text:
# Efficient Switching and Domain Interlocking Observed in Polyaxial Ferroelectrics

## I Introduction

Ferroelectric materials are attracting much interest because of their potential use as non-volatile computer memories . However, the physical processes that lead to degradation effects, such as fatigue and imprint, are still incompletely understood and represent significant barriers to the development of ferroelectric devices. Ferroelectric fatigue appears as a gradual reduction of the switchable polarization with time, whereas imprint occurs when one polarization direction requires a larger coercive field than does the reverse polarization. It is clear that fatigue is due, in part, to the suppressed motion of domain boundaries, which inhibits the polarization reversal processes. The link between the increased density of unswitchable domains and fatigue has been established by direct observation using atomic force microscopy . Several contributions to the degradation of ferroelectric capacitors have been identified, leading to the development of improved devices ; these include charge accumulation near the electrodes , and electromigration of extrinsic pinning centers such as charged defects  and oxygen vacancies .

In this paper, we present in-situ transmission electron microscope (TEM) observations on single crystal $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ which indicate that domain wall motion can be inhibited in homogeneous polyaxial ferroelectrics. Our studies are conducted at temperatures much less than the Curie temperature in electric fields that are well below the nominal coercive value. In our experiments, the ferroelectrics are freestanding and are not clamped by any support material. The observed domain configurations are robust to mechanical tapping, and in the absence of an electric field, are stable for long periods of time. No spontaneous nucleation is observed, implying that switching is dominated by domain wall motion.

The switching pressure on a domain wall is given by the difference in free energy of small regions either side of the wall. We observe that in a polyaxial ferroelectric, where many different domain wall orientations can occur, not all domains of a given polarization are equally switchable under a fixed electric field. In particular, if the field direction is reversed, the domain response changes. Although elastic interactions are clearly important in the energetics of switching, this observed behavior cannot be explained by piezoelectric interactions alone, since at equilibrium the strain energy depends only on even orders of the polarization and is not very sensitive to changes in wall domain orientation and electric field direction. By contrast, the electrostatic energy difference, $`(𝑷_2𝑷_1)𝑬`$, across a wall bordering domains of polarization $`𝑷_1`$ and $`𝑷_2`$ is affected by the field direction. Consequently, not all walls are equally mobile. Therefore, in a polyaxial ferroelectric, not all domains of a given polarization are equally switchable under an applied electric field.

In this paper we explain our results phenomenologically in terms of the electrostatic energy contributions. Although elastic energies are clearly important, they alone cannot explain the observed neighbor-dependent switching efficiency of domains. This implies an inherent distribution of coercive fields for domain switching. Our results suggest that polyaxial ferroelectrics are vulnerable to any redistribution of domain size and configuration with cycle time that leads to an increase in density of the most inhibited domain configurations. We discuss the implications for fatigue and imprint in polyaxial ferroelectrics.

## II Experimental Results

In-situ TEM studies of ferroelectrics provide an opportunity to observe extended areas of domain structure at high resolution while simultaneously modifying external parameters . Here we report results from observations of freestanding single-crystal potassium niobate $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$, noting that we have seen similar phenomena in single-crystal barium titanate $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$. All experiments were performed in a Hitachi H9000-NAR TEM at 300 kV at room temperature, well below the Curie temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The samples were mounted in a custom-modified Gatan single-tilt holder that allowed application of electric fields to the sample during observation. In the absence of electric fields, domain configurations are stable to mechanical handling. Experimental details have been reported elsewhere .

Figure 1 shows micrographs of an area of thin $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$, viewed along one of the principal pseudo-cubic $`100`$ axes, before and after application of an electric field. Prior to acquiring this pair of micrographs, the specimen was subjected to approximately ten field cyclings, and thus Fig. 1a does not represent a virgin state. The in-plane direction of the electric field, as determined by the electrode geometry, is indicated. There is also a vertical (i.e. into the page) component of the field. The amplitude of the field in this region is estimated to be $`<0.2`$ V.$`\mu `$m-1. As frequently happens in these domain switching experiments, the region of interest moved rapidly out of the field of view when the electric field was applied. Consequently, this leaves us with just the before and after views. Those domain walls that are aligned edge-on to the viewing direction show up as dark thin lines primarily because of diffraction contrast caused by shear strain across the boundary. Although $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ can support many types of domain wall structure, the area shown in Fig. 1 is dominated by $`90^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ domain walls, which are the most common. Initially (Fig. 1a) we observe many needle-like $`90^{}`$ domain walls that are pinned at their tips by a third domain orientation; by $`90^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ we refer to the approximate relative angle between polarization vectors, $`𝑷_1`$ and $`𝑷_2`$, adjacent to a given boundary. The polarization charge surface density, $`\sigma =𝚫𝑷_{}=(𝑷_1𝑷_2)\widehat{𝒏}`$, associated with a domain wall is zero if the normal component of the polarization, $`𝑷\widehat{𝒏}`$, is continuous across the interface. Here, $`\widehat{𝒏}`$ is the unit vector normal to the wall into domain $`𝑷_2`$. Curvature in domain boundaries inevitably implies discontinuities in $`𝑷\widehat{𝒏}`$ across parts of the boundary, resulting in non-uniformly charged walls and the possibility of increased mobility under an applied electric field, $`𝑬`$. We note that in both $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ the observed domain patterns are stable to mechanical perturbations and to thermal cycling within the ferroelectric phase , indicating that ferroelastic effects do not dominate the observed domain behavior. The weak, but observable, contrast at both the $`90^{}`$ and charge-neutral $`180^{}`$ domain walls is confirmed by standard multislice TEM image simulations .

In Figs. 1c(d) we delineate the relevant domain boundaries observed in the micrographs, along with the associated polarization directions and boundary charges. Selected area diffraction confirms the orientation of the polarization axes to within an ambiguity of $`\pm 180^{}`$. For consistency with the known electric field direction, we associate positive charge with the curved domain boundaries $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$ whereas the straight interfaces along the diagonal wall are neutral. This interpretation is confirmed by temporary application of a weak electric field, as displayed in Figs. 1b and 1d (the field is switched off in Fig. 1d). Here we observe that curved boundaries and associated tips have moved, whereas the neutral $`180^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$ interfaces (e.g. $`B_1`$) have undergone little change, suggesting that an applied electric field has maximum effect on curved and tilted walls. We have micrographs of qualitatively similar field-induced domain behavior in $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$, although the details of needle shape and relative abundance of $`90^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$ walls are different.

## III Discussion

Domain walls can minimize electrostatic energy by maintaining continuity of the normal component of polarization $`𝑷\widehat{𝒏}`$ across the wall. This condition ensures zero polarization charge density on the wall and consequently no local contribution to the depolarization field. However, if the domain wall were tilted by an angle $`\theta `$ relative to the ideal angle (see Figure 2) then a charge density $`\sigma `$ is developed. Ignoring small corrections due to deviations from true cubic symmetry, the surface charge density at $`90^{}`$ domains (Fig. 2a) is $`\sigma _{90}=\sqrt{2}P\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and at $`180^{}`$ domains (Fig. 2b) is $`\sigma _{180}=2P\mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

We observe experimentally in $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ that domain wall curvature and tilt often occurs when perpendicular sets of $`90^{}`$ domains intersect. Such tip curvature can result from a competition between minimization of the electrostatic energy ($`U_E\sigma ^2𝑑A`$) and conservation of polarization charge ($`Q\sigma 𝑑A`$) at the interrupted domain tip. We illustrate this point in Figure 3 for the simplest case of planar polarization. Figure 3a shows a sketch of two $`90^{}`$ domain orientations $`A`$ and $`B`$ where a third, $`C`$, is contained in $`B`$. The interface between $`A`$ and $`C`$ is a $`180^{}`$ tilted ($`\theta 45^{}`$) wall with polarization charge density $`\sigma \sqrt{2}P`$ per unit area. Naturally this charge density can be eliminated if all of $`C`$ transforms into $`B`$. The positive polarization charge then will flow to the opposite tip of domain $`C`$ (or, conversely, negative polarization charge could flow from the opposite tip, with the same end result), and the polarization component $`B`$ increases. The electrostatic energy of the configuration in Fig. 3a can be lowered, while preserving approximately the total polarization, by curving the interfaces enclosing $`C`$. The resulting non-uniform charge density reduces $`U_E`$ and involves a redistribution of the boundaries between $`B`$ and $`C`$. Alternatively, the wall between $`A`$ and $`C`$ can also tilt through $`45^{}`$ (Fig. 3c), resulting in a zero polarization charge density, $`\sigma =𝚫𝑷_{}=(𝑷_1𝑷_2)\widehat{𝒏}=0`$, everywhere. To accomplish such domain wall restructuring, with zero charge at the interfaces, a negative polarization charge must flow in from the left and right boundaries. The development of this charge-neutral pattern requires motion of the boundaries between $`A`$ and $`B`$. The relative importance of these configurations depends on the energetic barriers between the different polarization domains $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$, and here elastic effects could play an important role.

