of features that were defined using all three templates. We also threw away all features that occurred less than two times in the training set. We randomly split the Wall Street Journal into disjoint training, held-out and testing sets. All sentences in the training and held-out sets were at most $`14`$ tokens long. Sentences in the testing set were at most $`30`$ tokens long. There were $`6626`$ sentences in the training set, $`98`$ sentences in the held-out set and $`441`$ sentences in the testing set. Sentences in the held-out set had on average $`12.6`$ parses, whilst sentences in the testing-set had on average $`60.6`$ parses per sentence.

The held-out set was used to decide which model performed best. Actual performance of the models should be judged with respect to the testing set.

Evaluation was in terms of exact match: for each sentence in the test set, we awarded ourselves a point if the RFM ranked highest the same parse that was ranked highest using the reference probabilities. When evaluating with respect to the held-out set, we recovered all parses for sentences in the held-out set. When evaluating with respect to the testing-set, we recovered at most $`100`$ parses per sentence.

For each run, we ran IIS for the same number of iterations (20). In each case, we evaluated the RFM after each other iteration and recorded the best classification performance. This step was designed to avoid overfitting distorting our results.

Figure 2 shows the results we obtained with possible ways of picking ‘typical’ samples. The first column shows the maximum number of parses per sentences that we retrieved in each sample.

The second column shows the size of the sample (in parses).

The other columns give classification accuracy results (a percentage) with respect to the testing set. In parentheses, we give performance with respect to the held-out set.

The column marked Rand shows the performance of runs that used a sample that contained parses which were randomly and uniformly selected out of the set of all possible parses. The classification accuracy results for this sampler are averaged over 10 runs.

The column marked SCFG shows the results obtained when using a sample that contained parses that were retrieved using the probabilistic unpacking strategy. This did not involve retrieving all possible parses for each sentence in the training set. Since there is no random component, the results are from a single run. Here, parses were ranked using a stochastic context free backbone approximation of TSG. Parameters were estimated using simple counting.

Finally, the column marked Ref shows the results obtained when using a sample that contained the overall $`n`$-best parses per sentence, as defined in terms of the reference distribution.

As a baseline, a model containing randomly assigned weights produced a classification accuracy of $`45\%`$ on the held-out sentences. These results were averaged over $`10`$ runs.

As can be seen, increasing the sample size produces better results (for each sampling strategy). Around a sample size of $`40k`$ parses, overfitting starts to manifest, and performance bottoms-out. One of these is therefore our informative sample. Note that the best sample ($`40k`$ parses) is less than $`20\%`$ of the total possible training set.

The difference between the various samplers is marginal, with a slight preference for Rand. However the fact that SCFG sampling seems to do almost as well as Rand sampling, and furthermore does not require unpacking all parses, makes it the sampling strategy of choice.

SCFG sampling is biased in the sense that the sample produced using it will tend to concentrate around those parses that are all close to the best parses. Rand sampling is unbiased, and, apart from the practical problems of having to recover all parses, might in some circumstances be better than SCFG sampling. At the time of writing this paper, it was unclear whether we could combine SCFG with Rand sampling -sample parses from the full distribution without unpacking all parses. We suspect that for probabilistic unpacking to be efficient, it must rely upon some non-uniform distribution. Unpacking randomly and uniformly would probably result in a large loss in computational efficiency.

### 6.2 Larger Scale Evaluation

Here we show results using a larger sample and testing set. We also show the effects of lexicalisation, overfitting, and overfitting avoidance using a Gaussian prior. Strictly speaking this section could have been omitted from the paper. However, if one views estimation using an informative sample as overfitting avoidance, then estimation using a Gaussian prior can be seen as another, complementary take on the problem.

The experimental setup was as follows. We randomly split the Wall Street Journal corpus into a training set and a testing set. Both sets contained sentences that were at most $`30`$ tokens long. When creating the set of parses used to estimate RFMs, we used the SCFG approach, and retained the top 25 parses per sentence. Within the training set (arising from $`16,200`$ sentences), there were $`405,020`$ parses. The testing set consisted of $`466`$ sentences, with an average of $`60.6`$ parses per sentence.

When evaluating, we retrieved at most $`100`$ parses per sentence in the testing set and scored them using our reference distribution. As before, we awarded ourselves a point if the most probable testing parse (in terms of the RMF) coincided with the most probable parse (in terms of the reference distribution). In all cases, we ran IIS for $`100`$ iterations.

