text:
# Non-semisimple Hopf Algebras of Dimension 𝑝²

## 1 Introduction

Let $`p`$ be a prime number and $`k`$ an algebraically closed field of charactericstic 0. If $`H`$ is a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $`p^2`$, then $`H`$ is isomorphic to a group algebra \[Mas96\], namely $`k[𝐙_{p^2}]`$ or $`k[𝐙_p\times 𝐙_p]`$. For the Hopf algebras $`H`$ of dimension $`p^2`$, the only known non-semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension $`p^2`$ are the Taft algebras \[Taf71\] (cf. \[Mon98, 5\]). The question whether the Taft algebras are the only non-semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension $`p^2`$ is open. In fact, it is also a question suggested by Susan Montgomery in several international conferences. It was proved in \[AS98, Theorem A\] that if both $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ have nontrivial group-like elements or the order of the antipode is $`2p`$, then $`H`$ is isomorphic to a Taft algebra provided $`dimH=p^2`$. In this paper, we will give a complete answer to the question. More explicitly, we prove that for any non-semisimple Hopf algebra $`H`$ over $`k`$ of dimension $`p^2`$, $`H`$ is isomorphic to a Taft algebra. Hence, the Hopf algebras over $`k`$ of dimension $`p^2`$ can be completely classified (Theorem 6.5).

If $`pq`$ are odd primes, whether there is a non-semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $`pq`$ other than the Taft algebras is still in question. Nevertheless, we prove for any Hopf algebra of this type, the order of its antipode $`S`$ divides $`4p`$. Moreover, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$ is an integer divisible by $`p^2`$ (Theorem 6.4). The uniqueness of Taft algebras is a consequence of this result.

The article is organized as follows: In section 2, we recall some notation, general theorems and some useful statements. In section 3, we introduce the notion of the index of a Hopf algebra and we compute the index of the Taft algebras. In section 4, we consider the common eigenspaces of $`S^2`$ and $`r(g)`$ where $`S`$ and $`r(g)`$ are the antipode and the right multiplication by the distinguished group-like element $`g`$ of the Hopf algebra $`H`$. We derive some arithmetic properties of the dimensions of these eigenspaces for the Hopf algebras of odd index. We further exploit the arithmetic properties of these numbers for Hopf algebras of odd prime index in section 5. Finally, we prove our main theorems in section 6.

## 2 Notation and Preliminaries

Throughout this paper $`k`$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 and $`H`$ is a finite-dimensional Hopf algebra over $`k`$ with antipode $`S`$. Its comultiplication and counit are, respectively, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\epsilon `$. We will use Sweedler’s notation \[Swe69\]:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=x_{(1)}x_{(2)}.$$

A non-zero element $`aH`$ is called group-like if $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=aa`$. For the details of elementary aspects for finite-dimensional Hopf algebras, readers are referred to the references \[Swe69\] and \[Mon93\].

The set of all group-like elements $`G(H)`$ of $`H`$ is a linearly independent set and forms a group under the multiplication of $`H`$. The divisibility of $`dimH`$ by $`|G(H)|`$ is an immediate consequence of the following generalization of Lagrange’s theorem, due to Nichols and Zoeller:

###### Theorem 2.1

\[NZ89\] If $`B`$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $`H`$, then $`H`$ is a free $`B`$-module. In particular, $`dimB`$ divides $`dimH`$.

The order of the antipode is of fundamental importance to the semisimplicity of $`H`$. We recall some important results on the antipode $`S`$ of finite-dimensional Hopf algebras $`H`$.

###### Theorem 2.2

\[LR87, LR88\] Let $`H`$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra over a field of characteristic 0. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`H`$ is semisimple.
2. $`H^{}`$ is semisimple.
3. $`\text{Tr}(S^2)0`$ .
4. $`S^2=id_H`$ .

Let $`\lambda `$ be a non-zero right integral of $`H`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a non-zero left integral of $`H^{}`$. There is an $`\alpha \text{Alg}(H,k)=G(H^{})`$, independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }a=\alpha (a)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`aH`$. Likewise, there is a group-like element $`gH`$, independent of the choice of $`\lambda `$, such that $`\beta \lambda =\beta (g)\lambda `$ for $`\beta H^{}`$. We call $`g`$ the distinguished group-like element of $`H`$ and $`\alpha `$ the distinguished group-like element of $`H^{}`$. Then we have a formula for $`S^4`$ in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`g`$ \[Rad76\]:

$$S^4(h)=g(\alpha h\alpha ^1)g^1\text{for }aH,$$
(2.1)
where $``$ and $``$ denote the natural actions Hopf algebra $`H^{}`$ on $`H`$ described by

$$\beta a=a_{(1)}\beta (a_{(2)})\text{and}a\beta =\beta (a_{(1)})a_{(2)}$$

for $`\beta H^{}`$ and $`aH`$. If $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are normalized, there are formulae for the trace of any linear endomorphism on $`H`$.

###### Theorem 2.3

\[Rad94, Theorem 2\] Suppose that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$. Then for any $`f\text{End}_k(H)`$,

$`\text{Tr}(f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \lambda (S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)})f(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}))}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \lambda \left(Sf(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \lambda \left(fS(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}\right)}.`$
We shall also need the following lemma of linear algebra:

###### Lemma 2.4

\[AS98, Lemma 2.6\] Let $`T`$ be an operator on a finite dimensional vector space $`V`$ over $`k`$. Let $`p`$ be an odd prime and let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`p`$th root of unity.

1. If $`\text{Tr}(T)=0`$ and $`T^p=id_V`$, then $`dimV_i`$ is constant where $`V_i`$ is eigenspace of $`T`$ associated with the eigenvalue $`\omega ^i`$. In particular, $`p|dimV`$.
2. If $`\text{Tr}(T)=0`$ and $`T^{2p}=id_V`$, then

$$\text{Tr}(T^p)=pd$$

for some integer $`d`$.

## 3 Index of a Hopf algebra

The distinguished group-like element $`g`$ defines a coalgebra automorphism $`r(g)`$ on $`H`$ as follows:

$$r(g)(a)=ag\text{for}aH.$$

Since $`S^2`$ is an algebra automorphism on $`H`$,

$$S^2r(g)=r(g)S^2.$$

Moreover, both $`S^2`$ and $`r(g)`$ are of finite order. Therefore, $`S^2`$ and $`r(g)`$ generate a finite abelian subgroup of $`\text{Aut}_k(H)`$. We will simply call the exponent of the subgroup generated by $`S^4`$ and $`r(g)`$ the index of $`H`$. It is easy to see that the index of $`H`$ is also the smallest positive integer $`n`$ such that

$$S^{4n}=id_H\text{and}g^n=1.$$

Obviously, $`o(g)n`$ and $`o(S^4)n`$, where $`o(g)`$ and $`o(S^4)`$ are the orders of $`g`$ and $`S^4`$ respectively. By equation (2.1),

$$n\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha )).$$
(3.1)
###### Example 3.1

1. If both $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are unimodular, then $`S^4=id_H`$ by (2.1). Therefore, the index of $`H`$ is 1. In particular, if $`H`$ is semisimple, the index of $`H`$ is 1.
2. Let $`\xi k`$ be a $`n`$th root of unity. The Taft algebra \[Taf71\] $`T(\xi )`$ over $`k`$ is generated by $`x`$ and $`a`$, as a $`k`$-algebra, subject to the relations

$$a^n=1,ax=\xi xa,x^n=0.$$

The Hopf algebra structure is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=aa,`$ $`S(a)=a^1,`$ $`\epsilon (a)=1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=xa+1x,`$ $`S(x)=xa^1,`$ $`\epsilon (x)=0.`$
It is known that $`\{x^ia^j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}i,jn1\}`$ forms a basis for $`T(\xi )`$. In particular, $`dimT(\xi )=n^2`$. The linear functional $`\lambda `$, defined by

$$\lambda (x^ia^j)=\delta _{i,n1}\delta _{j,0}$$

is a right integral for $`T(\xi )`$. One can easily see that $`a`$ is the distinguished group-like element of $`T(\xi )`$. Moreover, $`S^4(x)=\xi ^2x`$ and $`S^4(a)=a`$. Therefore, the order of $`S^4`$ is $`\frac{n}{\mathrm{gcd}(2,n)}`$. Since the order of $`a`$ is $`n`$, the index of $`T(\xi )`$ is $`n`$.

###### Remark 3.2

1. If the index of the Hopf algebra $`H`$ is greater than 1, then $`H`$ is not semisimple by example 3.1(i).
2. If $`dimH`$ is odd, it follows from theorem 2.1 that the order of the distinguished group-like element $`g`$ of $`H`$ and the order of the distinguished group-like element $`\alpha `$ of $`H^{}`$ are both odd. Hence, by the formula (2.1), the order of $`S^4`$ is also odd. Therefore, the index of $`H`$ is odd.

## 4 Eigenspace decompositions for Hopf algebras of odd index

In this section, we will only consider those Hopf algebras $`H`$ of odd index $`n`$. Since $`r(g)^n=S^{4n}=id_H`$, and $`S^2`$ and $`r(g)`$ are commuting operators on $`H`$, $`r(g)`$ and $`S^2`$ are simultaneously diagonalizable. Let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`n`$th root of unity. Then any eigenvalue of $`S^2`$ is of the form $`(1)^a\omega ^i`$ and the eigenvalues of $`r(g)`$ are of the form $`\omega ^j`$. Define

$$H_{a,i,j}^\omega =\{uH|S^2(u)=(1)^a\omega ^iu,ug=\omega ^ju\}\text{ for any }(a,i,j)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n\times 𝐙_n.$$

We will simply write $`𝒦_n`$ for the group $`𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n\times 𝐙_n`$ and write $`H_{(a,i,j)}^\omega `$ for $`H_{a,i,j}^\omega `$ for convenience. We then have the decomposition

$$H=\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}H_𝐚^\omega .$$
(4.1)
Note that $`H_𝐚^\omega `$ is not necessarily non-trivial.

Since the distinguished group-like element $`\alpha `$ of $`H^{}`$ is an algebra map and $`g^n=1`$, we have $`\alpha (g)^n=1`$. Hence, $`\alpha (g)`$ is a $`n`$th root of unity, and so $`\alpha (g)=\omega ^x`$ for some integer $`x`$. Using the eigenspace decomposition of $`H`$ in (4.1), the diagonalization of the left integral of $`H`$ admits an interesting form.

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra over the field $`k`$ of odd index $`n`$. Let $`g`$ and $`\alpha `$ be the distinguished group-like elements of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$, respectively. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a left integral for $`H`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}H_𝐚^\omega H_{𝐚+𝐱}^\omega $$

where $`𝐱=(0,x,x)`$ and $`\alpha (g)=\omega ^x`$ .