In multicomponent ferroelectrics, the spontaneous polarization is accompanied by a local deformation which, for simplicity, we do not treat directly in the present discussion. Similar needle-like domain structures to those discussed here (see Figure 3b) also arise in ferroelastics  and martensitics  due to competition between topological and long-range elastic effects. In the context of ferroelectrics we emphasize the polarization charge associated with such configurations, since this charge is crucial towards understanding their field-induced response.

Under an applied electric field $`𝑬`$, domains switch so as to reduce the polarization energy, $`U_P=𝑷𝑬`$. However, at temperatures well below the Curie temperature, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, there is a barrier to switching. Above the coercive field, this barrier disappears and switching occurs effortlessly. Our in-situ data, however, is acquired at fields well below the theoretical coercive field, and indicates that switching is dominated by domain wall motion rather than by spontaneous domain creation. The switching pressure on the wall separating two domains with polarizations $`𝑷_1`$ and $`𝑷_2`$ is given by $`(𝑷_2𝑷_1)𝑬`$. This pressure is dependent on field direction, and can be zero. In the micrographs of Figure 1, the fact that the domain walls at A1, A2 etc. are curved and tilted indicates that those parts of the wall are moving. These walls therefore, must be experiencing higher switching pressures than the straight walls, suchas those at B1.

In the appendix, we present a simple isotropic Landau-Ginsburg Free energy analysis of a tilted $`180^{}`$ domain wall that is subjected to applied field. The analysis confirms that there are two effects caused by wall tilt, both of which increase the wall mobility under an applied electric field. First, the polarization energy term $`𝑷𝑬`$ is enhanced by a factor $`1+g(\theta )`$. This enhancement counteracts the reduction in local $`𝑷`$ caused by the depolarization field. Consequently, the pressure term $`\left(1+g(\theta )\right)𝑷𝑬`$ is approximately independent of angle and roughly equal to $`𝑷_0𝑬`$ at all wall tilt angles $`\theta `$, as expected. The second is that the effective Curie temperature is lowered, which means that the switching barrier height $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{barrier}}`$, which is of the order of $`k_\mathrm{B}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}(\theta )`$, is lowered. Untilted, charge-neutral, walls have the highest barriers to switching. Realistically, depolarization fields will be screened at large length-scales, particularly in thin films, but will continue to influence the polarizations adjacent to the wall under study.

The preceding free energy argument provides insight into the field-induced motion of needle-like domains such as those shown in Fig. 1b(d). The curved tip of the needle supports a polarization charge that increases with tilt and is maximum at the horizontal wall of the tip (where $`\theta =90^{}`$, with $`\theta _1=0^{}`$). In the absence of an electric field, the switching barrier at the tip is reduced compared with the uncharged needle sides. Consequently, the effective coercive field at the tip is lower than that of the flat sides. Under an applied field, the tip moves first, since the electrostatic pressure is approximately constant over the wall, and the barrier is lowest at the polarization-charged tip. It is believed that domain walls are unstable under finite electrostatic pressure , and ripples can appear. In order for the needle to retract, the tip must transfer its charge to lower parts of the wall. Most likely, the tip achieves this charge transfer by emitting a series of charged ripples which flow along the wall . These ripples can propagate because the local charge at the ripple increases the local wall angle, concomitantly reducing the local switching barrier and increasing the local switching pressure. Locally, after the ripple has passed, the wall has moved sideways thus increasing the volume of polarization energetically favored by the applied field. From another perspective, these charge ripples result from local nucleation events at domain walls, and a number of experiments suggest that lateral domain motion is controlled by these processes . In particular, the measured exponential field-dependence of the wall velocity gives strong support to this scenario .

We now apply this understanding to the data shown in Figure 1. Figure 4 illustrates schematically an interlocked domain system in a similar orientation to that observed in Fig. 1. Three out of the four possible in-plane polarization directions are present. Domains A, B and C have the same polarization, with A and B forming vertical needles bordering $`90^{}`$ domains D, E and F, whereas C forms a horizontal needle bordered by $`90^{}`$ domains G and H, which have antiparallel polarization to D, E and F. Domains antiparallel to A, B and C are not present. In this diagram the electric field moves positive charge from top to bottom, and this flow is represented here as ripples of polarization charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_\mathrm{D}`$ along the diagonal domain wall labeled 1–2–3–4–5. Charge flows from the upper left corner until it reaches the tip of domain A (region 2 in Fig. 4a). Domain A presents two additional domain wall surfaces along which charge flow can branch. Domain A cannot detach until a minimum charge has been accumulated (Fig. 4b), which is proportional to its width $`W`$. In addition, the charge accumulating near the tip 2 will generate a local depolarizing field which may act to decrease the flow of polarization current along the diagonal wall.

Once domain A detaches, and its tip region 2 begins to retract (Fig. 4c), it carries a fixed polarization charge. The end of domain A transforms into a pointed tip in order to spread the fixed polarization charge $`Q=\sigma 𝑑A`$ over a larger surface area so as to reduce the charge density, $`\sigma `$, and hence the electrostatic energy, $`U_E\sigma ^2𝑑A`$. The charged ripples from the electrode now continue along the diagonal wall, 1–3–4–5, to the tip of domain B (region 3 in Fig. 4d). The walls between domains B and G, and B and H, can support positive charge ripples which would shrink B. However, there is no driving force to propagate such ripples since the pressure on the wall $`(𝑷_\mathrm{G}𝑷_\mathrm{B})𝑬0`$. There is no energy reduction obtained by switching B. Consequently, the charge flows past B, moving its tip 3 by an amount equal to the ripple height, but leaving the tip shape unaffected. The charge ripple moves on to domain C (Figs. 4e and 4f), which subsequently behaves similarly to domain A. In the meantime, the tip of domain A has been retracting at a constant rate due to electrostatic pressure from the electrodes.

Although A, B and C have equivalent polarization orientations, it is clear that they are not equally mobile. The curved tip of A can move parallel to the field in order to reduce the total polarization energy of the system, whereas the motion of B would be perpendicular to the field, with no reduction in overall energy. There is no switching force on the wall separating B and G. The B/G and B/H walls are intrinsically inhibited by the environment of domain B. B can only reduce its energy by switching to the orientation of domain E at its tip, and that switching rate is governed by the motion of the wall 1–2–3–4–5. Such intrinsically domain-interlocked configurations can reduce the amount of switchable polarization. We note that nonlinear field effects can induce boundary polarization charge , supporting the observation that periodic high-field pulses relieve ferroelectric fatigue . We have observed that fine-scale domain fingering patterns move faster than larger ones, consistent with the notion of curvature-dependent charge densities. Current theories of ferroelectric switching times assume geometrically-independent domain velocities ; the observations here clearly point to the limitations of such approaches.

The sign and direction of the charge ripples in a particular domain configuration are important. Figure 5a depicts the same region as in Figure 4a, under the same electric field, but this time the diagonal wall is carrying negative charge in the opposite direction, 5–4–3–2–1. Following a similar reasoning as that for Fig. 4, we find that the principal difference in behavior is that in Figure 4, domain A detaches first, whereas in Figure 5, domain C detaches first. For different domain configurations and field orientations, the asymmetry in field response could be quite large, and thus might be an inherent contribution to imprint.

The illustrative example described above shares many similarities with the domain wall behavior observed in Figure 1. The domains $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are analogous to domain $`A`$ in Figure 4; similarly $`B_1`$ is analogous to $`B`$ and $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are analogous to $`C`$. The domains $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ have retracted the furthest under the field, whereas $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ have traveled the least distance. $`B_1`$ is relatively unaffected by the field. The position of the five tips is consistent with $`A_1`$ having detached first, followed by $`A_2`$ etc. and with subsequent uniform field-induced tip motion. The switching rate of $`B_1`$ is determined entirely by the charge flow along the diagonal wall through its tip, and is therefore an indirect multi-step process.

Charge ripples play a loosely analogous role to that of dislocations in the plastic deformation of crystals, where it is considerably easier to propagate a single dislocation over a slip plane, than it is to shear a whole region of the crystal over the same plane in one movement. The end result is the same, but the barrier to dislocation motion along the slip plane is significantly lower and is therefore much more likely to occur.

