text:
# Multistrange baryon production in relativistic heavy ion collisions

## I introduction

One possible signal for the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) that is expected to be formed in relativistic heavy ion collisions is enhanced production of strange particles , particularly those consisting of multistrange quarks such as cascade and omega as well as their antiparticles. The argument is that the rate for strange hadron production is small in hadronic matter due to the large threshold and small cross sections, which is contrary to the large production rate for strange quarks in the quark-gluon plasma . For the lightest strange hadrons such as kaons and antikaons, experiments have shown enhanced production in heavy ion collisions at all energies available from SIS ($`1A`$ GeV) , AGS ($`10A`$ GeV) , and SPS ($`158A`$ GeV) . Studies based on transport models show that this enhancement can be explained by hadronic scattering alone . However, these models have failed in accounting for the enhanced production of multistrange baryons ($`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) by about a factor of three, and the discrepancy is even larger for their antiparticles . To increase the production of these particles requires either to increase the string tension or to decrease the constituent quark mass in the fragmentation of the initial strings in the dense matter . It has also been suggested that the observed enhancement of multistrange baryons and antibaryons may be due to topological defects arising from the formation of disoriented chiral condensate in the initial high density stage of collisions . Of course, the enhancement could simply be a result of the formation of the quark-gluon plasma during collisions. However, to establish strangeness enhancement as a signal for the quark-gluon plasma, we need to exclude any conventional mechanisms. As recently suggested by Vance , strangeness-exchange reactions between antikaons and hyperons as well as between their antiparticles can contribute significantly to the production of multistrange baryons and antibaryons in relativistic heavy ion collisions.

In this paper, we shall determine the contribution to multistrange baryon production from the hadronic matter in heavy ion collisions at both SPS and RHIC energies, using a recently developed multiphase transport (AMPT) model . In Section II, we describe briefly the multiphase transport model. The strangeness-exchange reactions are then discussed in Section III. Results from the AMPT model are given in Section IV B for heavy ion collisions at SPS and in Section IV C for heavy ion collisions at RHIC. Finally, a summary is given in Section V.

## II multiphase transport model

In the AMPT model, the initial conditions are obtained from the HIJING model  by using a Woods-Saxon radial shape for the colliding nuclei and including the nuclear shadowing effect on minijet partons via the gluon recombination mechanism of Mueller-Qiu . After the colliding nuclei pass through each other, the Gyulassy-Wang model  is then used to generate the initial space-time information of partons. Subsequent time evolution of the parton phase-space distribution is modeled by Zhang’s Parton Cascade (ZPC) , which at present includes only the gluon elastic scattering. After minijet partons stop interacting, they combine with their parent strings and are then converted to hadrons using the Lund string fragmentation model  after an average proper formation time of 0.7 fm/c. Dynamics of the resulting hadronic matter is described by a relativistic transport model (ART) .

The parameters in the AMPT model are fixed using the experimental data from central Pb+Pb collisions at center of mass energy of $`17A`$ GeV . Specifically, we have included in the Lund string fragmentation model the popcorn mechanism for baryon-antibaryon production in order to describe the measured net baryon rapidity distribution. Also, to account for the pion and enhanced kaon yields, we have modified the values of the parameters in the string fragmentation function. The same parameters are then used to study heavy ion collisions at RHIC energies. The model is able to describe the PHOBOS data  for the pseudorapidity distribution of charged particles . Also, the predicted $`\overline{p}/p`$ and $`K^{}/\pi ^{}`$ ratios are consistent with the data from the STAR  and BRAHMS  Collaborations. Furthermore, it gives an elliptic flow  which is comparable to that measured in the STAR experiment .

## III strangeness-exchange reactions

To include multistrange baryon and antibaryon production, we consider the following reactions:

$`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }\pi ,\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Xi }\pi ,\mathrm{and}\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Omega }\pi .`$ (1)
Since there is no experimental information on these cross sections, we assume that they are the same as the cross section for $`\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$, which is the isospin averaged cross section for converting a nucleon to a sigma and can be related to the cross sections for $`K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0`$, and $`K^{}n\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^{}`$ by

$`\sigma _{\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\sigma _{K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0}+\sigma _{K^{}n\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^{}}).`$ (2)
The cross sections on the right hand side are known empirically and have been parameterized in Ref.  as follows,

$`\sigma _{K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0}=0.6p^{1.8}[\mathrm{mb}];0.2p1.5\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c},`$ (3)
$`\sigma _{K^{}n\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^{}}=\{\begin{array}{c}1.2p^{1.3}[\mathrm{mb}],\hfill \\ \mathrm{if}0.5p1\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}\text{;}\hfill \\ 1.2p^{2.3}[\mathrm{mb}],\hfill \\ \mathrm{if}1p6\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
In the above, $`p`$ is the $`K^{}`$ momentum in the laboratory frame. These cross sections are shown in Fig. 1 as functions of center of mass energy of the interacting antikaon and nucleon.

Empirically, the cross section for $`K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0`$ is also known and has been parameterized  as

$`\sigma _{K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0}=\{\begin{array}{c}50p^267p+24[\mathrm{mb}],\hfill \\ \text{if }0.2p0.9\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}\text{;}\hfill \\ 3p^{2.6}[\mathrm{mb}],\hfill \\ \text{if }0.9p10\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
As shown in Fig. 1, $`\sigma _{K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0}`$ has a similar magnitude as $`\sigma _{K^{}p\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^0}`$ and $`\sigma _{K^{}n\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\pi ^{}}`$ except that it has a resonance contribution at $`\sqrt{s}1.8`$ GeV. It may be noted that the channel $`K^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0`$ has resonances while $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has no resonance and the branching ratios of the decay channels for the resonances of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are not well determined. Therefore for a conservative estimate we assume that the reactions in Eq. (1) are similar to $`\overline{K}N\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$, which does not show any resonance structure.

We believe the assumption that all strangeness-exchange reaction cross sections have similar magnitudes is reasonable as these reactions are similar except for differences in their particle masses. Justification of this assumption is being studied in an effective hadronic model  that is based on SU(3) flavor symmetry. Preliminary results indeed show that the cross sections for these reactions have comparable values.

## IV multistrange baryon production from heavy ion collisions

### A Perturbative approach

Since the abundance of multistrange baryons is small in heavy ion collisions, they can be treated perturbatively in the AMPT model as in kaon production from heavy ion collisions at low energies , where the collision dynamics is assumed not to be affected by the production of these particles.

First, we consider the process $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }\pi `$, in which both $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are treated explicitly, i.e., nonperturbatively, in the AMPT model. The $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ collision is treated by taking their total scattering cross section to be $`\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }}=20`$ mb. $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then make a collision if their impact parameter is less than $`\sqrt{\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\pi }`$. When this occurs, a $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is produced with a probability given by $`P_\mathrm{\Xi }=\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }\pi }/\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, which is stored as the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ formation probability. At the same time, both $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have a probability of $`P_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ being destroyed, and a pion is also produced with the same probability. Otherwise, the momenta of $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are changed according to an isotropic distribution.

To treat the inverse reaction of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ absorption by a pion, i.e, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\pi \overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we use the cross section determined by detailed balance from Eq. (2). If a collision occurs, the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is destroyed. The pion has a destruction probability given by the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ formation probability $`P_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and simultaneously a $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are produced with an isotropic momentum distribution.

The above perturbative approach can be similarly used for the reaction $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Xi }\pi `$. However, it needs to be modified for the reaction $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Omega }\pi `$ as both $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are treated perturbatively. Again, we take the $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ scattering cross section to be $`\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }}=20`$ mb. Whenever they collide, the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ have a destruction probability given by $`\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Omega }\pi }/\sigma _{\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ while an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is produced with a probability given by the above probability multiplied by the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ formation probability $`P_\mathrm{\Xi }`$, which is then stored as the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ formation probability $`P_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The destruction of $`\overline{K}`$ and simultaneous production of $`\pi `$ has a probability of $`P_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The inverse reaction $`\mathrm{\Omega }\pi \overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ can be similarly treated as for $`\mathrm{\Xi }\pi \overline{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

### B Multistrange baryon production at SPS

In Fig. 2, we show the time evolution of the abundance of midrapidity kaons (including $`K^{}`$), antikaons (including $`\overline{K}^{}`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ in Pb+Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17A`$ GeV at an impact parameter $`b=03`$ fm. As is evident from the figure, most multistrange baryons are produced within 10 fm/c after the initial contact of the colliding nuclei when the energy density is high. Compared to the initial yield obtained from HIJING, the dynamical evolution of the system leads to about $`30\%`$ and $`70\%`$ increase in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ production, while most of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$s are produced from hadronic rescattering. Therefore the observed enhancement of multistrange baryons  can be largely accounted by the strangeness-exchange reactions in the hadronic matter. Furthermore, the final yield of strange baryons in the AMPT model are in reasonable agreement with that obtained by the WA97 Collaboration . The $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ production in our model is however a factor of two smaller compared to the data. It may be mentioned that using a rate equation approach, it was demonstrated  that multimesonic reactions $`\overline{Y}+Nn\pi +n_YK`$ may lead to an enhanced antistrange hyperon $`\overline{Y}`$ production in a purely hadronic scenario. In the present transport model we have neglected these multiparticle reactions which in conjunction with the strangeness-exchange reactions could lead to a better reproduction of the experimental data for multistrange baryons. Alternate to the multiparticle reaction, as for example, $`3\pi +2\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }+\overline{N}`$, the process $`\overline{K}(\overline{K}^{})+\overline{K}(\overline{K}^{})\mathrm{\Xi }+\overline{N}`$ may be used instead in the transport model to generate $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

To see if strange hadrons reach chemical equilibrium in the collisions, we show in Fig. 3 the time evolution of their production (solid lines) and absorption rates (dashed lines). It is seen that most strange particles such as the hyperons and especially the kaons and antikaons approach equilibrium as their production and absorption rates become comparable before the system freezes out. So the abundance of these particles in heavy ion collisions at SPS are consistent with that given by the equilibrium models .

