text:
# U(1) Flavor Symmetry and Proton Decay in Supersymmetric Standard Model

## I Introduction

With particle contents and gauge symmetry of the standard model, nucleon decay may take place through non-renormalizable interaction. In fact, the gauge invariance allows dimension six operators with baryon and lepton number violation. They may be induced by exchange of X, Y gauge bosons and colored Higgs multiplets in a grand unified theory (GUT), or may just arise as non-renormalizable operators at a fundamental scale which we assume to be near the Planck scale. The operators of the latter origin are, however, suppressed by the Planck mass squared, and thus the nucleon decay induced by them is suppressed to a level where near future experiments will not be able to reach.

The situation is very different if one considers the supersymmetric (SUSY) extension of the Standard Model. Existence of superparticles allows gauge invariant dimension five operators which can induce nucleon decay after superparticle dressing . We assume $`R`$-parity conservation, and thus we do not consider the most dangerous dimension four operators. These operators are very dangerous because they are suppressed only by a single power of the Planck mass. In fact, for the superparticle masses around 1 TeV, present proton decay experiments constrain the mass scale of the dimension five operators much larger than the Planck mass, or in other words, their coefficients should be much smaller than unity when normalized by the Planck scale. This is indeed embarrassing if one believes the widely accepted argument on the generality that all operators which are allowed by symmetry should arise with order one coefficients. There are many attempts to explain the smallness of these generic dimension 5 operators. They include 1) imposing some symmetry such as the family symmetry , the discrete gauge symmetry , the Peccei-Quinn symmetry, the U$`(1)_A`$ symmetry and the $`R`$ symmetry , and 2) attributing to configurations of quarks and leptons in extra spatial dimensions.

In this paper, we shall re-examine the case of U(1) flavor symmetry and closely investigate how the nucleon decays can be (or cannot be) suppressed in the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). Furthermore, we will explore the correlation between the branching fractions and the family structure.

We will show that, unlike a typical SUSY SU(5) GUT, the proton decay modes containing charged lepton can have sizable branching ratios and the ratio of the $`\mu `$ mode and the $`e`$ mode may give us a crucial information on the neutrino mass generation. We will also study the proton life time. Keeping in mind that our argument based on the flavor symmetry contains uncertainties in coefficients of operators, we will argue that the case with vanishing charges for the Higgs doublets marginally survives the present proton decay bound. The constraint is relaxed for negative Higgs charges. We will briefly discuss how to generate higgsino mass $`\mu `$ in this case.

## II U(1) Flavor Symmetry and Charge Assignment

A hypothetical flavor symmetry is a symmetry to explain the Yukawa structure. Here we consider the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism in which we assign Froggatt-Nielsen U(1) charges $`q`$ to the MSSM superfields $`Q`$ and $`1`$ to the Froggatt-Nielsen field $`X`$. The U(1) symmetry is spontaneously broken when the $`X`$ field develops a vacuum expectation value. We define $`\lambda `$ as $`\lambda X/M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, with $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ being the Planck scale. In the MSSM, we have the following superpotential

$`W=y_U^{ij}Q_iU_j^CH_u+y_D^{ij}Q_iD_j^CH_d+y_E^{ij}E_i^CL_jH_d,`$ (1)
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$ are generation indices. $`y_U^{ij}`$ etc. are Yukawa couplings, whose magnitudes are governed by the U(1) symmetry

$`y_U^{ij}=f_U^{ij}\lambda ^{q_i+u_j^c+h_u},y_D^{ij}=f_D^{ij}\lambda ^{q_i+d_j^c+h_d},y_E^{ij}=f_E^{ij}\lambda ^{e_i^c+l_j+h_d}.`$ (2)
Here $`f_U^{ij}`$ etc. are somewhat arbitrary constants which are typically of order unity. In order to obtain physical masses and mixings, we must translate fields from a flavor basis into a mass basis through unitary matrices as

$`U_Q^{u\mathrm{T}}y_UU_U`$ $`=`$ $`diag(y_u,y_c,y_t),`$ (3)
$`U_Q^{d\mathrm{T}}y_DU_D`$ $`=`$ $`diag(y_d,y_s,y_b),`$ (4)
$`U_E^\mathrm{T}y_LU_L`$ $`=`$ $`diag(y_e,y_\mu ,y_\tau ),`$ (5)
from which we obtain the CKM matrix as $`V_{\mathrm{KM}}=U_Q^uU_Q^d`$.

Following the conventional wisdom, we identify $`\lambda `$ with the Wolfenstein parameter $`\lambda 0.22`$, and determine the U($`1`$) charges of the MSSM fields. The experimental values of the masses and mixings near the Planck scale are approximated as

$`V_{us}`$ $``$ $`\lambda ,V_{cb}\lambda ^2,V_{ub}\lambda ^3,`$ (6)
and

$`m_u:m_c:m_t`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^8:\lambda ^4:1,`$ (7)
$`m_d:m_s:m_b`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^4:\lambda ^2:1,`$ (8)
$`m_e:m_\mu :m_\tau `$ $``$ $`\lambda ^5:\lambda ^2:1.`$ (9)
In this paper, we will consider the following class of charge assignments:

$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`q_3+3,q_2=q_3+2,`$ (10)
$`u_1^c`$ $`=`$ $`u_3^c+p,u_2^c=u_3^c+2,`$ (11)
$`e_1^c`$ $`=`$ $`e_3^c+rnm,e_2^c=e_3^c+2n,`$ (12)
$`d_1^c`$ $`=`$ $`d_3^c+1,d_2^c=d_3^c,`$ (13)
$`l_1`$ $`=`$ $`l_3+n+m,l_2=l_3+n,`$ (14)
where $`n,m,p`$ and $`r`$ are integers with $`0n2,0m5n,3p5`$ and $`4r5.`$ Here, eq.(10) is dictated by the magnitudes of the CKM matrix elements, eq.(11) and eq.(13) are obtained from the up- and down-type quark mass ratios and the mixings, and eq.(12) and eq.(14) are determined by the charged lepton mass hierarchy. Uncertainty of the coefficients $`f_U^{ij}`$ etc. allows some ambiguities of the charges, which are parameterized by $`p`$ and $`r`$. Furthermore it follows from the fact that $`m_bm_\tau `$ and $`y_t1`$

$`q_3+d_3^c=e_3^c+l_3,q_3+u_3^c+h_u=0.`$ (15)
The parameters $`m`$ and $`n`$ are determined by the oscillation of the atmospheric and solar neutrinos. Here we assume that the see-saw mechanism operates to generate neutrino masses and mixings. The overall scale of the neutrino masses is fixed by the scale of lepton number violation, and the ratio of the masses as well as the mixing angles are controlled by the U(1) charges. We will consider the following two cases, both of which reproduce the bimaximal mixing angles:
i) the lopsided type

$`n=0,m=1,`$ (16)
and
ii) the anarchical type

$`n=0,m=0,`$ (17)
with the right-handed neutrinos having appropriate U(1) charges.

To make our argument explicit, we will consider the following two types of charge assignment.

1) best-fit charge assignment
In the first type of charge assignment, we take

$`p=5,r=5,n=0,m=0\mathrm{or}1,`$ (18)
in eqs. (10)–(14). We call this assignment the best-fit one. Notice that it is not consistent with the GUT symmetry where the $`Q`$ and $`U^C`$, for instance, are in a single multiplet and thus have a common U(1) charge.

2) GUT-inspired charge assignment
The second type of charge assignment we will discuss is the one consistent with the SU(5) GUT. Specifically we consider

$`q_i`$ $`=`$ $`u_i^c=e_i^c,q_1=q_3+3,q_2=q_3+2,(p=3,r=4),`$ (19)
$`d_i^c`$ $`=`$ $`l_i,d_1^c=d_3^c+1,d_2^c=d_3^c(n=0,m=1).`$ (20)
The charge assignment for $`u^c`$ would predict the up-quark Yukawa coupling of $`\lambda ^6`$, much larger than the actual value. Thus in this scheme, the small up-quark mass should be attributed to either accidentally small coefficients $`f_U^{i1}`$ of order $`\lambda ^2`$ or the cancellation between the matrix elements.

## III Proton Decay

Now we would like to discuss proton decay. Gauge invariance allows the dimension five operators in the superpotential, which break the baryon number as well as the lepton number conservation and are divided into an LLLL part and an RRRR part:

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}C_L^{ijkl}Q_iQ_jQ_kL_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}C_R^{ijkl}E_i^CU_j^CU_k^CD_l^C.`$ (21)
Here $`C_L^{ijkl}`$ and $`C_R^{ijkl}`$ are some coefficients, and $`M`$ denotes the fundamental scale of the theory, which we identify with the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. If these coefficient were of order unity, they would cause proton decay with life time several magnitudes shorter than the present experimental bound. In the framework of the Froggatt-Nielsen U(1) symmetry, we expect suppression

$`C_L^{ijkl}`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^{q_i+q_j+q_k+l_l}(y_U^{ij}y_D^{kl}\lambda ^{h_uh_d}\lambda ^{q_ju_j^c+l_ld_l^c}),`$ (22)
$`C_R^{ijkl}`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^{e_i^c+u_j^c+u_k^c+d_l^c}(y_U^{ij}y_D^{kl}\lambda ^{h_uh_d}\lambda ^{e_i^cq_i+u_k^cq_k}).`$ (23)
Here we have omitted constants in front of the powers of $`\lambda `$. It is interesting to note here that the proton decay is suppressed if the sum of the two Higgs charges is negative, $`h_u+h_d<0`$. We will come back to this point later on.

After wino and higgsino dressing,§§§ We assume that flavor mixings in the quark-squark-gluino interactions are small enough to avoid the dangerous flavor changing processes, and simply ignore gluino dressing diagrams in this paper. If these generation mixings are sizable, the gluino dressing diagrams give considerable contributions to proton decay . we obtain proton decay amplitudes   Proton decay to pion suffers from Cabbibo suppression, and thus we will not consider it in this paper.

