text:
# Quantum Geometric Description of Cosmological Models

## I Introduction

Canonical quantization of gravity formulated in terms of connection variable is now at a stage where one can address questions of physical interest. At the interpretational level, one still has the outstanding issues of understanding the classical limit and development of a systematic semiclassical expansion.

There are at least two classes of situations in classical GR that call for a quantum elucidation: (i) situations where classical GR predicts ‘singularities’ eg early universe and collapse, and (ii) situations where GR predicts horizons possessing entropy. In a sense, these can be thought of as ‘requiring’ a quantum theory of gravity and hence any such theory should lead to better understanding of these situations.

There is another context in which one can look for signatures of quantum nature of space-time. This refers to matter wave propagation in a quantum geometrical background. Looking for such effects experimentally actually seems possible thanks to the GRB sources at cosmological distances. This context is very different from the first two in that QG effects are being probed in very ordinary, highly classical, non-extreme situations.

The horizon context has already been analyzed and quantum geometry framework does provide a microscopic understanding of entropy. Hawking effect is however is not yet clear.

Of the two singular context, Martin Bojowald has recently analyzed the cosmological context in detail. As this is a first application of the quantum geometry framework with very interesting results, I decided to review this work in some details.

## II Standard Quantum Cosmology

A version of quantum gravity in the cosmological context was already attempted in the sixties. This was again a canonical quantization approach but using the geometro-dynamical variables - metric $`g_{ij}`$ and a symmetric second rank tensor $`k_{ij}`$ defined on a three manifold. This is a constrained system with diffeomorphism constraint implementing spatial diffeomorphism and the Hamiltonian constraint implementing the space-time diffeomorphisms. Since one does not know how to carry out the Dirac (or otherwise ) quantization of this constrained system, one looks for highly symmetric class of space-times, does the symmetry reduction classically and quantizes the left over finitely many degrees of freedom. In the context of so called Bianchi models, the gravitational phase space is at most six dimensional. This is a ‘minisuperspace’ quantization and has become synonymous with ‘standard quantum cosmology’. Here are its main conclusions.

(i) The Hamiltonian constraint (quadratic in momenta) can be interpreted as an evolution equation which is second order in a suitably chosen ‘time’ variable. This is intimately connected with the ‘problem of time’. In a 4-diffeomorphism invariant theory one has to interpret dynamics in terms of evolution relative to a ‘clock’ degree of freedom. For FRW models, the scale factor (a gravitational degree of freedom) is a natural choice of a ‘clock’. The evolution equation - Wheeler-De Witt equation - being second order in time has two independent solutions i.e. a non-unique wave function of the universe.

(ii) When the scale factor vanishes, the inverse scale factor and hence the curvatures blow up, implying persistence of classical singularity.

(iii) All geometrical quantities such as areas, volumes etc have continuous spectra.

Note that what is quantized is a finite dimensional phase space as nothing else could be done. One was forced to do the symmetry reduction classically and then proceed to quantization. The Ashtekar reformulation in terms of connection variables offers a different alternative. One can quantize the infinite dimensional kinematical phase space and explore the possibility of doing symmetry reduction after quantization. Further more generically the spectra of areas , volumes etc turn out to be discrete indicating that this quantization is qualitatively different.

## III Quantum Geometry Framework

Let me briefly recall some of the basic steps.

(a) Choose a classical phase space: This involves choosing a three manifold, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with or without boundary and/or asymptotic regions. The basic variables (for the gravitational sector) are $`su(2)`$ (Lie algebra of $`SU(2)`$ group) valued connection 1-forms, $`A_a^i\tau _i`$ and a densitised triad, $`E_i^a`$ (‘dual’ to a 2-form). The classical configuration space is the space of all smooth (real analytic) connections satisfying appropriate boundary conditions, $`𝒜`$. The space modulo gauge transformations is denoted as $`𝒜/𝒢`$. The phase space is the cotangent bundle of the configuration space. On this phase space we have the usual Gauss law, the diffeomorphism and the Hamiltonian constraints.

(b) There is a natural class of functions on $`𝒜/𝒢`$ namely, $`Tr(Pexp_\gamma A)`$. These are labeled by closed loops in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, are gauge invariant and diffeomorphism invariant. One now chooses to look for a Hilbert space on which these functions are represented by multiplicative operators. This is achieved by using the commutative $`C^{}`$ algebra of these functions and choosing one of the representations of this algebra. This gives $`H_{kin}=L^2(\overline{𝒜/𝒢},\mu _{AL})`$. In other words, the Hilbert space is the space of square integrable complex functions on the ‘quantum configuration space’ $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ square integrable with respect to the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure constructed from the Haar measure on $`SU(2)`$. A convenient description of the Hilbert space is obtained in terms of the so called spin-network functions.

In $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ consider closed graphs $`\gamma `$. Associate with each edge $`e_i`$ a representation $`\pi _i`$ of $`SU(2)`$ and associate with each vertex $`v_\alpha `$ an intertwiner (contractor/invariant tensor), $`C_\alpha `$. For each $`A\overline{𝒜}`$ one has, by definition, $`g_i=A(e_i)`$, the generalized holonomy. Define,

$$\psi _\gamma (A)=\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}Tr\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Pi }_{edges}\pi _i(g_i)\mathrm{\Pi }_{vertices}C_\alpha $$
(1)
These are the spin network functions - functions on $`𝒜/𝒢`$ \- labeled by graphs, representations and contractors. The set of all such functions forms an orthonormal set which is dense in $`H_{kin}`$. In practice one defines various operators by their actions on these and extends them to $`H_{kin}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This dense space is also called the space of cylindrical function.

(c) In order to accommodate the possibility that the zero eigenvalue of constraints could be in a continuum (i.e. a generalized eigenvalue) one introduces a ‘rigging’ - $`\mathrm{\Omega }H_{kin}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the dense space above while $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is the space of continuous linear functional on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The important point is that the physical states generically belong to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. One says that physical states are distributional.

(d) For matter sector analogous constructions based on suitable $`C^{}`$ algebras are made. These are available for all the usual scalar, spinor, gauge fields. The kinematical Hilbert spaces constructed here differ from the usual Fock spaces. The crucial point of these constructions is to have no dependence on background space-time geometry.