Proof. Note that

$$HH=\underset{𝐚,𝐛𝒦_n}{}H_𝐚^\omega H_𝐛^\omega .$$

In particular, we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{𝐚,𝐛𝒦_n}{}\left(u_𝐚v_𝐛\right)$$

where $`u_𝐚v_𝐛H_𝐚^\omega H_𝐛^\omega `$. By \[Rad94, Proposition 3(d)\],

$$S^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\alpha (g^1)\mathrm{\Lambda }=\omega ^x\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Since $`S^2`$ is a coalgebra automorphism on $`H`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })& =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}\omega ^xS^2S^2\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}(1)^{a+b}\omega ^{x+i+s}\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
Since $`g`$ is group-like and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g=\alpha (g)\mathrm{\Lambda }=\omega ^x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })& =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}\omega ^xr(g)r(g)\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{(a,i,j),(b,s,t)𝒦_n}{}\omega ^{x+j+t}\left(u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
Thus, if $`u_{a,i,j}v_{b,s,t}0`$, by equations (4.2) and (4.3),

$$1=(1)^{a+b}\omega ^{x+i+s}\text{and}1=\omega ^{x+j+t},$$

or equivalently,

$$(b,s,t)=(a,i,j)+(0,x,x)=(a,i,j)+𝐱.$$

Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}\left(u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}\right).$$
(4.4)
$`\mathrm{}`$

In the sequel, we will call the expression in equation (4.4) the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated with $`\omega `$. We will simply write $`u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}`$ for the sum $`u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}`$ in the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

The eigenspace decomposition $`H=_{𝐚𝒦_n}H_𝐚^\omega `$ is associated with a unique family of projections $`E_𝐚^\omega `$ ($`𝐚𝒦_n`$) from $`H`$ onto $`H_𝐚^\omega `$ such that

1. $`E_𝐚^\omega E_𝐛^\omega =0`$ for $`𝐚𝐛`$ and
2. $`_{𝐚𝒦_n}E_𝐚^\omega =id_H`$ .

In particular, $`dimH_𝐚^\omega =\text{Tr}(E_𝐚^\omega )`$ for all $`𝐚𝒦_n`$. By Lemma 4.1,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}\left(E_𝐚^\omega E_{𝐚+𝐱}^\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

and hence $`\left(E_𝐚^\omega E_{𝐚+𝐱}^\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is identical to $`u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}`$ in the normal form (4.4) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Using the trace formula \[Rad90, Theorem 1\], we obtained the following Lemma:

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra over the field $`k`$ of odd index $`n`$ and let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`n`$th root of unity. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a left integral for $`H`$ and that $`\lambda `$ be a right integral for $`H^{}`$ such that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$. Then

$$dimH_𝐚^\omega =\lambda (S(v_{𝐚+𝐱})u_𝐚)$$
(4.5)
for all $`𝐚𝒦_n`$, where $`_{𝐚𝒦_n}u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}`$ is the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated with $`\omega `$.

Proof. Using the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated with $`\omega `$ and \[Rad90, Theorem 1\], for any $`𝐛𝒦_n`$,

$`dimH_𝐛^\omega =\text{Tr}(E_𝐛^\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}}\lambda \left(S(v_{𝐚+𝐱})E_𝐛^\omega (u_𝐚)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}}\delta _{𝐚,𝐛}\lambda \left(S(v_{𝐚+𝐱})u_𝐚\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \left(S(v_{𝐛+𝐱})u_𝐛\right).\text{ }\mathrm{}`$
The family of elements $`S(v_{𝐚+𝐱})u_𝐚`$ appearing in (4.5) are in $`H_{0,x,0}^\omega `$. Moreover, if $`H`$ is non-semisimple, they satisfy a system of equations.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`H`$ be a non-semisimple Hopf algebra over the field $`k`$ of odd index $`n`$ and let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`n`$th root of unity. Then

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n\end{array}}{}(1)^a\omega ^idimH_{a,i,j}^\omega =0\text{ for }j𝐙_n.$$

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a left integral for $`H`$ and let $`\lambda `$ be a right integral for $`H^{}`$ such that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$. If $`H`$ is not semisimple, by \[Rad94, Theorem 4\],

$$S^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=0.$$

Hence for any integer $`e`$,

$$S^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1g^e=0$$

Let

$$h_𝐚^{}=S^3(v_{𝐚+𝐱})u_𝐚\text{for all }𝐚𝒦_n$$

where $`_{𝐚𝒦_n}u_𝐚v_{𝐚+𝐱}`$ is the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated with $`\omega `$. Then

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle S^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1g^e}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i,j)𝒦_n}{}}h_{a,i,j}^{}g^e`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j𝐙_n}{}}\omega ^{ej}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}}h_{a,i,j}^{}`$
for $`e=0,\mathrm{},n1`$. Since $`1,\omega ,\mathrm{},\omega ^{n1}`$ are distinct elements in $`k`$, the Vandermonde matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 1\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega \hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \omega ^{n1}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega ^{n1}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \omega ^{(n1)^2}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$

is invertible. Therefore,

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}h_{a,i,j}^{}=0$$
(4.6)
for $`j𝐙_n`$. Notice that

$$S^3(v_{a,ix,j+x})=(1)^a\omega ^{ix}S(v_{a,ix,j+x}).$$

Therefore, $`h_{a,i,j}^{}=(1)^a\omega ^{ix}S(v_{a,ix,j+x})u_{a,i,j}`$ for any $`(a,i,j)𝒦_n`$. Then equation (4.6) becomes

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}(1)^a\omega ^iS(v_{a,ix,j+x})u_{a,i,j}=0$$

for $`j𝐙_n`$. Applying $`\lambda `$ to the equation, we have

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}(1)^a\omega ^i\lambda \left(S(v_{a,ix,j+x})u_{a,i,j}\right)=0$$

for all $`j𝐙_n`$. Then, the result follows from Lemma 4.2.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`H`$ be a non-semisimple unimodular Hopf algebra over the field $`k`$ of odd index $`n`$. Let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`n`$th root of unity. Then

$$\underset{i𝐙_n}{}(1)^a\omega ^idimH_{a,i,l2i}^\omega =0$$

for $`l𝐙_n`$.

Proof. Let $`\alpha `$ and $`g`$ be the distinguished group-like elements of $`H^{}`$ and $`H`$, respectively. Since $`H`$ is unimodular, $`\alpha =\epsilon `$ and hence $`\alpha (g)=1=\omega ^0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a left integral for $`H`$ and let $`\lambda `$ be a right integral for $`H^{}`$ such that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$. It follows from Lemma 4.1 that the normal form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ associated with $`\omega `$ is

$$\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}u_𝐚v_𝐚.$$
(4.7)
Since $`H`$ is not semisimple,

$$0=\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda })1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2).$$

Thus, we have

$$0=\underset{𝐚𝒦_n}{}u_𝐚S(v_𝐚).$$
(4.8)
Note that, by equation (2.1) and the unimodularity of $`H`$,

$$g^ea=S^{4e}(a)g^e$$

for any integer $`e`$ and $`aH`$. Let $`\overline{h}_𝐚=u_𝐚S(v_𝐚)`$ for $`𝐚𝒦_n`$. Then,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g^e\overline{h}_{a,i,j}& =g^eu_{a,i,j}S(v_{a,i,j})\hfill \\ & =\omega ^{e(2i+j)}u_{a,i,j}S(v_{a,i,j})\hfill \\ & =\omega ^{e(2i+j)}\overline{h}_{a,i,j}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.9)
By multiplying $`g^e`$ on the left in equation (4.8), we have

$$0=\underset{(a,i,j)𝒦_n}{}\omega ^{e(2i+j)}\overline{h}_{a,i,j}=\underset{l𝐙_n}{}\omega ^{el}\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}\overline{h}_{a,i,l2i}.$$
(4.10)
By the same argument used in the proof of Lemma 4.3,

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}\overline{h}_{a,i,l2i}=0$$
(4.11)
for $`l𝐙_n`$. Notice that, by \[Rad94, Theorem 3(a)\],

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda (\overline{h}_{a,i,j})& =\lambda (u_{a,i,j}S(v_{a,i,j}))\hfill \\ & =\lambda (S^3(v_{a,i,j})u_{a,i,j})\hfill \\ & =(1)^a\omega ^i\lambda (S(v_{a,i,j})u_{a,i,j}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.12)
By Lemma 4.2 and equation (4.7),

$$\lambda (\overline{h}_{a,i,j})=(1)^a\omega ^idimH_{a,i,j}^\omega .$$

Hence, we have

$$0=\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_n}{}\lambda (\overline{h}_{a,i,l2i})=\underset{i𝐙_n}{}(1)^a\omega ^idimH_{a,i,l2i}^\omega .$$

for $`l𝐙_n`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Arithmetic properties of Hopf algebras with odd prime index

In this section, we will study the arithmetic properties for the Hopf algebras of odd prime index $`p`$. Let $`\omega k`$ be a primitive $`p`$th root of unity. The Taft algebra $`T(\omega )`$ \[Taf71\] is then a Hopf algebra of this type by example 3.1 (ii). The quantum double of $`T(\omega )`$ is a unimodular Hopf algebra of index $`p`$ (cf. \[KR93\]).

###### Lemma 5.1

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra of index $`p`$. Then, for each $`j𝐙_p`$, there exists an integer $`d_j`$ such that

$$dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega =d_j.$$

for any $`i𝐙_p`$.

Proof. By Lemma 4.3, we have

$$\underset{i𝐙_p}{}\omega ^i(dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega )=0$$

for any $`j𝐙_p`$. In particular, $`\omega ^1`$ is a root of the integral polynomial

$$f_j(x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}(dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega )x^i.$$

Hence, $`f_j(x)=d_j\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x)`$ for some $`d_j𝐐`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x)=1+x+\mathrm{}+x^{p1}`$ is the irreducible polynomial of $`\omega ^1`$ over $`𝐐`$. Therefore,

$$dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega =d_j.$$

Since $`dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega `$ is an integer, and so is $`d_j`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 5.2

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra of index $`p`$, where $`p`$ is an odd prime. If $`H^{}`$ is not unimodular, then $`pdimH`$ and

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_p\end{array}}{}dimH_{a,i,j}^\omega =\frac{dimH}{p}$$

Proof. Since $`H^{}`$ is not unimodular, $`g1`$. Then, $`\text{Tr}(r(g))=0`$ (cf. \[LR95, Proposition 2.4(d)\]. Moreover, $`r(g)^p=id_H`$. Hence, by Lemma 2.4, $`p|dimH`$ and the eigenspace of $`r(g)`$ associated with the eigenvalue $`\omega ^j`$ is of dimension $`\frac{dimH}{p}`$ for any $`j𝐙_p`$. Note that

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_p}{}H_{a,i,j}^\omega $$

is the eigenspace of $`r(g)`$ associated with $`\omega ^j`$. Therefore,

$$\frac{dimH}{p}=dim\left(\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_p}{}H_{a,i,j}^\omega \right)=\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_p}{}dimH_{a,i,j}^\omega .\text{ }\mathrm{}$$

###### Lemma 5.3

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra of index $`p`$. If $`H^{}`$ is not unimodular and $`H`$ is unimodular, then :

1. There is an integer $`d`$ such that

$$dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega =d\text{for any}i,j𝐙_p.$$
2. $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$ .

