text:
# Lyman-𝛼 Emitters at Redshift z=5.7

## 1 Introduction

Recent discoveries of high redshift objects are steadily taking us closer to determining the epoch of galaxy formation (Dey et al. 1998; Spinrad et al. 1998; Weyman et al. 1998; Hu, McMahon, & Cowie 1999; van Breugel et al. 1999; Fan et al. 2001), if such a well-defined time period exists. Observations of neutral hydrogen absorption troughs (the Gunn-Peterson effect) seem to indicate that intergalactic hydrogen was reionized and hence that the ionizing UV “turned on” between $`z6.3`$ and $`z5.7`$ (Becker et al. 2001, Djgorvski et al. 2001).

A more direct probe of galaxy formation is to determine the number counts and redshift evolution of nascent galaxies. The Large Area Lyman Alpha (LALA) survey (Rhoads et al. 2000) has been designed and executed to detect large enough samples of high-redshift emitters to be statistically useful. Strong Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emission, shown by large equivalent widths in the line, indicates that these are young galaxies (Malhotra et al. 2001). Since large scale structure can influence galaxy counts even at high redshifts (Steidel et al. 1998, Adelberger et al. 1998), large area surveys are vital to study redshift evolution. Narrow-band surveys maximize sensitivity and solid angle, and allow us to push for higher redshift objects by designing narrow-bands to avoid bright sky lines.

Lyman-$`\alpha `$ galaxies also offer a particularly direct and robust test of the reionization epoch (Haiman & Spaans 1999). Before reionization, Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitting galaxies of normal luminosity are effectively hidden from view by the scattering “fog” of the neutral IGM (Miralda-Escudé 1998; Rybicki & Loeb 1999). Thus, the reionization redshift should be marked by a sharp decrease in the number counts of faint Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters. This test is independent of the Gunn-Peterson trough observations in quasar spectra. Moreover, the Gunn-Peterson test has difficulty distinguishing opaque but modest optical depths $`\tau 5`$ from the much larger obscuration $`\tau 10^5`$ expected in a neutral IGM. Lyman-$`\alpha `$ galaxy counts can resolve this ambiguity. The red wing of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ line from a star forming galaxy sees only the red damping wing of intergalactic Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption, and Lyman-$`\alpha `$ galaxies therefore remain detectable up to line-center optical depths $`\tau 10^4`$.

In this paper we report on a population of candidate $`z5.7`$ Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters discovered in the second phase of LALA survey and compare their properties to the z=4.5 sample (Rhoads et al. 2001). Section 2 describes our observations and data reduction. In section 3 we present the candidates and their properties. Section 4 explores the implications of these discoveries for the epoch of galaxy formation.

## 2 Observations and data analysis

The Large Area Lyman Alpha survey began in spring 1998 as a narrowband search for $`z4.5`$ Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitting galaxies. The project was designed to exploit the high survey efficiency offered by the 36’ field of the new CCD Mosaic Camera at the Kitt Peak National Observatory 4m Mayall Telescope. The core of the LALA survey is $`0.72\mathrm{}^{}`$ in two fields centered at 14:25:57 +35:32 (2000.0) (the Boötes field) and 02:05:20 -04:55 (2000.0) (the Cetus field).

In April 2000, we extended the Boötes field survey to $`z=5.7`$ using custom-built narrowband filters having central wavelengths $`\lambda _c=815,823\text{nm}`$, full width at half maximum (FWHM) transmission $`7.5\text{nm}`$, and peak throughput $`90\%`$. The wavelengths were chosen to fall in a gap in the night sky emission line spectrum, thus minimizing sky noise. The filter bandpass deteriorated below these specifications outside a central circle of $`30^{}`$ diameter. This resulted in substantially degraded throughput in the outer parts of our images, which we therefore excluded from our analysis.

The $`z=5.7`$ observing run was four nights, beginning with the night of 10–11 April 2000 (i.e., 2000 April 11 UT). The weather was generally clear. Photometric stability was checked by measuring the fluxes of selected stars on all science exposures. This showed $`<11\%`$ variation in throughput for the entire run, mostly due to airmass-dependent extinction.

We obtained 9.85 hours of data in 40 exposures through the 815 nm filter, and 9 hours in 36 exposures through the 823 nm filter. Exposures were spatially dithered with characteristic (RMS) offsets of $`50^{\prime \prime }`$. Seeing ranged from $`0.75^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`2.25^{\prime \prime }`$ (median $`0.93^{\prime \prime }`$) in the 815 nm filter, and $`0.78^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`1.25^{\prime \prime }`$ (median $`1.01^{\prime \prime }`$) in the 823 nm filter. Median narrowband sky brightnesses were $`27\mu \text{Jy}\text{arcsec}^2`$ at 815 nm and $`21\mu \text{Jy}\text{arcsec}^2`$ at 823 nm. We also obtained a deep (4 hour) image in a Sloan Digital Sky Survey z’ filter during this run.

Data reduction was done in IRAF following the methods used for the $`z=4.5`$ sources (Rhoads et al 2000). The final stacks have point spread functions (PSF) with directly measured full widths at half maximum of $`0.88^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`815\text{nm}`$) and $`0.97^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`823\text{nm}`$). The PSF wings are higher than Gaussians of the same FWHM, since the images are sums of many frames with varying seeing. Catalogs were generated using SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996). Fluxes were measured in $`2.32^{\prime \prime }`$ (9 pixel) diameter apertures, and colors were obtained using matched $`2.32^{\prime \prime }`$ apertures in registered images. We also measured fluxes in earlier broad band images from the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (BW, R, and I bands) (Jannuzi & Dey 1999) and broad and narrow band images from previous LALA runs (V band and four $`\lambda 6600`$Å narrow bands).

We select $`z5.7`$ candidates using the following criteria: (1) Secure detection in a narrowband filter ($`>5\sigma `$). (2) A strong narrowband excess (narrow $``$ broad color $`<0.75`$ magnitude, corresponding to a factor of $`2`$ in flux density) that is securely measured (the flux density in the narrow band should exceed that in the broad band at the $`4\sigma `$ level). (3) No flux at wavelengths shorter than the expected Lyman break wavelength (the object should remain undetected in BW and V band fluxes at the $`2\sigma `$ level or below). The first two criteria are designed to ensure that real emission line objects are selected, while the third rejects most low redshift emission line galaxies, using the blue bands as “veto” filters.

## 3 Survey Results

In total, 18 objects in the two filters (11 in the $`815\text{nm}`$ filter and 7 in the $`823\text{nm}`$ filter) passed all selection criteria and are considered good $`z5.7`$ candidates. Photometric “mini-spectra” for these candidates are shown in figure 1.

Intergalactic hydrogen absorption is expected to attenuate the measured I band flux used for candidate selection. The formulation of Madau (1995) gives correction factors of $`2`$ for $`z=5.70`$ and $`2.2`$ for $`z=5.77`$. We apply these corrections to the I band flux before calculating the equivalent widths of the emission lines from our broad and narrow band photometry. These corrections are comparable to the factor of 2 difference in flux density required for selection. We therefore apply another cut to our candidate lists, removing the five candidates whose observer frame equivalent widths fall below $`80`$Å after the correction for hydrogen absorption. We expect these objects to be either high redshift or strong emission line objects, but they need not be both. Because intergalactic hydrogen absorption can also remove the bluest $`50\%`$ of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ line flux, our equivalent width corrections and the resulting candidate list cut are both quite conservative.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

We now turn to the implications of our survey for galaxy formation and cosmology. First, let us compare the statistics of $`z5.7`$ sources to the $`z4.5`$ Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters. There are 13 sources at $`z5.7`$ and 156 at $`z4.5`$. However, a minority of our $`z4.5`$ are bright enough to be detectable at $`z5.7`$.

Using a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ cosmology and accounting for the difference in solid angle between the two redshifts111The solid angle for the higher redshift is approximately a factor of two smaller due to the degradation of the bandpass near the filter edges; see section 2., the comoving survey volume at $`z5.7`$ is $`31\%`$ that at $`z4.5`$ ($`16\%`$ in each filter). The $`5\sigma `$ flux thresholds used to identify candidates at $`z5.7`$ were $`0.455\mu \text{Jy}`$ at $`815\text{nm}`$ and $`0.405\mu \text{Jy}`$ at $`823\text{nm}`$. The distance-corrected equivalent thresholds at $`z4.5`$ will be larger by a factor of $`1.34^2=1.8`$ for the above cosmology. There are then $`15`$ $`z4.5`$ candidates that could be detected in our $`815\text{nm}`$ data, and $`26`$ that could be detected in our $`823\text{nm}`$ data. Thus, based on the $`z4.5`$ survey and a no-evolution assumption, we would expect to find $`2.3`$ sources in the $`815\text{nm}`$ filter, and $`4.1`$ in the $`823\text{nm}`$ filter. We actually identify $`7`$ and $`6`$ respectively.

This excess in the observed $`z5.7`$ candidate counts is moderately significant (at the 99% level assuming Poisson source counts). The important difference is in the $`815\text{nm}`$ counts; the $`823\text{nm}`$ filter candidate counts are consistent with the naïve scaling from $`z4.5`$. We now examine several possible explanations for this effect.

First, Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z5.7`$ may be more numerous and/or more luminous than those at $`z4.5`$. Such effects are reasonable: The Lyman-$`\alpha `$ line is resonantly scattered and can be strongly quenched by dust absorption. Since dust is formed from stellar nucleosynthesis products, we expect galaxies at earlier epochs to be (on average) less chemically evolved and less dusty. More luminous Lyman-$`\alpha `$ lines may be a natural byproduct, provided that the effects of chemical evolution are not overwhelmed by the trend of decreasing halo mass at higher redshift. Indeed, under the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitter population models of Haiman & Spaans (1999), evolutionary effects are so strong that the total surface density per unit redshift above a fixed line flux $`1.5\times 10^{17}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is approximately independent of redshift for $`3z6`$. Our results show a factor $`7`$ decrease in the surface density of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitter candidates from $`z=4.5`$ to $`z=5.7`$ (in contrast to an expected factor $`<2`$ from the Haiman & Spaans models). The LALA data is thus more nearly consistent with a no-evolution model than with the baseline model from Haiman & Spaans (1999).

In addition, large scale structure can significantly affect the number counts of objects in single fields. Our $`36^{}`$ field makes LALA results comparatively robust to such effects, but a factor of $`2`$ difference in source density may still be consistent with cosmic variance.

Finally, our candidate sample will contain some residual contamination by foreground objects. The numbers of such objects should be comparatively small, given the high-redshift consistency checks described in sections 2 and 3. Foreground emission line galaxies are the most serious concern. Our primary defense against such galaxies is the requirement that a good candidate be undetected in deep broadband images with $`\lambda <(1+z)\times 912`$Å. This imposes an approximate minimum observer frame equivalent width for any interloper, which we estimate using the minimum narrow band flux $`5\sigma _n`$ and maximum broad band flux $`2\sigma _b`$. (Here $`\sigma _n`$ and $`\sigma _b`$ are the photometric errors in flux density units for the narrow and broad blue filters.) The corresponding equivalent width is then $`(f_n/f_b1)\times \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n=\left[5\sigma _n/(2\sigma _b)1\right]\times \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _n1100`$Å, where we assume that the line lies outside the broad band filter. The redshifts of likely foreground objects are relatively low ($`0.24z1.21`$), and the corresponding emission frame equivalent widths therefore remain large ($`500`$Å). While compact, narrow emission line galaxies can attain these equivalent widths, they are very rare (e.g., Hogg et al 1998).

