text:
# Exact, convergent periodic-orbit expansions of individual energy eigenvalues of regular quantum graphs

## I introduction

Within the framework of semiclassical periodic-orbit theory the quantization procedures for integrable and chaotic systems differ substantially. An integrable system may be quantized using EBK theory . The set of integrals

$$I_i=_{C_i}p_\mu 𝑑q^\mu =h(n_i+\mu _i),i=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(1)
extended along the $`N`$ fundamental cycles $`C_i`$ of the $`N`$-dimensional phase-space tori yield the (semiclassical) quantization conditions for every action variable $`I_i`$. Here the $`n_i`$’s are integer quantum numbers and the $`\mu _i`$’s are Maslov indices. Although not exact in general, the quantization condition (1) does (implicitly) produce individual energy levels $`E_{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N}`$ that can be labelled, one by one, with the $`N`$ quantum numbers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_N`$. This procedure differs markedly from the chaotic case where the focus is not on individual energy levels but on global characteristics of the spectrum. For instance, instead of finding individual energy levels as in (1), periodic-orbit quantization schemes for chaotic systems, such as Gutzwiller’s trace formula  compute the density of states

$$\rho (k)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta \left(kk_j\right),$$
(2)
from which individual energy levels are extracted indirectly as the singularities of $`\rho `$. In a chaotic system the only available classical input are the periodic orbits of the system and the density of states (2) is computed according to

$$\rho (k)\overline{\rho }(k)+\frac{1}{\pi }Im\underset{p}{}T_p(E)\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_p^\nu (E)e^{i\nu S_p(E)}.$$
(3)
Here $`\overline{\rho }(k)`$ is the average density of states, $`S_p(E)`$, $`T_p(E)`$ and $`A_p(E)`$ are correspondingly the action, the period and the weight factor of the prime periodic orbit labeled by $`p`$, and $`\nu `$ is the repetition index. Again, the scheme (3) is not usually exact. More seriously, however, in contrast to (1) it fails to produce individual energy levels in the form “$`E_n=\mathrm{}`$”. The difference between (1) and (3) cannot be emphasized enough. While (1) allows us to “pick and choose” a particular energy eigenvalue, in the chaotic case all of the eigenvalues have to be computed according to (3), and only a subsequent non-analytic inspection and counting procedure allows us to focus on an individual energy level. There is, however, a class of quantum chaotic systems, regular quantum graphs , which are explicitly solvable analytically , i.e. exact periodic-orbit expansions of the form “$`E_n=\mathrm{}`$” exist. The purpose of this paper is to expand considerably with respect to the work presented in  and to present a thorough discussion of our methods and their validity.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sect. II we extend the theory of quantum graphs  to include dressed graphs, i.e. quantum graphs with arbitrary potentials on their bonds. In Sect. III we define regular quantum graphs and present explicit, convergent periodic-orbit expansions of individual eigenvalues. These expansions are not just formal identities; the periodic-orbit expansions presented in Sect. III converge, and converge to the correct eigenvalues. In Sect. IV we present a worked example of a simple quantum graph whose spectrum is computed in three different ways: (i) numerically exactly, (ii) via the explicit periodic-orbit expansions presented in Sect. III and (iii) via numerical integration using an exact trace formula for the density of states. The results of the three methods agree. This proves validity and convergence of our approach. In Sect. V we summarize our results and conclude the paper.

## II Dressed Quantum Graphs

A quantum graph consists of a quantum particle whose motion is confined to a one-dimensional network of $`N_B`$ bonds $`B_{ij}`$ connecting $`N_V`$ vertices $`V_i`$. An example of a graph with six vertices and ten bonds is shown in Fig. 1. The topology of a given graph is fully characterized by its connectivity matrix $`C_{ij}`$:

$$C_{ij}=C_{ji}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }V_i\text{ and }V_j\text{ are connected,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if they are not.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Every bond $`B_{ij}`$ which connects the vertices $`V_i`$ and $`V_j`$, supports a solution $`\psi _{ij}(x)`$ of the Schrödinger equation

$$\left(i\frac{d}{dx}A_{ij}\right)^2\psi _{ij}(x)=E\psi _{ij}(x).$$
(5)
Here $`0xL_{ij}`$ is the coordinate along $`B_{ij}`$ measured from $`V_i`$ to $`V_j`$, and $`L_{ij}=L_{ji}`$ is the length of the bond. A constant, real, skew symmetric matrix $`A_{ij}=A_{ji}`$, which plays the role of a magnetic field vector potential, is sometimes introduced as a tool for braking the time-reversal symmetry, which, in turn, is known to affect the statistics of the level distribution .

In this paper we generalize the Schrödinger operator in (5) by adding potentials $`U_{ij}(x,E)`$ on the graph bonds. We call this generalization “dressing of the graph”. While in general the potentials $`U_{ij}(x,E)`$ may depend on the bond coordinate $`x`$ and the energy $`E`$ in an arbitrary way, we restrict ourselves here to the scaling case

$$U_{ij}(E)=\lambda _{ij}E,\lambda _{ij}=\lambda _{ji},$$
(6)
which allows us to introduce physical parallels between quantum graphs and ray-splitting systems . A quantum graph with the potentials (6) on its bonds can also be viewed as a generalized step potential, such as the one shown in Fig. 2 (a). These potentials were studied before in great detail in connection with Anderson localization . Potentials of this type can be represented by a linear graph, such as the one shown in Fig. 2 (b). Scaled potentials such as (6) cast the Schrödinger equation into the form

$$\left(i\frac{d}{dx}A_{ij}\right)^2\psi _{ij}(x)=\beta _{ij}^2E\psi _{ij}(x),$$
(7)
where the parameters $`\beta _{ij}^2=1\lambda _{ij}`$, $`\beta _{ij}=\beta _{ji}`$ are defined on the corresponding bonds $`B_{ij}`$.

Depending on whether the energy $`E=k^2`$ of the particle is above or below the scaled potential height $`U_{ij}(E)`$, the solution of equation (7) on the bond $`B_{ij}`$ is either a combination of the free waves,

$$\psi _{ij}(x)=a_{ij}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)x}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}}+b_{ij}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)x}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}},\lambda _{ij}<1,$$
(8)
or a combination of the tunneling solutions,

$$\psi _{ij}(x)=a_{ij}e^{\left(\beta _{ij}k+iA_{ij}\right)x}+b_{ij}e^{\left(\beta _{ij}k+iA_{ij}\right)x},\lambda _{ij}>1,$$
(9)
where the factors $`(\beta _{ij}k)^{1/2}`$ in the propagating waves (8) were introduced to insure proper flux normalization . Due to the scaling assumption, there is no transition between these two cases as a function of $`E`$. From now on we shall assume that the energy $`E`$ is kept above the maximal scaled potential height,

$$\lambda _{ij}<1,i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_V,C_{ij}0,$$
(10)
which will allow us to exclude the tunneling solutions (9). At every vertex $`V_i`$, the bond wave functions satisfy the continuity conditions

$$\psi _{ij}(x)_{x=0}=\phi _iC_{ij},i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_V$$
(11)
and the current conservation conditions

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_V}{}}C_{ij}\left(i\frac{d}{dx}A_{ij}\right)\psi _{ij}(x)_{x=0}=i\lambda _i\phi _i,i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_V.$$
(12)
Here $`\phi _i`$ is the value of the wave function at the vertex $`V_i`$, and the $`\lambda _i`$’s are free parameters of the problem for which the scaling is introduced as

$$\lambda _i=\lambda _i^0k.$$
(13)
The conditions (11) and (12) are consistent only for a discrete set of wave numbers $`k_n`$, which defines the spectrum of the quantum graph problem. Since $`\psi _{ij}(x)`$ and $`\psi _{ji}(y)`$ represent the same wave function on the bond connecting the vertices $`V_i`$ and $`V_j`$ (the only difference is that $`x`$ is measured from vertex $`V_i`$ and $`y`$ is measured from vertex $`V_j`$) we have

$$\psi _{ji}\left(L_{ij}x\right)=\psi _{ij}(x).$$
(14)
Using (8) we obtain

$$\psi _{ji}\left(L_{ij}x\right)=a_{ji}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ji}\right)\left(L_{ij}x\right)}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}}+b_{ji}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ji}\right)\left(L_{ij}x\right)}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}}=\psi _{ij}(x).$$
(15)
Therefore the coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ij}`$ are related according to

$`a_{ji}=b_{ij}e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)L_{ij}},b_{ji}=a_{ij}e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)L_{ij}}.`$ (16)
The coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ and $`a_{ji}`$, ($`b_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ji}`$) are considered different. This implies that the bonds of the graph are directed. Equations (16) can be written in matrix form,

$$\stackrel{}{a}=P\stackrel{~}{D}(k)\stackrel{}{b},$$
(17)
where $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ are the $`2N_B`$-dimensional vectors of coefficients, $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is a diagonal matrix in the $`2N_B\times 2N_B`$ space of directed bonds and

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_{N_B}\\ 1_{N_B}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where $`1_{N_B}`$ is the $`N_B`$-dimensional unit matrix. Explicitly we have

