text:
# Aging, rejuvenation and memory effects in Ising and Heisenberg spin glasses

## I Introduction

Spin glasses, an intriguing class of disordered and frustrated magnetic systems, have been the focus of many efforts for some years. Below their glass transition temperature, they are out of equilibrium on all experimental time scales, their dynamics is slow, and non-stationary: it is the aging phenomenon, widely studied experimentally (see various references in ), theoretically  and numerically . Still, the non-trivial dependence of aging phenomena on temperature changes (‘rejuvenation and memory effects’ ) is yet poorly understood , and their interpretation in terms of the slow growth of ‘spin-glass ordered domains’ remains unclear .

Until now, rejuvenation and memory effects have only been studied in samples of weak anisotropy, with Heisenberg-like spins . The comparison of these experiments with the numerical simulations of the Edwards-Anderson model (Ising spins), which is presently the subject of intensive efforts , may thus not be fully relevant. Therefore, it is of particular interest to perform experiments on Ising compounds along the same procedures as in previous investigations.

In this paper, we present new ac susceptibility measurements on the $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ spin glass, which is a well-characterized Ising system . Previous studies  have shown that some rejuvenation is visible upon decreasing the temperature. But memory effects, and their interplay with rejuvenation, have not yet been investigated. Here, we want to address the questions of a possible universality of rejuvenation and memory phenomena in Ising and Heisenberg spin glasses, and of their quantitative comparison in various systems.

In the Ising sample, we could check that aging at constant temperature follows the usual $`\omega t`$ scaling (in agreement with previous dc experiments ). We find that rejuvenation and memory effects are also present, although more ‘spread out’ in temperature than in other spin glasses . For a quantitative comparison, we have taken similar new data on the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ Heisenberg-like spin glass , which allow us to detect and characterize marked differences.

In the spin glasses explored so far, aging experiments in which a small temperature cycle is applied from $`T`$ to $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and back to $`T`$ have shown that the contribution on aging of the $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ part of the cycle decreases extremely rapidly for increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ . This drastic slowing down can be seen, in terms of thermal activation, as an increase of the free-energy barrier heights as the temperature is decreased . On the contrary, in the present Ising sample, we find that this separation of time scales between $`T`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is weaker than expected from thermal slowing down; in other words, this would imply the unlikely scenario of a barrier height decrease upon cooling.

We propose to interpret this result as a sign that the elementary attempt time involved in thermal fluctuations is much longer than the paramagnetic time of $`10^{12}`$s, pointing out the relevance of critical fluctuations below $`T_g`$. This same picture can also be applied to the results from the other (Heisenberg-like) sample, and in Section 5 we discuss all results in terms of the barrier exponent $`\psi `$ introduced in scaling theories .

## II Basic facts: aging at constant temperature

The $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ compound has been characterized as a typical Ising spin glass system . The thermal variation of the susceptibility, when measured in a field parallel to the hexagonal c-axis of the ilmenite-type crystalline structure, shows a sharp cusp at $`T_g=20.7K`$ which is absent in the perpendicular direction. The Ising character is well evidenced by the very small ratio of perpendicular to parallel magnetization (of about $`7\%`$). The sample used in this study is a single crystal with the shape of a rectangular parallelepiped (2x2x5 $`mm^3`$), having its long axis parallel to the c-axis. The measurements were made along this axis, using a commercial SQUID magnetometer (Cryogenic Ltd, U.K.) with a $`1.7Oe`$ peak value of the ac field.

Previous dc experiments on $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$  have shown that the relaxation rate of the Zero Field Cooled magnetisation shows a broad maximum in the region $`lntlnt_w`$, compatible with a $`t/t_w`$ scaling. Here we study the frequency ($`\omega `$) dependence of aging in the ac susceptibility, in order to test the validity of $`\omega t`$ scaling (equivalent to $`t/t_w`$ scaling in dc experiments). We quench the sample from above $`T_g`$ to a given temperature $`T<T_g`$ (here $`19K`$ and $`15K`$), and measure the subsequent relaxation of the ac susceptibility at this constant temperature $`T`$ as a function of time $`t`$. Each point consists in the successive measurements of $`8`$ frequencies in the range $`0.04Hz8Hz`$. As in the rest of the paper, we use the data in the paramagnetic regime (assuming $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ = 0) for checking and correcting slight frequency-dependent phase shifts in the detection setup.

We present in Fig.1 a scaling plot for the imaginary part $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ of the ac susceptibility $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,t)`$ at $`T_0=19K`$. The curves have been shifted on the vertical scale in such a way that they superimpose as a function of $`\omega t`$. This (usual) procedure accounts for the stationary part $`\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ of the susceptibility (i.e. its limit as $`t\mathrm{}`$), which can on rather general grounds  be subtracted in order to separate the aging part. The aging part can be seen to satisfactorily obey an $`\omega t`$ scaling. This also holds for the real part $`\chi ^{}`$ at $`19K`$ (inset of Fig.1), and as well for both $`\chi ^{}`$ and $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ at $`15K`$. We have fitted the curves of Fig.1 (and the corresponding ones at $`15K`$) to a power law

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,t)\text{}\chi _0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )\text{=}A(\omega t)^b.$$
(1)
The best fit yields $`b=0.14\pm 0.03`$ for both temperatures. For a direct comparison, we have taken new data on the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ thiospinel compound ($`T_g=16.7K`$) at the same reduced temperatures. They yield, by the same analysis, $`b=0.18\pm 0.03`$. Let us note that, since the value of $`b`$ is not strongly constrained (as indicated by the error bars), we cannot conclude that a significant difference in $`b`$ exists between both systems. However, the aging magnitude $`A`$ is better determined, and shows a clear temperature dependence in the Ising system ($`20\%`$ decrease from $`19K`$ to $`15K`$, while it is constant in the thiospinel in this same range of temperature).

We have also analyzed the stationary susceptibility $`\chi _0(\omega )`$, as determined from both the superposition of the relaxation curves at different frequencies (Fig.1) and the non-linear fit of Eq.1. The stationary susceptibility of the Ising sample fits well to a power law $`\chi _0^{\prime \prime }\omega ^\alpha `$ with a small exponent $`\alpha 0.1`$, in the same range ($`0.020.10`$, see ) as commonly observed in other (Heisenberg-like) spin glasses. We have checked that the real part $`\chi _0^{}`$ of the susceptibility obeys the corresponding law $`\chi _0^{}=\chi _{stat}^{}𝒜\omega ^\alpha `$ with the same exponent values.

Thus, from our ac measurements, the low-frequency behaviour of this Ising sample at constant temperature is similar to that of Heisenberg-like systems.

## III Rejuvenation and memory effects in the Ising sample

Temperature cycling protocols have revealed the ‘rejuvenation and memory’ effects in several (Heisenberg-like) spin glasses . We have applied the same procedures to the Ising sample. In a first experiment (Fig.2), the sample is quenched from above $`T_g`$ to $`T_1=18K`$ and the relaxation of the ac susceptibility at frequency $`0.4Hz`$ is recorded as a function of time. After a time $`t_1=4000s`$, the sample is subjected to a negative temperature cycle of duration $`t_2=4000s`$ and amplitude $`2K`$. Cooling from $`T_1=18K`$ to $`T_2=16K`$ induces a strong restart of aging (see Fig. 2): it is the so-called rejuvenation effect. The renewed relaxation seems to take place independently of the previous equilibration stage at $`T_1`$. But when the temperature is turned back to $`T_1`$ after the cycle, we see that the two relaxations at $`18K`$ are in continuation of each other (inset of Fig. 2). The system has actually kept a memory of the state reached before the cycle, and the strong relaxation at $`16K`$ had no effect on the relaxation at $`18K`$.

In a second experiment, we apply a procedure in which rejuvenation and memory effects can be visualized as ‘dips’ in the thermal variation of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ . Starting from the paramagnetic phase, the ac susceptibility is measured (at 0.04, 0.4 and 4 Hz in one run) while continuously cooling down to $`3K`$ at a rate of 0.001 K/s, except for 3 stops of 7h at $`19K`$, $`15K`$ and $`10K`$, during which we let the sample age at constant temperature. Then the temperature is continuously raised back to $`30K`$ at the same rate. In a separate run, we determine reference curves (solid lines in Fig.3) corresponding to the same protocol without stops.

At each aging temperature, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ slowly relaxes downwards with time, as seen in Fig.3. The lower the frequency, the stronger the relaxation, in agreement with the $`\omega t`$ scaling (previous section). Rejuvenation effects are clearly observed at the two higher aging temperatures of $`19K`$ and $`15K`$; when cooling is resumed after aging, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ rises up and merges with the reference curve (although this reference curve itself is out of equilibrium). The other important feature is seen on the $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ curve measured upon re-heating continuously from 3K. When approaching $`15K`$ and $`19K`$, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ departs from the reference curve and traces back a dip which displays the memory of the past relaxation at those temperatures. The rejuvenation and memory effects obtained in this Ising sample are qualitatively similar to those observed in other spin glasses .

However, in the experiment of Fig.3 with successive agings stops at $`0.9T_g`$, $`0.7T_g`$ and $`0.5T_g`$, the observed relaxation decreases significantly from one stop to another (by a factor 2.5 between $`0.9T_g`$ and $`0.7T_g`$), and becomes undistinguishable at $`0.5T_g`$. This feature makes a difference with the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ spin glass, and may indicate some ‘accumulation’ of aging, which would in consequence progressively die out during a long cooling procedure with multiple stops.

In fact, the comparison of the $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ relaxations at $`0.7T_g`$ after a slow cooling ($`0.001K/s`$ as above) and a direct quench does not show any difference between both samples: in the slow cooling case, the relaxation is for both samples $`70\%`$ of that obtained after the direct quench (of course, rejuvenation effects do not exclude that the very last part of the cooling procedure induces a weak but non-zero cooling rate effect). But, in a multiple stop procedure like the one in Fig.3, we could check that in this Ising sample the relaxation at the lower temperature is more influenced by aging at the higher temperature than in the thiospinel. The relaxation at $`0.7T_g`$ (second stop) only amounts to $`25\%`$ of that obtained after a direct quench, whereas this proportion is of $`50\%`$ for the thiospinel in the same conditions.

In other words, aging processes in this Ising sample are more sensitive to the thermal history (cooling rate effect) than in other spin glasses, as already suggested by the spreading in temperature of the dips in Fig.3.