Cool stars can also enter narrowband emission line samples because molecular absorption in their atmospheres produces spectral features with widths of a few nm and amplitudes several tens of percent. However, in the absence of true emission lines, cool stars will show detectable continuum at $`1/2`$ of the narrowband flux density, which is also expected to be quite red, so that our SDSS z’ filter should clearly show such stars. Most of our candidates having strong z’ detections were discarded from our sample by the last cut applied (see section 3). Only two of the 13 remaining sources, LALA5 1-08 and LALA5 1-10, have “minispectra” that plausibly resemble cool stars.

Because our narrow and broad band filters were obtained at different times, variable objects may also enter the sample at a low level. The relevant objects would have to have $`I24.3`$ during the narrow band observations (2000 April 11–14 UT), and $`I>25`$ during the I band observation (1999 March 27 UT). (In fact, our requirement on the blue flux imposes additional limits.) The largest known source of such variable objects would be high redshift supernovae. However, these would show roughly equal brightness in both $`z5.7`$ narrow bands and the SDSS z’ image, since their characteristic variability timescale is several days. Again, only LALA5 1-08 and LALA5 1-10 are consistent with this expectation. Sources with faster variability, such as orphan GRB afterglows (Rhoads 1997), are very rare and we would expect $`1`$ such source in our sample (e.g., Dalal et al 2001).

We compared the equivalent width distribution of the $`z=4.5`$ and $`5.7`$ samples. Very low and high equivalent width objects are missing in z=5.7 sample compared to z=4.5 sample. Using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test we find a 20% chance that the two samples are drawn from the same parent distribution. This test is only marginally conclusive, mostly because of the small number of $`z=5.7`$ objects. The consistency of the present samples is nonetheless further evidence that we are seeing the same class of object at $`z=5.7`$ as at $`z=4.5`$.

In summary, we have a sample of $`13`$ $`z5.7`$ Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitting galaxy candidates. Only two of these have the apparent spectral energy distributions expected of stars or variable objects. The upper limits on blue flux rule out all but the highest equivalent width foreground sources, which are too rare to account for the entire sample. The equivalent width distributions are consistent at $`z5.7`$ and $`4.5`$. Thus, the simplest explanation of the data is that we are really seeing $`z5.7`$ Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters.

We now draw one very robust and important conclusion from our sample. The epoch of reionization is a major landmark in the evolution of the universe. Recently, the Gunn-Peterson trough has been reported in spectra of two high redshift quasars: SDSSpJ 103027.10+052455.0 at $`z=6.28`$ (Becker et al 2001), and SDSS 1044-0125 at $`z=5.73`$ (Djorgovski et al 2001). These authors have interpreted their spectra as evidence that reionization was incomplete at these redshifts.

If the universe was neutral at redshift $`z_r<5.67`$, Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons from sources at higher redshift would be resonantly scattered in the neutral intergalactic medium (IGM). This effectively erases the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ line from view for a survey like LALA. Thus, our $`z5.7`$ sample implies that the reionization redshift lies at $`z_r>5.8`$ along the line of sight to the LALA Boötes field. This argument relies merely on the presence of low-luminosity Lyman-$`\alpha `$ sources, and is independent of their exact number.

Two possible loopholes exist, but both are readily closed. First, in the absence of dust, the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons eventually scatter far enough into the line wing to propagate freely. However, this process spreads the line emission greatly in both area and frequency, resulting in a very large “photosphere” and a correspondingly low surface brightness (Loeb & Rybicki 1999). All of the sources reported in this paper are compact in the narrow band image (i.e., essentially unresolved at our resolution limit of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$) and so morphologically inconsistent with a source embedded in a neutral IGM.

Second, a source with a sufficient ionizing flux will generate its own Stromgren sphere in the IGM. If this sphere is large enough, Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons will redshift by $`1000\text{km s}\text{-1}`$ before reaching the surrounding neutral gas, and will thus avoid resonant scattering. However, this effect requires sources either more luminous or older than typical LALA objects. We assume that a fraction $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ of ionizing photons escape a galaxy to ionize its Stromgren sphere, and that $`2/3`$ of the remainder result in Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons, and that $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$. We then require an ionized bubble radius $`r_s1.2\text{Mpc}`$, which gives a Gunn-Peterson effect optical depth $`\tau 1`$ at emitted line center (see also Loeb & Rybicki 1999). Ignoring recombinations, $`r_s1.2\text{Mpc}`$ requires a source with $`L_{43}t_8f_{\mathrm{esc}}/(1f_{\mathrm{esc}})5`$, where $`L_{Ly\alpha }=10^{43}L_{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the source is $`10^8t_8`$ years old. LALA $`z5.7`$ sources have $`L_{43}0.7`$. Their median rest frame equivalent width of $`80`$Å requires $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}0.2`$ for any reasonable initial mass function222Continuous star formation with IMF slope $`\alpha =2.35`$ (i.e., Salpeter), upper mass cutoff $`120M_{}`$, metallicity $`Z=Z_{}/20`$, and $`t_80.3`$ gives $`EW95(1f_{\mathrm{esc}})`$Å. Substantially larger EW requires $`\alpha 2`$., unless $`t_80.3`$ (Malhotra et al 2001; Kudritzki et al 1999). The age of the universe at $`z=5.7`$ requires $`t_8<10`$. Thus, $`L_{43}t_8f_{\mathrm{esc}}/(1f_{\mathrm{esc}})2`$, and Lyman-$`\alpha `$ radiation from these sources would indeed suffer resonant scattering if the IGM were neutral.

We are thus confident that the compact, low-luminosity Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters we observe at $`z5.7`$ are in a mostly ionized universe. This method offers a test for reionization independent of the spectroscopic search for Gunn-Peterson troughs. Moreover, it is better able to distinguish line center optical depths $`\tau 10^5`$ (indicating a neutral IGM) from much smaller but still essentially opaque optical depths $`\tau 10`$ (indicating Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest absorption), because the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest will in general absorb only the blue side of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emission line, while a neutral IGM will absorb the entire line. For an intrinsic line width of $`100\mathrm{\Delta }v_{100}\text{km s}\text{-1}`$, we would still expect to see some Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux through an IGM with a (homogeneously mixed) neutral fraction of $`0.1\mathrm{\Delta }v_{100}\left((1+z)/6.7\right)^{3/2}`$, while the Gunn-Peterson trough is optically thick ($`\tau 5`$) for a neutral fraction as small as $`4\times 10^5\left((1+z)/6.7\right)^{3/2}`$.

To conclude, we have demonstrated that Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emitters are found at $`z5.7`$ in densities comparable to those at $`z4.5`$ at similar line luminosities. It follows that the reionization redshift was $`z_r>5.8`$, at least along this line of sight. Tentatively, it appears that the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ source density at equal luminosity rises from $`z4.5`$ to $`z5.7`$. We have also obtained pilot observations in a $`z6.6`$ narrowband filter. This redshift lies beyond the recently reported Gunn-Peterson effect quasars, and will ultimately allow us to bracket the reionization epoch through Lyman-$`\alpha `$ source counts.

This work made use of images provided by the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (NDWFS; Jannuzi and Dey 1999), which is supported by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO). NOAO is operated by AURA, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. We thank Buell Jannuzi, Arjun Dey, and the rest of the NDWFS team for making their images public; and Richard Green and Jim De Veny for their support of the LALA survey. JER’s research is supported by an Institute Fellowship at The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). SM’s research funding is provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant # HF-01111.01-98A from STScI. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.


format: text

text:
# Enhancement of the gluonic couplings of the Standard Model Higgs Boson through mixing

## I Introduction

One of the major objectives of Run 2 at the Tevatron is to search for the Higgs boson in the mass range of $`110GeV`$ to $`180GeV`$ TevRep . Direct searches at LEP2 have shown no clear evidence of the Higgs boson, and have set a lower limit of $`114.1GeV`$ for the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson N2 . Global analyses of LEP1 electroweak data have considerably narrowed down the SM Higgs boson mass N3 , and prefer a low mass Higgs boson. At Tevatron energy ($`\sqrt{s}=2TeV`$), the dominant mechanism of SM Higgs boson production is $`ggh`$ with a cross section ranging from $`0.9pb`$ for $`m_h=110GeV`$ to $`0.2pb`$ for $`m_h=180GeV`$. For $`m_h<135GeV`$, $`h`$ decays dominantly to $`b\overline{b}`$ and this mode of production and decay is hopeless due to the overwhelming QCD background. Form $`m_h>135GeV`$, the $`hWW^{}`$ decay mode becomes dominant, and the detection of the Higgs boson is promising via this mode. The detection via $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay mode has not been thoroughly studied and may be on the borderline R4 . In the usual scenario, the best way to observe the signal of the SM Higgs boson for $`m_h<135GeV`$ is the production of $`Wh`$ via $`q\overline{q}^{}`$ and the subsequent decay $`hb\overline{b}`$, where the background can be controlled using appropriate cuts. However, if $`hb\overline{b}`$ is not the dominant decay (as in the scenario we shall propose), this signal may be significantly lowered, making the detection in this channel very difficult. On the other hand, if the $`ggh`$ coupling is significantly enhanced, Higgs boson production through gluon fusion may be large enough to detect a signal via the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay mode for the low mass region ($`m_h<135GeV`$), or the signal in the $`WW^{}`$ decay mode could be large enough to detect in the higher mass range ($`m_h>135GeV`$). The object of this work is to explore an alternative scenario in which the $`ggh`$ coupling is significantly enhanced, and how that alters the Higgs boson search strategy at Tevatron Run 2 due to the changes of the relative importance of its various production and decay modes.

In the Minimal SM the Higgs boson has a small coupling to two gluons, generated only at one-loop level, a fact that makes its discovery difficult on hadron colliders. In extensions to the SM various Higgs-like scalars are predicted, in some cases with enhanced gluonic couplings.111 Composite Higgs bosons can couple to gluons directly through their quark constituents. The Higgs mass is typically larger in these models than the range considered in the present paper. See R5 , however, for an example where $`m_h330GeV`$. These extensions are pursued in order to have specific explanations for EW breaking. In this paper we point out that appropriate new physics can generate an enhancement to this coupling even if mechanism of electroweak breaking is left intact. The additional interactions present in such models are not required in order to explain EW breaking, but they cannot be excluded either. Such scenarios must be taken into consideration because they have important phenomenological consequences.

Such an enhancement arises if the Higgs boson mixes with a $`t\overline{t}`$ bound state. Such a state is not formed in the minimal SM because the top quarks would decay before the strong interaction could bind it222The effects of QCD interactions on a $`t\overline{t}`$ system are small. Approximating the QCD effects by a Coulomb potential, we would find a bound state whose revolution time Bigi  is $`\tau _r=\frac{9}{4m_t\alpha _s^2}1GeV^1`$. Because the top quarks constituting the bound state have a decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=1.2GeV`$, the would-be bound state decays before even one revolution. (i.e. $`\alpha _s(m_t)0.12`$ is too weak). However, the right handed top quark may participate in additional, chiral, new strong interactions. Such interactions are not phenomenologically excluded if the new gauge symmetry is broken and the new gauge boson picks up a mass $`𝒪\left(m_{new}\right)`$.333An interaction in which left handed quarks participate is excluded by their contribution $`Zb\overline{b}`$, provided $`SU(2)_W`$ is respected. Anomaly cancellation might be arranged through a new fermion sector which may be too heavy to be presently observed.