## IV Quantum Symmetry Reduction

One would now like to specialize this frame work to the cosmological context of highly symmetric space-times. Since the configuration space variable are now connections, the notion of symmetry requires that the connection transformed under a symmetry diffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be gauge equivalent to the original connection. The first task is to characterize such symmetric connections precisely. This has already been done and can be summarized as (simplifying a bit for brevity):

If $`S`$ is a symmetry group (compact Lie group) and $`F`$ a (Lie) subgroup of $`S`$, then

(a) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }B\times S/F,B\mathrm{\Sigma }/S`$ is the space of orbits of S-action on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ;

(b) Symmetric connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are completely characterized by a (reduced) connection on $`B`$ together with a set of (Higgs) scalars on $`B`$, possibly satisfying further constraints.

For example, for the Bianchi class A models, $`S`$ is one of the Bianchi groups with structure constants satisfying $`C_{JI}^I=0`$ while $`F=\{e\}`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the group manifold of $`S`$ while $`B`$ is a single point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In terms of the Maurer-Cartan 1-forms $`\omega ^I`$ and the corresponding left invariant vector fields $`X_J`$ one has,

$$A_a^i=\mathrm{\Phi }_I^i\omega _a^IE_i^a=P_i^IX_I^a\{\mathrm{\Phi }_I^i,P_j^J\}=8\pi G\gamma \delta _j^i\delta _I^J$$
(2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_I^i`$ are the scalars, $`P_i^I`$ are the conjugate momenta, $`\gamma `$ is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter and the indices $`i`$ ($`su(2)`$), $`I`$ (Lie algebra of Bianchi group) both take three values. If in addition to spatial homogeneity one also has isotropy then the scalars satisfy further conditions whose solution is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_I^i=c\delta _I^i`$ while the conjugate momenta satisfy $`P_i^I=p\delta _i^I`$. The constraint expressions can be likewise simplified and expressed in terms of the scalars and their conjugates. This is the classical symmetry reduction. If one proceeds with quantization in a traditional manner then this is very similar to the usual minisuperspace quantization apart from the phase space variables being different. The results are also similar.

However an alternative quantization is possible. Instead of requiring the scalars to be well defined operators one can take their exponentials, the so called point holonomies, as well defined operators. Then, similar to the general framework of quantum geometry (polymer representation), one constructs a new $`H_{kin}^B`$. One can immediately ask why one should do this? Does this Hilbert have anything to do with the $`H_{kin}^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the full theory? The answer turns out to be yes! Bojowald and Kastrup show that the (cylindrical) states in $`H_{kin}^B`$ can be identified with those distributions in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ whose support consists of precisely the classical (smooth) symmetric connections. Recall that the physical states of the full theory are supposed to reside in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. A natural identification of symmetric (distributional) states of the full theory is via the properties of their support. The result shows that such quantum states can be alternatively be dealt with by working with the cylindrical states of $`H_{kin}^B`$. This provides a justification for the alternative (holonomy based) quantization of the symmetry reduced theory. It also makes available the tools of the general framework in a simplified context. This is what is referred to as ‘quantum symmetry reduction’. Note that this is quite general and not restricted to a cosmological context.

## V Bianchi Class A models

The strategy now is step by step adaptation of the general framework. While majority of steps are identical, there are also crucial new inputs needed particularly when additional symmetry such as isotropy is at work. I am including only the minimal details necessary to communicate the final results.

For classical configurations, point holonomies are just the group elements obtained by exponentiating the Lie algebra valued scalars, $`u(\mathrm{\Phi }_I)exp\{\mathrm{\Phi }_I^i\tau _i\}SU(2)`$. Distributional scalars do just that, they associate with each vertex, an $`SU(2)`$ group element. For general anisotropic case the kinematical Hilbert space turns out to be $`H_{kin}=L^2(SU(2)^3,d\mu _{Haar}^3)`$. There are three copies since $`I`$ takes three values. For gauge invariant functions, a convenient basis is provided by the usual spin-network functions constructed from graphs $`\gamma `$ in the group manifold of $`S`$ with a single vertex of order 6 and three (closed) edges corresponding to the three left invariant vector fields. Using these one defines the operators corresponding to the conjugate momenta and then proceeds to build the constraint operators. Following the Thiemann approach, the Hamiltonian constraint is expressed in terms of the volume operator together with various commutators of holonomies with the volume operator. So the main problem is to define a volume operator and obtain its spectrum. The full spectrum is not available in the general case. However, for the homogeneous and isotropic models (Bianchi I and IX), spectrum of volume operator has been determined.

When isotropic case is considered, the scalars have to satisfy further conditions. Naively one would expect that since we now have a single scalar, spin-network functions associated with graphs with a single closed edge (and a single vertex) should suffice. This turns out to be false. Although the $`H_{kin}`$ in this case does turn out to be $`L^2(SU(2),d\mu _{Haar})`$, it contains more gauge invariant functions than what a graph with single edge could supply. Bojowald determines the extra functions needed thereby obtaining an explicit orthonormal basis for the kinematical Hilbert space. A volume operator is now defined explicitly and is spectrum obtained. The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are given by (in the gauge invariant sector),

$`\chi _j(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sin((j+\frac{1}{2})c)}{sin(c/2)}}j=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}`$ (3)
$`\zeta _j(c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{cos((j+\frac{1}{2})c)}{sin(c/2)}}j=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}`$ (4)
$`\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}sin(c/2)}}`$ (5)
$`V_j`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma \mathrm{}_p^2)^{3/2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{j(j+\frac{1}{2})(j+1)}{27}}}`$ (6)
It turns out to be more convenient to choose a slightly different orthonormal basis which we now denote as:

$$|n\frac{e^{i\frac{n}{2}c}}{\sqrt{2}sin(c/2)},n𝐙$$
(7)
These are also eigenstates of the volume operator with eigenvalues $`V_{\frac{|n|1}{2}}`$. Now the Hamiltonian constraint can be defined by its action on these states. In general it has the form:

$$\widehat{H}|n=\underset{k=L}{\overset{L}{}}A_{nk}^k|nk.$$
(8)
The physical states, $`|s=_ns_n|n`$, which belong to the kernel of $`\widehat{H}`$, have conditions on the coefficients $`s_n`$ of the form,

$$\underset{k=L}{\overset{L}{}}A_n^ks_{n+k}=0.$$
(9)
This is a difference equation for the $`s_n`$ coefficients. The order of the equation, $`2L`$, depends on the Bianchi type while the coefficients $`A_n^k`$ depend on the details of the Hamiltonian constraint and the factor ordering chosen. For the flat isotropic model, the order of the equation is 16. The (non-symmetric) ordering chosen is such that the coefficient of $`s_0`$ always vanishes. One can introduce matter sector and add its contribution to the Hamiltonian constraint. Denoting matter symbolically by $`\phi `$ the equations are modified by putting in a $`\phi `$ dependence in $`s_n`$ and adding a term of the form $`\widehat{H}_\phi (n)s_n(\phi )`$. At this stage, particular form of matter and its couplings are not detailed. It is sufficient to note that the matter part of the Hamiltonian operator is diagonal with respect to the (gravitational) states $`|n`$. This specifies the physical states of the loop quantum cosmology.