Proof. (i) By Lemma 4.4, for any $`l𝐙_p`$,

$$\underset{i𝐙_p}{}\left(dimH_{0,i,l2i}^\omega dimH_{1,i,l2i}^\omega \right)\omega ^i=0$$

Since $`\omega ^1`$ is also a primitive $`p`$th root of unity in $`k`$, there exists an integer $`c_l`$ such that

$$dimH_{0,i,l2i}^\omega dimH_{1,i,l2i}^\omega =c_l$$
(5.1)
for $`i𝐙_p`$. By Lemma 5.1, for any $`i,l𝐙_p`$,

$$c_l=dimH_{0,i,l2i}^\omega dimH_{1,i,l2i}^\omega =d_{l2i}.$$
(5.2)
Since $`2`$ and $`p`$ are relative prime, $`l,l2,\mathrm{},l2(p1)`$ is a complete set of representatives of $`𝐙_p`$. Therefore,

$$d_j=c_l=d\text{ for any }j,l𝐙_p.$$

(ii) Since $`p`$ is odd,

$`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j𝐙_p}{}}dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j𝐙_p}{}}d`$
$`=`$ $`p^2d.\text{ }\mathrm{}`$
## 6 Hopf algebras of dimension $`pq`$

In this section, we will consider the Hopf algebras $`H`$ of dimension $`pq`$ where both $`pq`$ are odd primes. In particular, we prove that if $`H`$ is not semisimple and $`dimH=p^2`$, then $`H`$ is isomorphic to a Taft algebra. By \[Mas96, Theorem 2\], any Hopf algebra over $`k`$ of dimension $`p^2`$ is either a group algebra or a Taft algebra. We begin the section with the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6.1

Let $`p,q`$ be two distinct prime numbers. Then there is no Hopf algebra $`H`$ of dimension $`pq`$ such that $`|G(H)|=p`$ and $`|G(H^{})|=q`$.

Proof. Suppose there is a Hopf algebra $`H`$ of dimension $`pq`$ such that $`|G(H)|=p`$ and $`|G(H^{})|=q`$. Let $`gG(H)`$ and $`\alpha G(H^{})`$ such that $`o(g)=p`$ and $`o(\alpha )=q`$. Then,

$$\alpha (g)^p=\alpha (g^p)=\alpha (1)=1$$

and

$$1=\epsilon (g)=\alpha ^q(g)=\alpha (g)^q.$$

Therefore, $`o(\alpha (g))=1`$ and so $`\alpha (g)=1`$. Since $`k[G(H^{})]`$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $`H^{}`$, $`k[G(H^{})]^{}`$ is a Hopf ideal of $`H`$. Let $`B^+`$ be the augmentation ideal of $`k[G(H)]`$. Then $`B^+H=(g1)H`$ and

$$\alpha ^i((g1)h)=(\alpha (g)^i1)\alpha ^i(h)=0\text{for}hH,i𝐙.$$

Therefore,

$$B^+Hk[G(H^{})]^{}.$$

It follows from \[Sch92, Theorem 2.4 (2a)\] that $`dimH/B^+H=q`$. Thus,

$$dimB^+H=pqq=k[G(H^{})]^{}$$

and hence,

$$B^+H=k[G(H^{})]^{}.$$

Therefore, $`H/B^+H`$ is isomorphic to $`k[G(H^{})]^{}`$ as Hopf algebras. In particular, $`H/B^+H`$ is semisimple. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a non-zero left integral of $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ a non-zero right integral of $`k[G(H)]`$. Since $`chark=0`$, $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})0`$ and hence, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }B^+H`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+B^+H`$ is a non-zero left integral in $`H/B^+H`$. Since $`H/B^+H`$ is semisimple, $`\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\epsilon (\mathrm{\Lambda }+B^+H)0`$. Hence, $`H`$ is semisimple. By \[EG98\], $`H`$ is trivial and so $`|G(H)|=pq`$, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 6.2

Let $`H`$ be a non-semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $`pq`$ where $`pq`$ are odd primes. Then

1. the order of $`S^4`$ is $`p`$ and
2. $`H`$ is of index $`p`$.

Proof. (i) Since $`H`$ is not semisimple and $`dimH`$ is odd, by \[LR95, Theorem 2.1\] or \[AS98, Lema 2.5\], $`S^4id_H`$ and $`H`$, $`H^{}`$ cannot both be unimodular. Let $`g`$ be the distinguished group-like element of $`H`$ and let $`\alpha `$ the distinguished group-like element of $`H^{}`$. Then, $`o(\alpha )<pq`$ and $`o(g)<pq`$, for otherwise, $`H`$ is isomorphic to a group algebra which is semisimple. By Lemma 6.1,

$$\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha ))=p\text{ or }q.$$
(6.1)
By the equation (2.1) and (6.1), the order of $`S^4`$ is either $`p`$ or $`q`$. If $`p=q`$, order of $`S^4`$ and the index of $`H`$ are obviously equal to $`p`$. We now assume $`q>p`$. We consider the following cases:
Case (a): $`H^{}`$ is not unimodular. Suppose that the order of $`S^4`$ is $`q`$. By equation (2.1), $`q\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha ))`$. Therefore, $`\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha ))=q`$ and hence $`o(g)=1`$ or $`q`$. Thus, the index of $`H`$ is also $`q`$. Let $`\omega k`$ be a $`q`$th primitive root of unity. By Lemma 5.1, for each $`j𝐙_q`$ there is an integer $`d_j`$ such that

$$dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega =d_j\text{for all }i𝐙_q.$$
(6.2)
Let $`X_{i,j}=\mathrm{min}(dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega ,dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega )`$. Then,

$$dimH_{0,i,j}^\omega +dimH_{1,i,j}^\omega =2X_{i,j}+|d_j|$$

and so

$$\underset{(a,i)𝐙_2\times 𝐙_q}{}H_{a,i,j}^\omega =\underset{i𝐙_q}{}2X_{i,j}+q|d_j|$$
(6.3)
for each $`j𝐙_q`$. It follows from Lemma 5.2 that

$$\underset{i𝐙_q}{}2X_{i,j}+q|d_j|=p.$$
(6.4)
Since $`p`$ odd, by (6.4), $`|d_j|`$ must be odd. However, the left hand side of (6.4) is then strictly greater than $`p`$, a contradiction! Therefore, $`o(S^4)=p`$.
Case (b): $`H^{}`$ is unimodular. Then $`H^{}H`$ is not unimodular. By Theorem 2.2, $`H^{}`$ is not semisimple and $`dimH^{}=pq`$. It follows from Case (a) that the order of $`S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ is $`p`$. Since $`o(S^4)=o(S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})`$. Therefore, $`o(S^4)=p`$.
(ii) Let $`n`$ be the index of $`H`$. Then, by (3.1), $`n\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha ))`$ and $`o(S^4)n`$. Since $`o(S^4)=p`$ and $`\text{lcm}(o(g),o(\alpha ))=p\text{ or }q`$, we have $`n=p`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 6.3

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`k`$ such that both the distinguished group-like elements of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are of order $`p`$ where $`p`$ is an odd prime. Then, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$ for some integer $`d`$.

Proof. Let $`g`$ and $`\alpha `$ be the distinguished group-like elements of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ respectively. Let $`B`$ be the group algebra $`k[g]`$. It follows from the arguments in the proof of \[AS98, Theorem A\] that there is an Hopf algebra map $`\pi :HB`$ such that $`\pi \gamma =id_B`$ where $`\gamma :BH`$ is the inclusion map. Therefore, $`H`$ isomorphic to the biproduct $`R\times B`$ as Hopf algebras where

$$R=H^{coB}=\{hH|(id\pi )\mathrm{\Delta }(h)=h1\}$$

(cf. \[Rad85\]). It is shown in \[AS98, section 4 \] that $`R`$ is invariant under $`S^2`$. Moreover, in the identification $`HRH`$ given by multiplication, one has

$$S^2=Tid_B.$$
(6.5)
Since $`H`$ is not unimodular, $`H`$ is not semisimple and hence $`\text{Tr}(S^2)=0`$. By equation (6.5), $`\text{Tr}(S^2)=\text{Tr}(T)p`$. Therefore, $`\text{Tr}(T)=0`$. Moreover, $`T^{2p}=id_R`$ as $`S^{4p}=id_H`$ by equation (2.1). Hence, by Lemma 2.4, $`\text{Tr}(T^p)=pd`$ for some integer $`d`$. Since $`S^{2p}=T^pid_B`$, we have

$$\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=\text{Tr}(T^p)\text{Tr}(id_B)=p^2d.\text{ }\mathrm{}$$

###### Theorem 6.4

Let $`H`$ be a non-semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $`pq`$ where $`pq`$ are odd primes. Then $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$ for some odd integer $`d`$ .

Proof. By Proposition 6.2, $`S^{4p}=id_H`$. Let

$$H_\pm =\{hH|S^{2p}(h)=\pm h\}.$$

Then,

$`dimH_+dimH_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$
$`\text{and}dimH_++dimH_{}`$ $`=`$ $`pq.`$
Since $`pq`$ is odd, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$ is also an odd integer. Thus, if $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$, then $`d`$ must be an odd integer. Therefore, it suffices to show that $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$ for some integer $`d`$. Since $`H`$ is not semisimple, by Theorem 2.2, $`H^{}`$ is also not semisimple. By Proposition 6.2, the indexes of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are both $`p`$. Since $`dimH`$ is odd, by \[LR95, Theorem 2.2\], not both of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are unimodular. We then have the following three cases:
(i) If $`H`$ is unimodular and $`H^{}`$ is not unimodular, the result follows from Lemma 5.3.
(ii) If $`H`$ is not unimodular and $`H^{}`$ is unimodular, by Lemma 5.3, $`\text{Tr}(S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2p})=p^2d`$ for some odd integer $`d`$. The result follows from $`\text{Tr}(S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2p})=\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$.
(iii) If both $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are not unimodular, by Lemma 6.1 and Proposition 6.2, the orders of the distinguished group-like elements of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are both equal to $`p`$. Thus, by Lemma 6.3, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence of the above theorem, we prove that any Hopf algebra of dimension $`p^2`$ is either a group algebra or a Taft algebra (see example 3.1(ii)).

###### Theorem 6.5

Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra over $`k`$ of dimension $`p^2`$ where $`p`$ is any prime number. Then, $`H`$ is isomorphic to one of the following Hopf algebras:

1. $`k[𝐙_{p^2}]`$ ;
2. $`k[𝐙_p\times 𝐙_p]`$;
3. $`T(\omega )`$, $`\omega k`$ a primitive $`p`$th of unity.

