text:
# Evolutionary reconstruction of networks

## Abstract

Can a graph specifying the pattern of connections of a dynamical network be reconstructed from statistical properties of a signal generated by such a system? In this model study, we present an evolutionary algorithm for reconstruction of graphs from their Laplacian spectra. Through a stochastic process of mutations and selection, evolving test networks converge to a reference graph. Applying the method to several examples of random graphs, clustered graphs, and small-world networks, we show that the proposed stochastic evolution allows exact reconstruction of relatively small networks and yields good approximations in the case of large sizes.

preprint: APS/123-QED

The operation of network-organized systems of different origins is determined by the pattern of connections between their elements. The principal framework for investigations of dynamical networks is provided by graph theory \[1,$\\!$ 2,$\\!$ 3,$\\!$ 4\]. Recently, properties of various social \[5,$\\!$ 6\], linguistic , biochemical  and neural networks \[6,$\\!$ 9\], of the WWW \[10,$\\!$ 11\] and the Internet , have been analyzed. Statistical mechanics of systems with network organization has been reviewed . Much effort is invested in the understanding how the structure of a network is mapped to its function and determines its operation. On the other hand, in applications ranging from bioengineering to neurosciences one also needs to design networks with a given function or reconstruct a network from its dynamics. Taking into account the great complexity of network dynamics, explicit solutions of such inverse problems of graph theory are difficult. But graph reconstruction may also be achieved without any knowledge of rules, by running an artificial evolution process through which a network learns to generate certain dynamics by adjusting its internal organization. Indeed, evolutionary algorithms are known to yield efficient solutions for complex optimization problems . For the problem of graph reconstruction, such an approach has previously been proposed \[15,$\\!$ 16\].

In this Letter, we present an evolutionary algorithm and apply it to reconstruct graphs from their Laplacian spectra. Random graphs, small-world networks and networks with cluster organization are considered. We show that for relatively small graphs, exact reconstruction within a reasonable evolution time is possible. For larger graphs, the evolution leads to a network which provides a good approximation of the target graph. Both the spectral properties as well as other characteristic features of the reference network, such as the diameter, clustering coefficient, and the average degree, are well reproduced by the approximately reconstructed graph.

Any graph $`G`$ can be described by its adjacency matrix $`𝐀`$ such that $`A_{ij}=1`$ if the nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ are connected, and $`A_{ij}=0`$ otherwise. A Laplacian spectrum of the graph $`G`$ is defined  as the set of eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of the matrix $`𝐓`$ with elements $`T_{ij}=A_{ij}m_i\delta _{ij}`$ where $`m_i=_{j=1}^NA_{ij}`$ is the degree of node $`i`$ and $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker symbol.

Laplacian spectra are closely related to dynamical properties of a simple network: Consider a hypothetical linear “molecule” consisting of $`N`$ identical particles connected by identical elastic strings. The pattern of connections is defined by a graph $`G`$: a bond between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ in the network is present if the respective element $`A_{ij}`$ in the adjacency matrix of the graph $`G`$ is equal to unity and absent otherwise. This dynamical system is described by a set of differential equations $`\ddot{x}_i+_{j=1}^NA_{ij}(x_ix_j)=0`$ for the coordinates $`x_i`$ of all particles. Obviously, the vibration frequencies $`\omega _k`$ of such a molecule ($`k=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$) are given by the eigenvalues $`\lambda _k=\omega _k^2`$ of the matrix $`𝐓`$. Note that one eigenvalue $`\lambda _0`$ always satisfy $`\lambda _0=0`$ due to the translational invariance of this equation. For this reason, the Laplacian spectra of a graph are also known as the vibrational spectra . Besides yielding a link to dynamical networks, spectra provide a powerful invariant characterization of graphs. Each graph of size $`N`$ is thus mapped into a set of $`N1`$ positive real numbers $`\omega _i`$. Various statistical properties of graphs can be expressed or evaluated in terms of their spectra . Moreover, even though cospectral graphs (topologically different graphs with the same spectra) are known to exist, their fraction is very small 111For $`N6`$, there is only one pair of connected cospectral graphs. For regular graphs, one pair of size $`12`$, two pairs of size $`16`$, a cospectral quadruple of size $`28`$, seven cospectral pairs of size $`25`$, and a set of 91 cospectral graphs of size $`35`$ have been found (see ).. Hence, with a high probability two graphs with coinciding spectra would indeed be identical.

It is convenient to introduce the spectral density $`\rho (\omega )`$ for a graph as a sum of narrow Lorentz distributions

$$\rho (\omega )=C\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{\gamma }{(\omega \omega _k)^2+\gamma ^2}$$
(1)
with the same width $`\gamma `$ and the normalization constant $`C`$ chosen in such a way that $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega =1`$. The spectral distance $`ϵ`$ between two graphs $`G`$ and $`G_0`$ with densities $`\rho (\omega )`$ and $`\rho _0(\omega )`$ can then be defined as

$$ϵ=\sqrt{_0^{\mathrm{}}[\rho (\omega )\rho _0(\omega )]^2𝑑\omega }.$$
(2)
Our aim is to reconstruct graphs from their Laplacian spectra. Note that the number $`M_N`$ of different graphs of a given size $`N`$ becomes (super)astronomically large even for relatively small sizes. A lower bound for $`M_N`$ is $`2^{N(N1)/2}/N!`$, so even for $`N=50`$ we have $`M_N>1.9\times 10^{304}`$. Therefore, finding an exact solution to the inverse problem by subsequently testing all graphs is in practice impossible. Instead, we shall use an evolutionary procedure for graph reconstruction.

Suppose that we want to reconstruct a certain reference graph $`G_0`$ with the spectral density $`\rho _0(\omega )`$. In order to do this, we generate an arbitrary initial graph $`G`$ and introduce a stochastic process of mutations and selection. The mutations represent random modifications of the pattern of connections whereas the selection is based on the spectral distance (2) between two graphs.

A *mutation* of the graph $`G`$ first consists of deleting all connections of a randomly chosen node $`i`$. A new degree $`m_i`$ for this particular node is then chosen at random between $`1`$ and $`N1`$ followed by a random generation its $`m_i`$ new connections. The obtained mutated graph is denoted as $`G^{}`$.

To decide whether a mutation should be accepted (that is, to realize *a selection*), we calculate the spectral distance $`ϵ^{}`$ between the modified graph $`G^{}`$ and the reference graph $`G_0`$. This is then compared with the spectral distance $`ϵ`$ between $`G`$ and $`G_0`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ=ϵ^{}ϵ<0`$, the mutation is always accepted. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ>0`$, the mutation is accepted with a certain probability $`p(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ/ϵ\theta )`$. When a mutation has been accepted, the graph $`G`$ is replaced by $`G^{}`$.

These two steps are applied iteratively and the evolution is continued until the spectra are identical ($`ϵ=0`$) or the spectral distance $`ϵ`$ is smaller than a given threshold. Note that mutations may be accepted even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ>0`$ to avoid that the evolution gets trapped in a local minimum. The noise of the selection is controlled by the “temperature” parameter $`\theta `$. The scheme is similar to the Metropolis algorithm used in statistical mechanics and complex combinatorial optimization \[17,$\\!$ 18\].

In the following, this procedure is applied to reconstruct three different types of reference graphs.