## VI Dynamical Interpretation, Absence of Singularity and Uniqueness of Solution

In order to interpret the physical states, in particular to explore what ‘happens’ to the classical singularity, one needs to view the physical states obtained above as solutions of a ‘time evolution’ equation. In a generally covariant theory of space-time there is no external, inert ‘time’ variable. One can at best single out one of the degrees of freedoms as a ‘clock’ and view functions of this (gravitational or matter) degree of freedom as functions of ‘time’. While there is no a priori given clock, in a given context there can be a natural choice. For instance, for the FRW cosmologies, the scale factor in the metric is one such choice. It is in terms of this choice that one says that there is a singularity at the vanishing value of the scale factor (curvatures blow up). In the present formulation, absolute value of the conjugate momentum, $`p`$, corresponds to the square of scale factor. The spectrum of $`|\widehat{p}|`$ consists of eigenvalues $`(j+1/2)`$ with eigenfunctions $`\chi _j(c),\zeta _j(c)`$. The zero eigenvalue of $`|\widehat{p}|`$ occurs for $`j=1/2`$ which is a non-degenerate eigenvalue. (The volume operator consists of this operator together with another commuting operator with eigenvalues $`j(j+1)`$. This makes the zero eigenvalue of the volume operator three fold degenerate.) In terms of the $`|n`$ basis, $`n=0`$ corresponds to vanishing scale factor. One therefore takes, the label $`n𝐙`$ as a time label. The physical state condition can now be viewed as specifying a discrete time evolution.

Restricting to the isotropic, flat models, the evolution equation is of order 16 (and consists of the $`n\pm 8,n\pm 4`$ and $`n`$ terms only). The coefficients are such that $`A_n^k=0`$ if and only if $`n+k=0`$. Furthermore, $`\widehat{H}_\phi (n=0)=0`$ as well. This has two consequences. The $`s_0(\phi )`$ never appears in the equation. Therefore it is neither determined by nor determines any other $`s_n(\phi )`$. The state $`|0`$ is thus orthogonal to all other physical states (evolving solutions). This is precisely the state which corresponds to the zero eigenvalue of the scale factor operator. Thus one sees that unlike the classical case where evolution through vanishing scale factor is not possible, the quantum evolution equation does not suffer such a breakdown. In this sense the classical singularity is absent in the evolving states. The second consequence is that one gets a conditions on the initial data - the choice of 16 coefficients $`s_{16},s_{15},\mathrm{}s_1`$ (say). This is because the equation can not determine $`s_0`$ since its coefficient vanishes. Thus one can conclude that the classical singularity is avoided by the evolving solutions and that there are 15 instead of 16 independent solutions.

This seems worse than the standard quantum cosmology with only two independent solutions! Quite independently, one has also to understand the discrete time evolution in terms of more familiar continuous time evolution, at least when one hopes to be in classical regime. Clearly, the volume and the scale factor eigenvalues become large compared to the Planck scale values when $`n1`$. One expects a solution to be classically interpretable when for large $`n`$, $`s_{n+m}(\phi )`$ can vary significantly from $`s_n(\phi )`$ when $`m`$ is also large compared to 1 but remains almost the same when $`m`$ is comparable to 1. One can now ask: how many solutions exhibit this behavior? In a precise formulation of such a behavior, the Barbero-Immirzi parameter $`\gamma `$ come very handy. Note that for large $`n=2j+1`$, $`V_j(\gamma \mathrm{}_p^2|n|/6)^{3/2}(a^2)^{3/2}`$. We can use this to define the scale factor as a function of $`n`$ as: $`a^2(n)(n\gamma )\mathrm{}_p^2/6`$. Now change in $`a^2(n)`$ as $`n`$ changes by $`1`$ will be infinitesimal if $`\gamma \mathrm{}_p^20`$. Thus we can mimic continuous evolution with respect to the scale factor by considering the formal limit $`\gamma 0,n\mathrm{}`$ keeping $`\gamma n`$ a constant. We are keeping $`\mathrm{}_p`$ fixed in this and so are in the quantum domain still. If a solution $`\{s_n(\phi )\}`$ has a limiting value in the above limit then it is said to be ‘pre-classical’. The question now becomes as to how many evolving solutions are pre-classical? For large $`n`$, the equations itself becomes an equation with constant coefficients and is easy to analyze. The result is that, of the sixteen solutions, only two are pre-classical. There is still the constraint on the initial conditions which reduces these two to a single solution. Thus while there are many evolving solutions (all avoiding the singularity), only one of these can mimic a classical evolution.

From the black hole entropy computations, $`\gamma `$ is fixed to be a constant of order one. The $`\gamma 0`$ limit noted above is to be thought of as a formal device to single out solutions mimicking classical evolution. The presence of the Barbero-Immirzi parameter however offers a new limit to be explored apart from the classical limit with $`\mathrm{}_p0`$. Bojowald has further shown that in the $`\gamma 0`$ limit, referred to as ‘continuum limit’ in the sense that the discrete structure of quantum geometry can be ignored, one recovers the standard quantum cosmology. This shows also that it is the specific, discrete structure of quantum geometry that is responsible for avoiding the singularity and selecting a unique (pre-classical) solution and not just any quantization procedure.

## VII Concluding Remarks

This is a first explicit application of the highly abstract framework of quantum geometry to a context of physical interest, particularly addressing the issue of classically indicated singularity. Not only does it meet the expectation that in a quantum theory of gravity, classically indicated singularities should be absent, it provides a quantitative means to estimate how rapidly quantum geometry picture goes over to the classical picture. In the quantization procedure, many conceptual and technical assumptions have gone in (eg choice of polymer representation). In a sense the classical space-time picture has been ‘mutilated’ quite a bit. Therefore it could have happened that the none of final set of solutions could be interpreted in classical terms thereby recovering the classical theory. Not only this does not happen but one gets a unique solution displaying the classical picture. It also brings out an intriguing role played by the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.