Proof. If $`H`$ is semisimple, it follows from \[Mas96, Theorem 2\] that $`H`$ isomorphic to $`k[𝐙_{p^2}]`$ or $`k[𝐙_p\times 𝐙_p]`$. It is also shown in \[Kap75\] that if $`H`$ is a non-semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension 4, then $`H`$ isomorphic to the Taft algebra $`T(1)`$ or $`T(1)`$. We may now assume $`H`$ is not semisimple and $`p`$ is odd. Let $`S`$ be the antipode of $`H`$. By Proposition 6.2, $`S^{4p}=id_H`$ and so $`S^{2p}`$ is diagonalizable and the possible eigenvalues of $`S^{2p}`$ are $`\pm 1`$. Suppose $`S^{2p}id_H`$. Then, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})`$ is an integer such that

$$p^2\text{Tr}(S^{2p})<p^2.$$

By Theorem 6.4,

$$\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2d$$

for some odd integer $`d`$. Therefore, $`\text{Tr}(S^{2p})=p^2`$ and hence $`S^{2p}=id_H`$. However, this is not possible since $`S^{2p}(1_H)=1_H`$. Therefore, $`S^{2p}=id_H`$. By Proposition 6.2, the order of $`S^4`$ is $`p`$, and so is the order $`S^2`$. It follows from \[AS98, Theorem A(ii)\] that $`H`$ is isomorphic to a Taft algebra of dimension $`p^2`$. Hence, $`HT(\omega )`$ for some primitive $`p`$th root of unity, $`\omega k`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Susan Montgomery for bringing his attention to the question on the Hopf algebras of dimension $`p^2`$.

> e-mail: rng@towson.edu


format: text

text:
# New insights on the accuracy of photometric redshift measurements

## 1 Introduction

Reliable spectroscopy of galaxies fainter than $`I_{\mathrm{AB}}24`$ is still an unattainable goal even with new-generation telescopes. To estimate the redshift for a majority of these objects one must therefore rely on multicolor observations in order to reconstruct, at very low resolution, the apparent spectral energy distribution (SED).

Much efforts have been devoted, in the recent literature, to improve the accuracy of the photometric approach compared with direct spectroscopy. Photometric redshift techniques have been extensively applied, in particular, to the ultra–deep images of the Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN, Williams et al. 1996, see also Ferguson, Dickinson and Williams 2000) to study the luminosity function, the evolution of the star formation rate (SFR) density, and the clustering properties of the galaxies observed there (Madau et al. 1996; Connolly et al. 1997; Sawicki et al. 1997; Franceschini et al. 1998; Pascarelle et al. 1998; Connolly et al. 1998; Miralles & Pelló 1998; Roukema et al. 1999, Arnouts et al. 1999).

The sample of relatively bright HDFN objects with reliable spectroscopic redshifts is steadily increasing and now amounts to about 150 objects, a value that nearly doubles the initial list of Sawicki et al. (1997). About 20% of these objects are beyond $`z2.0`$, thus allowing a more robust statistical comparison between spectroscopic and photometric estimates of $`z`$ even for the most distant objects in the field.

We previously discussed (Massarotti et al. 2001a, Paper I hereafter) the performance of the SED fitting method as a function of the template set adopted to reproduce galaxy colors. Our results suggested that, as long as both normal and starburst galaxies are taken into account in the reference templates, the photometric redshift at $`z<1.5`$ is constrained by a reliable detection of the 4000 Å Balmer break in the target SED. At larger redshifts, on the contrary, the main constraint is set by modeling the effects of the interstellar (ISM) and intergalactic (IGM) absorption, which modulate the SEDs at different wavelengths. In this paper, we further discuss some important aspects of this problem, and suggest an improved model for the ISM and IGM absorption which sensibly increases the accuracy of the method at $`z>2`$.

Photometric redshifts are estimated by comparing the observed broad-band colors of galaxies with the library of model fluxes provided by the code of Buzzoni (1989, 1995, 2001; hereafter BUZ). Results obtained with the codes of Bruzual & Charlot (1993, BC) and Fioc & Rocca–Volmerange (1997, FRV) are also reported, since these theoretical models have also been extensively used in the literature.

The key steps of our procedure are summarized in Sect. 2, where we also introduce the model libraries. The redshift database used in our analysis is presented in Sect. 3, comparing the $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ distribution with our $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ output. The ISM and IGM effects are more specifically dealt with in Sect. 4, while in Sect. 5 we discuss the match between models and observations even at the faintest magnitude limit of the HDFN data. Section 6 summarizes our conclusions.

## 2 Input ingredients and fitting algorithm

As in Paper I, the photometric catalog of Fernández–Soto et al. (1999) will be used as a reference in our analysis. It is made up by 1067 objects identified from the HST WFPC2 images in the four photometric bands, namely $`U_{300}`$, $`B_{450}`$, $`V_{606}`$, and $`I_{814}`$, and completed with infrared observations in the Johnson $`J,H`$, and $`K`$ bands with the IRIM camera at KPNO (Dickinson 1998).

Galaxy model libraries have been assembled following the strategy of Paper I. A notable change in the present calculations involves a slight enlargement of the set of starburst models in order to cover a wider range of physical parameters and ensure a more accurate description of the colors of the most distant galaxies.

To the Leitherer et al. (1999) starburst sequence of Paper I, namely for $`t=50`$, 100, 500, and 800 Myr, with $`Z_{}`$ and Salpeter IMF, we added here two supplementary models at $`t=10`$ and 250 Myr, and included evolution for $`Z_{}/20`$ metallicity in addition to the solar case previously considered.

In order to account for recent star formation superimposed on quiescent red (elliptical) galaxies, we also considered a new set of templates. These are obtained adding the 50 Myr starburst spectrum (with Salpeter IMF and $`Z_{}`$) to simple stellar population models for a multi-component fit to the galaxy SED. In this way the overall color distribution of early type galaxies at $`z<1.5`$, as found by Franceschini et al. (1998) and Rodighiero et al. (2001), is much better accounted for.

As a first step, the ISM and IGM absorptions have been modeled in as in Paper I. Galaxy model fluxes have been corrected for ISM effects following Calzetti (1999). As in Paper I, the $`E(BV)`$ color excess has been set as a free fitting parameter which could take the discrete values 0.0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4. The IGM absorption as a function of redshift follows the analaysis by Madau (1995).

According to our SED fitting method, we searched for the “best template” solution as which minimizes the general $`\chi ^2`$ function (see Eq. (1) of Paper I). In the multi-component fit to the galaxy SED the $`\chi ^2`$ functional takes the form:

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{[f_i^{\mathrm{obs}}s_{\mathrm{ssp}}f_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{ssp}}^{\mathrm{temp}}(z)s_{\mathrm{burst}}f_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{burst}}^{\mathrm{temp}}(z)]^2}{\sigma _i^2},$$
(1)
where $`f_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{ssp}}^{\mathrm{temp}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{burst}}^{\mathrm{temp}}`$ are the template fluxes of the quiescent galaxy model and of the burst model, respectively, scaled by $`s_{\mathrm{ssp}}`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{burst}}`$, and $`N`$ is the number of filters.

For galaxies with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ available ($`N_\mathrm{g}`$) we define two simple statistical moments:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=\stackrel{N_\mathrm{g}}{}\frac{(z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}})}{N_\mathrm{g}},$$
(2)
and

$$\sigma _\mathrm{z}^2=\stackrel{N_\mathrm{g}}{}\frac{[(z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}})\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}]^2}{N_\mathrm{g}1},$$
(3)
to study residuals between photometric and spectroscopic redshift values.

Catastrophic outliers (that is, galaxies with $`|z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}}|>1.0`$) are clipped from the galaxy distribution to compute representative values for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}^2`$.

## 3 The spectroscopic sample

Cohen et al. (2000) provided an exhaustive compilation of all spectroscopic redshifts measured with the Keck telescope in the HDFN proper and flanking fields. The work includes previously published data, new redshifts measurements, and corrections to erroneous values given in the literature. This list represents the deepest and most complete redshift catalog for the HDFN to date.

Fernández–Soto et al. (2001) matched photometric and redshift catalogs in the HDFN proper. They cross–correlated coordinates and magnitudes, resulting in a list of 146 sources (see Table 2 therein). We adopt here their naming convention and follow their considerations regarding some galaxies with discordant $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ vs. $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ values, except for the following few objects.

HDF36441–1410: we assume that the spectroscopic measure $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.267`$ is correct. Fernández–Soto et al. (2001) claimed that features identifications in the spectrum are compatible with their estimated $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.01`$, but HDF36441–1410 is a $`U`$ drop–out star–forming galaxy ($`U_{300}B_{450}1.7`$, $`V_{606}I_{814}0.0`$). These colors (blue in $`V_{606}I_{814}`$, red in $`U_{300}B_{450}`$) can be explained only as consequence of the IGM absorption of UV photons in the $`U_{300}`$ band, and are incompatible with $`z0`$ starburst colors.

HDF36446–1227: we prefer the spectroscopic value $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.035`$ proposed by Lowenthal et al. (1997), to the (revised) value $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.500`$ reported by Cohen et al. (2000) and accepted by Fernández–Soto et al. (2001). In the redshift range $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}[2,2.3]`$ there is no galaxy bluer than HDF36446–1227 in $`U_{300}B_{450}`$, and according to the starburst templates of our models its optical colors are incompatible with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}>2.3`$ (see Sect. 4.2).

HDF36396–1230, 36494–1317, and 36561–1330: for these three galaxies we follow Cohen (2001), who adopts the redshift values given by Fernández–Soto et al. (2001).

HDF36478–1256: with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=2.931`$, this galaxy was tagged as a catastrophic outlier in all previous works (see e.g. Fernández–Soto et al. 1999; Bolzonella et al. 2000; Fernández–Soto et al. 2001; Fontana et al. 2000). Arnouts et al. (1999) suggest that the photometry could be incorrect because of the complex source morphology. Given the unclear situation and the large discrepancy for this galaxy (our photometric redshift estimate is $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}=0.26`$) we excluded it from the catalog.

Six new galaxies from the HDF–South (HDFS) have also been added to our list. Three of them are from Glazebrook et al. (2001) with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.580`$, 0.582, and 0.696, and three are from Cristiani et al. (2000) with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=0.565`$, 2.79, and 3.2 respectively. The photometry was obtained from the web page of the Stony Brook group (see http://www.ess.sunysb.edu/astro/hdfs) in the four WFPC2 filters, and in the $`J,H`$, and $`K`$ infrared bands by the SOFI camera at NTT (Da Costa et al. 2001).

Our final spectroscopic catalog contains 146 objects, 34 of them with $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2`$.

### 3.1 Comparison between $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$

In Fig. 1 we compare spectroscopic and photometric redshifts obtained with different sets of reference galaxy models.

At $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.5`$ (panels a,b,c) the agreement is excellent, regardless of the template set chosen. Dispersion values of the photometric redshift estimates are $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.078`$, 0.074, 0.072 for the BUZ, FRV and BC libraries, respectively, while systematic errors are $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.007`$, 0.026, 0.004. There are no galaxies with $`|z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}}|>0.5`$.