## IV Quantitative experiments: thermal slowing down and barrier growth

The procedure of negative temperature cycling (like presented in Fig.2) is ‘simpler’ than the continuous cooling/re-heating procedure of Fig.3, and can yield more direct informations on the influence of time and temperature on the rejuvenation and memory effects. We now discuss a series of such measurements on both samples, with small temperature intervals. After quenching from above $`T_g`$ to $`T<T_g`$ at time zero, the temperature $`T`$ is kept constant for a time $`t_1=7700s`$, after which it is lowered to $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ for a time $`t_2=23650s`$, and finally raised back to $`T`$ for a time $`t_3=6000s`$.

The relaxation of the ac susceptibility at frequency $`\omega =0.1Hz`$ is recorded during the whole procedure. As working temperatures, we chose equivalent values in units of $`T_g`$ for both samples:

* $`T=18K=0.87T_g`$ and $`T=15K=0.72T_g`$ for $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$,
* $`T=14K=0.84T_g`$ and $`T=12K=0.72T_g`$ for $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$.

On the other hand, the temperature intervals have been adjusted in order to produce about the same effect in both samples, therefore they are different, even in units of $`T_g`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$=0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1K for $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T=0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4K for $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$.

An example experiment is presented in Fig.4 for the Ising sample at $`T=15K`$. The effect of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=1K`$ negative cycling is compared with an isothermal reference curve at $`T=15K`$. For this small temperature interval, no jump (such as the one seen in Fig.2) in the relaxation signs up any important rejuvenation effect as the temperature is decreased, whereas a small jump of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ is visible for the thiospinel sample in the same conditions. When the temperature is raised back to $`T`$, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ rises up to a value which is higher than the isothermal reference at $`T`$. This final relaxation can be superposed with the isothermal reference by a shift backwards of a time $`t_2t_{eff}`$ with $`t_{eff}=4500s`$ (see inset of Fig.4). The effective time $`t_{eff}`$ accounts for the effect at $`T`$ of the processes which occurred at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ during $`t_2`$. After $`t_1+t_2`$, the state of aging can be considered as an additive combination of aging at $`T`$ before the cycle, which has hence been memorized, with a contribution $`t_{eff}`$ from aging at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. It is interesting to compare this result with a simple estimate of the effect of thermal slowing down. Considering simply that aging involves thermally activated jumps over fixed free-energy barriers, the effective time $`t_{eff}^{TA}`$ at $`T`$ which corresponds to $`t_2`$ at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ reads:

$$(T\mathrm{\Delta }T)\mathrm{log}(\frac{t_2}{\tau _0})=T\mathrm{log}(\frac{t_{eff}^{TA}}{\tau _0})$$
(2)
where $`\tau _0`$ is an attempt time, which we choose for now as a microscopic spin flip time, say $`\tau _0=10^{12}s`$. Surprisingly, one gets $`t_{eff}^{TA}=1915s`$, a value smaller than $`t_{eff}=4500s`$. That is, aging at the lower temperature has a larger contribution than expected from thermal activation over fixed height barriers.

This result is in sharp contrast with those obtained for the thiospinel sample and other spin glasses, in which the effective contribution of aging at a lower temperature is always smaller than expected from simple thermal slowing down, a general result that has been discussed in terms of a growth of free-energy barriers as the temperature is lowered .

The whole set of results on both samples is summarized in Fig.5, which displays the measured values of the effective times $`t_{eff}(T,\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$, in comparison with the calculated estimates for thermal activation over fixed height barriers (Arrhénius law, Eq.(2), with $`\tau _0=10^{12}`$s). Clearly, two different behaviours are obtained: for the thiospinel (Heisenberg-like) sample, we always have $`t_{eff}<t_{eff}^{TA}`$, whereas $`t_{eff}>t_{eff}^{TA}`$ for the Ising one.

## V Physical interpretation: a temperature dependent length scale

Our result that, in the Ising sample, the contribution of aging slows down less than expected when the temperature is lowered is, at first sight, puzzling. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that the relevant elementary time scale is the paramagnetic spin-flip time $`\tau _010^{12}`$s. In Fig.5, the position of the curves calculated for thermal activation depends on the choice of the attempt time $`\tau _0`$; they would move upwards for larger values of $`\tau _0`$. Another way to formulate this is proposed in Fig. 6, where we have plotted $`\mathrm{log}[t_{eff}/t_2^{T\mathrm{\Delta }T/T}]`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$. If barriers of the same height are crossed during the experiments at $`T`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ with an attempt time $`\tau _0`$, one should observe a straight line of slope $`\mathrm{log}\tau _0`$ (Eq.2). One can see very clearly that the Ising data corresponds to an effective attempt time $`\tau _0^{eff}`$ much larger than $`10^{12}`$ seconds, whereas the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ Heisenberg-like spin glass favours $`\tau _0^{eff}10^{12}`$ s. A comparison can also be made with a third example, the $`Ag:Mn2.7\%`$ spin glass, in which the anisotropy should still be weaker. In this sample, very detailed studies on the effect of tiny temperature variations have been performed in dc experiments , yielding a precise characterization of the free-energy barrier growth as the temperature is lowered. Fig.6 shows that the corresponding effective attempt times $`\tau _0^{eff}`$ are still shorter.

A natural possibility to explain the very large increase of the attempt time in the Ising sample is the proximity of the spin-glass transition which leads to critical slowing down. Dynamic critical scaling above $`T_g`$ tells us that characteristic times $`\tau `$ are diverging like the spin-glass correlation length $`\xi `$ as a power law of temperature:

$$\tau \xi ^z\left(\frac{TT_g}{T_g}\right)^{z\nu }$$
(3)
By analogy with the ferromagnetic case, in which the correlation length gives the size of the typical (critical) fluctuations above as well as below the transition with the same exponent, we shall assume that the attempt time in the spin glass phase is governed by critical fluctuations below $`T_g`$. During aging, the characteristic length $`\mathrm{}`$ over which spins are correlated grows progressively with time, as identified in experiments on the effect of field variations on the dynamics  (with good quantitative agreement with numerical simulations ). We propose that the attempt time corresponding to the length $`\mathrm{}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{}^z`$, and that the time $`\tau (\mathrm{})`$ which is needed to flip the $`\mathrm{}`$-sized cluster of spins is governed by thermal activation over a barrier $`B_T(\mathrm{})`$, in such a way that :

$$\tau (\mathrm{})=\tau _0\mathrm{}^z\mathrm{exp}(\frac{B_T(\mathrm{})}{k_BT})$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is in units of the lattice constant. The temperature and length dependence of $`B_T(\mathrm{})`$ can also be expressed by analogy with the ferromagnetic case, and in the spirit of the scaling theories . One can write that

$$B_T(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)\mathrm{}^\psi ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)`$ is a wall stiffness which should vanish at $`T_g`$ like in ferromagnets:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0T_g[(T_gT)/T_g]^{\psi \nu }.$$
(6)
This corresponds to the assumption that barriers on the scale of the correlation length $`\xi `$ are of order $`k_BT_g`$.

Replacing the attempt time $`\tau _0`$ by a longer time $`\tau _0\mathrm{}^z`$ in Eq.(2) will indeed qualitatively account for our experimental results on the Ising sample (weak slope $`\mathrm{log}\tau _0^{eff}`$ of the $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ data in Fig.6). The $`\tau _0\mathrm{}^z`$ term is dominant in Eq.4 provided one is in a regime where $`B_T(\mathrm{})k_BT`$, i.e. for temperatures sufficiently close to $`T_g`$. For lower temperatures, one may expect the growth of the barriers when the temperature is decreased (i.e the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)`$ variation, Eq.6) to be the dominant effect, therefore leading to a much stronger slope $`\mathrm{log}\tau _0^{eff}`$. Our results indicate that the Ising sample is dominated by the critical regime, whereas the Heisenberg-like samples are rapidly dominated by the barriers (see below the values $`z,\nu `$ and $`\psi `$).

We have adjusted our experimental data to Eqs. 4, 5, 6 in the following way. What comes out from each negative cycling experiment is the equivalence between an aging time $`t_2`$ at $`T_2=T_1\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and an effective time $`t_{eff}`$ at $`T_1`$ (to be fully rigorous, the equivalence should also involve aging during $`t_1`$ at $`T_1`$, but we checked that this does not affect the results). In terms of the characteristic length scales involved, this equivalence corresponds to $`\mathrm{}(t_{eff},T_1)=\mathrm{}(t_2,T_2)`$. Using Eq.(4), we can numerically extract $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ and $`\psi `$ from the experiments by a best fit procedure , which allows in most cases to obtain $`\mathrm{}(t_{eff},T_1)=\mathrm{}(t_2,T_2)`$ within about $`0.5\%`$. In practice, both parameters are strongly correlated in the fit. We therefore present the results obtained with a reasonable value $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=1`$. Choosing higher (resp. lower) values of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ yields lower (resp. higher) values of $`\psi `$, but all qualitative trends remain the same. On the other hand, we have taken $`z\nu `$ from results of dynamic critical scaling , and estimated $`\nu `$ from the static scaling exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, using $`\nu =(2\beta +\gamma )/d`$ . Thus we have $`\nu =1.7`$ and $`z\nu =10.5`$ for $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$, $`\nu =1.3`$ and $`z\nu =7`$ for $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$, and in addition we have used $`\nu =1.4`$ and $`z\nu =5`$  for a comparison with older results on $`Ag:Mn2.7\%`$ . Varying slightly $`z\nu `$ and $`\nu `$ does not affect the following conclusions ($`\psi `$ may vary by $`\pm 0.1`$).

For a given temperature $`T`$, no systematic variation of $`\psi `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ can be seen, therefore we have fitted together all $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$’s results at each $`T`$. The results are as follows (see a summary in Table 1). In the $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ Ising sample, we find $`\psi 0.3`$ at $`0.87T_g`$ and $`\psi 0.7`$ at $`0.72T_g`$. This rather small value of $`\psi `$ is associated to very large values of the renormalized attempt time: we find that $`\tau _0\mathrm{}^z2500`$ s at $`0.87T_g`$ and $`5`$ s at $`0.72T_g`$. Hence, the thermal activation hardly plays any role, in particular at $`0.87T_g`$: the dynamics is primarily probing the critical regime, in qualitative agreement with the ‘anomalous’ effect of temperature shifts reported above. This might also explain why our estimate for $`\psi `$ differs between the two temperatures, since the scaling behaviour of $`B_T(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^\psi `$ implicitly assumes that $`\mathrm{}\xi `$.

On the other hand, the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ thiospinel sample (Heisenberg-like) shows a markedly different behaviour. Nevertheless, our theoretical analysis in terms of temperature dependent barriers and a renormalized attempt time can be applied to this sample. About the same value of $`\psi 1.1`$ is favoured for both temperatures. The higher value of $`\psi `$ confirms the stronger separation of the different aging contributions for different temperatures, as already emphasized in the previous Section.