For the first experiment, we used just the first template (features that related to DCG instantiations) to create model 1; the second experiment used the first and second templates (additional features relating to PP attachment) to create model 2. The final experiment used all three templates (additional features that were head-lexicalised) to create model 3.

The three models contained $`39,230`$, $`65,568`$ and $`278,127`$ features respectively,

As a baseline, a model containing randomly assigned weights achieved a $`22\%`$ classification accuracy. These results were averaged over $`10`$ runs. Figure 3 shows the classification accuracy using models 1, 2 and 3.

As can be seen, the larger scale experimental results were better than those achieved using the smaller samples (mentioned in section 6.1). The reason for this was because we used longer sentences. The informative sample derivable from such a training set was likely to be larger (more representative of the population) than the informative sample derivabled from a training set using shorter, less syntactically complex sentences. With the unlexicalised model, we see clear signs of overfitting. Model 2 overfits even more so. For reasons that are unclear, we see that the larger model 3 does not appear to exhibit overfitting.

We next used the Gaussian Prior method of Chen and Rosenfeld to reduce overfitting \[Chen and Rosenfeld, 1999b\]. This involved integrating a Gaussian prior (with a zero mean) into IIS and searching for the model that maximised the product of the likelihood and prior probabilities. For the experiments reported here, we used a single variance over the entire model (better results might be achievable if multiple variances were used, perhaps with one variance per template type). The actual value of the variance was found by trial-and-error. However, optimisation using a held-out set is easy to achieve.

We repeated the large-scale experiment, but this time using a Gaussian prior. Figure 4 shows the classification accuracy of the models when using a Gaussian Prior.

When we used a Gaussian prior, we found that all models showed signs of improvement (allbeit with varying degrees): performance either increased, or else did not decrease with respect to the number of iterations. Still, model 2 continued to underperform. Model 3 seemed most resistent to the prior. It therefore appears that a Gaussian prior is most useful for unlexicalised models, and that for models built from complex, overlapping features, other forms of smoothing must be used instead.

## 7 Comments

We argued that RFM estimation for broad-coverage attribute-valued grammars could be made computationally tractable by training upon an informative sample. Our small-scale experiments suggested that using those parses that could be efficiently unpacked (SCFG sampling) was almost as effective as sampling from all possible parses (Rand sampling). Also, we saw that models should not be both built and also estimated using all possible parses. Better results can be obtained when models are built and trained using an informative sample.

Given the relationship between sample size and model complexity, we see that when there is a danger of overfitting, one should build models on the basis of an informative set. However, this leaves open the possibility of training such a model upon a superset of the informative set. Although we have not tested this scenario, we believe that this would lead to better results than those achieved here.

The larger scale experiments showed that RFMs can be estimated using relatively long sentences. They also showed that a simple Gaussian prior could reduce the effects of overfitting. However, they also showed that excessive overfitting probably required an alternative smoothing approach.

The smaller and larger experiments can be both viewed as (complementary) ways of dealing with overfitting. We conjecture that of the two approaches, the informative sample approach is preferable as it deals with overfitting directly: overfitting results from fitting to complex a model with too little data.

Our ongoing research will concentrate upon stronger ways of dealing with overfitting in lexicalised RFMs. One line we are pursuing is to combine a compression-based prior with an exponential model. This blends MDL with Maximum Entropy.

We are also looking at alternative template sets. For example, we would probably benefit from using templates that capture more of the syntactic context of a rule instantiation.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rob Malouf, Donnla Nic Gearailt and the anonymous reviewers for comments. This work was supported by the TMR Project Learning Computational Grammars.


format: text

text:
# The Transverse Asymmetry 𝐀_𝐓' from Quasi-elastic ³(He)⃗(𝑒⃗,𝑒') Process and the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor

## Abstract

We have measured the transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ quasi-elastic scattering in Hall A at Jefferson Lab with high statistical and systematic precision for $`Q^2`$-values from 0.1 to 0.6 (GeV/c)2. The neutron magnetic form factor $`G_M^n`$ was extracted based on Faddeev calculations for $`Q^2=0.1`$ and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 with an experimental uncertainty of less than 2%.

The electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon have been a longstanding subject of interest in nuclear and particle physics. They describe the distribution of charge and magnetization within nucleons and allow sensitive tests of nucleon models based on Quantum Chromodynamics. This advances our knowledge of nucleon structure and provides a basis for the understanding of more complex strongly interacting matter in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom.

The proton electromagnetic form factors have been determined with good precision at low values of the squared four-momentum transfer, $`Q^2`$, using Rosenbluth separation of elastic electron-proton cross sections, and more recently at higher $`Q^2`$ using a polarization transfer technique . The corresponding neutron form factors are known with much poorer precision because of the lack of free neutron targets. Over the past decade, with the advent of new experimental techniques such as polarized beams and targets, the precise determination of both the neutron electric form factor, $`G_E^n`$, and the magnetic form factor, $`G_M^n`$, has therefore become a focus of experimental activity. Considerable attention has been devoted to the precise measurement of $`G_M^n`$. While knowledge of $`G_M^n`$ is interesting in itself, it is also required for the determination of $`G_E^n`$, which is usually measured via the ratio $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$. Further, precise data for the nucleon electromagnetic form factors are essential for the analysis of parity violation experiments  designed to probe the strangeness content of the nucleon, where the quantities of interest appear in combination with the electromagnetic form factors.

Until recently, most data on $`G_M^n`$ had been deduced from elastic and quasi-elastic electron-deuteron scattering. For inclusive measurements, this procedure requires the separation of the longitudinal and transverse cross sections and the subsequent subtraction of a large proton contribution. Thus, it suffers from large theoretical uncertainties due in part to the deuteron model employed and in part to corrections for final-state interactions (FSI) and meson-exchange currents (MEC). The proton subtraction can be avoided by measuring the neutron in coincidence ($`d(e,e^{}n)`$) , and the sensitivity to nuclear structure can be greatly reduced by taking the cross-section ratio of $`d(e,e^{}n)`$ to $`d(e,e^{}p)`$ at quasi-elastic kinematics. Several recent experiments  have employed the latter technique to extract $`G_M^n`$ with uncertainties of $`<`$2%  for $`Q^2`$-values from 0.1 to 0.8 (GeV/c)2. While this precision is very good, there is considerable disagreement among the results  with respect to the absolute value of $`G_M^n`$. All these exclusive experiments require the absolute calibration of the neutron detection efficiency, which is difficult.

An alternative approach to a precision measurement of $`G_M^n`$ is through the inclusive quasi-elastic reaction $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$. In comparison to deuterium experiments, this technique employs a different target and relies on polarization degrees of freedom. It is thus subject to completely different systematics. A pilot experiment using this technique was carried out at MIT-Bates and a result for $`G_M^n`$ was extracted . In this Letter, we report the first precision measurement of $`G_M^n`$ using a polarized $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ target.

Polarized 3He is useful for studying the neutron electromagnetic form factors because of the unique spin structure of the 3He ground state, which is dominated by a spatially symmetric $`S`$ wave in which the proton spins cancel and the spin of the 3He nucleus is carried by the unpaired neutron . The spin-dependent contribution to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ cross section is completely contained in two nuclear response functions, a transverse response $`R_T^{}`$ and a longitudinal-transverse response $`R_{TL^{}}`$. These appear in addition to the spin-independent longitudinal and transverse responses $`R_L`$ and $`R_T`$. $`R_T^{}`$ and $`R_{TL^{}}`$ can be isolated experimentally by forming the spin-dependent asymmetry $`A`$ defined as $`A=(\sigma ^{h+}\sigma ^h)/(\sigma ^{h+}+\sigma ^h)`$, where $`\sigma ^{h^\pm }`$ denotes the cross section for the two different helicities of the polarized electrons. In terms of the nuclear response functions, $`A`$ can be written

$$A=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\nu _T^{}R_T^{}+2\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}\nu _{TL^{}}R_{TL^{}})}{\nu _LR_L+\nu _TR_T}$$
(1)
where the $`\nu _k`$ are kinematic factors and $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of target spin with respect to the 3-momentum transfer vector $`𝐪`$. The response functions $`R_k`$ depend on $`Q^2`$ and the electron energy transfer $`\omega `$. By choosing $`\theta ^{}=0`$, i.e. by orienting the target spin parallel to the momentum transfer $`𝐪`$, one selects the transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ (proportional to $`R_T^{}`$).