Our observations demonstrate that the switchability of an unsupported ferroelectric depends on the distribution of domain orientations and their widths. More specifically, the charge threshold required for the field-induced depinning of a domain is proportional to its width, so domains of the type A and C in Figure 4 retract and hence switch more readily than their wider counterparts. By contrast, a domain of type B in Figure 4, identical in polarization orientation to that of A and C, requires multi-step switching processes since the polarization orientations of its neighbors make direct switching energetically unfavorable. The switchability of a particular domain then depends not only on the specifics of its own polarization orientation, but also on its possible final states as defined by its adjacent polarizations. We also note that there is an anisotropy in the intrinsic switching mechanism described here. In Figure 4 if the field were applied parallel to the diagonal wall, i.e. from the upper left to the lower right, then the relative mobility of domains A, B and C changes. Some crystal orientations will be less vulnerable to inhibition of domain switching. This conclusion is consistent with recent experiments which exhibit fatigue anisotropy in single-crystal ferroelectrics . It follows from our model that if the electric field were to be rotated 90, the roles of mobile and jammed domains would reverse. If the field were applied from right to left in Figure 4, domain B would form a negatively charged mobile tip which would retract to the right. A, C, D, E and F are now the interlocked domains. This suggests that the periodic application of a perpendicular field would provide a method for flushing out domain-locked regions in a fatigued polyaxial ferroelectric. Earlier experiments on thin films of fatigued lead zirconate titanate show that unfatigued ferroelectric properties are indeed measured when the applied electric field is changed by $`90^{}`$ .

It is well-known that the experimental coercive field is significantly lower than the predicted theoretical value . As we have shown, a tilted wall has a reduced coercive field compared to its untilted counterpart because of the associated depolarization field. The relevant angles to consider are not the static wall tilt angles observed in our micrographs. Instead, they are the angles adopted by the propagating charge ripples. We expect that these field-dependent angles could be large, since the ability of the charged ripple to propagate requires a highly reduced switching barrier. We have not observed such charge ripples directly in our experiments, since they move rapidly and could be of small amplitude, and so we can not make a quantitative analysis of this contribution. However, it is clear that domain walls do not move as rigid structures, and that therefore polarization charges are necessarily involved in domain wall motion.

Many models of ferroelectric fatigue involve the electromigration of extrinsic pinning centers that suppress domain motion and hence polarization reversal . In zero-applied field we frequently observe domain walls entangled with dislocations, such as shown in Figure 6. Curved and tilted domain walls can attract migrating charged defects electrostatically to neutralize their surface charges. Our studies indicate that these needle-like domains are highly mobile in an applied field, and can move towards extrinsic charge centers that are essentially stationary on the appropriate short time-scale .

The different domain behaviors we observe in our experiments are definitely not elastic stress-related phenomena, since our samples are freestanding single crystals. The electrodes are not in intimate contact with the regions being observed. Domain clamping by electrodes , although crucially important in epitaxially grown ferroelectric systems, does not occur in our experiments. Stresses are indeed present in our samples. The tip structures labeled 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 4a, are similar for both mobile and immobile needles, and resemble the charge-neutral conformation shown in Figure 3c. As in ferroelastics, there can be large stresses associated with such triple domain junctions However, such stresses are qualitatively similar for all tip structures, regardless of domain orientation with respect to the applied electric field, and can not explain the difference in their field-induced mobility. We expect that the domain behavior we observe is characteristic of a ferroelectric system that is not mechanically clamped. Examples would be polycrystalline films, and films with low Young’s modulus contact electrodes, such as liquids and some conducting oxides.

## IV Conclusions

We have presented evidence, using in-situ transmission microscopy on freestanding $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ samples, that in a polyaxial ferroelectric not all domains of a given polarization orientation are equally switchable in low applied fields. Angled and curved domain walls are abundant, and often occur when perpendicular sets of $`90^{}`$ intersect. We can understand the observed domain configurations as resulting from a competition between the minimization of the electrostatic energy and conservation of the polarization charge. In our experiments, domain switching occurs as a fluid, non-rigid, wall motion and all observed domain patterns are stable to mechanical tapping. Spontaneous domain creation is never observed at fields well below the coercive field. The switching efficiency of a particular domain is determined by its allowed final states which are defined by its neighbors. If the relative energetics are unfavorable, switching will be inhibited. Such domain interlocking results in a reduction of the switchable volume in the sample, and provides an inherent contribution to degradation effects in polyaxial ferroelectrics. The sequential depinning of domain needle tips that we observe in $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ under applied electric fields, reveals that polarization charge must be flowing along domain walls that are experiencing an electrostatic switching pressure. Polarization charge ripples facilitate domain switching in a manner roughly analogous to the role played by dislocations in crystal slip.

Mobile needle-like domains retract in applied fields because of the reduced switching barriers at the tips. Inhibited domains have an environment that energetically prohibits the formation of a charged tip and thus require indirect switching processes. Rotation of the direction of the applied electric field through $`90^{}`$ should free such inhibited domains. In addition, complex interactions with mobile extrinsic charges can further inhibit the retraction of intrinsically charged needles. Such processes could contribute to a reduction in the dipolar screening charge flowing in the external circuit to the electrodes, and thus could contribute to ferroelectric fatigue and possibly imprint.

Domain interlocking is less likely to occur in ferroelectrics with reduced degrees of polarization freedom. We expect that ferroelectric fatigue will be greatly diminished in materials with a single preferred polarization axis, possibly induced by application of stress or field.

We thank S. Bhattacharya, J. D. Chadi and J. F. Scott for stimulating discussions.

## V Appendix

Impact of wall tilt on switching barrier and switching pressure.

We examine the simple isotropic Landau-Ginsburg free energy of a freestanding ferroelectric region close to a $`180^{}`$ domain wall that is tilted from the charge-neutral orientation by an angle $`\theta `$.

Figure 7a shows a model ferroelectric capacitor with a $`180^{}`$ domain wall perpendicular to the electrodes. The wall has been sheared slightly such that, near the middle of the wall, a small region has tilted through an angle $`\theta `$. Far from the wall, the polarizations in each domain are $`\pm 𝑷_0`$, parallel and antiparallel to the electrode normals. A surface polarization charge develops at the tilted wall region. However, the charge at the wall is not simply $`\sigma =2P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. There is a depolarization field $`𝑬_\mathrm{w}=E_\mathrm{w}\widehat{𝒏}`$ associated with the wall charge, that depolarizes the local polarizations to $`𝑷_1=\pm (𝑷_0+\mathrm{\Delta }𝑷)`$. Assigning $`\widehat{𝒏}`$ to be the unit vector along the tilted wall normal, the self-consistent surface charge $`\sigma _\mathrm{w}`$ at the wall is,

$`\sigma _\mathrm{w}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(𝑷_0+\mathrm{\Delta }𝑷\right)\left(+𝑷_0+\mathrm{\Delta }𝑷\right)\right]\widehat{𝒏}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`2𝑷_0\widehat{𝒏}2ϵ_0\chi E_\mathrm{w}\widehat{𝒏}\widehat{𝒏}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`2P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta 2ϵ_0\chi E_\mathrm{w}.`$ (3)
The electric field $`E_\mathrm{w}`$ is also related to the surface charge $`\sigma _\mathrm{w}`$ by

$$E_\mathrm{w}=\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{w}}{2ϵϵ_0}.$$
(4)
The field is of opposite sign in each domain, and can be considered constant out to a distance equal to the wall length, i.e. within the cylindrical region shown in Figure 7b.

Substituting for $`E_\mathrm{w}`$ into equation (3) gives

$$\sigma _\mathrm{w}=\frac{2P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1+\chi /ϵ}P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta $$
(5)
and

$$E_\mathrm{w}=\frac{P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta }{ϵϵ_0\left(1+\chi /ϵ\right)}\frac{P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2ϵϵ_0}.$$
(6)
Thus, in the limit of large $`ϵ`$, the depolarization field $`E_\mathrm{w}`$ acts to reduce the wall charge to about half of its nominal value, $`2P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The depolarization field results in the local polarization vectors being tilted away from the wall by an amount $`\theta _1`$. $`\theta _1`$ is found from the triangle defined by $`𝑷_0`$, $`𝑷_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝑷`$ in Figure 7b, from which we get the sine rule relations

$$\frac{P_0}{\mathrm{cos}(\theta \theta _1)}=\frac{P_1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{\chi P_1\mathrm{sin}(\theta \theta _1)}{ϵ\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}$$
(7)
which give

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}(\theta \theta _1)\frac{ϵ}{\chi }\mathrm{sin}\theta _1=0.$$
(8)
There is an additional volume charge that appears away from the domain wall. Far from the tilted wall, the polarization returns to the bulk value $`𝑷_0`$. The associated $`\mathbf{}𝑷`$ gives rise to a volume polarization charge. The total volume charge is equivalent to the charge “missing” from the wall due to depolarization, thus the total wall plus volume charge equals $`2P_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ times the tilted wall area.

An additional complication is imposed by the equipotential boundary conditions at the electrodes. These boundary conditions are equivalent to creating mirror images of the charged region. We have assumed that the multipole contributions to the local field can be ignored.