We have also re-analyzed the former dc data of the $`Ag:Mn2.7\%`$ spin glass . In this third case, the above analysis leads to $`\psi 1.3`$, indicating a still stronger effect of temperature (see  for a more detailed discussion), in agreement with the trend observable in Fig.6.

## VI Conclusion

We have applied temperature variation protocols in experiments on the Ising $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ spin glass. We find that the aging phenomena in the Ising sample present rejuvenation and memory effects which are qualitatively similar to those already evidenced in other (Heisenberg-like) spin glasses .

The interest for the question of the ‘universality’ of rejuvenation and memory phenomena in spin glasses has been recently revived by the numerous numerical simulations  of the Edwards-Anderson model (Ising spins), in which these effects could not yet clearly be seen. Our results indicate that the dimensionality of the spins should not be at the origin of this discrepancy, which we rather ascribe to the difference in time scales. The magnetization and susceptibility experiments are performed at macroscopic times which are up to $`10^{17}`$ times the microscopic spin flip time ($`10^{12}s`$), whereas numerics are until now limited to $`10^{56}`$ steps, exploring a much shorter range of correlation lengths. It is plausible that, in simulations, these aging lengths are not enough different at different temperatures to allow the ‘separation of length scales’  which is necessary to observe rejuvenation and memory.

When studied in more details, aging in the Ising sample shows a new behaviour. Firstly, it dies out rather rapidly towards low temperatures, and even seems completely frozen below $`0.5T_g`$. Secondly, negative temperature cycling experiments show that the separation of time scales in a negative cycle is here much weaker than in other spin glasses, and, surprisingly, even weaker than expected from thermally activated dynamics with a microscopic attempt time. We interpret this effect as the signature of the mesoscopic or even macroscopic value of the attempt time for thermal activation, which we associate with a characteristic time $`\tau \mathrm{}^z`$ for critical fluctuations. In this framework, we have analyzed the temperature variation of the free-energy barriers within scaling hypotheses inspired from the droplet models of the spin glass phase , and found that the analysis could be applied equally well to both the Ising and the Heisenberg samples. The values of the barrier exponent $`\psi `$ that we extract from the experiments on the Ising sample along this line are of the order of $`0.5`$. In comparison, the same experiments on the $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ Heisenberg-like spin glass yield $`\psi 1.1`$. Using former data (from dc experiments ) on $`Ag:Mn`$, we found $`\psi 1.3`$.

Of course, the data on both Heisenberg-like samples do not by themselves imply considering that the attempt time $`\tau _0`$ for thermal activation (Eq.(2)) should be mesoscopic. Using a microscopic $`\tau _010^{12}s`$, a rapid growth of the barriers with decreasing temperature was reported in , a result that was interpreted there as a sign that all barriers eventually diverge in the spin glass phase. Here, we rather propose that barriers vanish continuously at $`T_g`$ and are always finite (for finite $`\mathrm{}`$) for $`T<T_g`$ (see also ). The experimental data, over a limited time range, cannot really discriminate these two scenarii, although the latter has a rather natural physical motivation.

In any case, the central point of the present paper is that, for the Ising sample, a microscopic $`\tau _0`$ would correspond to an unphysical decrease of the barriers at low temperatures ($`\psi <0`$). Allowing for a renormalized attempt time, we find that $`\psi `$ is positive in the Ising sample, but significantly smaller than in the other systems. This small value implies a weaker separation of the time and length scales as the temperature is lowered. This conclusion does not depend on the details of the theoretical analysis and is clearly visible in several qualitative aspects of the data (e.g. Fig.5 and Fig.6).

It is worth noticing that, within the three samples compared here, the estimated $`\psi `$ values are found to increase with decreasing spin anisotropy, at variance with the intuitive expectation that walls made of anisotropic spins might be softer (i.e. with lower $`\psi `$). This may be related to results from mesoscopic electrical noise measurements , which show that the temperature dependence of stationary dynamics is stronger in $`CuMn`$ spin glasses (equivalent to barrier growth for decreasing temperature) than in $`AuFe`$ (Arrhenius behaviour) compounds of much stronger anisotropy. On the other hand, a systematic dependence of the static critical exponents at the spin-glass transition as a function of anisotropy has been recently noted . The question of a different nature of the spin-glass phase for Ising and Heisenberg spins is a long-standing issue, and must be considered in the light of the present and forthcoming experimental and numerical results.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank M. Alba, E. Bertin, D. Hérisson, M. Ocio, H. Takayama and H. Yoshino for stimulating discussions during this work.


format: text

text:
# Teleportation Cost and Hybrid Compression of Quantum Signals

## Abstract

The amount of entanglement necessary to teleport quantum states drawn from general ensemble $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$ is derived. The case of perfect transmission of individual states and that of asymptotically faithful transmission are discussed. Using the latter result, we also derive the optimum compression rate when the ensemble is compressed into qubits and bits.

The scheme of quantum teleportation  realizes transmission of quantum states between two remote parties connected only by a classical communication channel, in exchange for the consumption of a shared resource of entanglement. This cost of entanglement is dependent on the sender’s knowledge about the transferred quantum states. The two extreme cases are well known, namely, perfect transmission of one qubit in a completely unknown state requires one unit (ebit) of entanglement, and no entanglement is needed in the cases where the sender can surely determine the state of the qubit. Investigation for the cases in-between, where the sender is left with several possible states $`\rho _i`$ with probability $`p_i`$, has recently been started, and it was found that in the simplest case where $`\{\rho _i\}`$ consists of two nonorthogonal pure states, perfect transmission requires one full ebit. What we derive in this Letter is the formula that gives the teleportation costs for arbitrary ensemble $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$, where $`\rho _i`$ can be mixed states in a Hilbert space of any finite size. The costs are obtained not only for the perfect transmission of individual samples but also for the asymptotic case where independently drawn samples are collectively teleported. This asymptotic result has a significant role in the field of quantum information theory, because it quantifies the amount of ‘purely quantum’ or ‘nonclassical’ information in the general quantum signals in the following sense. A natural way to quantify the information in a classical signal is the least number of bits (Shannon entropy) required to compress the signal reversibly . Similarly, the information in a quantum signal can be measured by the least number of qubits required to be compressed . The present result pushes such argument one step further, namely, it reveals how much portion of the qubits can be replaced by classical bits.

Since the problems considered here are sensitive to the information available in the teleportation process, we separate the parties who conduct teleportation and those who prepare and receive quantum states. We thus introduce four parties, namely, Alice prepares a state and give it to Clare, she teleports it to Dave, and he finally delivers it to the receiver, Bob (see Fig. 1). We first consider the perfect teleportation of an ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. Suppose that Alice prepares the ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$, namely, she prepares a quantum system $`_\mathrm{T}`$ (with a finite dimension $`d`$) in a quantum state $`\rho _i`$ with (nonzero) probability $`p_i`$. She gives $`_\mathrm{T}`$ to Clare. Clare and Dave are separated from each other and only the classical communication is allowed between them, but they are supplied with entangled auxiliary systems $`_\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{D}`$, where Clare owns $`_\mathrm{C}`$ and Dave has $`_\mathrm{D}`$. Using this resource, the Clare-Dave team transfers the state $`\rho _i`$ and deliver the system $`_\mathrm{T}`$ to Bob. In the perfect teleportation, we require that ‘the received state of $`_\mathrm{T}`$ for Bob is exactly $`\rho _i`$.’ The precise meaning of this statement is as follows. Suppose that the whole process was repeated many times, and after that, Alice disclosed the identity of each state (the number $`i`$) to Bob. He can do any statistical tests to check whether the state $`\rho _i`$ was correctly transferred, and what we require is that the delivered states must pass any such tests.

If we take notice of the input and the output of the task done by the Clare-Dave team, their task can be regarded as a quantum operation on $`_\mathrm{T}`$. This operation is independent of Alice’s choice of the number $`i`$, and maps any $`\rho _i`$ to $`\rho _i`$. We have a useful theory  for such operations. To state the results of this theory, it is convenient to express quantum operations in unitary representation, namely, by unitary operations $`U`$ acting on the combined space $`_\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{E}`$, where $`_\mathrm{E}`$ represents an auxiliary system initially prepared in a standard pure state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}`$. In the present context, $`_\mathrm{E}`$ includes $`_\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{D}`$, the communication line, and any other auxiliary systems. Then, it was shown  that, given $`\{\rho _i\}`$, we can find a decomposition of $`_{\mathrm{Tsup}}`$ defined as the support of $`_i\rho _i`$ ($`_{\mathrm{Tsup}}`$ is generally a subspace of $`_\mathrm{T}`$) written as

$$_{\mathrm{Tsup}}=\underset{l}{}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(1)
in such a way that any quantum operation preserving $`\{\rho _i\}`$ is expressed in the following form

$$U(\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{Tsup}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})=\underset{l}{}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}U_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E}),$$
(2)
where $`U_{\mathrm{KE}}^{(l)}`$ are unitary operators acting on the combined space $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}_\mathrm{E}`$. Under this decomposition, $`\rho _i`$ is written as

$$\rho _i=\underset{l}{}q^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ are normalized density operators acting on $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ and $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$, respectively, and $`q^{(i,l)}`$ is the probability for the state to be in the subspace $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. $`\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ is independent of $`i`$, and $`\{\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(1,l)},\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(2,l)},\mathrm{}\}`$ cannot be expressed in a simultaneously block-diagonalized form. An explicit procedure to obtain this decomposition is also given in . The total density operator $`\rho _ip_i\rho _i`$ for the ensemble $``$ is also decomposed as

$$\rho =\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)}\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)},$$
(4)
where $`p^{(l)}_ip_iq^{(i,l)}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)}(_ip_iq^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)})/p^{(l)}`$. The von Neumann entropy of $`\rho `$, defined as $`S(\rho )\text{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho `$, is written by the sum of three parts as follows,

$`S(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}p^{(l)}\left[\mathrm{log}_2p^{(l)}+S(\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)})+S(\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)})\right]`$ (5)
$``$ $`I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}}+I_\mathrm{R},`$ (6)
where each part is uniquely determined as a function of $``$.