Because the 3He nuclear spin is carried mainly by the neutron, $`R_T^{}`$ at quasi-elastic kinematics contains a dominant neutron contribution and is essentially proportional to $`(G_M^n)^2`$, similar to elastic scattering from a free neutron. Unlike the free neutron case, however, the unpolarized part of the cross section (the denominator in Eq. (1)) contains contributions from both the protons and the neutron in the nucleus. Therefore, $`A_T^{}`$ is expected to first order to have the form $`(G_M^n)^2/(a+b(G_M^n)^2)`$ in the plane-wave impulse approximation (PWIA), where $`a`$ is much larger than $`b(G_M^n)^2`$ at low $`Q^2`$. While measurements of $`G_M^n`$ using deuterium targets enhance the sensitivity to the neutron form factor by detecting the neutron in coincidence, a similar enhancement occurs in inclusive scattering from polarized 3He because of the cancellation of the proton spins in the ground state. This picture has been confirmed by several PWIA calculations , as well as a more recent and more advanced calculation which fully includes FSI . Thus, the inclusive asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ in the vicinity of the 3He quasi-elastic peak is most sensitive to the neutron magnetic form factor.

The experiment was carried out in Hall A at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab), using a longitudinally polarized continuous wave electron beam of $`10\mu `$A current incident on a high-pressure polarized 3He gas target . The target was polarized by spin-exchange optical pumping at a density of $`2.5\times 10^{20}`$ nuclei/cm3 using rubidium as the spin-exchange medium. The beam and target polarizations were approximately 70% and 30%, respectively, and the beam helicity was flipped at a rate of 1 Hz (30 Hz for part of the experiment). To improve the optical pumping efficiency, the target contained a small admixture of nitrogen ($``$1018 cm-3). Backgrounds from the target cell walls and the nitrogen admixture were determined in calibration measurements using a reference cell with the same dimensions as those of the 3He target cell. The background levels were a few percent of the full target yield. The background from rubidium was negligible.

Six kinematic points were measured corresponding to $`Q^2=0.1`$ to $`0.6`$ (GeV/c)2 in steps of 0.1 (GeV/c)2. An incident electron beam energy of 0.778 GeV was employed for the two lowest $`Q^2`$ values of the experiment and the remaining points were completed at an incident beam energy of 1.727 GeV. To maximize the sensitivity to $`A_T^{}`$, the target spin was oriented at $`62.5^{}`$ to the right of the incident electron momentum direction. This corresponds to $`\theta ^{}`$ from $`8.5^{}`$ to $`6^{}`$, resulting in a contribution to the asymmetry due to $`R_{TL^{}}`$ of less than $`2\%`$ at all kinematic settings, as determined from PWIA. To allow systematic checks, the target spin direction was rotated by 180 every 24-48 hours, and the overall sign of the beam helicity was periodically reversed at the polarized electron injector gun by inserting a $`\lambda /2`$ plate, resulting in four different combinations of beam and target polarization states.

Electrons scattered from the target were observed in the two Hall A High Resolution Spectrometers, HRSe and HRSh. Both spectrometers were configured to detect electrons in single-arm mode using nearly identical detector packages consisting of two dual-plane vertical drift chambers for tracking, two planes of segmented plastic scintillators for trigger formation, and a CO2 gas Cherenkov detector and Pb-glass total-absorption shower counter for pion rejection. The spectrometer momentum and angular acceptances were approximately $`\pm `$4.5% and 5.5 msr, respectively. The HRSe was set for quasi-elastic kinematics while the HRSh detected elastically scattered electrons. Since the elastic asymmetry can be calculated very well at low $`Q^2`$ using the well-known elastic form factors of 3He , the elastic measurement allows precise monitoring of the product of the beam and target polarizations, $`P_tP_b`$. For the incident electron beam energy of 0.778 GeV, the HRSh was set to $`Q^2=0.1`$ for the elastic scattering kinematics and $`P_tP_b`$ can be determined to better than $`2\%`$. For the incident beam energy of 1.727 GeV, $`P_tP_b`$ can be determined to better than $`3\%`$ at $`Q^2`$ = 0.2 (GeV/c)2 for the elastic scattering. Standard Møller and NMR polarimetry were performed as a cross-check of the elastic polarimetry. The $`P_tP_b`$ averaged over all six quasi-elastic kinematic settings of this experiment determined from the elastic polarimetry was $`0.208\pm 0.001\pm 0.005`$, where the errors are statistical and systematic, respectively. Combining the Møller and the NMR measurement, the average $`P_tP_b`$ was $`0.215\pm 0.013`$ with the error being the total systematic error.