Since in this redshift range the accuracy of the method depends mainly on the ability of models to reproduce the 4000 Å Balmer break along the whole Hubble morphological sequence (including starburst galaxies), one can conclude that all model libraries contain enough information to match properly the SEDs.

For the same sample, at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.5`$, Fontana and collaborators obtained $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.084`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.033`$ (see the web page http://www.mporzio.astro.it/HIGHZ/HDF.html). Fernández–Soto et al. (1999) obtained $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.116`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.007`$, further improved to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.107`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.004`$ after including starburst galaxies in their template library (Fernández–Soto et al. 2001). Bolzonella et al. (2000) obtained $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}0.082`$, using a smaller spectroscopic sample, that did not account for the new spectroscopic redshifts from Cohen and collaborators.

The situation becomes more complex at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2`$ (see panel d of Fig. 1). The dispersion increases to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.177`$ and there are two objects with $`|z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}}|>0.5`$. In this redshift range almost all galaxies are best fit by starburst models, and we therefore focussed on the Leitherer et al. (1999) templates.

Part of the larger scatter can certainly result from the fainter magnitudes (lower signal–to–noise ratio), but a systematic shift ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.156`$) is significant in panel d, and cannot be explained in terms of photometric errors only. The tendency to underestimate redshifts for $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2`$ seems to be a common feature of all photometric studies found in the literature, regardless of the specific choice of theoretical and/or empirical template library.

The only exception in this regard are the results of Fernández–Soto et al. (2001) which show systematics in the opposite sense, with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.136`$. These authors did not however take into account explicitely the ISM reddening modulation of the template SEDs (the average amount of dust that the empirical templates do contain may not be entirely representative of the dust content of galaxies at high redshifts). As we noted in Paper I, this causes a significant overestimate (by about 10–20%) of $`z`$ at large distances, because the IGM absorption, which increases with redshift, is forced to mimic color reddening.

The presence of dust in starburst galaxies at high redshift has been confirmed by analyzing galaxy colors with the SED fitting method (see Massarotti et al. 2001b, and references therein). Meurer et al. (1999) adopted an entirely empirical approach based on the correlation between color reddening, dust absorption and far infrared flux for local starburst galaxies (supposed to be also valid at high redshifts). According to their results (see also Meurer et al. 1997; Sawicki & Yee 1998), at $`<z>=2.75`$ a color–luminosity correlation is already in place: more luminous galaxies (i.e. galaxies with available spectroscopic redshifts) have a larger dust content.

The observed systematic shift in the $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ vs. $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ distribution of Fig. 1, calls therefore for a revised analysis of the ISM and IGM effects in the $`z>2`$ data.

## 4 A revised approach to IGM and ISM absorption

In Paper I we showed that at high redshifts the SED fitting method provides stable estimates of galaxy redshifts, even when using an extremely poor template library, while the critical ingredients are dust reddening and IGM attenuation. It is important to explore in some detail the physical processes of photon absorption in both cases.

### 4.1 The IGM opacity as a function of redshift

Following Madau (1995), the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest contribution to the attenuation of the SED caused by the IGM absorption can be written in terms of an effective optical depth as

$$\frac{F_{\mathrm{obs}}(\lambda ,z)}{F_{\mathrm{intr}}(\lambda )}=e^{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}},$$
(4)
with

$$\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=A\times (\lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}/\lambda _\alpha )^{1+\gamma },$$
(5)
where $`F_{\mathrm{obs}}(\lambda ,z)`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{intr}}(\lambda )`$ are the observed and intrinsic fluxes respectively, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}=\lambda \times (1+z)`$, and $`\lambda _\alpha =1216`$ Å.

Press et al. (1993), in their analysis of the distribution of Ly$`\alpha `$ forest lines in a sample of 29 quasars at $`z[3.1,4.5]`$, found $`(A,\gamma )=(0.0036,2.46)`$, which are the values usually adopted in the literature.

In a recent paper, Scott et al. (2000) studied a sample containing 97 quasars at $`z[1.7,3.6]`$, a redshift range complementary to that studied by Press et al. (1993). Considering absorption lines above the threshold $`W>0.16`$ Å, they obtain $`(A,\gamma )=(0.00759,1.35)`$. The IGM transmission at $`z<3`$ is therefore larger than the one expected by extrapolating the Press et al. (1993) results at these redshifts.

We decided to adopt the Scott et al. (2000) results to describe the IGM absorption at $`z<3`$ and the Press et al. (1993) results at $`z>4`$. In the intermediate redshift range (i.e. between $`3<z<4`$), the $`A`$ and $`\gamma `$ coefficients of Eq. (5) have been interpolated linearly imposing as boundary limits $`(A,\gamma )=(0.00759,1.35)`$ at $`z=3`$ and $`(A,\gamma )=(0.0036,2.46)`$ at $`z=4`$.

A useful way to match our adopted theoretical scheme with the observations is to derive from Eq. (5) the expected IGM flux attenuation ($`D_\mathrm{A}`$) in the spectral range $`\lambda [1050,1170]`$ Å as a function of redshift. This can be directly compared with the observed deficit in quasars fluxes due to the accumulated absorption of the Ly$`\alpha `$ lines in the IGM. By definition,

$$D_\mathrm{A}(z)=1\frac{_{1050}^{1170}F_{\mathrm{obs}}(\lambda ,z)𝑑\lambda }{_{1050}^{1170}F_{\mathrm{intr}}(\lambda )𝑑\lambda }.$$
(6)
Our results are summarized in Fig. 2, which collects observations from different sources. The data cannot be described by a single power law, since the slope of $`D_\mathrm{A}(z)`$ changes in the interval $`z[3,4]`$. The Press et al. (1993) solution (adopted by Madau 1995) sensibly overestimates the IGM opacity at $`z<3.5`$; the opposite happens with the Scott et al. (2000) results when extending them beyond $`z>3.5`$. Note, on the contrary, that our simple parameterization fits nicely the $`D_\mathrm{A}(z)`$ evolution over the entire range of redshift, from $`z=2`$ to $`z=6`$.

We repeated the photometric redshift estimate for the $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$ objects adopting our new prescriptions for the IGM absorption. For $`z>2.5`$, only one outlier (namely HDF36512–1349 at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}=3.162`$) is found at $`|z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}}|>0.5`$. In the Cohen et al. (2000) list the spectroscopic redshift of this object is reported as (very) uncertain.

Excluding this source, the dispersion decreases to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.129`$ (cf. Fig. 3 c). More importantly, the tendency to underestimate galaxy redshift almost disappears ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.042`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.5`$). This is not true however in the range $`z[2,2.5]`$, where the results are still problematic.

### 4.2 The ISM opacity and the bump at 2175 Å

In the redshift range $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}[2,2.5]`$, the 912 Å Lyman break has not yet entered the $`U_{300}`$ band and therefore galaxies can still be detected in this filter, although with a major dimming effect by the IGM absorption.

The $`U_{300}`$ magnitude does not effectively constrain $`z`$ in the SED fitting method, because of its poor signal-to-noise ratio 111Note that, paradoxically, the same spectral signature which defines so effectively the $`U`$ drop–out sample at $`z2`$ causes the $`U_{300}`$ information to be rather useless in the SED fitting method.. The $`\chi ^2`$ merit function is mainly modulated in this redshift range by the optical information coming from the $`B_{450}`$, $`V_{606}`$ and $`I_{814}`$ bands. It is therefore plausible that any bias in the $`z`$ estimate is linked in some way with the $`B_{450}V_{606}`$ and $`V_{606}I_{814}`$ colors.

At $`z2`$ the $`B_{450}`$ band is probing the rest-frame emission at about $`1500\pm 300`$ Å, while the $`V_{606}`$ band samples the wavelength range $`2000\pm 300`$ Å, and the $`I_{814}`$ band that at $`2700\pm 300`$ Å. Between 1500 and 2700 Å, the Leitherer et al. (1999) starburst models indicate that the galaxy spectral slope steepens with increasing wavelength so that, in general, $`(B_{450}V_{606})>(V_{606}I_{814})`$ in the AB mag scale.

This is confirmed by Fig. 4, where the color diagram for the 100 Myr starburst model with Salpeter IMF and $`Z_{}`$ is shown. Dust reddening can only strengthen this effect: dust absorption reddens $`B_{450}`$ $`V_{606}`$ more than $`V_{606}I_{814}`$ (see in Fig. 4 the reddening vectors). Moreover, at $`z>2.5`$ the Lyman series enters the $`B_{450}`$ band and the $`B_{450}V_{606}`$ color is further reddened by the IGM absorption.

In Fig. 4 we also plotted the HDFN $`U`$ drop–out sample (triangles) selected according to the prescriptions of Meurer et al. (1999) ($`U_{300}B_{450}1.3`$, $`V_{606}I_{814}<0.5`$, and $`B_{450}26.8`$). A large fraction (24%) of these galaxies displays observed colors $`(B_{450}V_{606})<(V_{606}I_{814})`$ and 3 out of the 11 sources at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}[2,2.5]`$ are among these. Note that for galaxies with spectroscopic reddshifts, the color errors are $`0.02`$, so it is difficult to explain such large deviations from models in terms of photometric errors only. To account in a consistent way for the deviating $`B_{450}V_{606}`$ and $`V_{606}I_{814}`$ colors, one could think that a dimming in the $`V_{606}`$ flux is intervening in the data, at about the rest-frame wavelength corresponding to the 2175 Å bump of the dust extinction law in the Milky Way (Seaton 1979) or the Large Magellanic Cloud (Fitzpatrick 1986).

We tried to superimpose the bump $`C(\lambda )`$ on Calzetti’s law, in the form of a Drude profile according to Fitzpatrick & Massa (1988, see also Calzetti et al. 1994):

$$C(\lambda )=\alpha \times \tau _\mathrm{B}^\mathrm{l}\frac{x^2}{(x^2x_0^2)^2+\gamma x^2},$$
(7)
where $`x=\lambda ^1`$ $`(\mu m^1)`$, $`x_0=\lambda _0^1=4.6`$ $`\mu m^1`$ is the central wavelength of the dust bump, $`\gamma =0.95`$ $`\mu m^1`$ is its FWHM, and $`\tau _\mathrm{B}^\mathrm{l}=E(BV)/(0.935\times 0.44)`$ is the Balmer optical depth, as inferred from the difference in the optical depth between the nebular emission lines H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ (see Calzetti et al. 1994; Calzetti 2000). Introducing the bump, the differential dust attenuation curve takes the form $`A(\lambda )=[k(\lambda )+C(\lambda )]\times E(BV)`$, where $`k(\lambda )`$ follows Calzetti’s law, and $`C(\lambda )`$ comes from Eq. (7).

In Fig. 5, the differential dust attenuation curve is shown (for $`E(BV)=0.2`$) without the bump (solid line) and with a bump of intrinsic depth $`\alpha =0.25`$ (dashed line). For comparison the Milky Way extinction curve is also shown (Seaton 1979), where the intrinsic depth of the bump is $`\alpha 0.8`$ ($`\alpha 0.4`$ for the Large Magellanic Cloud, see for example Calzetti et al. 1994, Fig. 13).