The decomposition (3) immediately gives us one scheme of perfect teleportation: Clare measures the value $`l`$ and tells the result to Dave. Then she teleports $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$ to Dave. Knowing the value $`l`$ and having the state $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}`$, Dave can locally prepare $`_\mathrm{T}`$ in the state $`\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. Dave finally delivers this state to Bob without disclosing the identity of $`l`$, resulting in the delivery of the state $`\rho _i`$ to Bob. In this scheme, the amount of entanglement $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}`$ measured in units of ebits (number of Bell pairs) that must be prepared in $`_\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{D}`$ beforehand is

$$E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}=\mathrm{log}_2\underset{l}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}.$$
(7)
In fact, we can show that $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}`$ is the lower bound for any perfect teleportation scheme. Suppose that Alice has her auxiliary system $`_\mathrm{A}=_l_\mathrm{A}^{(l)}`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{A}^{(l)}=\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$, and let $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(l)}`$ be a maximally entangled state in the subspace $`_\mathrm{A}^{(l)}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$. Instead of preparing the state drawn from $``$, Alice can prepare $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(l)}`$ with the choice of $`l`$ that gives the maximum in Eq. (7), and send $`_\mathrm{T}`$ to Clare. The form (2) implies that any perfect teleportation scheme for $`\{\rho _i\}`$ teleports any state in $`_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ correctly. Hence Alice and Bob can share the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(l)}`$ without fail, which amounts to the entanglement of $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}`$. Noting that the Alice-Clare group and the Dave-Bob group are only connected by the classical communication line, we conclude $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}`$ ebits of entanglement is the minimum that must be prepared in $`_\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{D}`$ beforehand.

While $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(p)}`$ ebits must be prepared to assure the perfect teleportation, the whole entanglement does not necessarily consumed. In the particular scheme explained above, the consumption obviously depends on the measurement result of $`l`$, which follows the probability distribution $`p^{(l)}`$. Considering the situation where the teleportation for $``$ is repeated many times, we can define the average consumption of entanglement per system. For the above scheme, this is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(c)}=\underset{l}{}p^{(l)}\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{dim}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}.$$
(8)
This value again can be shown to be the lower bound for any perfect teleportation scheme, by considering the case in which Alice prepares the state $`_lp^{(l)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{max}}^{(l)}|\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$. The form (2) ensures that after the teleportation, $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(c)}`$ ebits of entanglement are shared between Alice and Bob, and that the state left in $`_\mathrm{E}`$ is identical to the case in which Alice uses $``$. Therefore, at least $`E_{\mathrm{per}}^{(c)}`$ ebits on average must be consumed in the perfect teleportation of $``$.

Next, we consider the asymptotically faithful teleportation of $``$. In contrast to the individual teleportation described above, we allow collective manipulations of the sequence of messages. In this case, Alice prepares $`N`$ messages drawn from $``$, namely, she prepares the state $`\rho _\lambda ^N\rho _{i_1}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N}`$ acting on a Hilbert space $`_\mathrm{T}^N_{\mathrm{T1}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{T}N}`$ with probability $`p_\lambda ^N=p_{i_1}\mathrm{}p_{i_N}`$, where $`\lambda `$ represents a set of indexes $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N\}`$. Clare receives $`_\mathrm{T}^N`$ from Alice and teleports the required information to Dave, who delivers to Bob the state $`\rho _\lambda ^{}`$ acting on $`_\mathrm{T}^N`$. The quality of the scheme can be measured by the average fidelity

$$\overline{F}\underset{\lambda }{}p_\lambda ^NF(\rho _\lambda ^N,\rho _\lambda ^{}),$$
(9)
where the fidelity function  is defined as $`F(\rho ,\sigma )[\text{Tr}\sqrt{\rho ^{1/2}\sigma \rho ^{1/2}}]^2`$. The teleportation cost for $``$ in this case can be defined as the bound $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}`$ for the amount of entanglement per message such that for arbitrary small $`\delta >0`$, (a) if $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}+\delta `$ ebits per message is given, we can find a sequence of schemes with $`\overline{F}1(N\mathrm{})`$, and (b) if $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}\delta `$ ebits per message is given, no such sequences exist.

The decomposition (3) again helps to build one example of asymptotically faithful teleportation, which is stated as follows. Clare measures the value $`l`$ for each message, and tells Dave the result $`\{l_1,\mathrm{},l_N\}`$. Then they classify the messages according to the value of $`l`$. Each group contains $`p^{(l)}N`$ messages on average. By ignoring $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$, the postmeasurement state of this group of messages can be regarded as the one drawn from the ensemble $`\{p_iq^{(i,l)}/p^{(l)},\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\}`$ (with fixed $`l`$). Clare compresses each group of messages (classified by $`l`$) into $`S(\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)})`$ qubits per message, and teleports it to Dave. Dave decompresses it and attaches $`\rho _\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ locally, and delivers to Bob after ordering the messages correctly using the information $`\{l_1,\mathrm{},l_N\}`$. This strategy becomes asymptotically faithful if $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}+\delta `$ Bell pairs per message are given. The existence of this example assures $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$.

We can also obtain the opposite inequality $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ in the following way. The form of Eq. (3) implies that the spaces $`_\mathrm{K}^{(l)}`$ are redundant in the ensemble $`=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. Consider the ensemble $`_\mathrm{R}\{p_i,_lq^{(i,l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(i,l)}\}`$, in which the redundancy has been removed. The two ensembles $``$ and $`_\mathrm{R}`$ are completely interchangeable, namely, there exist quantum operations that converts one to the other. Then, we can easily prove that $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}()=E_{\mathrm{asy}}(_\mathrm{R})`$ . Since $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}()=I_{\mathrm{NC}}(_\mathrm{R})`$, it is suffice to consider the cases where $`\{\rho _i\}`$ have no redundancy, namely, $`_\mathrm{R}=`$, in proving $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$. One benefit of this assumption is that the decomposition (1) and the requirement (2) can be simplified as $`_{\mathrm{Tsup}}=_l_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ and

$$U(\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{Tsup}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})=\underset{l}{}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}U_\mathrm{E}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E},$$
(10)
where $`U_\mathrm{E}^{(l)}`$ are unitary operators acting on $`_\mathrm{E}`$. Let us introduce a measure $`f(U)`$, which characterizes how well an arbitrary $`UU(d+d^2)`$ acting on $`_\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{E}`$ preserves the states in $`_\mathrm{T}`$ drawn from $``$. It is defined as the nonnegative function $`f(U)1_ip_iF(\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i)\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[U(\rho _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})U^{}]`$. Since $`f(U)=0`$ iff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U(\rho _i)=\rho _i`$ for all $`i`$, $`f^1(0)`$ is equal to the set of $`U`$ that can be expressed in the form (10).

In the teleportation of $`N`$ messages, the whole operation done by Clare and Dave should be written as a quantum operation $`\rho _\lambda ^N\rho _\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _\lambda ^N)`$. In this process, the marginal state in the first system ($`_{\mathrm{T1}}`$) evolves from $`\rho _{i_1}`$ to $`\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}(\rho _\lambda ^{})`$. This evolution can be regarded as a result of a quantum operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, defined as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\rho _i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i_2\mathrm{}i_N}{}}p_{i_2}\mathrm{}p_{i_N}\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _i\rho _{i_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N})`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _i\rho \mathrm{}\rho ).`$ (12)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the total density operators ($`\rho `$) of the initial state ensembles of the other $`N1`$ systems. Let us take a unitary representation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ as $`U_1U(d+d^2)`$ acting on $`_{\mathrm{T1}}`$ and an auxiliary system $`_{\mathrm{E1}}`$. Here we can assume the dimension of $`_{\mathrm{E1}}`$ to be $`d^2`$ . From the properties of the fidelity function $`F`$, we obtain

$`\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}p_\lambda ^NF(\rho _\lambda ^N,\rho _\lambda ^{})`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}p_\lambda ^NF(\rho _{i_1},\text{Tr}_{2\mathrm{}N}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\rho _{i_1}\rho _{i_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{i_N}))`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iF(\rho _i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\rho _i))=1f(U_1)`$ (15)
since the fidelity does not decrease under partial trace (the first inequality) and $`F(\sigma ,\rho )`$ is convex as a function of $`\rho `$ (the second).

The next step is to consider what happens if, instead of drawing from the ensemble $``$, Alice prepares an entangled states $`\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}_lp^{(l)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(l)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(l)}|`$ in $`_\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{T}`$. Here we assume that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(l)}`$ is a pure state in the subspace $`_\mathrm{A}^{(l)}_\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$ and satisfies $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{A}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(l)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(l)}|)=\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)}`$. Note that $`S(\rho _{\mathrm{AT}})=I_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`S(\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{T}[\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}])=I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$. Suppose that Alice prepares $`N`$ identical states $`\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}`$ in $`_{\mathrm{A}k}_{\mathrm{T}k}(k=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ and gives the system $`_\mathrm{T}^N`$ to Clare, who conducts the operation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with Dave. Since the marginal state in $`_{\mathrm{T}k}(k=2,\mathrm{},N)`$ is $`\rho `$, which is identical to the state from $``$, the operation on $`_{\mathrm{T1}}`$ is again given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Under this operation, the total state in $`_{\mathrm{A1}}_{\mathrm{T1}}`$ evolves from $`\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{AT}}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[(\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{A1}}U_1)(\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{E})(\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{A1}}U_1^{})]`$. The entropy production in this process can be regarded as a function of $`U_1`$, namely, $`g(U_1)S(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{AT}})S(\rho _{\mathrm{AT}})`$. This function is related to the function $`f`$ as follows. Since the form (10) preserves $`\rho _{\mathrm{AT}}`$, $`g(U_1)`$ is zero for any $`U_1f^1(0)`$. Let us define the set $`\overline{X}_\delta \{U|g(U)\delta \}`$ for arbitrary $`\delta >0`$. Since $`g`$ is continuous, $`\overline{X}_\delta `$ is a closed subset of $`U(d+d^2)`$. Since $`U(d+d^2)`$ is compact and $`f`$ is continuous, the image $`f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$ is closed in $`R`$. $`\overline{X}_\delta f^1(0)=\mathrm{}`$ implies that $`0f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$. Therefore, $`f(\overline{X}_\delta )`$ has its minimum $`\eta (\delta )>0`$. Note that the functional dependence of $`\eta `$ on $`\delta `$ is determined by $``$, and is independent of $`N`$. This result will be used below.