The yield for each electron helicity state was corrected by its corresponding charge and computer deadtime, and the raw experimental asymmetry was extracted as a function of $`\omega `$ for all six kinematic settings. The raw asymmetry was then corrected for dilutions due to scattering from the empty target walls, the nitrogen content and $`P_tP_b`$. The physics asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ was obtained after corrections for radiative effects. Continuum radiative corrections were calculated using the covariant formalism of Akushevich et al. , which was generalized to quasi-elastic kinematics. This procedure requires knowledge of 3He nuclear response functions at various kinematic points. These response functions were obtained from the full Faddeev calculation for $`Q^2=0.1`$ and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 and the PWIA calculation  for $`Q^2=0.3`$ to 0.6 (GeV/c)2.

Results for $`A_T^{}`$ as a function of $`\omega `$ are shown in Fig. 1 for all six kinematic settings of the experiment. The error bars on the data are statistical only, and the total experimental systematic error is indicated as an error band in each figure. PWIA calculations  using the AV18 for the NN interaction potential and the Höhler nucleon form factor parametrization  are shown as dashed lines. The Faddeev calculations with FSI only and with both FSI and MEC using the Bonn-B potential and the Höhler form factor parametrization are shown as dash-dotted lines and solid lines, respectively, for $`Q^2=0.1`$ and $`0.2`$ (GeV/c)2. All theory results were averaged over the spectrometer acceptances using a Monte Carlo simulation. The systematic uncertainty in $`A_T^{}`$ includes contributions from $`P_tP_b`$, background subtraction, radiative corrections, helicity-correlated false asymmetries, and pion contamination. A Monte Carlo simulation code was employed to determine $`P_tP_b`$ from the measured elastic asymmetry, taking into account the spectrometer acceptance, energy loss, detector resolutions, and radiative effects. The total uncertainty in determining $`P_tP_b`$ is dominated by the uncertainties in the 3He elastic form factors. The overall systematic uncertainty of $`A_T^{}`$ is 2$`\%`$ for $`Q^2`$ values of 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 dominated by the uncertainty in determining $`P_tP_b`$, and $`5\%`$ for $`Q^2`$ values of 0.3 to 0.6 (GeV/c)2 dominated by the uncertainty in the radiative correction, which can be reduced with improved theoretical calculations for these values of $`Q^2`$.

The state-of-the-art three-body calculation treats the 3He target state and the 3N scattering states in the nuclear matrix element in a consistent way by solving the corresponding 3N Faddeev equations . The MEC effects were calculated using the prescription of Riska , which includes $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchange terms. While the agreement between the data and full calculations is very good at Q2 = 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2, the full calculation is not expected to be applicable at higher Q2 because of its fully non-relativistic framework. A full calculation within the framework of relativity is highly desirable.

To extract $`G_M^n`$ for the two lowest $`Q^2`$ kinematics, the transverse asymmetry data were averaged over a 30 MeV bin around the quasi-elastic peak. The full Faddeev calculation including MEC  was employed to generate $`A_T^{}`$ as a function of $`G_M^n`$ in the same $`\omega `$ region. By comparing the measured asymmetries with the predictions, the $`G_M^n`$ values at $`Q^2=0.1`$ and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 were extracted. The extracted values of $`G_M^n`$ are shown in Fig. 2 along with results from previous measurements and several theoretical calculations. The uncertainties shown are the quadrature sum of the statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties. These results are tabulated in Table I.

Since the full calculation described above is at present the only theoretical calculation available which treats FSI and MEC under the present experimental conditions, it is important to mention one highly nontrivial internal test. The nuclear response functions for the inclusive scattering on 3He were calculated in two independent ways by either integrating explicitly over the pd and ppn break-up channels (with full inclusion of FSI) or using a completeness relation . The agreement between these two approaches is within $`1\%`$ . The Faddeev based formalism has been applied to other reaction channels and good agreements have been found with experimental results , in particular the most recent NIKHEF data on $`A_y^0`$ at $`Q^2=0.16`$ (GeV/c)2 from the quasielastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ process .