When the 2175 Å bump is superimposed on the dust attenuation law, the locus occupied by starburst galaxies in the $`(B_{450}V_{606})`$ vs. $`(V_{606}I_{814})`$ plane (in the range $`z[2,2.5]`$) broadens to include galaxy colors with $`B_{450}`$ $`V_{606}`$ $`<V_{606}I_{814}`$ (see Fig. 6). Adding the 2175 Å bump ($`\alpha =0.1,0.25`$) enables us to better reproduce galaxy colors in the range $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}[2,2.5]`$ and significantly improves the agreement between photometric and spectroscopic redshift estimates. While $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.206`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.167`$ (without the bump), the values decrease when the bump is allowed to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.094`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.060`$. For the three galaxies (see Fig. 6) which adopt a 2175 Å bump value different from zero in their fit, the $`\chi ^2`$ value is, on the mean, 4 times smaller than the one obtained with no bump, confirming the statistical significance of our improvement.

The question of the presence of the 2175 Å bump in the dust attenuation law is still hotly debated in the literature. Gordon et al. (1997) claimed that radiative transfer effects associated with the spatial distribution of dust cannot (alone) decrease the feature below observational detectability. Therefore, the lack of a 2175 Å bump in a starburst galaxy must be explained as a consequence of physical and chemical properties of dust grain. Reversing the argument, in a starburst with LMC–like dust, geometrical effects alone would certainly not prevent its possible detection.

In contrast, Granato et al. (2000) found, with their dust model for starbursts, that the 2175 Å bump is absent due to purely geometrical effects. In the far-UV, the global attenuation in starburst models is dominated by the component associated with molecular clouds, where stars are born, and from which they gradually escape. Clouds have such large optical depths that the ultraviolet light from the stars inside is completely absorbed, and the shape of the attenuation curve does not contain information on the UV-optical properties of grains.

On the other hand, relying on the same theoretical framework, the results of Silva et al. (1998) lead us to conclude that virtually all the stars embedded in dark molecular clouds escape the regions of harder absorption in less than $`10^8`$yr (cf. also Buzzoni 2001 on this subject). In such cases, the cirrus component dominates and a (weak) 2175 Å bump should eventually appear in the dust attenuation law.

Calzetti et al. (1994) did explicitly avoid the 2175 Å bump wavelength region when calibrating their starburst attenuation law, as the possible presence of absorption bump would destroy a linear correlation between the UV power law slope $`\beta `$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{B}^\mathrm{l}`$. When fitting a posteriori the residuals between observed spectra and the appropriate linear law ($`\mathrm{log}F(\lambda )=\beta \mathrm{log}\lambda +\mathrm{const}`$) according to the Fitzpatrick & Massa (1988) parameterization, they obtained a mean value $`\alpha =0.07`$ for the 2175 Å bump amplitude. It should be noted, though, that among the objects in their sample with $`\tau _\mathrm{B}^\mathrm{l}0.25`$ ($`E(BV)0.1`$, see again Calzetti et al. 1994, Fig. 13) – that is, those where the presence of the feature is easier to detect– about $`35\%`$ are compatible with $`\alpha =0.25`$.

Our results support the presence of the 2175 Å bump in some galaxies observed in the spectroscopic sample: values of $`\alpha `$ up to 0.25 allow a better description of galaxy colors and redshifts. Higher-quality spectra for these controversial objects are needed to assess beyond any reasonable doubt the actual presence of the bump.

## 5 Updating our results

The inclusion of the refinements discussed above in the SED model libraries significantly improved the agreement between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$. The dispersion decreases to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.117`$, while the systematic error is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.048`$ (see Fig. 7), with no catastrophic outliers.

Using the same sample in the redshift range $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$, Fontana and collaborators obtained $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.232`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.144`$ (with one catastrophic outlier), Fernández–Soto et al. (1999) obtained $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.299`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.186`$ (with two catastrophic outliers), while for Fernández–Soto et al. (2001) $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.234`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.136`$ (with one catastrophic outlier). With a smaller spectroscopic sample, Bolzonella et al. (2000) estimated $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}0.36`$ (with one catastrophic outlier).

A further small improvement can be obtained by taking into account dust opacity in the Galaxy along the line of sight to the HDFN. Introducing the effects of dust absorption on model fluxes in the observed frame following the Milky Way extinction curve (Seaton 1979) with $`E(BV)=0.012`$, as inferred from the maps of Schlegel et al. (1998), we obtain minor changes in the redshift estimates, though in the direction of improving the agreement with spectroscopic redshifts. Using the BC code, for example, we find $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.071`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.002`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.5`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.117`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.036`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$.

Dawson et al. (2001) recently published 12 new redshifts within the HDFN. Adding this subset to our sample (but excluding galaxies 2-600.0 and 4-236.0, which have a very tentative redshift), we obtain $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}/(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})0.040`$ on the largest deep spectroscopic sample available up to date (155 objects). This is a factor of $`2.02.5`$ better than previous estimates in the literature. We find $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.070`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.001`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.5`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.116`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.034`$ at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$. Figure 8 shows the distribution of residuals between $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$, normalized to $`(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})`$. It suggests that all estimated redshifts are confined in the range $`0.1(z_{\mathrm{spec}}z_{\mathrm{phot}})/(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})0.1`$, confirming the reliability of the SED fitting procedure.

### 5.1 The faint limit

Our results state the accuracy of the SED fitting method when applied to the bright spectroscopic sample. When galaxies are fainter and photometric errors increase the accuracy obviously decreases.

We used a simple Monte Carlo method to separate the effects of observational uncertainties from the effects due to model incompleteness (“template mismatch”) in defining the distribution of residuals between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts. We generated 100 copies of the spectroscopic sample, adding to each galaxy flux a correction randomly extracted from the Gaussian distribution of its photometric error.

We compared, for each object, the redshift obtained from the measured photometry $`z_{\mathrm{phot}}`$ and that from the bootstrapped galaxy photometry $`z_{\mathrm{sim}}`$. Due to photometric errors, the dispersion value is $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}^{\mathrm{err}}/(1+z_{\mathrm{phot}})0.031`$, and the systematic error goes to zero.

To quantify the contribution of model incompleteness (and only that) to the dispersion, we assume that the two sources of error are uncorrelated. In this case,

$$\sigma _\mathrm{z}^2(\sigma _\mathrm{z}^{\mathrm{err}})^2+(\sigma _\mathrm{z}^{\mathrm{temp}})^2,$$
(8)
and we obtain $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}^{\mathrm{temp}}/(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})0.025`$.

Since the residuals introduced by template incompleteness are negligible compared to the photometric redshift instability caused by observational uncertainties in the intermediate and faint galaxy sample (see Paper I, Table 2), we can conclude that, at the faint limit, Monte Carlo methods are sufficient to estimate errors in the SED technique.

In Fig. 9 we show the redshift distribution of HDFN galaxies obtained by applying our photometric redshift code to the entire catalog of Fernández–Soto et al. (1999). The well known peak at $`z0.9`$ is clearly visible and there is a gradual decline at larger redshifts, with a tail at very high redshift $`z>4.5`$.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

We have explored the accuracy of the SED fitting method to estimate photometric redshifts by comparing its results to spectroscopic measures from the deepest and most complete redshift catalog to date in the HDFN (Cohen et al. 2000) complemented by new HDF South redshift data. We used as photometric dataset the Fernández–Soto et al. (1999) catalog for the HDF North, and for the HDF South the catalogue from the Stony Brook’s group (web page http://www.ess.sunysb.edu/astro/hdfs). The libraries of galaxy colors were supplied by the theoretical codes of Buzzoni (2001), Bruzual & Charlot (1993), and Fioc & Rocca–Volmerange (1997) to reproduce normal galaxy SEDs for different morphological types, and by the theoretical code by Leitherer et al. (1999) to describe starburst SEDs.

A very good agreement between spectroscopic and photometric redshifts is found at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}<1.5`$, independently of the template set used. Model libraries include enough information to properly reproduce galaxy SED as a function of redshift from the ultraviolet to near–infrared. At $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2`$ the usual recipes for quantifying ISM and IGM absorption yield photometric redshift estimates that are systematically smaller than the spectroscopic ones ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.156`$), while the dispersion increases to $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.177`$, confirming previous studies.

We focussed our attention on the prescriptions used to describe photon absorption in the IGM and ISM, since these processes have been shown (Paper I) to be the deciding factors in the redshift estimate at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2`$.

In the redshift range $`z[1.5,3]`$ the Madau (1995) prescription (adopting the Press et al. 1993 values) overestimates IGM opacities with respect to the values obtained by Scott et al. (2000) on a larger quasar sample. The observed deficit in quasar fluxes due to the cumulative absorption by the Ly$`\alpha `$ lines of the IGM cannot be described with a single power law because the slope of $`D_\mathrm{A}(z)`$ changes in the interval $`z[3,4]`$. We adopted the Scott et al. (2000) values at $`z<3`$ and Press et al. (1993) values at $`z>4`$, and a linear interpolation between these two estimates in the range $`z[3,4]`$. In this way at $`z>2.5`$ the tendency to underestimate galaxy redshifts disappears and at the same time the dispersion decreases ($`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.129`$).

In the range $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}[2,2.5]`$, 3 objects in the spectroscopic sample show optical colors ($`B_{450}V_{606}<V_{606}I_{814}`$) incompatible with intrinsic model colors for starburst galaxies and with the dust reddening absorption law of Calzetti (1999). The common feature is a flux dimming in the $`V_{606}`$ band, which samples the restframe wavelength region $`\lambda 2000\pm 300`$ Å at $`z2`$. Adding to the dust attenuation law a weak ($`\alpha =0.1,0.25`$) 2175 Å bump, enables template colors to reproduce the observed colors of high redshift starburst galaxies in the $`(B_{450}V_{606})`$ vs. $`(V_{606}I_{814})`$ plane.

When these improvements are implemented, the dispersion between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts at $`z_{\mathrm{spec}}2.0`$ becomes $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}=0.116`$, and the systematic error $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=0.034`$. In the entire redshift interval $`z[0,6]`$, we obtain the value $`\sigma _\mathrm{z}/(1+z_{\mathrm{spec}})0.04`$. This is an improvement by a factor $`2.02.5`$ over previous estimates in the literature.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the referee A. Fernández-Soto for his careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments. This work received partial financial support by Fondazione Cariplo and COFIN grant 00-02-016. A.I. and D.V.-G. thank ESO for financial support during a period spent at ESO-Santiago, where part of this work was done.


text:
# Baryons in the nonperturbative string approach

## Abstract

We present some piloting calculations of masses and short–range correlation coefficients for the ground states of light and heavy baryons in the framework of the simple approximation within the nonperturbative QCD approach.