After the teleportation of $`N`$ systems, Alice and Bob obtain an entangled state. The entanglement of formation, $`E_f`$, satisfies the inequality $`E_fS_\mathrm{A}S_{\mathrm{AB}}`$, where $`S_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{AB}}`$ are the von Neumann entropy of Alice’s marginal state and that of the whole state of the $`N`$ systems, respectively. (This inequality is shown in  without details of the proof. Alternatively, it can be proved by applying the strong subadditivity  of $`S`$ to the state $`\rho _{\mathrm{ABM}}^ϵ`$ defined in .) Since Alice’s marginal state does not change in the teleportation, $`S_\mathrm{A}`$ is given by $`S_\mathrm{A}=N(I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}})`$. From the subadditivity of $`S`$, we have $`S_{\mathrm{AB}}_k[g(U_k)+S(\rho _{\mathrm{AT}})]Ng(U_1)+NI_\mathrm{C}`$, where we have assumed that $`g(U_1)g(U_k)`$ for all $`k`$ without loss of generality, since the numbering of the systems $`_{\mathrm{T}k}`$ is arbitrary. Combining these, we obtain $`E_f/NI_{\mathrm{NC}}g(U_1)`$. Now, suppose that Clare and Dave used $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}\delta `$ Bell pairs per message. Since the entanglement of formation of the total system never increases, $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}\delta E_f/N`$. This gives $`g(U_1)\delta `$. As shown above, this means $`f(U_1)\eta (\delta )`$. Combined with (15), we find that the fidelity is bounded from above as $`\overline{F}1\eta (\delta )<1`$, regardless of $`N`$. This implies that faithful teleportation is impossible with this resource of Bell pairs. We have thus proved the inequality $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$. As explained before, this inequality also holds in general cases where $`_\mathrm{R}`$. Combined with the opposite inequality, we conclude that the cost for asymptotically faithful teleportation is given by $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}=I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$.

In the example of asymptotically faithful teleportation scheme mentioned above, Dave reproduces $``$ from $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ qubits per message received by teleportation and the classical information of the measurement result $`\{l_1,\mathrm{},l_N\}`$, which can be compressed into $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ bits per message. This implies that for arbitrary small $`\delta _1>0`$ and $`\delta _2>0`$, the quantum signal $``$ can be compressed and decompressed back faithfully in the asymptotic limit, if $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}+\delta _1`$ qubits and $`I_\mathrm{C}\delta _1+\delta _2`$ bits per message are available (note that a qubit can substitute for a bit). This is indeed the optimal way of compression into bits and qubits in the blind protocols, in the following sense: (a) The result for the teleportation cost derived above, $`E_{\mathrm{asy}}=I_{\mathrm{NC}}`$, implies that if only $`I_{\mathrm{NC}}\delta `$ qubits per message (and any number of bits) are available, no faithful compression is possible. (b) $`I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}}=S(_lp^{(l)}\rho _\mathrm{J}^{(l)})`$ is equal to the passive information $`I_\mathrm{p}`$ . This means that if $`I_\mathrm{p}\delta `$ qubits (and no bits) are available, no faithful compression is possible. It is thus impossible to conduct faithful compression if the available number of bits plus that of qubits per message is $`I_\mathrm{C}+I_{\mathrm{NC}}\delta `$.

In summary, for general ensembles of quantum states including mixed states, we have derived the amount of entanglement required to teleport them and the optimum number of bits and qubits necessary to compress them faithfully. Together with the earlier results  of no-cloning or no-imprinting argument, the present results elucidate the property of information stored in a quantum ensemble as follows. The information can always be decomposed into three parts, namely, redundant, classical, and nonclassical parts. The classical part can be copied, compressed into bits, and transmitted through a classical channel. The nonclassical part of the information cannot be extracted without disturbing the states, can be compressed only into qubits, and must consume entanglement when transmitted over a classical channel.

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Grant No. 12740243) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Grant No. 12440111) by the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Heavy Ion Physics with CMS at LHC

## 1 CMS Detector

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) plans to operate as a heavy ion collider for one month each year starting in 2007. LHC will be capable of accelerating a variety of ions up to beam energies of 7 TeV/charge. The design, peak and three-hour-fill-averaged luminosities are presented in Table 1 along with the maximum center of mass energy.

The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS)  experiment is a general-purpose facility to study hadronic collisions at the LHC. The detector consists of a tracking system, electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, and muon detectors. A solenoidal magnet providing a 4 Tesla magnetic field surrounds the tracking and calorimetric systems. The tracker, covering the rapidity region $`|\eta |<`$ 2.5, is based on silicon technology. The electromagnetic calorimeter consists of about 83000 lead-tungstate crystals arranged in a central barrel covering $`|\eta |<`$1.48 and the endcaps, which extend its range to rapidity $`|\eta |<`$3. In the central barrel, the granularity is as high as $`\eta `$x$`\varphi `$ = 0.0175x0.0175. The hadronic calorimeter consists of barrel and endcap sections, each made of sandwiches of copper plates and plastic scintillator. In the central region ($`|\eta |<2`$) the $`\eta `$x$`\varphi `$ segmentation is 0.087x0.087. The combination of electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters provides coverage of the central rapidity region with excellent energy resolution. In addition, coverage at large rapidity ($`3<|\eta |<5`$) is achieved by two very forward calorimeters. The large calorimetric coverage and good energy resolution makes CMS an optimal detector for jet studies.

The muon system covers the $`|\eta |<2.5`$ region. In the barrel ($`|\eta |<1.5`$), muons must have a transverse momentum larger than 3.5 GeV/$`c^2`$ to be efficiently detected.

## 2 Quarkonia Production

The suppression of charmonium production has provided strong evidence for the formation of dense hot hadronic matter at SPS energies. At RHIC, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production is an important part of the PHENIX physics program. STAR is also expected to study charmonium production. At LHC, CMS is well equipped to study bottonium and charmonium production. The ability to study $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ yields at LHC, which has a negligible cross sections at lower energies, will allow further understanding of the characteristics of dense hadronic matter.

A detailed study of the feasibility of quarkonia detection in CMS was carried out. Production cross sections were estimated utilizing the expression: $`\sigma _{AA}=A^{2\alpha }\sigma _{pp}`$ with $`\alpha `$=0.9 (0.95) for $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$). $`\sigma _{pp}`$ was obtained by extrapolating Tevatron data from $`\sqrt{s}`$=1.8 to 5.5(7) TeV for PbPb(CaCa). The obtained cross sections are shown in Table 2.

The muon system acceptance for quarkonia decaying into dimuons was studied using the barrel and the endcap detectors. In the barrel, only $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ particles with $`p_T>5`$ GeV/c are detected, with an acceptance at the level of a few per cent. When the endcap chambers are included, $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with $`p_T=0`$ is detected with an acceptance of 2%. For $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, the acceptance is 30(15)% when the end-cap detectors are (are not) considered, with little dependence on $`p_T`$. Quarkonia reconstruction was studied with detailed simulation and full reconstruction programs. Muon background from $`\pi `$, K and heavy quark leptonic decays was considered. The $`p_T`$ spectra for pions and kaons was obtained from SHAKER . The average $`p_T`$, 0.48(0.67) GeV/c for pion(kaons), is higher than that obtained with other event generators. The multiplicity in central PbPb events is assumed to be $`dN/dy=8000`$. Given that our estimates are pessimistic, backgrounds are probably overestimated. Fig. 1 depicts the expected dimuon invariant mass spectrum in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ region for 1 month of PbPb running.

Table 2 shows the number of expected reconstructed events for the J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ families with PbPb and with CaCa in one month running at design luminosity. In addition, the statistical significance of the signal, number of particles divided by the square root of the background, is also given.

## 3 Jet Studies

Recent results from RHIC  show a softening of the transverse momentum above 5 GeV/c in central collisions. This could be attributed to jet quenching in the hot hadronic media produced after the collision. At LHC, $`10^7`$ dijets with $`E_T^{jet}>`$100 GeV are produced in the region $`|\eta |<`$2.6 in a one-month run of PbPb. The number is reduced by about a factor of 2 if only the barrel is considered, $`|\eta |<`$1.5. At LHC, jet reconstruction in PbPb is possible, even for central collisions. A modified version of the UA1 jet-finding algorithm was used to reconstruct jets in central PbPb collisions using the information provided by the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters. As in the quarkonia study, the multiplicity in central PbPb events is assumed to be $`dN/dy=8000`$.

Table 3 shows the efficiency, contamination and energy resolution for finding jets above certain thresholds. As can be seen, even the lowest threshold jets can be reconstructed with good efficiency and relatively low background. This good performance will allow CMS to study jet quenching in dijet production . Jet energy loss in hadronic matter can also be measured by tagging jets opposite to non-strongly interacting particles such as $`Z^0`$ or gamma, both produced in the reactions $`qgqV`$ and $`q\overline{q}gV`$, where V=$`Z^0`$ or $`\gamma `$.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, CMS provides a unique tool to study heavy ion collisions at the LHC. It will probe hot hadronic matter by studying J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production. Its excellent calorimetry will provide large coverage and good energy resolution for jet quenching studies.


text:
# Low-Energy vibrational density of states of plasticized poly(methyl methacrylate)

## I INTRODUCTION

Physical studies of plasticized polymers are of interest for attaining optimal properties of the material and revealing the nanostructure, i.e., the distribution of plasticizer molecules in the polymeric glass. Recently an experimental study was carried out on the poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) plasticized with dibutyl phtalate (DBP) . Two interesting results were obtained. By small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) a correlation peak was observed at about 1.5 $`nm^1`$ in the plasticized sample, while no such peak was detected in the non-plasticized one. This observation shows that the plasticizer is not distributed homogeneously in the polymer and that the zones rich in plasticizer are alternated with the other ones with a low content of plasticizer. Furthermore such arrangement is quasiperiodic with a period close to 4 nm. This inhomogeneity of the plasticized polymer was assumed to be due to the cohesion inhomogeneity of the glassy polymer without plasticizer: ”More cohesive are separated by softer interdomain zones” . The other interesting experimental result is the increase of the excess of low-frequency Raman scattering (LFRS) or Raman boson peak by plasticization: the boson peak is more intense than the one obtained by adding the LFRS of the two components (PMMA and DBP) according to the composition of the plasticized material. In the frame of the considered interpretation, the intensity of the boson peak is related to the inhomogeneous cohesion: the more contrasted the cohesion at the nanoscale, the more intense the boson peak. The increase of the boson peak is interpreted by the increase of the elastic constant contrast due to the high content of plasticizer in between cohesive domains.

The intensity of LFRS is proportional to the vibrational density of states (VDOS) and to the light-vibration coupling coefficient. The increase of the Raman boson peak may be due to the increase of either the VDOS, the coupling coefficient or both. The excess of VDOS can be observed by inelastic neutron scattering and will be called neutron boson peak. It is why low frequency inelastic neutron scattering (LINS) measurements were carried out on plasticized and non-plasticized PMMA. On the other hand, in order to know the effect of vibrations of one component on the other, two different plasticized PMMA were compared: the one with hydrogenated PMMA, and the other with deuterated PMMA. Because the incoherent inelastic neutron scattering is much higher for the hydrogenated polymer than for the deuterated one, it will be possible to know the contribution of each component in plasticized PMMA. In this paper the VDOS of different samples will be compared: pure hydrogenated PMMA, pure DBP, plasticized hydrogenated and deuterated PMMA. It will be shown that the plasticization has no effect on the VDOS excess or neutron boson peak, and on the other hand that the low-frequency vibrations of PMMA drag along the motion of the DBP plasticizer.