*Random networks*. First we consider the case where the reference network is a random graph of size $`N`$ and connection probability $`p`$. As an example, we take a reference graph $`G_0`$ with $`N=10`$ and $`p=0.2`$. The initial graph $`G_{\mathrm{init}}`$ is also random, but has a higher connection probability $`p=0.9`$. The two graphs and their Laplacian spectra are shown in FIG. 1a–b. We then apply the stochastic evolution, described above, with the selection temperature $`\theta =0.044`$ . The evolution of the spectral difference $`ϵ`$ is shown in FIG. 1c. The spectral distance is gradually decreasing, with some fluctuations, until eventually a transition occurs at $`t3500`$, when the spectral densities of the reference and test graph coincide. Examining the final graph $`G_{\mathrm{final}}`$ in FIG. 1a, we conclude that it is indeed identical to the reference graph $`G_0`$. Note that though the number of graphs of size $`N=10`$ is of the order of $`10^6`$, the exact reference graph has been reconstructed in only 3500 stochastic iterations.

To determine the reliability of the reconstruction and its dependence on the selection temperature $`\theta `$, a statistical investigation has been performed. The variation of the mean spectral distance $`\overline{ϵ}`$ as a function of $`\theta `$ is shown in FIG. 1d where each point corresponds to the average over $`10^3`$ evolutions each starting from a randomly chosen test graph with connection probability chosen randomly from $`[0,1]`$. Each evolution was terminated after $`4\times 10^4`$ iterations. We see that there is a window of the selection temperature $`\theta `$ where fast convergence takes place. At the minimum $`\theta =0.04`$ approx. 92 % of all evolutions converge exactly to the reference graph within the specified time.

*Clustered networks*. Next, we consider large clustered networks representing a union of several random graphs with different connection densities. As an example, a reference network $`G_0`$ of size $`N=50`$ with three clusters of high connection probability is chosen. To prepare it, a sparse random graph of size $`N`$ with low connection probability $`p=0.05`$ is first generated. Then three random dense clusters of size $`N_{\mathrm{local}}=8`$ with connection probability $`p_{\mathrm{local}}=0.8`$ have been constructed and added to the sparse graph. The spectrum of $`G_0`$ exhibiting two distinct peaks is shown by a solid line in FIG. 2a. The reconstruction was tested by running $`10^3`$ stochastic evolutions starting from different random graphs with connection probability chosen randomly between $`[0,1]`$. The spectra of one such initial graph and of the corresponding final graph obtained after $`10^5`$ iterations are shown in FIG. 2a. Even though the exact reconstruction is not reached in this case, the spectral densities of the final and of the reference graphs in FIG. 2a are very similar ($`ϵ=0.057`$), and differ greatly from that of the initial graph.

Though exact reconstruction is not reached for the considered large graph, statistical analysis reveals that the properties of the final graph are close to that of the reference graph. FIG. 2b shows the time dependence $`\overline{ϵ}(t)`$ of the mean spectral difference averaged over the $`10^3`$ stochastic evolutions. We see that $`\overline{ϵ}`$ decreases down to about 0.056 after $`10^4`$ iterations. Other important properties of the reference graph, such as its diameter $`L`$, clustering coefficient $`C`$, and its mean degree $`D`$ (all defined as in the review ), are also well-reproduced. This is seen from FIG. 2b, where the time dependence of the mean ratios $`\overline{L}(t)/L_0`$, $`\overline{C}(t)/C_0`$, and $`\overline{D}(t)/D_0`$ is presented.

Similarity between graphs can also be discussed in terms of their adjacency matrices: For any two graphs $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ with adjacency matrices $`𝐀_1`$ and $`𝐀_2`$, a transformation $`𝐅=𝐅(𝐀_1,𝐀_2)`$ can be introduced as

$$𝐅=𝐔_1^\mathrm{T}𝐔_2𝐀_2𝐕_2^\mathrm{T}𝐕_1.$$
(3)
Here the real matrices $`𝐔_{1,2}`$ and $`𝐕_{1,2}`$ are defined by the singular-value decomposition  of $`𝐀_1`$ and $`𝐀_2`$. If two graphs are identical and their adjacency matrices only differ because of a different enumeration of nodes, the identity $`𝐀_1=𝐅(𝐀_1,𝐀_2)`$ holds and the difference $`𝚫=𝐀_1𝐅`$ is zero. On the other hand, if two graphs $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ do not coincide, the norm $`\delta =1/N(_{i,j}𝚫_{ij}^2)^{1/2}`$ of this difference can be used as a measure of the distance between the graphs.

In FIG. 3, we visually display the matrices $`𝐀_0`$, $`𝐅_{\mathrm{init}}=𝐅(𝐀_0,𝐀_{\mathrm{init}})`$, and $`𝐅_{\mathrm{final}}=𝐅(𝐀_0,𝐀_{\mathrm{final}})`$ where $`𝐀_0`$, $`𝐀_{\mathrm{init}}`$ and $`𝐀_{\mathrm{final}}`$ are the adjacency matrices of the graphs $`G_0`$, $`G_{\mathrm{init}}`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{final}}`$. Here the elements in the matrices are represented by a square array of pixels using gray-scale color maps whose limits are determined by the minimum and maximum values of the respective matrix elements. Even though the matrix $`𝐅_{\mathrm{final}}`$ does not coincide with $`𝐀_0`$, it is already very close to it. The respective distances $`\delta `$ for the initial and final graphs are $`\delta _{\mathrm{init}}=0.41`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{final}}=0.04`$.

*Small worlds*. Now we consider a small-world graph (see ) consisting of $`N=40`$ nodes organized on a ring with each node connected to its two neighboring nodes. In addition, each node $`i`$ is connected to a randomly chosen node $`j`$ in the network ($`ji\pm 1`$) with the probability $`p=0.1`$. The adjacency matrix of this reference graph is visually displayed in the left frame of FIG. 4a. To test the reconstruction efficiency for this graph, we have performed $`10^3`$ stochastic evolutions, each starting from a random graph with connection probability chosen randomly from the interval $`[0,1]`$. The spectra of the reference, initial and final graphs of one particular evolution are shown in FIG. 4b; we see that even fine structures of the reference spectrum have been reproduced. The structure of the final graph is also close to that of the reference graph as seen from the last two frames in FIG. 4a where the matrices $`𝐅_{\mathrm{init}}`$ and $`𝐅_{\mathrm{final}}`$ defined by Eq. (3) are displayed (the respective distances $`\delta `$ for the initial and final graphs are $`\delta _{\mathrm{init}}=0.92`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{final}}=0.01`$).

The time dependence of the mean spectral distance $`\overline{ϵ}(t)`$ and the ratios $`\overline{L}(t)/L_0`$, $`\overline{C}(t)/C_0`$, and $`\overline{D}(t)/D_0`$ averaged over $`10^3`$ evolutions is shown in FIG. 4c. After a transient of $`10^4`$ iterations, $`\overline{ϵ}=0.058`$ and all three ratios have approached unity implying that these characteristic properties of the reference network also are well-captured by the approximate reconstruction process.

Our analysis has revealed that the proposed evolutionary algorithm provides an efficient method for exact or approximate reconstruction of graphs from their Laplacian spectra. Based on the spectral density only, such important properties of the reference network as its diameter, clustering coefficient, and average degree are well reproduced. Moreover, approximately reconstructed networks have similar adjacency matrices determining the pattern of connections between nodes. Unique evolutionary reconstruction is not possible for cospectral graphs, but these are, however, extremely rare . Our numerical study has been performed using a fixed selection temperature $`\theta `$ in the evolutionary algorithm; more refined algorithms employing a time dependent temperature (similar to the method of simulating annealing ) can also be implemented.