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{ij,pq}(k)=\delta _{ip}\delta _{jq}e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)L_{ij}}.$$
(19)
The pairs of indices $`(ij)`$, $`(pq)`$, identifying the bonds of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, play the role of the indices of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{D}(k)`$. Alternatively the wave function can be written as a linear combination of plane waves scattering off $`V_i`$. An incoming wave with normalized flux on the bond $`B_{j^{}i}`$ gives rise to a partial wave contribution scattering into bond $`B_{ij}`$ according to

$$\psi _{jj^{}}^{(i)}(x_j)=\delta _{jj^{}}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)x_j}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}}+\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}\frac{e^{i\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)x_j}}{\sqrt{\beta _{ij}k}}.$$
(20)
Here $`\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}(k)`$ is the matrix element of the vertex scattering matrix $`\sigma ^{(i)}(k)`$, which distributes the incoming flux on bond $`B_{j^{}i}`$ into the bond $`B_{ij}`$. The wave function $`\psi _{ij}(x_j)`$ on the bond $`B_{ij}`$ is a superposition of the partial waves (20) with amplitudes $`a_{ij^{}}`$ corresponding to the incoming flux on the bond $`B_{j^{}i}`$ towards the vertex $`V_i`$, i.e.

$$\psi _{ij}(x_j)=\underset{j^{}}{}a_{ij^{}}\psi _{jj^{}}^{(i)}(x_j).$$
(21)
Using the representation (8) of $`\psi _{ij}`$ in (21) and comparing coefficients yields

$$b_{ij}=\underset{j^{}}{}\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}a_{ij^{}}.$$
(22)
Substituting (20) into the boundary conditions, we obtain the vertex scattering matrix

$$\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}\sigma _{ji,ij^{}}^{(i)}=\left(\delta _{jj^{}}+\frac{2\sqrt{\beta _{ij}\beta _{ij^{}}}}{v_i+i\lambda _i^0}\right)C_{ji}C_{ij^{}},$$
(23)
with

$$v_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_V}{}}\beta _{ij}C_{ij}.$$
(24)
We see that in the scaling case the matrix elements $`\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}`$ of the vertex scattering matrix $`\sigma ^{(i)}`$ are $`k`$-independent constants. The matrix element $`\sigma _{j,j}^{(i)}`$ has the meaning of the reflection coefficient from the vertex $`V_i`$ along the bond $`B_{ij}`$, and the elements $`\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}`$, $`jj^{}`$ are the transmission coefficients for transitions between different bonds. Equation (22) can be written as

$$\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{}{a},$$
(25)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij,nm}=\delta _{in}C_{ji}C_{nm}\sigma _{j,m}^{(i)}.$$
(26)
Equations (17) and (25) together result in

$$\stackrel{}{a}=S(k)\stackrel{}{a},$$
(27)
where $`S(k)`$ (the total graph scattering matrix) is given by

$$S(k)=D(k)T$$
(28)
and $`D=P\stackrel{~}{D}P`$ and $`T=P\stackrel{~}{T}`$. The consistency of the system of linear equations (27) requires the spectral equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=det\left[1S(k)\right]=0$$
(29)
to be satisfied. This condition defines the set of allowed momenta $`\{k_n\}`$.

The density of the momentum states of the dressed quantum graph is given by

$$\rho (k)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (kk_n),$$
(30)
where the $`k_n`$’s are the solutions of (29). An exact periodic-orbit expansion for $`\rho (k)`$ can be obtained directly from the spectral equation (29) as follows . The logarithmic derivative of (29) is singular at every one of its roots. Between roots, the phase of the spectral determinant varies slowly such that

$$\rho (k)=\overline{\rho }(k)\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\frac{d}{dk}\mathrm{ln}det\left[1S\left(k+iϵ\right)\right].$$
(31)
Using the well-known identity

$$\mathrm{ln}det[1S]=\mathrm{Tr}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}S^n,$$
(32)
we obtain

$$\rho (k)=\overline{\rho }(k)+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\frac{d}{dk}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n}Tr\left[S(k+iϵ)\right]^n.$$
(33)
Since the matrix indices of (28) correspond to the vertices of the graph, the trace of the nth power of the scattering matrix can be interpreted as a sum over all closed connected sequences consisting of $`n`$ bonds . Classically, these periodic connected sequences of $`n`$ bonds $`B_{ij}`$ correspond to the periodic orbits traced by a point particle moving on the graph. Geometry and proliferation properties of the periodic orbits are determined completely by the topology of the graph.

The behavior of the periodic orbits on graphs exhibits the typical features of chaotic systems. The meaning of classical chaoticity on graphs is well defined, as demonstrated in the following. A classical graph system consists of a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and a point particle moving along its bonds, which scatters elastically at every vertex $`V_i`$ along the direction of any of the bonds emanating from this particular vertex, with different probabilities. The probability amplitudes for every scattering channel can be obtained in the short wavelength limit from the quantum mechanical transition amplitudes defined at every vertex $`V_i`$ by the corresponding scattering matrix $`\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}`$. In the scaling case, the matrix elements $`\sigma _{j,j^{}}^{(i)}`$ are $`k`$-independent constants and thus do not depend on $`\mathrm{}`$ at all. Therefore the same matrix elements determine both the quantum and the classical scattering probabilities.

For every given graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the global average rate of exponential proliferation of periodic orbits, the topological entropy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{\#}(l)\right]}{l},$$
(34)
where $`l`$ characterizes the length of the periodic orbits (for instance their code lengths) and $`\mathrm{\#}(l)`$ is the total number of periodic orbits of length $`l`$. The number of possible periodic orbits increases exponentially with their lengths, (or, equivalently, the number of scattering events) with a rate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which depends only on the topology of the graph. Since the phase space of the system is bounded, the dynamics of such a particle is mixing .

Since we are focusing on the case $`\lambda _{ij}<1`$, most of the classical periodic orbits on a graph are above-barrier reflection orbits as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3. In the context of ray splitting these orbits are also known as non-Newtonian orbits . The inclusion of all non-Newtonian orbits in our periodic-orbit expansions of individual eigenvalues discussed below is crucial for rendering these expansions exact.

Traversing the bond $`B_{ij}`$ contributes the amount

$$S_{ij}=_{B_{ij}}\left(\beta _{ij}k+A_{ij}\right)𝑑x$$
(35)
to the total action of the trajectory traced by the particle. These actions appear in the phases of the exact wave functions (8). This connection means that the semiclassical (eikonal) form is exact for the quantum graph wave functions. More importantly, the amplitudes $`e^{iS_{ij}}`$ determine the matrix $`D(k)`$, and hence the scattering matrix $`S(k)`$. As a consequence, the “closed bond sequence expansion” (33) can be written explicitly as a periodic-orbit expansion in terms of the phases (35),

$$\rho (k)=\overline{\rho }(k)+\frac{1}{\pi }Re\underset{p}{}T_p(k)\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_p^\nu e^{i\nu \stackrel{~}{S}_p(k)},$$
(36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_p`$ is the action of the prime periodic orbit $`p`$ composed of the partial actions $`S_{ij}`$ of equation (35) accumulated along the periodic orbit $`p`$, and $`T_p(k)=d\stackrel{~}{S}_p(k)/dk`$. The first term in (36) describes the average behavior of the density of states while the second represents the fluctuations around the average. The amplitude of every periodic orbit $`p`$ contains the constant factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i_{ij}A_{ij}L_{ij})`$. This factor can be absorbed into the weight factor $`\stackrel{~}{A}_p`$. Thus, defining the reduced classical bond actions

$$S_{ij}^0=\beta _{ij}L_{ij}$$
(37)
and the total reduced action $`S_p^0`$ accumulated along the periodic orbit $`p`$,

$$S_p^0=\underset{ij\mathrm{along}p}{}S_{ij}^0,$$
(38)
the final periodic-orbit expansion for the density of states for scaling systems can be written as

$$\rho (k)=\overline{\rho }(k)+\frac{1}{\pi }Re\underset{p}{}S_p^0\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_p^\nu e^{i\nu S_p^0k}.$$
(39)
In contrast with (3), the expression (39) for the density of states is exact; the action lengths $`S_p^0`$ and the weight factors $`A_p`$ are $`k`$-independent constants.

The staircase function

$$N(k)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(kk_n)$$
(40)
is obtained by direct integration of (30). Using (39), $`N(k)`$ can be expanded as

$$N(k)=\overline{N}(k)\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{ln}det\left[1S(k+iϵ)\right]=\overline{N}(k)+\frac{1}{\pi }Im\underset{p}{}\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A_p^\nu }{\nu }e^{i\nu S_p^0k}.$$
(41)
Just like (39) this expansion is exact. The first term represents the average behavior of the staircase; the second term describes the fluctuations around the average.