$`Amp(pK^+\overline{\nu }_e)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}(A_1^1+A_2^1),`$ (24)
$`Amp(pK^+\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}(A_1^2+A_2^2),`$ (25)
$`Amp(pK^+\overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}(A_1^3+A_2^3+A_3+A_4),`$ (26)
where  $`C_L^{ijkl}`$ in eqs. (27) and (28) should be replaced by $`C_L^{mnpq}(U_Q^u)_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}(U_Q^u)_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}(U_Q^u)_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(U_L)_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}`$. However, since the off-diagonal elements of the mixing matrices are suppressed by some powers of $`\lambda `$ (including $`\lambda ^0`$), we deduce that $`C_L^{mnpq}(U_Q^u)_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}(U_Q^u)_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}(U_Q^u)_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(U_L)_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}C_L^{ijkl}`$ in this framework. The same argument is applied to $`C_R`$.

$`A_1^kg_2^2V_{cd}V_{cs}C_L^{221k},`$ (27)
$`A_2^kg_2^2V_{td}V_{ts}C_L^{331k},`$ (28)
$`A_3y_ty_\tau V_{ts}C_R^{3311},`$ (29)
$`A_4y_ty_\tau V_{td}C_R^{3312}.`$ (30)
In eqs. (27) and (28), we have omitted other contributions proportional to $`C_L^{112k},C_L^{113k},\mathrm{}`$, which are of the same order as the terms explicitly written there. In eqs. (24) – (26) $`f`$ represents a loop factor, $`f1/(16\pi ^2m_{\mathrm{SUSY}})`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is a representative sparticle mass scale. Degeneracy of the squark and slepton masses in different generations is implicitly assumed in the above evaluation. That is, we do not consider the so-called effective supersymmetry where the squarks and sleptons in the first two generations are very heavy.

The amplitudes of the decay $`nK^0\overline{\nu }`$ are the same as those of $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ up to factors of order unity.

Using a numerical relation

$`y_ty_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_tm_\tau }{2m_W^2}}g_2^2\left(\mathrm{tan}\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^2g_2^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mathrm{tan}\beta 3`$ (31)
at the Z-boson mass scale, we can rewrite the coefficients $`A`$ as

$`A_1^k`$ $``$ $`A_2^kg_2^2y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d+\delta +8+(l_kl_3)},`$ (32)
$`A_3`$ $``$ $`A_4g_2^2y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d\delta +5+p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{2}},`$ (33)
where $`\delta 2q_3u_3^ce_3^c`$. Notice that the $`\delta `$ dependence of the LLLL operators and that of the RRRR operators are inverse.

As for charged lepton modes, we obtain

$`Amp(pK^0e^+)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}A_5^1,`$ (34)
$`Amp(pK^0\mu ^+)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}A_5^2,`$ (35)
where

$`A_5^k=g_2^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_L^{11ik}V_{is}g_2^2y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d+\delta +8+(l_kl_3)}.`$ (36)
Since the proton cannot decay to the tau lepton, the decay amplitudes do not contain the third generation down-type Yukawa coupling constant. Therefore, contributions from the RRRR operators to the charged lepton modes are negligible.

### A Branching Ratios

Let us first argue the branching ratios of the proton decay. When the LLLL operators dominate in the decay modes to the neutrinos, we find from the above consideration

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0l_k^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu }_k)}}O(1),(k=1,2).`$ (37)
Thus, we predict that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0e^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })}}\lambda ^{2(n+m)},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0\mu ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })}}\lambda ^{2n},`$ (38)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })=_k\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu }_k)`$ is the decay width into three types of the neutrinos. In particular, for $`n=0`$, which is strongly suggested by the large mixing between $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, we conclude that the decay rate of the muon mode is comparable to that of the neutrino mode. Furthermore, the decay rate to the electron is controlled by the U(1) charge of the $`l_1`$, and thus we may be able to distinguish the anarchical type assignment for the leptons from the lopsided one by measuring the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0e^+)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0\mu ^+)`$.

This consequence is a striking contrast to the case of the minimal SU(5) SUSY GUT in which the proton decay operators are induced by exchanging the colored Higgs multiplets. In fact, in the SU(5) case the charged lepton modes are negligibly suppressed. This is because the decay amplitudes into the charged leptons are proportional to the very small up-quark mass, while those into the neutrinos can be proportional to the charm- or top-quark mass.

On the other hand, when the RRRR operators are dominant, the proton mainly decays through $`pK^+\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. Thus we expect

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0e^+,K^0\mu ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })}}O(1).`$ (39)
Which of the operators, LLLL or RRRR, dominates depends on the charges one assumes. When we take the best-fit charge assignment, $`l_2l_3=0`$ and $`p=5`$, whereas $`\delta `$ is a parameter which is not fixed. Then, for

$$\delta 0.90.3\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\beta /3),$$
(40)
the LLLL contributions dominate over the RRRR ones.

In the GUT-inspired case, $`l_2l_3=0,p=3`$ and $`\delta =0`$.\**\**\** If the theory is really embedded into a GUT group, one has to take into account the contribution from the colored Higgs exchange. In the GUT framework, our argument given here is valid when some mechanism operates to suppress the proton decays mediated by the colored Higgses and thus the genuine dimension five operators controlled by the flavor symmetry are the dominant sources of the proton decay. The suppression mechanisms of the proton decay operators coming from the exchange of the colored Higgses have been proposed, for instance, in Refs. . See also Ref.  and references therein. It follows from eq.(33) that for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the LLLL amplitudes are of the same order as the RRRR amplitudes. Thus, we expect that the muon mode is comparable to the neutrino mode and the electron mode is suppressed by $`\lambda ^2`$. Namely,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0\mu ^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })}}1,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0e^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu })}}\lambda ^2(\mathrm{tan}\beta 3).`$ (41)
On the contrary, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the RRRR contributions are enhanced and thus the neutrino mode, $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$, dominates.

### B Decay Rates

Next we will derive constraints on the charge assignment of the MSSM fields from the null results of the proton decay searches. In the framework we are considering, the decay rates for the modes $`pK^+\overline{\nu },K^0e^+,K^0\mu ^+`$ and $`nK^0\overline{\nu }`$ can be comparable in magnitudes. However, since the most severe experimental constraint comes from the decay mode $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$, all we have to do is to study this mode.

The partial decay rate for the mode $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ is calculated as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu }){\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{32\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{K^+}^2}{m_p^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|R_L\beta _pAmp_{Lk}+R_R\alpha _pAmp_R\delta _{k3}|^2\right),`$ (42)
where

$`Amp_{Lk}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}g_2^2y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d+\delta +8+(l_kl_3)},`$ (43)
$`Amp_R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M}}g_2^2y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d\delta +5+p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{2}}.`$ (44)
Here, $`m_p`$ and $`m_{K^+}`$ are the masses of proton and $`K^+`$ respectively, $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, $`R_{L,R}`$ represent renormalization effects of LLLL and RRRR operators from $`M`$ to $`1\text{GeV}`$, and $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$ are the hadronic matrix element parameters. Hereafter, for simplicity we fix the parameters as $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1\text{TeV},|\alpha _p|=0.015\text{GeV}^3,|\beta _p|=0.014\text{GeV}^3\text{[33]},R_L=10.2`$ and $`R_R=6.5.`$ †††††† $`R_{L,R}`$ are evaluated by solving one-loop renormalization group equations due to gauge interactions from a high energy scale ($`2\times 10^{16}\text{GeV}`$) to $`1\text{GeV}`$. Inclusion of the Yukawa couplings and effects above this high energy scale do not qualitatively change our results.

For the best-fit charge assignment, in order not to conflict with the experimental bound $`\tau (pK^+\overline{\nu })>1.9\times 10^{33}\text{yr}`$ , the U(1) charges must satisfy the following inequalities:

$`y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d+\delta +8}`$ $``$ $`4.2\times 10^8,`$ (45)
$`y_ty_b\lambda ^{h_uh_d\delta +10}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{2}}`$ $``$ $`6.2\times 10^8.`$ (46)
Substituting the approximate values $`m_t110\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_b1.0\text{GeV}`$ near the Planck scale, the above are rewritten as

$`\lambda ^{h_uh_d+\delta }\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $``$ $`2.1,`$ (47)
$`\lambda ^{h_uh_d\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{2}}`$ $``$ $`64.`$ (48)
Thus, we obtain

$`h_u+h_d`$ $``$ $`0.2+\delta 0.7\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\beta /3),`$ (49)
$`h_u+h_d`$ $``$ $`1.8\delta 1.3\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\beta /3).`$ (50)
The proton decay constraint is relaxed most when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 3`$ and $`\delta =1`$, which gives the upper bound

$`h_u+h_d1,`$ (51)
and hence we find that the case $`h_u+h_d=0`$ survives the proton decay constraint for very low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. On the other hand, for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the sum of the two Higgs charges must be negative for any choice of $`\delta `$ to satisfy the proton decay bound.

For the GUT-inspired case where $`\delta =0`$ and $`p=3`$, the constraints on the Higgs charges are modified as

$`h_u+h_d`$ $``$ $`0.20.7\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\beta /3),`$ (52)
$`h_u+h_d`$ $``$ $`0.31.3\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\beta /3).`$ (53)
Enhancement of the RRRR contributions arises from the fact that difference between $`u_1^c`$ and $`u_3^c`$ is smaller than that in the best-fit case. Thus we conclude that the charge assignment $`h_u+h_d=0`$ is marginally allowed for very small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In deriving the constraints above, one has to keep in mind that there are some uncertainties in evaluating the proton decay rate. They include

1. The coefficients of the proton-decay dimension five operators which have been set order unity may be accidentally small, like $`m_u`$ in the GUT-inspired case.
2. There are some uncertainties in $`\alpha _p`$ and $`\beta _p`$. Taking the smallest allowed values for them, the proton decay amplitudes become five times smaller than our estimate.
3. We have taken the representative sparticle mass $`m_{SUSY}=1`$ TeV. However, it becomes larger and the proton decay gets suppressed if we adopt smaller wino and higgsino masses and larger squark and slepton masses.

These could reduce the proton decay rate, and then the constraints for the Higgs charges obtained above would become somewhat relaxed.

On the other hand, negative charge assignment for the Higgs doublets  survives the proton decay constraint in a wider region of the parameter space as the proton decay rate is reduced by $`\lambda ^{2(h_u+h_d)}`$.