The spectral density (1) of a graph may be interpreted as representing a power spectrum of a certain stochastic signal $`z(t)`$. This signal can be, for instance, generated by vibrations of a damped elastic “molecule” under action of external white noise. Such a linear dynamical system would be described by the equations $`\ddot{x}_i+\gamma \dot{x}_i+_{j=1}^NA_{ij}(x_ix_j)=\xi _i(t)`$, where $`\xi _i(t)`$ are independent random forces and $`A_{ij}`$ is the adjacency matrix of the graph. We have shown that the structure of this simple model system can be reconstructed from its temporal signal $`z(t)=_ia_ix_i(t)`$ with randomly chosen weights $`a_i`$. Thus, we see that important network information can be encoded into a stochastic signal and then efficiently recovered from it.

In essence, the proposed stochastic evolution can be regarded as a learning process through which a test network, by adjusting its internal structure, learns to approximate the dynamics generated by a different system. Similar approaches can be applied to solve other problems. For instance, approximations of large clustered graphs by graphs of a smaller size can be constructed, and networks generating stochastic signals with prescribed power spectra can be designed.

The results of our model study put forward questions whether network organization of complex *nonlinear* dynamical systems with deterministic chaos can be reconstructed from their power spectra in an evolutionary learning process and whether, generally, a nonlinear network may learn to generate given complex chaotic dynamics by iteratively adjusting its pattern of connections. A practical solution of these problems would be important for a variety of applications.

MI acknowledges financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Germany, and from the Danish Technical Research Council (grant nr. 9901488).


format: text

text:
# Observation of Ising-like critical fluctuations in frustrated Josephson junction arrays with modulated coupling energies

## Abstract

We report the results of ac sheet conductance measurements performed on fully frustrated square arrays of Josephson junctions whose coupling energy is periodically modulated in one of the principal lattice directions. Such systems are predicted to exhibit two distinct transitions: a low-temperature Ising-like transition triggered by the proliferation of domain walls and a high-temperature transition driven by the vortex unbinding mechanism of the Beresinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) theory. Both the superfluid and dissipative components of the conductance are found to exhibit features which unambiguously demonstrate the existence of a double transition whose properties are consistent with the Ising-BKT scenario.

Two-dimensional arrays of Josephson junctions (JJA) exposed to a perpendicular magnetic field provide the opportunity to study the influence of a tunable level of frustration in a variety of topologies ranging from periodic to random structures, including quasiperiodic and fractal lattices. Such systems are a physical realization of the frustrated classical XY model where the degree of frustration is governed by a parameter f expressing the magnetic flux threading an elementary cell of the array in units of the superconducting flux quantum.

While the nature of the superconducting transition of a Josephson junction array (JJA) at arbitrary frustrations is still not well understood, the critical behavior of square JJAs at full frustration (f=1/2) has been widely investigated theoretically and with numerical simulations. Because of the ”checkerboard” structure of the ground state , two symmetries are relevant in determining the critical behavior of a fully frustrated JJA: the continuous U(1) rotational symmetry and the discrete $`Z_2`$ chiral symmetry . The phase transition resulting by breaking U(1) is driven, at a temperature $`T_{BKT}`$, by the vortex unbinding mechanism predicted by the Beresinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) theory, whereas the transition associated with $`Z_2`$ is triggered by the proliferation of Ising-like domain walls at a temperature $`T_I`$. The question of whether these two transitions are disinct  or merge into a single transition belonging to a new universality class  has been controversial for a long time. Quite recently Korshunov  has shown that the first scenario, with $`T_I>T_{BKT}`$, is the only possible one. Although distinct, the two transitions are, however, very close to each other, making experiments conceived to explore their exact nature rather difficult. From an experimental point of view, the situation is more favorable in frustrated arrays whose coupling energy $`E_J`$ is periodically modulated in one of the principal lattice directions. Their critical behavior was first studied with Monte Carlo simulations by Berge et al.  and, subsequently, by Eikmans et al.  using a Coulomb gas approach. In arrays with a sufficiently strong $`E_J`$-modulation the two transitions are predicted to be well separated (with $`T_I<T_{BKT}`$) and thus accessible to experimental observation. In this brief report we present preliminary results of ac sheet conductance measurements performed on JJAs with modulated couplings at f=1/2 which unambiguously demonstrate the existence of a double transition with features consistent with the Ising-KT scenario.

The experiments were carried out on square arrays of proximity-effect coupled SNS (superconducting-normal-superconducting) Josephson junctions consisting of $`10^6`$ Pb superconducting (S) islands forming a square lattice on a normal (N) Cu layer. To periodically modulate $`E_J`$, the N-bridges of the junctions located on alternating rows were slightly lengthened in order to decrease their coupling energy with respect to that of all the other junctions in the array (see Fig. 1). The lengths of the N-metal gaps of the array shown in Fig. 1 are $`0.8\mu m`$ for the strong bonds (SB) and $`0.92\mu m`$ for the weak bonds (WB). The transition temperature of the S-islands was $`T_{CS}=7.02K`$ and the normal metal coherence length $`\xi _N(T_{CS})80nm`$. Kinetic inductance measurements performed on the unfrustrated (f=0) array  allow to estimate the ratio $`\eta `$ between the coupling energies of the weak and the strong bonds. We find $`\eta 0.4`$ in the temperature range of interest. The sheet resistance of the array in the normal state was $`R_N3m\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

To explore the properties of the array in the critical region, we measured its complex ac sheet conductance $`G(\omega ,T)`$ at f=1/2 using a SQUID-operated two-coil mutual inductance technique , which allows to probe critical fluctuations over a frequency range covering more than 5 decades (0.1 Hz - 10 kHz). At the temperatures of interest ($`T5K`$) we estimate that the vortex diffusion length ($`r_\omega /a(14R_Nk_BT/\omega \varphi _0^2)^{1/2}`$) is about $`10^3`$ lattice constants at the lowest accessible frequencies. Thus, at these very large length scales, our low-frequency conductance measurements should reflect the response of the array in the quasi-static thermodynamic limit. In this regime therefore the inverse sheet inductance $`L_{\mathrm{}}^1=\omega Im(G)`$, which is proportional to the areal superfluid density and measures the degree of superconducting phase coherence in the system, is directly comparable with Monte Carlo simulations of the array helicity modulus .

In Fig. 2 both the superfluid ($`L_{\mathrm{}}^1`$) and the dissipative (R=Re(1/G)) components of the conductance extracted from the linear response of the fully frustrated (f=1/2) array at an excitation frequency of 0.23 Hz are shown as a function of temperature on log-lin plots. At $`T4.8K`$ there is a slight depression in $`L_{\mathrm{}}^1(T)`$ accompanied by a peak in dissipation. Relying on the Coulomb gas analogy , we identify these features as the signatures of the ”antiferroelectric-paraelectric” Ising transition triggered by the proliferation of domain walls in the system of dipoles created by the attractive interaction, across the weak bonds, of half-integer charges. This interpretation is supported by the observation that, in terms of the reduced temperature $`\tau =k_BT/E_J(T)`$, the transition takes place at $`\tau _I=0.08`$, in good agreement with the value ($`\tau _I=0.07`$) predicted by the phase diagram of Ref.7 for $`\eta 0.4`$. At higher temperatures the superfluid component drops dramatically, signaling the suppression of global superconducting phase coherence, at a temperature $`T_{BKT}5.5K`$, which is found to be consistent, as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 2, with the universal BKT prediction $`L_{\mathrm{}}^1(T_{BKT})=\left(8\pi /\varphi _0^2\right)k_BT_{BKT}`$.