In Fig. 4 we depict by open circles the transverse mass spectra of hadrons at midrapidity obtained in the AMPT model for the SPS energy. These results are obtained by using mean-field potentials for strange baryons that are related to the nucleon potential according to their light quark contents. Specifically, relative to the nucleon potential, which is taken to be a stiff Skyrme potential with compressibility of 380 MeV, the lambda and sigma potentials are 2/3, the cascade potential is 1/3, and the omega potential is zero. We see that the theoretical transverse mass spectra of the hadrons agree well with the experimental data shown by solid circles . The kaon transverse mass spectrum is however somewhat steeper than the experimental one. This may be due to the weak kaon mean-field potential at high density that is based on the impulse approximation  and is used in the present study.

The transverse mass spectra can be approximately fitted by an exponential function $`exp(m_T/T)`$, where $`T`$ is the inverse slope parameter. The slope parameter may provide useful information on the thermal motion and the strong collective transverse flow observed at SPS energy. In Fig. 5, we show the inverse slope parameter of these particles as calculated from the AMPT model (open circles) and compare them with those extracted from the experimental data (solid circles) . The agreement between theory and experiment is reasonable. The linear increase of the inverse slope parameter from pion to kaon and to proton is indicative of the development of collective transverse flow in the system. For nonstrange hadrons, $`T`$ may be parametrized by $`T=T_{\mathrm{fo}}+m\beta _t^2`$ (dotted line), where the freeze-out temperature $`T_{\mathrm{fo}}145`$ MeV and average transverse flow $`\beta _t0.39`$c. As in the experimental data, the inverse slope parameters for strange baryons in the AMPT model are smaller than that for the proton. This is due to both the fact that strange hadrons are produced earlier in the collision when the energy density is high and have smaller scattering cross sections with pions and nucleons than nonstrange hadrons and thus freeze out quite early . Note that for proton with slope parameter $`T=0.29`$ GeV, the contribution from HIJING is about 0.16 GeV, while the mean-field causes a further increase by $`0.03`$ GeV.

### C Multistrange baryon production at RHIC

The predictions of the AMPT model for multistrange baryon production in Au+Au collisions at RHIC energy of $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV are given in Fig. 6 for their time evolution. Compared to that from heavy ion collisions at SPS, we see that the abundance of the multistrange particles at this RHIC energy is increased by about a factor of two. We have also examined the time evolution of the production and absorption rates of strange particles. It is found that both kaons and antikaons approach chemical equilibrium. On the other hand, strange baryons such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are somewhat out of equilibrium as their production rates are larger than their absorption rates at freeze out. Again, including strange baryon production from multiparticle reactions would lead to chemical equilibrium for these particles as well. Because of its larger absorption cross section by the pion compared to other strange baryons, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does reach equilibrium during collision.

We note that our predicted ratios of multistrange baryons to mesons, such as $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}/K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}/\pi ^{}`$, are similar to that predicted by the thermal model . In such statistical model analysis of the experimental data at the RHIC energy of $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV, the hadron yields are in thermal and chemical equilibrium with a baryon chemical potential of $`\mu _B51`$ MeV and freeze-out temperature of $`T175`$ MeV. The strangeness-exchange reactions introduced in the present study are thus another mechanism for multistrange baryons to achieve chemical equilibrium in relativistic heavy ion collisions.

In Fig. 7 we show the transverse mass spectra of midrapidity hadrons for central Au+Au collision at the RHIC energy $`\sqrt{s}=130A`$ GeV. The spectra for protons, pions and kaons are consistent with the preliminary data from the PHENIX Collaboration . The agreement with this data is clearly evident in Fig. 8 where the slope parameters obtained by fitting the spectra in the same $`p_t`$ range with the exponential function is depicted. The mass dependence of $`T`$ is qualitatively similar to that at SPS energy. At the RHIC energy the slope parameter from pion to proton also exhibits a strong dependence on the particle mass with the freeze-out temperature $`T_{\mathrm{fo}}155`$ MeV and the average collective velocity $`\beta _t0.43`$c. As at SPS the slope parameter for strange and multistrange baryons reveals a plateau since these particles, mostly generated by strangeness-exchange reactions, are weakly interacting and decouples rather early from the system.

## V summary

In this paper, we have used a multiphase transport model, that includes both an initial partonic matter and a final hadronic matter, to study the production of multistrange baryons from the strangeness-exchange reactions in the hadronic matter. The cross sections for these reactions are assumed to be the same as the empirically known cross sections for antikaon-nucleon to hyperon-pion. For heavy ion collisions at SPS energies, we find that these reactions lead to an enhanced production of multistrange particles, comparable to that observed by the WA97 collaboration. For heavy ion collisions at RHIC, a similar enhancement is obtained from our model. We further find that the slope parameters for the (multi-)strange baryons exhibit a plateau as a function of particle mass at both SPS and RHIC energies.

We have not considered in the present study the hadronic contribution to multistrange antibaryons. For such a study, we need to extend the AMPT model to treat antibaryons similar to that for baryons, which is currently under way.

## acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9870038, the Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358, and the Texas Advanced Research Program under Grant No. FY99-010366-0081.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Consider the $`q`$-hypergeometric equation

$`\left\{(1D_q)(1q^{\gamma 1}D_q)t(1q^\alpha D_q)(1q^\beta D_q)\right\}\phi (t)=0,`$ (1.1)
where $`D_q`$ is the $`q`$-difference operator defined by $`(D_q\phi )(t):=\phi (qt)`$. In this paper, we solve (1.1) with $`q^N=1`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma Z`$ explicitly on a special space of functions and represent the $`q`$-hypergeometric function of the Barnes type at $`|q|=1`$ in terms of our solutions.

Let us recall some results about solutions to (1.1). In the case of $`0<|q|<1`$, one of the solutions to (1.1) is the basic hypergeometric function $`\phi (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;t)`$ \[GR\] defined by

$`\phi (\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;t):={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^\alpha )_k(q^\beta )_k}{(q)_k(q^\gamma )_k}}t^k,`$ (1.2)
where $`(x)_n:=_{j=0}^{n1}(1q^jx).`$ We can get this solution by setting

$`\phi (t)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_kt^k,c_kC`$ (1.3)
and solving a recursion relation for $`\left\{c_k\right\}`$. In the case of $`|q|=1`$, we can not get solutions in this manner because the coefficient in (1.2) does not converge. However, some solutions are constructed in terms of a contour integral by Nishizawa and Ueno \[NU\]. In this paper, we compare the solutions of these two types under the condition that $`q^N=1`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma Z`$.

First we try to find solutions in a similar way to the case of $`0<|q|<1`$. Then we consider solutions of more general form than (1.3) because of the following reason. In the limit as $`q1`$, the equation (1.1) goes to the hypergeometric differential equation:

$`\left\{t(1t){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}+(\gamma (\alpha +\beta +1)t){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha \beta \right\}F(t)=0.`$ (1.4)
It is known that if $`\gamma Z`$ there exist two independent solutions at $`t=0`$ of the form

$`F(t)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_kt^{k+\rho }.`$ (1.5)
However, if $`\gamma Z`$ one of the two independent solutions is represented as

$`F_1(t)\mathrm{log}t+F_2(t)`$ (1.6)
where $`F_1(t)`$ and $`F_2(t)`$ are functions of the from (1.5) (see \[AAR\], for example).

Now let us return to the equation (1.1) with $`0<|q|<1`$. When we consider solutions of the form (1.5), we get two independent solutions if $`\gamma Z`$. One of them is the basic hypergeometric function (1.2) and the other is given by

$`t^{1\gamma }\phi (\alpha \gamma +1,\beta \gamma +1,2\gamma ;t)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{\alpha \gamma +1})_k(q^{\beta \gamma +1})_k}{(q)_k(q^{2\gamma })_k}}t^{k+1\gamma }.`$ (1.7)
Here we note that if $`\gamma Z`$ one of these solutions does not make sense. Then we can construct another solution in the form (1.6) (see \[E\] for details).

From the consideration above, we formulate our problem as follows. We set $`t=q^x`$ and rewrite (1.1) as a difference equation for a function of $`x`$, see (2.1). We try to find solutions of the following form:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{jk}x^jq^{kx},c_{jk}C.`$ (1.8)
Here the part of $`j>0`$ corresponds to the term in (1.6) with logarithmic singularity. Now we note that the function $`q^{Nx}`$ is invariant under the shift $`xx+1`$. Hence we can rewrite (1.8) as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}f_{jk}(x)x^jq^{kx},`$ (1.9)
where $`f_{jk}(x)`$ is a periodic function with a period 1, that is a quasi-constant for the difference equation (2.1). We solve the $`q`$-hypergeometric equation with $`q^N=1`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma Z`$ on the space of functions of the form (1.9).

The result is as follows (Theorem 2.2). The space of solutions is two-dimensional over the field of quasi-constants, and all the solutions are represented as (1.6), that is $`n=0`$ or $`1`$ in (1.9).

Next we consider solutions to (1.1) with $`|q|=1`$. One of the solutions is the $`q`$-hypergeometric function of the Barnes type at $`|q|=1`$, see (3.1). We can deal with the integral representation of this function in the framework of the $`q`$-twisted cohomology at $`|q|=1`$ \[T\]. It is shown that, if $`q`$ is not a root of unity and the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are generic, we can construct two independent solutions to (1.1) in terms of the integral of the Barnes type by taking two independent homologies. However, in the case that $`q^N=1`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma Z`$, the function (3.1) is a unique solution of this form. In Theorem 3.1, we write down an explicit formula for this function in terms of the basis constructed in Theorem 2.2. Then we see that if the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ satisfy some condition, the $`q`$-hypergeometric function at $`|q|=1`$ has logarithmic singularity. On the other hand, the $`q`$-hypergeometric function with $`0<|q|<1`$ defined by (1.2) has no logarithmic singularity. This is a difference between the cases of $`0<|q|<1`$ and $`|q|=1`$.

## Acknoledgement

The author thanks Masaki Kashiwara and Tetsuji Miwa for valuable remarks.