We denote by $`\sigma `$ a hypothetical $`t\overline{t}`$ bound state that mixes with the Higgs boson. In spectral notation referring to the $`t\overline{t}`$ system this state must be a $`2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$ state (to ensure even parity and zero spin.) Such a bound state must be held together by new interactions, whose strength, $`\alpha _{new}`$, must be much larger than $`\alpha _s0.12`$ to form a bound state at all. They must act only on the third family (otherwise they would have already been detected in processes such as $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}`$ at the Tevatron.) The dangerous place is the $`gt\overline{t}`$ vertex, where one loop corrections, due to the exchange of the new gauge bosons might have a large effect, as shown in Fig. 1. At the Tevatron, only the $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section will be affected. This cross section is known with a $`10\%`$ precision, and the effect is $`𝒪\left(\frac{\alpha _{new}}{4\pi }\times \frac{m_t^2}{m_{new}^2}\right)`$, so we would prefer a new interaction effective at scales much above $`100GeV`$.

In this paper our goal is not to build a specific model. Nevertheless we point out that the new interactions, being chiral, will be very different from a scaled-up copy of QCD. A consequence of this fact is that the standard way of calculating quarkonium decays, Nonrelativistic QCD R6 , is not applicable here (the size of the NRQCD operators are determined by QCD dynamics.) We’ll do a potential model calculation instead. We use a Yukawa potential to model the $`t\overline{t}`$ interaction and argue that the strength of the Yukawa potential will be related to $`\alpha _{new}`$, and that the screening length $`m^1`$ is related to $`m_{new}^1`$. These parameters, however, may not exactly coïncide, leaving us room to argue that the screening length $`m^1`$ in the potential may be somewhat longer than the inverse mass $`m_{new}^1`$ suppressing visible effects in top production at the Tevatron.

In Sec. II we work out the general formalism of the mixing between a light Higgs $`h`$ and the $`\sigma `$, and show that, with the exception of a small part of the parameter space, the gluonic branching ratio of the Higgs is determined directly by the gluonic branching ratio of the $`\sigma `$ and also by the masses of the $`h`$ and $`\sigma `$ (and is independent of any mixing parameters.) Then we proceed in Sec. III to calculate the binding energy and wave functions of the lowest lying states. We find that, in order for a $`2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$ state to form and not to have a too wide $`\sigma b\overline{b}`$ width, the interaction strength is restricted to be between $`0.5\alpha _{new}1.0`$, while the screening mass can still exceed $`m>100GeV`$. However, in such a case the binding of the $`1S`$ states is so deep that their masses become negative. The solution is spin-dependent potentials. Nuclear physics is witness that strong interactions, even nonchiral, may generate very strong $`𝐋𝐒`$ couplings. A spin-orbit interaction that binds states with negative values of $`𝐋𝐒`$ stronger, can lead to a situation when the only bound state that is formed is $`\sigma 2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$, as we show in a numerical example. We do not think that a one-loop calculation of the relative strengths of the spin independent and the $`𝐋𝐒`$ terms in the potential is reliable, so that we handle this ratio as an unknown input parameter.444We also note that higher order (in $`\alpha _{new}`$) effects and/or relativistic corrections may also induce a mixing between the Higgs boson and the $`1^1S_0`$ state. At tree level such mixing is absent and the interaction is repulsive in the singlet and attractive in the triplet channel which does not allow the formation of a $`1^1S_0`$ state. This conclusion may be incorrect though when higher orders are incorporated.

In Sec. IV we argue that the presence of such mixing can lead to the enhancement of final states with two gluons from Higgs decay in lepton colliders. A large $`hgg`$ branching ratio can lead to a decrease of the $`hb\overline{b}`$ signal, dominant in the Minimal SM, and this can adversely affect Higgs searches in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. On hadron colliders the increased gluonic coupling enhances Higgs production in gluon fusion. At the Tevatron, perhaps the most interesting enhancement occurs in $`ggh\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ for a light Higgs ($`m_h<135GeV`$), while heavy Higgs production ($`m_h>135GeV`$) will be enhanced in $`gghW^+W^{},WW^{}`$.

## II Mixing at the Lagrangian level

The most general form of the relevant part of the Lagrangian after the new interactions have been integrated out is

$$_{mix}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_0^TS^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^TM_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0\text{ with }\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_0& \\ \sigma _0& \end{array}\right),$$
(1)
and $`S`$, $`M`$ representing real symmetric $`2\times 2`$ mixing matrices. This can always be diagonalized by a field redefinition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=A^T\times \mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ satisfying $`ASA^T=1`$, resulting in

$$_{mix}=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(h\right)^2\frac{m_h^2}{2}h^2\right]+\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma \right)^2\frac{m_\sigma ^2}{2}\sigma ^2\right]+hj_h+\sigma j_\sigma .$$
(2)
The mixing can be parametrized by four parameters, $`\vartheta ,\theta ,\rho _h`$ and $`\rho _\sigma `$,

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\rho _h\mathrm{cos}\theta & \rho _\sigma \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \\ \rho _h\mathrm{sin}\theta & \rho _\sigma \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \end{array}\right].$$
(3)
Note that the kinetic mixing with these parameters is

$$S=(A^TA)^1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta \vartheta )}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/\rho _h^2& \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta \vartheta )/\rho _h\rho _\sigma \\ \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta \vartheta )/\rho _h\rho _\sigma & 1/\rho _\sigma ^2\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
so that in the absence of kinetic mixing the parameters reduce to only one mixing angle through $`\theta =\vartheta `$ and $`\rho _h=\rho _\sigma =1`$.

The interactions of the physical Higgs and $`\sigma `$ are described by the currents in (2),

$$j_h=\rho _h\mathrm{cos}\theta j_{h_0}\rho _\sigma \mathrm{sin}\vartheta j_{\sigma _0}\text{ and }j_\sigma =\rho _\sigma \mathrm{cos}\vartheta j_{h_0}+\rho _h\mathrm{sin}\theta j_{h_0},$$
(5)
which in the absence of kinetic mixing reduces to

$$j_h=\mathrm{cos}\vartheta j_{h_0}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta j_{\sigma _0}\text{ and }j_\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\vartheta j_{h_0}+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta j_{h_0}.$$
(6)
The effects of such mixing will show up both in $`h`$ production and decay.

In the following we will focus on the case of a light Higgs with mass $`100GeVm_h135GeV`$, when only the $`g,g`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ Higgs decay channels are important in the SM. We will comment on the heavy Higgs in Sec. IV. The original currents are

$`j_{h_0}`$ $`=`$ $`y_b\overline{b}^Ab_A`$ (7)
$`j_{\sigma _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_g}{2m_t}}\times G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu }+\overline{b}\left[f_R{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}}+f_L{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}\right]b.`$
These depend, in general, on three new dimensionless couplings $`f_R,f_L`$ and $`f_g`$. In the above the $`h_0gg`$ coupling has been neglected, because it only arises from loop diagrams.

After diagonalization the currents that couple to the physical Higgs and $`\sigma `$ become

$`j_h`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{b}\left[\left(y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta f_Rsin\vartheta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}}+\left(y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta f_Lsin\vartheta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}\right]b{\displaystyle \frac{f_g\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{2m_t}}\times G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu },`$ (8)
$`j_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{b}\left[\left(y_b\mathrm{sin}\theta +f_Rcos\vartheta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}}+\left(y_b\mathrm{sin}\theta +f_Lcos\vartheta \right){\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}\right]b+{\displaystyle \frac{f_g\mathrm{cos}\vartheta }{2m_t}}\times G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu }.`$
The partial decay widths of the Higgs and the $`\sigma `$ are found from these couplings at the corresponding poles.

We calculated the total widths of both particles, denoted as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=h,\sigma `$, coupled to a generic current $`j_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{f_\mathrm{\Phi }}{2m_t}G^2+\overline{b}\left(f_R^\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}+f_L^\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}\right)b`$), and found

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }gg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{32\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{m_t}}\right)^2\times \left(N_c^21\right)\times |f_\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }b\overline{b}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{32\pi }}\times N_c\times \left(|f_L^\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+|f_R^\mathrm{\Phi }|^2\right).`$ (9)
The Higgs decay ratio is then found to be

$$R_h\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{hgg}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{hb\overline{b}}}=\frac{N_c^21}{N_c}\left(\frac{m_h}{m_t}\right)^2\times \frac{f_g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{y_b^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\left(f_L^2+f_R^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta 2y_b(f_L+f_R)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta }.$$
(10)
We note that this formula involves essentially only two parameters. This is manifest if the parameter $`f^2f_L^2+f_R^2=\frac{32\pi }{N_cm_\sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _0b\overline{b}}`$ is used, together with the angle $`\alpha `$, defined as $`f_L=f\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, $`f_R=f\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$:

$`R_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{(y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2+(f\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )^22(y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta )(f\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )\times \sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4\alpha )}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{m_h^2}{m_\sigma ^2}R_\sigma }{1+\left(\frac{y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta }{f\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }\right)^22\left(\frac{y_b\mathrm{cos}\theta }{f\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }\right)\times \sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4\alpha )}},`$
where we introduced the notation $`R_\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma gg}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma b\overline{b}}}`$. From Eqn. (11) we see that the term containing the parameter $`\alpha `$ plays only a minor role (disregarding the exceptional case when a cancellation occurs in the denominator), and this fact justifies the approximation in the last line.

We can argue that except for two very unlikely cases the unity in the denominator of Eqn. (11) dominates. For these exceptions to happen we need $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{\mathrm{cos}\theta }\frac{y_b}{f}\sqrt{\frac{m_\sigma }{8\times 10^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma b\overline{b}}}}`$. This would require either (i) a very small mixing angle $`\theta <10^2`$, or (ii) a very small partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma b\overline{b}}/m_\sigma 10^4`$. Both of these cases are hardly conceivable.

Most probably, the mixing will be large enough for the unity in the denominator of Eqn. (11) to dominate. In that case, the observed Higgs branching ratio is independent of the mixing angles, $`R_h\frac{m_h^2}{m_\sigma ^2}\times R_\sigma `$. The physical reason for this is that both $`hgg`$ and $`hb\overline{b}`$ are dominated by the decay through mixing, $`h\sigma ^{}gg,b\overline{b}`$.

## III Estimates of $`\sigma `$ decays in a potential model

We estimate the properties and decay widths of the $`\sigma `$ particle in a potential model with a Yukawa potential. This particular framework is not necessarily realized in Nature but we remind ourselves that all we want is an existence proof for a situation where this $`\sigma `$ might exist. The advantages of such a potential are: (1) it has two parameters, both of which can be reasonably closely related to parameters of the underlying theory (a new gauge coupling $`\alpha _{new}`$ and a new symmetry breaking scale $`m`$), and (2) that the introduction of $`𝐋𝐒`$ coupling allows for a low lying $`2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$ state, while all other states become heavy or nonexistent.

We use such a potential model to calculate the toponium spectrum, to restrict the new coupling strength and screening mass, and to find the decay widths of the $`\sigma `$. Especially, we use the usual potential model expression that relates the decay rate $`\sigma gg`$ to the derivative of the radial wave function at the origin. To find these quantities we need to calculate the wave function of a particle moving in a Yukawa potential.

### III.1 The Yukawa problem

Consider the quantum mechanical problem of a point particle with mass $`M`$ moving in a Yukawa potential with screening mass $`m`$. The Schrödinger equation for the radial wave function is

$$\frac{u_l^{\prime \prime }(r)}{u_l(r)}=\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}2M\left(+\frac{e^{mr}}{r}\right).$$
(12)
In our case of a $`t\overline{t}`$ system M is related by a rescaled reduced top mass by $`2M=4\pi \alpha _{new}m_t`$. This relationship is at best only approximate, so that the parameter $`\alpha _{new}`$ above may not exactly coincide with the new gauge coupling. The binding energy of the $`t\overline{t}`$ bound state is then $`E=4\pi \alpha _{new}`$.