According to the Coulomb gas analysis , the kink structure in $`L_{\mathrm{}}^1(T)`$ at $`T_I`$ reflects a logarithmic anomaly in the susceptibility of the Ising-like system of oriented dipoles. More precisely, the temperature derivative $`dL_{\mathrm{}}^1/dt`$ (where $`t=1T/T_I`$) should exhibit, at $`T_I`$, a $`ln|t|`$ divergence, which can be studied in great detail by varying the length scale (i.e. the driving frequency $`\omega `$) at which one is probing the JJA. The results of these investigations and, more generally, of the very interesting frequency dependence of the dynamic response in the critical Ising-BKT region will be published elsewhere.

We would like to thank S.E. Korshunov for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science within the framework of the TMR network ”Superconducting Nanocircuits” of the European Union and the Vortex Program of the European Science Foundation.


text:
# Reconstructing the formalism of quantum mechanics in the “contextual objectivity” point of view.

## I Introduction

In a previous preprint , we introduced and discussed a “physical” (as opposed to mathematical) definition of a quantum state***Throughout this paper “state” means “pure state”. Mixed states, when needed, will be called “statistical mixtures” ., that reads in the following way :

The quantum state of a physical system is defined by the values of a complete set of physical quantities, which can be predicted with certainty and measured repeatedly without perturbing in any way the system (the set of quantities is complete in the sense that the value of any other quantity which satisfies the same criteria is a function of the set values).

As discussed in detail in ref. , and briefly recalled below, this definition is in full agreement with the usual formalism of QM (it was actually deduced from it). But here we would like to address another question : is possible to deduce the usual formalism of QM from this definition ? In order to address this question, we will discuss a procedure that was introduced by Lucien Hardy in . Then we will introduce an alternative approach, that differs significantly from , since it is based upon geometry rather than upon probabilities.

## II A few words about contextual objectivity

The definition of the quantum state that is given above is clearly in agreement with the usual formalism of QM, as it can be seen when using the notion of “complete set of commuting observables” (CSCO) . A quantum state is specified by the ensemble of eigenvalues corresponding to a CSCO, that can obviously be measured repeatedly without perturbing in any way the system. Actually, as said in the definition, any physical quantity that satisfies the definition can be expressed as a function of the CSCO ones . This also appears in the sentence “measured repeatedly without perturbing in any way the system”: if the subset is not a CSCO, a measurement will generally change the state. It should be clear also that unitary evolution from Schroedinger’s equation transforms a state which satisfies our definition into a similar state, associated with a different set of physical quantities, corresponding to new well-defined measurements (that may however be not easy to perform).

An obvious but fundamental point is that given a quantum state, not all possible physical quantities can be predicted with certainty, but only a subset of them. That the subset is the largest possible set of independant quantities is just the definition of a CSCO. How to deal with physical observables which do not commute with those of the CSCO is a crucial point, that is discussed in detail in . It is also argued in  that within this framework, there is no need to add a “measurement postulate”: this postulate is already contained in the definition of the quantum state, i.e. , the very possibility to define a quantum state and the measurement postulate are essentially identical. For more details about that, including how it relates to the EPR “paradox”  or to the decoherence approach, we refer the reader to .

It is worth pointing out that our definition implies that some “objectivity” can be attached to the quantum state. This is because the quantum state is associated with a fully predictable course of events, that is independent of the observer. Actually, our definition assumes that the sentence “predicted with certainty and measured repeatedly” itself has a meaning, i.e. , that we are able to make experiments that correspond to well-defined measurements, and that give predictable outcomes. This is why we call our point of view “contextual objectivity”: the quantum state does have an objective existence, but its definition is inferred from observations that are made at the macroscopic level. We point out that there is no need to refer to “observer’s consciousness” or anything like that: what we need is simply the usual classical world, as the place where the measurements are made, and where results can be recorded by any (conscious or unconscious) observer. How exactly the “quantum reality” is related with the “macroscopic reality” will be spelled out in the conclusion section of this paper.

## III Exclusive and non-exclusive modalities

We shall now forget about the QM formalism, and look how far we can go by using only our definition of a quantum state. What we have at hand is only pure states, that yield predictions with unit probability for a given set of measurements. This can be detailed further :

(i) for a given set of (orthogonal) measurements, the different pure states corresponding to different results are exclusive, and we will call the associated pure states “exclusive modalities”. We may assume that the number of exclusive modalities is a property of the system, that will be called the dimension, $`N`$.

(ii) from our definition of a quantum state, there are other sets of measurements that are not predicted with certainty if the state of the system is one of the $`N`$ exclusive modalities. It is thus natural to consider all possible pure states, that constitute “non-exclusive modalities” (using the usual terminology for clarity, they are eigenvectors of other observables that do not commute with the ones in the initial set, but the QM formalism is not required at that stage).

The existence of non-exclusive modalities is a specific quantum feature : in classical physics, it should be possible to “give more details” about the state (e.g. by increasing the number of measurements), so that the “fully defined” states are exclusive, but this is not possible in QM. This is contained in our definition of the quantum state, and corresponds physically both to the existence of Heisenberg inequalities, and to the fact that a pure quantum state cannot be “completed” . This specifically quantum difference between exclusive and non-exclusive modalities will be very important in the following.

One may thus ask the question : is it possible to reconstruct the QM formalism by appropriately combining exclusive and non-exclusive modalities ? It should be clear that if one restricts to exclusive modalities, one will obtain something very close to classical probability theory over a discrete set of $`N`$ exclusive events, but there will be no room for interference effects, and thus we will miss QM. Lucien Hardy proposed in  an approach based on using $`K`$ probabilities defined on non-exclusive modalities, in such a way that they define an arbitrary (pure or mixed) quantum state. This approach is discussed in some details in the Appendix, and as a conclusion of this discussion we argue that the required axioms on $`K`$ are difficult to justify. In the following we will thus present another approach, that does not require the axioms on $`K`$ (H2 and H4b, see Appendix). On the other hand, we essentially keep H1 (statistical interpretation of probabilities), H3 and H4a (definition and properties of $`N`$), and H5 (continuity). As a central difference with Hardy’s approach, we will consider this continuity axiom from a geometrical point of view. This will lead us to the conclusion that QM is not only a probability theory, but has also to deal with geometry as an essential ingredient.

## IV Reconstructing quantum mechanics

### A Restating the question

The question that we want to address is : since we know that there are $`N`$ exclusive modalities associated to each given CSCO, how to connect between themselves all the non-exclusive modalities corresponding to all possible CSCO ? We should emphasize that the notion of Hilbert space is not yet there : beyond the axioms themselves, what we have is simply our definition of a quantum state, as the values of a set of physical quantities, that can be predicted with certainty and measured repeatedly.