## 2 A basis for the space of solutions

Let $`N`$ be a integer with $`N2`$. The $`q`$-hypergeometric difference equation is defined by

$`L\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0,L:=(1D)(1q^{\gamma 1}D)q^x(1q^\alpha D)(1q^\beta D),`$ (2.1)
where $`D`$ is the difference operator defined by $`D\mathrm{\Psi }(x):=\mathrm{\Psi }(x+1)`$. In this paper, we consider the equation (2.1) with

$`q:=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}},\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \{1,\mathrm{},N\},\beta \alpha .`$ (2.2)
Note that the equation (2.1) is symmetric with respect to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, and hence we can assume $`\beta \alpha `$ without loss of generality.

We denote by $`𝒞`$ the field of periodic meromorphic functions of $`x`$ with a period 1. This field is a space of quasi-constants for (2.1) in the sense that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a solution to (2.1) then $`f\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is also a solution for any $`f𝒞`$.

Let us find a solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}f_{jk}x^jq^{kx},f_{jk}𝒞.`$ (2.3)
It is easy to see the following.

###### Proposition 2.1

The expression (2.3) is unique, that is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}f_{jk}x^jq^{kx}=0f_{jk}=0,`$ (2.4)
where $`f_{jk}𝒞`$.

Let $`𝒮`$ be the space of functions of the form (2.3):

$`𝒮:=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}f_{jk}x^jq^{kx}\right|n0,f_{jk}𝒞\}.`$ (2.5)
Set

$`𝒫:=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}z_kq^{kx}\right|z_k𝒞\}.`$ (2.6)
Note that $`L𝒫𝒫`$ and $`L𝒮𝒮`$ because $`q^{Nx}𝒞`$.

The following result holds.

###### Theorem 2.2

The subspace of solutions to (2.1) in $`𝒮`$ is two-dimensional over $`𝒞`$. A basis $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\}`$ of this space is given as follows:

1. $`\gamma \beta \alpha `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_0\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_0\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\gamma +2j1}}{a_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\alpha +\beta +2(j1)}}{b_{j1}}}\right)q^{kx}`$ (2.7)
$`(1q^{\beta \alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{b_0\mathrm{}b_{N\alpha 1}}{a_1\mathrm{}a_{N\alpha +1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=N\alpha +1}{\overset{N\beta }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\alpha +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\alpha +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx}`$
$`(1q^{\gamma 1}){\displaystyle \underset{k=N\gamma +1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{N1}}{b_k\mathrm{}b_{N1}q^{Nx}}}q^{kx}.`$
2. $`\beta <\gamma \alpha `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_0\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx},\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)={\displaystyle \underset{k=N\gamma +1}{\overset{N\beta }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx}.`$ (2.8)
3. $`\beta \alpha <\gamma `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=N\gamma +1}{\overset{N\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)(1q^{N\gamma +1}){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N\gamma }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{N\gamma }}{b_k\mathrm{}b_{N\gamma }}}q^{kx}`$ (2.9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=N\gamma +2}{\overset{N\alpha }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=N\gamma +2}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\gamma +2j1}}{a_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\alpha +\beta +2(j1)}}{b_{j1}}}\right)q^{kx}`$
$`(1q^{\beta \alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma 1}\mathrm{}b_{N\alpha 1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_{N\alpha +1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=N\alpha +1}{\overset{N\beta }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\alpha +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\alpha +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}q^{kx}.`$
Here we set

$`a_k:=(1q^k)(1q^{\gamma 1+k}),b_k:=(1q^{\alpha +k})(1q^{\beta +k}).`$ (2.10)
Proof. Here we prove the theorem in the first case. The proof for the other case is similar.

Set

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}x^jP_j,P_j:={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}f_{jk}q^{kx}𝒫.`$ (2.11)
From Proposition 2.1, we see that $`L\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ is equivalent to the following:

$`LP_j+{\displaystyle \underset{t=j+1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{tj}}\right)L_{tj}P_t=0,(j=n,n1,\mathrm{},0),`$ (2.12)
where

$`L_k:=2^k(1q^x)D^2((1+q^{\gamma 1})q^x(q^\alpha +q^\beta ))D.`$ (2.13)
It is easy to solve (2.12) for $`j=n`$ and $`n1`$. The solution is given by

$`P_n=f_n\mathrm{\Psi }_1,P_{n1}=f_{n1}\mathrm{\Psi }_1+nf_n(\mathrm{\Psi }_2x\mathrm{\Psi }_1),`$ (2.14)
where $`f_n,f_{n1}𝒞`$.

Now we prove that $`n<2`$. If $`n2`$, there is a solution $`P_{n2}`$ to

$`LP_{n2}+(n1)(L_1P_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}L_2P_n)=0,`$ (2.15)
where $`P_{n1}`$ and $`P_n`$ are given in (2.14). Especially, we have

$`Q_n:=(n1)(L_1P_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}L_2P_n)L𝒫.`$ (2.16)
On the other hand, we can see that

$`L𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}z_kq^{kx},(z_k𝒞)\{\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \underset{j=N\beta +1}{\overset{N\gamma }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_j\mathrm{}b_{N\gamma }}{a_j\mathrm{}a_{N\gamma }}}z_j+z_{N\gamma +1}=0,(\gamma 1),\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \underset{j=N\beta +1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_j\mathrm{}b_{N1}}{a_j\mathrm{}a_{N1}}}z_j+q^{Nx}z_0=0,(\gamma =1).\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.19)
However, it can be checked that $`Q_n`$ does not satisfy (2.19) if $`n>2`$ and $`f_n0`$. This contradicts (2.16).

Hence $`n=0`$ or $`1`$, and $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\}`$ is a basis. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The $`q`$-hypergeometric function at $`q^N=1`$

We recall the definition of the $`q`$-hypergeometric function at $`|q|=1`$.

Set $`q=e^{2\pi i\omega },\omega >0`$. The $`q`$-hypergeometric function of the Barnes type is given as follows \[NU, T\]:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ;x):={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{1\gamma }}{\displaystyle _C}q^{xz}{\displaystyle \frac{z+1+\frac{1}{\omega }z+\gamma }{z+\alpha z+\beta }}𝑑z.`$ (3.1)
Here the function $`z`$ is defined by

$`z:=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}\left((1+\omega )z\omega z^2\right))S_2(z|1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}),`$ (3.2)
where $`S_2(z)`$ is the double sine function. We refer the reader to \[JM\] for the double sine function. The contour $`C`$ is the imaginary axis $`(i\mathrm{},i\mathrm{})`$ except that the poles at

$`\alpha +Z_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}Z_0,\beta +Z_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}Z_0`$ (3.3)
are on the left of $`C`$ and the poles at

$`Z_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}Z_0,\gamma +Z_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}Z_1`$ (3.4)
are on the right of $`C`$. The integral (3.1) is absolutely convergent if

$`0<\mathrm{Re}x<1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+\mathrm{Re}\gamma \mathrm{Re}\alpha \mathrm{Re}\beta .`$ (3.5)
Then the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ satisfies the equation (2.1) with $`q=e^{2\pi i\omega }`$.

Now we consider $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ under the condition (2.2). We also assume that

$`\alpha +\beta N\gamma .`$ (3.6)
Then the integral (3.1) converges if $`0<\mathrm{Re}x<1`$ because $`\omega =1/N`$ and (3.5).

###### Theorem 3.1

Under the conditions (2.2) and (3.6), the $`q`$-hypergeometric function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒮`$ and is represented explicitly as follows:

1. $`\gamma \beta \alpha `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{Nx}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1.`$ (3.7)
2. $`\beta <\gamma \alpha `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{Nx}}}\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{\gamma 1}}{(q)_{\alpha 1}(q)_{\beta 1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{\alpha \gamma }(q)_{N\gamma +\beta }}{(q)_{N\gamma +1}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_2\right\}.`$ (3.8)
3. $`\beta \alpha <\gamma `$ case.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{Nx}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{\gamma 1}}{(q)_{\alpha 1}(q)_{\beta 1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{N\gamma +\alpha }(q)_{N\gamma +\beta }}{(q)_{N\gamma +1}}}\left(C_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2\right),`$ (3.9)
$`C_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma :=1({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N\gamma +1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=N\gamma +\alpha +1}{\overset{N1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=N\gamma +\beta +1}{\overset{N1}{}}}){\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{1q^j}}.`$ (3.10)
Here $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2\}`$ in (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9) is the basis of the space of solutions given in (2.7), (2.8) and (2.9), respectively.

Proof. Let us calculate the integral in (3.1). We denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ the integrand of (3.1):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z):=q^{xz}{\displaystyle \frac{z+1+\frac{1}{\omega }z+\gamma }{z+\alpha z+\beta }}.`$ (3.11)
By using

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z+N}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi iz}}},`$ (3.12)
we see the following under the condition (2.2):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z+N)=q^{Nx}\mathrm{\Phi }(z).`$ (3.13)
Hence, we have

$`(1q^{Nx}){\displaystyle _C}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)𝑑z=\left({\displaystyle _C}{\displaystyle _{C+N}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(z)dz`$ (3.14)
From (2.2), we can take the line $`\frac{1}{2}+iR`$ as the contour $`C`$. Then the right hand side of (3.14) is given by the sum of residues at $`z=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. Therefore, we get

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{1q^{Nx}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{1\gamma }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{res}_{z=k}\mathrm{\Phi }(z).`$ (3.15)
By using

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z+1}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^z}},`$ (3.16)
we can represent the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ in terms of $`q^z`$ and calculate residues of this function explicitly.

It is easy to see that all the poles at $`z=0,\mathrm{}N1`$ are simple if $`\beta \alpha `$ and $`\gamma \alpha `$. Then we find the formulae (3.7) and (3.8) easily by using

$`(1q)(1q^2)\mathrm{}(1q^{N1})=N.`$ (3.17)
Let us consider the case of $`\beta \alpha <\gamma `$. The poles at $`z=0,\mathrm{},N\gamma `$ and $`z=N\alpha +1,\mathrm{},\beta `$ are simple, and it is easy to calculate residues at these poles. The result is as follows:

$`\mathrm{res}_{z=k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{N\gamma +\alpha }(q)_{N\gamma +\beta }}{(q)_{N\gamma +1}}}(1q^{N\gamma +1}){\displaystyle \frac{a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_{N\gamma }}{b_k\mathrm{}b_{N\gamma }}},(k=0,\mathrm{},N\gamma )`$ (3.18)
and

$`\mathrm{res}_{z=k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{N\gamma +\alpha }(q)_{N\gamma +\beta }}{(q)_{N\gamma +1}}}`$ (3.19)
$`\times `$ $`(1q^{\beta \alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma 1}\mathrm{}b_{N\alpha 1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_{N\alpha +1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\alpha +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\alpha +2}\mathrm{}a_k}},(k=N\alpha +1,\mathrm{},\beta ).`$
Here we used (3.17).