The energy levels in the Yukawa potential have been calculated with high precision in Stubbins ; Vrscay . Because in these references the wave functions are not quoted, we repeated the calculation of Ref. Stubbins , where $`u_l(r)`$ is approximated by a linear combination of functions$`r^{k+1}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}r}`$. Then the coefficients of the linear combination and also $`\beta `$ are varied in order to minimize the energy of the state.The results are shown in Table 1.

As a consistency check, observe that the P-wave wave function at the origin is found to be extremely small. Because in our approximation this is not automatic, its smallness indicates that our calculation is highly accurate. Moreover, we checked that in the $`m=0`$ case (pure Coulomb potential) we reproduce the exact results within the accuracy indicated by the valid digits kept, and also that the approximation to the wave function is better than $`0.2\%`$ for all $`r`$. To the same accuracy, all the energy levels in Table 1 coïncide with the ones given in Refs. Stubbins ; Vrscay .

Inspection of Table 1 shows that increasing values of the screening parameter will lessen the binding energies. The critical values at which each of the states disappears are given in Ref. Vrscay :

$$\frac{m}{M}(1S)=1.91,\frac{m}{M}(2S)=0.31,\frac{m}{M}(2P)=0.22.$$

This will impose an upper bound on the screening mass.

### III.2 Application to $`t\overline{t}`$

We note first of all that the Yukawa potential we are considering will not bind the $`b\overline{b}`$ system, even if the right handed $`b`$ quarks participated in the new interaction. The size of such a state in a pure Coulomb potential would be determined by the inverse bottom mass, the Bohr radius being $`a\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha _{new}m_b}`$. The screening in the Yukawa potential ($`m_{new}𝒪(100GeV)`$) completely shuts off the interaction at these distances. Another way to see this is that the rescaled reduced mass in $`b\overline{b}`$ would be $`M=4\pi \alpha _{new}\frac{m_b}{2}`$. But the new interaction must be screened much above $`m100GeV`$, and in order for a bound state to form the screening parameter must satisfy $`\frac{m}{M}<1.91`$. These constraints can be satisfied only with $`\alpha _{new}2`$, an interaction too strong to be realistic.

Now we use the Yukawa potential to understand the toponium spectrum as well as the decay of $`\sigma `$ into two gluons. The latter is calculated using the usual QCD formula for quarkonium ($`\chi _0gg`$) decay etatogg , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma gg}=96\alpha _s^2\frac{|R^{}(0)|^2}{m_\sigma ^4}`$.The results are shown in Table 2.

From Table 2 we quickly deduce the restrictions on the parameters when our scenario can occur. Due to the fifth power in the expression for the $`\sigma gg`$ width, $`\alpha _{new}`$ is restricted from above. (Intuitively, the high power of $`\alpha _{new}`$ arises because large couplings pull together the wave function closer to the origin and provide a large $`|R^{}(0)|^2`$.) Essentially at $`\alpha _{new}>1`$, the decay width suddenly becomes much larger than $`m_\sigma `$, so that the $`\sigma `$ resonance is not formed. On the other hand, we must have $`m100GeV`$ if we want to avoid a large contribution to top physics, which requires $`\alpha _{new}>0.5`$ (See the second row in Table 2.) One conceivably realistic value is $`\alpha _{new}=0.7`$ and $`m=140GeV`$, which would result in a binding energy of $`80GeV`$, i.e. $`m_\sigma =270GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma gg}=300GeV`$.

There is one problem with the above situation. The P-wave state is necessarily in the second shell (corresponding to a $`2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$), and in the realistic parameter range the first shell ($`1S`$) is very tightly bounded. Its mass is actually negative, which triggers condensation of the vacuum. This is reminiscent to a topcolor or top condensation scenario R7 , which is outside the scope of the present paper, where we consider electroweak symmetry breaking through the usual Higgs mechanism.

We should note that this conclusion is brought about by the assumption that the new interaction does not generates a spin flip. That this assumption is unrealistic is shown by the simple analogy to nuclear forces, where there is a large spin-orbit interaction which even changes the ordering of the energy levels.

Fortunately, the inclusion of a simple $`𝐋𝐒`$ interaction quickly remedies the situation. Assume that the Yukawa potential includes such a term (we use the same screening mass in all terms for simplicity)

$$V(r)=g^2\frac{e^{mr}}{r}\left(\mathrm{cos}\gamma 𝐋𝐒\mathrm{sin}\gamma \right).$$
(13)
Then all the $`n^{2S+1}L_J`$ states are $`𝐋𝐒`$ eigenstates, so that they feel a pure Yukawa potential (but for each state the strength of the coupling it feels, $`\alpha _{eff}`$, is different, as shown in Table 3).

Because the state that is most sensitive to the spin-orbit interaction happens to be the $`\sigma `$ (i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_{0}^{}`$), we can shift all other states to smaller binding energies as compared to $`\sigma `$. Replacing the parameter $`\alpha _{new}\alpha _{eff}`$, the numbers in Table 2 remain in force. The first shell with only S-wave states feels a different, weaker potential with $`\alpha _{eff}(1S)=\frac{\alpha _{new}}{1+2\mathrm{tan}\gamma }`$. If the potential is dominated by the spin-orbit interaction, the binding energy of the $`1S`$ states can be made small. Because the screening parameter is also affected by the new $`\alpha _{eff}`$ (while the screening mass $`m=140GeV`$ remains unchanged), in the numerical example given above, for $`1<\mathrm{cos}\gamma <0.2`$, the only remaining state is the $`\sigma 2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}P_0`$.

## IV Modifications to the Higgs signals

We have shown an example when the mixing of the Standard Model Higgs boson with a new heavy scalar introduces significant changes in the couplings of the Higgs, most notably leading to a sizable, perhaps dominant, Higgs-gluon interaction. In the Higgs mass region $`115GeV<m_h<180GeV`$ that we are considering, this changes the relative importance of the various production channels as well as the decay modes. This alters the strategy needed to discover the Higgs boson in a significant way, both at the hadron and lepton colliders.

In future leptonic colliders the environment is favorably clean for the detection of the Higgs. The “gold plated” mode $`e^+e^{}Z^{}Zh`$ followed by the Higgs decay $`hb\overline{b}`$ seems to be the easiest to see. The mixing discussed in this paper would increase the $`Z`$ plus two gluon jets final state. A large $`BR(hgg)1`$ branching ratio arises if the new scalar $`\sigma `$ dominantly decays into two gluons. This would diminish the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ signal so that the Higgs might be missed altogether in searches for a standard Higgs. This is also important for the LEP2 data with the search restricted to $`h`$ two $`b`$-jets.

At Tevatron Run 2, the most promising mode for the SM Higgs boson in the mass range $`110GeVm_h130GeV`$ is $`q\overline{q}^{}W^{}WhWb\overline{b}`$. However, in our scenario, the dominant decay mode of $`h`$ may be $`hgg`$, thus reducing the $`hb\overline{b}`$ branching ratio. So the signal in the $`Wb\overline{b}`$ mode may be greatly reduced, making it unobservable due to the large QCD background. On the other hand, the Higgs production in the mode $`ggh`$ will be greatly enhanced in this scenario. Thus, the signal in the $`gghWW^{}`$ channel will now be greatly enhanced. This will extend the lower mass range coverage below the usual case of $`m_h135GeV`$ via this mode. The mode $`ggh\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ was a borderline case in the SM. With the enhanced $`ggh`$ production rate of our scenario, the signal in this mode may be observable if the $`\tau `$ detection efficiency and the missing $`E_T`$ resolution can be improved in the upgraded CDF and D0 detectors.

In the SM, $`\sigma (ggH)0.7pb`$, while $`B(h\gamma \gamma )2.2\times 10^3`$ for $`m_H=120GeV`$. In our scenario, the Higgs branching ratio to two photons will be increased, and so will be the $`\sigma (ggH)`$ production cross section. Thus, the two photon mode may be detectable at Tevatron Run 2. A similar enhancement will occur for the two photon mode at the LHC.

While in most of this paper we discussed the case of a light Higgs boson, it is worthwhile to point out that in the case of a heavy Higgs ($`m_h135GeV`$, when the dominant decay is $`hWW,WW^{}`$) the QCD background is less severe on hadronic colliders. Then gluon fusion is the dominant process in the Standard Model, $`gghW^+W^{},WW^{}`$, providing an excellent signature. This signal will be greatly enhanced in the proposed scenario.

## V Conclusions

We have presented a scenario in which the coupling of the SM Higgs boson to two gluons can be greatly enhanced due to mixing with a scalar $`t\overline{t}`$ bound state (bound by new strong interactions). We have presented a potential model in which such a scenario may be realized. Such a scenario has major implications for the Higgs search at Tevatron Run 2 in the mass range of $`110GeVm_h180GeV`$. Production and decay channels are both affected. The $`Wb\overline{b}`$ final state at Tevatron Run 2 will be suppressed, because the $`hb\overline{b}`$ branching ratio is suppressed. The $`WW^{}`$ mode will be enhanced due to an increase in the $`ggh`$ production cross section, so that this mode will be effective even for a Higgs mass range lower than $`135GeV`$. Because Higgs production via $`ggh`$ mode is enhanced, the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and perhaps also the $`\gamma \gamma `$ final states may be detectable. Finally, we point out that LEP2 may have missed the Higgs boson because the dominant final states were $`Zgg`$ instead of $`Zb\overline{b}`$.

After the completion of this paper another work was published HewettRizzo , which discusses a similar effect on the gluonic couplings of the Higgs boson. The underlying model in that paper is based on extra dimensions and is very different from our scenario.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the US Department of Energy Grant Nos. DE-FG03-98ER41076 and DE-FG02-01ER45684.


text:
# Phenomenological Equations of State for 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) Gauge Theories

## 1 Models A and B

We have developed two simple models for the $`SU(N)`$ gluon plasma equation of state, both based on the use of the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop $`P`$ as the natural order parameters of the deconfinement transition in pure gauge theories . The first model is obtained by adding a mass $`M`$ to the gauge bosons, and working with the high temperature expansion of the resultant free energy to order $`M^2T^2`$. The result is

$$f_A\left(P\right)=T^4F_4(P)M^2T^2F_2(P)$$
(1)
where $`F_4`$ and $`F_2`$ are simple functions of $`P`$. The first term, $`T^4F_4(P)`$, is precisely the one-loop perturbative result. Our second model is obtained by supposing that there is a natural scale $`R`$ in position space over which color neutrality is enforced. This leads to

$$f_B\left(P\right)=T^4F_4\left(P\right)\frac{T}{R^3}\mathrm{ln}\left[J\left(P\right)\right]$$
(2)
where $`J\left(P\right)`$ is the Jacobian associated with Haar measure on $`SU(N)`$. In both models, the $`T^4`$ term, which favors the deconfined phase, dominates for large $`T`$. The other term, which favors the confined phase, dominates for small T. Confinement is naturally obtained from a uniform distribution of eigenvalues around the unit circle, constrained by the unitary of $`P`$. In a pure gauge theory, below the deconfinement temperature $`T_d`$, the eigenvalues are frozen in this uniform distribution. The deconfinement phase transition results from a conflict between the two terms.