## II EXPERIMENT

### A Samples

Plasticized or non-plasticized film samples, in the form of the circles of 5 cm diameter and ca. 0.3 mm in thickness, were prepared by casting the solutions of PMMA or PMMA/DBP blends in toluene/dioxane/dichloroetane/acetone mixture onto glass surface. Removing the solvents was carried out under slow evaporation conditions for 24 h at room temperature, with subsequent step-like heating at 80, 100 and 120$`{}_{}{}^{0}C`$, up to the constant weight of the films. Four samples were compared: pure hydrogenated PMMA (PMMA-H), pure dibutyl phtalate (DBP), hydrogenated PMMA with 23 (mass) $`\%`$ DBP (PMMA-H/DBP), deuterated PMMA with 23 (mass) $`\%`$ DBP (PMMA-D/DBP). The respective glass transition temperatures, as estimated by differential scanning calorimetry (heating rate of 20 K/min), are $`390K`$ for pure PMMA sample $`190K`$ for DBP, and $`320K`$ for the plasticized samples. The number average molecular weight of PMMA-H and PMMA-D is approximately equal to 500 000 g/mol. The percentage of deuteration of PMMA-D is $`98\%`$.

### B Neutron scattering

The inelastic neutron spectra were recorded on the time-of-flight instrument IN6 at the ILL, Grenoble. The wavelength of the incident neutrons was equal to $`5.12\AA `$ resulting in an elastic resolution (FWHM) of $`80\mu eV`$, and an elastic momentum transfer range extending from $`Q=0.22\AA ^1`$ to $`Q=2.06\AA ^1`$. The spectra were recorded at three different temperatures, at $`4K`$ for the determination of resolution, $`30K`$ and $`300K`$, using a helium cryofurnace. The temperature of $`30K`$ was chosen to obtain the neutron inelastic scattering by the low-frequency harmonic vibrations without the scattering by anharmonic or relaxational motions negligible at this temperature . The scattering cross-sections were obtained after the usual standard calibrations by means of the vanadium runs and the removal of the empty cans contributions. The VDOS for harmonic modes were obtained by taking the average of the spectra given by the different detectors, i.e., the average over the range from $`Q=0.22\AA ^1`$ to $`Q=2.06\AA ^1`$. Because the first sharp peak of PMMA in the static structure factor is at $`Q=0.95\AA ^1`$, a value that is lower than the upper limit of the experimental Q-range, the incoherent approximation was applied by using the total neutron scattering bound cross-section ($`\mathrm{𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡}+\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡}`$). The VDOS were calculated through the use of an iterative procedure described elsewhere . The so-obtained VDOS were corrected by the Debye-Waller factor and for the multiphonon contributions.

## III EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The VDOS divided by the square of energy, $`G(E)/E^2`$, are plotted in Figure 1. This type of plot is conventional for comparison with the Debye regime. It was not possible to obtain the absolute VDOS. However, as the shapes of the $`G(E)/E^2`$ curves for the different samples were observed to be identical at the energies higher than 4 meV, a normalization was obtained by coincidence of the curves from an energy of 4 meV. Obviously this normalization does not allow to compare the total VDOS of the different samples, but it makes possible the comparison of the boson peaks, which appear around 2 meV.

The boson peak appears at an energy slightly lower than 2 meV for pure PMMA-H, as observed before , and higher for pure DBP (Figure 1). The relative intensity at low energy is higher for pure PMMA than for pure DBP, and decreases with plasticization. However, although the LINS of PMMA-D is expected to be very low, in view of its relatively weak neutron bound cross-section ,$`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-D/DBP and of PMMA-H/DBP are not very different. On the other hand, it is noted that the slope of $`G(E)`$ or $`G(E)/E^2`$, on the low-energy side of the boson peak is the steepest for the pure DBP.

## IV INTERPRETATION

### A Model

From a simple glance of the curves in Figure 1, one expects that the plasticization does not increase the boson peak relatively to the one obtained from the addition of the VDOS of respectively the PMMA and DBP components. It is confirmed by Figure 2. As it can be observed, $`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-H/DBP is very well fitted by adding the VDOS of respectively PMMA-H and DBP in the following proportion:

$`G_{\text{PMMA-H/DBP}}(E)=aG_{\text{PMMA-H}}(E)+bG_{\text{DBP}}(E)`$ (1)
The low-energy VDOS of the plasticized glassy polymer obeys the general addition law:

$`g(E)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_ig_i(E)`$ (2)
where $`g(E)`$ and $`g_i(E)`$ are the absolute VDOS, and the coefficient $`C_i`$ the (mass) concentration of the component $`i`$. In our PMMA-H/DBP, for instance, $`C_i`$ is 0.77 and 0.23 for respectively PMMA-H and DBP. The coefficients a and b in 1 are proportional to 0.77 and 0.23 respectively. The good fit in Figure 2 demonstrates that the plasticization does not enhance the neutron boson peak or the low-energy VDOS like it does for the Raman boson peak .

In order to try to fit in a similar manner $`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-D/DBP, it was taken into account that the observed VDOS, $`G_i(E)`$, depends on the total neutron bound cross-sections of the different atoms in the molecule. For the low-energy vibrational modes, which are mainly dependent on the intermolecular bonding and are studied in this work, the neutron bound cross-section proportionality of $`G_i(E)`$ is approximately the following:

$`G_i(E)\beta _ig_i(E)`$ (3)
where:

$`\beta _i={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_j\sigma _j/M_j`$ (4)
with $`c_j`$, $`\sigma _j`$ and $`M_j`$ respectively the (mass) concentration, the total neutron bound cross-section and the mass of atom $`j`$ in the molecule or monomer $`i`$.

From these equations, the fit of $`G(E)/E^2`$ for PMMA-D/DBP corresponding to that for PMMA-H/DBP (1) is given by the following equation:

$`G_{\text{PMMA-D/DBP}}(E)=a(0.98\rho +0.02)G_{\text{PMMA-H}}(E)+bG_{\text{DBP}}(E)`$ (5)
In this equation the fractions 0.98 and 0.02 accounts for the degree of PMMA deuteration , that is equal to 0.98. The coefficient $`\rho `$ is equal to $`\beta _{\text{PMMA-D}}/\beta _{\text{PMMA-H}}`$. Using the total neutron bound cross-sections of the different atoms in PMMA-D and PMMA-H given in , it is found $`\rho =0.079`$. This small value is due to the very large value of the incoherent cross-section of hydrogen in comparison with the total cross-sections of the other atoms including deuterium. The $`G(E)/E^2`$ curve given by (5) is plotted in Figure 2. As expected, due to the weak value of $`\rho `$, this calculated $`G(E)/E^2`$ curve is not very different from the experimental one for pure DBP. One observes in Figure 2, that the experimental $`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-D/DBP is more intense at low energies than the corresponding one calculated by (5). Furthermore it is remarked (Figure 1) that the $`G(E)/E^2`$ shapes of PMMA-H/DBP and PMMA-D/DBP are similar. The difference between the experimental and calculated $`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-D/DBP is explained by the motion of the DBP plasticizer dragged along by the low-energy vibrations of PMMA-D and reciprocally. This difference is so large that it is impossible to explain it by an underestimation of the PMMA-D VDOS in that of PMMA-D/DBP.

### B Discussion

The first interesting result is the good fit of PMMA-H/DBP $`G(E)/E^2`$ obtained by the addition of the PMMA-H and DBP VDOS (1). It means that the neutron boson peak is not enhanced by the plasticization: the low-energy VDOS of the plasticized sample is equal to the sum of the component ones. As noted in the previous subsection, the low-energy VDOS depends on the intermolecular bonding. In consequence, if the VDOS of the plasticized PMMA is given by the sum of those of PMMA and DBP, one deduces that the bonding, on the one hand, between PMMA macromolecules, and on the other hand, between DBP molecules, is not significantly changed by plasticization. As the low-energy modes observed in the boson peak are extended on nanometric distances, such unchanged intermolecular bonding is possible if, at the nanoscale, there is separation of both components. This interpretation confirms the observation by SAXS of a correlation peak at $`1.5nm^1`$ . The distribution of DBP in PMMA is quasiperiodic.

The non-enhancement of the neutron boson peak or of the low-energy VDOS, means that observed enhancement of the Raman boson peak by plasticization is due to the amplification of the vibration modulated polarisability. This is explained by the increase of the spatially fluctuating static polarisability due to the heterogeneous distribution of the plasticizer in PMMA and the nanodomain vibrations, which have a strong amplitude at the interface between PMMA and DBP phases. This explanation is consistent with the interpretation of the boson peak due to an inhomogeneous cohesion of the glassy network .

The second interesting result is the excess of the experimental $`G(E)/E^2`$ of PMMA-D/DBP at low-energies in comparison with $`G(E)/E^2`$ calculated by using the total neutron bound cross-sections of atoms in PMMA-D. Because the VDOS of the plasticized PMMA is given by the sum of the components, as shown above, one deduces, while the total VDOS is conserved, there is a redistribution of the low-energy VDOS among the PMMA and DBP components in the plasticized glassy polymer. As noted above the vibrations of one component drag along the motion of the other. This VDOS redistribution is more effective for the vibrational modes on the low-energy side of the boson peak (Figure 2). The reciprocal partition of vibrational amplitude of both components will be more effective for the vibrations which have a strong amplitude at the interface between PMMA and DBP phases. Again this explanation is in agreement with the model, in which the modes on the low-energy side of the boson peak correspond to the fundamental modes of the nanodomains .