## III Regular quantum graphs and explicit spectral formula

Since the scattering matrix (28) is a unitary matrix, its eigenvalues have the form $`s_l=e^{i\theta _l(k)}`$. Therefore the spectral determinant (29) can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{2N_B}{}}}\left[1e^{i\theta _l(k)}\right]=\left[1{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{2N_B}{}}}e^{i\theta _l(k)}+\mathrm{}+e^{i_{l=1}^{2N_B}\theta _l(k)}\right]`$ (42)
$`=2e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_0(k)}\left[\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{\Theta }_0(k)]+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_C1}{}}}(1)^j\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{\Theta }_j(k)]\right],`$ (43)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{2N_B}{}}\theta _l(k)$$
(44)
is the total phase of the spectral determinant, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_j`$’s in (43) are linear combinations (sums and differences) of the phases $`\theta _l(k)`$ and $`N_C=4^{N_B}/2`$. Evaluated directly, the spectral determinant is a polynomial of the (complex) matrix elements (19) with coefficients that are determined by the matrix elements (26). Factoring out the total phase (44) of this polynomial, we obtain the spectral equation in the form

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(S_0^0k\pi \gamma _0\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }(k),$$
(45)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}a_i\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_ik\pi \gamma _i).$$
(46)
Here, based on the reduced bond actions defined in (37), $`S_0^0=_{ij}C_{ij}S_{ij}^0`$ is the total reduced action length of the graph, the frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i<S_0^0`$ are sums and differences of the reduced bond actions $`S_{ij}^0`$ and $`\gamma _0`$, $`\gamma _i`$ are constants. For a general graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ it is difficult to calculate the precise number of $`\mathrm{cos}`$-terms $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in (46). But an upper limit is given by the number of possible linear combinations of the $`N_B`$ reduced bond actions $`S_{ij}^0`$. Since there are $`2^j\left(\begin{array}{c}N_B\\ j\end{array}\right)`$ ways of picking $`j`$ actions out of $`N_B`$ possible ones and combining them with “$`+`$” and “$``$” signs, we obtain

$$N_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^j\left(\begin{array}{c}N_B\\ j\end{array}\right)=1+\underset{j=0}{\overset{N_B}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N_B\\ j\end{array}\right)2^j\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{N_Bj}=3^{N_B}1.$$
(47)
A graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called regular, if the condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}|a_i|=\alpha <1$$
(48)
is fulfilled. In case the condition (48) is satisfied, the spectral equation (45) can be immediately solved to yield the following implicit equation for the eigenvalues

$$k_n=\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left[n+\mu +\gamma _0\right]+\frac{1}{S_0^0}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{arccos}[\mathrm{\Phi }(k_n)],\hfill & \text{for }n+\mu \text{ even}\hfill \\ \pi \mathrm{arccos}[\mathrm{\Phi }(k_n)],\hfill & \text{for }n+\mu \text{ odd,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
where $`\mu `$ is a fixed integer, chosen such that $`k_1`$ is the first positive solution of (45). Equation (49) implies the existence of separating points

$$\widehat{k}_n=\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}(n+\mu +\gamma _0+1)$$
(50)
in the spectrum $`k_n`$ of (45). Because of (48) the points $`\widehat{k}_n`$ are never solutions of (49). They act as separators between $`k_n`$ and $`k_{n+1}`$. Since the second term in (49) is bounded by $`\pi /S_0^0`$, the deviation $`k_n\widehat{k}_n`$ never exceeds $`\pi /S_0^0`$ for any $`n`$. We emphasize, that the separators $`\widehat{k}_n`$ do not coincide with the average values $`\overline{k}_n`$ of the roots $`k_n`$. The explicit decomposition of the roots $`k_n`$ into an average part $`\overline{k}_n`$ and a fluctuating part $`\stackrel{~}{k}_n`$, $`k_n=\overline{k}_n+\stackrel{~}{k}_n`$, can be obtained from the following equivalent formulation of (49),

$$k_n=\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left[n+\mu +\gamma _0+\frac{1}{2}\right]+\frac{(1)^{n+\mu }}{S_0^0}\left\{\mathrm{arccos}[\mathrm{\Phi }(k_n)]\frac{\pi }{2}\right\}.$$
(51)
This form of $`k_n`$ together with the boundedness of the second term in (51) proves rigorously that $`\overline{N}(k)`$, $`\overline{\rho }(k)`$ are of the form

$$\overline{N}(k)=\frac{S_0^0}{\pi }k+\overline{N}(0),\overline{\rho }(k)=\frac{d\overline{N}(k)}{dk}=\frac{S_0^0}{\pi }.$$
(52)
Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)`$ contains only frequencies smaller than $`S_0^0`$, every open interval $`I_n=(\widehat{k}_{n1},\widehat{k}_n)`$ contains one and only one root, i.e. $`k_n`$. Moreover, if (48) is fulfilled, the allowed zones $`Z_nI_n`$ where the roots $`k_n`$ can be found narrows to

$$k_nZ_n(\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left(n+\mu +\gamma _0+u\right),\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left(n+\mu +\gamma _0+1u\right)),$$
(53)
where $`u=\mathrm{arccos}(\alpha )/S_0^0`$. Correspondingly, there exist forbidden regions $`R_n`$,

$$R_n(\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left(n+\mu +\gamma _0+1u\right),\frac{\pi }{S_0^0}\left(n+\mu +\gamma _0+1+u\right)),$$
(54)
where roots of (49) can never be found. Note that $`\widehat{k}_nR_n`$. In the limit $`\alpha 1`$ ($`u0`$), the width of the forbidden region $`R_n`$ shrinks to zero, and the allowed zone $`Z_n`$ occupies the whole root interval $`I_n`$.

The existence of the separating points (50), is the key to obtaining the explicit form of the periodic-orbit expansion for individual roots $`k_n`$. Multiplying both sides of (39) by $`k`$ and integrating from $`\widehat{k}_{n1}`$ to $`\widehat{k}_n`$ we obtain

$`k_n=\widehat{k}_n{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2S_0^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_p^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\nu S_p^0\widehat{k}_n}}{\nu }}\left\{(1e^{i\nu \omega _p})\left(i\widehat{k}_n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu S_p^0}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{S_0^0}}e^{i\nu \omega _p}\right\},`$ (55)
where we used (52) for the integral over $`k\overline{\rho }`$ and defined $`\omega _p=\pi S_p^0/S_0^0`$. Since all the quantities on the right-hand side of (55) are known, this formula provides an explicit representation of the roots $`k_n`$ of the spectral equation (29) in terms of the geometric characteristics and the classical properties of the graph.

In  a mathematical proof is presented that assures us that (55) converges. In addition it is proved in  that (55) converges to the exact spectral eigenvalues. Both convergence and convergence to the correct results are illustrated with the help of a specific example in Sect. IV. It is also proved in  that the series (55) is only conditionally convergent. This means that for proper convergence the ordering of the terms in (55) is important. Proper convergence of (55) is obtained if the terms in (55) are ordered according to the code lengths of the periodic orbits . In other words, the sum in (55) is to be extended over all periodic orbits with code lengths smaller than or equal to $`l`$ which yields the approximation $`k_n(l)`$ to $`k_n`$. Then, on the basis of the results obtained in , we have $`lim_l\mathrm{}k_n(l)=k_n`$. This means that (55) is exact. It is important to note here that the ordering of terms in (55) is not according to their action lengths, but according to the lengths of the code words that code for the periodic orbits. This is intuitively understandable, since the code length $`l`$ is connected to the power $`n`$ of the $`S`$-matrix in (33) according to $`l=n/2`$.

The expansion (55) provides an explicit representation of the roots of the spectral equation (29) in terms of the geometric characteristics of the graph. In a similar way one can obtain explicit expansions for any power of the energy levels, $`k_n^m`$, or any function of the eigenvalues $`f\left(k_n\right)`$.

## IV Examples

The coefficients $`A_p`$ in (55) assume a particularly simple form in the case of linear graphs with zero sources, $`\lambda _i^0=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N_V`$. Both the vertices and the bonds of a linear graph can be naturally labeled by means of a single index such that $`B_{1,2}B_1`$, $`B_{2,3}B_2`$,…,$`B_{N_V1,N_V}B_{N_V1}`$ (see Fig. 2). The scaling coefficients for the momentum of the particle are correspondingly $`\beta _{1,2}\beta _1`$, $`\beta _{2,3}\beta _2`$,…,$`\beta _{N_V1,N_V}\beta _{N_V1}`$, the bond lengths are $`L_{1,2}L_1`$, $`L_{2,3}L_2`$,…,$`L_{N_V1,N_V}L_{N_V1}`$, the potentials are $`U_{1,2}U_1`$, $`U_{2,3}U_2`$,…,$`U_{N_V1,N_V}U_{N_V1}`$ and the reduced bond actions are $`S_{1,2}^0S_1^0=\beta _1L_1`$, $`S_{2,3}^0S_2^0=\beta _2L_2`$,…,$`S_{N_V1,N_V}^0S_{N_V1}^0=\beta _{N_V1}L_{N_V1}`$, respectively. In this case, if a prime periodic orbit $`p`$ undergoes $`\sigma _p^i`$ reflections from a vertex $`V_i`$ and $`2\tau _p^i`$ transmissions through it, the weight coefficient in the expansion (39) is

$`A_p={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}r_i^{\sigma _p^i}(1r_i^2)^{\tau _p^i},`$ (56)
where $`r_i`$ is the reflection coefficient from the vertex $`V_i`$, and the product is taken over all the vertices encountered by the orbit $`p`$. If a particle reflects from the vertex $`V_i`$ traveling along the bond $`B_i`$, the reflection coefficient is

$`r_i={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{i1}\beta _i}{\beta _{i1}+\beta _i}},i=2,\mathrm{},N_V1,r_1=1,r_{N_V}=1.`$ (57)
We assumed Dirichlet boundary conditions at the left and right dead ends of the graph. The reflection coefficient changes its sign if the reflection happens from the side of the bond $`B_{i+1}`$. If, for a given orbit, the total number of reflections with $`r_i<0`$ is $`\chi _p`$, then