## 2 $`SU(N)`$ Thermodynamics for $`N=25`$

In both models, the deconfining transition is second order for $`SU(2)`$ and first order for $`SU(3)`$, $`SU(4)`$ and $`SU(5)`$. Both models appear to quickly approach a large-$`N`$ limit. Figures 1-2 show the pressure $`p`$ and the dimensionless interaction measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\epsilon 3p)/T^4`$ for the case of $`SU(3)`$ compared with results from lattice simulations. Since both models involve only a single dimensional parameter, these graphs have no free parameters. Using a transition temperature of $`270MeV`$ for pure $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory gives the plausible values $`M=596MeV`$ and $`R=1`$fermi. It is clear that by allowing the parameters $`M`$ and $`R`$ to depend on the temperature, a better fit to lattice data can be obtained at the cost of introducing additional phenomenological parameters. Both models show power law behavior in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for sufficiently large $`T`$, consistent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }1/T^2`$, compatible with $`SU(3)`$ lattice data. In comparison, the Bag model, predicts a $`1/T^4`$ behavior for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is ruled out by lattice results. Using the information contained in the free energy as a function of $`P`$, non-equilibrium as well as equilibrium behavior can be explored. For example, in $`SU(3)`$, the range of temperatures over which metastable behavior occurs can be easily determined.


text:
# The Minimum Universal Metal Density Between Redshifts 1.5 and 5.5

## 1. Introduction

The epoch of reionization is the ultimate depth to which we can directly investigate neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium (IGM). Whether or not it signals the onset of reionization, the increasing optical depth of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest at redshifts above 5 (Becker et al. 2001; Djorgowski et al. 2001; Fan et al. 2000b, 2001c; Songaila et al. 1999) severely limits our ability to study the IGM with neutral hydrogen at these times. However, we can continue to study the metal lines in the quasar spectra, and in particular the C IV ‘forest’. These absorption lines can be used to infer the history of early star formation by mapping the evolution of the universal density of metals with redshift. The contribution to the universal metallicity arising from the diffuse IGM has been extensively analyzed at redshift $`z3`$ (Cowie et al. 1995, Tytler et al. 1995, Songaila 1997, Songaila 1998, Ellison et al. 2000) and some information is also available from investigations of O VI at lower redshift (Burles & Tytler 1996, Tripp, Savage & Jenkins 2000). However, to date there has been no systematic analysis of the variation of the intergalactic metal density as a function of redshift.

Most interpretations of the origin of the $`z=3`$ metallicity have focussed on ejection or stripping of material from small galaxies that formed at higher redshifts ($`z>5`$) (Gnedin & Ostriker 1997, ; Gnedin 1998; Madau, Ferrara & Rees 2001). It is also possible that the metals may originate in genuine Population III star formation at very high redshift (e.g., Carr, Bond & Arnett 1984; Ostriker & Gnedin 1996; Haiman & Loeb 1997; Abel et al. 1998). In these scenarios most of the IGM metals would be in place at the highest currently observable redshifts. More recently, Steidel has suggested that the observed metals may instead originate in extremely fast winds from Lyman break galaxies at $`z=3`$ (e.g. Pettini 2001). Such a model may already encounter problems in explaining the kinematic quiescence of the C IV lines (Rauch, Sargent & Barlow 2001) but it can also be tested by determining whether the metallicity changes with redshift.

This paper analyses the distribution of C IV and Si IV ions in the IGM over a wide range of redshifts from $`z=1.5`$ to $`z=5.5`$ using newly-discovered Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars (Anderson et al. 2001; Fan et al. 1999, 2000a,b, 2001a,b; Zheng et al. 2000) to provide a high redshift sample. I use the methodology previously applied at $`z3`$ (Songaila 1997) of directly integrating the observed ion column densities in Ly$`\alpha `$ forest clouds to obtain strict lower limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ion}}`$, which, with plausible assumptions on ionization corrections and abundance patterns, can provide a strict lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{metals}}`$ at a number of redshifts.

New observations of $`z=23`$ quasars with the HIRES spectrograph (Vogt 1994) on the KeckI telescope and of $`z=45.8`$ quasars with the ESI instrument (Sheinis et al. 2000) on KeckII are described in section 2. In section 3 I construct column density distribution functions for C IV and Si IV from $`z=1.5`$ to $`z=5.5`$ and perform the integrations. Conclusions are given in section 4.

## 2. Observations

The data used in the paper comprise HIRES observations of 13 quasars reported in Songaila (1998) together with HIRES and ESI observations of a further 19 quasars. The reduction of the HIRES (lower redshift) observations follows the procedures given in Songaila (1998). The fainter, high redshift, quasars were observed with the ESI instrument in echellette mode. (See Songaila (2001) for a list of quasars observed with ESI.) The resolution in this configuration is comparatively low, $`5300`$ for the $`0.75^{\prime \prime }`$ slit width used, but the red sensitivity is high and the wavelength coverage is complete from $`4000\mathrm{\AA }`$ to $`10,000\mathrm{\AA }`$. At the red wavelengths, precision sky subtraction is required since the sky lines can be more than two orders of magnitude brighter than the quasars. In order to deal with this issue, individual half-hour exposures were made, stepped along the slit, and the median was used to provide the primary sky subtraction. The frames were then registered, filtered to remove cosmic rays and artifacts, and then added. At this point a second linear fit to the slit profile in the vicinity of the quasar was used to remove any small residual sky. The observations were made at the parallactic angle and flux calibrated using observations of white dwarf standards scattered through the night. These standards were also used to remove telluric absorption features in the spectra, including the various atmospheric bands. The final extractions of the spectra were made using a weighting provided by the profile of the white dwarf standards. Wavelength calibrations were obtained using third-order fits to CuAr and Xe lamp observations at the begining and end of each night, and the absolute wavelength scale was then obtained by registering these wavelength solutions to the night sky lines. The wavelengths and redshifts are given in the vacuum heliocentric frame.

I next constructed the sample of all C IV and Si IV aborption lines which lie more than $`50\mathrm{\AA }`$ longward of each quasar’s Lyman alpha emission and hence clearly outside the Lyman alpha forest region. The doublets were found by inspection of the spectra, and confirmed by consistency of the column density and velocity structure in the two members of the doublet. Systems within $`5000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ of the quasar’s emission redshift were excluded to avoid contaminating the sample with proximate systems whose ionization may be dominated by the quasar itself. The final C IV sample consists of 367 C IV doublets, with $`1.74z5.29`$ and $`12.0\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV}})14.9`$. The Si IV sample contains 109 systems between $`z=1.78`$ and $`z=5.29`$, with $`12.0\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{IV}})14.8`$.

In all cases, ion column densities were determined by fitting up to ten Voigt profiles to each redshift system, defined to be all absorption near a given fiducial redshift with gaps in velocity space of no more than $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The column density at a given redshift is then the total column density of all such components. In all but a few systems, individual lines were unsaturated, so that fitted column densities are insensitive to $`b`$-value. For the ESI spectra, where the lower resolution observations make this issue more critical, I adopted in doubtful cases a column density based on assuming that the weaker member of the doublet was unsaturated. This provides a minimum estimate of the column density.

## 3. Distribution Functions

With these samples, the column density distribution function $`f(N)`$ was determined for each ion. $`f(N)`$ is defined as the number of absorbing systems per unit redshift path per unit column density, where at a given redshift $`z`$ the redshift path, $`X(z)`$ is defined as $`X(z)\frac{2}{3}[(1+z)^{3/2}1]`$ for $`q_0=0.5`$ (Tytler 1987). Throughout the paper the distributions are calculated in c.g.s. units and are plotted with $`1\sigma `$ error bars calculated from the Poisson errors based on the number of systems in each bin (Gehrels 1986). In addition, all calculations were made assuming a $`q_0=0.5`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ cosmology, which is a good approximation to the currently favored $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmologies above about $`z=1`$.

In Figure 1 I show the column density distribution in the redshift interval $`2.90<z<3.54`$ and compare this with the distribution over the same redshift range from an extremely deep exposure of the quasar 1422+231, as reported in Ellison et al. (2000). From the figure it can be seen that the present data become incomplete below a column density of approximately $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in this redshift range. Above this value a maximum likelihood fit to a power law slope gives an index of $`\alpha =1.8\pm 0.1`$. This is steeper than the Ellison et al. fit of $`1.44\pm 0.05`$ based on the more limited sample, but in fact provides a good fit to those data points at column densities less than $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and to the corrected counts in 1422+231 at less than $`10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. I adopt this fit, with a normalization of $`\mathrm{log}f=12.4`$ at a column density of $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, as a fiducial to compare with the distributions in other redshift ranges.

The C IV and Si IV distribution functions are shown as a function of redshift in Figure 2. For redshifts less than 4 the data is drawn from HIRES observations of relatively bright quasars, and significant incompleteness occurs only below column densities of about $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. At higher redshifts, where most of the observations are from ESI and the quasars are fainter, simulations show there is clearly incompleteness even above this column density. In the highest redshift bin, $`55.5`$, lying at the longest wavelengths where the night sky is highest, recovery of lines is quite sporadic and the sample is extremely incomplete. Over the column density range in which incompleteness is not a problem, the distributions are consistent with being invariant throughout the range of redshifts sampled.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{IV}}`$ were next calculated from the line samples in each redshifts interval according to

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ion}}=\frac{\mathrm{H}_0}{c\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{1/2}\frac{N_{\mathrm{ion}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }X}m_{\mathrm{ion}}$$
(1)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=1.89\times 10^{29}h^2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the cosmological closure density, $`m_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ is the ion’s mass, $`\mathrm{H}_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the local matter density relative to the closure density, $`dX=(1+z)^{1/2}dz`$ is the value for a flat matter-dominated cosmology and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ is the integral of $`X`$ over the redshift interval. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmologies, the values may be simply scaled to preferred values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ using the dependence in equation (1). The values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{IV}}`$ are plotted in Figures 3 and 4 and tabulated in Table 1 for $`\mathrm{H}_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`q_0=0.5`$. The error bars are 90% confidence limits; they were computed by using the power-law distribution with the shape of the fiducial fit, and normalized to match the measured $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ion}}`$, to generate Monte Carlo simulations of line lists and then measuring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ from these simulations.

## 4. Discussion

If the ionization fraction can be estimated, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ can be translated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{element}}`$ for each element in question. I shall assume here that C IV and Si IV are the dominant ionization stages with ionization fractions of 0.5 (Songaila 1997). This assumption is conservative in that it will, if anything, underestimate the resulting metallicity since neither C IV nor Si IV can be a much larger fraction than this; even in the extreme case, the metallicity will be overestimated by no more than a factor of two. The measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{element}}`$ can then be compared with measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ to obtain the universal metallicity contribution of the gas. (The inverse procedure of guessing a metallicity and then using this to estimate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ has been followed by Tripp, Savage & Jenkins (2000) in analyzing O VI measurements at low redshift. However, given that we know $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ from other sources, it seems more reasonable in the present case to use that value to constrain the metallicity.) A value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.023\pm 0.003`$ is adopted from measurements of the microwave background (Netterfield et al. 2001), which is consistent with the most recent deuterium estimates (e.g., Tytler et al. 2001). The metallicity is quoted relative to solar values of $`3.3\times 10^4`$ for carbon and $`3.3\times 10^5`$ for silicon (Anders & Grevesse 1989). The results of this procedure are illustrated with the dashed lines in Figures 3 and 4. For $`h=0.65`$, I conclude that the carbon metallicity is $`5\times 10^4`$ at lower redshifts and still exceeds $`2\times 10^4`$ at $`z=5`$. The silicon metallicity is about 2 times higher, $`3.5\times 10^4`$ at $`z=5`$, with the assumed Si IV ionization fraction of 0.5. This presumably reflects the faster generation of the alpha process elements, but the exact amount of the excess of silicon over carbon will of course depend on the relative Si IV and C IV ionization fractions.