Acknowledgments: It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for the invitation and IUCAA for the excellent atmosphere and hospitality. I would like to thank Martin Bojowald for his useful comments on an earlier draft.


format: text

text:
# Suppressing FCNC and CP-Violating Phases by Extra Dimensions

## Abstract

In extra dimensions the infrared attractive force of gauge interactions is amplified. We find that this force can align in the infrared limit the soft-supersymmetry breaking terms out of their anarchical disorder at a fundamental scale, in such a way that flavor-changing neutral currents as well as dangerous CP-violating phases are sufficiently suppressed at the unification scale. The main assumption is that the matter and Higgs supermultiplets and the flavor-dependent interactions such as Yukawa interactions are stuck at the four-dimensional boundary. As a concrete example we consider the minimal model based on $`SU(5)`$ in six dimensions.

preprint: KANAZAWA-02-12

Low-energy softly-broken supersymmetry (SUSY) has been the most promising idea in solving the gauge hierarchy problem . However, the introduction of the superpartners of the known particles induces large flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) processes and CP-violating phases, which are severely constrained by precision experiments . Therefore, the huge degrees of freedom involved in the soft-supersymmetry breaking (SSB) parameters have to be highly constrained in all viable supersymmetric models. This has been called the supersymmetric flavor problem.

To overcome this problem, several ideas of SUSY breaking and its mediation mechanisms have been proposed; gauge mediation , anomaly mediation , gaugino mediation  and so on. The common feature behind these ideas is that the SSB parameters are generated by flavor-blind radiative corrections, and that their tree-level contributions at a fundamental scale $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ are assumed to be sufficiently suppressed, e.g., by sequestering of branes for the visible sector and the hidden SSB sector. However, it has been argued recently  that such a sequestering mechanism cannot be simply realized in generic supergravity or superstring inspired models. Therefore, the supersymmetric flavor problem still manifests itself in the above-mentioned mediation mechanisms and their modifications.

An interesting way out from this problem is to suppress the tree-level contributions by certain field theoretical dynamics. There have been indeed several attempts along the line of thought, in which use has been made  that the SSB parameters are suppressed in the infrared limit in approximate superconformal field theories . In this letter, we propose another possibility in more than four dimensions that flavor-blind radiative corrections dominate over the tree-level contributions as well as any other flavor non-universal corrections.

Let us start to present our idea. We assume that only the supersymmetric gauge interactions exist in the $`(4+\delta )`$ dimensional bulk ($`\delta =1\text{or}2`$), while all the other interactions are confined at the four-dimensional boundary . Accordingly, the $`(4+\delta )`$-dimensional gauge supermultiplet propagates in the bulk, and all the $`N=1`$ chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=(\varphi _i,\psi _i)`$ containing matters and Higgses propagate only in four dimensions. The gauge supermultiplet contains a chiral supermultiplet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the adjoint representation, to which we assign an odd parity  so that it does not contain zero modes, and does not have any interactions with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s. To simplify the situation, we further assume that each extra dimension is compactified on a circle with the same radius $`R`$. The size of $`R`$ is model dependent, but throughout this letter we assume that $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=1/R`$. The boundary superpotential has a generic form

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{6}Y^{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j,$$
(1)
and that the SSB Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{SSB}}`$ can be written as

$$L_{\mathrm{SSB}}=\left(\frac{1}{6}h^{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k+\frac{1}{2}B^{ij}\varphi _i\varphi _j+\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=0}{}M\lambda _n\lambda _n+\text{h.c.}\right)+\varphi ^j(m^2)_j^i\varphi _j,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _n`$’s are the Kaluza-Klein modes of the gaugino, and we have assumed a unique gaugino mass $`M`$ for all $`\lambda `$’s.

We consider the renormalization group (RG) running of the parameters between the fundamental scale $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}=M_{\mathrm{Planck}}/\sqrt{8\pi }2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV and $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. To see the gross behavior of the RG running, we consider the contributions coming from only the gauge supermultiplet, because it is the only source responsible for the power-law running  of the parameters under the assumptions specified above. We find the following set of the one-loop $`\beta `$ functions in this approximation :

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}C(G)G_\delta ^2g,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{16\pi ^2}}C(G)G_\delta ^2M,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dY^{ijk}}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}(C(i)+C(j)+C(k))G_\delta ^2Y^{ijk},`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^{ij}}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}(C(i)+C(j))G_\delta ^2\mu ^{ij},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dB^{ij}}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}(C(i)+C(j))G_\delta ^2(2M\mu ^{ij}B^{ij}),`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dh^{ijk}}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{16\pi ^2}}(C(i)+C(j)+C(k))G_\delta ^2(2MY^{ijk}h^{ijk}),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{d(m^2)_j^i}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{16\pi ^2}}C(i)\delta _j^iG_\delta ^2|M|^2,`$ (9)
where $`G_\delta =gX_\delta ^{1/2}(R\mathrm{\Lambda })^{\delta /2}`$, and $`X_\delta =\pi ^{\delta /2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(1+\delta /2)=2(\pi )`$ for $`\delta =1(2)`$ . The gauge coupling is denoted by $`g`$, and $`C(G)`$ stands for the quadratic Casimir of the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`G`$, and $`C(i)`$ for that of the representation $`R_i`$. It is easy to show that the evolution of $`Y^{ijk},\mu ^{ij}`$ and $`M`$ are related to that of $`g`$ as

$`M(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}}\right)^2M(M_{\mathrm{PL}}),`$ (10)
$`Y^{ijk}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}}\right)^{\eta _Y^{ijk}}Y^{ijk}(M_{\mathrm{PL}}),`$ (11)
$`\mu ^{ij}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}}\right)^{\eta _\mu ^{ij}}\mu ^{ij}(M_{\mathrm{PL}}),`$ (12)
where the exponents are given as $`\eta _Y^{ijk}=(C(i)+C(j)+C(k))/C(G)`$ and $`\eta _\mu ^{ij}=(C(i)+C(j))/C(G)`$. Therefore these parameters can become very large if $`g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})/g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ is large. A rough estimate shows that

$$\frac{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}\left[\frac{C(G)X_\delta \alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}}{\pi \delta }\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{PL}}}{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}\right)^{\delta /2}.$$
(13)
If we use $`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}=0.04,M_{\mathrm{PL}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=10^2,G=SU(5)`$, then this is given approximately by 3.5 for $`\delta =1`$ and 32 for $`\delta =2`$.