$`A_p=(1)^{\chi _p}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|r_i|^{\sigma _p^i}(1r_i^2)^{\tau _p^i}.`$ (58)
The two-vertex linear graph is trivial and corresponds to a quantum particle in a square-well box. A quantum particle moving in a scaling step potential as shown in Fig. 3, gives rise to the simplest non-trivial graph, the scaling three-vertex linear graph, shown on the bottom of of Fig. 3. In this case there is only one non-trivial reflection coefficient,

$`r_2={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\beta _2}{\beta _1+\beta _2}}.`$ (59)
All the periodic orbits of the three-vertex linear graph shown in Fig. 3 correspond one to one with words formed from a binary code with two letters $``$ and $``$ , where $``$ stands for a reflection of the orbit off the left-most vertex (left-hand potential wall), and $``$ stands for a reflection off the right-most vertex (right-hand wall). Thus the $``$, $``$ code is unique and complete. For this system the spectral equation is

$$\mathrm{sin}(S_0^0k)r_2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1k)=0,$$
(60)
where $`S_0^0=S_1^0+S_2^0`$ is the total reduced action of the graph and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=S_1^0S_2^0`$. With $`a_1=r_2`$ and $`\gamma _0=\gamma _1=\pi /2`$, (60) is of the form (45), (46) and the number of $`\mathrm{cos}`$-terms in $`\varphi (k)`$ (in this case one term) complies with the estimate (47). Because of $`|r_2|<1`$, it is the spectral equation of a regular quantum graph. Using the explicit form (58) of the coefficients $`A_p`$ in the expansion (55), we obtain the explicit series expansion for every root $`k_n`$ of (60). Thus the spectrum of the scaling step potential shown in Fig. 3 may be calculated explicitly and analytically with the help of (55). This by itself is a considerable advance in the theory of simple one-dimensional quantum systems which up to now could only be solved using graphical or numerical techniques .

We illustrate the method and the convergence of the series expansion (55) with the following concrete, dimensioned example of the scaling step potential of Fig. 3. Choosing $`b=0.3`$, $`\lambda _1=0`$, and $`\lambda _2=1/2`$, we computed the solutions $`k_1`$, $`k_{10}`$ and $`k_{100}`$ of (60) using three different methods: (i) exact numerical, (ii) explicit periodic-orbit expansion (55) of the individual eigenvalues and (iii) numerical integration using the $`S`$-matrix representation (33) of the density of states. Addressing (i) we obtained the exact numerical values of the three selected roots of (60). The result is: $`k_1=4.107149`$, $`k_{10}=39.305209`$ and $`k_{100}=394.964713`$.

Turning to method (ii) we re-computed these three eigenvalues using (55) directly including progressively more periodic orbits in the expansion (55). The result is presented in Table 1 which shows the values of $`k_1`$, $`k_{10}`$ and $`k_{100}`$ computed with (55) including periodic orbits coded by binary words of length $`l=5`$, 10, 15 and 20, respectively. This corresponds to including 23, 261, 4807, and 111321 periodic orbits in the expansion (55), respectively. We observe that the accuracy does not improve monotonically, but that there is a definite overall improvement of accuracy with the code length. As a matter of fact, as discussed above and shown mathematically in , the series (55) converges, and converges to the exact results of $`k_n`$ in the limit of $`l\mathrm{}`$.

Turning to method (iii) we note that due to the exponential proliferation of periodic orbits, it becomes progressively more difficult to compute the codes of longer periodic orbits. Nevertheless, with the help of a numerical procedure, we are able to illustrate the convergence behavior of (55) for code lengths much longer than $`l=20`$. Starting from (33) we compute the $`S`$-matrix numerically and perform all the steps leading up to (55) numerically. In particular this method involves numerical computation of $`S`$-matrix powers and numerical integration over $`k`$. Within any given level of numerical accuracy this method is completely equivalent to the method of summing the orbits, but allows us to extend the computations such that we effectively include all periodic orbits up to code length $`l=150`$. This corresponds roughly to $`2^{150}=1.4\times 10^{45}`$ periodic orbits, since the periodic orbits on the three-vertex linear graph are coded by a binary code. This estimate is substantiated by an analytical estimate of the number of periodic orbits. For the three-vertex graph the periodic orbits are binary necklaces over the two symbols $``$ and $``$ . The number of binary necklaces of length $`\mathrm{}`$ is given by

$$𝒩(\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{n|\mathrm{}}{}\varphi (n)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}/n},$$
(61)
where the symbol “$`n|\mathrm{}`$” denotes “$`n`$ is a divisor of $`\mathrm{}`$”, and $`\varphi (n)`$ is Euler’s totient function defined as the number of positive integers smaller than $`n`$ and relatively prime to $`n`$ with $`\varphi (1)=1`$ as a useful convention. An upper limit for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is obtained if we use (61) in the case where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a prime number. In this case (61) reduces to

$$𝒩(p)=\frac{1}{p}\left[\varphi (1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p+\varphi (p)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^1\right]=\frac{1}{p}\left[2^p+2(p1)\right],$$
(62)
where $`p`$ is prime. Thus, in the limit of $`p\mathrm{}`$ we have $`𝒩(p)2^p/p`$, and therefore, as an upper limit

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{\#}(p)\right]}{p}\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[p𝒩(p)\right]}{p}=\mathrm{ln}(2).$$
(63)
Thus, according to this estimate, the total number of periodic orbits of length 150 is again

$$\mathrm{\#}(150)e^{150\mathrm{\Lambda }}=2^{150}.$$
(64)
We also computed numerical estimates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Using the exact formula (61) for counting periodic orbits in (34) and including periodic orbits with code lengths of up to $`l=1000`$, we found $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>1.987`$, consistent with the estimate (63). For $`l=150`$, relevant for our numerical example, the asymptotic regime is not yet reached and we find $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1.943)`$. This value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be used for a more refined estimate of the number of periodic orbits of length $`l=150`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(150)1.943^{150}2\times 10^{43}`$. Clearly, computing the codes of that many periodic orbits and summing them up in (55) is beyond the storage capacity and power of any currently existing computer, but is apparently no obstacle to the numerical simulation of that many periodic orbits included in (55). Figure 4 illustrates the rate of convergence of the eigenvalues $`k_1`$, $`k_{10}`$ and $`k_{100}`$ obtained with method (iii) as a function of code length $`l`$ up to $`l=150`$. Shown is the relative error $`ϵ_l=|k_n(l)k_n|/k_n`$ for $`n=1`$, 10 and 100. The error is seen to decrease on average as a function of increasing periodic-orbit length $`l`$. From Fig. 4 we obtain approximately $`ϵ_l=|k_n(l)k_n|/k_n1/l^2`$ on average.

For a four-vertex linear graph, the spectral equation is

$`\mathrm{sin}(S_0^0k)=r_3\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1k)r_2r_3\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2k)+r_2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_3k),`$ (65)
where $`S_0^0=S_1^0+S_2^0+S_3^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=S_1^0+S_2^0S_3^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=S_1^0S_2^0+S_3^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=S_1^0S_2^0S_3^0`$ and $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ are the reflection coefficients at the vertices $`V_2`$ and $`V_3`$, respectively. With $`\gamma _i=\pi /2`$, $`i=0,1,2,3`$, this spectral equation is of the form (45), (46) and the number of $`\mathrm{cos}`$-terms in $`\varphi (k)`$ (three in this case) complies with (47). For

$$|r_3|+|r_2r_3|+|r_2|<1,$$
(66)
the four-vertex linear graph is regular. In this case the energy values of the four-vertex linear graph may be calculated exactly using the periodic-orbit expansion (55). According to Fig. 5 the set of $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ values that fulfill (66) occupies a diamond-shaped area bounded by the functions $`r_3=\pm (1|r_2|)/(1+|r_2|)`$. This observation proves that regular quantum graphs are an important, finite-measure subset of quantum graphs.

The set of regular quantum graphs is much wider than the three- and four-vertex quantum graphs discussed in detail above. Since, as indicated by (60) and (65), the amplitudes $`a_i`$ in (46) involve products of vertex reflection coefficients, and since the vertex reflection coefficients of a linear quantum graph (via proper choice of the bond potentials) are free parameters of the quantum graph, a finite-measure set of regular quantum graphs exists for any given linear graph. It is possible that more complex graph topologies, such as rings and stars, may also admit a set of regular quantum graphs. This topic is currently under investigation.

## V Discussion, Summary and Conclusion

In this paper we defined and studied a subset of quantum graphs: regular quantum graphs. Regular quantum graphs satisfy the regularity condition (48) which implies that the roots of the spectral equation are confined to regularly spaced root intervals. One and only one root is found per root interval. This property allows us to derive rigorous, converging periodic-orbit expansions for individual energy levels of regular quantum graphs.