The minimum nature of the estimates should be emphazised: in any given region, only observed metals are counted. While we believe that the bulk of the baryons are to be found in these clouds at these redshifts (Rauch et al. 1997; Kim et al. 1997), the bulk of the metals may not, and may instead be primarily retained in the galaxies that generated them. Furthermore, the assumption that C IV and Si IV are dominant ionization stages depends critically on the shape and intensity of the metagalactic ionizing radiation field and on the densities of the clouds. There may be cloud column densities and epochs for which this assumption is no longer true and where the observed ion densities would imply higher metallicities. Finally, the high noise levels at the longest wavelengths mean we are substantially undercounting the lines at the highest redshifts, and the turndown in the ion densities at these redshifts may be due to this effect rather than to a real physical change. Simulations of the incompleteness above $`z=4.5`$ suggest that C IV line identification is substantially complete to $`\mathrm{log}N=13.25`$ at $`z=4.5`$ and to $`\mathrm{log}N=13.7`$ above $`z=5`$, resulting in corrections to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV})`$ of factors of 1.35 and 1.67, respectively, in these two bins.

Despite these caveats we can still draw some substantial conclusions. First, since total metal densities are dominated by oxygen, which we expect to scale most closely with silicon, we would conclude that a minimum univeral metallicity of about $`3.5\times 10^4`$ of the solar metallicity is in place at $`z=5`$. This means that this fraction of the universal massive star formation should have taken place before this time, and this in turn can be translated to a number of ionizing photons per baryon. Since a metallicity of $`10^5`$ gives rise to one ionizing photon per baryon (e.g., Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1997), the metallicity measured at $`z=5`$ is sufficient to have preionized the IGM.

Second, there appears to have been little change in the univeral ion densities since $`z=5`$. It is possible that this could be caused by matched variations in the ionization parameter and the metallicity. However, at least above $`z3`$, where the metagalactic ionizing spectrum is likely to be galaxy-dominated (e.g. Steidel et al. 2001), C IV and Si IV will be the dominant ionization stages, and it appears more likely that the metal densities have remained relatively constant during this period. Although this does not rule out the possibility of additional contributions from mechanisms such as galactic winds, it does suggest that, to a large extent, the metals observed in the intergalactic medium at $`z=3`$ have an earlier origin.

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants AST 96-17216 and AST 00-98480.


text:
# Manifolds of interconvertible pure states

## I Introduction

The existence of entangled states, i.e., roughly speaking, the states of a composite system which exhibit quantum correlations among the subsystems, appeared recently to be extremely important in rapidly developing field of quantum communication. It is due to non-classical properties of entangled states that various schemes of quantum computing, quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation can be thought of being practically realizable.

A pure state $`|\psi `$ in the Hilbert space $`=_A_B`$ of a composite quantum system consisting of two subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ with Hilbert spaces $`_A`$ and $`_B`$ is separable, if it can be cast to the product form $`|\psi =|\psi _A|\psi _B`$, where $`|\psi _A`$ and $`|\psi _B`$ are some states of the subsystems. States which are not separable are called entangled. The situation is more complicated in the case of a mixed state (a density matrix $`\rho `$) . It is separable if it is expressible as a convex sum of product states: $`\rho =_ip_i\rho _i^{(A)}\rho _i^{(B)}`$, $`p_i>0`$, $`_ip_i=1`$, where $`\rho _i^{(A)}`$ and $`\rho _i^{(B)}`$ are, in general mixed, states of the subsystems. A mixed state is called entangled if it is not separable. In what follows we consider only systems with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces which seem to be more important in proposed applications of quantum information theory, the infinite-dimensional case needs some refinement of the above definition of separability.

It is relatively easy to check whether a given pure state is separable or entangled (e.g. by investigating its Schmidt coefficients - see below). The situation complicates for mixed states - we do not know how to check unambiguously separability of a given mixed states if the dimensionality of the Hilbert spaces of subsystems exceeds $`3`$ .

As a problem complementary to determining the separability properties of a given state one can pose the question of the relation between the set of the separable (entangled) states to the set of all states of the composite system. This can be understood as the question of a relative measure of the set of entangled states (i.e. ”how probable is that a given state is entangled?”) \- the problem posed and partially solved in , or about the geometrical and topological properties of this set. In this paper we concentrate on the latter problem in the following setting. Since we are interested in quantum correlations between two subsystems we should take into consideration only these properties which do not change under various quantum mechanical operations performed locally in each subsystem. Thus two states which are interconvertible one to another via local unitary transformations (i.e. purely quantum mechanical operations without decoherence) are equivalent from the point of their entanglement properties. This can lead to construction of appropriate measures of entanglement characterizing the classes of equivalent states. Our approach is in a sense complementary to the task of identifying the set of all invariants with respect to the local unitary transformations .

In this work we pose and solve the question of the dimensionality and topology of manifolds of states equivalent to a given one via local unitary transformations. Thus the present paper may be regarded as an extension of  (see also ), in which these questions were discussed for the simplest system of two qubits. In the case of pure states we find the explicit results for any $`N\times N`$ composite system by identifying explicitly the topology of the orbits as well as in a purely algebraic, algorithmic manner. The second approach which does not depend on the Schmidt decomposition (see below) is, in principle, applicable also to mixed states, this is illustrated by considering the generalized Werner states .

## II Pure entangled states

### A  Schmidt decomposition

Consider a pure state $`|\psi `$ of a composite Hilbert space $`=_A_B`$ of size $`N^2`$. Introducing an orthonormal basis $`\{|n\}_{n=1}^N`$ in each subsystem, we may represent the state as

$$|\psi =\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{mn}|n|m.$$
(1)
The complex matrix of coefficients $`C`$ of size $`N`$ needs not to be Hermitian nor normal. Its singular values (i.e. the square roots of eigenvalues $`\lambda _k`$ of the positive matrix $`C^{}C`$) determine the Schmidt decomposition

$$|\psi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _k}|k^{}|k^{\prime \prime },$$
(2)
where the basis in $``$ is transformed by a local unitary transformation $`WV`$. Thus $`|k^{}=W|k`$, and $`|k^{\prime \prime }=V|k`$, where $`W`$ and $`V`$ are the matrices of eigenvectors of $`C^{}C`$ and $`CC^{}`$, respectively. In the generic case of a non-degenerate vector $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the Schmidt decomposition is unique up to two unitary diagonal matrices, up to which the matrices of eigenvectors $`W`$ and $`V`$ are determined. The normalization condition $`\psi |\psi =1`$ enforces $`_{k=1}^N\lambda _k=1`$. Thus the vector $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N)`$ lives in the ($`N1`$) dimensional simplex $`𝒮_N`$. The Schmidt coefficients $`\lambda _k`$ do not depend on the initial basis $`|n|m`$, in which the analyzed state $`|\psi `$ is represented.

### B  Pure state entanglement

The Schmidt coefficient of a pure state $`|\psi `$ are equal to the eigenvalues of the reduced density operator, obtained by partial tracing, $`\rho ^A=\mathrm{tr}_B(|\psi \psi |)`$. A pure state is called separable, if it can be represented in the product form $`|\psi =|\psi _A|\psi _B`$, where $`|\psi _A_A`$ and $`|\psi _B_B`$. This occurs if and only if there exists only one non-zero Schmidt coefficient, $`\lambda _1=1`$, i.e. the reduced state $`\rho ^A`$ is pure. In the opposite case state $`|\psi `$ is called entangled. A pure state is called maximally entangled if all its Schmidt coefficients are equal, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _k=1/N`$. Note that the Schmidt coefficients are invariant with respect to any local operations $`U_L=U_AU_B`$, and thus they may serve as ingredients of any measure of entanglement.

### C  Local orbits

We are going to study the orbits of a given pure state $`|\psi `$ with respect to the local transformations $`U_L`$. Two states belonging to the same orbit are called interconvertible, since they may be reversibly transformed by local transformations one into another . Let us order its Schmidt coefficients $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _N)`$. In order to describe the character of the degeneracy we rename them into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(0,\mathrm{},0,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _1,\nu _2,\mathrm{},\nu _2,\mathrm{},\nu _K,\mathrm{},\nu _K)`$ where each value $`\nu _n`$ occurs $`m_n`$ times and $`m_0`$ is the number of vanishing Schmidt coefficients. Obviously $`m_0+_{n=1}^Km_n=N`$, and $`m_0`$ might be equal to zero. The main result of our paper is contained in the following

Proposition. The local orbit generated from $`|\psi `$ has the structure of the following quotient space

$$𝒪=\frac{U(N)\times U(N)}{𝒢(m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_K)},$$
(3)
where $`𝒢(m_0,m_1,\mathrm{},m_K)`$ is the subgroup of the direct product $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ consisting of the pairs of unitary matrices $`(U,V)`$ of the form

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}u_0& & & \\ & u_1& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & u_K\end{array}\right],V=e^{i\varphi }\left[\begin{array}{cccc}v_0& & & \\ & u_1^{}& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & u_K^{}\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
where $`u_0`$ and $`v_0`$ arbitrary matrices from $`U(m_0)`$, and $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_K`$ denote arbitrary matrices from, respectively, $`U(m_1),\mathrm{},U(m_K)`$. The overall phase factor $`e^{i\varphi }`$ accounts for the irrelevant phase of the state $`|\psi `$, ie. we identify states differing by a phase factor. The dimension of the orbit (3) reads

$$\mathrm{dim}(𝒪)=2N^22m_0^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}m_n^21.$$
(5)
Indeed, let us observe that the action of the tensor product $`UVU(N)U(N)`$ on the state (1),

$`UV|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}C_{mn}U|mV|n={\displaystyle \underset{m,n,k,l}{}}C_{mn}U_{km}|kV_{ln}|l={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}(UCV^T)_{kl}|k|l,`$ (6)
reduces to the direct product action on the coefficient matrix $`C`$

$$U(N)\times U(N)(U,V):C(U,V)(C):=UCV^T$$
(7)
Let now the action of $`(\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{V})`$ reduces $`C`$ to its diagonal Schmidt form

$$\stackrel{~}{U}C\stackrel{~}{V}^T=\text{diag}(0,\mathrm{},0,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _2,\mathrm{},\nu _K,\mathrm{},\nu _K).$$
(8)
Then $`\stackrel{~}{U}C\stackrel{~}{V}^T=U\stackrel{~}{U}C\stackrel{~}{V}^TV^T`$ iff $`U`$ and $`V`$ are given by (4) Now the formula (3) follows in an obvious manner, once we realize that in fact we should disregard any unimportant overall phase of (1) (or in other words we should identify the coefficient matrices $`C`$ and $`C^{}=e^{i\theta }C`$, ie. work in an appropriate projective space). The dimension formula (5) follows from a simple calculations involving the dimensionalities of the unitary groups, while the last term equal to unity stems from the projectivisation procedure. An alternative, algebraic proof of this result is proved in Section III.

In fact the orbit has a structure of a Cartesian product:

$$𝒪=\frac{U(N)}{U(m_0)\times U(m_1)\times \mathrm{}\times U(m_K)}\times \frac{U(N)}{U(m_0)\times U(1)},$$
(9)
where the first factor represents global orbits in the set of density matrices of size N with the same spectrum . In the language of fiber bundles such orbits form the base, while the fibers consists of all $`N\times N`$ pure states, which are related by partial tracing to a given density matrix of size $`N`$. We shall provide a complete proof of this fact elsewhere .