To investigate the theoretical uncertainty in extracting $`G_M^n`$ at $`Q^2`$ =0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2, the full calculations were carried through with two different NN potentials, Bonn-B and AV18. The difference in the calculated asymmetries is less than $`1\%`$ around the quasi-elastic peak. The uncertainty due to $`G_E^p`$, $`G_M^p`$, and $`G_E^n`$ was studied by varying these quantities over their experimental errors, and the range of variation in the calculated asymmetry was $`1\%`$. The uncertainty due to MEC was estimated by comparing results with and without the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar current. At Q2 = 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 relativistic corrections to $`A_T^{}`$ were estimated to be $`2\%`$ and $`4\%`$  around the quasi-elastic peak, respectively. Based on these studies, the overall theoretical uncertainty in calculating $`A_T^{}`$ was estimated to be $`3.8\%`$ and $`5.1\%`$ for $`Q^2=0.1`$ and 0.2 (GeV/c)2, respectively. This results in an estimated theoretical uncertainty of $`1.9\%`$ and $`2.6\%`$ in extracting $`G_M^n`$ for these two $`Q^2`$ points correspondingly, which can be reduced once relativistic full calculations become available. The errors on $`G_M^n`$ from present work shown in Fig. 2 and Table I are experimental errors only, which do not include the theoretical uncertainties discussed above.

In conclusion the inclusive transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ from the quasi-elastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ process has been measured with high precision at Q2-values from 0.1 to 0.6 (GeV/c)2. Using a full Faddeev calculation which includes FSI and MEC we have extracted the neutron magnetic form factor $`G_M^n`$ at Q2 values of 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2. The extracted values of $`G_M^n`$ at Q2 of 0.1 and 0.2 (GeV/c)2 agree with the previous measurements of Anklin et al. . The present experiment provides the first precision data on $`G_M^n`$ using a fundamentally different experimental approach than previous experiments. Thus it is a significant step towards understanding the discrepancy among the existing data sets in the low-Q2 region. Although we have presented precise data on $`A_T^{}`$ at higher $`Q^2`$ (0.3 - 0.6 (GeV/c)2) in this Letter, full calculations are at present not available for these values of $`Q^2`$ to allow the extraction of $`G_M^n`$ with high precision. Theoretical efforts are currently underway to extend the full calculation to higher Q2 .

We thank the Hall A technical staff and the Jefferson Lab Accelerator Division for their outstanding support during this experiment. We also thank S. Ishikawa for providing us with his calculations in the early stage of this work, T. W. Donnelly for helpful discussions, and O.N. Ozkul for the target polarization analysis. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, DOE/EPSCoR, the U. S. National Science Foundation, the Science and Technology Cooperation Germany-Poland and the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (Murst), the French Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN). This work was supported by DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The numerical calculations were performed on the PVP machines at the U. S. National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center (NERSC) and the CRAY T90 of the NIC in Jülich.


text:
# References

UNIL-IPT-00-17

IC/2000/134

hep-th/0008079

August 2000

Fermion zero-modes on brane-worlds

Seif Randjbar-Daemia and Mikhail Shaposhnikovb
aInternational Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy
bInstitute of Theoretical Physics, University of Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

## Abstract

We study localization of bulk fermions on a brane with inclusion of Yang-Mills and scalar backgrounds in higher dimensions and give the conditions under which localized chiral fermions can be obtained.

Introduction. Suggestions that extra dimensions may not be compact - or large  can provide new insights for a solution of gauge hierarchy problem , of cosmological constant problem , and give new possibilities for model building. One of the interesting questions, related to these ideas, is localization of different fields on a brane. It has been shown that the graviton  and the massless scalar field  have normalizable zero modes on branes of different types, that the abelian vector fields are not localized in the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model in five dimensions but can be localized in some higher-dimensional generalizations of it . In contrast, in  it was shown that fermions do not have normalizable zero modes in five dimensions, while in  the same result was derived for a compactification on a string  in six dimensions111Bulk fermions were localized on brane world studied some years ago in  by the use of a bulk magnetic field, which falls out of the framework of our ansatz. However, these solutions generally have problems with normalizability of the graviton modes.. It is known, though, that fermion interaction with a scalar domain wall in five dimensions can lead to localization of chiral fermions . Gauge field localization by confinement effects were discussed in , bulk fields in a slice of AdS in .