The surface charge density on a wall of fixed tilt is independent of the electric field, and equal to $`\sigma =2𝑷_1\mathrm{sin}(\theta \theta _1)`$. This can be rewritten in terms of the local polarization $`𝑷`$ as $`\sigma =2|𝑷ϵ_0\chi 𝑬|\mathrm{sin}(\theta \theta _1)`$ (see Figure 7b). ($`𝑷`$ = $`𝑷`$L or $`𝑷`$R depending on which domain we are considering.) Incorporating the depolarization energy, $`U_\mathrm{W}=\frac{1}{2}ϵϵ_0E_\mathrm{w}^2`$ into a standard Landau-Ginsburg free energy expansion, we obtain for the regions either side of a tilted $`180^{}`$ domain wall

$$F\frac{1}{2}\alpha \left[T\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}(\theta )\right]P^2+\frac{\beta }{4}P^4+\frac{1}{6}\gamma P^6\left[1+g(\theta )\right]𝑷𝑬+\frac{1}{2}\mu \xi ^2\left(\mathbf{}𝑷\right)^2$$
(9)
where the reduced effective Curie temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}(\theta )`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}(\theta )=T_\mathrm{c}g(\theta )/ϵϵ_0\alpha `$, with $`g(\theta )=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta \theta _1)`$. Since the regions of interest are just either side of the domain wall, at a distance much closer than the characteristic length scale $`\xi `$ for depolarization field gradients, the last term is essentially negligible.

From this simple isotropic analysis, it emerges that one effect of wall tilt on a $`180^{}`$ domain is to reduce the barrier to switching by decreasing the effective Curie temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}(\theta )`$ of domain regions close to the tilted wall. In addition, the term corresponding to the electrostatic pressure on the wall is enhanced by a factor $`\left[1+g(\theta )\right]`$. This enhancement has the effect of maintaining an approximately constant electrostatic pressure $`2𝑷_0𝑬`$ on the tilted wall, despite the fact that the local polarization $`𝑷`$1 is reduced by the depolarization field.

The expression for the effective Curie temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{c}=T_\mathrm{c}\eta g(\theta )`$, where $`\eta =1/ϵϵ_0\alpha `$ ($`4\pi /ϵ\alpha `$ c.g.s.), that emerges from equation (9) indicates that there exists a threshold angle, defined by $`g(\overline{\theta }_\mathrm{T})=(T_\mathrm{c}T)/\eta `$, at each temperature delineating the ferroelectric and paraelectric phases. The presence of $`\overline{\theta }_\mathrm{T}`$ is consistent with our TEM studies, which show typical domain tip angles in $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ of $`\theta _\mathrm{B}^{}=5\pm 1.4^{}`$ and in $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$ of $`\theta _\mathrm{K}^{}7^{}`$. Noting that $`\eta =C/ϵ`$, where $`C`$ is the Curie constant, we find using standard values  for $`C`$ and $`ϵ`$ for $`\mathrm{BaTiO}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{KNbO}_3`$, that $`\eta _\mathrm{K}<\eta _\mathrm{B}`$; thus the observation that $`\theta _\mathrm{K}^{}>\theta _\mathrm{B}^{}`$ is consistent with our expectations from this phenomenological approach .

The coercive field, $`E_\mathrm{c}(\theta )`$, required to move a tilted $`180^{}`$ domain wall varies with $`\theta `$ as

$$E_\mathrm{c}(\theta )=\frac{E_\mathrm{c}(0)}{\left[1+g(\theta )\right]}\left[1\frac{\eta g(\theta )}{T_\mathrm{c}T\eta g(\theta )}\right]^{3/2}.$$
(10)
Since $`0g(\theta )1`$, $`g(\theta )`$ acts to reduce $`E_\mathrm{c}(\theta )`$ locally. Again, there exists a threshold angle at each temperature, $`\overline{\theta }_E<\overline{\theta }_T`$ defined by $`g(\overline{\theta }_E)=(T_\mathrm{c}T)/2\eta `$, above which there is field-induced switching. This angular dependence could provide a major contribution to the spread in coercive fields observed in standard hysteresis loops.

A more complete free energy expression would incorporate anisotropy in both the polarization and stress fields. Such refinements are important for modeling the detailed behavior and shape of domain needles in different materials. Strain energy is particularly important for materials supported on stiff substrates where domain clamping effects dominate. Isotropic elastic strain fields are long-range and, unlike the electric fields, can not be screened. They are expected to increase switching barriers overall , but should not affect the angular dependencies discussed here. Clearly, they will not affect the electrostatic pressure. In our experiments, the ferroelectrics are freestanding and are not clamped by any support material. Further, the initial tip structures are similar for both mobile and immobile needles (i.e. Domains A and C versus domain B in figure 1). Elastic constraints caused by tip stresses are expected to be similar for all these domains, and therefore can not explain the different domain behaviors in the isotropic limit. Thus the simplified isotropic treatment presented here is adequate for understanding the underlying physical insights revealed by our data.


format: text

text:
# Antitrace maps and light transmission coefficients for a generalized Fibonacci multilayers

## Abstract

By using antitrace map method, we investigate the light transmission for a generalized Fibonacci multilayers. Analytical results are obtained for transmission coefficients in some special cases. We find that the transmission coefficients possess two-cycle property or six-cycle property. The cycle properties of the trace and antitrace are also obtained.

The transmission of light through the multilayers arranged by the Fibonacci, non-Fibonacci sequence, Thue-Morse sequence, and the generalized Thue-Morse sequence was studied in the literature. Schwartz suggested a possibility of quasiperiodic multilayers as optical switches and memories. Huang et al and Yang et al have found an interesting switch-like property in the light transmission through Fibonacci-class sequences.

On the other hand, the trace-map technique, first introduced in 1983, has proven to be a powerful tool to investigate the properties of various aperiodic systems. However, as pointed by Dulea et al, we must know the so-called “antitrace map” when we evaluate the light transmission coefficients through aperoidic sequences. Here, the so-called “antitrace” of a $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{11}& A_{12}\\ A_{21}& A_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
is defined as $`y=A_{21}A_{12}`$. Recently we have given a detailed study on the antitrace maps for various aperiodic systems and shown that the antitrace maps exist for arbitrary substitution sequences.

In this paper, we use the antritrace map method to evaluate the transmission coefficients through a generalized Fibonacci sequence. Its substitution rule is

$$ba,aa^nb.$$
(2)
Now we consider that the light transmit vertically through the generalized Fibonacci multilayer which is sandwiched by two media of type $`a`$. The corresponding transfer matrices $`A_l`$ are written as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ab}P_bP_{ba},`$ (3)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`P_a,`$ (4)
$`A_{l+1}`$ $`=`$ $`A_l^nA_{l1},`$ (5)
where $`P_{ab}(P_{ba})`$ stands for the propagation matrix from layer $`a(b)`$ to $`b(a)`$ and $`P_a(P_b)`$ is the propagation matrix through single layer $`a(b)`$. They are given by

$`P_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ba}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& n_a/n_b\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
$`P_{a(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\delta _{a(b)}& \mathrm{sin}\delta _{a(b)}\\ \mathrm{sin}\delta _{a(b)}& \mathrm{cos}\delta _{a(b)}\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
where $`\delta _{a(b)}=kn_{a(b)}d_{a(b)}`$, $`n_{a(b)}`$ is the refraction index of media $`a(b)`$, $`d_{a(b)}`$ are the thickness of layers, and $`k`$ is the wave number in vacuum. The quantity $`\delta _{a(b)}`$ is the phase difference between the ends of a layer.

We remark here that the trace and antitrace map of the generalized Fibonacci sequence is identical to that of the Fibonacci-class sequence since they have the same recursion relations for the transfer matrix. However the initial two transfer matrices $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are different.

The transmission coefficient is given by

$$T_l=\frac{4}{|A_l|^2+2},$$
(8)
where $`|A_l|^2`$ is the sum of squares of the four elements of $`A_l`$. Since the transfer matrix is unimodular, we can express the transmission coefficient in the following form

$$T_l=\frac{4}{x_l^2+y_l^2},$$
(9)
where $`x_l`$ and $`y_l`$ denote the trace and antitrace of the transfer matrix $`A_l`$, respectively.

From Eq. (9), we see that the transmission coefficient is completely determined by the trace and antitrace, i.e., a complete description of the light transmission through general aperiodic multilayers requires both the trace and antitrace map.

In the following discussion we need to know the $`n`$th power of a unimodular $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`A`$ , which can be written as

$$A^n=U_n(x_A)AU_{n1}(x_A)I,$$
(10)
where $`I`$ is the unit matrix and

$`U_n(x_A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+^n\lambda _{}^n}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}},`$ (11)
$`\lambda _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_A\pm \sqrt{x_A^24}}{2}}.`$ (12)
Here $`x_A`$ and $`\lambda _\pm `$ denote the trace and the two eigenvalues of $`A`$, respectively.

Using Eq.(10), we can write the recursion relation of the transfer matrix (5) as

$$A_{l+1}=U_n(x_l)A_lA_{l1}U_{n1}(x_l)A_{l1}.$$
(13)
From the above equation, the trace map is easily obtained as

$`x_{l+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_n(x_l)v_lU_{n1}(x_l)x_{l1},`$ (14)
$`v_{l+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{n+1}(x_l)v_lU_n(x_l)x_{l1},`$ (15)
where $`v_l=\text{tr}(A_lA_{l1})`$ is a subsidiary quantity.