In the generic case of all coefficients different (and non zero), i.e. $`K=N`$ the manifold is thus identified as

$$𝒪_g=\frac{U(N)}{[U(1)]^N}\times \frac{U(N)}{U(1)},$$
(10)
with the dimension

$$\mathrm{dim}(𝒪_g)=2N^2N1.$$
(11)
The set of all orbits enumerated above produces the complex projective space $`P^{N^21}`$ \- the $`(2N^22)`$ dimensional manifold of pure states of the $`N\times N`$ system. However, the the set constructed of the generic orbits (11) generated by each point of the interior of the Weyl chamber, is of full measure in the space of pure states. In this way we demonstrated a foliation of $`P^{N^21}`$. This foliation is singular, since there exist also (measure zero) leaves of various dimensions and topology, as listed in Table 1 for $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$.

### D  Special cases: separable and maximally entangled states

For separable states there exists only one non zero coefficient, $`\lambda _1=1`$, so $`m_0=N1`$. Thus (3) gives

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{sep}}=\frac{U(N)}{U(1)\times U(N1)}\times \frac{U(N)}{U(1)\times U(N1)}=P^{N1}\times P^{N1},$$
(12)
with the dimension $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒪_{\mathrm{sep}})=4(N1)`$. The maximally entangled states are characterized by $`\lambda _1=\lambda _N=1/N`$, hence $`m_1=N`$ and $`m_0=0`$. Therefore

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{U(N)}{U(1)}=\frac{SU(N)}{Z_N},$$
(13)
with the dimension $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒪_{max})=N^21`$. Note that this space is not isomorphic with $`SU(N)`$ because $`U(N)`$ is not a direct product of $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(N)`$ . Since $`SU(N)\times U(1)=U(N)\times Z_N`$, where $`Z_N`$ is the discrete permutation group of $`N`$ elements, the orbit of the maximally entangled states can be written as $`𝒪_{\mathrm{max}}=SU(N)/Z_N`$. This structure follows also from the fact that the entire orbit may be written as $`𝒪_{\mathrm{max}}=(U𝕀)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an arbitrary maximally entangled state, and U is an arbitrary unitary matrix determined up to an overall phase .

### E  Special cases: $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$

The set of all possible Schmidt vectors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ form the $`N1`$ dimensional simplex $`𝒮_N`$. Its corners represent $`N`$ mutually orthogonal separable states, while its center denotes the maximally entangled state $`|\psi _{}=(_{k=1}^N|kk)/\sqrt{N}`$. Any permutation of the Schmidt coefficients may be obtained by a local transformation of the pure state. Therefore it is sufficient to consider the orbits generated by Schmidt vectors belonging to a certain asymmetric part $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_N`$ of the simplex, so called Weyl chamber. Any ordering of the Schmidt coefficients corresponds to choosing one chamber out of $`N!`$, in which the simplex $`𝒮_N`$ can be decomposed.

The Schmidt simplex and exemplary Weyl chamber for $`N=2,3`$ and $`4`$ are presented in Fig.1. (Note that the simplex of diagonal density matrices of size $`N`$, obtained from $`N\times N`$ pure states by partial tracing, has the same geometry). The numbers by each part of the boundary of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_N`$ denote the dimensions of the local orbits, which are listed in Table 1. In the simplest case $`N=2`$ the simplex reduces to the interval $`[0,1]`$, while its asymmetric part $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_2`$ equals to $`[0,1/2]`$. The edge $`0`$ generates the four dimensional orbit of separable states, $`P^1\times P^1`$, and the point $`1/2`$ leads to the $`3`$–D manifold of maximally entangled states $`𝒪_{\mathrm{max}}=SU(2)/Z_2SO(3)P^3`$. This structure was pointed out by Vollbrecht and Werner , and the above singular foliation of $`P^3`$ was discussed in . In the case of any point inside the simplex (12) gives the following topology of the generic $`2\times 2`$ local orbit

$$𝒪_g=\frac{U(2)}{U(1)^2}\times \frac{U(2)}{U(1)}=S^2\times P^3,$$
(14)
in agreement with recent results of Mosseri and Dandoloff .

## III Algebraic determination of orbit dimension

### A General case: $`N\times N`$ mixed states

The reasoning presented in the previous section hinges on the Schmidt decomposition of the density matrix for a pure state. As such it cannot be extended to mixed states. For this reason we present an alternative method introduced in , which can be, in principle, applied also in the latter situation. It is based on purely algebraic reasoning, and, as such, gives only local information, i.e. only about the dimensions of the manifolds of interconvertible states and not about their topology.

Although the group of local unitary transformations is $`=U(N)U(N)`$, it is obvious that since its elements act on an arbitrary density matrix $`\rho ^N^N`$ by conjugations, $`\rho U\rho U^{}`$, we can take in fact $`=SU(N)SU(N)`$ instead. Let $`^{2(N^21)}𝐬U(𝐬)SU(N)SU(N)`$ be some parameterization of the group $``$ such that $`U(0)=I`$ (i.e. $`𝐬=(s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{2N^22})`$ are the coordinates in $`SU(N)`$ with the origin at the unit matrix). The tangent space to the local orbit through $`\rho `$ (i.e. to the space of the states interconvertible with $`\rho `$) at this point is spanned by the vectors:

$$\rho _k:=\frac{}{s_k}U(𝐬)\rho U^{}(𝐬)|_{𝐬=0}.$$
(15)
The dimension of the tangent space, hence of the manifold itself, equals the number of linearly independent vectors $`\rho _k`$.

From the unitarity of $`U(𝐬)`$ it follows:

$$\rho _k=[\left(\frac{U}{s_k}\right)_{𝐬=0},\rho ]=[l_k,\rho ]=\rho _k^{}.$$
(16)
The number of independent $`\rho _k`$ equals the rank of the $`2(N^21)\times 2(N^21)`$ Gram matrix (the unimportant factor of $`1/4`$ is introduced for further convenience)

$$G_{mn}:=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{T}r\rho _m\rho _n,$$
(17)
which, upon using (16), can be cast into:

$$G_{mn}=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(l_m\rho l_n\rho \right)\frac{1}{4}Tr\left(\rho ^2\left\{l_nl_m+l_ml_n\right\}\right).$$
(18)
Choosing the standard parameterization of $`SU(N)`$ in the vicinity of the identity we obtain

$$l_k:=\left(\frac{U}{s_k}\right)_{𝐬=0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}ie_kI,& k=1,\mathrm{},N^21\\ iIe_k,& k=N^2,\mathrm{},2N^22,\end{array}$$
(19)
where $`e_k=e_k^{}`$ are generators of the Lie algebra $`𝔰u(N)`$. They obey the commutation relations

$$[e_j,e_k]=c_{jkl}e_l,$$
(20)
where $`c_{jkl}`$ denote the structure constants and we use the summation convention. We normalize $`e_k`$ to fulfill

$$\mathrm{T}re_je_k=2\delta _{jk}.$$
(21)
An arbitrary hermitian matrix $`\rho `$ acting in $`^N^N`$ can be decomposed with the help of $`𝔰u(N)`$ generators

$$\rho :=\frac{1}{N^2}I+ia_k(e_kI)+ib_l(Ie_l)+C_{mn}(e_me_n).$$
(22)
From (16), (19), (20), (21), and (22) the Gram matrix (17) is calculated as

$$G=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A\hfill & \hfill B\\ B^T\hfill & \hfill D\end{array}\right],$$
(23)
where the $`(N^21)\times (N^21)`$ matrices $`A,B`$, and $`D`$ read

$`A_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{mjk}c_{nlk}(Na_ja_l+2C_{jr}C_{lr})/2,`$ (24)
$`B_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{mjk}c_{nlr}C_{kl}C_{jr},`$ (25)
$`D_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{mjk}c_{nlk}(Nb_jb_l+2C_{rj}C_{rl})/2.`$ (26)
### B Special case: $`N\times N`$ pure states

Using the above outlined procedure we can recover the results for pure states obtained in Section I. For a pure state $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$ Eq. (18) reduces to

$$G_{mn}=\psi \left|l_m\right|\psi \psi \left|l_n\right|\psi \frac{1}{2}\psi \left|l_ml_n+l_nl_m\right|\psi \psi |\psi .$$
(27)
We choose the following explicit form of the generators $`e_k`$ expressed in the standard basis $`\{|1,|2,\mathrm{},|N\}`$ of $`^N`$

$$e_k=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{k(k+1)}}\left(k|k+1k+1\left|\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}\right|ll|\right),k=1,2,\mathrm{},N1,$$
(28)
$$e_{mn}^{(1)}=i(|nm|+|mn|),1m<nN,$$
(29)
$$e_{mn}^{(2)}=|nm||mn|,1m<nN.$$
(30)
We reorder the non-diagonal generators $`e_{mn}^{(1)}`$ and $`e_{mn}^{(2)}`$ by changing two indices $`\{mn\}`$ into a single one $`k`$ according to $`k=N1+(m1)Nm(m+1)/2+n`$ in the case of $`e_{mn}^{(1)}`$ and $`k=N1+N(N1)/2m(m+1)/2+n`$ in the case of $`e_{mn}^{(2)}`$, so that $`\{e_k\}`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N^21`$ is the desired complete set of generators.

It proves to be more convenient to use not $`l_k`$ themselves, but the following linear combinations of them:

$`L_k`$ $`:=`$ $`i(e_kI+Ie_k)/2,1kN^21,`$ (31)
$`L_k`$ $`:=`$ $`i(e_kIIe_k)/2,N^2k2N^22,`$ (32)
what amounts to a mere change of basis in the Lie algebra and, obviously, does not influence the rank of $`G`$.

After rather straightforward but lengthy calculation we find $`G`$ in the form (23) with $`B=0`$ and bloc-diagonal matrices $`A`$ and $`D`$

$`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}A^{(1)}\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill A^{(2)}\end{array}\right],D=\left[\begin{array}{cc}D^{(1)}\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill D^{(2)}\end{array}\right].`$ (37)
The blocks $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`D^{(2)}`$ are diagonal $`(N^2N)\times (N^2N)`$ matrices with the diagonal entries

$`A_{kk}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\lambda _m}+\sqrt{\lambda _n})^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j\right),1k(N^2N)/2,`$ (38)
$`A_{kk}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\lambda _m}\sqrt{\lambda _n})^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j\right),(N^2N)/2<kN^2N,`$ (39)
$`D_{kk}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\lambda _m}\sqrt{\lambda _n})^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j\right),1k(N^2N)/2,`$ (40)
$`D_{kk}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\lambda _m}+\sqrt{\lambda _n})^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _j\right),(N^2N)/2<kN^2N,.`$ (41)
In each of the above formulas $`(m,n)`$ is the unique pair of numbers such that $`0<m<nN`$ and fulfilling $`(m1)Nm(m+1)/2+n=k`$ for $`1k(N^2N)/2`$ or $`(m1)Nm(m+1)/2+n=k(N^2N)/2`$ for $`(N^2N)/2<kN^2N`$. Moreover, we find that of two $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrices $`A^{(1)}`$ and $`D^{(1)}`$ the latter equals zero, while the former reads

$`A_{mn}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_{k=1}^m\lambda _km\lambda _{m+1}\right)\left(_{k=1}^N\lambda _k\right)\left(_{k=1}^m\lambda _km\lambda _{m+1}\right)\left(_{k=1}^n\lambda _kn\lambda _{n+1}\right)}{\sqrt{m(m+1)n(n+1)}}}=A_{nm}^{(1)},m<n,`$ (42)
$`A_{nn}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_{k=1}^n\lambda _k+n^2\lambda _{n+1}\right)\left(_{k=1}^N\lambda _k\right)\left(_{k=1}^n\lambda _kn\lambda _{n+1}\right)^2}{n(n+1)}}.`$ (43)
In this way we found that the entire matrix $`G`$ has at least $`N1`$ vanishing eigenvalues (due to $`D^{(1)}=0`$), $`N^2N`$ doubly degenerate eigenvalues $`(\lambda _i\pm \lambda _j)^2`$ (the eigenvalues of $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`D^{(2)}`$) and the $`N1`$ eigenvalues of $`A^{(1)}`$.