## IV $`\mu `$ Parameter

Here we would like to make a brief comment on the higgsino mixing parameter $`\mu `$ when $`h_u+h_d`$ is negative. In this case, neither the term $`[\mu H_uH_d]_{\theta ^2}`$ nor $`[\mu ^{}(X/M_{\mathrm{pl}})^nH_uH_d]_{\theta ^2}`$ (with $`n>0`$) is invariant under the Froggatt-Nielsen U(1) symmetry. Thus the generation of the $`\mu `$ term is somewhat contrived. Consider the Giudice-Masiero mechanism  with the term $`[Z^{}/M_{\mathrm{pl}}(X^{}/M_{\mathrm{pl}})^{(h_u+h_d)}H_uH_d]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$. This gives the $`\mu `$ term of $`F_Z^{}/M_{\mathrm{pl}}\lambda ^{(h_u+h_d)}m_{3/2}\lambda ^{|h_u+h_d|}`$. This is much smaller than the electroweak scale unless the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$ is large. This is, in fact, the case in, e.g. anomaly mediation where $`m_{3/2}`$ is around a few tens TeV. Thus as far as $`\lambda ^{|h_u+h_d|}10^2`$, we obtain the weak scale $`\mu `$ parameter. However, the Higgs mixing parameter, $`B`$, is not suppressed and in general as heavy as $`m_{3/2}`$. Then we will have difficulty in obtaining the correct electroweak symmetry breaking.

A possible mechanism is to introduce a singlet $`S`$ with a positive U(1) charge so that $`[SH_uH_d]_{\theta ^2}`$ is invariant under the flavor symmetry. It is assumed that $`S`$ field does not have a VEV in the SUSY limit. SUSY breaking generally generates a VEV of $`S`$, which is nothing but the $`\mu `$ . An explicit realization was given in Ref. , where the charges of relevant fields should be adjusted to obtain the $`\mu `$ parameter of correct order of magnitude. Thus the choice of a negative $`h_u+h_d`$ does not immediately cause trouble to generate the $`\mu `$ parameter, though the way to do is rather restricted.

## V Conclusions and discussion

In this paper, we have considered the proton decay when the dimension five operators are controlled by the U(1) flavor symmetry. We have shown that the charged lepton decay modes can have sizable branching ratios when the LLLL operators dominate over the RRRR ones. In this case, measurement of the branching ratio of the $`e`$ mode and the $`\mu `$ mode will provide an important information on the charges for the doublet leptons and thus reveal how the neutrino masses are generated. On the other hand, if the RRRR operators are the main sources of the proton decay, the neutrino mode dominates in the proton decay. We have also investigated the proton decay rate and showed that the proton-decay suppression due to the U(1) flavor symmetry marginally survives the present proton decay bound even when the Higgs doublets do not have the U(1) charges. The bound is less severe, if we take negative charges of the Higgs doublets.

We have made several assumptions in deriving the conclusions drawn above. Firstly we have assumed that non-renormalizable operators are suppressed by the four-dimensional Planck scale. However, there are many models in which the fundamental scale is lower than the Planck scale. In this case, it is natural to expect that the proton-decay dimension five operators are suppressed only by this low fundamental scale and hence the proton decay rate is considerably enhanced. To survive the present experimental bound, one needs to assign the negative U(1) charges to the Higgs doublets in this case. Arguments on the branching ratios remain unchanged.

Another important assumption we have made is the degeneracy of the squark and slepton masses in different generations. Let us consider the case where the superparticles of the first two generations are heavy, which is realized when an anomalous U(1) flavor symmetry also mediates SUSY breaking. In this scheme, as far as the scalar tops $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{L,R}`$ and the right-handed scalar tau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ are light like in the case of GUTs, the amplitudes of the LLLL operators are greatly suppressed while those of the RRRR operators remain unsuppressed . Thus, one finds that $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ tends to dominate over $`K^0e^+,K^0\mu ^+`$ modes. On the contrary, when only $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{L,R}`$ are light, the RRRR operators are suppressed to the same extent of the LLLL operators. Therefore, the discussions about the branching ratios are not altered.

## Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, priority area (#707) “Supersymmetry and unified theory of elementary particles,” and in part by the Grants-in-aid No.11640246 and No.12047201.


format: text

text:
# Formation of longitudinal structures in granular flows

\[

## Abstract

In the framework of the theory of partially fluidized granular flows we study the formation of longitudinal structures observed experimentally by Forterre and Pouliquen in a flow down a rough inclined plane. We show that the formation of longitudinal structures is related to the positive feedback between the fluidization rate and the lateral stress (side pressure), which leads to a convective instability. Our theory explains main experimental features, such as appearance and amplification of the structure at some distance from the outlet and non-stationary behavior of the structures.

\]

The dynamics of granular media has been an active area of research for physicists  and engineers . One of the most interesting phenomena pertinent to many granular systems is the transition from a static equilibrium to a granular flow. There has been a number of experimental studies of flows in large sandpiles as well as in thin layers of grains on inclined surfaces . Recent experiments with granular flows on a rough inclined plane revealed a new striking phenomenon: formation of non-stationary longitudinal structures at some distance downstream from an outlet . Authors of  proposed an explanation of the instability mechanism based on analogy with thermal convection in fluids: a rapid shear granular flow leads to the increase of the granular temperature near the rough bottom. Because of the intrinsic dissipative nature of collisions between particles, the granular temperature should decay away from the bottom, creating necessary conditions for the “thermal granular convection” (cf. ). Using hydrodynamic equations obtained from the kinetic theory for dilute granular gases, this instability was studied analytically and numerically . Although shear flow activated thermal granular convection could be a useful concept for the interpretation of experimental results, the theory  did not address two important observations: (1) experiments as well as simulations  show that fluctuations of velocity are more significant near the free surface of the granular flow, and so the granular temperature may in fact be higher at the top rather than at the bottom, (2) longitudinal structures appear at some distance downstream from the outlet and exhibit complex spatio-temporal dynamics.

In this Letter we demonstrate that the observed transverse instability can be described within the framework of the continuum theory of partially fluidized flows proposed by us in Refs. without invoking the concept of granular temperature more appropriate for dilute gas-like granular flows. In this theory, we introduce an equation for the order parameter which characterizes the phase state of the granular matter. In a certain range of parameters, the shear flow described by these equations, is unstable with respect to transverse perturbations. We show that this instability is of convective nature, i.e. small perturbations grow downstream while remaining small in the laboratory frame. Thus, the “rolls” appear at some finite distance from the outlet. This distance depends on the noise level and flow conditions. Since the pattern structure is determined by random fluctuations near the outlet, the resulting pattern is always non-stationary in the laboratory frame, very similar to that observed experimentally.

Model. The starting point of our theory is the momentum conservation equation

$$\rho _0Dv_i/Dt=\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{x_j}+\rho _0g_i,j=1,2,3.$$
(1)
where $`v_i`$ are the components of velocity, $`\rho _0=const`$ is the density of material (in the following we set $`\rho _0=1`$), $`𝐠`$ is acceleration of gravity, and $`D/Dt=_t+v_i_{x_i}`$ denotes the material derivative. Since the relative density fluctuations are small, the velocity obeys the incompressibility condition $`𝐯=0`$. The stress tensor is represented as a sum of the hydrodynamic part proportional to the flow strain rate and the strain-independent part,

$$\sigma _{ij}=\eta \left(\frac{v_i}{x_j}+\frac{v_j}{x_i}\right)+\sigma _{ij}^s,$$
(2)
where $`\eta `$ has the meaning of the viscosity coefficient. At this point we introduce the order parameter (OP) $`\rho `$ which describes the “phase state” of the granular matter: it varies from 0 in the “liquid” phase to 1 in the “solid” phase. We interpret the OP as the relative local density of static contacts among the grains. In the solid state ($`\rho =1`$) the strain-independent part should coincide with the “true” static stress tensor $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$ for the immobile grain configuration in the same geometry, and in the completely fluidized state ($`\rho =0`$) we should have $`\sigma _{ij}^s=\mathrm{\Pi }\delta _{ij}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the hydrodynamic pressure). According to our assumption, the off-diagonal elements of the strain-independent part of the stress tensor obey the conditions $`\sigma _{ij}^s=\rho \sigma _{ij}^0`$ for $`ij`$. In the solid state the normal stresses $`\sigma _{ii}^0`$ do not in general coincide. For the weakly-fluidized state ($`\rho 1`$) the normal stresses are close to the static values, however some dependence on the order parameter $`\rho `$ (i.e. degree of fluidization) may appear. In the first order in $`1\rho `$ one writes for the diagonal elements of the stress tensor

$$\sigma _{ii}^s=\sigma _{ii}^0+\alpha _i(1\rho )+O((1\rho )^2)$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _i`$ characterizes the response of the normal stresses on fluidization. Since fluidization is accompanied by the decrease in the number of static contacts among granules (i.e. dilution), the normal stresses should decrease with fluidization, i.e. $`\alpha _i>0`$. It also agrees with the observation in Ref.  that the crests of the surface deformations correspond to a more dilute granular state.

According to Ref., the equation for the order parameter $`\rho `$ is taken in the form

$$\dot{\rho }+v\rho =^2\rho +\rho (1\rho )(\rho \delta ),$$
(4)
where $`\delta =(\varphi \varphi _0)/(\varphi _1\varphi _0)`$ is the control parameter, $`\varphi =\mathrm{max}|\sigma _{mn}^0/\sigma _{nn}^0|`$ is the maximum ratio of shear to normal stresses in the bulk, and $`\mathrm{tan}^1\varphi _{1,2}`$ are static and dynamic repose angles characterizing the granular material. Parameter $`\varphi `$ which enters the Mohr-Coloumb yield condition, in the context of our theory is equivalent to a melting temperature in the theory of phase transition.

Following the analysis of Ref. , we consider a layer of dry cohesionless grains on an inclined rough surface (see Fig.1). However, now we assume that the layer thickness $`h`$ can vary in both $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The momentum conservation equation (1) in the stationary regime yields the force balance conditions

$`\sigma _{xz,x}+\sigma _{yz,y}+\sigma _{zz,z}`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$ (5)
$`\sigma _{xx,x}+\sigma _{xy,y}+\sigma _{xz,z}`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$ (6)
$`\sigma _{xy,x}+\sigma _{yy,y}+\sigma _{yz,z}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
where the subscripts after commas mean partial derivatives, and $`z=0`$ corresponds to the bottom of the layer. We assume that variations of the layer thickness along the $`y`$ direction are small. Accordingly, there will be a small component of velocity along $`y`$ direction and corresponding stress components $`\sigma _{yz}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$. In the avalanche problem considered in Ref.  these terms were irrelevant. We show later that the transverse flux is crucial for the explanation of longitudinal structures.