## V CONCLUSION

The total low-energy vibrational density of states of PMMA plasticized by DBP is well fitted by the sum of the component ones. It means that the plasticization does not change significantly the PMMA and DBP intermolecular bonding. However, both components do not vibrate independently: vibrations of PMMA, appearing in the low-energy side of the boson peak, were observed in the inelastic neutron scattering of DBP. This behavior means that the neutron boson peak is not enhanced by plasticization. Therefore, the enhancement by plastcization of the boson peak observed by Raman scattering comes from the increase of the electric polarizability modulated by low-energy vibrations , and not from the increase of the vibrational density of states. These results are in agreement with an inhomogeneous distribution of the plasticizer at the nanoscale, as it was observed by small angle X-ray scattering, and, on the other hand, with an inhomogeneous intermolecular bonding in polymeric glasses.


text:
# hep-ph/0104228 DO–TH 01/05 Leptogenesis in left–right symmetric theories

## 1 Introduction

The explanation of the observed ratio of baryons to photons in the universe is one of the most challenging theoretical problems. In standard cosmology the ratio is explained as a disappearance of antimatter in the early universe as proposed by Sakharov . The creation of a matter–antimatter asymmetry is, in many cases, suppressed by the conservation of the $`BL`$ quantum number. Fukugita and Yanagida observed  that a Majorana mass term provides an attractive possibility for the creation of a lepton asymmetry when heavy Majorana neutrinos decay at an epoch in which they are out of equilibrium. The effect is further enhanced by self–energy contributions which create relatively long–lived states . The asymmetry is later converted into a baryon asymmetry via sphaleron processes . This Majorana neutrinos come closer to explaining the observed ratio of baryons to photons of

$$Y_B(0.1\mathrm{}1)10^{10}.$$
(1)
The explanation of the baryon asymmetry seems to demand physics beyond the Standard Model . In addition, the collected evidence for massive neutrinos  also demands physics beyond the Standard Model. The next logical step is to check if one can relate the data of the light left–handed neutrinos with the heavy right–handed ones and to obtain the correct order of magnitude for $`Y_B`$. Several recent papers dealt with this problem , assuming specific structures for the mass matrices and symmetries of the theory. In this article we study a left–right symmetric model where in addition to the usual Higgs doublet there are left– and right–handed Higgs triplets. The breaking of the symmetry generates vacuum expectation values $`v_L`$ and $`v_R`$ which in turn generate neutrino mass matrices. For a natural choice of parameters, the left–handed Higgs triplet gives the main contribution to the neutrino mass matrix. Only the top quark contribution of the Dirac mass matrix entering through the see–saw mechanism is of comparable size. The important role played by the triplet Higgs was highlighted in . In this case, the light left– and heavy right–handed neutrino sector are related naturally and no further assumptions are required. At the end we find that from the three solutions to the solar neutrino problem small angle MSW and vacuum oscillations generate a baryon asymmetry of the correct order of magnitude. The large mixing angle MSW solution yields a very high $`Y_B`$.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we review the conventional see–saw mechanism and its application to leptogenesis. In Section 3 we describe how the mechanism is modified in left–right symmetric theories. The experimental status of the left–handed neutrino mass matrix is included in Section 4, which is then used to calculate the right–handed mass matrix in Section 5. These results are collected together in Section 6 and figures for the asymmetry as function of the parameters are presented. In the last Section 7 we give our conclusions.

## 2 Conventional See–Saw mechanism

The conventional see–saw mechanism follows from the Lagrangian of the Standard Model enlarged by the addition of a singlet right–handed neutrino $`N_{Ri}^{}`$ for each generation. The new part of the Lagrangian is

$$_Y=\overline{l_{iL}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{~}{m}_{Dij}N_{Rj}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{N_{Ri}^c^{}}M_{Rij}N_{Rj}^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(2)
with $`l_{iL}`$ the leptonic doublet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the conventional Higgs doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ a Dirac mass matrix operating in generation space and $`M_R`$ is the symmetrical Majorana mass matrix for the right–handed neutrinos. We can go to the physical basis by diagonalizing $`M_R`$

$$U_R^{}M_RU_R^{}=\mathrm{diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3)$$
(3)
and defining the physical states

$$N_R=U_RN_R^{}.$$
(4)
In the new basis the Dirac mass matrix also changes to

$$m_D=\stackrel{~}{m}_DU_R.$$
(5)
Thus, the Dirac Yukawa couplings are also rotated by the matrix $`U_R`$.

Interference of tree level with one–loop vertex and self–energy diagrams leads to a lepton asymmetry in the decays of the lightest Majorana, $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c`$ and $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l`$ :

$$\epsilon =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l)}=\frac{1}{8\pi v^2}\frac{1}{(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}}\underset{j=2,3}{}\mathrm{Im}(m_D^{}m_D)_{1j}^2f(M_j^2/M_1^2)$$
(6)
where $`v174`$ GeV is the weak scale and the function $`f`$ is defined as

$$f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left(1+\frac{1}{1x}(1+x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+x}{x}\right)\right)\frac{3}{2\sqrt{x}}.$$

The approximation holds for $`x1`$. There can be a resonant enhancement of the asymmetry in case of the degenerate Majorana neutrinos. Obviously, the magnitude of the asymmetry is of great interest since it introduces a $`BL`$ violation in the theory.

As already mentioned, the interaction in Eq. (2) leads to the famous see–saw prediction for the light neutrino mass matrix

$$m_\nu =\stackrel{~}{m}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T=m_D\mathrm{diag}(M_1^1,M_2^1,M_3^1)m_D^T.$$
(7)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ in Eq. (2) can always be written as $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D=V_L\mathrm{diag}(m_{1D},m_{2D},m_{3D})V_R^{}`$. It then follows from Eqs. (5,6) that the asymmetry $`\epsilon `$ depends upon the right–handed mixing matrices $`V_R`$ and $`U_R`$ rather than the experimentally accessible left–handed ones. This has lead to the conviction that the lepton asymmetry is independent of the low energy parameters . However, the theoretical input of the left–right symmetry allows us to relate the right–handed mixing to the left–handed one and connects the baryon asymmetry to the parameters of the left–handed neutrinos.

If $`m_\nu `$ is given by Eq. (7) then knowing the neutrino masses and mixing angles from oscillation experiments does not help in determining $`m_D`$ because the right hand side in Eq. (7) is quadratic in $`m_D`$. Given a specific model for $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ and/or $`M_R`$, one can always invert Eq. (7) to obtain the asymmetry $`\epsilon `$ as was done in e.g. . The left–right symmetry provides instead a more natural framework to obtain $`\epsilon `$. In this case the unitary matrices diagonalizing $`m_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ are related. Furthermore, in an interesting situation the oscillation experiments provide us with $`m_\nu `$, which is used for the derivation of $`M_R`$, as described in the next section.

## 3 Left–right symmetric models

The minimal left–right symmetric model  implementing the see–saw mechanism requires three Higgs fields, namely: a bi–doublet and a right–handed as well as a left–handed triplet111There are various models with triplets of Higgs fields .. The presence of the latter is necessary in order to maintain the left–right symmetry. Both the triplets acquire vevs $`v_L`$ and $`v_R`$, respectively, at the minimum of the potential. Each of them generates a Majorana mass term for left– and right–handed neutrinos:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}m_L=fv_L& \text{ and }& M_R=fv_R\end{array}$$
(8)
with $`f`$ being the coupling matrix in generation space. The conventional see–saw formula (7) is then modified to

$$m_\nu =m_L\stackrel{~}{m}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T.$$
(9)
Frequently, the first term is neglected which however might not be justified, as we will argue below. In fact, whenever $`m_L`$ is the dominant contribution to $`m_\nu `$ we will have

$$f=\frac{1}{v_L}U_L^T\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)U_L.$$
(10)
Here $`U_L`$ is the matrix diagonalizing the neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$:

$$U_L^{}m_\nu U_L^{}=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)$$
(11)
and $`m_i`$ are the light neutrino masses. We must however be careful not to ignore the second term in Eq. (9) in cases when it is important. Later on, we argue that when one identifies the Dirac mass matrix with the up quark mass matrix then only the top quark gives a sizable contribution.

At the minimum of the potential, the left– and right–handed triplets assume their vevs and produce masses for the gauge bosons. Then, in general  the following relation holds:

$$v_Lv_R\gamma M_W^2,$$
(12)
where the constant $`\gamma `$ is a model dependent parameter of $`𝒪`$(1). Substituting the results from Eqs. (8) and (12) into (9) yields

$$m_\nu =v_L\left(f\stackrel{~}{m}_D\frac{f^1}{\gamma M_W^2}\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T\right).$$
(13)
This result exhibits the strength of the left–right symmetric theory. The oscillation experiments allow one to estimate several matrix elements of $`f`$ through Eqs. (9) and (10). Once we identify $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ with the up quark matrix and decide that the contribution from the top quark alone is important, we can determine $`f`$, whose diagonalization gives $`U_R`$, which in turn gives $`m_D`$ and therefore the lepton asymmetry via Eq. (6).

In the next section we will shortly discuss the current status of the neutrino mass matrix and will then take up the task of calculating $`f`$, estimate the magnitude of $`v_{L,R}`$ and determine the baryon asymmetry within the situation described before.

## 4 Current status of $`m_\nu `$

The experimental data on neutrino oscillations can be used to derive the neutrino mass matrix . The mixing matrix $`U_L`$ may be parameterized as

$$\begin{array}{c}U_L=U_{\mathrm{CKM}}\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )})\\ =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3\\ s_1s_2c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )}),\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$. The “CKM–phase” $`\delta `$ may be probed in oscillation experiments, as long as the LMA solution is the solution to solar oscillations . The other two “Majorana phases” $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be investigated in neutrinoless double beta decay . The choice of the parameterization in Eq. (14) reflects this fact since the $`ee`$ element of the mass matrix $`_iU_{Lei}^2m_i`$ is only depending on the phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. In a hierarchical scheme, to which we will limit ourselves, there is no constraint on the phases from neutrinoless double beta decay . Thus, we can choose them arbitrarily. The mass eigenstates are given as

$$\begin{array}{c}m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2+m_2^2}\\ m_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2+m_1^2}m_1.\end{array}$$
(15)
The values of $`\theta _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2`$ are known to a good precision, corresponding to maximal mixing $`\theta _2\pi /4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^23\times 10^3`$ eV2. Regarding $`\theta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ three distinct areas in the parameter space are allowed, small (large) mixing, denoted SMA (LMA) and quasi–vacuum oscillations (QVO):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{ SMA: }& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _110^4\mathrm{}10^3,& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^210^6\mathrm{}10^5\mathrm{eV}^2\\ \text{ LMA: }& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _10.1\mathrm{}4,& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^210^5\mathrm{}10^3\mathrm{eV}^2\\ \text{ QVO: }& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _10.2\mathrm{}4,& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^210^{10}\mathrm{}10^7\mathrm{eV}^2\end{array}.$$
(16)
For the last angle $`\theta _3`$ there exists only a limit of about $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3<0.08`$. For a recent three–flavor fit to all available data see .

Note that we have identified the neutrino mixing matrix in Eq. (14) with the matrix $`U_L`$ diagonalizing the neutrino mass matrix Eq. (11). This assumes implicitly that the charged lepton mixing is small. We shall work with this assumption in what follows.