By definition, changing the CSCO results from changing the measurement apparatus at the macroscopic level, that is, “turning the knobs”. A typical example is changing the orientations of a Stern-Gerlach magnet. These transformations have the mathematical structure of a continuous group: the combination of several transformation is associative and gives a new transformation, there is a neutral element (doing nothing), and each transformation has an inverse. Generally this group is not commutative : for instance, the three-dimentional rotations associated with the orientations of a Stern-Gerlach magnet do not commute. For a given position of the knob settings (given CSCO), there is a given set of $`N`$ exclusive modalities, that we can denote $`\{b_i\}`$. By turning the knobs, one obtains $`N`$ other exclusive modalities, that we can denote $`\{b_j^{}\}`$. The question is then how to relate the $`\{b_i\}`$ and the $`\{b_j^{}\}`$, that is, to define the transformation that allows one to go from a set of states of the other one. The reasoning presented below is not a demonstration, but a justification of a “reasonable” way to establish this relation.

### B The probability formula

Since the $`\{b_i\}`$ and $`\{b_j^{}\}`$ are by definition non-exclusive modalities, one has first to introduce the probabilities of finding the particular state $`b_j^{}`$ (after “turning the knobs”), when one starts in state $`b_i`$ (before “turning the knobs”). Since there are $`N^2`$ such probabilities, one can arrange them in a matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(p_{i,j}\right)`$, corresponding to all the probabilities connecting the two sets $`\{b_i\}`$ and $`\{b_j^{}\}`$. Due to normalization conditions, it is easy to check that the number of independant numbers in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is equal to $`(N1)^2`$ (these numbers have to fulfill appropriate inequalities for consistency). In order to manipulate the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ matrix, it is convenient to introduce the orthogonal ($`N\times N`$) projectors $`P_i`$, with $`P_iP_j=P_i\delta _{ij}`$. A useful operation is then to extract the particular probability $`p_{i,j}`$ from the matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. It is easy to check that one may write:

$$p_{i,j}=Trace(P_i\mathrm{\Sigma }P_j^t\mathrm{\Sigma })$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\sqrt{p_{i,j}}\right)`$ is the matrix formed by the square roots of the probabilities, and t denotes the transpose operation. Since we are looking for a state transformation, and since the $`\{P_i\}`$ define a set of orthogonal projectors corresponding to the initial set of states, it is very tempting to consider that the relations $`P_j^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }P_j^t\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ define the set of projectors corresponding to the transformed set of states $`\{b_j^{}\}`$ . However, though the $`P_j^{}`$ are indeed projectors (because the diagonal terms of $`{}_{}{}^{t}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are all equal to 1), they are not orthogonal projectors (because the off-diagonal terms of $`{}_{}{}^{t}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are not zero). The solution to that problem is obvious : the real-numbers matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has to be replaced by the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\left(e^{i\varphi _{i,j}}\sqrt{p_{i,j}}\right)`$, where the phase factors $`e^{i\varphi _{i,j}}`$ are chosen so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is unitary (the normalization conditions on the $`p_{i,j}`$ warrants that this is possible; note that complex numbers are required : $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ cannot be simply an orthogonal matrix). The equation for picking up a particular probability becomes:

$$p_{i,j}=Trace(P_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}P_j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})$$
(2)
that is the expected formula. As a consequence, what we actually need is a set of $`N\times N`$ unitary matrices, each one being associated to an element of the group of “knobs transformation”, that will be denoted as $`𝒢_𝒦`$. For general consistency of the approach, we may conclude that this set of matrices gives a representation of the group of knobs transformations; this is fully consistent with the well known Wigner theorem . We note that we never used the definition of a state as a “ray in an Hilbert space”. The state keeps its initial definition as a set of measurement results, but what we get is a way to connect between themselves the probabilities of the “non-exclusive modalities” associated to all possible pure states. This connection is simply made by eq. (2), where the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are unitary matrices that form a representation of the group of “knob transformations” $`𝒢_𝒦`$.

It is noticeable that if $`𝒢_𝒦`$ is commutative, then its $`N\times N`$ representations are diagonal matrices with complex numbers of modulus unity of the diagonal, and zeros everywhere else. These matrices commute with $`P_j`$, and thus $`p_{i,j}=\delta _{i,j}`$. Therefore, there is actually no need for non-exclusive modalities, the initial $`N`$ exclusive ones are enough. This provides a straightforward way to recover classical probability theory, and the mathematical structure of QM thus appears as a direct consequence of the non-commutative character of $`𝒢_𝒦`$ .

## V Conclusion

As a summary, we sketched a possible way to reconstruct quantum mechanics in the framework of the “contextual objectivity” point of view. Like in , we use an axiom on the system’s dimension, that is related to a well-defined number of “exclusive modalities” for a given quantum system. Then we use geometry to connect the different “exclusive modalities” corresponding to different settings of the measurement apparatus. Our reconstruction axioms can thus be written as :

* Axiom 1 : The quantum state of a physical system is defined as the values of a complete set of physical quantities, that can be predicted with certainty and measured repeatedly without perturbing in any way the system. In the axioms below a quantum state will be called a “modality”.
* Axiom 2 : For a given “knob settings” of the measurement apparatus, there exist $`N`$ distinguishable states $`\{b_i\}`$, that are called “exclusive modalities”. The value of $`N`$, called the dimension, is a characteristic property of a given quantum system .
* Axiom 3 : Various knob settings are related between themselves by (classical geometrical) transformations $`g`$ that have the structure of a continuous group $`𝒢_𝒦`$.
* Axiom 4 (theorem ?) : If the system is known to be in the state $`b_i`$ from the set $`\{b_i\}`$, the probability that it is found in state $`b_j^{}`$ from the set $`\{b_j^{}\}`$ corresponding to another knob settings obtained by the knob transformation $`g`$ is :

$$p_{i,j}=Trace(P_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}P_j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{})$$
(3)
where the $`P_i`$ are orthogonal projectors, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is a unitary matrix corresponding to $`g`$, within the $`N\times N`$ matrix representation of the group $`𝒢_𝒦`$.

Whether or not Axiom 4 can be seen as a theorem (similar to Gleason’s theorem , but with slightly different hypothesis) remains an open question. It should be clear that the standard structure of QM can be obtained from the above axioms (in particular rewriting physical quantities as operators and states as rays is straightforward). We note again that in our approach there is no “measurement postulate”, since it is already included in Axiom 1 (see detailed discussion in ).

An important feature of our approach is that the mathematical structure of QM is a direct consequence of the non-commutative character of the group of knobs transformations $`𝒢_𝒦`$. In some sense, QM appears as the result of accomodating the “contradictory” requirements that the exclusive modalities have a discrete structure, and that the knobs transformations have a continuous, but non-commutative group structure.

The view about the “classical vs quantum” dilemma that emerges from our approach is thus the following. A physical quantity is defined as an ensemble of possible measurements, that are connected between themselves by “geometrical” transformations that are in the “knob transformations” group $`𝒢_𝒦`$. The “classical illusion” is to identify this physical quantity with the numbers given by the measurement, and to attribute “reality” to these numbers . EPR themselves realized that this definition of “reality” was too restrictive, and proposed instead their definition based upon predictability and reproducibility; this is just the idea that we use as our definition of a quantum state. But as soon as this is done, it appears that this “reality” cannot be attributed simultaneously to all physical quantities : this is simply incompatible with the structure of $`𝒢_𝒦`$. Thus what is “real” at the macroscopic level is the definition of the physical quantities (i.e. of the possible measurements related by the group $`𝒢_𝒦`$), and what is “real” at quantum level (i.e. at the level of the measured system) is the quantum state. These two “realities” are fully compatible - they are actually the only ones that can connect the experimental definition of a physical quantity and the measurement results in a consistent way .