In the first order in $`h_x,h_y`$ Eqs. (5)-(7) yield

$`\sigma _{zz}`$ $``$ $`g\mathrm{cos}\phi (zh),\sigma _{xz}g\mathrm{sin}\phi (zh),`$ (8)
$`\sigma _{yz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _z^h}𝑑z\sigma _{yy,y}.`$ (9)
Here we used the conditions $`\sigma _{xx}=const,\sigma _{xy}=const`$ and $`\sigma _{zz}=\sigma _{xz}=\sigma _{yz}=0`$ on free surface $`z=h`$.

For the chute geometry Fig. 1 parameter $`\delta `$ in Eq. (4) can be specified. For $`h=const`$ there is a simple relation between shear and normal stresses, $`\sigma _{xz}=\mathrm{tan}\phi \sigma _{zz}`$. The most “unstable” yield direction is parallel to the inclined plane, i.e. $`\varphi =|\sigma _{xz}/\sigma _{zz}|`$ and $`\delta =\delta _0=(\mathrm{tan}\phi \varphi _0)/(\varphi _1\varphi _0)`$. If $`h`$ is a slowly varying function of $`x`$ and $`y`$, one obtains for the parameter $`\delta `$:

$$\delta =\delta _0\beta h_x+O(h_x^2,h_y^2)$$
(10)
where $`\beta =1/(\varphi _1\varphi _0)`$ (see  for more details).

Thin layer solutions of Eq. (4) for the chute geometry Fig. 1 are subject to the following boundary conditions (BC): no-flux condition $`\rho _z=0`$ at the free surface $`z=h`$, and no-slip condition $`\rho =1`$ at the bottom of the chute $`z=0`$ (a granular medium is assumed to be in a solid phase near the rough surface). The velocity profiles corresponding to a stationary profile of $`\rho (z)`$, can be easily found from Eq. (2),(3),

$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{v_x}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`g\mathrm{sin}\phi (zh)\rho \sigma _{xz}^0=g\mathrm{sin}\phi (1\rho )(zh),`$ (11)
$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{v_y}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _z^h}\alpha _y_y\rho dz`$ (12)
In the derivation of Eq. (12) we used $`\sigma _{yz}^s=0`$ for a flat layer. The components of the flux $`𝐉=_0^h𝐯(z)𝑑z`$ are

$`J_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\eta }}{\displaystyle _0^h}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^z}(1\rho (z^{}))(z^{}h)𝑑z^{}`$ (13)
$`J_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _y}{\eta }}{\displaystyle _0^h}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑z^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle _{z^{\prime \prime }}^h}_y\rho dz^{}`$ (14)
For thin weakly-fluidized layers (see ), we can look for solution of Eq.(4) in the form

$$\rho =1A\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2h}z\right)+\text{h.o.t.},$$
(15)
where $`A1`$ is a slowly varying function of $`t,x`$, and $`y`$. Substituting ansatz (15) into Eq. (4) and applying orthogonality conditions ), we obtain

$$A_t=\mathrm{\Lambda }A+_{}^2A+\frac{8(2\delta )}{3\pi }A^2\frac{3}{4}A^3\overline{\mu }h^2A_xA$$
(16)
where $`_{}^2=_x^2+_y^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\delta 1\frac{\pi ^2}{4h^2}`$, $`\overline{\mu }=(3\pi ^216)g\mathrm{sin}\phi /3\pi ^3\eta =0.146g\mathrm{sin}\phi /\eta `$. The mass conservation yields

$$\frac{h}{t}=𝐉=_xJ_x_yJ_y$$
(17)
where the flux components $`J_{x,y}`$ calculated from Eq. (14) in the thin layer approximation, are

$`J_x=\mu h^3A,J_y=\alpha _1h^2Ah_y+\alpha _2h^3A_y`$ (18)
$`\mu =2(\pi ^28)g\mathrm{sin}\phi /\eta \pi ^30.12g\mathrm{sin}\phi /\eta `$, $`\alpha _1=\alpha _y(\pi ^3+8\pi 48)/2\pi ^3\eta 0.13\alpha _y/\eta `$, $`\alpha _2=8\alpha _y/\pi ^3\eta 0.26\alpha _y/\eta `$.

Our model has two control parameters, the downhill mass flux $`J_0`$ at the outlet $`x=0`$, and $`\delta `$. For large enough $`J_0`$ and $`\delta `$, Eqs. (16),(17) possess a steady-state solution $`A=A_0,h=h_0`$ (see Fig.2). The stability of this solution can be examined by substituting the ansatz $`\{A,h\}=\{A_0,h_0\}+\{\zeta ,\xi \}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t+ik_xx+ik_yy)`$, where $`\{\zeta ,\xi \}`$ is a small perturbation. For long-wave perturbations ($`k_x,k_y1`$) in the leading order one obtains for the growth rate $`\lambda `$

$$\lambda =ik_x\mu h_0^2A_0+Bk_y^2+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
where $`B=\pi ^2\alpha _2[16(2\delta )/3\pi 3A_0]^1\alpha _1h_0^2A_0`$. As seen from Eq. (19), pure longitudinal perturbations $`k_y=0`$ are neutrally stable, but for $`B>0`$ the perturbations with transverse component of the wave number can be unstable. For pure transverse perturbations ($`k_x=0`$) the instability is aperiodic ($`\lambda `$ is real), as in thermo-convection in ordinary fluids. The physical meaning of the instability is the following: decrease of $`\rho `$ (increase of fluidization) corresponds to the decrease of the lateral pressure ($`\sigma _{yy}`$) which in turns lead to the increase of the height $`h`$ and further fluidization. The phase diagram of the instability on $`\delta J_0`$ plane is shown in Fig. 2. The transverse instability exists in the band restricted from above by the condition $`B=0`$ and from below by the existence of steady-state solution .

Complexity of $`\lambda `$ and asymmetry of the problem in $`x`$-direction signal the possibility of the convective nature of the instability: the perturbations may grow in the moving frame and decay in the laboratory frame (see, e.g. ). As a test for convective instability one has to examine the value of $`\lambda `$ for the saddle point of the function $`\lambda (k_x,k_y)`$ in the complex $`k_x`$ plane, i.e. $`\lambda /k_x=0`$. In fact, it is easy to see that if the instability is weak (for $`\alpha _y1`$) and the downhill flux $`J_0`$ is finite, the instability has to be convective. In the presence of persistent fluctuations, e.g. at the flow outlet, the perturbation will be spatially amplified down the flow.

Let us estimate the spatial growth rate. Consider the unstable perturbations caused by a small stationary $`y`$-periodic force with wavenumber $`k_0`$ localized at $`x=0`$. Calculations show that the linearized solution $`\zeta `$ will be described by the integral

$$\zeta _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}[i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}]\frac{dk_x}{\lambda (𝐤)}\left(1\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (𝐤)t]\right)$$
(20)
The non-stationary part $`\mathrm{exp}[i\lambda (𝐤)t]`$ decays in time due to the convective character of the instability, and the integral yields

$$\zeta \mathrm{exp}[ik_0y+ik^{}x]$$
(21)
where $`k^{}`$ is found from $`\lambda (k_x=k^{},k_0)=0`$. It is easy to see from Eq.(19) that, for small $`k^0`$, $`k^{}iBk_0^2/\mu h_0^2A_0`$. Since $`k^{}`$ is imaginary, perturbations from a stationary source at $`x=0`$ grow exponentially downhill. For random perturbations introduced at the outlet the typical scale of the pattern will be determined by the most unstable wavenumber in the transverse direction. However, the pattern will remain non-stationary due to intrinsically random nature of the noise.

We studied Eqs. (16),(17) numerically. The simulations were performed in a large system, more than $`2000`$ dimensionless units in $`x`$-direction (downhill), and $`200`$ units in $`y`$-direction. Fixed flux boundary conditions were imposed at the outlet at $`x=0`$. Selected results are presented in Figs. 3,4. Figure 3 illustrates spatial amplification of perturbations downstream and formation of longitudinal structures. As it follows from our simulations, far away from the outlet the structures remain non-stationary and exhibit spatio-temporal dynamics which are very similar to observed in Ref. . The profiles of $`h`$ and $`A`$ vs $`y`$ are shown in Fig. 4. In agreement with experiment, crests in $`h`$ corresponds to crests in $`A`$, i.e. to more fluidized regions of flow.

We demonstrated that formation of longitudinal structures in granular flow down a rough inclined plane is the result of noise amplification and saturation due to the convective instability. The mechanism of the instability is related to the dependence of the local pressure on the fluidization rate controlled by the order parameter. We conjectured a simple linear relation between these quantities. It would be of interest to verify this relation in physical experiment and molecular dynamic simulations. The convective character of the instability suggests that the flow can be controlled by small systematic perturbations introduced at the outlet.

In recent paper , a novel fingering instability in a thin granular layer inside a horizontal rotating cylinder was reported. We believe that the nature of this instability fundamentally is the same as described here. The only important difference is that due to backflow the perturbation can propagate upstream, and thereby the convective instability becomes “global”. This may explain why this fingering instability occurs in a “short” system as compared with inclined layer experiment .

This research was supported by the Office of the Basic Energy Sciences at the US DOE, grants W-31-109-ENG-38 and DE-FG03-95ER14516. Simulations were performed at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.


text:
# Enhanced mesoscopic fluctuations in the crossover between random matrix ensembles

\[

## Abstract

In random-matrix ensembles that interpolate between the three basic ensembles (orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic), there exist correlations between elements of the same eigenvector and between different eigenvectors. We study such correlations, using a remarkable correspondence between the interpolating ensembles late in the crossover and a basic ensemble of finite size. In small metal grains or semiconductor quantum dots, the correlations between different eigenvectors lead to enhanced fluctuations of the electron-electron interaction matrix elements which become parametrically larger than the non-universal fluctuations.

\]

Random matrix theory has focused on the study of three ensembles of Hamiltonians: the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE), the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE), and the Gaussian Symplectic Ensemble (GSE). These describe the statistics of single-particle energy levels and wavefunctions of disordered metal grains or chaotic quantum dots with the corresponding symmetries; GUE if time-reversal symmetry is broken, and GOE or GSE if time-reversal symmetry is present and spin-rotation symmetry is present or absent, respectively. In these three basic ensembles, eigenvector elements are Gaussian complex/real/quaternion random numbers; elements of the same eigenvector and of different eigenvectors are all statistically independent .