The ratios between other SSB parameters to the gaugino mass $`M`$ approach to their infrared attractive fixed points;

$`B^{ij}/M`$ $``$ $`\eta _\mu ^{ij}\mu ^{ij},`$ (14)
$`h^{ijk}/M`$ $``$ $`\eta _Y^{ijk}Y^{ijk},`$ (15)
$`(m^2)_j^i/|M|^2`$ $``$ $`\left(C(i)/C(G)\right)\delta _j^i,`$ (16)
where $`\eta `$’s are used in (11) and (12). Note that so far no assumption on the reality of the parameters has been made. We see that the low-energy structure is completely fixed by the group theoretic structure of the model. Furthermore, since $`h^{ijk}`$ and $`(m^2)_j^i`$ become aligned in the infrared limit, i.e., $`h^{ijk}Y^{ijk}`$ and $`(m^2)_j^i\delta _j^i`$, the infrared forms (16) give desired initial values of the parameters at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ to suppress FCNC processes in the MSSM, and they predict that the only CP-violating phase is the usual CKM phase.

One can easily estimate how much of a disorder in the initial values at $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ can survive at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Suppose that there exists an $`O(1)`$ disorder in $`(m^2)_j^i/|M|^2`$. Using the $`\beta `$ functions (4) and (9), we find the deviation from (16) to be

$$\left(\frac{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}\right)^4\left[\frac{(m^2)_j^i}{|M|^2}(M_{\mathrm{PL}})\frac{C(i)}{C(G)}\delta _j^i\right].$$
(17)
Then inserting the value of $`g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})/g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})`$ given in (13), we find that an $`O(1)`$ disorder at $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ becomes a disorder of $`O(10^2)`$ and $`O(10^6)`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ for $`\delta =1`$ and $`2`$, respectively. Note that the off-diagonal elements of $`(m^2)_j^i`$ as well as the differences among the diagonal elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(i,j)=(m^2)_i^i(m^2)_j^j`$ (if $`C(i)=C(j)`$) belong to the disorder. However, their contributions to $`(\delta _{ij})_{LL,RR}`$ of  are less than $`O(10^6)`$ for $`\delta =2`$, therefore the most stringent constraint coming from $`\mu e\gamma `$ is satisfied . However, in the case of five dimensions ($`\delta =1`$) the suppression of the disorder will not be sufficient. \[If we use $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^3`$, then the suppression is much improved and the five dimensional case is also allowed.\]

Similarly, using (4) and (8), we obtain the deviation for the tri-linear couplings from (16) as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h^{ijk}}{M}}(M_{\mathrm{PL}})+\eta _Y^{ijk}Y^{ijk}(M_{\mathrm{PL}})\right],`$ (18)
where use has been made of (11). Suppose the tri-linear couplings to be order of $`MY^{ijk}`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$. Then we find that

$$\left|\frac{h^{ijk}}{\eta _Y^{ijk}MY^{ijk}}(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})+1\right|\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\left(\frac{g(M_{\mathrm{PL}})}{g(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}\right)^{2+\eta _Y^{ijk}}.$$
(19)
Note that the phases of $`h^{ijk}/MY^{ijk}`$ can be suppressed. In the case of $`G=SU(5)`$, $`\eta _Y^{ijk}=48/25(42/25)`$ for the up (down) type Yukawa couplings. Using (13) again, we find that the right-hand side of (19) is $`10^{2(6)}`$ for $`\delta =1(2)`$. This disorder contributes, for instance, to $`Im(\delta _{ii})_{LR}`$ as well as $`Re(\delta _{ij})_{LR}`$ of . Therefore our suppression mechanism can satisfy the most stringent constraints coming from the electric dipole moments (EDM) of the neutron and the electron . Similarly the phases of the B-parameter, $`B^{ij}/M\mu ^{ij}`$ are also suppressed.

In concrete examples, there will be logarithmic corrections to (16) to which the Yukawa couplings $`Y^{ijk}`$ non-trivially contribute. How much the logarithmic corrections can amplify the disorder will be model-dependent. It is certainly worthwhile to note that the logarithmic interactions will be non-negligible only for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ close to $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, thereby overcoming the problem found in  that the GUT effects may destroy the universality of the SSB terms.

To be more specific, we consider the minimal GUT model based on $`G=SU(5)`$ in six dimensions. The boundary fields are: chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$, where $`i`$ runs over the three generations, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒})`$ to break $`SU(5)`$, and two Higgs superfields $`H(\mathrm{𝟓})`$ and $`\overline{H}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$. To simplify the situation, we neglect the neutrino masses and their mixings. The boundary superpotential of the model is given by

$$W=\frac{Y_U^{ij}}{4}\mathrm{\Psi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^jH+\sqrt{2}Y_D^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Psi }^j\overline{H}+\frac{Y_\lambda }{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+Y_f\overline{H}\mathrm{\Sigma }H+\frac{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mu _H\overline{H}H,$$
(20)
where $`Y_U^{ij}`$ and $`Y_D^{ij}`$ are the Yukawa couplings. Then the gross infrared attractive form of the SSB parameters (16) becomes

$`B_\mathrm{\Sigma }2M\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma },B_H{\displaystyle \frac{24}{25}}M\mu _H,`$ (21)
$`h_U^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{48}{25}}MY_U^{ij},h_D^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{42}{25}}MY_D^{ij},`$ (22)
$`(m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{25}}|M|^2\delta ^{ij},(m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2)^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{25}}|M|^2\delta ^{ij},`$ (23)
$`m_{H_d}^2,m_{H_u}^2{\displaystyle \frac{12}{25}}|M|^2,`$ (24)
in an obvious notation. We find also $`h_f(49/25)MY_f,h_\lambda 3MY_\lambda ,m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^22|M|^2`$. All the scalars that belong to $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ have the same positive squared soft-mass ($`(0.69M)^2`$), which does not differ very much from that ($`(0.85M)^2`$) for the scalars belonging to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$. So, the infrared attractive form in the present model is similar to the SSB terms of the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), and therefore, the model predicts a similar spectrum as in the CMSSM.