Next we calculate residues at $`z=N\gamma +1,\mathrm{},N\alpha `$. Note that these points are double poles. For $`k=N\gamma +1,\mathrm{},N\alpha `$, we have

$`\mathrm{res}_{z=k}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=`$
$`=q^{kx}\mathrm{res}_{z=0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^{zx}}{(1q^z)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{z+j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\alpha +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{z+j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k+\gamma 1N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{z+j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\beta +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{z+j}}}\right).`$ (3.20)
By substituting

$`q^{zx}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}xz+o(z),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{z+j}}}=\{\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi i}}z^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+o(1),(j0\mathrm{mod}N),\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{(1q^j)^2}}z+o(z),(j0\mathrm{mod}N),\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{as}z0,`$ (3.23)
we find

$`(\text{3.20})=q^{kx}\mathrm{res}_{z=0}\left(({\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi i}})^2D_kz^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi i}}D_k(xE_k)z^1+o(1)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi i}}D_k(xE_k)q^{kx},`$ (3.24)
where

$`D_k={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\alpha +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k+\gamma 1N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^j}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\beta +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^j}},`$
$`E_k=1\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\alpha +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k+\gamma 1N}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=\beta +k}{\overset{N1}{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{q^j}{1q^j}}.`$ (3.25)
By using (3.17), we see

$`D_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{N\gamma +\alpha }(q)_{N\gamma +\beta }}{(q)_{N\gamma +1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{N\gamma +1}\mathrm{}b_{k1}}{a_{N\gamma +2}\mathrm{}a_k}}.`$ (3.26)
Moreover, we have

$`E_{N\gamma +1}=C_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma ,`$ (3.27)
$`E_kE_{k1}={\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\gamma +2k1}}{a_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\alpha +\beta +2(k1)}}{b_{k1}}},`$ (3.28)
where $`C_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma `$ is given by (3.10). Hence we find

$`E_k=C_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma +{\displaystyle \underset{j=N\gamma +2}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\gamma +2j1}}{a_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1q^{\alpha +\beta +2(j1)}}{b_{j1}}}\right).`$ (3.29)
From this calculation, we get the relation (3.9). $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 3.1 implies that the $`q`$-hypergeometric function of the Barnes type has logarithmic singularity in the case that $`q^N=1`$ and $`\beta \alpha <\gamma `$.


text:
# Quasi-unipotence of overconvergent 𝐹-crystals

## 1 Descending a slope filtration

Recall the main result of .

###### Theorem 1.1.

Every $`F`$-crystal over $`R=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{imm}}`$ becomes constant over $`R_{\mathrm{an}}_𝒪𝒪^{}`$ for some finite extension $`𝒪^{}`$ of $`𝒪`$.

An alternate formulate of the result, avoiding the extension of scalars, is that given an invertible matrix $`A`$ over $`R`$, there exist $`U`$ over $`R_{\mathrm{an}}`$ such that $`U^1AU^\sigma `$ has entries in $`𝒪`$.

While this provides a new slope filtration over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ of an $`F`$-crystal over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$, this slope filtration is not immediately useful in studying $`(F,)`$-crystals, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ does not carry a derivation. To use the filtration to prove quasi-unipotence, we must first descend it to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ itself. This descent is the object of this section.

Recall the norms $`w_r`$ defined on appropriate subrings of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{}`$, and that the subring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{}`$ is complete in the Fréchet topology given by these norms. We extend these norms to matrices by declaring the norm of a matrix to be the maximum norm of any of its entries. Also, let $`I_n`$ denote the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix.

We say $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{imm}}`$ is an *$`r`$-semiunit* if there exists $`c𝒪`$ and $`i`$ such that $`w_r(xct^i)<w_r(x)`$. For $`L`$ a finite extension of $`K`$ (not necessarily separable), an *$`r`$-semiunit basis* is a sequence of $`r`$-semiunits $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$ whose reductions modulo $`\pi `$ form a basis for $`L`$ as a $`K`$-vector space.

###### Lemma 1.2.

For any finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$ (not necessarily separable), there exists an extension $`L_1`$ of $`L`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{L_1}`$ admits an $`r`$-semiunit basis.

###### Proof.

Let $`x`$ be an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$ whose reduction modulo $`\pi `$ generates $`L`$ over $`K`$. Then for $`m`$ sufficiently large, $`x^{\sigma ^m}`$ is an $`r`$-semiunit. Thus if we take $`L_1=L^{1/p^m}`$, we may use powers of $`x^{\sigma ^m}`$ as an $`r`$-semiunit basis. ∎

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ has the property that any finitely generated ideal is principal \[5, Lemma 3.15\], the following lemma can be deduced from \[2, Theorem III.7.9\]. Recall that an *elementary matrix* is a matrix obtained from the identity by adding a multiple of one row to another, swapping two rows, or multiplying one row by a unit.

###### Lemma 1.3.

For $`r>0`$, any invertible matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ can be factored as a product of elementary matrices.

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`U`$ be an invertible matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ for some $`r>0`$. Then there exists an invertible matrix $`V`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^L`$ such that $`w_r(VUI_n)<1`$ and $`w_r((VU)^1I_n)<1`$.

###### Proof.

Factor $`U^1`$ as a product of elementary matrices in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$. It suffices to note that for each elementary matrix $`W`$ in this product and each $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`X`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^L`$ for some finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$ such that $`w_r(XU)<ϵ`$ and $`w_r(X^1U^1)<ϵ`$. This is vacuous for permutation matrices and easily verified for the other two kinds of matrices. ∎

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`A`$ be an $`n\times n`$ matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$, and $`D`$ an invertible $`n\times n`$ diagonal matrix. Suppose there exists an $`n\times m`$ matrix $`U`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{imm}}`$ such that $`AU^\sigma =DU`$. Then there exists an invertible matrix $`S`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^L`$, for some finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$, such that $`D^1SAS^\sigma `$ has entries in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$ and is congruent to $`I_n`$ modulo $`\pi `$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`r>0`$ such that $`w_r(U)`$ and $`w_r(U^\sigma )`$ are defined, and let $`v`$ be the smallest positive valuation of $`𝒪`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{max}_{i,j}v_p(D_{ii}/D_{jj})`$. By Corollary 1.4, for any $`ϵ>0`$, we can change basis over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^L`$ for some finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$ to ensure that $`w_r(U^\sigma I_n)<ϵ`$ and $`w_r(D^1UDI_n)<ϵ`$. In particular, choose $`s`$ large enough that $`(p1)rs\mathrm{max}_{i,j}v_p(D_{ii}/D_{jj})>v`$ and take $`ϵ=p^{rs}`$. We may also assume that $`L`$ contains $`vr`$, and that $`L`$ has a $`pr`$-semiunit basis, by enlarging $`L`$ suitably.

We construct a convergent sequence $`\{S_l\}_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^L`$ such that $`w_r(D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma I_n)<ϵ`$ for each $`l`$, as follows. First set $`S_0=1`$. Given $`S_l`$, if $`D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma I_n`$ has no coefficients of norm at least 1, the proof is complete and we stop. Otherwise, write $`D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma =_iT_it^i`$. If the smallest positive index $`i`$ for which $`|T_i|>1`$ gives $`|T_i|=1`$, let $`j=j_l`$ be the index, let $`V`$ be a matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^L`$ whose entries are $`rp`$-semiunits such that $`w_r(I_n+T_jt^jV)<w_r(T_j)`$, and put $`W=V^1`$. In this case we say $`l`$ is of the “first type”. Otherwise, let $`j=j_l`$ be the smallest positive index at which $`r_l=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{log}_p|T_j|)/j`$ is realized. By construction, $`w_{r_l}(D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma )=w_{r_l}(S_l^\sigma A^1S_l^1D)=1`$. Thus the lowest order terms of $`S_l^\sigma A^1S_l^1D`$ form an invertible matrix over the ring of elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^L`$ of $`w_{r_l}`$-norm 1 modulo those of norm less than 1. That ring is isomorphic to $`k[u,u^1]`$, and so is a principal ideal domain. Thus by Lemma 1.3, the matrix can be factored into elementary matrices. By lifting each of these into an invertible matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},rp}^L`$ (possible because $`L`$ admits an $`rp`$-semiunit basis) and multiplying together, we get a matrix which we again call $`W`$. In this case we say $`l`$ is of the “second type”. In both cases, we set $`S_{l+1}=WS_l`$.

Note that $`j>s`$ by virtue of the fact that $`w_r(D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma I_n)<ϵ`$. As a consequence, $`w_r(D^1W^\sigma DI_n)<w_r(WI_n)`$, since if the leading term on the right side is contained in $`T_jt^j`$, that on the left is the corresponding entry of $`D^1T_jDt^{pj}`$, which has smaller $`w_r`$-norm by the choice of $`s`$ and the bound $`j>s`$. In particular, we have $`w_r(D^1S_{l+1}AS_{l+1}^\sigma I_n)<ϵ`$, so the argument can be continued.