In order to study antitrace maps we need the following identity for two unimodular transfer matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$

$$y_{AB}=x_By_A+x_Ay_By_{BA},$$
(16)
where $`y_A`$ denotes the antitrace.

Using the above equantion and Eq. (13), we obtain the antitrace map as

$`y_{l+1}`$ $`=`$ $`U_n(x_l)\overline{w}_lU_{n1}(x_l)y_{l1},`$ (17)
$`\overline{w}_{l+1}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{l+1}y_l+U_{n1}(x_l)\overline{w}_lU_{n2}(x_l)y_{l1}.`$ (18)
Here $`\overline{w}=y_{A_lA_{l1}}`$ is also subsidiary. The trace and antitrace map are completely determined by Eqs. (15) and (18). The forms of trace and antitrace maps are different from that in Refs. and . These forms are easy to be obtained and are convenient for application. If we know the initial conditions, the transmission coefficients can be determined from the trace and antitrace map. Note that the coefficients in Eq.(18) are dependent on the traces of the transfer matrices. We must know the trace map when we make use of the antitrace map.

We choose appropriate thickness of the layers $`d_a`$ and $`d_b`$ to make $`n_ad_a=n_bd_b`$. Then we have $`\delta _a=\delta _b=\delta `$. For $`\delta =(k+1/2)\pi `$, the propagation matrices $`P_{a(b)}`$ become

$`P_a`$ $`=`$ $`P_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
Then from Eqs.(5), (7), and (19) the initial conditions for the trace and antitrace map are obtained as

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (20)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`(R+R^1),`$ (22)
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`R+R^1,`$ (23)
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`2,`$ (24)
$`\overline{w}_2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
where $`R=n_a/n_b`$. The initial conditions depend on a single parameter $`R`$.

Now we classify the generalized Fibonacci sequence into two classes, i.e, the even family with $`n=2m`$ and the odd family with $`n=2m+1`$, m=0,1,2,….

First we consider the even family. From the trace map, the initial conditions and the following property of the function $`U_n(x)`$

$`U_{2m}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,U_{2m+1}(0)=(1)^m,`$ (26)
we see that the trace $`x_l=0`$ for any $`l`$. Therefore the transmission coefficient is only dependent on the antitrace $`y_l`$. From the antitrace map equation and the initial conditions, we obtain the antitrace $`y_l`$ and the transmission coefficients. The result is shown in Table I.

Table I. The antitrace and transmission coefficients for the even family.

| $`l`$ | $`y_l(\text{odd}m)`$ | $`y_l(\text{even}m)`$ | $`T_l`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1`$ | $`R+R^1`$ | $`R+R^1`$ | $`\frac{4}{R^2+R^2+2}`$ |
| $`2`$ | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| $`3`$ | $`(R+R^1)`$ | $`(R+R^1)`$ | $`\frac{4}{R^2+R^2+2}`$ |
| $`4`$ | $`2`$ | 2 | 1 |

We see the antitrace has four-cycle property (odd $`m`$) or two-cycle property (even $`m`$). The transmission coefficients have two-cycle property. For even $`l`$, the transmission coefficient is 1, while for odd $`l`$, the transmission coefficient is $`4/(R^2+R^2+2)`$. Actually from the first line of Eq.(18) and Eq. (26), we obtain

$$y_{l+1}=(1)^my_{l1}.$$
(27)
This leads to Table I immediately.

Next we consider the odd family. From the trace map, antitrace map, and the initial conditions, we obtain Table II.

Table II. The antitrace and transmission coefficients for the odd family. The upper sign refers to even, and the lower sign refers to odd values of $`m`$.

| $`l`$ | $`x_l`$ | $`y_l`$ | $`T_l`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1`$ | 0 | $`R+R^1`$ | $`\frac{4}{R^2+R^2+2}`$ |
| $`2`$ | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| $`3`$ | $`(R+R^1)`$ | 0 | $`\frac{4}{R^2+R^2+2}`$ |
| $`4`$ | 0 | $`(R^n+R^n)`$ | $`\frac{4}{R^{2n}+R^{2n}+2}`$ |
| $`5`$ | 0 | $`\pm (R^{n1}+R^{n+1})`$ | $`\frac{4}{R^{2n2}+R^{2n+2}+2}`$ |
| $`6`$ | $`\pm (R+R^1)`$ | 0 | $`\frac{4}{R^2+R^2+2}`$ |

The trace $`x_l`$, antitrace $`y_l`$ and the transmission coefficients all have six-cycle property. From Table II, we know that the trace and antitrace is not completely same for odd and even $`m`$. They have a sign difference. The trace and antitrace are zero alternatively. We also see that the the transmission coefficient is 1 for $`l=6k+2(k=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, i.e., the light is transparent in this case.

In conclusion, we have studied the light transmission for the generalized Fibonacci sequences by using the antitrace method. The analytical results for the transmission coefficient are obtained in some special cases. The transmission coefficients have two-cycle property for even $`n`$ and six-cycle property for odd $`n`$. The analysis in this paper shows that it is very convenient to use the antitrace map method to evaluate the transmission coefficients. This method can be used not only in the generalized Finonacci sequences, but also in other substitution sequences.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author Xiaoguang Wang thanks for many useful discussions with Dr. Uwe Grimm, Technische Universitaet Chemnitz, Germany.


text:
# Recent developments in the dynamical and unitary isobar models for pion electromagnetic production

## 1 Introduction

Pion photo- and electroproduction reactions are powerful tools to probe the nucleon structure. The most prominent example is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ which decays almost exclusively into $`\pi N`$ channel. The interest there lies in the possibility of observing deformation in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A deformed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would indicate that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contains a D-state and the photon can excite a nucleon through electric $`E2`$ and Coulomb $`C2`$ quardrupole transitions. The study of $`E_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ and $`S_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipoles is expected to shed light on the structure of the nucleon and its first excited state. Recent experiments give a nonvanishing ratio $`R_{EM}=E_{1+}^{(3/2)}/M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ between magnetic dipole $`M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ and electric quadrupole $`E_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ multipoles lying between $`2.5\%`$ and $`3.0\%`$ at $`Q^2=0`$. In addition, the reaction $`p(e,e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ provides us with the possibility of determining the range of photon four-momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$, where perturbative QCD (pQCD) would become applicable. In the limit of $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, pQCD predicts the dominance of helicity-conserving amplitudes and scaling results. The hadronic helicity conservation would have the consequence that $`R_{EM}`$ approaches 1. It is an intriguing question how $`R_{EM}`$ would evolve from a very small negative value at $`Q^2=0`$ to $`+100\%`$ at sufficiently high $`Q^2`$.

Another interesting issue is the $`\pi ^0`$ photo- and electroproduction in the threshold region. At present time chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) is the basic theory for the description of these reactions in this energy region. It predicts a large one pion loop correction to the low energy theorem (LET) value of the $`E_{0+}`$ multipole for the neutral pion photoproduction. On the other hand the role of the one-pion loop correction can be related to the effect of final state interaction (FSI) developed within dynamical models. It is of interest to compare the predictions of these two different approaches.

In this talk, we present the results we have recently obtained with a new version (hereafter called MAID) of the unitary isobar model developed at Mainz, and the dynamical model developed recently in Ref.  (hereafter called Dubna-Mainz-Taipei (DMT) model), both of which give excellent description of most of the existing pion photo- and electroproduction data, on the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition and the $`\pi ^0`$ threshold production.

## 2 Formalism

We start with the description of the basic elements of our models. The main equation for the pion photo- and electroproduction t-matrix is

$`t_{\gamma \pi }(E)=v_{\gamma \pi }+v_{\gamma \pi }g_0(E)t_{\pi N}(E),`$ (1)
where $`t_{\pi N}`$ is the full pion-nucleon scattering matrix with total $`\pi N`$ c.m. energy $`E`$ and $`g_0(E)`$ is the free $`\pi N`$ propagator.

In resonant channels like (3,3), the transition potential $`v_{\gamma \pi }`$ consists of two terms, $`v_{\gamma \pi }(E)=v_{\gamma \pi }^B+v_{\gamma \pi }^R(E),`$ where $`v_{\gamma \pi }^B`$ is the background transition potential and $`v_{\gamma \pi }^R(E)`$ corresponds to the contribution of the bare resonance. The resulting t-matrix can be expressed as a sum of two terms,

$`t_{\gamma \pi }=t_{\gamma \pi }^B+t_{\gamma \pi }^R,`$ (2)
where

$`t_{\gamma \pi }^B=v_{\gamma \pi }^B+v_{\gamma \pi }^Bg_0t_{\pi N},t_{\gamma \pi }^R=v_{\gamma \pi }^R+v_{\gamma \pi }^Bg_0t_{\pi N}.`$ (3)
For physical multipoles in channel $`\alpha =\{l,j\}`$, Eq. (3) gives

$`t_\alpha ^B(q_E,k;E+iϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\delta _\alpha `$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left[v_\alpha ^B(q_E,k)+P{\displaystyle _0^{}}𝑑q^{}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2R_\alpha (q_E,q^{})v_\alpha ^B(q^{},k)}{EE(q^{})}}\right],`$
where $`\delta _\alpha `$ and $`R_\alpha `$ are the $`\pi N`$ scattering phase shift and reaction matrix, in channel $`\alpha `$, respectively; $`q_E`$ is the pion on-shell momentum and $`k=𝐤`$ is the photon momentum. The procedure which we use for the off-shell extrapolation and maintaining the gauge invariance is given in Ref. .