Disordered or chaotic systems with partially broken symmetries show a variety of phenomena that go beyond a mere “interpolation” of descriptions based on the GOE, GUE, and GSE alone. For example, in a quantum dot, a weak magnetic field causes long-range wavefunction correlations  and a non-Gaussian distribution of “level velocities”, derivatives of energy levels with respect to, e.g., a shape change of the dot . Both effects are absent without a magnetic field (in the GOE), or when the magnetic field is strong enough to fully break time-reversal symmetry (in the GUE). In a metal grain, weak spin-orbit interaction induces mesoscopic fluctuations of the $`g`$-tensor , which does not fluctuate in either the GOE or the GSE. Further, as we’ll show below, in a weak magnetic field or for weak spin-orbit scattering, matrix elements of the electron-electron interaction exhibit fluctuations that are parametrically larger than in each of the three basic ensembles.

The underlying reason for these phenomena is that eigenvector elements are not independent in (random-matrix) ensembles that interpolate between the three basic symmetry classes: There exist both correlations within the same eigenvector  and, as we show in this letter, between different eigenvectors. To study the eigenvector correlations in such crossover ensembles, we will make use of a surprising relation between the eigenvector statistics late in the crossover from class A to class B and that of finite-sized matrices in class B (where B is the class of lower symmetry). Examples of such a relation were known for the statistics of a single eigenvector. For example, in the GOE-GUE crossover, which is described by the $`N\times N`$ random hermitian matrix (with $`N`$ taken to $`\mathrm{}`$ at the end of the calculation)

$$H_{\mathrm{OU}}(N,\alpha )=H_\mathrm{O}(N)+\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{N}}H_\mathrm{U}(N),$$
(1)
the distribution of the “phase rigidity” $`|𝒗^\mathrm{T}𝒗|^2`$  of a single eigenvector $`𝒗`$ is the same as in the finite-sized $`M\times M`$ GUE ensemble with $`M=2\alpha ^2`$ if $`\alpha `$ is large. In Eq. (1), $`H_\mathrm{O}(N)`$ and $`H_\mathrm{U}(N)`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices taken from the GOE and GUE, respectively, with equal variances for the matrix elements. A similar correspondence occurs for the $`g`$-tensor of a Kramers doublet in the GOE-GSE crossover . Our main finding is that such a correspondence extends to the correlations between different eigenvectors.

In this paper we will accomplish four tasks. (i) We show numerically that the relation

$$H_{\mathrm{OU}}(N,\alpha )H_\mathrm{U}(M),M=2\alpha ^2$$
(2)
between the GOE-GUE crossover Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{OU}}(\alpha )`$ for large $`\alpha `$ and $`N`$ and a finite-sized $`M\times M`$ GUE Hamiltonian extends to correlations between eigenvectors. Just as in critical phenomena, where simple power laws unfold into universal scaling functions as you flow away from the critical point, here a rich theory of correlations unfolds in the crossover region. We wish to point out that this principle applies not only to the GOE-GUE crossover, but also, e.g., to the GOE-GSE crossover, or to wavefunctions in two coupled quantum dots, which are described by a random Hamiltonian interpolating between two independent GUE’s and one GUE of double size . (ii) We show that, for large $`\alpha `$, the universality classes are actually curves in the $`(1/\alpha ,1/N)`$ plane, reminiscent of renormalization-group flow trajectories . (iii) We calculate correlations between eigenvectors, based on the surmise (2) and diagrammatic perturbation theory. (iv) We calculate how the inter-eigenvector correlations in the crossover region affect matrix elements of the electron-electron interaction in a quantum dot or metal grain in a weak magnetic field, and predict a significant enhancement of fluctuations compared to the basic ensembles.

Let us now consider the joint distribution $`P(\{𝒗_\mu \})`$ of $`n`$ eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu `$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},n`$, for the example of the GOE-GUE crossover Hamiltonian (1). Throughout the entire GOE-GUE crossover, the distribution of the eigenvectors is invariant under orthogonal transformations. As a consequence, the joint distribution $`P(\{𝒗_\mu \})`$ is completely determined by the distribution of the orthogonal invariants

$$\rho _{\mu \nu }=\rho _{\nu \mu }=𝒗_\mu ^\mathrm{T}𝒗_\nu ^{},\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(3)
where the superscript $`\mathrm{T}`$ denotes transposition. Hence

$`P(\{𝒗_\mu \})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{n}{}}d\rho _{\mu \nu }P(\{\rho _{\mu \nu }\})}`$ (5)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{n}{}}}\delta (𝒗_\mu ^{}𝒗_\nu \delta _{\mu \nu })\delta (𝒗_\mu ^\mathrm{T}𝒗_\nu \rho _{\mu \nu }).`$
For the physically relevant case of large $`N`$, Eq. (5) implies that the eigenvector elements $`𝒗_{\mu m}`$, $`m=1,\mathrm{},N`$, have a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and

$$v_{\mu m}^{}v_{\nu n}_\rho =N^1\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{mn},v_{\mu m}v_{\nu n}_\rho =\rho _{\mu \nu }\delta _{mn}.$$
(6)
The subscript $`\mathrm{}_\rho `$ indicates that the average is taken at fixed $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$. For the full ensemble average one has to perform a subsequent average over the $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ with the distribution $`P(\{\rho _{\mu \nu }\})`$. We can find $`P(\{\rho _{\mu \nu }\})`$ from the surmise that, for $`\alpha 1`$ and for eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu `$ whose energies are all inside a window of size $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being the level spacing of the Hamiltonian $`H(\alpha )`$, the joint distribution of the $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ is the same as for a GUE Hamiltonian of finite size $`M=2\alpha ^2`$. Thus the $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ are independently and Gaussian distributed with zero mean and with variance

$$|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2=(1+\delta _{\mu \nu })/M,M=2\alpha ^2.$$
(7)
Together, Eqs. (5)–(7) fix the joint distribution of eigenvectors in the crossover ensemble close to the GUE. For the single-eigenvector distribution, Eqs. (5)–(7) reproduce the $`\alpha 1`$ limit of the exact solution of Sommers and Iida . The fact that the phase rigidity $`|\rho _{\mu \mu }|^2`$ of a single eigenvector is a fluctuating quantity is the prime cause of the correlations between elements of one eigenvector ; It is the existence of nonzero and fluctuating $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ for $`\mu \nu `$ that causes the correlations between different eigenvectors.

We now proceed to present arguments in support of our surmise. We consider the eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,\mathrm{},n`$) with energies within a distance $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from a reference energy $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ref}}`$, sorting them by increasing energy. We then consider how each of these eigenvectors is built up from the eigenvectors $`𝒐_\nu `$ of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{O}`$. Contributions from eigenvectors $`𝒐_\nu `$ with energy $`\epsilon _\nu `$ far away from $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ref}}`$ can be described using perturbation theory in the crossover parameter $`\alpha `$. If the energy difference $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ref}}\epsilon _\nu `$ is sufficiently large, the admixture of $`𝒐_\nu `$ to any of the vectors $`𝒗_\mu (\alpha )`$ of interest is small and can be neglected. On the other hand, eigenvectors $`𝒐_\nu `$ with energy $`\epsilon _\nu `$ close to $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ref}}`$ contribute non-perturbatively for large $`\alpha `$. Upon increasing $`\alpha `$ from zero, the eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu (\alpha )`$ in this energy range have undergone several avoided crossings, and the unperturbed eigenvectors $`𝒐_\mu `$ have roughly equal weights in each of the vectors $`𝒗_\mu (\alpha )`$ in our set.

It is on this heuristic picture that our surmise for an effective description of the eigenvector statistics for large $`\alpha `$ is based: We only retain those eigenvectors of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{O}`$ that are relatively close in energy and hence all contribute roughly equally, see Fig. 1 for a cartoon. Since the time-reversal symmetry breaking perturbation in Eq. (1) is strong for these eigenvectors, the matrix elements between them form a random hermitian matrix of the GUE. Denoting the effective number of contributing unperturbed eigenvectors as $`M(\alpha )`$, we thus reduce the problem of finding the distribution of the orthogonal invariants $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ for the $`N\times N`$ crossover Hamiltonian (1) to that of finding the distribution of the $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ for the much smaller GUE Hamiltonian of size $`M(\alpha )`$. To calculate $`M(\alpha )`$ in terms of $`N`$ and $`\alpha `$, we turn to the exact solution for the single-eigenvector distribution obtained in Refs. , and find

$$M(\alpha )=\alpha ^2N(\alpha ^2+2N)/(\alpha ^2+N)^2.$$
(8)
For large $`N`$ this simplifies to $`M(\alpha )=2\alpha ^2`$, in agreement with Eq. (7).

By our surmise, the distribution of the orthogonal invariants should depend on the effective matrix size $`M(\alpha )`$ only, not on $`\alpha `$ and $`N`$ individually, as long as $`N`$ and $`\alpha `$ are large. We have verified this by numerical calculation of the averages $`|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2`$ for different points along a curve of constant $`M(\alpha )`$ in the $`(1/N,1/\alpha )`$ plane. The results of such a calculation are shown in Fig. 2 for $`\mu =\nu `$, for neighboring eigenvectors ($`\mu =\nu +1`$) and for next-nearest neighbors ($`\mu =\nu +2`$). We have also verified that the distribution of the $`\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ is indeed Gaussian (not shown).

The surmise (2) is expected to be valid as long as only eigenvectors taken from an energy window of width $`M(\alpha )\mathrm{\Delta }=2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are involved. If the energy differences between eigenvectors become of order $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or larger, the eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu (\alpha )`$ do not share the same unperturbed eigenvectors $`𝒐_\nu `$, and we thus expect that they become uncorrelated. A quantitative description of eigenvector correlations at energy separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be obtained using diagrammatic perturbation theory. The only nonzero second moment is $`|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2`$, which can be computed from

$`|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1,s_2=\pm }{}}s_1s_2`$ (10)
$`\times \text{tr}G^\mathrm{T}(\epsilon _\mu +is_1\delta )G(\epsilon _\nu +is_2\delta ).`$
where $`G(z)=1/(zH_{\mathrm{OU}})`$, $`\delta `$ is a positive infinitesimal, and the eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu `$ and $`𝒗_\nu `$ have energies $`\epsilon _\mu `$ and $`\epsilon _\nu `$, respectively. Calculating the averages using the technique of Ref. , we find, if $`\mu \nu `$,

$$|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2=\frac{2\alpha ^2}{4\alpha ^4+\pi ^2(\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu )^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2}.$$
(11)
A similar result for parametric correlations inside a basic random-matrix ensemble was derived in Ref. . The right panel of Fig. 1 shows $`|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2`$ as a function of $`\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu `$ and a numerical calculation of the same quantity.