We now show that the $`S_l`$ converge in the Fréchet topology on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},r}^L`$. Before doing so, we construct an upper bound on the size of the coefficients of $`A`$ of positive index that will be stable under conjugation by $`S_l`$. Namely, put $`A=_iA_it^i`$. For $`i`$ in the value group of $`L`$, let $`f(i)=\mathrm{max}_{ji}\{1,|D^1A_j|\}`$. Let $`i_0`$ be the largest value such that $`f(i_0)=1`$, and extend $`f`$ to a smooth increasing function $`f(i)`$ on $``$ which is identically 1 for $`ii_0`$. Now define

$$g(i)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^i\mathrm{max}\{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{t},\frac{f^{}(t)}{f(t)}\}\right)dt.$$

Then it is easily verified that $`g(i)f(i)`$ for all $`i`$, $`(\mathrm{log}_pg(i))/i0`$ as $`i+\mathrm{}`$, and $`g(pi)p^\mathrm{\Delta }g(i)`$ for $`ii_0`$. (The second condition follows from the inequality $`g(i)if(i)`$ obtained by bounding $`\mathrm{max}\{x,y\}`$ by $`x+y`$.)

By construction, $`|D^1A_i|g(i)`$ for all $`i0`$. Moreover, because $`g(pi)p^\mathrm{\Delta }g(i)`$ for all $`i`$, it is easily verified by induction on $`l`$ that for $`D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma =_iB_{l,i}t^i`$, we have $`|B_{l,i}|g(i)`$ for all $`i0`$ and $`l0`$.

Now observe that $`(rr_l)j_l`$ takes any given value only finitely many times. To wit, if there were a smallest value that occurred infinitely often, the corresponding values of $`j_l`$ would form a decreasing sequence (since the $`r`$-minimal terms of $`D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma I_n`$ would not change between these values of $`l`$, so $`r_l`$ would decrease on these values). But $`j_l`$ lies in the (discrete) value group of $`L`$, contradiction. Thus $`(rr_l)j_l`$ takes any given value finitely many times, and so goes to infinity with $`l`$.

Since $`rj_l>(rr_l)j_l`$, $`j_l`$ also goes to infinity. On the other hand, since $`r_lj_lg(j_l)`$ and $`g(i)/i0`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$, $`r_l0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$. By the same argument as in the previous paragraph, $`(r^{}r_l)j_l\mathrm{}`$ for $`0<r^{}<r`$. Therefore the $`S_l`$ form a Cauchy sequence in the Fréchet topology, and their limit $`S`$ exists.

We finally prove that $`DSAS^\sigma I_n`$ has no coefficients of norm greater than or equal to 1. We first prove there are no coefficients of norm greater than 1. Put $`D^1S_lAS_l^\sigma =_iB_{l,i}t^i`$ and $`DSAS^\sigma =_iB_it^i`$. If $`|W_i|>1`$ for some $`i`$, let $`j`$ be the smallest index maximizing $`(\mathrm{log}_p|B_i|)/i`$. Then for some $`L`$, the coefficient of $`t^j`$ in $`DS_lAS_l^\sigma I_n`$ has norm $`|W_j|`$ for all $`lL`$. In fact, we can choose $`L`$ large enough so that $`(\mathrm{log}_p|B_{l,i}|)/i`$ is maximized at $`i=j`$ for all $`lL`$, by finding $`i^{}`$ such that $`g(j)/j(\mathrm{log}_p|B_i|)/i`$ for all $`ji^{}`$, and choosing $`L`$ so that $`|B_{l,i}|=|B_i|`$ for $`ii^{}`$. For $`l`$ sufficiently large, $`l`$ cannot be of the first type, since $`j_l<i`$ for all $`l`$ of the first type. So there exists $`lL`$ of the second type. By construction, $`r_l=(\mathrm{log}_p|B_{l,j}|)/j`$ and $`|B_{l+1,j}|<p^{r_lj}`$, contradiction.

We conclude that $`|B_i|1`$ for all $`i`$. The proof that $`|B_i|<1`$ for $`i>0`$ is analogous but simpler: assuming the contrary, let $`j`$ be the smallest index such that $`|B_j|=1`$. Then for $`l`$ sufficiently large, $`|B_{l,i}|=|B_i|`$ for $`ij`$; but then any such $`l`$ would be of the first type with $`j_l=j`$, and we would have $`|B_{l+1,j}|<1`$, contradiction.

In conclusion, we have that $`D^1SAS^\sigma `$ has entries in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$ and $`|D^1SAS^\sigma I_n|<1`$, as desired. ∎

The following proposition was inspired by an observation of Kevin Buzzard and Frank Calegari, in their work on the Newton polygons of Hecke operators acting on spaces of overconvergent modular forms.

###### Proposition 1.6.

Let $`M`$ be an $`F`$-crystal over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{imm}}`$. Suppose there exists a basis through which $`F`$ acts by the matrix $`A`$, where $`D^1AI_n(mod\pi )`$ for some diagonal matrix $`D`$ over $`𝒪`$. Then the slopes of the (generic) Newton polygon of $`M`$ equal the valuations of the diagonal entries of $`D`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, assume $`D`$ has entries in $`𝒪_0`$. Let $`B=D^1AD`$. We produce a sequence of matrices $`\{U_l\}_{l=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`U_1=I_n`$, $`U_{l+1}U_l(mod\pi ^l)`$ and $`U_l^1BU_l^\sigma D^1I_n(mod\pi ^l)`$; the $`p`$-adic limit $`U`$ of the $`U_l`$ will satisfy $`BU^\sigma =UD`$, proving the proposition. The conditions for $`l=1`$ are satisfied by the assumption that $`D^1AI_n(mod\pi )`$.

Suppose $`U_l`$ has been defined. Let $`U_l^1BU_l^\sigma D^1=I_n+V`$. For each $`i,j`$, let $`W_{ij}`$ be a solution of the equation $`W_{ij}D_{ii}W_{ij}^\sigma D_{jj}^1=V_{ij}`$. Then $`W`$ and $`DW^\sigma D^1`$ are both congruent to 0 modulo $`\pi ^l`$. Put $`U_{l+1}=(I_n+W)U_l`$; then

$`U_{l+1}^1BU_l^\sigma D^1`$ $`=(I_n+W)^1U_l^1BU_l^\sigma (I_n+W)^\sigma D^1`$
$`=(I_n+W)^1U_l^1BU_l^\sigma D^1(I_n+DW^\sigma D^1)`$
$`=(I_n+W)^1(I_n+V)(I_n+DW^\sigma D^1)`$
$`I_nW+V+DW^\sigma D^1=I_n(mod\pi ^{l+1}).`$
Thus the conditions for $`U_{l+1}`$ are satisfied, and the proposition follows. ∎

Putting everything together, we obtain the following result.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Let $`M`$ be an $`F`$-crystal over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ admitting a basis of eigenvectors over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$. Suppose the lowest special slope of $`M`$ is $`s`$ occurring with multiplicity $`m`$. Then there exists a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$-lattice $`N`$ of dimension $`m`$ which is $`F`$-stable with all slopes equal to $`s`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A`$ be the matrix through which $`F`$ acts on some basis of $`M`$. By Theorem 1.1, there exists a matrix $`D`$ over a suitable extension of $`𝒪_0`$ and a matrix $`U`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ such that $`AU^\sigma =UD`$. By Lemma 1.5, for some finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$, there is an $`F`$-stable $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$-lattice $`M_1`$ of full rank within $`M_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^L`$ on which the action of $`F`$ is given by a matrix of the form $`DV`$, with $`V`$ invertible over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$. By applying $`\sigma `$ repeatedly, we may reduce to the case where $`L`$ is separable. By Proposition 1.6, viewed as an $`F`$-crystal over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$, $`M_1`$ has the same special and generic Newton polygons. By \[5, Corollary 6.6\], $`M_1`$ has a subcrystal $`M_2`$ of dimension $`m`$ with all slopes equal to $`s`$.

Otherwise put, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$-module spanned by the eigenvectors of $`M_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ of lowest slope descends to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L`$. Since this module admits an action of $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)`$, $`M_2`$ admits an action of $`\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$. We may apply Galois descent to the finite extension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^L/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$ of discrete valuation rings to conclude that $`M_2=N_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$-lattice $`N`$, which is necessarily $`F`$-stable. The property of being étale is stable under finite separable extensions, so $`N`$ is also étale, as desired. ∎

## 2 Proof of the main result

In this section, we assemble everything into the proof of the main theorem. This stage of the proof is the first and only time where the connection structure is used.

Let $`M`$ be an $`(F,)`$-crystal over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$. We may assume, by extending $`𝒪`$, that the value group of $`𝒪`$ contains all of the special and generic slopes of $`M`$. Let $`NM_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ be the lowest slope piece of $`M`$ as given by Proposition 1.7. We show that $`N_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ is stable under $``$. Choose a basis for $`N`$ and extend it to a basis of $`M_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$. On this basis, $`F`$ acts by a block matrix of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ 0& Z\end{array}\right)`$ with $`X`$ an invertible matrix over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}`$. Let $``$ acts by the block matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& Q\\ R& S\end{array}\right)`$. The relation $`F=pF`$ implies the matrix identity

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& Q\\ R& S\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ 0& Z\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& Y\\ 0& Z\end{array}\right)^{}=p\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ 0& D\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}P& Q\\ R& S\end{array}\right)^\sigma ,$$

the lower left corner of which yields $`RX=pZR^\sigma `$. We can write $`X=U^1U^\sigma `$ with $`U`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ by \[4, Lemma 2.2\], and $`Z=V^1DV^\sigma `$ with $`V`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}^{\mathrm{alg}}`$ and $`D`$ a scalar matrix over $`𝒪_0`$ whose entries have norms less than 1 (because of the construction of $`N`$ as the lowest slope piece of $`M`$). Consequently, $`VRU^1=pD(VRU^1)^\sigma `$, which implies $`VRU^1=0`$ and so $`R=0`$, proving the claim.

Since $`N_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{con}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{an},\mathrm{con}}`$ is stable under $``$, we may apply an observation of Berger \[1, Lemme V.14\] to conclude that $`N`$ itself is stable under $``$. Now Tsuzuki’s theorem on the potential triviality of unit-root $`F`$-crystals  implies that $`M_1`$ is quasi-unipotent. By induction on the dimension of $`M`$, $`M`$ is quasi-unipotent, as desired.

## Acknowledgments

The author was supported by a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship. Thanks to the organizers of the Dwork Trimester in Padova for their hospitality, and to Laurent Berger and Johan de Jong for helpful discussions.


text:
# Are small hyperbolic universes observationally detectable?