In the new version of MAID, the $`S`$, $`P`$, $`D`$ and $`F`$ waves of the $`t_\alpha ^B`$ amplitude is defined in accordance with the K-matrix approximation

$$t_\alpha ^B(\mathrm{MAID})=\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\delta _\alpha v_\alpha ^B(q,W,Q^2),$$
(5)
where $`WE`$ is the total $`\pi N`$ c.m. energy. From Eqs. (4) and (5), one finds that the difference between the background terms of MAID and DMT models is that pion off-shell rescattering contributions (principal value integral) are not included in the MAID’s background term.

## 3 Pion photo- and electroproduction in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ region

For the resonance contribution $`t_\alpha ^R`$ in Eq. (3), the following Breit-Wigner form is assumed in both models,

$$t_\alpha ^R(W,Q^2)=\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^R(Q^2)\frac{f_{\gamma R}(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }_RM_Rf_{\pi R}(W)}{M_R^2W^2iM_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}e^{i\varphi _R},$$
(6)
where $`f_{\pi R}`$ is the usual Breit-Wigner factor describing the decay of resonance $`R`$ with total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(W)`$ and physical mass $`M_R`$. The phase $`\varphi _R(W)`$ in Eq. (6) is introduced to adjust the phase of $`t_\alpha ^R`$ to have the correct phase $`\delta _\alpha `$.

The main subject of our study in the resonance region is the strengths of the electromagnetic transitions described by amplitudes $`\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^R(Q^2)`$. In general, they are considered as free parameters to be extracted from analysis of the experimental data. In the present talk we will consider only results pertinent to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance. In this case we impose the following parametrization for the electric ($`\alpha =E`$), magnetic ($`\alpha =M`$) and Coulomb ($`\alpha =S`$) amplitudes

$`\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)=X_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }(0){\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_W}}F(Q^2),`$ (7)
where $`k_W=(W^2m_N^2)/2W`$. The form factor $`F`$ is taken to be $`F(Q^2)=(1+\beta Q^2)e^{\gamma Q^2}G_D(Q^2)`$, where $`G_D(Q^2)=1/(1+Q^2/0.71)^2`$ is the usual dipole form factor. The values of $`\overline{𝒜}_M^\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}_E^\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ are obtained by setting $`X_\alpha (0)=1`$ and fitting the pion photoproduction data. The parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ can be determined by setting $`X_M^\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and fitting the $`\overline{𝒜}_M^\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)`$ to the existing data for $`G_M^{}`$ form factor.

Note that the physical meaning of the resonant amplitudes in different models is different. In MAID, background contribution does not contain effects from the off-shell pion rescattering. Instead, they are effectively included in the resonance amplitude and it leads to the dressing of $`\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)`$. Thus, using MAID we can extract information about so the called ”dressed” $`\gamma N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex. However, in the dynamical model the background excitation is included in $`t_\alpha ^B`$ and the electromagnetic vertex $`\overline{𝒜}_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)`$ corresponds to the ”bare” vertex.

We determine the $`Q^2`$ dependence both for $`X_E`$ and $`X_S`$, normalized to 1 at $`Q^2=0`$, from the recent $`p(e,e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ experiment at $`Q^2`$ = 2.8 and 4.0 (GeV/c)2. Note that deviations from $`X_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ value at finite $`Q^2`$ will indicate a violation of the scaling law. The extracted $`Q^2`$ dependence of the $`X_\alpha ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameters is $`X_E^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{MAID})=1Q^2/3.7,X_E^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{DMT})=1+Q^4/2.4,`$ and for the Coulomb $`X_S^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{MAID})=1+Q^6/61,X_S^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{DMT})=1Q^2/0.1`$. The obtained $`R_{EM}`$ and $`R_{SM}=S_{1+}^{(3/2)}/M_{1+}^{(3/2)}`$ ratios are compared with other’s results in Fig. 1. The main difference between our results and those of Ref.  is that our values of $`R_{EM}`$ show a clear tendency to cross zero and change sign as $`Q^2`$ increases. This is in contrast with the results obtained in the original analysis of the data which concluded that $`R_{EM}`$ would stay negative and tends toward more negative value with increasing $`Q^2`$. Furthermore, we find that the absolute value of $`R_{SM}`$ is strongly increasing.

Finally in Fig. 2, we show our results for $`Q^3A_{1/2},Q^5A_{3/2},`$ and $`Q^3S_{1/2}`$ to check the scaling behavior predicted by pQCD: $`A_{1/2}Q^3`$, $`A_{3/2}Q^5`$ and $`S_{1/2}^{(1/2)}Q^3`$. It is interesting to see that both the bare $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`S_{1/2}`$ clearly starts exhibiting the pQCD scaling behavior at about $`Q^22.5(GeV/c)^2`$, while $`A_{3/2}`$ does not. From these results, one might be tempted to speculate that scaling will set in earlier than the helicity conservation as predicted by pQCD.

## 4 Threshold $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction

Let us start with the $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction in the threshold region. Since the reaction can proceed through the $`\pi ^0p`$ and $`\pi ^+n`$ intermediate states, we may write $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction t-matrix as

$`t_{\gamma \pi ^0}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`v_{\gamma \pi ^0}^B+v_{\gamma \pi ^0}^Bg_{\pi ^0p}(E)t_{\pi ^0p\pi ^0p}(E)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`v_{\gamma \pi ^+}^Bg_{\pi ^+n}(E)t_{\pi ^+n\pi ^0p}(E),`$
where $`t_{\pi ^0p\pi ^0p}`$ and $`t_{\pi ^+n\pi ^0p}`$ are the $`\pi N`$ scattering t-matrices for the elastic and charge exchange channels, respectively. They are obtained by solving coupled channels equations for the $`\pi N`$ scattering using meson exchange model. Results obtained in such an exact calculation and without the inclusion of FSI are depicted in Fig. 3 by dash-dotted and dotted curves, respectively. It clearly indicates that FSI effects is very important and brings the results into agreement with the data. We also find that the main FSI contribution (around 99%) comes from the principal value integral contribution in the charge exchange channel.

On the other hand, if the FSI effect is evaluated with the assumption of isospin symmetry (IS), i.e., with averaged masses in the free $`\pi N`$ propagator, then the energy dependence in $`ReE_{0+}`$ near threshold would be smooth as given in the dashed curve of Fig. 3. Below $`\pi ^+`$ threshold the strong energy dependence (cusp effect) appears only due to the pion mass difference and, as mentioned above, it arises mostly from the coupling with the charge exchange channel. In the literature, effects from the pion-mass difference below $`\pi ^+`$ production channel has been taken into account using K-matrix approach,

$`ReE_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^0}=ReE_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^0}(IS)a_{\pi N}\omega _cReE_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^+}(IS)\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _c}}},`$ (9)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\omega _c`$ are the $`\pi ^+`$ c.m. energies corresponding to the $`W=E_p+E_\gamma `$ and $`W_c=m_n+m_{\pi ^+}`$, respectively. $`a_{\pi N}=0.124/m_{\pi ^+}`$ is the pion charge exchange amplitude, and $`E_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^{0,+}}(IS)`$ is the $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ photoproduction amplitude at threshold obtained without pion mass difference using Eq. (4). The corresponding results are given by the solid curves in Fig. 3. We can see that above $`\pi ^+`$ threshold difference between results obtained in coupled-channels calculation and K-matrix approach is very small. This is consistent with the finding of Ref. . At lower energies the difference became visible only very close to the $`\pi ^0p`$ threshold and it is around 10%. In general, we can conclude that Eq. (9) is a good approximation for the pion-mass difference effect. The threshold energy dependence for imaginary part can be easily obtained via Fermi-Watson theorem if in the threshold region $`\pi N`$ phase shift is taken as a linear function of the $`\pi ^+`$ momentum, i.e. they approaches 0 at $`q_{\pi ^+}0`$.

In Fig. 3, we also compare our prediction for the differential cross section with the data from Mainz. We see that both the off-shell pion rescattering and cusp effects substantially improve agreement with the data. Moreover it indicates that our model, without any new free parameter, also gives reliable predictions for the $`p`$-waves threshold behaviour.