## Acknowledgements

Stimulating discussions with Jean-Louis Basdevant, Franck Laloe and Anton Zeilinger are acknowledged, as well as interesting email exchanges with David Deutsch, Lucien Hardy and Chris Fuchs.

## Appendix : Hardy’s approach

### A The problem

The main idea of this approach is to define an arbitrary state of the system (that may be pure or not pure) by using a set of real numbers, each representing the probability that the system is in a given pure state, chosen among a fixed set of non-exclusive modalities. We note that it is not warranted that such a procedure should be successful : there is an infinite number of non-exclusive modalities, and no obvious reason that all of them can be represented by using probabilities of being in a finite number of modalities taken from all possible ones. Nevertheless, following Hardy , we will assume that this can be done, and we will denote as K the number of probabilities needed to determine an arbitrary state, defined over a set of K non-exclusive modalities. The number K should be related to N, that is the number of exclusive modalities (dimension of the system). Therefore the questions can be rewritten as :

\- it is possible to find out the number K of non-exclusive modalities that are required to define an arbitrary (pure on non pure) state of the system, by using the probabilities of being in each of the modalities ?

\- is it possible to recover the usual structure of QM from these hypothesis ?

The answers to these questions are yes, as it was shown by Hardy in , provided that some simple axioms are introduced about the structure of a probability theory. In particular, Hardy shows that for classical probability theory one has $`K=N`$, and for quantum probability theory one has $`K=N^2`$ \[this is how many real numbers are required to define a non-normalized density matrix\].

### B “Five reasonable axioms”

The probability axioms introduced by Hardy are the following (here they are slightly reworded and reordered, keeping the initial numbering) :

* Axiom on probabilities (H1) : Relative frequencies (measured by taking the proportion of times a particular outcome is observed) converge to the same value, which we call the probability, for any case where a given measurement is performed on a ensemble of n systems prepared by some given preparation in the limit as n becomes large.
* Axioms on N (H3 and H4a) : The dimension N is a property of a given system, related to the number of exclusive modalities that can be defined for that system. A system whose state is constrained to have support on only M of a set of N possible exclusive modalities behaves like a system of dimension M (H3). A composite system consisting of subsystems A and B satisfies $`N=N_AN_B`$ (H4a).
* Axioms on K (H2 and H4b) : An arbitrary state of the system can be defined by specifying probabilities over a set of K non-exclusive modalities. K is determined by a function of N (i.e. $`K=K(N)`$), and for each given N, K takes the minimum value consistent with the other axioms (H2). A composite system consisting of subsystems A and B satisfies $`K=K_AK_B`$ (H4b).
* Axiom on pure states (modalities) : The above axioms are consistent with both classical and quantum probability theories. To get quantum theory one must add another axiom about “continuity” : any pure state can be transformed continuously and reversibly along a path through the pure states to any other pure state (H5).

### C Discussion

The axioms H1, H3 and H4a about probabilities and about N are easy to accept, since they deal with the definition of a probability theory over an ensemble of N exclusive modalities. In particular, the arguments about subspaces and composite systems are natural once it is admitted that the number of exclusive modalities is a characteristic property of the system. Similarly, the “quantum” axiom H5 is acceptable given the initial definition of a pure state as a modality, since an “infinesimal” change to the measurement set-up is expected to change continously the resulting pure states.

On the other hand, the axioms on K (H2 and H4b) are not obvious : they are trivial consequences of the previous ones if $`K=N`$ (that is the classical probability situation), but far from trivial if $`KN`$. Can our approach be helpful ? Accepting the (non-obvious) step that K is a function of N only, we interpret the equality $`K=K_AK_B`$ as meaning that the set of non-exclusive modalities (i.e. the K’s) is treated just like the set of exclusive ones (i.e. the N’s) by the probability theory. This is consistent with considering the K states as “real”, though they are not exclusive of each other, but still does not provide a straightforward justification for these axioms.

The content of the axioms may be better understood by looking at their implications. An immediate consequence of H4a and H4b is that $`K(N^2)=K(N)^2`$. By adding some arguments to show that K must be a polynomial in N , this implies that $`K(N)=N^r`$, where $`r`$ is an integer. In a previous version (v1) of  the value of $`r`$ was claimed to be calculated, but in the present version (v3) it is simply shown that $`r`$=2, i.e. $`K(N)=N^2`$, is the smallest value compatible with H5, and corresponds thus to quantum theory. If H5 is dropped, then $`K=N`$ is acceptable and classical probability theory is obtained. After prooving that $`K=N^2`$, Ref.  shows how to reconstruct a “Liouville space” (rather than Hilbert space) formulation of QM, including the trace formula and the general structure of the time evolution.

In our opinion, an important problem in the approach of  is that the axioms on K (H2 and H4b) are difficult to justify. In particular, it seems unlikely that (quoting ) “a 19th century theorist may have developed quantum theory without access to the empirical data that later became available to his 20th century descendants”. Without a good knowledge about QM, there is little chance to reach the crucial idea of “non-exclusive modalities” (non-orthogonal pure states as irreducible features of the reality), that looks crucial for the whole reasoning. Though our contextual objectivity approach may help to clarify physically the “K vs N” issue, it does not provide a firm basis to justify all the axioms of Ref. . As we have shown above, the “missing axioms” can advantageously be replaced by geometrical considerations.


text:
# Determinations of 𝛼(𝑀_𝑍): Comparison and Prospects

## Abstract

I review and compare various techniques to obtain the value of the QED coupling, $`\alpha `$, at the $`Z`$ pole. GigaZ precisions would require a much more accurate determination than available today. A combination of the virtues of current methods may help to achieve this goal.

preprint: UPR–965–Tpreprint: E3012

The value of the QED coupling constant at $`Z`$ pole energies,

$$\alpha (M_Z)=\frac{\alpha }{1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (M_Z)},$$
(1)
continues to induce the dominant theoretical uncertainty in the interpretation of the observables from LEP 1 and the SLC. A future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with GigaZ Hawkings:1999ac ; Erler:2000jg  capability would be able to greatly improve the current measurements, with $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ ultimately dominating the overall uncertainty. Therefore, it would be essential to improve the present error, $`\delta \alpha (M_Z)/\alpha (M_Z)\pm 2\times 10^4`$, by at least a factor of two or three. While the discussion will be limited to $`\alpha (M_Z)`$, in its essence it also applies to the two-loop hadronic uncertainty in the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

All methods and renormalization schemes to determine $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ utilize experimental data up to some cut-off, $`s_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, beyond which perturbative QCD (PQCD) is evoked. They differ due to differences in the data sets and treatments; the choice of $`s_{\mathrm{cut}}`$; the reference renormalization scheme; the option to add experimental information from $`\tau `$-decays Alemany:1998tn  (assuming isospin invariance); space-like vs. time-like integration; the treatment of heavy quarks; the use of a QCD sum rule Groote:1998pk  and/or a resummation optimization; and so on.