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Andrew Przeworski for very helpful correspondence concerning his work, Jeff Weeks for many useful comments, and Neil Cornish for drawing our attention to the reference . We also thank FAPERJ and CNPq for the grants under which this work was carried out.

## Figure caption

The solutions curve of $`\chi _{obs}=r_{inj}`$, as plots of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (vertical axis) versus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ (horizontal axis), with $`r_{inj}`$ taken as $`0.045`$ (upper curve) and $`0.152`$ (lower curve), respectively. The depth of the survey in both cases correspond to a redshift $`z_{max}=1200`$ (CMBR). Included also is a dashed rectangular box, representing the relevant part, for our purposes, of the hyperbolic region of the parameter space given by recent observations. The undetectable region of the parameter space ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$) corresponding to each value of $`r_{inj}`$ lies above the related curve.


text:
# Towards Mapping the Proton unintegrated Gluon Distribution in Dijets Correlations in Real and Virtual Photoproduction at HERA

## 1 Introduction

The jet studies are known to be a good tool to test perturbative QCD effects. It was pointed out already some time ago that dijet production in DIS could be a method to study the onset of BFKL dynamics both in photo-  and electroproduction . Unfortunately in practice, due to unavoidable cuts on transverse momenta of jets, one samples rather large values of the gluon longitudinal momentum fraction $`x_g`$, where it is not completely clear what is the underlying dynamics and in particular what unintegrated gluon distribution should be used.

This presentation is based on Ref.  where we have discussed the jet production beyond the familiar collinear approximation and have focused on how more exclusive and more differential jet production observables probe the unintegrated gluon distribution. Based on the unintegrated gluon distributions found recently  from the phenomenological analysis of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}`$ we have explored dijet azimuthal correlations.

## 2 The formalism

At the parton level the total cross section for quark-antiquark dijet production $`\gamma ^{}+pj_1+j_2+X`$ can be written in a compact way as:

$$\sigma _{T/L}^{\gamma ^{}pj_1j_2}(x,Q^2)=𝑑\varphi _{p_{1,,min}^2}𝑑p_{1,}^2_{p_{2,,min}^2}𝑑p_{2,}^2\frac{f_g(x_g,\kappa ^2)}{\kappa ^4}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{T/L}(x,Q^2,\stackrel{}{p}_{1,},\stackrel{}{p}_{2,}),$$
(1)
where $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ are standard kinematical variables. In the formula above $`f_g(x_g,\kappa ^2)`$ is the unintegrated gluon distribution and $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }`$ is the transverse momentum of the exchanged gluon. It is related to the quark/antiquark jet transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_{1,}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{2,}`$ as:

$$\stackrel{}{p}_{2,}=\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{p}_{1,},\kappa ^2=p_{1,}^2+p_{2,}^2+2p_{1,}p_{2,}cos\varphi .$$
(2)
We have written explicitly lower cuts on the transverse momenta of jets in (1). The indices $`T`$ and $`L`$ refer to transverse and longitudinal photons, respectively. The auxilliary quantities $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{T/L}`$ introduced in (1) are given explicitly in . $`f_g`$ is evaluated at $`x_g=\frac{M_t^2+Q^2}{W^2+Q^2}`$ where $`M_t^2=\frac{p_{1,}^2+m_f^2}{z}+\frac{p_{2,}^2+m_f^2}{1z}`$ is flavour dependent. It is obvious then that at large transverse momenta of jets one samples larger values of $`x_g`$ than in the case of total cross section.

The gluon momentum $`\kappa `$ is responsible for the jets being not exactly back-to-back in contrast to the conventional collinear approximation to leading order. In the following we limit ourselves to the region of $`x_\gamma `$ 1, where the jets are dominantly produced from the quark box on the very top of the gluonic ladder.

The following simple two-component Ansatz was adopted in

$$f_g(x_g,\kappa ^2)=_{soft}(\kappa ^2)\frac{\kappa _s^2}{\kappa ^2+\kappa _s^2}+_{hard}(x_g,\kappa ^2)\frac{\kappa ^2}{\kappa ^2+\kappa _h^2}$$
(3)
for unintegrated gluon distribution. The parameters $`\kappa _s`$ and $`\kappa _h`$ determine the scale of the transition from the hard to soft gluon region . The details concerning both components can be found in .

The hard perturbative component is calculated from known conventional DGLAP parametrizations as derivative . The results presented in this note and in  were obtained based on a recent MRST98 LO parametrization .

The two-component structure (3) of the unintegrated gluon distribution leads to interesting consequences for the dijet azimuthal correlations.

## 3 Results

Here for illustration only two examples will be discussed. A more complete analysis can be found in .

The cross section for the dijet production strongly depends on cuts imposed on kinematical variables. In order to better demonstrate the effect of coexistence of perturbative and nonperturbative effects we have imposed cuts on kinematical variables in the so-called hadronic center of mass (HCM) sytem. In the present purposefully simplified analysis we impose the cuts on the parton level and avoid extra cuts in the laboratory frame.

In Fig.1, we present $`d\sigma (\gamma ^{}pj_1j_2)/d\varphi `$ as a function of HCM azimuthal angle between jets for two different values of photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ = 4 GeV2 (left panel) and $`Q^2`$ = 16 GeV2 (right panel) for a series of Bjorken $`x`$. In this calculation, we have restricted the transverse momenta of jets to $`p_{1,}^{HCM},p_{2,}^{HCM}>p_{t,cut}=`$ 4 GeV and summed over light flavours $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$. One can observe a strong dependence of the azimuthal angle decorrelation pattern on Bjorken $`x`$. A closer inspection of both panels simultaneously leads to the conclusion that averaging over a broad range of $`Q^2`$ would to a large extent destroy the effect as it involves automatically averaging over a certain range of $`x_g`$, the most crucial variable for the effect to be observed.

The experimental identification of the effects discussed here requires good statistics in the data sample. In practice , one averages over broader range of Bjorken $`x`$, photon virtuality and jet transverse momenta. Most of the effects are then washed out and the information about the small-$`x`$ dynamics is to a large extent lost.

In the model in Ref. the total (real) photoproduction cross section at energies $`W<`$ 100 GeV is dominated by the soft component. Only at very high, not yet available, energies the hard component would dominate. At ”intermediate” energy available at HERA, the two components coexist and their fraction is a smooth function of initial $`\gamma p`$ energy. In principle, the same stays true for the dijet production and has interesting consequences for the jet azimuthal correlations .

There is another interesting prediction of the two-component model. Let us concentrate on the cases (events) with one hard ($`p_{}>p_{t,cut}`$) jet and one soft ($`p_{}<p_{t,cut}`$) ”jet”. In this single jet event $`x_\gamma <`$ 1, because the transverse momentum of the single quark(antiquark) jet is compensated by a transverse momentum of a much softer gluon. We shall call such cases ”one jet” events for simplicity. Let us compare the rate of such ”one jet” events to the previously discussed cases of two hard jets in photoproduction. As an example in Fig.2 we compare the cross section for the two cases with the lower cut on transverse momentum $`p_{t,cut}`$ = 4 GeV. Firstly, we observe that the cross section for both cases are of similar order. Furthermore we observe a significantly stronger rise of the cross section for the ”one jet” case than for the ”two jet” case. This is related to different $`x_g`$ and $`\kappa `$ sampled in both cases. For example for W = 100 GeV and $`p_{t,cut}`$ = 4 GeV in the ”one jet” case $`<x_g>`$ 0.01 is substantially lower than in the ”two jet” case $`<x_g>`$ 0.02. Both numbers are, however, substantially larger than average $`<x_g>`$ 0.005 sampled in the case of total cross section. The effect of $`\kappa `$ is more complicated as averaged $`\kappa `$ strongly depends on $`\varphi `$ for the ”two jet” case. The interplay of the two effects ($`x_g`$ and $`\kappa `$) causes $`f_g`$ to be sampled differently in the ”one jet” and ”two jet” cases. This, potentially allows the possibility of a further nontrivial test of $`f_g`$. It would be valuable to compare the present predictions with the predictions of standard (collinear) NLO approach.

## 4 Conclusions

Based on the recent model determination  of the unintegrated gluon distribution in the proton we have explored the impact of the soft gluon component and the onset of the perturbative regime on the dijet azimuthal correlations. We have predicted a strong dependence of the azimuthal correlation pattern on Bjorken $`x`$, photon virtuality and the cut on the jet transverse momenta. The effects in the electroproduction could be verified now at HERA, provided a careful differential ($`x`$ ,$`Q^2`$, transverse momentum cut) studies of the dijets are made.

It would be important to compare the results of the model discussed here with the result of the standard collinear approach to understand the potential of such a dijet study to shed more light on the low-$`x`$ dynamics which has been studied up to now in rather inclusive processes. Finally, we have found that the study of the energy dependence of the ”one jet” (defined in the text) cross section would be a new test of unintegrated gluon distributions.

## Acknowledgments

I am indebted to coauthors of Ref. for collaboration on the subject of this presentation. This work was partially supported by the German-Polish DLR exchange program, grant number POL-028-98.


text:
# Impurity band in clean superconducting weak links

## Abstract

Weak impurity scattering produces a narrow band with a finite density of states near the phase difference $`\varphi =\pi `$ in the mid-gap energy spectrum of a macroscopic superconducting weak link. The equivalent distribution of transmission coefficients of various conducting quantum channels is found.

Effect of impurities on transport properties of superconducting nanostructures is one of the key issues in the physics of mesoscopic superconductors (see Beenakker/rev  for a review). Recent advances in nanotechnology revived interest in quantum point contacts (see Lodder  and references therein) and in other devices that employ quantum conductors connected to superconducting electrodes Pierre . SNS junctions and weak links consisting of two superconductors connected by a small orifice in a thin insulating layer (point contacts) are the simplest devices of interest. Though impurity effects in SNS junctions are well studied (the work began with Ref. Mitsai  and still goes on, see for example Zhou ), the role of impurity scattering in superconducting point contacts remains not fully investigated.