## 5 Threshold $`\pi ^0`$ electroproduction

Pion electroproduction provides us with information on the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the transverse $`E_{0+}`$ and longitudinal $`L_{0+}`$ multipoles in the threshold region. The ”cusp” effects in $`L_{0+}`$ multipole is taken into account in a similar way as in the case of $`E_{0+}`$,

$`ReL_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^0}=ReL_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^0}(IS)a_{\pi N}\omega _cReL_{0+}^{\gamma \pi ^+}(IS)\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _c}}}.`$ (10)
At threshold, the $`Q^2`$ dependence is given mainly by the Born + vector mesons contributions in $`v_{\gamma \pi }^B`$, as described in Ref. .

In Fig. 4 we show our results for the cusp and FSI effects in $`E_{0+}`$ and $`L_{0+}`$ multipoles for the $`\pi ^0`$ electroproduction at $`Q^2=0.1`$ (GeV/c)2, along with the results of the multipole analysis from NIKHEF and Mainz. Note that results of both groups were obtained using the $`p`$-wave predictions given by ChPT. We have made a new analysis of the Mainz data for the differential cross sections, using our DMT $`p`$-wave multipoles instead. The $`s`$-wave multipoles extracted this way are also shown in Fig. 2 (solid circles). Note that results of our new analysis for the $`E_{0+}`$ multipole are closer to the NIKHEF data and in better agreement with DMT model prediction. However, the results for the longitudinal $`L_{0+}`$ multipole stay practically the same as in the previous Mainz analysis. We see that in this case DMT model prediction is in better agreement with the NIKHEF data.

In Fig. 5, DMT model predictions (dashed curves) are compared with the Mainz experimental data for the unpolarized cross sections $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }=d\sigma _T/d\mathrm{\Omega }+ϵd\sigma _L/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and longitudinal-transverse cross section $`d\sigma _{TL}/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Overall, the agreement is good. If the $`L_{0+}`$ multipole in DMT model is replaced with that extracted from Mainz data, then the agreement with the Mainz data is further improved as given by the solid curves in Fig. 5.

## 6 Conclusion

In summary, the $`\gamma ^{}N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition form factors and threshold $`\pi ^0`$ photo- and electroproduction are studied with the new version of MAID and a dynamical model. By re-analyzing recent Jlab data on $`p(e,e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ at $`Q^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.8}`$ and $`4.0(GeV/c)^2`$, we find that $`A_{3/2}`$ is still as large as $`A_{1/2}`$ at $`Q^2=4`$ (GeV/c)2, which implies that hadronic helicity conservation is not yet observed in this region of $`Q^2`$. Accordingly, our extracted values for $`R_{EM}`$ are still far from the pQCD predicted value of $`+100\%`$. However, in contrast to previous results we find that $`R_{EM}`$, starting from a small and negative value at the real photon point, actually exhibits a clear tendency to cross zero and change sign as $`Q^2`$ increases, while the absolute value of $`R_{SM}`$ is strongly increasing. In regard to the scaling, our analysis indicates that $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`S_{1/2}`$, but not $`A_{3/2}`$, starts exhibiting the pQCD scaling behavior at about $`Q^22.5(GeV/c)^2`$. It appears likely that the onset of scaling behavior might take place at a lower momentum transfer than that of hadron helicity conservation. For the $`\pi ^0`$ photo- and electroproduction near threshold, results obtained within the dynamical model with the use of a meson-exchange $`\pi N`$ model for the final state interaction are in as good agreement with the data as ChPT.


text:
# Reply to Suslov

## I Our published estimate

In  we published an estimate of the critical exponent of the Anderson transition based on a finite size scaling analysis of the localisation length $`\lambda `$ of electrons on quasi-1d bars of dimensions $`L\times L\times L_z`$. In our published work $`L`$ ranged from $`L=4`$ to $`L=14`$ and $`L_z`$ was of the order of $`10^7`$ in units of the lattice spacing of the tight binding model which was studied. In more recent numerical studies we have extended the maximum system size for which data is available to $`L=18`$.

The critical exponent is estimated by fitting data for the localisation as a function of system size $`L`$ and the magnitude of the random potential fluctuations measured by a disorder parameter $`W`$ to a finite size scaling form that contains one relevant scaling variable $`\chi `$ and one irrelevant scaling variable $`\psi `$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=F_0\left(\chi L^{1/\nu }\right)+\psi L^yF_1\left(\chi L^{1/\nu }\right)$$
(1)
The functions $`F_0`$ are $`F_1`$ are expanded in Taylor series, as are both scaling variables. An important point to note is that the relevant variable is zero at the critical disorder $`W_c`$, so that,

$$\chi =b_1\tau +b_2\tau ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
while the irrelevant variable is not, so that

$$\psi =c_0+c_1\tau +\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where

$$\tau =\frac{W_cW}{W_c}$$
(4)
In practice, when fitting our data for the box distributed random potential for example, we truncate the expansion for $`\chi `$ at second order, the expansion for $`\psi `$ at zero order and the expansions for $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$ at third order.

Using these equations to fit our numerical data we estimated $`\nu =1.57\pm .02`$, where the error is a $`95\%`$ confidence interval, for a box distributed random potential. We obtained estimates consistent with this for Gaussian and Lorentzian distributed random potentials. This value of the exponent is also consistent with a completely independent estimate based on the scaling of the conductance of $`L\times L\times L`$ three dimensional systems for $`L16`$  and with the published estimates of other authors .

## II The validity of confidence intervals

The fitting of a set of parameters $`X`$ given a set of data $`D`$ and a model $`M`$ is often based on finding the maximum of the probability

$$p(D|X,M)$$
(5)
This is called a maximum likelihood method since the parameters are chosen so as to make the probability of the observed data a maximum. If the probability is calculated by assuming that differences between the observed and predicted data are due to random measurement errors which are independently distributed according to a Gaussian distribution we are led to the well known $`\chi ^2`$ fitting procedure.

It is crucial to note that analysis is predicated on the assumption that the model is correct. In particular, the estimate of the accuracy of the fitted parameters are all contingent on this assumption. To be sure, if the goodness of fit is low, then one can doubt the model. However, a reasonable goodness of fit is not a guarantee that the model is correct.

What then are the assumptions underlying our model? We take for granted that the Anderson transition is a continuous phase transition which can be described by the renormalisation group. In addition we assume that the deviations from scaling in our numerical data can be described in practice by a single irrelevant variable. Given these assumptions we arrive at the accuracy quoted for the exponent.

We would like to emphasise that the procedure for arriving at the accuracy of the exponent is a rational and rigorous procedure and the results have a precise scientific meaning and are not a matter of opinion. As with any mathematical procedure the validity of the results depends on the correctness of the assumptions made. These have been clearly stated.

It is of course always possible that if data for much larger system sizes were available some limitation of the model we use to fit the data might be exposed. If this turns out to be the case then our estimate of the exponent might have to be revised. Nevertheless, we strongly object to Suslov’s characterisation of our results as “evident disinformation.” They are nothing of the sort.

We think it worth pointing out that with the methods currently used for estimating the exponent the computational time increases as $`L^7`$. It seems unlikely that accurate data for substantially larger systems will be available any time soon. In this context we are forced to do the best we can with the available data by proceeding in a logical manner. In our opinion the libelous and ill informed comments in Ref.  contribute nothing.

## III Spin glass, what spin glass?

Suslov claims that out fit is highly non- linear and that maximising the probability (5) is somehow akin to finding the potential minimum in a spin glass. Though our model does contain many parameters many of them are linear. For example, of the 12 parameters required to fit the data for the box distributed random potential in Ref.  7 are linear. Hardly a spin glass …

## IV An error in Suslov’s paper

Suslov proposes what he calls “a simple procedure to deal with corrections to scaling.” Unfortunately, his proposal is flawed because of an elementary error in Eq. (6) of his paper. Suslov assumes incorrectly that the irrelevant scaling variable is zero at $`W=W_c`$ or $`\tau =0`$. In fact, only the relevant variable changes sign at $`W_c`$ as is clear in the correct expansions (2) and (3) given above. If we look at Eq (9) of Suslov’s paper we see that the quantity being fitted must be independent of $`L`$ at $`W=W_c`$. However, the most important correction to scaling which is present in our numerical data is precisely a size dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`W_c`$. Thus Suslov’s method is a non- starter as far as modeling our data over the full range of systems sizes is concerned. To use Suslov’s method we are forced to discard any data for which corrections to scaling due to an irrelevant variable are statistically significant.