In terms of the photon polarization function, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma (s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is given by,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (s)=4\pi \alpha \left[\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(s)\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(0)\right]\text{(on-shell scheme),}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }(\mu )=4\pi \alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\gamma (0)\text{(}\overline{\mathrm{MS}}\text{ scheme)}.$$
(2)
At the one-loop level in perturbation theory one finds for a fermion of charge $`Q_f`$ ($`N_c^f`$ is the color factor),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }\underset{f}{}Q_f^2N_c^f\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{m_f^2}\frac{5}{3}\right]\text{(on-shell),}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }(\mu )=\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }\underset{f}{}Q_f^2N_c^f\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m_f^2}\text{(}\overline{\mathrm{MS}}\text{)}.$$
(3)
Numerically, $`\alpha ^1(M_Z)129`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }^1(M_Z)128`$. Alternatively, the on-shell quantity can be represented by a once subtracted dispersion relation (SDR),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (s)=4\alpha s\underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑s^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(s^{})}{s^{}(s^{}siϵ)}.$$
(4)
In the case of hadrons, $`R(s)=12\pi \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma ^{}(s)`$, and in the standard SDR approach one has,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{had}}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=\frac{\alpha M_Z^2}{3\pi }\left[\underset{\mathrm{DATA}}{\underset{}{\underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{s_{\mathrm{cut}}}{}}\frac{R(s)ds}{s(sM_Z^2iϵ)}}}+\underset{\mathrm{PQCD}}{\underset{}{\underset{s_{\mathrm{cut}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{R(s)ds}{s(sM_Z^2iϵ)}}}\right],$$
(5)
where the superscript indicates application to all quarks except the top. In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme it is more natural to work with an unsubtracted dispersion relation (UDR) Erler:1999sy ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\alpha }_{\mathrm{had}}^{(3)}(s_{\mathrm{cut}})=\frac{\alpha }{3\pi }\underset{\mathrm{DATA}}{\underset{}{\underset{4m_\pi ^2}{\overset{s_{\mathrm{cut}}}{}}\frac{R(s)ds}{siϵ}}}+2\alpha \underset{\mathrm{PQCD}}{\underset{}{\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\gamma ^{(3)}(\theta )}},$$
(6)
where the second integral is along a circle with radius $`s=s_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. Since typical values for $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{cut}}}`$ are 1.8 GeV Davier:1998kw  and 2.5 GeV Eidelman:1999vc , one only needs to include the three light quarks in Eq. (6). One then uses an analytical solution Erler:1999sy  to the order $`\alpha \alpha _s^3`$ and $`\alpha ^2`$ renormalization group evolution (RGE) to decrease $`\mu ^2=s_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ to $`\mu ^2=\widehat{m}_c^2(\widehat{m}_c)`$ (the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ charm mass) where one matches the effective field theories with three and four effective quark flavors. The matching is performed at order $`\alpha \alpha _s^2`$ at which subtle effects from internal charm quark loops have to be taken into account. However, well below the charmonium threshold these are small and strongly decoupling despite $`\widehat{m}_c<s_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. Then one evolves up in energy and includes the $`\tau `$-lepton and the $`b`$-quark. However, this is successful only when a short-distance quark mass definition (such as $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) is used. Transition to the on-shell mass definition would introduce large $`\pi ^2`$ terms, rendering application to bottom (charm) quarks questionable (impossible). Thus, in the UDR approach bottom and charm effects can be described entirely within PQCD, avoiding complications at heavy quark resonances. On the other hand, in the SDR approach one has to abandon PQCD in the vicinity of resonance regions.

Focussing on only one quark flavor at a time, one could relate the integral expression of the SDR approach to the analytical expressions Erler:1999sy  of the UDR approach. The resulting equation has the form of a specific type of QCD sum rule which could be used to determine $`\widehat{m}_c`$ and $`\widehat{m}_b`$. However, this is only the first entry in an infinite series of sum rules Jamin:1997rt  — and not the one which uses the data most efficiently. This implies that combining the UDR approach with an appropriate QCD sum rule is a recipe to minimize the uncertainties from the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark sector Erler02 .

Another advantage of the UDR approach is that all theoretical contributions are available as explicit analytical expressions, with no need for a numerical integration. In particular, the $`\alpha _s`$ and quark mass dependences are all taken into account. This is important for global analyses in which these parameters enter in many different places, causing non-trivial and non-linear correlations. In the SDR approach only a crude linear approximation Davier:1998si  is available.

Another way to reduce the impact of the resonance region is to use the analytic structure of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma `$ and to work in the Euclidean (space-like) region Eidelman:1999vc ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=\underset{\mathrm{PQCD}}{\underset{}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(M_Z^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(M_Z^2)\right]}}+\underset{\mathrm{PQCD}}{\underset{}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(M_Z^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(s_{\mathrm{cut}})\right]}}+\underset{\mathrm{DATA}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^{(5)}(s_{\mathrm{cut}})}}.$$
(7)
The first term is the analytical continuation from the Minkowski (time-like) to the Euklidean region. The second term represents the RGE in the perturbative Euklidean domain in which $`R(s)`$ is replaced by the Adler $`D`$ function. It is computed in the gauge dependent background field momentum subtraction (BF-MOM) scheme up to three-loop order Jegerlehner:1999zg . Unlike the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, the BF-MOM scheme is a mass-dependent renormalization scheme. Thus both, the UDR and BF-MOM approaches, depend explicitly on the quark masses. In the latter, the quark pole masses are used. This is disadvantageous since a long-distance mass definition such as the pole mass has an intrinsic renormalon ambiguity of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The heavy quark sector also contributes via the last term in Eq. (7) where, like in the SDR approach, the resonance region complicates the analysis. However, in the BF-MOM approach the resonance contribution is suppressed by about a factor of four Jegerlehner:2001ca . Note, that in this approach there may be a subtle correlation between the uncertainty from the theory (quark masses) and data (resonance region) parts.

The advantage of splitting the data and theory parts as in Eq. (7) is that no reference to global or local quark hadron duality is needed. In contrast, the SDR and UDR approaches both have an explicit momentum cut-off where the transition from data (hadrons) to theory (quarks) occurs. In principle, this could give rise to a significant cut-off dependence, especially when non-perturbative (NP) effects produce a strongly oscillating form of the hadronic cross section, $`i.e.R(s)`$. Such oscillations arise neither in PQCD nor in the operator product expansion (OPE) which accounts for a certain class of NP effects. Clearly, the cut-off dependence should be kept small. However, it is not necessarily optimal to demand that it vanishes. Indeed, the importance of duality violating effects has been overemphasized in the past, and there are good reasons to believe that they are small Bigi:2001ys . While unidentified sources of (OPE breaking) NP effects are hazardous, they are not the only source of uncertainty. For example, a poorly converging perturbative expansion can be even more perilous.

Table 1 summarizes the comparison of the three methods defined by Eqs. (5), (6), and (7). Table 2 gives a breakdown of the theory error in $`\alpha ^1(M_Z)`$ in the UDR approach. The corresponding error in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is obtained by multiplying by $`\alpha `$.