The GOE-GUE crossover that we considered here describes the wavefunction statistics in, e.g., a chaotic quantum dot or a disordered metal grain in a weak magnetic field. Wavefunction distributions have immediate experimental relevance for the spacings, widths, and heights of Coulomb blockade peaks in the conductance of metal grains or quantum dots . Correlations between wavefunctions of neighboring energy levels cause correlations between the heights and widths of neighboring conductance peaks. Wavefunction distributions also influence the positions of Coulomb blockade peaks through their role in the distribution of electron-electron interaction matrix elements , which we now discuss in detail. The interaction matrix element $`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is defined as

$`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{r}_2U(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2)}`$ (13)
$`\times \varphi _\mu (\stackrel{}{r}_1)\varphi _\nu (\stackrel{}{r}_2)\varphi _\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_2)^{}\varphi _\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}_1)^{},`$
where $`U(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the electron-electron interaction potential and $`\varphi _\mu (\stackrel{}{r})`$ the wavefunction for an electron in level $`\epsilon _\mu `$. For example, the difference of interaction matrix elements $`U_{\mu \mu \nu \nu }U_{\mu \mu oo}`$ gives the spacing between peak positions corresponding to different nonequilibrium configurations (levels $`\nu `$ and $`o`$ unoccupied, respectively) in tunneling spectroscopy of small metal grains .

In a metal grain or quantum dot, the interaction can be approximated by an $`\stackrel{}{r}`$-independent part and a local interaction $`U^{\mathrm{loc}}(\stackrel{}{r})=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }V\delta (\stackrel{}{r})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing, $`V`$ is the sample volume, and $`\lambda `$ is a parameter of order unity governing the strength of the local interaction. The spatially constant interaction leads to a charging energy and does not show mesoscopic fluctuations. For the GOE (no magnetic field), the matrix elements of $`U^{\mathrm{loc}}`$ have an average given by

$`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(\delta _{\mu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \rho }+\delta _{\mu \rho }\delta _{\nu \sigma }+\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\rho \sigma }).`$ (14)
If time-reversal symmetry is broken by a magnetic field (i.e., in the GUE), the last term in Eq. (14) is left out . In both the GOE and GUE, fluctuations of the interaction matrix elements $`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}`$ and corrections to Eq. (14) are nonuniversal and small as (at most) $`g^{1/2}`$, where $`g`$ is the dimensionless conductance of the sample. Equation (14) can be reproduced from random-matrix theory if the wavefunctions $`\varphi _\mu (\stackrel{}{r})`$ are replaced by eigenvectors $`𝒗_\mu `$ and the integration over space is replaced by a summation over the vector indices.

How are the interaction matrix elements distributed in the presence of a weak magnetic field? If we are not interested in the non-universal ($`1/g`$) corrections, that question can be answered using the eigenvector distributions for the GOE-GUE crossover that we derived above. First, upon increasing the magnetic field, there is a gradual suppression of the last term in Eq. (14). However, as a result of gauge invariance (wave-functions can be multiplied with an arbitrary phase factor), the average of the last term in Eq. (14) is formally zero throughout the crossover if $`\mu \rho `$, and this effect only shows up in the fluctuations of $`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$. Second, the appearance of inter-eigenvector correlations enhances the average of all interaction matrix elements. Using Eq. (6), we find

$`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(\delta _{\mu \rho }\delta _{\nu \sigma }+\delta _{\mu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \rho }+\rho _{\mu \nu }\rho _{\rho \sigma }).`$ (15)
For large $`\alpha `$, the average $`\rho _{\mu \nu }\rho _{\rho \sigma }`$ can be done with the help of Eqs. (7) and (11), with the result

$`U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }(\delta _{\mu \rho }\delta _{\nu \sigma }+\delta _{\mu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \rho })`$ (17)
$`\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{4\alpha ^4+\pi ^2(\epsilon _\mu \epsilon _\nu )^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\right).`$
Third, the inter-eigenvector correlations enhance the fluctuations of the interaction matrix elements. This is best illustrated by the expectation value $`|U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }|^2`$ with all four indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\sigma `$ different,

$`|U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda \mathrm{\Delta })^2|\rho _{\mu \nu }|^2|\rho _{\rho \sigma }|^2=(\lambda \mathrm{\Delta })^2/(2\alpha ^2)^2.`$ (18)
The first equality in Eq. (18) holds for all $`\alpha `$, the second one only if $`\alpha 1`$ and the four eigenvalues $`\epsilon _\mu `$, $`\epsilon _\nu `$, $`\epsilon _\rho `$, $`\epsilon _\sigma `$ are within a distance $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of each other. We have numerically calculated $`|U_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{loc}}|^2`$ for four neighboring wavefunctions as a function of $`\alpha `$ throughout the entire GOE-GUE crossover, see Fig. 3.

Note that the enhanced fluctuations appear in matrix elements that are not commonly associated with the presence of time-reversal symmetry. Although the fluctuations are small if $`\alpha 1`$, they can be significantly larger than the non-universal fluctuations that vanish as $`g^2`$ \[for Eq. (18)\]. These extra large fluctuations can be an additional source of fluctuations of Coulomb-blockade peak positions, and may dominate over the non-universal sources of fluctuations.

The origin of the eigenvector correlations and the enhanced fluctuations of interaction matrix elements can be sought in the existence of the large parameter $`\alpha ^2`$ that plays a role similar to the dimensionless conductance $`g`$ in the pure ensembles. The parameter $`\alpha ^2`$ can be identified as the ratio of the Heisenberg time $`\tau _\mathrm{H}=2\pi \mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the time $`\tau _{\mathrm{OU}}`$ needed to acquire a flux quantum . Late in the crossover, GUE physics ranges from the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ up to the scale $`\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{OU}}`$. In the pure GUE, however, validity of random-matrix theory ceases only at the higher energy scale $`\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$ is the ergodic time. The role of the large parameter $`g=\tau _\mathrm{H}/\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$, which governs wavefunction correlations and interaction matrix element fluctuations in the “pure” GUE and GOE is thus played by $`\alpha ^2\tau _\mathrm{H}/\tau _{\mathrm{OH}}`$ in the GOE-GUE crossover.

We thank Yuval Oreg and Dan Ralph for discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grants no. DMR 0086509 and KDI 9873214 and by the Sloan and Packard foundations.


text:
# Parrondo Games and Quantum Algorithms

## Abstract

We pursue the possible connections between classical games and quantum computation. The Parrondo game is one in which a random combination of two losing games produces a winning game. We introduce novel realizations of this Parrondo effect in which the player can ‘win’ via random reflections and rotations of the state-vector, and connect these to known quantum algorithms.

The possibility of ‘winning by losing’ is obviously appealing. This was the idea behind the Brownian ratchet studied by Feynmann . Although one cannot ‘win’ against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a discrete-time version of this phenomenon can be interpreted as a gambling game. In particular, Parrondo and co-workers showed that two losing classical games, A and B, could be combined to create a winning game . In a separate development, the field of quantum games is currently attracting much attention because of the underlying theme of information processing . But of what possible use are such quantum games? It is hoped they might offer some deeper insight into quantum complexity and, specifically, the design of new quantum algorithms . However this hope is still little more than speculation.

In this paper, we consider the Parrondo effect in the quantum domain and provide an interesting connection between this phenomenon and known quantum algorithms. The Parrondo effect allows a player to profit from randomness (i.e. noise) - hence it has possible practical relevance in the stochastic control of quantum algorithms  and in controlling quantum decoherence . Two very different implementations of the Parrondo idea have recently been proposed for quantum games, with spatial state-dependence  and historical state-dependence . We note however that the latter implementation did not consider random switching between the two losing quantum games; moreover, neither implementation made an explicit connection to quantum algorithms. In this paper we make such a connection, by explicitly focussing on the effect of random rotations and reflections on the relevant state-vector.

We start by reviewing the Parrondo effect, but using a novel realization in terms of rotating vectors. Such a viewpoint makes sense given that our objective is to connect up with quantum algorithms: such quantum algorithms can be thought of geometrically in terms of rotation/reflection operations on the state-vector within the Bloch sphere . Comparing to previous realizations of classical Parrondo’s games, our rotating-vector realization produces a much higher winning rate for the combined game $`(AB)`$ even though the losing rates for games A and B are greater. This improvement is achieved at the expense of having to keep track of more states. We note that Parrondo games are one-person games, hence the present discussions only refer to ‘the player’ (in contrast to the quantum games of Refs. ).

Game A:  Consider a wheel with a vector drawn from the center to the circumference, i.e. the vector is a radial line. Suppose the vector is originally vertical (i.e. $`\theta =0`$) and the player plays by calling a robot (A) to rotate the wheel. The robot can only rotate the wheel by $`0`$, $`2\pi /3`$ or $`4\pi /3`$ radians, with equal probabilities. The player wins if the vector ends up in the upper-half of the circle (i.e. $`\pi /2\theta \pi /2`$) and he loses otherwise. The game is continued by rotating the wheel from the previous position, i.e. without restoring the vector to the vertical position. The stationary states are such that the vector will end up at $`\theta =0`$, $`2\pi /3`$ or $`4\pi /3`$ with equal probabilities. Therefore this game is losing for the player and the rate of losing is $`1/3`$. In Parrondo’s original game, the losing rate is smaller (i.e. $`2ϵ`$ where $`ϵ1`$).

Game B:  This is the same as game A, except that the robot (B) can now only rotate the wheel by $`0`$, $`2\pi /7`$, $`4\pi /7`$, $`6\pi /7`$, $`8\pi /7`$, $`10\pi /7`$, $`12\pi /7`$, with equal probabilities. Similar analysis as that for game A shows the player’s losing rate is $`1/7`$. In Parrondo’s original game, the losing rate is again smaller (i.e. $`11ϵ/5`$ where $`ϵ1`$).