We often hear the comment that the expansion (55) for $`k_n`$ cannot possibly converge, since (39) is divergent. This comment is invalid. There is a fundamental difference between (39) and (55). Equation (39) is a periodic-orbit expansion of the kernel of a functional (a series of Dirac delta “functions”), whereas (55) is a periodic-orbit expansion of a simple c-number. On the level of (39) the concepts of convergence or divergence are not even defined. Only after multiplying (39) with a test function (a function with compact support ) and integrating over $`k`$, are the concepts of divergence and convergence defined. In this sense even (39) is convergent. This is also known as convergence in the distribution sense  and leads to proper convergence in the usual sense of elementary undergraduate-level analysis after multiplying with the test function and integrating. Thus (55) converges in the usual sense of elementary calculus since our method of multiplying (55) with $`k`$ and integrating from $`\widehat{k}_{n1}`$ to $`\widehat{k}_n`$ is equivalent with multiplying (39) with the test function

$$g(k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{for }\widehat{k}_{n1}k\widehat{k}_n\text{,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
and integrating over $`k`$. Since $`g(k)`$ is a proper test function , the convergence of (55) is no longer a mystery.

Another more serious comment concerns the sense in which quantum graphs are classically chaotic. Quantum graphs are based on a one-dimensional network of vertices and bonds. Therefore a dynamical Liapunov exponent  cannot be defined in the traditional sense of exponentially diverging initially close trajectories. As explained in , however, this is no obstacle to associate a classical phase space with a quantum graph and to show that the classical dynamics in this phase space is mixing . Moreover, quantum graphs fulfill another property of quantum chaos, the exponential proliferation of classical periodic orbits as manifested by a positive topological entropy (see Sects. III, IV). Therefore, quantum graphs have been called “paradigms of quantum chaos” . Inasmuch as the positive topological entropy is concerned regular quantum graphs qualify as quantum chaotic systems. Regular quantum graphs do not show all the characteristics of “fully developed” quantum chaos. For instance, because of the existence of the forbidden zones $`R_n`$ (see Sect. III) they definitely do not show a Wignerian nearest neighbor statistics. We do not believe that this is a problem since there is no universally accepted rigorous definition of quantum chaos that requires “Wignerian statistics” as one of the necessary conditions. The only broadly accepted criterion is that “quantum chaos” deals with quantum systems that are chaotic in their classical limit. Based on this criterion, together with the mixing property  and the positive topological entropy (see Sect. IV) regular quantum graphs definitely qualify as quantum chaotic systems, i.e. systems chaotic in the classical limit.

A more delicate point concerns the derivation of (55) by integrating the fluctuating part in (39) term-by-term. Since the resulting periodic-orbit expansion is only conditionally convergent, this is reason for concern. We addressed this point from a rigorous mathematical point of view in . We were able to prove rigorously that the interchange of integration and summation in the $`k`$ integral of $`k\rho (k)`$ is allowed. Thus, term-by-term integration of (39) is justified, validating the final result (55).

To our knowledge this is the first time that the energy levels of a class of classically chaotic systems are expressed one by one with the help of convergent periodic-orbit expansions. Studying specific examples of regular quantum graphs we proved that the class of regular quantum graphs is not empty; that it is in fact an important finite-measure subset of quantum graphs. The explicit formulae of individual quantum energy levels obtained in this paper remind us of the Einstein-Brillouin-Keller (EBK) method  for the quantization of integrable classical systems. But there are important differences. Regular quantum graphs do not correspond to classically integrable systems. In fact, due to the importance of non-Newtonian periodic orbits, the number of classical periodic orbits proliferates exponentially with the code-length. This proves that even regular quantum graphs, as defined by the regularity condition (48), are classically chaotic systems with a positive topological entropy. For one of our examples, the scaling step potential discussed in Sect. IV, we computed estimates of the topological entropy analytically and numerically. In both cases it turned out to be positive and close to $`\mathrm{ln}(2)`$. This proves that, at least for the cases studied, the classical limit is chaotic. Another difference to EBK theory is that the periodic orbits in regular quantum graphs are not confined to phase-space tori. Finally, in contrast with EBK theory, a semiclassical theory which does not usually return exact results, our formulae are mathematically exact. In summary, despite the apparent complexity and exponential proliferation of the periodic orbits of regular quantum graphs, the organization of the roots of the spectral equation into regularly spaced intervals makes it possible to pinpoint every single energy eigenvalue of a regular quantum graph analytically and exactly by an explicit, convergent periodic-orbit expansion.

Y.D. and R.B. gratefully acknowledge financial support by NSF grants PHY-9900730 and PHY-9984075; Y.D. and R.V.J. by NSF grant PHY-9900746.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1: A generic non-planar graph with six vertices and ten bonds.

Fig. 2: An example of a (Manhattan) step potential (a) and its associated linear graph (b). Also shown is a non-Newtonian periodic orbit characterized by six above-barrier reflections.

Fig. 3: A scaling step potential (top), equivalent to a three-vertex linear graph (bottom), as an example of a regular quantum graph. A Newtonian ($``$) and two non-Newtonian ($``$, $``$) periodic orbits are also shown together with their $``$ codes.

Fig. 4: The deviation $`ϵ_l=|k_n(l)k_n|/k_n`$ of the exact eigenvalues for $`k_1`$, $`k_{10}`$, and $`k_{100}`$ from the corresponding values obtained via the series representation, as a function of the lengths $`l`$ of the periodic orbits.

Fig. 5: Parameter space $`(r_2,r_3)`$ of a four-vertex linear quantum graph. Parameter combinations in the shaded region correspond to regular quantum graphs. This demonstrates that the subset of regular quantum graphs within the set of all four-vertex linear quantum graphs is non-empty and in fact of finite measure.

Table Captions

Table 1: Successive approximations of the eigenvalues $`k_1`$ (first row), $`k_{10}`$ (second row) and $`k_{100}`$ (third row) of a specific scaling step-potential (see text for details) as a function of code length $`l`$ (columns 2–5). The exact values of $`k_1`$, $`k_{10}`$ and $`k_{100}`$ are listed in column 6. Column 7 lists the absolute errors $`|k_n(l=20)k_n|`$ for $`n=1`$, 10 and 100.


format: text

text:
# Inclusive Higgs Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order

## I Introduction

The Standard Model is almost thirty-five years old, and its essential goal, to describe the electro-weak interactions as a spontaneously broken $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry has been spectacularly confirmed. However, the agent of electroweak symmetry breaking remains elusive. The simplest model of symmetry breaking, called the Minimal Standard Model, uses a single complex doublet of fundamental scalars and is the benchmark for studies of the symmetry breaking sector of the theory. Direct search limits from LEP tell us that the Higgs mass is greater than $`114`$ GeV. Fits to precision electroweak data prefer a mass well below the direct search limit although the $`95\%`$ confidence level upper limit is somewhat greater than $`200`$ GeV.

Higgs boson production at hadron colliders is dominated by the gluon fusion mechanism. However, experiments must not only produce Higgs bosons, they must also detect them. With a center-of-mass energy of $`2`$ TeV, the Fermilab Tevatron is primarily sensitive to a Higgs boson with mass below the threshold for decay into $`W`$ boson pairs. In this case, the Higgs will decay almost exclusively into $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs which will be undetectable on top of an enormous QCD background. Since the total cross section is too small to permit the use of rare decay modes, a light Higgs can only be detected through associated production with a $`W`$ or $`Z`$ boson. Only if the Higgs is sufficiently massive that the $`WW^{}`$ channel begins to open up, will inclusive production via the gluon fusion mechanism be useful in the Tevatron Higgs search.

At the CERN LHC, however, gluon fusion will be the discovery channel for the Higgs. The cross section for light Higgs boson production will be sufficiently large that the rare decay $`H\gamma \gamma `$ can be used up to the point that the $`WW^{}`$ channel begins to open up. From that point on, the diboson decays provide a very robust signal.

## II Methods

The Higgs boson couples to mass, which presents a problem for hadronic production. Gluons are massless and therefore do not couple directly to the Higgs at all, while the quarks that make up the proton have very tiny masses. Therefore, the dominant production mechanism is gluon fusion via virtual top quark loops. In the limit that the top quark is very heavy, we can integrate out the top and formulate an effective Lagrangian coupling the Higgs boson to the light quarks and gluons Vainshtein et al. (1979, 1980); Voloshin (1986). If we take the light quarks to be massless, the effective Lagrangian takes the form

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=C_1(\alpha _s)HG^{a\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^a,$$
(1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strength tensor. The coefficient function $`C_1(\alpha _s)`$ has been computed to order $`\alpha _s^4`$Chetyrkin et al. (1997).

The use of the effective Lagrangian allows us to replace massive loop diagrams with point-like interactions. Next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections to inclusive Higgs production have been computed using both the effective Lagrangian Dawson (1991); Djouadi et al. (1991) and the full theory Graudenz et al. (1993); Spira et al. (1995). One expects that the effective Lagrangian will work very well if the Higgs mass is much smaller than twice the top mass but that it will be unreliable for larger masses. In fact, it was found that at NLO the effective Lagrangian does indeed agree very well with the full calculation below the top threshold and was even found to agree to within $`10\%`$ for Higgs masses as large as $`1`$ TeV.

It was also found that the NLO corrections are very large, of order $`70100\%`$. Such large corrections clearly call for the evaluation of still higher-order terms in order to arrive at a solid theoretical understanding of the process. Since the effective Lagrangian seems to be a valid approximation, especially in the phenomenologically interesting region of Higgs boson masses below $`200`$ GeV, we have embarked on an effort to compute the full next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) corrections in the heavy top limit. In this talk, we will present results for soft plus virtual corrections to inclusive Higgs production Harlander (2000); Harlander and Kilgore (2001a); Catani et al. (2001). These terms are not expected to dominate the full result and for this reason we also discuss an approximation of the formally sub-leading but numerically dominant contribution Krämer et al. (1998).