As an example, consider a ballistic point contact between two superconductors assuming that the thickness $`d`$ of the insulating layer and the size of the orifice $`a`$ are shorter than the coherence length $`\xi `$ and the impurity mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$. As is well known Kulik ; KulikOmel  there exist mid-gap states with the spectrum

$$ϵ=\pm ϵ_0,ϵ_0=|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)$$
(1)
Here $`\varphi =\chi _2\chi _1`$, with $`\chi _{1,2}`$ being the order parameter phase on the left (right) from the orifice; the upper sign refers to particles moving to the right from region 1 into region 2 and vice versa. Impurities do not appear in Eq. (1) because the characteristic dimension is determined by the size of the constriction $`d`$ rather than by $`\xi `$, the parameter $`d/\mathrm{}`$ being assumed infinitely small. It is natural to expect however that the impurity scattering would modify this spectrum at an energy scale determined by the small parameter $`d/\mathrm{}`$, especially for low energies where the two branches of the spectrum for right- and left-moving particles cross. The same can be expected for a long ballistic SNS junction which has a mid-gap spectrum Mitsai ; Kulik  consisting of many branches for right- and left-moving particles that cross at $`\varphi =\pi `$.

In this Letter we consider both point contacts and long SNS junctions and show that a weak impurity scattering transforms their mid-gap spectra in such a way that a narrow band having a finite density of states and a width $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\sqrt{d/\mathrm{}}`$ appears near each crossing point at the phase difference $`\varphi =\pi `$. This impurity band is expected to have a dramatic effect on dynamic properties of weak links. In particular, it enhances the inelastic electron-phonon relaxation rate at low temperatures which would be otherwise nearly zero due to the energy conservation.

Impurity band in a point contact.–We consider first a ballistic point contact such that $`ad\xi \mathrm{}`$. One has $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}=|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\chi _{1,2}}`$ to the left (right) from the orifice, respectively (see Fig. 1 ). The quasiclassical Green functions (retarded or advanced) satisfy the normalization $`g^2ff^{}=1`$ and obey the Eilenberger equations Eilenberger

$`iv_F{\displaystyle \frac{g}{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\tau }}\left(ff^{}ff^{}\right)`$ (2)
$`iv_F{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}2ϵf+2\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau }}\left(gffg\right),`$ (3)
$`iv_F{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{s}}2ϵf^{}+2\mathrm{\Delta }^{}g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau }}\left(gf^{}f^{}g\right)`$ (4)
where $`s`$ is the distance along the particle trajectory. We assume zero magnetic field. The right-hand sides of these equations describe the scattering by impurities. We use $`\mathrm{}`$ to denote an average over the Fermi surface. The standard technique of averaging over impurities is applicable because the number of impurities within the volume of the orifice is large. Indeed, the mean free time is $`\tau ^1N_Fn_{\mathrm{imp}}|u|^2`$ where $`|u|Up_F^3`$ is the Fourier transform of the impurity potential $`U`$, and $`N_F`$ is the normal single-spin density of states at the Fermi level. The number of impurities $`n_{\mathrm{imp}}da^2(d/\mathrm{})(p_Fa)^2(E_F/U)^2`$ can be very large even for $`UE_F`$ because of a macroscopic number of quantum channels in the orifice $`(p_Fa)^21`$.

For low energies $`|ϵ||\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ and close to $`\varphi =\pi `$ the Green functions are localized near the orifice at distances $`s\xi `$. We put $`\varphi =\pi +\delta `$ where $`\delta 1`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=i|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\delta /2},\mathrm{\Delta }_2=i|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\delta /2}`$. Following KrPe  we write

$$f_\pm =i\zeta _\pm \pm \eta _\pm ,f_\pm ^{}=i\zeta _\pm \eta _\pm .$$
(5)
The upper sign is for right-moving particles, $`p_x>0`$, the lower sign is for left-moving particles, $`p_x<0`$. The $`x`$ axis is perpendicular to the insulating layer. We assume $`\zeta ^21\eta ^2`$ so that $`g_\pm =i\zeta _\pm `$. Equations (3, 4) become

$`v_F{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _\pm }{s}}+2\zeta _\pm |\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{cos}(\delta /2)\mathrm{sign}(s)=0,`$
$`v_F{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\pm }{s}}\left(2ϵ2|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{sin}(\delta /2)+i\sigma _\pm \right)\zeta _\pm =0,`$
where

$$\sigma _\pm =\tau ^1\left(g\pm f/2\pm f^{}/2\right).$$
(6)
The boundary conditions for $`s\mathrm{}`$ follow from the expressions for the Green functions in the bulk. For small $`\delta `$, the functions $`\zeta _\pm 0`$ and $`\eta _\pm 1`$. The solution is

$`\zeta _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`C_\pm \mathrm{exp}\left(K\right),K=2|\mathrm{\Delta }||s|/v_F,`$
$`\eta _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`C_\pm v_F^1{\displaystyle _0^s}e^K\left(2|\mathrm{\Delta }|E_\pm +i\sigma _\pm \right)𝑑s,`$
$`C_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left[E_\pm +iv_F^1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma _\pm 𝑑s\right]^1.`$
Here $`E_\pm =ϵ/|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{sin}(\delta /2)`$.

The averages $`g`$, etc., are proportional to the solid angle at which the orifice is visible from the position point, they decrease quickly at distances $`sa`$ from the orifice. Indeed, $`g(𝐩,𝐫)=f(𝐩,𝐫)=i\zeta \left(0\right)`$ for trajectories that go through the orifice and $`g(𝐩,𝐫)=f(𝐩,𝐫)=0`$ otherwise because, for non-through trajectories, the Green functions are small as compared to $`\zeta 1`$. For $`sa`$ one has $`K=0`$. Moreover, using Eq. (5) we find

$$v_F^1\sigma _\pm 𝑑s=\mathrm{}^1𝑑sg(0)_{}=\gamma g_{}(0)$$

where $`g_\pm =(2\pi )^1_{\pm p_x>0}g(𝐩,𝐫)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐩`$, and $`\gamma d/\mathrm{}`$ is a geometric factor depending on the shape of the contact and on the position of the trajectory with respect to the orifice. We neglect the latter dependence and consider a constant $`\gamma `$ for simplicity. Finally,

$$g_\pm ^{R(A)}\left(s\right)=ie^K\left[E_\pm +i\gamma g_{}^{R(A)}\left(0\right)\right]^1.$$
(7)
In the limit $`\gamma 0`$, the Green functions have poles at $`E_\pm =0`$ which is Eq. (1). The spectrum is shown in Fig. 2 by lines (1) for $`p_x>0`$ and (2) for $`p_x<0`$. However, as $`E_+E_{}`$ approaches $`\gamma `$, the apparent pole-like behavior of Eq. (7) transforms into a more complicated dependence. To calculate the Green functions, we solve Eq. (7) for $`g_\pm (0)`$. If $`0<E_+E_{}<4\gamma `$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta /2)<ϵ^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2<4\gamma +\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta /2)$$
(8)
we find $`g_\pm ^R\left(s\right)=g_\pm ^R\left(0\right)e^K`$ where

$$g_\pm ^R\left(0\right)=\frac{E_{}}{2\gamma }\left(i+\sqrt{\frac{4\gamma }{E_+E_{}}1}\right),$$
(9)
and $`g^A=[g^R]^{}`$. The radical is defined as an analytical function with the cuts along the borders of the region determined by Eq. (8) (shaded region in Fig. 2). The sign is chosen for $`ϵ`$ within the upper part of the region. The normalized density of states $`\nu _ϵ(s)=\left[g^R\left(s\right)g^A\left(s\right)\right]/2`$ is nonzero within the energy interval of Eq. (8). The maximum half-width of the energy band $`2\sqrt{\gamma }`$ is reached for $`\delta =0`$. Inside the constriction

$$\nu _{ϵ\pm }(0)=\frac{E_{}}{2\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{4\gamma }{E_+E_{}}1}$$
(10)
For a particle with a given sign of $`p_x`$ the density of states is nonzero near both $`E_{}=0`$ and $`E_+=0`$: the scattering mixes states with positive and negative $`p_x`$. However, far from the crossing point, $`|ϵ||\mathrm{\Delta }|\sqrt{\gamma }`$, the ratio $`\nu _\pm /\nu _{}=E_{}/E_\pm `$ is large near the corresponding ballistic spectrum $`E_\pm =0`$: its magnitude is of the order $`ϵ^2/|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2\gamma `$.

Beyond the range of Eq. (8) $`g^R`$ and $`g^A`$ coincide and the density of states vanishes. For $`E_+E_{}>4\gamma `$,

$$g_\pm ^R(0)=g_\pm ^A(0)=\frac{iE_{}}{2\gamma }\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4\gamma }{E_+E_{}}}\right).$$

For $`\gamma |E_+E_{}|`$ one recovers the poles $`g_\pm ^{R(A)}\left(0\right)=i/E_\pm `$ with the density of states $`\nu =\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }|\delta (ϵϵ_0)`$. Obviously, Eq. (10) conserves the total number of states since $`\nu _\pm 𝑑ϵ=\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ for any $`\varphi `$.

Long SNS bridge.– Consider now a normal bridge of a length $`d\xi `$ that connects two massive superconductors. Its width is much shorter than $`\xi `$. We assume that it has specular walls. Irregularities on the walls can also be modelled by random impurities. Superconductors and the normal metal have the same Fermi velocities $`v_F`$. We take the $`x`$ axis along the bridge (see Fig. 3).

Let $`s=\pm s_0=\pm d/|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ be the outlets of the normal bridge into the bulk superconductors. For $`s<s_0`$ the solutions in the bulk are Mitsai ; Kulik

$$g_\pm =g_{\mathrm{}}+g_{\pm k}e^{k(s+s_0)},f_\pm =f_{\mathrm{}}+g_{\pm k}\beta _ke^{k(s+s_0)}$$
(11)
where $`f_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }/i\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2ϵ^2}`$, $`g_{\mathrm{}}=ϵ/i\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2ϵ^2}`$ while $`k=2v_F^1\sqrt{\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|^2ϵ^2}`$ and $`\beta _k=\mathrm{\Delta }/\left(ϵ+iv_Fk/2\right)`$. The impurity scattering in the bulk can be neglected. The signs correspond to $`\pm p_x>0`$; the order parameter phase should be $`\chi _1`$ for $`p_x>0`$ and $`\chi _2`$ for $`p_x<0`$. For $`s>s_0`$

$$g_\pm =g_{\mathrm{}}+g_{\pm k}e^{k(ss_0)},f_\pm =f_{\mathrm{}}+g_{\pm k}\beta _ke^{k(ss_0)}.$$
(12)
Here the phase is $`\chi _2`$ for $`p_x>0`$ and $`\chi _1`$ for $`p_x<0`$.