Game $`AB`$ The player now plays a combined game in which he randomly selects either A or B at each timestep. Operationally, one of the robots A or B is selected at random to rotate the wheel at each timestep. Simple geometric analysis shows that the vector can now end up in $`3\times 7=21`$ different orientations, $`11`$ of which are winning. The corresponding $`21\times 21`$ transition matrix is doubly-stochastic and so the stationary distribution will be equally distributed among these $`21`$ positions. Therefore the player now wins with probability $`11/210.5238>1/2`$. In Parrondo’s original game, the winning rate was $`1/8021ϵ/10`$ as compared to the present, larger rate of $`1/21`$. It turns out there is nothing special about the numbers $`3`$ and $`7`$ chosen for this implementation. The games A and B are originally losing simply because $`3=7=3mod4`$, and the combined game becomes winning because $`3\times 7=1mod4`$. Therefore, the above vector-rotating implementation of Parrondo’s effect works equally well for all $`m,n`$ such that $`(m,n)=1`$ and $`m=n=3mod4`$. By the same method, we can therefore construct two losing games with rates $`1/m<0`$ and $`1/n<0`$ such that when they are combined at random, we obtain a winning game with rate $`1/mn>0`$. One could also extend the Parrondo scheme to include random combinations of any even number of games. We therefore conclude that random rotations of a vector can be used to ‘win’, in the same spirit as the original Parrondo effect.

Can we construct similar situations in the quantum domain in which we can also ‘win’ using randomly-chosen symmetry operations on the state-vector, and can we expect these ‘games’ to have a close connection with quantum algorithms? After all, a quantum state is by definition a normalized vector in the corresponding Hilbert space and a quantum computation can be seen as a series of rotations/reflections applied to the original state. We now proceed to show that this is indeed the case, and that there is indeed an interesting connection to quantum algorithms. We speculate that such a connection could, in principle, provide a starting point for uncovering new quantum algorithms - the systematic generation of such algorithms is one of the great outstanding problems in quantum computing.

Our first example of the Parrondo effect in the quantum domain, is related to the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm for guessing a number . Any rotation can be seen as a reflection about a specific plane, hence for convenience our discussions will be couched in the language of reflections. The goal of the game is to obtain (i.e. measure with a high probability) a final state $`|\alpha `$ starting from an initial state $`|0\mathrm{}0`$ . The player must play this game for as few timesteps as possible: he has at his disposal only two types of operation, each of which corresponds to an oracle. The first corresponds to the following operation:

$$\widehat{O}|x=(1)^{x\alpha }|x$$

where $`x\alpha `$ denotes the bit-wise inner product modulo 2 . However there is a catch for the player: this oracle is ‘noisy’. In particular, the operation $`\widehat{O}`$ is only performed for half the computational basis, hence

$$\widehat{O}|x=\{\begin{array}{c}(1)^{x\alpha }|x\hfill \\ |x\hfill \end{array}$$

with equal probability. The second oracle is reliable, and corresponds to applying the operator $`H^n`$. Following Ref. , if both oracles were noiseless then the player could obtain $`|\alpha `$ in only three timesteps via the sequence $`H^n\widehat{O}H^n`$. Suppose instead the player plays this sequence using the noisy oracle. Applying the noisy $`\widehat{O}`$ operator is the same as reflecting $`|\psi :=_{x=0}^{2^n1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}|x`$ about all $`|y`$ such that $`y\alpha =1`$ at random. If the player were to play this ‘game’ of reflection for each $`y`$ separately, it would only increase his chances of measuring $`\alpha `$ by a very small amount. Indeed, the chance of measuring $`\alpha `$ becomes $`\mathrm{O}(1/2^n)`$. Now we explore what would happen if the player combines all these ‘games’ together. Assuming $`\alpha 0`$, then $`\mathrm{\#}\{y|y\alpha =1\}=2^{n1}`$ hence

$$\widehat{O}H^n|0\mathrm{}0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n+2^n}}[\underset{x=0}{\overset{2^n1}{}}(1)^{x\alpha }|x+2|y_1+\mathrm{}+2|y_{2^{n2}}].$$

It can be shown that the probability of measuring $`\alpha `$ is now given by

$$|\alpha |H^n\widehat{O}H^n|0\mathrm{}0|^2>1/8$$

which represents a very substantial improvement over the previous value of $`\mathrm{O}(1/2^n)`$. In the spirit of the Parrondo effect, well-controlled randomness has been exploited for profit such that the player now ‘wins’.

We now present a quantum Parrondo game which can be viewed as a vector-rotating game, and is related to Grover’s search algorithm . The player’s goal is to obtain (i.e. measure with a high probability) a fixed, unknown number $`\alpha `$ in as few timesteps as possible, where $`0\alpha 2^n1`$. The initial state has the form $`|\psi =_{x=0}^{2^n1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}|x`$. In this game, an infinite sequence of operators $`\widehat{O}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_m\mathrm{}`$ will be applied to $`|\psi `$. The player decides when to stop the sequence, i.e. he has the freedom to choose $`m`$ such that $`|\psi _f=\widehat{O}_m\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_1|\psi `$. The payoff is then determined by a measurement in the computational basis of $`|\psi _f`$. The game is winning if the player possesses a strategy that wins with probability $`>1/2`$, and is losing otherwise. This game incorporates strategic moves, since the set of strategies used by the player to decide the duration of the game are equivalent to the set of natural numbers $`𝐍`$.

Game A:  Here $`\widehat{O_i}=\widehat{A}`$ for all $`i`$, where $`\widehat{A}(|x)=(1)^{\delta _{x\alpha }}|x`$. Geometrically, $`\widehat{A}`$ reflects the vector $`|\psi `$ about $`|\alpha `$. Since $`\widehat{A}^2=I`$, the player’s freedom in choosing when to stop the game will always reduce to just one of the following two scenarios: $`|\psi _f=\widehat{A}|\psi `$ or $`|\psi _f=|\psi `$. Unfortunately for the player, the payoff $`|\alpha |\widehat{A}|\psi |^2=|\alpha |\psi |^2=\frac{1}{2^n}`$ which is less than $`1/2`$ for $`n2`$. Therefore the player does not possess a winning strategy, hence game A is losing for him.

Game B:  Here $`\widehat{O_i}=\widehat{B}`$ for all $`i`$, where $`\widehat{B}:=2|\psi \psi |I`$. Geometrically, $`\widehat{B}`$ reflects $`|\psi `$ about itself. Again, the player has the freedom to decide how many $`\widehat{B}`$ are applied to the input state before measurement. However since $`\widehat{B}|\psi =|\psi `$, the player can have no influence in determining the payoff in this game. The game is hence losing for him because the payoff $`|\alpha |\psi |^2=\frac{1}{2^n}`$ which is less than $`1/2`$.

Game $`AB`$ The player combines games A and B at random. By this we mean $`\widehat{O}_i=\widehat{A}`$ or $`\widehat{B}`$ with equal probability, and the player is told the sequence as it unfolds. Once again, the player has the freedom to decide when to stop the sequence and hence do the measurement. Since $`\widehat{A}^2=\widehat{B}^2=I`$ and $`\widehat{B}|\psi =|\psi `$, any given finite sequence $`\widehat{O}_i`$ will always produce a final state with the following form: $`|\psi _f=(\widehat{B})\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\mathrm{}\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\widehat{A}|\psi `$. For all $`k𝐙`$, there will almost surely  be an $`m(k)𝐙`$ such that

$`|\psi _f`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{O}_{m(k)}\mathrm{}\widehat{O}_1|\psi `$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{k}{\stackrel{}{(\widehat{B}\widehat{A})\mathrm{}(\widehat{B}\widehat{A})}}|\psi .`$
A winning strategy for the player is therefore to choose $`m(k)`$ such that $`k=\pi \sqrt{2^n}/4`$. By stopping after the $`m(k)`$-th operation, it can be shown that the player will then win with probability $`>1/2`$. As such an $`m(k)`$ exists almost surely , we see that this combined game is winning for the player. It can also be seen that $`\widehat{B}\widehat{A}=\widehat{G}`$ where $`\widehat{G}`$ is Grover’s operator . Thus we have produced a Parrondo effect whereby the player benefits from randomness to win, and have connected this effect to a well-known quantum algorithm.

Throughout this paper we have discussed combinations of games, each of which constitutes particular strategies. One could argue that the combined game ($`AB`$) is the true game, and that the ‘games’ A and B are just strategies in this larger game chosen in some (random) sequence. This is just a semantic point, and could also be made against much of the Parrondo game literature. In order to make direct connection with this literature and community, we prefer to regard the combined game $`AB`$ as a (random) sequence of games A and B rather than a (random) sequence of strategies. The physical results and implications are unchanged by such shifts in verbal definitions.

To summarize, we have discussed connections between quantum games and quantum algorithms whereby the performance can be improved by profiting from randomness. The counter-intuitive conclusion is that such randomness/noise can be of direct use in the quantum regime. We hope that the present results serve to stimulate further work in this on-going field.

CFL thanks NSERC (Canada), ORS (U.K.) and Clarendon Fund (Oxford) for financial supports. NFJ thanks EPSRC for a travel grant, and is grateful to L. Quiroga, F. Rodriguez and D. Abbott for discussions.


text:
# Lauglin-type wavefunction of two-dimensional electrons in the tilted magnetic field

## Abstract

We study the fractional quantum Hall states in the tilted magnetic field. A many-particle wavefunction of the ground state , which is similar to that of Laughlin’s, is constructed in the Landau gauge. We show that in the limit of thermodynamics, the concept of composite fermion is still valid in presence of the in-plane field.