Although, at first sight, $`A^{(1)}`$ looks quite complicated, it is relatively easy to calculate the traces of its powers $`\text{Tr}(A^{(1)})^k`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$ and, consequently, its characteristic polynomial

$$P\left(\lambda \right):=\text{det}(A^{(1)}\lambda )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1\right)^{k+1}kp_k\lambda ^{Nk}.$$
(44)
Here $`p_1=\tau _1`$, $`p_2=\tau _2`$, and $`p_k=\tau _k\left(_{j=1}^N\lambda _j\right)^{k2}`$ where $`\tau _k`$ are the coefficients of

$$Q\left(\lambda \right):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\lambda \lambda _i\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1\right)^k\tau _k\lambda ^{Nk},$$
(45)
i.e. the elementary symmetric polynomials in $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$ of the order $`k`$. Observe that due to the normalization $`_{k=1}^N\lambda _k=1`$ we can substitute $`\tau _k`$ for $`p_k`$ in (44) and, consequently,

$$P\left(\lambda \right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1\right)^{k+1}kp_k\lambda ^{Nk}=\lambda Q^{}\left(\lambda \right)NQ\left(\lambda \right),$$
(46)
where $`Q^{}\left(\lambda \right):=dQ\left(\lambda \right)/d\lambda `$. It follows immediately that the multiplicity of the root $`\lambda =0`$ in $`P`$ equals the multiplicity of $`\lambda =0`$ in $`Q`$ (i.e. the number of Schmidt coefficients equal to $`0`$). Indeed, if $`Q(\lambda )=\lambda ^kQ_1(\lambda )`$ and $`Q_1(0)0`$ then $`Q^{}(\lambda )=k\lambda ^{k1}Q_1(\lambda )+\lambda ^kQ_1^{}(\lambda )`$ and $`P(\lambda )=\lambda ^k\left[(kN)Q_1(\lambda )+\lambda Q_1^{}(\lambda )\right]=\lambda ^kP_1(\lambda )`$, where $`P_1(0)=(kN)Q_1(0)0`$ since $`kN`$.

Now we are ready to calculate the rank of $`G`$. There are

1. $`N1`$ vanishing eigenvalues of $`D^{(1)}`$,
2. $`m_0`$ vanishing eigenvalues of $`A^{(1)}`$,
3. for each $`m_n`$-degenerate Schmidt coefficient $`m_n(m_n1)`$ vanishing eigenvalues of $`A^{(2)}`$ of the form (39) and of the form (40) of $`D^{(2)}`$,
4. $`2m_0(m_01)`$ vanishing eigenvalues of $`A^{(2)}`$ and $`D^{(2)}`$ of the forms (3841).

hence the co-rank (the number of zero eigenvalues of $`G`$) equals $`(N1)+m_0+_{n=1}^K(m_n^2m_n)+2(m_0^2m_0)=2m_0^2+_{n=1}^Km_n^2`$-1, where we used $`m_0+_{n=1}^Km_n=N`$. Consequently, taking in account that $`G`$ is an $`2(N^21)\times 2(N^21)`$ matrix, its rank equal to the dimension of the orbit is given by (5).

As mentioned at the beginning of the section, the above analysis can be, in principle, extended to mixed states. To show this let’s consider (admittedly rather trivial) example of the generalized Werner states

$$\rho =\frac{1\alpha }{N}I+\alpha |\psi \psi |,$$
(47)
where the pure state $`|\psi `$ is characterized by the Schmidt numbers $`(0\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _N)`$. It is obvious that the $`\rho _k`$ of Eq. (16) are, up to the scaling factor $`\alpha `$ the same as for the pure state $`|\psi `$. Consequently, the dimension of the orbit through $`\rho `$ is determined by the Schmidt coefficients of $`|\psi `$ exactly in the same way as previously.

## IV Coefficients of the characteristic polynomials as entanglement measures

There exist several non equivalent ways to quantify quantum entanglement . Following Vedral and Plenio  we assume that any entanglement measure

i) equals to zero for any separable state,

ii) is invariant with respect to local unitary operations,

iii) cannot increase under operations involving local measurements and classical communication.

For pure states, $`\rho =|\psi \psi |`$, these requirements are fulfilled by the Shannon entropy of the Schmidt vector, (in other words von Neumann entropy of the partially reduced density matrix), $`E_1(|\psi )=_{k=1}^N\lambda _k\mathrm{ln}\lambda _k`$, simply called entropy of entanglement, as well as the generalized Renyi entropies, $`E_\alpha (|\psi )=\mathrm{l}n(_{k=1}^N\lambda _k^\alpha )/(1\alpha )`$ .

Consider now the coefficients $`\tau _k`$ of the characteristic polynomial (44) of the nontrivial block $`A^{(1)}`$ of the Gram matrix (27) for a pure state of a $`N\times N`$ bipartite system. As derived above they are given by the elementary symmetric polynomials in $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _N`$ of the order $`k`$

$`\tau _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _k=1,`$ (48)
$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=k+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _k\lambda _l,`$ (49)
$`\tau _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=k+1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l+1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _k\lambda _l\lambda _m,`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ (51)
$`\tau _N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\lambda _k.`$ (52)
Due to the definition of the Gram matrix the coefficients $`\tau _k`$, $`k=2,\mathrm{},N`$ are invariant with respect to local unitary transformations and are equal to zero if and only if the state is separable.

As shown recently by Nielsen  any pure state $`|\psi `$ may be transformed locally into a given state $`|\varphi `$, if and only if the corresponding vectors of the Schmidt coefficients satisfy the following majorization relation $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }_\psi \stackrel{}{\lambda }_\varphi `$. Any entanglement measure cannot increase under such an operation. This condition is fulfilled by the coefficients $`\tau _k`$, since the elementary symmetric polynomials are known to be Schur–concave functions , for which $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ induces $`\tau (\stackrel{}{\lambda })\tau (\stackrel{}{\mu })`$. Thus the quantities (48) posses the property of entanglement monotones, and their set consisting of $`N1`$ independent elements, $`\{\tau _2,\mathrm{}\tau _N\}`$, provides the complete characterization of the pure states entanglement . Beside the simplest case of $`N=2`$, (for which all measures of the entanglement generate the same order in the set of pure states ), the coefficients $`\tau _k`$ are not functions of the Renyi entropies and induce different orders in the set of pure entangled states.

It might be interesting to analyze how the traces of the Gram matrix, $`t_k:=\mathrm{t}r(G^k)`$, change during non-unitary local transformations. Our numerical experiments performed for mixed states of $`2\times 2`$ system suggest that all traces $`t_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},6`$ do not increase under local bistochastic transformations , $`\rho \rho ^{}=_ip_iU_i^AU_i^B\rho U_i^AU_i^B`$, with $`_ip_i=1`$. The question whether this property holds also for systems of higher dimensions remains open.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank I. Bengtsson, D. C. Brody, P. Heinzner, A. Huckelberry, J. Kijowski and J. Rembieliński for fruitful discussions and R. Mosseri for helpful correspondence. The work was supported by Polish Komitet Badań Naukowych through research Grant No 2 P03B 072 19.
| $`N`$ | Schmidt | $`D_s`$ | Part of the | Topological Structure | | | | $`D_o`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | coefficients |  | asymmetric simplex | base |  | fibre |  |  |
|  | $`(a,b)`$ | $`1`$ | line | $`\frac{U(2)}{[U(1)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(2)}{U(1)}`$ | $`=S^2\times P^3`$ | $`5`$ |
| $`2`$ | $`(1,0)`$ | $`0`$ | left edge ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(2)}{[U(1)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(2)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$ | $`=P^1\times P^1`$ | $`4`$ |
|  | $`(1/2,1/2)`$ | $`0`$ | right edge ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(2)}{U(2)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(2)}{U(1)}`$ | $`=\frac{SU(2)}{Z_2}=P^3`$ | $`3`$ |
|  | $`(a,b,c)`$ | $`2`$ | interior of triangle | $`\frac{U(3)}{[U(1)]^3}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`14`$ |
|  | $`(a,b,0)`$ | $`1`$ | base | $`\frac{U(3)}{[U(1)]^3}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(2)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`13`$ |
| $`3`$ | $`(a,b,b)`$ | $`1`$ | 2 upper sides | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)\times U(2)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`12`$ |
|  | $`(1/2,1/2,0)`$ | $`0`$ | right corner | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(2)\times U(1)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`11`$ |
|  | $`(1,0,0)`$ | $`0`$ | left corner ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)\times U(2)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(2)\times U(1)}`$ | $`=P^2\times P^2`$ | $`8`$ |
|  | $`(1/3,1/3,1/3)`$ | $`0`$ | upper corner ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(3)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(3)}{U(1)}`$ | $`=\frac{SU(3)}{Z_3}`$ | $`8`$ |
|  | $`(a,b,c,d)`$ | $`3`$ | interior of tetrahedron | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(1)]^4}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`27`$ |
|  | $`(a,b,c,0)`$ | $`2`$ | base face | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(1)]^4}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(1)]^2}`$ |  | $`26`$ |
|  | $`(a,a,b,c)`$ | $`2`$ | three upper faces | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(2)\times [U(1)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`25`$ |
|  | $`(a,a,b,0)`$ | $`1`$ | 2 edges of the base | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(2)\times [U(1)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`24`$ |
| $`4`$ | $`(a,a,b,b)`$ | $`1`$ | edge | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(2)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`23`$ |
|  | $`(a,a,a,b)`$ | $`1`$ | 2 edges | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(3)\times U(1)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)}`$ |  | $`21`$ |
|  | $`(a,b,0,0)`$ | $`1`$ | lower edge of the base | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(1)]^2\times U(2)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(2)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`21`$ |
|  | $`(1/3,1/3,1/3,0)`$ | $`0`$ | back corner | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(3)\times U(1)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`20`$ |
|  | $`(1/2,1/2,0,0)`$ | $`0`$ | right corner | $`\frac{U(4)}{[U(2)]^2}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(2)\times U(1)}`$ |  | $`19`$ |
|  | $`(1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4)`$ | $`0`$ | upper corner ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(4)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)}`$ | $`=\frac{SU(4)}{Z_4}`$ | $`15`$ |
|  | $`(1,0,0,0)`$ | $`0`$ | left corner ( $``$ ) | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(1)\times U(3)}`$ | $`\times `$ | $`\frac{U(4)}{U(3)\times U(1)}`$ | $`=P^3\times P^3`$ | $`12`$ |

Table 1. Topological structure of local orbits of the $`N\times N`$ pure states generated by one Weyl chamber of the simplex of the Schmidt coefficients, $`D_s`$ is the dimension of the subspace, while $`D_o`$ represents the dimension of the orbit, ( $``$ ) denotes separable states, while ( $``$ ) denotes maximally entangled states.