The purpose of this talk is to discuss the results of the calculation  of the masses and wave functions of the heavy baryons in a simple approximation within the nonperturbative QCD (see  and references therein). The starting point of the approach is the Feynman–Schwinger representation for the three quark Green function in QCD in which the role of the time parameter along the trajectory of each quark is played by the Fock–Schwinger proper time. The proper and real times for each quark related via a new quantity that eventually plays the role of the dynamical quark mass. The final result is the derivation  of the Effective Hamiltonian (EH). For the ground state baryons without radial and orbital excitations in which case tensor and spin-orbit forces do not contribute perturbatively the EH has the following form

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{m_{i}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m_i}+\frac{m_i}{2}\right)+H_0+V,$$
(1)
where $`H_0`$ is the non-relativistic kinetic energy operator and $`V`$ is the sum of the perturbative one gluon exchange potential $`V_c`$ and the string potential $`V_{\mathrm{s}tring}`$. The latter has been calculated in  as the static energy of the three heavy quarks: $`V_{\mathrm{string}}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)=\sigma R_{\mathrm{min}}`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the sum of the three distances $`|𝐫_i|`$ from the string junction point, which for simplicity is chosen as coinciding with the center–of–mass coordinate.

In Eq. (1) $`m_i^{(0)}`$ are the current quark masses and $`m_i`$ are the dynamical quark masses. In contrast to the standard approach of the constituent quark model the dynamical mass $`m_i`$ is not a free parameter but it is expressed in terms of the current mass $`m_i^{(0)}`$ defined at the appropriate scale of $`\mu 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ from the condition of the minimum of the baryon mass $`M_B`$ as function of $`m_i`$: $`M_B(m_i)/m_i=0`$. Technically, this has been done using the einbein (auxiliary fields) approach, which is proven to be rather accurate in various calculations for relativistic systems.

The EH has been already applied to study baryon Regge trajectories  and very recently for computation of magnetic moments of light baryons . The essential point of this talk is that it is very reasonable that the same method should also hold for hadrons containing heavy quarks. In what follows we will concentrate on the masses of double heavy baryons. As in  we take as the universal parameter the QCD string tension $`\sigma `$ fixed in experiment by the meson and baryon Regge slopes. We also include the perturbative Coulomb interaction with the frozen coupling $`\alpha _s(1\mathrm{GeV})=0.4`$.

We use the hyper radial approximation (HRA) in the hyper-spherical formalism approach. In the HRA the three quark wave function depends only on the hyper-radius $`R^2=𝝆^2+𝝀^2`$, where $`𝝆`$ and $`𝝀`$ are the appropriate three-body Jacobi variables. Introducing the reduced function $`\chi (R)=R^{5/2}\psi (R)`$ and averaging $`V=V_c+V_{\mathrm{string}}`$ over the six-dimensional sphere one obtains the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{d^2\chi (R)}{dR^2}+2\mu \left[E_n+\frac{a}{R}bR\frac{15}{8\mu R^2}\right]\chi (R)=0,$$
(2)
where

$$a=\frac{2\alpha _s}{3}\frac{16}{3\pi }\underset{i<j}{}\sqrt{\frac{\mu _{ij}}{\mu }},b=\sigma \frac{32}{15\pi }\underset{i<j}{}\sqrt{\frac{\mu (m_i+m_j)}{m_k(m_1+m_2+m_3)}},$$
(3)
$`\mu _{ij}`$ is the reduced mass of quarks $`i`$ and $`j`$ and $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary parameter with the dimension of mass which drops off in the final expressions. We use the same parameters as in Ref. : $`\sigma =0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\alpha _s=0.4`$, $`m_q^{(0)}=0.009\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_s^{(0)}=0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_c^{(0)}=1.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`m_b^{(0)}=4.8\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The dynamical masses $`m_i`$ and the ground state eigenvalues $`E_0`$ calculated using the described above procedure are given for various baryons in Table 1 of Ref. . For the light baryons the values of light quark masses $`m_q450500\mathrm{MeV}`$ ($`q=u,d,s`$) qualitatively agree with the results of Ref.  obtained from the analysis of the heavy–light ground meson states, but $`60\mathrm{MeV}`$ higher than those of Refs. , . This difference is due to the different treatment of the Coulomb and spin–spin interactions. The light quark masses are increased by $`100150\mathrm{MeV}`$ when going from the light to heavy baryons. For the heavy quarks ($`c`$ and $`b`$) the variation in the values of their dynamical masses in different baryons is marginal. Note that the masses of the light quarks in baryons are slightly smaller than those in the mesons.

For many applications the quantities $`R_{ijk}=\psi _{ijk}|\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫_j𝐫_i)|\psi _{ijk}`$ are needed. Note that these quantities depend on the third or ‘spectator’ quark through the three–quark wave function. To estimate effects related to the baryon wave function we solve Eq. (2) by the variational method using a simple trial function $`\chi (R)R^{5/2}e^{\mu \beta ^2R^2}`$, where $`\beta `$ is the variational parameter. Then $`R_{ijk}=\left(2\beta ^2\mu _{ij}/\pi \right)^{3/2}`$. The results of the variational calculations are given in Table 3 of . Comparing the results with those of Ref.  we confirm the inequalities $`R_{ijk}<\frac{1}{2}R_{ij}`$ and $`R_{ijk}>R_{ijl}`$, if $`m_km_l`$, first suggested in Ref.  from the observed mass splitting in mesons and baryons. Here $`R_{ij}`$ is the corresponding quantity for a meson. In particular, we obtain $`R_{ijk}/R_{ij}=0.44`$, $`0.40`$, $`0.37`$, and $`0.34`$ for $`ijk=ucd`$, $`scu`$, $`ubd`$, and $`sbu`$, respectively. These estimations agree with the results obtained using the non–relativistic quark model or the bag model or QCD sum rules which are typically in the range $`0.10.5`$. Note also that if $`i,j`$ are the light quarks, and the quarks $`k`$ and $`l`$ are the heavy then $`R_{ijk}R_{ijl}`$ (i.g. $`R_{qqc}R_{qqb}`$) in agreement with the limit of the heavy quark effective theory.

Note also that the wave function calculated in HRA show the marginal diquark clustering even in the doubly heavy baryons . E.g. in the $`qcc`$ baryon $`\overline{r}_{qc}=0.61\text{ fm}`$ while $`\overline{r}_{cc}=0.45\text{ fm}`$. Likewise $`\overline{r}_{qb}=0.53\text{ fm}`$ and $`\overline{r}_{bb}=0.25\text{ fm}`$ in the $`qbb`$ baryon. This is principally kinematic effect related to the fact that in the HRA the difference between the various $`\overline{r}_{ij}`$ in a baryon is due to the factor $`\sqrt{1/\mu _{ij}}`$ which varies between $`\sqrt{2/m_i}`$ for $`m_i=m_j`$ and $`\sqrt{1/m_i}`$ for $`m_im_j`$. For the light baryons $`\overline{r}_{qq}0.70.8\text{ fm}`$.

To calculate hadron masses we, as in Ref. , first renormalize the string potential: $`V_{\mathrm{string}}V_{\mathrm{string}}+\underset{i}{}C_i`$, where the constants $`C_i`$ take into account the residual self-energy (RSE) of quarks. In the present work we treat them phenomenologically. We adjust $`C_i`$ to reproduce the center-of-gravity for baryons with a given flavor. To this end we consider the spin-averaged masses, such as: $`(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Delta })/2`$, and $`(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }+M_\mathrm{\Sigma }+2M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})/4`$ and analogous combinations for $`qqc`$ and $`qqb`$ states. Then we obtain $`C_q=0.34`$, $`C_s=0.19`$, $`C_cC_b0`$.

We keep these parameters fixed to calculate the masses given in Table 1, namely the spin–averaged masses (computed without the spin–spin term) of the lowest double heavy baryons. In this Table we also compare our predictions with the results obtained using the additive non–relativistic quark model with the power-law potential , relativistic quasipotential quark model , the Feynman–Hellmann theorem  and with the predictions obtained in the approximation of double heavy diquark .

Table 1 Masses of baryons containing two heavy quarks.

| State | present work | Ref.  | Ref.  | Ref.  | Ref.  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }\{qcc\}`$ | 3.69 | 3.70 | 3.71 | 3.66 | 3.48 |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{scc\}`$ | 3.86 | 3.80 | 3.76 | 3.74 | 3.58 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }\{qcb\}`$ | 6.96 | 6.99 | 6.95 | 7.04 | 6.82 |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{scb\}`$ | 7.13 | 7.07 | 7.05 | 7.09 | 6.92 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }\{qbb\}`$ | 10.16 | 10.24 | 10.23 | 10.24 | 10.09 |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{sbb\}`$ | 10.34 | 10.30 | 10.32 | 10.37 | 10.19 |

In conclusion, we have employed the general formalism for the baryons, which is based on nonperturbative QCD and where the only inputs are the string tension $`\sigma `$, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and two additive constants, $`C_q`$ and $`C_s`$, the residual self–energies of the light quarks. Using this formalism we have performed the calculations of the spin–averaged masses of baryons with two heavy quarks. One can see from Table 1 that our predictions are especially close to those obtained in Ref.  using a variant of the power–law potential adjusted to fit ground state baryons.

One of the authors (I.M.N.) thank W.Briscoe and H.Haberzettl for organizing an excellent Conference with a stimulating scientific program. This work was supported in part by RFBR grants Refs. 00-02-16363 and 00-15-96786.


text:
# Coherent molecular solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

We analyze the coherent formation of molecular BEC from an atomic BEC, using a parametric field theory approach. We point out the transition between a quantum soliton regime, where atoms couple in a local way - to a classical soliton domain, where a stable coupled-condensate soliton can form in three dimensions. This gives the possibility of an intense, stable atom-laser output.

Parametric solitons or simultaneous solitary waves (“simultons”), involving the optical $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinearity, have been the topic of much recent theoretical and experimental interest in nonlinear optics. We propose a novel mechanism by which a similar phenomenon may occur in nonlinear atomic optics, in which coherent molecule formation in a Bose-Einstein condensate takes the place of second harmonic generation.

This requires a coupling that converts two atoms into one molecule, thus generating coupled atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates – and so taking advantage of molecular states that are known to exist in alkali-metal vapors. Our model includes a coherent molecular formation process (i.e., without dissipation) in an atomic BEC vapor  (or atom laser ), either through a Feshbach resonance  or Raman photo-association . We note that Feshbach resonances have already been observed . The coherently coupled atom-molecular condensate could provide a route to the observation of a localized three-dimensional BEC soliton, even in the absence of a trap potential. A possible application is in the free propagation of a non-diverging atom laser pulse, thus greatly increasing the intensity in an atom laser beam. Even more than this, would be the importance of observing the striking physical properties of this novel quantum field theory, and the corresponding Bose-enhanced chemical kinetics.

The original solution for the parametric soliton was in a one-dimensional environment . These classical solutions have been classified topologically , and are generic to the mean-field theories of parametric nonlinearities that convert one particle into two (and vice-versa). The equations are non-integrable, and are different to the usual integrable classes of soliton equations. A considerable advantage of these types of nonlinear equations is that they are capable of providing solutions in one, two, or three space dimensions, which does not occur in the usual Gross-Pitaevskii equations. Both classical  and quantum  solutions have been recently identified (including observation of classical solitons in experiment ), although these different types of soliton have strikingly different qualitative behavior.