We first outline the known solution Mitsai ; Kulik  for states with not very low energies $`v_F/dϵ`$ such that $`d\xi _N`$ Here $`\xi _Nv_F/T`$. In the region inside the bridge where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ Eqs. (24) yield $`g^2g_N^2=const`$ and

$$f=C\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(2ϵ+\frac{i}{\tau }g_N\right)\frac{x}{v_x}\right]$$

where $`v_x=v_F\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`x=s\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. We assumed that $`f=f^{}=0`$. Indeed, $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ oscillate rapidly as functions of $`\theta `$ since $`ϵd/v_F1`$ and vanish after averaging over the angles. The continuity at the borders between the bridge and the bulk gives $`g_{\pm k}=g_{\pm N}g_{\mathrm{}}`$ and

$$g_{\pm N}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\alpha \pm ig_{\mathrm{}}}{g_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{tan}\alpha \pm i}$$
(13)
where $`\alpha =(d/v_x)\left(2ϵ+ig_N/\tau \right)\varphi /2`$. For $`\left|ϵ\right|<\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|`$, the function $`g_{\pm N}`$ has poles when $`\alpha =\pm \mathrm{arccos}\left(ϵ/\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|\right)+\pi n`$ or Mitsai ; Kulik

$$ϵ+\frac{i}{2\tau }g_N=\pm \omega _x\left[\frac{\varphi }{2}+\pi \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{ϵ}{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\right)\right]$$

where $`\omega _x=|v_x|/2d`$. The state with $`n=1`$ has $`ϵ=0`$ for $`\varphi =\pi `$. The spectrum for $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ is shown in Fig. 4 by lines 1 and 2. For $`ϵv_F/d`$, the poles are closely packed. As a result, the angular average collects contributions from many poles which givesMitsai  $`g_N^{R\left(A\right)}=\pm 1`$.

For low energies $`ϵ|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$, the term $`g_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{tan}\alpha 1`$ if $`d\xi `$. Eq. (13) results in $`g_N=\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$. The Green function is large when $`\alpha `$ is close to $`\pi /2+\pi n`$, i.e., close to the points $`ϵ=\omega _0\pi m`$ where the branches for $`p_x>0`$ and for $`p_x<0`$ cross. Consider these regions in more detail. We put $`ϵ=ϵ^{}+\omega _0\pi m`$ and write the functions in the normal bridge as $`f=\stackrel{~}{f}\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\pi mx/d)`$, $`f^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\pi mx/d)`$. We now express $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}`$ through $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta `$ according to Eq. (5) and assume $`g_N=i\zeta `$. The solution of Eqs. (3, 4) is $`\zeta _\pm =A_\pm =const`$ and

$$\eta _\pm =A_\pm v_x^1_0^x\left(2ϵ^{}+i\sigma _\pm \right)𝑑x.$$

Here $`\sigma _\pm `$ is determined by Eq. (6) where $`f,f^{}`$ are replaced with $`\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f}^{}`$. Note that now $`K=0`$. Matching this with Eqs. (11, 12) at $`x=\pm d`$ we obtain

$$g_{\pm N}=\frac{i\omega _x}{ϵ^{}+i\sigma _\pm /2\omega _x\delta /2}$$
(14)
where $`\varphi =\pi +\delta `$. Using Eq. (5) we find $`\sigma _\pm =g_{}/\tau `$.

The angle-resolved density of states is proportional to the averaged $`g^Rg^A`$. Calculating the average we obtain

$$g_N_\pm =i\omega _0_0^1\frac{\mu d\mu }{ϵ^{}+ig_{}/2\tau \mu \omega _0\delta /2}$$
(15)
where $`\omega _0=v_F/2d`$. We put $`x=\delta /2\sqrt{\gamma },y=ϵ^{}/\omega _0\sqrt{\gamma },z_\pm =\sqrt{\gamma }g_N_\pm `$ where $`\gamma =d/\mathrm{}`$. Performing integration in Eq. (15) for $`\delta \sqrt{\gamma }`$ and $`ϵ\omega _0\sqrt{\gamma }`$ we find

$$z_\pm =\frac{i}{x}\frac{i(y+iz_{})}{x^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{y+iz_{}x}{y+iz_{}}\right].$$
(16)
For small $`x`$ one has $`z_+=z_{}=\left[iy\pm \sqrt{2y^2}\right]/2`$ which is similar Eq. (9). For $`y<\sqrt{2}`$, the functions $`g^R=g^A^{}`$ are complex, thus the density of states is nonzero, $`\nu 1/\sqrt{\gamma }`$. For $`y>\sqrt{2}`$ solutions are imaginary, $`\nu =0`$. To find the limit where a nonzero density of states appears, we look for $`z=ia`$ and find conditions when there are no real solutions for $`a`$. We have

$$a_\pm =\frac{1}{x}\frac{ya_{}}{x^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{ya_{}x}{ya_{}}\right].$$
(17)
For small $`x`$ we return to the previous result: the density of states vanishes for $`y>\sqrt{2}`$. However, if $`ϵ^{}=y=0`$ a real solution for $`a`$ exists for any $`x`$: the density of states is zero along the axis $`ϵ^{}=0`$ which agrees with Eq. (8). Next, we note that the density of states is singular at one of the borders of its region of existence. Thus, either $`a_+`$ or $`a_{}`$ should go to infinity. Assume that $`a_+\mathrm{}`$. Then $`a_{}0`$ according to the second equation (17). In turn,

$$a_+=\frac{1}{x}\frac{y}{x^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{yx}{y}\right].$$

Infinite values for $`a_+`$ are possible for $`y=x`$. Similarly, assuming $`a_{}\mathrm{},a_+0`$ we finally find the borders of the region with a nonzero density of states, $`y=\pm x`$ or

$$|ϵ^{}|=\omega _0|\delta |/2.$$
(18)
Equation (18) gives the lower-$`|ϵ^{}|`$ limits shown in Fig. 4 by lines 1 and 2. The higher-energy limits (lines 3 and 4 in Fig. 4) are set by $`|y|=\sqrt{2}`$ for small $`x`$. For large $`x`$ and $`y`$ we expect that one of $`a_\pm `$ is large while the other is small. We then again obtain Eq. (18) as the asymptotic expression. Therefore, the two borders approach each other for large $`x`$ and $`y`$, as was also the case for a point contact. We thus expect that Eq. (10) provides a qualitatively correct representation for the averaged density of states of a long SNS junction, as well.

Discussion.–The results for point contacts and for long SNS bridges are qualitatively similar. To simplify the discussion we consider the impurity band in a point contact where an explicit equation for the density of states is available. It can be compared with the known mid-gap energy spectrumZaitsev ; Beenakker  for a contact that has a tunnel barrier with a transmission probability $`D`$,

$$ϵ=\pm ϵ_D,ϵ_D=|\mathrm{\Delta }|\sqrt{1D\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2)}.$$
(19)
In Fig. 2 this spectrum follows lines (3) and (4) and has a gap with the half-width $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\sqrt{R}`$ at $`\varphi =\pi `$ where $`R=1D`$ is the reflection coefficient. The gap results from the mixing of right- and left-moving particles provided by the barrier. One can consider the impurity band Eq. (8) as a result of superposition of a large number of conduction channels with various transmission coefficients $`D`$ resulting from scattering of particles on different trajectories characterized by a given momentum. Superposition of states with different momenta due to scattering by impurities is also known to produce an impurity band in $`d`$-wave superconductors near the gap nodes GorkKal . To find the equivalent probability distribution $`P(D)`$ we write the total density of states for an energy $`ϵ`$ in the form

$$\nu _++\nu _{}=\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }|\left[\delta \left(ϵϵ_D\right)+\delta \left(ϵ+ϵ_D\right)\right]P(D)𝑑D.$$

The relevant values of $`D`$ are close to one. With help of Eqs. (10) and (19) we find

$$P(D)=\frac{1}{2\pi \gamma }\frac{\sqrt{4\gamma R}}{\sqrt{R}},R<4\gamma .$$
(20)
The distribution is truncated at $`R4\gamma `$. For $`\gamma 0`$ one obtains $`P(D)=\delta (R)`$. The square-root singularity at $`R=0`$ in Eq. (20) resembles that of the universal distribution Dorokhov  for diffusive normal conductors. The singularity ensures a finite density of states at $`\varphi =\pi `$ which is $`\nu =(1/\sqrt{\gamma })\sqrt{1(ϵ^2/4\gamma |\mathrm{\Delta }|^2)}`$ according to Eq. (10). However, Eq. (20) is not universal: in contrast to its diffusive counterpart it depends on the geometry of the contact and on the quasiparticle mean free path.

The impurity band is expected to have a profound effect on dynamics of weak links. For example, it enhances the electron-phonon relaxation at low temperatures which otherwise would almost vanish due to the energy conservation. Indeed, the electron-phonon relaxation rate is proportional to the product of two electron densities of states $`\nu _ϵ`$ and $`\nu _{ϵ_1}`$, and the phonon density of states $`N_{\mathrm{ph}}(\omega )`$ where $`\omega =ϵϵ_1`$. Since $`N_{\mathrm{ph}}(\omega )\omega ^2`$ the product vanishes if each electronic density of states is a delta function $`\delta (ϵϵ_0)`$ with only one state $`ϵ_0`$ for a given phase $`\varphi `$ and the sign of momentum $`p_x`$. It is the impurity scattering that broadens the density of states into a band thus making the electron-phonon relaxation possible.

I thank D. Averin, Yu. Barash, M. Feigel’man, and G. Volovik for instructive discussions. This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research.