In the following analyses we would like to neglect the mixings of the matter multiplets, because their effects will be very small as seen later. One of the pleasant feature of the infrared attractive form of the SSB terms (16) is that the tri-linear couplings, too, may be assumed to be small if the corresponding Yukawa couplings are small, as we have seen in (18). Consequently, we will approximate $`Y_{U,D}^{ij}`$ by $`Y_{t,b}\delta ^{i3}\delta ^{j3}`$ and $`h_{U,D}^{ij}=h_{t,b}\delta ^{i3}\delta ^{j3}`$, respectively.

To proceed, we require that the MSSM is the effective theory below $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, and we would like to check whether the initial values of the SSB terms at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ given in (21)-(23) cause conflicts at low-energies, especially with electroweak symmetry breaking. For simplicity, we assume that the potential of the MSSM at $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ takes the tree-level form, where we identify $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ with the unified gaugino mass $`M`$. We require that $`M_t=174`$ GeV and $`M_\tau =1.77`$ GeV, while imposing the $`b\tau `$ unification at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. \[But we will not take the mass of the bottom quark very seriously. It becomes slightly larger than its experimental value.\]

We are also interested in how much the Yukawa interactions modify the infrared attractive values (21)–(23). Because of the limitation of space, we present below only one case, which is consistent with electroweak symmetry breaking. The parameters of the case are: $`M=500\text{GeV},g=(0.0406\times 4\pi )^{1/2},M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=1.83\times 10^{16}\text{GeV}`$, and

$$\mu _H=935\text{GeV},Y_t=0.767g,Y_b=0.201g,Y_f=1.0g,Y_\lambda =0.01g,$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is found to be $`19.5`$. In this case the infrared attractive values of the SSB terms are given by

$`(m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{1,2}}^2,m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^3}^2)=(0.534,0.531)|M|^2,(m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^{1,2}}^2,m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^3}^2)=(0.801,0.759)|M|^2,`$ (26)
$`(m_{H_u}^2,m_{H_d}^2)=(0.383,0.420)|M|^2,`$ (27)
$`h_t=1.97MY_t,h_b=1.74MY_b,B_H=0.922M\mu _H.`$ (28)
We have used the notation $`m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}^2=(m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{ii}`$, and similarly for $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^i}^2`$. It should be noted also that any charged sparticle does not become a LSP with these soft scalar masses at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$.

The $`\beta `$ functions for $`m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^{1,2}}^2`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^{1,2}}^2`$ do not depend on $`Y_i`$ and $`h_i(i=t,b,f,\lambda )`$ in our approximation. Therefore, the infrared attractive values (23) are not modified by them. There exist of course logarithmic corrections coming from the gauge interaction, but they are flavor-blind. This is very pleasant, because the most stringent constraint from FCNC processes is the almost degeneracy of the squared soft masses of the first two generations. We have found that for the initial values of $`Y`$’s and $`g`$ given in (25), the off-diagonal components $`(m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{ij}/|M|^2`$ and the difference of diagonal elements, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2(1,2)/|M|^2=|m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^1}^2m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}^2|/|M|^2`$ (and similarly for $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$) are less than $`O(10^4)`$, which has been estimated to be $`O(10^6)`$ without the logarithmic corrections in (17). This order of disorder at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is still sufficient to satisfy the most stringent constraint coming from $`\mu e\gamma `$ . In contrast to the case of the first two generations, the $`\beta `$ functions for $`m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^3}^2`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^3}^2`$ depend on $`Y_i`$ and $`h_i`$. Therefore, they change their infrared attractive values. Fig. 1 shows the evolution of $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2/|M|^2`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2/|M|^2`$, respectively. The dashed lines correspond to the third generation. We find that the differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2(i,3)/|M|^2=|m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^i}^2m_{\mathrm{\Psi }^3}^2|/|M|^2`$ with $`i=1,2`$ at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ are $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.04`$, and they contribute to $`\mu e\gamma `$ through the mixing of the first two and the third generations in the lepton sector, i.e., $`V_{3i}^eV_{3j}^e`$ . Assuming that $`V^e`$ can be approximated by the usual Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix $`V_{CKM}`$, we find that $`(\delta _{12}^ł)_{RR}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2\times 10^5`$ in the present case, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2(i,3)/|M|^2`$ does not cause a problem with $`\mu e\gamma `$ . Similarly, the universality between $`m_{H_d}^2`$ and $`m_{H_u}^2`$ are also destroyed, as we see in (28). The main origin are the top Yukawa coupling $`Y_t`$ and $`Y_f`$. This does not conflict with the FCNC problems and CP-violating processes.

In Fig. 2 the converging behavior for $`h_t/MY_t`$ and $`h_b/MY_b`$ are presented. There is also no universality between $`h_U`$ and $`h_D`$ from the beginning. In (18) we have found that the non-aligned part of $`h^{ijk}`$ is suppressed by a factor of $`10^6`$ in six dimensions, if the Yukawa couplings are neglected. Let us estimate how much of this suppression can survive if $`Y`$’s are taken into account. We find that the corrections can be written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_U^{ij}/M(1/16\pi ^2)(a_tY_U^{i3}Y_U^{3j}Y_t+a_bY_U^{i3}Y_D^{3j}Y_b)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_D^{ij}/M`$, where $`a_t`$ and $`a_b`$ are $`O(1)`$ constants, and we have assumed that $`h_{U,D}`$ are proportional to $`MY_{U,D}`$ at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, at which $`Y`$’s become non-negligible. Further considerations in the basis where $`Y_U`$ is diagonal yield that nonzero contributions (that are relevant to us) are: $`|\mathrm{\Delta }h_U^{3j}(j3)|Y_tY_b^2L,|\mathrm{\Delta }h_D^{i3}(i3)|V_{CKM}^{ib}Y_t^2Y_bL,|\mathrm{\Delta }h_D^{ij}(i,j3)|V_{CKM}^{ib}Y_b^3L`$, where $`L=M\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}/M_{\mathrm{GUT}})/16\pi ^2`$. Assuming that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}50M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, we find that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }h_U^{3j}(j3)/M|O(10^4)`$ for the values given in (25), and the other $`\mathrm{\Delta }h`$’s receive a further suppression from $`V_{CKM}`$. $`Im\mathrm{\Delta }h_D^{11}`$, for instance, contributes to the EDM of the neutron, and can be estimated to be $`O(10^7)`$. Therefore, we may conclude that the disorder of the trilinear couplings caused by the Yukawa couplings are sufficiently suppressed to satisfy even the most stringent constraints from the EDMs .