## III The Soft Approximation and Beyond

There are three distinct contributions to inclusive Higgs production at NNLO (see Figure 1): Virtual corrections to two loops, single real radiation to one loop and double real radiation at tree level.

These three channels produce radiative corrections that fall into three categories, depending on their functional dependence on the fraction $`xM_H^2/\widehat{s}`$ of the center-of-mass energy squared of the scattering process that goes into producing the Higgs boson.

$$\sigma ^{NNLO}=x\left[a\delta (1x)+\underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}b_n\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\right)_++\underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_n\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(2)
In the virtual corrections, all of the energy goes into Higgs boson production, so these terms contribute only to the $`\delta (1x)`$ correction. Real emission processes generate terms like $`(1x)^{nmϵ}`$ where $`n1`$ is an integer and $`ϵ`$ is the dimensional regularization parameter where space-time is taken to be $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions. These processes contribute to the $`a`$ and $`b_n`$ coefficients in equation (2) by expanding terms like $`(1x)^{1mϵ}`$ as distributions

$$(1x)^{1mϵ}=\frac{\delta (1x)}{mϵ}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(mϵ)^n}{n!}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\right]_+.$$
(3)
In the soft limit, there would be no energy carried away by real emission and only the $`\delta (1x)`$ term would be kept. However, the $`\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\right]_+`$ terms are directly connected to the $`\delta (1x)`$ terms through equation (3) and in canceling the infrared poles proportional to $`\delta (1x)`$ we get these terms for free so they are kept as part of the soft approximation.

While the soft approximation keeps the formally leading terms, it was found that at NLO it is a poor approximation. It is actually the sub-leading $`c_n`$ ($`n=0,1`$ at NLO) terms that dominate the cross section. At NNLO, the $`c_n`$ terms are again expected to dominate. Krämer, Laenen and Spira Krämer et al. (1998) have used collinear resummation to derive approximate NNLO results for $`a,b_n`$ and $`c_n`$. We expect their resummation to give the correct values for the coefficients $`b_3`$, $`b_2`$ and $`c_3`$. The other coefficients require additional calculation, higher order resummation coefficients or, for the remaining $`c_n`$, receive non-collinear contributions and we do not expect the approximation to be accurate. For the $`a`$ and $`b_n`$ terms which we have computed directly, these expectations are fulfilled, giving us confidence that the dominant term, $`c_3`$ is indeed accurate.

This gives us a range of possibilities for estimating the full NNLO correction. In Figure 2 we show three approximations in addition to the soft limit:
1) Use $`c_3`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_1`$ and $`c_0`$ from Ref. Krämer et al. (1998),
2) Use $`c_3`$ from Ref. Krämer et al. (1998) and generate sub-leading $`\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)`$ terms by expanding $`xb_nb_n+(1x)b_n`$,
3) Use $`c_3`$ from Ref. Krämer et al. (1998) and drop all sub-leading $`\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)`$ terms.
Note that in order to truly estimate the NNLO cross section, one needs NNLO parton distribution functions (PDFs). Unfortunately, the necessary ingredients for producing NNLO PDFs are still being developed. Approximate NNLO PDFs have been produced, but at the time of this work they are not yet publicly available. We therefore use the CTEQ5 NLO parton distribution functions Lai et al. (2000) and acknowledge the inconsistency.

There are two outstanding features of Figure 2: the formally sub-leading $`\mathrm{ln}^3(1x)`$ terms dominate the corrections, and the size of the corrections is very large. One expects that using NNLO PDFs will reduce the magnitude of the correction by $`10\%`$, but it will still be very large. We can take the spread between these approximations as an estimate of the uncertainty due to the uncalculated terms.

## IV Conclusions

We have described a calculation of the soft plus virtual NNLO corrections to inclusive Higgs production and estimates of the full NNLO correction based on collinear resummation. While the soft plus virtual terms are perturbatively well-behaved, the leading non-soft terms dominate the cross section and give rise to very large corrections. At this time, the two most important questions concerning inclusive Higgs production are 1) What is the precise value of the NNLO K-factor? and 2) How reliable is the NNLO K-factor with respect to even higher order corrections? The first question can be answered by completing the full NNLO calculation and this work is underway Harlander and Kilgore (2001b). The second question, which is crucial for determining the precision to which the properties of the Higgs boson can be measured at the LHC, requires further investigation.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The deep interrelation between many nonlinear differential equations of the classical differential geometry of surfaces and modern soliton equations is well established now \[1-10\].

In this paper, we will show that the (1+1)-dimensional spin system called the Myrzakulov LXIX (M-LXIX) equation is integrable. We do it by the establishing the equivalence between this and the Gauss-Codazzi (GC) equation. Integrability of the GC equation was established by V.E.Zakharov in .

## 2 The M-LXIX equation

Consider the M-LXIX equation

$$𝐒_t=\frac{1}{\sqrt{S_x^2}}(\sqrt{S_x^2u^2}𝐒_x+u𝐒𝐒_x)$$
$`(1a)`$
$$u_x=v\sqrt{𝐒_t^2u^2}$$
$`(1b)`$
$$v_t=𝐒(𝐒_t𝐒_x)$$
$`(1c)`$
where $`𝐒=(S_1,S_2,S_3)`$ is the spin vector, $`𝐒^2=\beta =\pm 1`$, $`u,v`$ are scalar functions. In this paper we study integrability of the M-LXIX equation and its geometry.

## 3 L-equivalent of the M-LXIX equation

Let us introduce the orthogonal basis defined by the vectors

$$𝐞_1=𝐒,𝐞_2=\frac{1}{k}𝐒_x,𝐞_3=\frac{1}{k}𝐒𝐒_x$$
$`(2)`$
where

$$k^2=𝐒_x^2.$$
$`(3)`$
Hence and from (1) we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right)_x=A\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right)_t=B\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ e_2\\ e_3\end{array}\right)$$
$`(4)`$
where

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& k& 0\\ \beta k& 0& \tau \\ 0& \tau & 0\end{array}\right),B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \omega _3& \omega _2\\ \beta \omega _3& 0& \omega _1\\ \beta \omega _2& \omega _1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
$`(5)`$
In our case we put $`\omega _1=0,\beta =\pm 1`$. The compatibility condition of these equations gives

$$k_t=\omega _{3x}+\tau \omega _2$$
$`(6a)`$
$$\tau _t=k\omega _2$$
$`(6b)`$
$$\omega _{2x}=\tau \omega _3.$$
$`(6c)`$
This system is the L-equivalent (Lakshmanan equivalent ) counterpart of the M-LXIX equation (1).

## 4 The M-LXIX equation as the particular case of the M-0 equation

Consider the (1+1)-dimensional Myrzakulov 0 (M-0) equation . This equation can be written in the different forms. Here we work with the following form of the (1+1)-dimensional M-0 equation

$$𝐞_{1t}=\omega _3𝐞_2\omega _2𝐞_3$$
$`(7a)`$
$$\tau _t\omega _{1x}=𝐞_1(𝐞_{1x}𝐞_{1t}).$$
$`(7b)`$
Let

$$\tau =f_x+v,\omega _1=f_t$$
$`(8)`$
where $`f`$ is some function. Let $`f=constant`$. Then from (7) we obtain the equation (1). This means that the M-LXIX equation (1) is the particular case of the M-0 equation (7).

## 5 Geometry of the M-LXIX equation

We consider a surface immersed into the three-dimensional Euclidean space $`R^3`$ generated by a position vector $`𝐫=𝐫(x,t)`$ which is a function of two parameters - local coordinates - $`x`$ and $`t`$. The first and second fundamental forms are given by

$$I=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=g_{ij}dx^idx^j=Edu^2+2Fdudv+Gdv^2$$
$`(9)`$
and

$$II=g_{ij}dx^idx^j=Ldu^2+2Mdudv+Ndv^2.$$
$`(10)`$
The Gaussian curvature $`K`$ and mean curvature $`H`$ are of the form

$$K=\frac{b_{11}b_{22}b_{12}^2}{g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}^2}=\frac{LNM^2}{EGF^2}.$$
$`(11)`$
and

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(k_1+k_2)=\frac{EN2FM+GL}{2(EGF^2)}.$$
$`(12)`$
As well known that everywhere outside umbilic points the first and second fundamental forms $`I`$ and $`II`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously (see e.g. ). Thus choosing the curvature lines as the coordinate lines, one, generally, has

$$I=g_{11}dt^2+g_{22}dx^2,II=d_{11}dt^2+d_{22}dx^2.$$
$`(13)`$
In these notations the GC equation takes the form

$$(\frac{d_{11}}{\sqrt{g_{11}}})_x\frac{d_{22}}{g_{22}}(\sqrt{g_{11}})_x=0$$
$`(14a)`$
$$(\frac{d_{22}}{\sqrt{g_{22}}})_t\frac{d_{11}}{g_{11}}(\sqrt{g_{22}})_t=0$$
$`(14b)`$
$$(\frac{(\sqrt{g_{22}})_t}{\sqrt{g_{11}}})_t+(\frac{(\sqrt{g_{11}})_x}{\sqrt{g_{22}}})_x+\frac{d_{11}d_{22}}{\sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}}=0.$$
$`(14c)`$
Following , we denote

$$\psi _1=\frac{d_{11}}{\sqrt{g_{11}}},\psi _2=\frac{d_{22}}{\sqrt{g_{22}}},p=\frac{(\sqrt{g_{11}})_x}{\sqrt{g_{22}}},q=\frac{(\sqrt{g_{22}})_x}{\sqrt{g_{11}}}.$$
$`(15)`$
In such notations GC equation (14) takes the form

$$\psi _{1x}=p\psi _2$$
$`(16a)`$
$$\psi _{2t}=q\psi _1$$
$`(16b)`$
$$q_t+p_x+\psi _1\psi _2=0.$$
$`(16c)`$
Also we have the following system