The purpose of this Letter is to point out the physical origin of these differences between the quantum and classical versions of the parametric field theory; and to identify experimental requirements for observing these novel effects in Bose condensates. We consider the following basic Hamiltonian, to give a simple model of molecule formation:

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_{int},$$
(1)
where the free and interacting Hamiltonians are:

$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2M}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2\right]},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{H}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\left[\frac{\kappa }{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+V_\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}+V_\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]}`$ (3)
$`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle d^3𝐱\frac{\chi }{2}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right]}.`$ (4)
Here we define complex fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=d^3𝐤\widehat{a}(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}[i(𝐤𝐱)]`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=d^3𝐤\widehat{b}(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}[i(𝐤𝐱)]`$ . The field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ represents an atomic species of mass $`m`$ in a potential $`V_\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)`$, in one internal state, while $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ represents a dimer species of mass $`M=2m`$, in a single vibrational and rotational state, with a potential $`V_\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)`$.

The coupling constant $`\chi `$ represents a formation rate for the dimer, in the S-wave scattering limit, while $`\kappa `$ represents the effective self-interaction of the atomic field. In the absence of any trap, the potentials are uniform, and $`\mathrm{}\rho =\mathrm{}(V_\mathrm{\Psi }2V_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the formation energy of the dimer species. We note that these interactions are idealized, in the sense that both $`\chi `$ and $`\kappa `$ represent processes that are microscopically nonlocal. To represent such nonlocal behavior, we must introduce a momentum cutoff $`k_m`$ in the relative momenta of interacting fields, which physically must be around the inverse $`S`$-wave scattering length – if we wish to use the non-renormalized effective potential to describe $`S`$-wave scattering. This is known to be essential to the correct interpretation of these types of effective field theories. It should be recognized that molecular self-interactions – as well as atom-molecular scattering – will occur as well. These are neglected here, since the relevant cross-sections are not well known.

In the corresponding nonlinear optical case, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ fields would correspond to a first and second harmonic, coupled by a $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ nonlinearity of the dielectric, while $`\kappa `$ would correspond to a $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinearity. The interplay between quadratic and cubic nonlinearities in the case of nonlinear optical solitons has been analyzed, at the classical level and for one space dimension, in . The effective masses, which should be different in the longitudinal and transverse directions, describe the effects of dispersion and diffraction, respectively, for both the fields (see, e.g.,  for more details). Here the equations refer to a moving frame situation, with coordinates moving at the group velocity.

By comparison, in the directly comparable atomic case, we are considering atoms in free-space. No potential needs to be included, since this is not essential to soliton formation. The molecular formation process would be tuned in any practical experiment, by magnetic fields or external Raman coupling, in order to reduce the energy mismatch $`\mathrm{}\rho `$. An important consideration is the possible effects of losses due to inelastic atom-molecule collisions. We assume that an appropriate choice of molecular levels is made, so that these losses can be ignored over the relevant time-scales for solitons to form. Thus, the neglect of molecular vibrational transitions is crucial to the present theory, which only includes one molecular level. An ideal situation would involve a direct coupling via a tuned Raman transition to the molecular ground state. A more sophisticated theory would include detailed atomic positions and multiple energy levels within each molecule. Our theory neglects these additional complications.

The Heisenberg equations of motion that correspond to the basic Hamiltonian are:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\chi \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}+\kappa \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+V_\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (5)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2M}}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+V_\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}.`$ (6)
As a first step, we can take mean values, so that $`\varphi =\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`\psi =\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, and assume operator product factorization. This gives rise to mean field equations, valid for a momentum cutoff less than the S-wave scattering length. For the case of Bose condensates in existing evaporative cooling experiments, near the atomic collective ground state, the mean field equations represent modified Gross-Pitaevskii equations – which are known to successfully describe BEC excitations.

Another way to understand the behavior of this quantum many-body system is to look for energy eigenstates of the original Hamiltonian, in the limit of a large momentum cutoff. These must simultaneously be the eigenstates of $`\widehat{N}=d^3𝐱\left[|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2+2|\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}|^2\right]`$, conserving the generalized particle number $`N`$ (total number of atoms if we count each molecule as two atoms). Solving this, a remarkable fact emerges. We can show rigorously that in the limit of free space propagation, an $`N`$-boson ground state exists – by finding exact upper and lower bounds on the Hamiltonian energy. Since these coincide in three dimensions, we have the result that the (idealized) quantum ground state energy is exactly:

$$E_g^N=\frac{N}{2}\left(\mathrm{}\rho \frac{\mathrm{}\chi ^2}{2\kappa }\right),$$
(7)
where we assume $`N`$ is even. The proof of the lower bound also assumes $`\kappa >0`$ and $`\chi ^2>2\rho \kappa `$, and the result is obtained using the known solution of the two-particle ($`N=2`$) bound-state problem .

This corresponds to $`N/2`$ independent quantum solitons or “dressed” molecules, each of which exist in a linear superposition with a pair of atoms (like a Cooper pair), so that:

$$|\psi _Q^N=\left[\widehat{b}^{}(0)+_0^{k_m}d^3𝐤g(𝐤)\widehat{a}^{}(𝐤)\widehat{a}^{}(𝐤)\right]^{N/2}|0.$$
(8)
In this limit of a large cutoff in the quantum field theory, the ground-state energy has no lower bound as $`\kappa 0`$. This is in remarkable contrast to the known mean-field behavior of the corresponding classical energy, which is rigorously bounded below (see, e.g., ). Of more interest is the limiting behavior of the ground-state quantum energy when there is a cutoff $`k_m`$ present. We have obtained a variational estimate of this quantity, and for this case we obtain ($`\rho ,\kappa 0`$):

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_Q^N=Nm\chi ^2k_m/(8\pi ^2).$$
(9)
Here we have taken the case of a relatively large cutoff, so that the result assumes that $`k_m\left(\chi m/(2\pi \mathrm{})\right)^2`$, and uses a variational ansatz of the form given previously. The ansatz gives us the true ground state energy in the limit $`k_m\mathrm{}`$, (for any finite $`\kappa `$), since upper and lower energy bounds coincide. However, it is not necessarily the lowest possible energy at finite $`k_m`$. In order to show this, we consider a coherent or mean-field ansatz, with broken symmetry, of form:

$$|\psi _C^N=\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^3𝐱\left[\varphi (𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(𝐱)+\psi (𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(𝐱)\right]\right\}|0.$$
(10)
For this case, the classical decorrelation originates in coherent-state factorization properties of the Hamiltonian. This state is, however, not an eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}`$ (since it is not an eigenstate of $`\widehat{N}`$). It is an approximate (semi-classical) eigenstate at large $`N`$, and corresponds to two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates under broken symmetry conditions.

We will now show that, provided $`\psi (𝐱)`$, $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ are chosen to minimize the classical Hamiltonian, they can give a lower energy than previously – although still finite. This calculation makes use of the known result that the classical parametric Hamiltonian is always bounded below , and the bound is given by the soliton energy for exact phase matching $`\rho =0`$. This soliton energy is estimated by means of a variational ansatz applied to the Hamiltonian. We choose

$`\varphi (𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`g_1N^2[2/(\pi s_1)]^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}(|𝐱|^2N^2/s_1),`$ (11)
$`\psi (𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`g_2N^2[2/(\pi s_2)]^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}(|𝐱|^2N^2/s_2).`$ (12)
The negative sign for $`\psi (𝐱)`$ ensures that the coupling energy is negative, and the normalization implies that $`g_1^2+g_2^2=1`$. We note that although a uniform variational ansatz is possible, it is known that a uniform field of this type is always unstable for a purely parametric coupling – and hence cannot give the lowest energy.

Substituting into the Hamiltonian, gives us the result:

$`E_C^N/\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`N^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{}}{2m}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{s_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{2s_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi }g_1^2g_2s_2^{3/4}}{(s_1+2s_2)^{3/2}}}\right]`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`N^5\stackrel{~}{\kappa }g_1^4s_1^{3/2}+N\rho g_2^2,`$ (14)
where we have used $`M=2m`$, with the simplified notation of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=2^{5/2}(2/\pi )^{3/4}m\chi /(3\mathrm{})`$ and, similarly: $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=2^{5/2}(2/\pi )^{3/2}\kappa `$.

To minimize $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C^N`$, under the constraint of a fixed $`N`$, is a non-trivial algebraic procedure. However, the physics is considerably simplified in the region where the term in $`N^3`$ is dominant – which we note should not involve too large a contribution from the repulsive term that scales with $`N^5`$, and tends to destabilize soliton formation. In this region (i.e., assuming $`\kappa \rho 0`$), we obtain a coupled molecular Bose condensate minimum energy of:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_C^N=CN^3\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\right)\left(\frac{m\chi }{\mathrm{}}\right)^4,$$
(15)
where $`C`$ is a constant given by $`C12\times 10^5`$. The relevant length scale is nearly identical for the two coupled condensates, and is given by:

$$l_1=\frac{\sqrt{s_1}}{N}1.7\times 10^2\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\chi }\right)^2.$$
(16)
This enables us to more clearly understand the apparent paradox that a full quantum theory gives a qualitatively different lower energy bound to the corresponding classical mean field theory. To obtain a stable coupled atom-molecular condensate, we require $`\stackrel{~}{E}_C^N\stackrel{~}{E}_Q^N`$, which occurs at a critical boson number:

$$NN_{cr}=\sqrt{\frac{k_m}{8\pi ^2C}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\chi }.$$
(17)
This question is therefore a subtle combination of momentum cutoff and particle density effects. To give some numerical results we consider $`m10^{25}`$kg, and use a $`\chi `$-value estimate of about $`\chi 10^6`$m3/2/sec (given in , by Tommasini et. al., for a Feshbach resonance ), leading to $`m\chi /\mathrm{}10^3`$m-1/2. With a choice of the cutoff at $`k_m1`$nm-1, this gives a critical atom number of about $`N_{cr}10^3`$, which is well within the range of current BEC experiments. At low particle density, the formation of individual dressed molecules is favored, as atoms couple to molecules in a particle-like way. The process is analogous to Rabi oscillations of atoms between two different electron sub-levels, except that is occurs between pairs of atoms and the corresponding molecular levels. These dressed states have interesting properties, reminiscent of Cooper pairs, but cannot be described by the classical parametric soliton equations. At large couplings $`\chi `$, and at large density (but not too large so that $`S`$-wave scattering is dominant) the coherent coupling of two entire condensates is dominant - just as in nonlinear optics. In this domain, provided other recombination processes are negligible, there are strong, coherent and nonlinear wave-like interactions between the atomic and the molecular Bose condensates. For these parameters, it even appears possible to form a stable, three-dimensional, Bose-Einstein soliton.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the ITP (University of California, Santa Barbara), and useful discussions with D. Heinzen. This research was supported in part by the Australian Research Council, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY94-07194.