1. Center for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2. Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China

PACS number(s): 73.20.Dx, 73.40.Hm, 73.40.Kp, 73.50.Jt

Recently, two-dimensional electron system (2DES) in tilted magnetic field has attracted great interests in both experimentalists and theorists. The magneto-transport experiments on high mobility samples in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures revealed new classes of correlated many-electron states . The most prominent findings are the discoveries of the giant anisotropy in the resistivity near half filling of the topmost LL. It is revealed that anisotropy occurs when the 2DES is applied by an in-plane magnetic field. The easy direction of transport is perpendicular to the in-plane field. It is generally accepted that the highly anisotropic transport is related to the formation of the unidirectional charge-density-wave (UCDW) state, i.e., the stripe phase . The possibility of existence of the UCDW was originally predicted by Koulakov, Fogler, and Shklovskii based on a little earlier work on the Hartree-Fock treatment of the high Landau levels. Specifically, the extotic $`\nu =5/2`$ fractional quantum Hall state, which shows no anisotropy in perpendicular magnetic field, becomes highly anisotropic when the external field is tilted an angle. Contrary to other odd-denominator filling states, which occur as Jain’ series, the Hall plateau of the incompressible $`\nu =5/2`$ state is explained as the appearance of ground state of spin-singlet pairing of composite fermions (CFs). However, the spin-polarized $`p`$-wave BCS paring of CFs, or the Moore-Read(MR) Pfaffian wave function, may be another possibility , which was recently suggested to be favorable . Studies by Eisenstein et al  in the tilted field experiments have shown that the plateau disappears if the tilted angle $`\theta `$ exceeds a critical value. The explanation of the experiments from the point of view of the singlet-pairing can be understood as a gain in Zeeman energy . However, the Lande $`g`$-factor is about $`30\%`$ larger than expected. On the other hand, in the picture of $`p`$-wave paring of CFs, how the tilted field violates the spin-polarized paired Hall state is still puzzling. Yu et al proposed a mechanism to solve the above puzzle. They considered that there exists a competition between the instabilities of the CF Fermi surface to the formation of the UCDW and the paired Hall state. When the tilted angle is small, the pairing state dominates. But as the tilted angle increases, the UCDW takes energetically over the paired Hall state as the ground state, which transforms the incompressible state to the compressible state. Recent experiment by Pan et al supports their suggestion.

Here comes the question. One may ask if the concept of the composite fermion is still valid when the magnetic field is tilted an angle. In the present work, we prove that in the limit of thermodynamics, one can construct a Laughlin-type wavefunction based on a similar reasoning of the original work by Laughlin. The concept of composite fermion in tilted field can be deduced from the analysis of the Laughlin-type wavefunction in an analogous way taken by J. K. Jain.

Consider an electron moving in a torus geometry under the influence of a strong magnetic field which is tilted an angle $`\theta `$ to the $`xy`$ plane, with $`B_x=B\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ and $`B_z=B`$. The electron is confined in a harmonic potential $`V(z)=\frac{1}{2}m_b\mathrm{\Omega }^2z^2`$ in the $`z`$-direction, where $`m_b`$ is the band mass of the electron. If the characteristic frenquence $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _c`$, where $`\omega _c=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_bl_0^2}`$ is the electron cyclotron frenquence in the perpendicular magnetic field $`B`$, then the electrons move in a quasi-two- dimensional plane. We work in the ”Landau gauge” by choosing the vector potential $`𝐀=\{0,xB_zzB_x,0\}`$. The single-electron Hamiltonian is then,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2m_b}\left[(i\mathrm{}_x)^2+(i\mathrm{}_y\frac{e}{c}(xB_zzB_x))^2+(i\mathrm{}_z)^2\right]+\frac{1}{2}m_b\mathrm{\Omega }^2z^2.$$
(1)
Take the length unit $`l_0^2=\mathrm{}c/eB=1`$ and seperate out the plane-wave in the $`y`$-direction,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L_y}}e^{iky}\varphi (x,z),$$
(2)
where $`k=2\pi j/L_y=k_0j`$, ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$). Then the Hamiltonian can be equivalently rewritten as

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _c\left[_\xi ^2_z^2+\xi ^22\xi z\mathrm{tan}\theta +(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _c^2})z^2\right],$$
(3)
where $`\xi =xx_0`$ with $`x_0=kl_0`$.

To decouple the two coupled harmonic oscillators, we make a coordinate-rotation in the $`\xi z`$ plane:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi =\hfill & u\mathrm{cos}\alpha v\mathrm{sin}\alpha \hfill \\ z=\hfill & u\mathrm{sin}\alpha +v\mathrm{cos}\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Take $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\left[\frac{\omega _c^2}{(\omega _+^2\omega _c^2)}\right]\mathrm{tan}\theta `$, then the Hamiltonian becomes

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}(\frac{^2}{\zeta ^2}+\zeta ^2)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+(\frac{^2}{\eta ^2}+\eta ^2).$$
(5)
where $`\zeta =\frac{l_0}{l_{}}u`$ and $`\eta =\frac{l_0}{l_+}v`$ with $`l_\pm ^2=\mathrm{}/m_b\omega _\pm `$, and

$$\omega _\pm ^2=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\frac{\omega _c^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta })\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{\omega _c^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta })^2+4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\omega _c^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }.$$
(6)
Hence, for $`\omega _\pm `$, the corresponding eigen wavefunctions are

$`\varphi _n^{\omega _+}`$ $`=`$ $`N_n^+H_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{l_+}}\right)e^{[(xx_0)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]^2/2l_+^2},`$ (7)
$`\varphi _n^\omega _{}`$ $`=`$ $`N_n^{}H_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{l_{}}}\right)e^{[(xx_0)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha ]^2/2l_{}^2},`$ (8)
where $`H_n(x)`$ is the Hermitian polynomials and $`N_n^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^nn!\sqrt{\pi }l_\pm }}`$ is the normalization coefficients.

As we are concerning the lowest Landau level, the degenerate single-particle wave functions are

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iky}}{\sqrt{L_y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi l_{}l_+}}}e^{[(xx_0)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha ]^2/2l_{}^2[(xx_0)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]^2/2l_+^2}`$ (9)
$``$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}j^2[\frac{l_0^4}{l_{}^2}k_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\frac{l_0^4}{l_+^2}k_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ]}e^{j[ik_0y+\frac{l_0^2}{l_{}^2}k_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha (x\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha )\frac{l_0^2}{l_+^2}k_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha (x\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha )]}`$
$`e^{\frac{1}{2l_{}^2}(x\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^2\frac{1}{2l_+^2}(x\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}j^2[\frac{l_0^4}{l_{}^2}k_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\frac{l_0^4}{l_+^2}k_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ]}e^{juv^2}.`$
with

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`ik_0y+{\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{l_{}^2}}k_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha (x\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{l_+^2}}k_0\mathrm{sin}\alpha (x\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$ (10)
$`v^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_{}^2}}(x\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_+^2}}(x\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha )^2,`$ (11)
Since the wavefunction is localized around $`x_0`$ in the $`x`$-direction, the edge effect can be omitted in the limit of thermodynamics. The many-particle wavefunction for the filled lowest LL is expressed in the Slater determinant form,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐫_1)& \mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐫_2)& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐫_1)& \mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐫_2)& \\ \mathrm{}& & \end{array}\right|`$ (15)
$``$ $`\left|\begin{array}{ccc}e^{u_1}& e^{u_2}& \mathrm{}\\ e^{2u_1}& e^{2u_2}& \\ \mathrm{}& & \end{array}\right|e^{_kv_k^2}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}(e^{u_j}e^{u_k})e^{_k(ik_0y_kw_k^2)},`$ (20)
which simply reduces to a Vandermonde determinant. Here we denote

$$w^2[(xk_0l_0^2)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +z\mathrm{sin}\alpha ]^2/2l_{}^2+[(xk_0l_0^2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +z\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]^2/2l_+^2.$$
(21)
Till now our wavefunction is equivalent to that of in the symmetric gauge except an unimportant phase factor. Let us now extend it to the fractional filling states $`\nu =\frac{1}{2p+1}`$. In analogy to Laughlin’s analysis in the symmetric gauge in absence of in-plane field, the wavefunction must satisfy the following conditions:
a. It must be anti-symmetric for exchanging any two electrons;
b. The state $`|m`$ is the eigenstate of the momentum in $`y`$-direction.

One finds that the unique form of the wavefunction for FQHE state $`\nu =1/m`$ ($`m=2p+1`$ is an odd number) is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/m}=\underset{j<k}{}(e^{u_j}e^{u_k})^me^{imk_0_ky_k}e^{_kw_k^2}$$
(22)
The total momentum in $`y`$-direction is $`K=\frac{1}{2}N(N+1)mk_0`$ with $`N`$ the number of electrons.

$$\widehat{P}_y\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/m}=K\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/m}$$
(23)
According to J. K. Jain, we rewrite the Eq.(22) as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}(e^{u_j}e^{u_k})e^{ik_0_ky_k}e^{_kw_k^2}{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}(e^{u_j}e^{u_k})^{2p}e^{2pik_0_ky_k}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\chi _0^{2p}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the wavefunction for one filled Landau level. This Jastrow-form wavefunction can be considered as each electron carry $`2p`$ flux quanta, therefore, we recover Jain’s concept of ”composite fermions” in the tilted field. In this picture, the electrons ”nucleate” even number of flux to screen enough of the external magnetic field, so that the composite fermions exactly fill an integer number of Landau levels associated with the surplus part of unscreen field ($`B^{}=B2p\varphi _0\overline{\rho }`$, with $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ the unit magnetic quanta and $`\overline{\rho }`$ the average particle density). The wavefunctions of general fractional filling factors ($`\nu =n/2pn\pm 1`$) are explicitly expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{n/2pn\pm 1}=𝒫_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}\chi _0^{2p},$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}`$ is the wavefunction for composite fermions filling $`n`$ LLs. The operator $`𝒫_{LLL}`$ projects the wavefunction onto the lowest Landau level.

In summary, we have written a many-particle wavefunction for fractional quantum Hall states with in-plane magnetic field. We worked in the Landau gauge because in presence of an in-plane field, where the relative angular momentum between two electrons is not a good quantum number. Haldane had written a many-particle wavefunction in the torus geometry with the magnetic field perpendicular to the 2DES plane. It is difficult to reproduce Laughlin’s wavefunction in the symmetric gauge in presence of an in-plane field. Our result is obtained by the same reasoning employed by Laughlin. It shows that fractional quantum Hall states in the lowest Landau level survive even when the 2DES is applied by an in-plane field. Hall plateaus at these filling factors can be observed in experiments. We conclude that the concept of composite fermion in tilted field is still valid by a way analogous to that of J. K. Jain. It should be noted that the explicit form of composite fermion is different from that of Jain’s. Our result provides a supplementary proof to the explanation for the $`\nu =5/2`$ state when the external magnetic field is tilted an angle, where the competition between paired state of composite fermions and unidirectional charge-density-wave state leads to the destroy of the pairing gap and the anisotropic transport subsequently takes place.

This work is supported in part by the NSF of China.


text:
# References

REFERENCES


text:
# Cu nuclear spin-spin coupling in the dimer singlet state in SrCu2(BO3)2

## References