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1x}=p\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2$$
$`(17a)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2t}=q\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1$$
$`(17b)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1=\sqrt{g_{11}},\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2=\sqrt{g_{22}}`$. In such notations the three fundamental forms of the surface look like

$$I=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^2dt^2+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2^2dx^2,II=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\psi _1dt^2+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2\psi _2dx^2,III=\psi _1^2dt^2+\psi _2^2dx^2.$$
$`(18)`$
## 6 Integrability of the M-LXIX equation

Let us we compare the equations (6) and (16). We see that these equations have the same form after the following transformations

$$k=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2t}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1},\tau =\psi _1,\omega _2=\psi _2,\omega _3=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1x}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2}.$$
$`(19)`$
Now let us rewrite the equation (16) in the form

$$\psi _{1x}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1x}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2}\psi _2$$
$`(20a)`$
$$\psi _{2t}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2t}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1}\psi _1$$
$`(20b)`$
$$(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2t}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1})_t+(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1x}}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2})_x+\psi _1\psi _2=0.$$
$`(20c)`$
Quite recently it was shown that the GC equation (20) is integrable by the dressing method . So as follows from these results the M-LXIX equation (1) is also integrable by the dressing method. This is the main result of this paper. Finally we would like to note that the equation (6) (and the equation (20)) has the following Lax representation

$$\varphi _x=U\varphi ,\varphi _t=V\varphi $$
$`(21)`$
where

$$U=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & k\\ k& \tau \end{array}\right),V=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _1& \omega _3+i\omega _2\\ \omega _3i\omega _2& \omega _1\end{array}\right).$$
$`(22)`$
## 7 Conclusion

Concluding, we have found the L-eqivalent counterpart (6) of the M-LXIX equation (1). This L-equivalent equation (6) has the same form with the GC equation (20) for the some surface studied by Konopelchenko . This means that we have idendified to the M-LXIX equation (1) the some surface given by the GC equation (20). This is the first main result of his paper. Integrability this GC equation is proved by Zakharov in . These results mean that the M-LXIX equation (11) is integrable by the dressing method that is our second main result.

## 8 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by INTAS, grant 99-1782.


text:
# A white dwarf with a low magnetic field in the IP RXJ0028.8+5917/V709Cas

## 1. Introduction

The X-ray source RXJ0028.8+5917 was discovered by ROSAT as an Intermediate Polar with a 312 sec X-ray pulsation and was identified with a mv=14 variable star V709 Cas (Haberl & Motch 1995, Motch et al. 1996). It was also extensively observed with the BeppoSAX satellite (de Martino et al., this conference). Observations of RXJ0028.8+5917/V709 Cas were performed at the 1.93m telescope of the Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP, France) during 4 nights on Aug. 1998. 43 spectra with 7 Å resolution and 15 or 20 min exposures were obtained in the range (3600-7200Å). The optical spectrum is typical of IPs with strong H and He emission lines. Radial velocities on the 4 nights were used to determine the best orbital ephemeris of the blue-to-red crossing time as : To = HJD 2451048.0575(2) + E\*0.2225(2) d (or P = (5.341 $`\pm `$ 0.005) h). This removes the previous uncertainty between different aliases.

## 2. A two-component spectrum

The mean optical spectrum of V709 Cas also shows clear broad absorptions features in the Balmer lines, H$`\delta `$, H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\beta `$, while such a feature is absent around HeII (see Bonnet-Bidaud et al. 2001, for the figures). Such absorption lines were not yet seen in any other IPs. Lines in absorption are sometimes seen among classical CVs, mainly in nova-like systems in high states and during dwarf nova eruptions, which suggests that they are formed in an optically thick disk with a high mass transfer (see for instance La Dous 1994, Hessman 1986). In the case of V709 Cas, the stability of the optical flux excludes a dwarf nova event and the absence of He absorptions does not favour a disk origin. The absorptions are interpreted as coming from the white dwarf atmopshere. The line FWHMs have been compared to a grid of white dwarf models (Koester 2000) and the line EWs have been used to determine the white dwarf contribution to the overall flux. The range of values of the measured FWHM absorptions (51-65 Å) is found consistent with a log g=8.0 white dwarf at a temperature of (18 000 - 30 000 K) with a best value at T = 23 000 K. The white dwarf is found to contribute $``$17% at 4500Å and only $``$6% at 6500Å. The comparison of the measured to theoretical flux values yields a Rwd(109cm/D(pc)) value of (0.35-0.42), corresponding to a distance D=(210-250pc), for the (18 000-30 000K) temperature range (see Bonnet-Bidaud et al. 2001 for details).

## 3. Discussion

What is the magnetic field value in V709 Cas ? Absorption lines are commonly seen in polars during low states where they are split by the Zeeman effect of a (10-30MG) strong magnetic field. The absence of Zeeman splitting in V709 Cas indicates a low magnetic field. Comparaison has been made with synthetic profiles for B in the range (3-30)MG (see Bonnet-Bidaud et al. 2000). The absence of the H$`\beta `$ components at 4832Å and 4896Å imposes B $``$ 3 MG. This is the first direct evidence of a low magnetic field, at least in some IPs.
Why is the white dwarf visible in V709 Cas ? V709 Cas is the only IP where the WD contribution is significant. The white dwarf characteristics are not atypical among CVs. A high (WD/overall) flux ratio may be reached if the contribution from other regions is significantly lower than in other IPs. This could be the case if the accretion disk is seen at high inclination. Additional observations are clearly needed to see if the visibility of the white dwarf may also depend on the overall accretion rate and luminosity of the source.

## 4. References

Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Mouchet, M., Shakhovskoy, N. M., Somova, T. A., Somov, N. N. et al. 2000, A&A 354, p.1003
Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Mouchet, M., de Martino D., Matt, G., Motch, C. 2001, A&A 374, 1003
Haberl, F., Motch, C. 1995, A&A 297, 37
Hessman, F.V., Koester, D., Schoembs, R., Parwigh, H. 1989, A&A 213, 167
Koester, D. 2000, private communication
La Dous, C. 1994, Sp Sci Rev. 67, p. 1
Motch, C., Haberl, F., Guillout, P., Pakull, M., Reinsch, K. 1996, A&A 307, 459


text:
# The Future of Gravitational Optics

## 1 The Past Millenium

This has been a good millenium for the study of gravitational optics. The foundations of the subject were set by the scholastics, Grosseteste, Bacon and Theodoric in the 12th and 13th centuries with their studies of rainbows and mirages. Four centuries later, Newton used Galilean kinematics to formulate his laws of motion and gravitation and develop his corpuscular theory of light using the laws of refraction, as previously elucidated by Snell and Descartes. Meanwhile, Fermat put forward the principle of least time, which made the connection between optics and dynamics which was cemented though the remarkable insights of Euler, Lagrange and Hamilton culminating in the development of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century. Independent of these formal developments, Michell, Laplace, Soldner and others quantified the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitational fields according to Newton’s theories, although their answer had to be doubled to allow for space curvature after Einstein perfected his general theory of relativity.

Observational progress had to wait until the last quarter of the twentieth century. (It is impressive how much that we now observe in detail was anticipated, notably by Zwicky, Refsdal, Gunn and Paczyński.) Following the first report of a strong (multiple-imaging) gravitational lens by Walsh, Carswell & Weymann (1979) we have subsequently found cluster arcs (Soucail et al, 1987), weak lensing in clusters (Tyson, Valdes & Wenk, 1990), galaxies (Brainerd, Blandford & Smail, 1996) and the field (van Waerbecke, Mellier, Erben et al, 2000) as well as microlensing (Irwin, Webster, Hewitt et al, 1989; Alcock et al, 1995). These observations have had a big impact on cosmology and have already been used to estimate the size and shape of the universe, as tracers of dark matter and as natural telescopes.

It is therefore with some optimism that the gravitational optics community can face the present millenium. What can we expect as we observe this spendid optical bench from our (presumably unprivileged) vantage point in spacetime? In this essay, I would like to take the long view and imagine that one day, the whole universe within our past light cone will be comprehensively monitored throughout the electromagnetic and other spectra and that the exabytes of data that are produced will be automatically stored and searched.

## 2 Cosmological Sources

From the deep imaging of the Hubble Deep Fields, it is apparent that Eddington was correct and that there are $`10^{11}`$ OIR sources on the sky to $`30^m`$, roughly 2” apart on average. It is likely (and I shall assume) that most of these are protogalactic sub-components with $`z13`$, though this has not yet been demonstrated. We will surely count these sources to fainter magnitudes and image overlapping galaxies so as to account for the brightness of the sky in essentially all bands in which the universe is transparent to $``$ milliarcsecond resolution so as to provide a background of $`10^{12}`$ matchable sources for performing gravitational lensing investigations. (The fluctuating cosmic microwave background provides a similar source but it is unlikely to have observable structure on angular scales that will be seen by any but the largest lenses.)