In this note we shall prove that under quite general assumptions about the geometry and topology of the internal manifold of the higher-dimensional warp factor compactification there exist massless Dirac fermions. However, these fermionic modes are generically non-normalizable. On the other hand if we include a Yukawa-type coupling to a scalar field of a domain-wall type we can ensure chirality as well as localization of the fermions. To generate chiral fermions by this mechanism the topology of the internal Kaluza-Klein manifold and the gauge field defined on it should be such that the index of the Dirac operator defined on this manifold is non-zero. At the end of this note we shall mention the example of the $`K_3`$ surface and $`S^4`$ with a background instanton configuration defined on it.

Branes with gauge and gravity backgrounds. We shall consider $`D=D_1+D_2+1`$ \- dimensional manifolds with the geometry

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{e}^{A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu +\mathrm{e}^{B(r)}g_{mn}(y)\mathrm{d}y^m\mathrm{d}y^n+\mathrm{d}r^2,$$
(1)
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,1\mathrm{},D_11,m,n=1,\mathrm{},D_2`$. The coordinates $`y^m`$ cover an internal manifold $`K`$ with the metric $`g_{mn}(y)`$. The $`D`$-dimensional Dirac equation is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^AE_A^M(_M\mathrm{\Omega }_M+A_M)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,r)=0,$$
(2)
where $`E_A^M`$ is the vielbein, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M[AB]}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AB}`$ is the spin connection,$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{AB}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_A,\mathrm{\Gamma }_B]`$, and $`A_M`$ is a Yang-Mills field in the algebra of some gauge group $`G`$. The RS model is the special case with $`D_2=0`$ and $`A_M=0`$.

The non-vanishing components of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A^{}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{A}{2}}\delta _\mu ^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^{}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{B}{2}}e_m^{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}}+\omega _m,`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r,\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,a=0,1,\mathrm{},D_11`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}},\underset{¯}{a}=1,\mathrm{},D_2`$ are the constant Dirac matrices and $`\omega _m=\frac{1}{8}\omega _{m[\underset{¯}{a},\underset{¯}{b}]}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{a}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{b}}]`$ is the spin connection derived from the metric $`g_{mn}(y)=e_m^{\underset{¯}{a}}e_n^{\underset{¯}{b}}\delta _{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}`$.

Assume $`A_\mu =A_r=0`$. The Dirac equation then becomes

$$\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{A}{2}}\partial ̸_x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\left(_r+\frac{D_1}{4}A^{}+\frac{D_2}{4}B^{}\right)+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{B}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{a}}\mathrm{e}_{\underset{¯}{a}}^m(_m\omega _m+A_m)`$ is the Dirac operator on the internal manifold $`K`$ and in the background of the gauge field $`A_m`$. With an appropriate choice of $`K`$ and $`A_m`$ this operator will have zero modes . Denote these modes by $`\psi (y)`$. We can then write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,r)=\psi (y)f(r)\varphi (x),$$
(6)
where $`f`$ and $`\varphi `$ satisfy

$`\partial ̸_x\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
$`f^{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{4}}A^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{4}}B^{}\right)f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
or

$$f(r)=\text{const. }\mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{D_1}{4}A+\frac{D_2}{4}B\right)}.$$
(9)
The effective Lagrangian for $`\varphi `$ then becomes

$$drdy\sqrt{G}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^AE_A^M(_M\mathrm{\Omega }_M+A_M)\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{\varphi }(x)\partial ̸_x\varphi (x)\times \mathrm{e}^{\frac{A}{2}}drdy\sqrt{g}\psi ^{}(y)\psi (y).$$
(10)
This should be compared with the expression of $`D_1`$-dimensional Newton constant $`G_{D_1}`$ in terms of the $`D`$-dimensional one,

$$G_{D_1}^1=G_D^1V_{D_2}𝑑r\mathrm{exp}\left((\frac{D_1}{2}1)A+\frac{B}{2}\right),$$
(11)
where $`V_{D_2}`$ is the volume of the manifold $`K`$. Thus, to have the localization of gravity and finite kinetic energy for $`\varphi `$, both integrals (10,11) must be simultaneously finite. This is not the case for the exponential warp-factor $`A|r|`$ considered in the literature so far. In fact, for such $`A`$ and $`B`$, the function $`f`$ in (9) diverges as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

So, for presently known solutions, the bulk fermions cannot be localized on a brane with the use of gravity and gauge fields only.