## V Suslov’s procedure with our data

By restricting the ranges of system sizes and disorder, we have been able to fit some of our numerical data for the box distributed random potential to the following form based on the suggestion in Suslov’s paper.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_0+\tau f(L)+a_2\left(\tau f(L)\right)^2$$
(6)
The fitting parameters are $`W_c`$, $`a_0`$, $`a_2`$ and one $`f_if\left(L_i\right)`$ for each system size present in the data. In this case this is a total of 8 parameters, 6 of which are non- linear. The results are shown in Figure 1. The critical exponent is then estimated by fitting the $`f_i`$ versus $`L_i`$ to a power law which introduces a further two fitting parameters, giving 10 in total. The result is $`\nu =1.53(46,60)`$ and is shown in Figure 2. The numbers in brackets give the $`95\%`$ confidence interval. For comparison we also plot a line corresponding to $`\nu =1`$. We leave it to the reader to speculate on whether or not he or she thinks $`\nu =1`$ might be recovered for much larger systems sizes. We do not see any evidence for such a claim.

## VI Suslov versus Slevin- Ohtsuki fitting

When we compare the two fitting procedures the following points present themselves. First, Suslov’s method cannot describe the most important corrections to scaling which are present in the numerical data. Second, given that one non- linear parameter is needed for each system size, we end up with more, not fewer, non- linear parameters than the fit we used in Ref. .

## VII Final thoughts

In conclusion, Suslov’s fitting scheme  does not correctly take into account the most important corrections to scaling in our data. If we restrict ourselves to the larger systems simulated where corrections to scaling are negligible and apply the fitting scheme suggested in Ref. , we find $`\nu =1.53\pm .07`$, consistent with our previous estimate in  but not with $`\nu =1`$.

Someone once said that the only certainties in Life are Death and Taxes. Certainly current estimates of the critical exponent of the Anderson transition have not reached this level of certainty and it is important to keep an open mind about how the estimates might need to be revised when new data becomes available. Yet we feel there is no need to be overly pessimistic concerning the accuracy of our current estimates.


text:
# LONGITUDINAL 𝚲 POLARIZATION IN POLARIZED SEMI-INCLUSIVE DIS**footnote * Talk delivered by U. D’Alesio at the IX International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS2001), Bologna, 27 April - 1 May, 2001.

## 1 Introduction

The polarization of spin 1/2 baryons inclusively produced in polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering processes may be useful, if measurable, to obtain new information on polarized distribution and fragmentation functions.

Because of their parity violating weak decay and their self-analysing polarization, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are an ideal laboratory for this study. Moreover, since in a non-relativistic quark model the spin of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is carried by the strange quark, any signal of an up (or down) quark spin contribution would reveal a novel hadron spin structure.

From the experimental side, NOMAD collaboration have recently published new results  on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\nu _\mu `$ charged current interactions; more data might soon be available from high energy neutral current processes at HERA, due to electro-weak interference effects. It is then timely to perform a systematical and comprehensive study of weak interaction contributions to the production and the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryons in as many as possible DIS processes. We stress that such contributions are an important source of new information, due to the natural neutrino polarization and to the selected couplings of $`W`$’s to pure helicity states.

In our calculations we take into account leading twist factorization theorem, Standard Model elementary interactions at lowest perturbative order and LO QCD evolution only.

## 2 Charged current processes, $`𝝂𝒑\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚲^{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$

For these processes, there exist two possible elementary contributions, corresponding to the interactions: $`\nu d(s)\mathrm{}^{}u`$ and $`\nu \overline{u}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{d}(\overline{s})`$. Neglecting quark masses one finds that there is only one non-zero helicity amplitude for each of them, corresponding to the following elementary cross-sections: $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{\nu q}`$ and $`d\widehat{\sigma }_+^{\nu \overline{q}}`$. For longitudinally ($`\pm `$ helicity) polarized protons we have

$$P_{[\nu ,\mathrm{}]}^{(\pm )}(B;x,y,z)=\frac{[d_{}+Rs_{}]\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/u}(1y)^2\overline{u}_\pm [\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/\overline{d}}+R\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/\overline{s}}]}{[d_{}+Rs_{}]D_{B/u}+(1y)^2\overline{u}_\pm [D_{B/\overline{d}}+RD_{B/\overline{s}}]}$$
(1)
and

$$P_{[\overline{\nu },\mathrm{}]}^{(\pm )}(B;x,y,z)=\frac{[\overline{d}_\pm +R\overline{s}_\pm ]\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/\overline{u}}(1y)^2u_{}[\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/d}+R\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/s}]}{[\overline{d}_\pm +R\overline{s}_\pm ]D_{B/\overline{u}}+(1y)^2u_{}[D_{B/d}+RD_{B/s}]},$$
(2)
where $`(D_{B/q})`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{B/q}`$ are the (un)polarized fragmentation functions (FF) and $`R\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C0.056`$. In the case of unpolarized protons one replaces the polarized parton distributions $`q_+`$ and $`q_{}`$ with $`q/2`$.

When a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryon is produced (rather than a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$), we can neglect terms which contain both $`\overline{q}`$ distributions and $`\overline{q}`$ fragmentations and we simply have:

$`P_{[\nu ,\mathrm{}]}^{(\pm )}(\mathrm{\Lambda };z)`$ $``$ $`P_{[\nu ,\mathrm{}]}^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Lambda };z){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/u}}{D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/u}}},`$ (3)
$`P_{[\overline{\nu },\mathrm{}]}^{(\pm )}(\mathrm{\Lambda };z)`$ $``$ $`P_{[\overline{\nu },\mathrm{}]}^{(0)}(\mathrm{\Lambda };z){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/d}+R\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}}{D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/d}+RD_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}}},`$ (4)
and the polarizations, up to QCD evolution effects, become functions of the variable $`z`$ only.

Eqs. (3) and (4) relate the values of the longitudinal polarization $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to a quantity with a clear physical meaning, i.e. the ratio $`C_q\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/q}/D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/q}`$; this happens with weak charged current interactions – while it cannot happen in purely electromagnetic DIS  – due to the selection of the quark helicity and flavour in the coupling with neutrinos. In Fig. 1 (left) some predictions for $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`P(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ are shown (see also Sec. 4).

Notice that a comparison of $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ beams might give information on the ratios $`C_q`$; for example, the same value of $`C_q`$ for all flavours would result in $`P_{[\nu ,\mathrm{}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=P_{[\overline{\nu },\mathrm{}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. On the other hand, largely different values of $`P_{[\nu ,\mathrm{}]}`$ and $`P_{[\overline{\nu },\mathrm{}]}`$ would certainly indicate a strong $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking in the fragmentation functions.

## 3 Neutral current lepton processes, $`\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚲^{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$

In this case there are four non-zero independent helicity amplitudes for the elementary processes $`\mathrm{}q\mathrm{}q`$; both weak and electromagnetic interactions are to be included at the amplitude level. The complete (long) formulae  are not shown here; some interesting results are displayed in Fig. 1 (right), see also Sec. 4, where we plot the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization vs. $`x`$ (averaged over $`z`$) for longitudinal polarized leptons and unpolarized protons. These results test the dynamics of the partonic process and in particular the contribution of electro-weak interferences, in a neat and unusual way. The differences between positron and electron beams are entirely due to electro-weak effects; this is well visible at large $`x`$, where the curves for $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ differ sizeably. Moreover for unpolarized leptons and protons the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization is non-zero  only due to parity violating weak contributions.

## 4 Numerical estimates

The polarization values depend on the known Standard Model dynamics, on the rather well known partonic distributions, and on the quark fragmentation functions. The latter are not so well known and a choice must be made in order to give numerical estimates or in order to be able to interpret the measured values in favour of a particular set.

Unpolarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ FF are determined by fitting $`e^+e^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})+X`$ data, sensitive only to singlet combinations, like $`D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/q}+D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/\overline{q}}D_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})/q}`$. Polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ FF are obtained by fitting the scarce data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization at LEP, sensitive only to non-singlet combinations like $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/q}\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/\overline{q}}\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/q}^{val}`$. In both cases flavour separation has to rely on models.

We adopt three sets of FF, denoted as scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and derived  from fits to $`e^+e^{}`$ data for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/u(d)}N_u\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}`$ ($`D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/u(d)}=D_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}`$). The three scenarios differ for the relative contributions of the strange quark polarization to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization: $`N_u=0`$, $`N_u=0.2`$ and $`N_u=1`$ for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively and are well representative of possible spin dependences.

Equipped with unpolarized FF into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and with separate polarized FF into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, we can define the following computable quantities:

$$P^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{d\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}d\sigma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}}{d\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}=\frac{P(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{1+T},P^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\frac{d\sigma ^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_+}d\sigma ^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{}}}{d\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}=\frac{TP(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})}{1+T},$$
(5)
where $`T=d\sigma ^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}/d\sigma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Eqs. (5) allow to compute the values of $`P(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`P(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ provided one can compute or measure the ratio $`T`$. Notice that $`P`$ is always larger in magnitude than $`P^{}`$.

We conclude by pointing out how this comprehensive study of the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s can help to gather new information about polarized FF and to test fundamental features of electro-weak elementary interactions.

U.D. and F.M. thank COFINANZIAMENTO MURST-PRIN for partial support.