The available data in the region $`m_c\stackrel{<}{_{}}\sqrt{s}\stackrel{<}{_{}}2m_c`$ are rather poor, and one would like to replace them by a robust theoretical description as far as possible. It is therefore desirable to improve the UDR approach by lowering the cut-off dependence and to decrease ones exposure to duality violating effects. Conversely, the BF-MOM approach would benefit by utilizing a short-distance mass definition. Furthermore, as a matter of practice, it may be unwieldy to properly correlate the uncertainties from resonances and quark masses; this may eventually result in a somewhat larger uncertainty compared to the UDR approach. Nevertheless, it appears that within both, the UDR and BF-MOM methods, one has the potential to obtain a solid theory driven evaluation of $`\alpha (M_Z)`$. In contrast, the more traditional SDR approach with its strong reliance on the complicated function $`R(s)`$ seems inadequate for the high demands of GigaZ precisions.


text:
# ADD extra dimensional gravity and di-jet production at hadron colliders

## I Introduction

Conventional wisdom tells us that gravity is the weakest, by far, of the four fundamental forces of the universe. However, the possibility of large extra dimensions add ; rs  where gravity becomes strong at scales of order a TeV, may lead to a complete revision of conventional wisdom. This possibility has spawned a great deal of research, both phenomenological and experimental, into the discovery or exclusion of extra dimensional gravity scenarios.

The first such scenario add , commonly known as ADD extra dimensional gravity, suggests that extra spatial dimensions (the bulk) beyond the usual 3 (the wall) exist in which gravity operates. For distances larger than the extra dimension length scale, the effective Planck mass is large, $`M_P10^{19}GeV`$, while for distances smaller than the extra dimension length scale, the true Planck mass is small, $`M_S𝒪(1TeV)`$. The attractiveness of ADD and other extra dimensional gravity scenarios is that they solve the hierarchy and naturalness problems by moving the scale of gravity to something near the electroweak scale.

The phenomenology of the ADD model has been studied extensively; the Feynman rules are given in Ref. pheno . Among the many processes studied to date, Atwood, Bar-Shalom and Soni dijet  recently studied the effect of graviton tower exchange to dijet production at hadron colliders. Unlike a direct graviton production process, where the graviton produced appears as a missing $`E_T`$ signature, dijet production is sensitive to virtual graviton exchange in the $`s`$, $`t`$ and/or $`u`$ channels (depending on the subprocess). Virtual graviton exchange can modify various experimental observables to be significantly different than Standard Model (SM) predictions, and ADD scenarios can be discovered or excluded based on measured deviations from SM predictions. Similar analyses are possible under other extra dimensional gravity scenarios, such as Randall-Sundrum rs , but those analyses are beyond the scope of this study.

## II Calculation

In Ref. dijet , equations for all the necessary parton level subprocesses are given. The authors of Ref. dijet  reported exclusion limits at the Tevatron and LHC based on deviations from the SM $`\tau `$ distribution, where $`\tau `$ is the usual product of parton momentum fractions

$$\tau =xy=\frac{M_{jj}^2}{s}$$
(1)
but can also be expressed in terms of experimental observables $`M_{jj}`$ (the jet-jet invariant mass) and $`s`$ (the square of the center of mass energy).

Based on recent compositeness searches by the CDF and D0 expt  collaborations, we felt that alternate experimental observables could improve the search reach here. One favorite observable is transverse momentum; $`p__T`$ and $`p__T^2`$ are natural choices. Psuedorapidity,

$$\eta =\mathrm{log}\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }$$
(2)
is another commonly used observable. Related to $`\eta `$ is

$$\chi =\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(3)
In addition, a ratio of $`M_{jj}`$ distribution with $`\eta >\eta _0`$ to $`M_{jj}`$ distribution with $`\eta <\eta _0`$ was found to be useful in compositeness searches.

In order to simulate detector acceptance, we count jets only when $`|\eta |<1`$ and $`p__T>10GeV`$. Furthermore, we assume an integrated luminosity of $`2fb^1`$ for the Tevatron and $`30fb^1`$ for the LHC. With these acceptance cuts and integrated luminosities, the event rates are large, leading to a high level of sensitivity to deviations from the SM predictions. As will be clear below, this analysis will not depend strongly on the value of the $`p__T`$ cut; the strongest deviation from SM occurs at $`p__T`$ significantly higher than $`10GeV`$. For our analysis, CTEQ5M cteq  distributions are used.

For all observables, a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis was performed, where

$$\chi ^2=\left(\frac{𝒩_i𝒩_i^{\mathrm{SM}}}{\delta 𝒩_i^{\mathrm{SM}}}\right)^2$$
(4)
where $`𝒩_i`$ is the event number in a specific bin, and only statistical errors were considered, so that the uncertainty in $`𝒩_i`$, $`\delta 𝒩_i`$, equals $`\sqrt{𝒩_i}`$. $`\chi ^2=4`$ corresponds to a 95% C.L. deviation from the SM. We chose the number of bins to be 50 for the Tevatron and 100 for the LHC; this corresponds to $`p__T`$ bin sizes of $`20GeV`$ and $`70GeV`$, respectively.

A comparison of the $`p__T`$ distribution, $`d\sigma /dp__T`$, is shown in Figure 1, for both the Tevatron and the LHC; the SM (solid line) is compared with extra dimensional gravity predictions for the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$ of 3 and 4, as indicated on the figures. The extra dimensional gravity points include statistical uncertainty only, and the horizontal dashed line indicates 1 event/bin. The other extra dimensional gravity parameter, the Planck mass $`M_S`$, is chosen to be $`1TeV`$ for the Tevatron and $`7TeV`$ for the LHC. There is a large excess of events at high $`p__T`$, and it is clear that the exclusion limits possible far exceed the values of $`M_S`$ chosen to produce Figure 1.

The search/exclusion limits possible at the Tevatron are $`M_S=3.1TeV`$ ($`2.6TeV`$) for $`\delta =3`$ (4), while the limits at the LHC are $`20.8TeV`$ ($`17.4TeV`$). Similar limits are possible using $`p__T^2`$ and $`\tau `$ distribution; the limits for these observables are only a few 10s of $`GeV`$ lower. The other observables mentioned above ($`\chi `$, $`\eta `$, $`M_{jj}`$, etc.) provide limits that are significantly lower than those from the $`p__T`$ distribution. The authors of Ref. dijet  chose one of the best possible observables on which to base their analysis.

The exclusion limits reported here are slightly higher than those in Ref. dijet , even for the $`\tau `$ distribution. This is almost certainly due to our use of a finer binning of observables in the distributions. Just as a distribution will give a higher $`\chi ^2`$ than a total cross section, a more finely binned distribution will give a higher $`\chi ^2`$ than a coarser binning, assuming sufficient event numbers. The binning used here for the $`p__T`$ distribution is rather coarse, so our results are, in a sense, conservative.

## III Conclusions

Due to the extremely high event rate, dijet production at hadron colliders is a favorite for searches for Physics Beyond the Standard Model. As shown originally by the authors of Ref. dijet , dijet production at the Tevatron and the LHC is very sensitive to virtual graviton exchange effects, as provided by extra dimensional gravity scenarios.

In this re-analysis, we studied a number of observables related to dijet production, and found that the $`p__T`$ distribution was more sensitive to virtual graviton effects than the $`\tau `$ distribution proposed by the authors of Ref. dijet , but only slightly more sensitive. A more thorough analysis, including a more realistic detector simulation and systematic effects, is required, but the more careful analysis will not change the fact that dijet production at hadron colliders will be an important probe of extra dimensional gravity models.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thank Tom Rizzo and Greg Landsburg for many helpful conversations and communications. This research was supported in part by the Commonwealth College and the Eberly College of Science of Penn State University.