Yukawa Coupling and Chiral Fermions. Now let us include a real scalar field $`\chi `$ in our problem. The modification of the Dirac equation will be through some Yukawa term, with the coupling $`\lambda `$, viz.

$$\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{A}{2}}\partial ̸_x+\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\left(_r+\frac{D_1}{4}A^{}+\frac{D_2}{4}B^{}\right)+\lambda \chi +\mathrm{e}^{\frac{B}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(12)
The details of the $`\chi `$-field dynamics will not be important for our discussion. We shall only assume that its equation of motion admits a localized $`r`$-dependent solution such that $`\chi (r)|v|ϵ(r)`$ as $`|r|\mathrm{}`$, where $`v=\chi `$, and $`ϵ(r)`$ is the sign function. With this assumption and imposing the chirality condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\mathrm{\Psi }=+\mathrm{\Psi }`$, far away from the core region we need to solve

$`\partial ̸_x\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{4}}A^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{4}}B^{}+\lambda |v|ϵ(r)\right)f`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (13)
The solution of the above equation can be written as

$$\psi (x,y,r)=\mathrm{e}^{\left(\frac{D_1}{4}A+\frac{D_2}{4}B\right)\lambda |v|rϵ(r)}\psi (y)\varphi (x),$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y\psi (y)=0`$.

Thus, to have localized $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,r)`$ it is sufficient that

$$\frac{A}{2}2\lambda |v|rϵ(r)<0.$$
(15)
This can be achieved for large enough values of $`\lambda |v|`$. For example, for solutions of Einstein equations with $`A=B=crϵ(r)`$, where $`c<0`$, that can be obtained for a string in 6 dimensions  or on $`K=K3`$ in higher dimensions , it is sufficient to have $`\lambda |v|>c/4`$.

Now we come to the issue of chirality of the normalizable zero modes. First we note that for an even $`D_2`$ normalizable solutions of $`\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y\psi (y)=0`$ have definite chirality. The index theorem gives the difference $`n_+n_{}`$, where $`n_+`$ and $`n_{}`$ are respectively the number of positive and negative chirality zero modes of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta ̸}_y`$. Since we have imposed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r=1`$, the chiralities of $`\psi (y)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ will be identical222This is due to the fact that for an odd $`D`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^r=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_2}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_2}`$ are the chirality matrices in $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ dimensions.. Thus the number of chiral families will be equal to $`n_+n_{}`$. This mechanism is identical to the one which generates chiral fermions in the standard Kaluza-Klein compactification .

On the example of a $`K=K_3`$ compactification we obtain two chiral families, while for $`K=S^4`$ with an SU(2) instanton on it there will be $`\frac{2}{3}t(t+1)(2t+1)`$ chiral localized families in 4 dimensions, where t is the spin of the fermion representations. For $`D=7`$ we can take $`K=S^2`$ with a U(1) magnetic monopole field of charge $`n`$ on it. The number of chiral families will then be equal to $`n`$ .

Conclusions. We defined conditions under which bulk fermions can be localized on a brane in models with localized gravity in higher dimensional generalizations of the RS model if only gauge and gravitational backgrounds are considered. We show how the domain-wall scalar field structures can insure localization and chirality at the same time. The number of chiral fermions is related to the topology of the manifold $`K`$ and the gauge field background.

It remains to be seen if one can find solutions which incorporate all the required features, namely, localized fields of various spins with the correct standard model quantum numbers in a non-singular background geometry. The non-singularity of the localized geometry seems to be rather difficult to achieve, at least without precence of a brane. It has been shown in  that for the metrics of the type given in eq.(1) which are regular at $`r=0`$ the vacuum Einstein equations for $`D_2>1`$ produce generally singular solutions, although with a finite volume in the $`y,r`$ subspace. It has been recently argued by Witten  that such naked singularities make the physical interpretation of these solutions problematic.

Acknowledgments: We wish to thank T. Gherghetta for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the FNRS, contract no. 21-55560.98.