Roughly $`10^7`$ galaxies have bright enough nuclei to be called quasars and there are $`10^8`$ X-ray sources and $`10^{10}`$ compact radio sources (Kellermann & Richards, 2001). In round numbers, I estimate that there are $`10^9`$ continuously varying, compact sources that will be monitored. Explosive sources are also interesting. Whole sky searches to $`z3`$ should yield a supernova rate $`3`$ s-1 unless they are mostly obscured (Porciani & Madau, 2000). Gamma ray bursts (GRBs) will surely be traced to the faint end of their luminosity function at cosmological distances suggesting rates at least as large as $`10^3`$ s-1 (Blandford & Helfand, 1999). (GRBs may also offer the opportunity to observe lensing effects asssociated with neutrinos and gravitational radiation.) For these purposes, afterglows are similar to supernovae.

## 3 Galaxy Lenses

A good way to think about the type of images that can form is to imagine a pencil of rays propagating backwards in time from Earth (in the scholastically-approved manner), past lensing galaxies and other masses and focusing on caustic surfaces. Sources located on rays between the first and second foci will form inverted images at Earth and be accompanied by at least two positive parity images formed by different rays (unless there is obscuration) (Schneider, Ehlers & Falco, 1992). The comoving volume occupied by these putative sources, which I will call the lensing volume, is a measure of the number of observable instances of multiple imaging to be found. Double and quad image configurations are usually seen. The latter are rarer per source but are over-represented in existing observations because they are more easily recognized and because they are strongly magnified. Most lenses are elliptical, on account of their greater central concentration and the denser environments in which they are found (Kochanek, Falco, Impey et al, 1999). The influence of additional mass along the line of sight can also influence the imaging in a manner that will be quantifiable on an individual basis. Most galaxy lenses turn out to have $`0.5<z<1`$ and there are $`10^9`$ of them. If we imagine a typical lens with Einstein radius $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, then the lensing volume to $`z3`$ is roughly 1 Mpc3 per lens. The total lensing volume containing strongly lensed sources is $`1`$ Gpc3, roughly one thousandth of the total comoving volume out to $`z3`$. This is consistent with the observed lensing probability per distant source $`0.001`$ and leads to an estimate of roughly one lensed source per lensing galaxy on average.

These considerations lead to an estimate of $`10^9`$ observable instances of gravitational lensing, though some of these will be hard to see against the light of the lensing galaxies. Point sources that lie close enough to caustics will create pairs of images that are linearly magnified along their lines of separation. It should be possible to identify them efficiently on spectral grounds. The lensing volume per lens with magnification $`>A`$ is $`A^2`$ Mpc3 and the most magnified sources of this type should have $`A3\times 10^4`$, provided that they have detectable structure on a scale $`3A^1`$ kpc in order to remain unresolved by the gravitational lens. If one in a thousand of these sources is a variable AGN then the greatest intrinsic magnification in a variable source should be $`A10^3`$. Multiply-imaged supernova (GRBs) should occur every few minutes (weeks) and the brightest supernova (GRB) over a millenium should have $`A10^4,(10^2)`$.

More interesting are the cusp lines which run along the caustic surfaces. Sources within and close to these cusps form bright, colinear triples in which the central image should have a flux equal to the sum of the fluxes from the other two images. The lensing volume where the weakest of the three images has magnification $`>A`$, can be estimated to be $`A^{5/2}`$ Mpc3. The brightest galaxy cusps should have magnifications $`A10^3`$, if the sources are compact enough.

The next most prevalent catastrophe is known as the hyperbolic umbilic and this has a three dimensional caustic surface (Petters, Levine & Wambsganss, 2001). There are two of these associated with every elliptical lens possessing a finite core. They can form four image patterns looking like normal quads but all four images lie on one side of the lens center. (The order in which these images varies differs from that found in regular quads and so they are distinguishable.) They are likely to be superposed on the lens galaxy, and so are best sought using radio VLBI. Hyperbolic quads are very sensitive to the shape of the galaxy potential but are strongly magnified. If, as a calculation of a plausible galaxy model suggests is the case, the relevant lensing volume for forming them is $`0.01`$ Mpc3 per lens, then there should be $`10^4`$ hyperbolic quad radio sources on the sky.

A second four image, three dimensional catastrophe is the swallowtail. This can form when there is a close binary pair of galaxies. Four, roughly colinear images with alternating parity are formed although there are should be at least one other image in the vicinity. Groups and clusters are the best places to look for swallowtails and there could be thousands of examples which, if analyzed, would provide excellent probes of the galaxy potential on large scales.

The final three dimensional, generic catastrophe is the elliptical umbilic. In its most likely manifestation, this involves three negative parity images surrounding a positive parity image although there should be at least two additional, observable images in the vicinity. They are most likely to be located inside a triangle formed by three lensing galaxies with appropriate separations (Rusin, Kochanek, Norbury et al, 2001). Although triple galaxies are less common than double galaxies, the lensing volume per galaxy within which a source will form a recognizable elliptic umbilic is larger and these may outnumber swallowtails.

## 4 Clusters and Compact Groups

Clusters and groups influence lensing in two separate ways. They can magnify sources already lensed by galaxies, making them more common and easier to observe and they can act as lenses in their own right. Of course, all clusters and groups can multiple-image through their brightest galaxies. Although the groups probably dominate the total lensing volume the cluster lenses will continue to be of special interest because it is possible to map them with more confidence and precision. In round numbers, there are $`10^5`$ multiply-imaging clusters each with a lensing volume $`100`$ Mpc3. This implies that the probability of a distant source being multiply imaged by a cluster is $`10^5`$. Cluster-induced caustics are capable of very large magnification (Blandford & Hogg, 1996) and future, space-borne interferometers should be capable of resolving individual bright stars, magnified a million times as they cross the caustic curve.

Our observations need not be passive. Typical sources are likely move up to a pc per millenium. This is enough for us to observe secular changes in the most strongly magnified sources and envisage more elaborate experiments. For example, suppose that we launch an array of robotic telescopes and use three of them to measure the velocity of a caustic sheet (formed by a bright source) as it passes Earth, a fourth telescope could be made to “surf” the wave and observe the source with considerable magnification for a long time.

## 5 Weak Lensing Tomography

Weak lensing studies are, necessarily, statistical in character. However, when $`10^{10}`$ image shapes are measured over the sky, then it should be possible use them to map the dark matter distribution, assuming that we can determine their redshifts statistically (Tyson, 2000). A typical, individual potential fluctuation on a nonlinear scale length $`30`$ Mpc. creates a shear of $`10^3`$. There will be roughly 100 of these regions along a line of sight whose effects add stochastically giving a typical total shear $`10^2`$. Using the $`10^6`$ sources behind each of these regions, we should be able to measure the depths of their individual potentials with $`O(1)`$ accuracy. Measurements on larger scales should have slightly larger signal to noise. (A much greater number of source shapes is necessary to map typical regions of space as opposed to the much smaller number that already suffices to map large fluctuations like rich clusters.) The density of usable sources is unlikely to be high enough to permit the mapping of individual galaxies, except in those cases where there are relatively bright source galaxies along the optic axis. However statistical studies of galaxies as a function of type, redshift, size etc are quite feasible.

## 6 Black Holes and Neutron Stars

The best prospects for exploring the spacetime around a black hole, lie with the three million solar mass hole at our Galactic center. It will be possible to track faint stars as they approach the black hole and predict passages as close as $`100`$ gravitational radii. This should permit quantitative tests of the Kerr metric. Advanced pulsar search techniques using giant radio telescopes should lead to discovery of thousands of binary pulsars in nearby galaxies. Some of these will be observed from within $`10^{}`$ of the orbital plane and fairly accurate tests of relativity will become possible.

## 7 Stars

Our Galaxy has over $`10^{11}`$ stars, most of which will be typed and monitored. Giant, space-borne interferometers should be capable of measuring their proper motions and their distances will be known quite accurately on the basis of parallax, spectroscopy and photometry. As the microlensing optical depth is $`10^{67}`$, stellar events should be initiated roughly every hour and should be predictable. Neutron star lenses, which will be mostly unanticipated, should be found weekly and black hole events, perhaps monthly. Double star lenses are particularly interesting because they form intricate caustics and there is a good chance that microlensing will provide the primary search technique for distant planets. Furthermore, terrestrial planets might be studied and their images deconvolved during a caustic crossing if they trail their star and are magnified a thousandfold for about an hour under the most favorable conditions.

## 8 When will all this happen?

The Lyapunov time for contemporary astrophysics is so short that I cannot predict how long it will take to map and monitor the whole sky to faint flux levels. However, as I am supposed to be in the business of prediction, let me guess that someone reading this essay, this year, will witness attempts to accomplish most of what I have briefly discussed plus much more that I lack the imagination to anticipate. Unfortunately, I do not know if this prediction is one in the field of astronomy or medicine!

I acknowledge support under NSF grant AST-9900866 and thank Leon Koopmans for discussions and the editors for their patience.