We conclude that gauge interactions in extra dimensions can be used to suppress the disorder of the SSB terms at the fundamental scale so that the FCNC processes and dangerous CP-violating phases become tiny at lower energy scales. Thus the smallness of FCNC may be a possible hint of the existence of extra dimensions.


text:
# Dynamical model of sequential spatial memory: winnerless competition of patterns

## Abstract

We introduce a new biologically-motivated model of sequential spatial memory which is based on the principle of winnerless competition (WLC). We implement this mechanism in a two-layer neural network structure and present the learning dynamics which leads to the formation of a WLC network. After learning, the system is capable of associative retrieval of pre-recorded sequences of spatial patterns.

It is well accepted that the hippocampus plays the central role in acquisition and processing of information related to the representation of physical space. The most spectacular manifestation of this role is the existence of so called “place cells” which repeatedly fire when an animal is in a certain spatial location okeefe . While much effort has been spent on experimental search and modeling of the so called “cognitive map” okeefe2  as a paradigm for spatial memory, recent neurophysiological research favors an alternative concept of spatial memory based on a linked collection of stored episodes eichenbaum . Each episode comprises a sequence of events which, besides spatial locations, may include other features of environment (orientation, odor, sound, etc.). Each distinct event is accompanied by time-locked activity of a certain hippocampal cell. Dynamical modeling of the emerging concept of the episodic memory is of apparent general interest for neuroscience. Several models of associative sequential memory have been proposed in the literature kleinfeld . Most of them are based on the generalization of the Hopfield associative memory network hopfield  to include asymmetric synaptic connections. Accordingly, they suffer from difficulties typical for Hopfield-type networks: the abundance of spurious attractors (sequences), complex structure of attractor basins, and sensitivity to noise.

A dynamical model of the sequential spatial memory should be based on the following experimental facts. First, there is a clear separation between neurons directly responding to specific stimuli (we call them sensory neurons, SN) and hyppocampal cells in CA1 and CA3 regions (principal neurons, PN). PNs fire in response to a combined vector of stimuli corresponding to a particular event. Second, while sensory neurons are not directly connected to each other, the PNs are coupled via inhibitory connections controlled by interneurons (INs). Third, the synaptic connections among PNs and between PNs and SNs exhibit Hebbian Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) bliss ; markram . Based on these features of the hippocampal network, we propose a two-layer dynamical model of the sequential spatial memory (SSM) that can answer the following key questions. (i) How is a certain event (e.g. an image of environment) recorded in the structure of the synaptic connections between multiple SNs and a single PN during learning? (ii) What kind of the cooperative dynamics forces individual PCs to fire sequentially, which would correspond to a specific route (a sequence of scenes) in the environment? (iii) How complex should this network be to store a certain number of different episodes without mixing different events or storing spurious episodes?

The key mechanism of storing of sequential memories within our SSM model is the winnerless competition (WLC) wlc . Every event (image, odor, etc.) is represented by a fixed point in the phase space of the model in which one PN is activated and others are silent. Every fixed point among those included in the sequence is a saddle with many stable separatrices and a single unstable separatrix which connects it with a fixed point representing the subsequent event. The resulting network of separatrices would form a complex heteroclinic connection which would lead the system along the sequence of events in the specific episode.

Let us discuss the learning objectives which would lead to formation of the sequential spatial memory (SSM). The first objective is to learn a projection map: as a result of unsupervised learning the image of a particular environment (snapshot) encoded by heightened activity of the group of sensory neurons (SNs) leads to the heightened activity (firing) of just one PN (see Fig.1). The second objective is to learn the temporal sequence of images. This can be achieved by modifying inhibitory connections among PNs due to long-term potentiation (see e.g. bliss ). The resulting structure of the phase space for the PN layer will exhibit features of the winnerless competition wlc . After the learning is completed, the neural network should be able to reproduce a specific route following a starting pattern.

The two-layer structure of the SSM model is reminiscent of the projection network implementation of the normal form projection algorithm (NFPA) baird . In that model, the dynamics of the network is cast in terms of the normal form equations which are written for amplitudes of certain normal forms which correspond to different patterns stored in the system. The normal form dynamics can be chosen to follow certain dynamical rules, for example, in baird  it was shown that a Hopfield-type network with improved capacity can be built using this approach. Furthermore, in baird  it was proposed that specific choices of the coupling matrix for the normal form dynamics can lead to multi-stability among more complex attracting sets than simple fixed points, such as limit cycles or even chaotic attractors. As we will see below, the model of SSM after learning is completed can be viewed as a variant of the NFPA with m specific choice of normal form dynamics corresponding to the winnerless competition among different patterns.

Consider a two-level network of $`N_s`$ sensory neurons (SN) $`x_i`$ and $`N_p`$ principal neurons $`a_i`$. Similar to the projection network model baird , we assume that sensory neurons do not have their own dynamics and are slaved to either external stimuli in the learning (or storing) regime, or to the PNs in the retrieval regime. In the learning regime, $`x_i=I_i`$ where $`\{I_i\}`$ is a binary input pattern consisting of 0’s and 1’s. During the retrieval phase, $`x_i=_{j=1}^{N_p}P_{ij}a_j`$, where $`P_{ij}`$ is the $`N_s\times N_p`$ projection matrix of connections between SNs and PNs.

The PNs are driven by SNs during the learning phase, but they also have their own dynamics controlled by inhibitory inter-connections (see above). After the learning is finished, the direct driving from SNs is disconnected. The equations for the amplitudes of PNs, $`a_i`$, read

$$\dot{a_i}=a_ia_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}V_{ij}a_j+\alpha a_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_s}{}}P_{ij}^Tx_j+\xi (t),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha 0`$ in the learning phase, and $`\alpha =0`$ in the retrieval phase. We use the transposed projection matrix $`P_{ij}^T`$ assuming that the coupling between SNs and PNs is bi-directional and symmetric. The last term in the r.h.s. of Eq.(1) represents small positive external perturbations which we model as white noise uniformly distributed between 0 and $`\sigma `$, however in reality it can represent input signals from other parts of the brain which control learning and retrieval dynamics.