## 5 Determination of $`f`$ and the baryon asymmetry

As mentioned before, we argue that only the top quark gives a sizable contribution to the conventional see–saw formula $`\stackrel{~}{m}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T`$. Identifying $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ with the up quark mass matrix and neglecting mixing among up quarks, the relative magnitude of both terms contributing to $`m_\nu `$ can be written as

$$\frac{|\stackrel{~}{m}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T|}{|m_L|}\frac{m_q^2/v_R}{v_L}\frac{m_q^2}{\gamma M_W^2},$$
(17)
where we only used Eq. (12) and assumed that the matrix elements of $`f`$ and $`f^1`$ are of the same order of magnitude. One sees immediately that only the top quark mass makes the ratio in Eq. (17) of order one. In practically all models  the heaviest mass is the (33) entry of the mass matrix, which means that only the (33) element of $`m_\nu `$ has a contribution from the term $`\stackrel{~}{m}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T`$. The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ may therefore be taken as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_D\mathrm{diag}(0,0,m_t).$$
(18)
There might be a common factor of order 1 for the complete matrix, but in light of the factor $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (12) and the uncertainty in the oscillation parameters we can safely work with this form of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$. Later on we will comment on the dependence of the results on this factor.

It is helpful to repeat the argument with typical numbers. The maximal scale of $`m_\nu `$ is $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2}0.1`$ eV. Then the relations $`v_Lv_R=\gamma M_W^2`$ and $`m_\nu fv_L0.1`$ eV are compatible for $`v_R10^{15}`$ GeV and thus $`v_L0.1`$ eV as long as $`f0.1\mathrm{}1`$. The scale of $`v_Lf`$ is again matched by the factor $`m_t^2/v_R`$. This means that $`v_R`$ is close to the grand unification scale and $`v_L`$ is of order of the neutrino masses, which one expects since $`m_L`$ is the dominating contribution to $`m_\nu `$.

We can now proceed to calculate the contribution to the Yukawa coupling matrix $`f`$ in this situation. Since only the (33) element of $`m_\nu `$ has a contribution from the see–saw term we have

$$f_{ij}=\frac{(m_\nu )_{ij}}{v_L}\text{ for all }i,j\text{ except for }i=j=3.$$
(19)
For the last term we adopt

$$f_{33}=\frac{(m_\nu )_{33}+s}{v_L},$$
(20)
where the parameter $`s`$ denotes the contribution arising from the see–saw term. The parameter is consistently determined by using Eqs. (12,13)

$$s=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_Df^1\stackrel{~}{m}_D^T}{v_R}\right)_{33}=\frac{m_t^2}{v_R}\frac{F_{33}}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{f}}=\frac{m_t^2}{v_R}\frac{F_{33}}{\stackrel{~}{F}+F_{33}f_{33}}$$
(21)
where $`F_{33}=f_{11}f_{22}f_{12}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}=2f_{12}f_{13}f_{23}f_{13}^2f_{22}f_{23}^2f_{11}`$. Using Eq. (20) we can solve for $`s`$ and find

$$s\pm \frac{\sqrt{\gamma }M_Wm_t}{v_R}.$$
(22)
As expected, $`s`$ is of the order of 0.1 to 0.01 eV.

With the matrix $`f`$ now determined completely, we diagonalize it and calculate the baryon asymmetry in the following way. From $`\epsilon `$ the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ is obtained by

$$Y_B=c\kappa \frac{\epsilon }{g^{}},$$
(23)
where $`g^{}110`$ is the effective number of massless degrees of freedom at $`T=M_1`$. The factor $`c`$ indicates the fraction of the lepton asymmetry converted into a baryon asymmetry via the sphaleron processes . It depends on the group structure of the theory and is of order one. For three lepton families and one (also two) Higgs doublets it is approximately equal to $`0.55`$. Finally, $`\kappa `$ is a dilution factor due to lepton–number violating wash–out processes. It can be obtained by integrating the Boltzmann equations and depends strongly on

$$K\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{H(T=M_1)}=\frac{(m_D^{}m_D)_{11}M_1}{8\pi v^2}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{1.66\sqrt{g^{}}M_1^2},$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the width of the lightest Majorana neutrino and $`H(T=M_1)`$ the Hubble constant at the temperature of the decay. $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass. A convenient parameterization is

$$\kappa \{\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{0.1K}\mathrm{exp}(4/3(0.1K)^{0.25})& \text{ for }& K>10^6\\ \frac{0.3}{K\left(\mathrm{ln}K\right)^{0.6}}& \text{ for }& 10<K<10^6\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{K^2+9}}& \text{ for }& 0<K<10\end{array}.$$
(25)
Typically, values for $`\kappa `$ lie in the range of $`10^3`$ to 0.1.

In addition to the decay of the right handed neutrino, the out–of–equilibrium decay of the Higgs triplet has also been considered as possible mechanism for generating lepton asymmetry . This needs CP violation in the Higgs sector and hence an enriched Higgs sector to implement it. For example, the models in  need the presence of two left–handed Higgs triplets as opposed to one triplet considered here. If an asymmetry is produced with several higgs triplets, their subsequent decays it will tend to be erased as long as the triplets are heavier than the lightest right–handed neutrino. This mass pattern happens to be the natural possibility in the present scenario. The mass of the Higgs triplet is given by $`\lambda v_R`$ where $`\lambda `$ is a typical quartic coupling of the Higgs potential. In contrast, the mass of the lightest right–handed neutrino is given within our approximation  by $`M_1\alpha v_R`$, where $`\alpha \frac{m_2s_1^2}{m_3}`$ lies in the range $`(10^310^6)`$, depending upon the chosen solution for the solar neutrino problem. Hence, the triplet will be heavier than the lightest right–handed neutrino as long as the quartic coupling $`\lambda `$ is $`𝒪`$(1). The lepton asymmetry created through triplet will be washed out in this case, according to the usual damping of any preexisting asymmetry. For the above reasons the asymmetry originating from the triplet decay does not contribute to the following numerical analysis.

## 6 Results

The main variables are the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1`$ which specify the solar solution, as given in Eq. (16). Below, we analyze the dependence of $`Y_B`$ on these parameters. It is found that the value of $`\gamma `$ and the sign of $`s`$ do not play a decisive role. Also, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2`$ (varied within $`(3\pm 5)10^3`$ eV2) has little influence on $`Y_B`$. The same is true for changing $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _2`$. The asymmetry decreases (increases) with decreasing (increasing) top quark mass, though not much. For the SMA case the dependence on the phase $`\alpha `$ is not as strong as on the other two phases, whereas it is equally strong for the LMA and QVO case. The conclusions we draw now will be only changed if all these parameters conspire and take rather extreme values within their allowed ranges.

We work now with positive $`s`$ from Eq. (22) and apply maximal atmospheric mixing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_A^2=310^3`$ eV2. The parameter $`\gamma `$ is fixed to one and the top quark mass at 175 GeV. We shall work with $`v_R=10^{15}`$ GeV from which $`v_L`$ and $`s`$ are obtained via Eqs. (12) and (22). We find that $`K`$ from Eq. (24) is always below 10 and thus $`\kappa `$ lies between $`0.17`$ and $`0.05`$. There is practically no dependence on the lightest mass eigenstate $`m_1`$. Fig. 2 shows the behavior of $`Y_B`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ for different $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3`$. One sees that for lower masses the asymmetry decreases. In Fig. 2 we display the dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1`$. The baryon asymmetry decreases with decreasing $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1`$. This dependence is stronger than the one on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. In both plots it is seen that $`Y_B`$ approximately increases with increasing $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3`$.

We analyze next the three distinct solutions to the solar neutrino problem in detail. Fig. 4 shows the SMA case for different values of the parameters. All four combinations yield $`Y_B`$ in the right magnitude and seem to prefer a $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3`$ lower than about $`10^3`$. Fig. 4 shows again that the LMA case results in a very high asymmetry. Here, fine–tuning of the parameters, specifically the $`CP`$ violating phases is required to get a $`Y_B`$ within its experimental limits. It is also seen that $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1>1`$ gives a smaller asymmetry than $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1<1`$. The QVO case, displayed in Fig. 5, might also produce an acceptable asymmetry. Note the different choice of the phases in this plot and Fig. 2. We note that the latest SuperKamiokande data seems to favor the LMA solution , using however a two–flavor analysis. For a more definitive conclusion additional data has to be waited for.

All our results are based on identifying $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ with the up quark mass matrix and retaining only the top quark contribution. The importance of the ordinary see–saw contribution will be less in any other models in which the largest scale of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_D`$ is set by a fermion mass other than the top quark, i.e. the bottom quark mass. In the extreme case of completely neglecting the ordinary see–saw contribution, one will have $`U_R=U_L`$ and $`M_{Ri}=\frac{v_R}{v_L}m_i`$. In this case, the lepton asymmetry will be completely controlled by the left–handed neutrino masses and mixings as well as the ratio $`\frac{v_R}{v_L}`$. Thus, unlike in the present case, the results will be sensitive to the value of $`m_1`$ which has to be less than or similar to the solar scale. We have checked that the required asymmetry can be generated in this case with a proper choice of $`m_1`$.

It is instructive to see the dependence of some other models on the solar solution. Models based on $`SO(10)`$ were used e.g. in  where it was found that only the QVO solution gives acceptable baryon asymmetry. A slightly different analysis in  finds that also the SMA case gives an acceptable asymmetry. This solution has also been favored in the models presented in , which all use quite different symmetries. The LMA solution, which we disfavor, has been shown to be the only solution producing an acceptable $`Y_B`$ in , using $`SU(5)`$ inspired mass matrices. We stress again that the main difference to the present paper lies in the fact that the left–handed Higgs triplet plays a dominant role in producing the light neutrino mass matrix. Once one solution for the solar oscillation is established, more definite statements about the symmetry relations can be made, which is an important by–product of the analysis of relations between leptogenesis and neutrino oscillations.

## 7 Conclusion

Using very general properties of left–right symmetric theories we connected the light left–handed neutrino sector as measured in neutrino oscillations with heavy right–handed neutrinos, whose decay is responsible for the baryon asymmetry of the universe. Identifying the Dirac mass matrix with the up quark mass matrix we found that only the top quark has a significant contribution to the neutrino mass matrix. The main contribution to $`m_\nu `$ comes from the left–handed triplet, which is neglected in most papers dealing with this subject. In our scenario, the SMA and QVO case yield in reasonable asymmetry, whereas the LMA solution produces an asymmetry which is too high.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by the “Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie”, Bonn under contract No. 05HT1PEA9. Financial support from the Graduate College “Erzeugung und Zerf$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$lle von Elementarteilchen” at Dortmund university is gratefully acknowledged (W.R.). W.R. wishes to thank the Universita degli studi di Pisa where the final stages of this work were performed. A.S.J. acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and thanks his colleagues for their hospitality at the University of Dortmund.