After a certain pattern is presented to the model, the sensory stimuli reset the state of the PN layer according to the projection rule $`a_i=_{j=1}^{N_s}P_{ij}^Tx_j,`$ but then $`a_i`$ change according to Eq.(1).

In addition to the dynamics of SNs and PNs during learning and retrieval phases, we need to introduce two learning processes: (i) forming the projection matrix $`P_{ij}`$ which is responsible for connecting a group of sensory neurons of the first layer corresponding to a certain stored pattern to a single principal neuron which represents this pattern at the PN level; (ii) learning of the competition matrix $`V_{ij}`$ which is responsible for the temporal/logical ordering of the sequential memory.

Projection matrix. The slow learning dynamics of the projection matrix is controlled by the following equation

$$\dot{P}_{ij}=ϵa_i(\beta x_jP_{ij}).$$
(2)
with $`ϵ1`$. We assume that initially all $`P_{ij}`$ connections are nearly identical $`P_{ij}=1+\eta _{ij}`$, where $`\eta _{ij}`$ are small random perturbations, $`_j\eta _{ij}=0,\eta _{ij}^2=\eta _0^21`$. Additionally, we assume that initially matrix $`V_{ij}`$ is purely competitive: $`V_{ii}=1`$ and $`V_{ij}=V_0>1`$ for $`ij`$.

Consider a scenario when we want to “memorize” a certain pattern A in our projection matrix. We apply a set of inputs $`A_i`$ corresponding to the pattern A to the SNs. As before, we assume that external stimuli render the SNs in one of two states: excited ($`A_i=1`$) and quiescent ($`A_i=0`$). The initial state of the PN layer is fully excited ($`a_i(0)=_jP_{ij}A_j`$). According to the competitive nature of interaction of PNs after a short transient, only one of them (neuron A) which corresponds to maximum $`a_i(0)`$ remains excited and others become quiescent (inhibited). Which neuron becomes “responsible” for the pattern A is actually random, as it depends on the initial projection matrix $`P_{ij}`$. As it follows from Eq.(2), for small $`ϵ`$ ‘synapses’ of suppressed PNs don’t change, whereas synapses of the (single) excited neuron evolve such that the connections between excited SNs and PNs neurons amplify towards $`\beta >1`$, and connection between excited PNs and quiescent SNs decay to zero (see Figure 1,a). As a result, the first input pattern will be “recorded” in one of the rows of the matrix $`P_{ij}`$, while other rows will remain almost unchanged.

Now suppose that we want to record a second pattern different from the first one. We can repeat the procedure described in the previous paragraph, namely, apply external stimuli (pattern B) to the SNs, “project” them to the initial state of the PN layer ($`a_i(0)=_jP_{ij}B_j`$), and let the system evolve. Since synaptic connections from SNs suppressed by the first pattern to neuron A have been eliminated, a new set of stimuli corresponding to pattern B will excite neuron A weaker than most of the others, and competition will lead to selection of one principal neuron B different from neuron A. In such a way we can record as many patterns as there are PNs.

Competition matrix. The sequential order of patterns recorded in the projection network is determined by the competition matrix $`V_{ij}`$. Initially it is set to $`V_{ij}=V_0>1`$ for $`ij`$ and $`V_{ii}=1`$ which corresponds to winner-take-all competition. The goal of sequential spatial learning is to record the transition of pattern A to pattern B in the form of suppressing the competition matrix element $`V_{BA}`$. The slow dynamics of the non-diagonal elements of the competition matrix are controlled by the delay-differential equation

$$\dot{V}_{ij}=ϵa_i(t)a_j(t\tau )(V_1V_{ij}).$$
(3)
As seen from Eq.(3), only the matrix elements corresponding to $`a_i(t)0`$ and $`a_j(t\tau )0`$, are changing towards the asymptotic value $`V_1<1`$ corresponding to the desired transition. Since most of the time (except for short transients) only one of the principal neurons is excited, only one of the connections $`V_{ij}`$ is changing at any time (see Figure 1,b). As a result, an arbitrary (non-repeating) sequence of patterns can be recorded. If, after a series of non-repeating patterns, we show the first pattern again, the “loop” of heteroclinic connections will be closed and the system will be able to reproduce a repeating sequence of patterns in a cyclic manner.

If the dimension of the secondary layer $`N_s`$ permits, it is easy to record into the network more than one sequence of patterns. To avoid a spurious connection between the sequences, the time interval between the last pattern of the first sequence and the first pattern of the second sequence should be greater than $`\tau `$.

In Figure 1 we show the simulation results for a slow dynamics of weights $`P_{ij}`$ and $`V_{ij}`$ during a learning phase in a network with 588 sensory and 10 principal neurons for $`ϵ=0.01`$. As stored patterns $`I_i`$ we take ten digits 0,…9 represented as 21x28 pixel dithered images. Two loop sequences of patterns have been presented: “0”, “1”, “2”, and “6”, “7”, “8”, “9”. Note that these images are not precisely orthogonal to each other, and yet the system is able to associate them to different PNs. While a certain pattern is presented to the SN layer, certain matrix coefficients $`P_{ij}`$ decay, some other (connecting excited neurons of the sensory layer and a single excited neuron of the PN layer) approach 2.5 and remaining connections remain almost unchanged. After a switch from one pattern to the next in a sequence the corresponding matrix coefficient $`V_{ij}`$ decays to a low value $`V_1=0.9`$.

Figure 2 shows the state of the projection matrix after all seven patterns have been recorded into the memory. The high-contrast “barcode” rows correspond to memorized patterns and dim gray rows correspond to yet available principal neurons.

Now, presenting a test pattern T “resembling” one of the recorded patterns to the sensory layer ($`x_i(0)=T(i)`$, $`a_i(0)=_iP_ij^TT_j`$), will initiate a periodic sequence of patterns corresponding to the previously recording sequence recorded in the network. Figure 3,a shows the behavior of the principal neurons after two different initial patterns have been presented, one resembling digit “0” and another resembling digit “6”. In both cases, the system quickly settled onto a cyclic generation of patterns associated with a given test pattern. At any given time except for a short transient time between the patterns, only a single principal neuron is “on”, which corresponds to a particular pattern. The order in which the principal neurons are turned on is completely determined by the structure of the WLC matrix $`V_{ij}`$. The duration of each “state” is determined by the magnitude of external perturbations $`\sigma `$. For $`\sigma =0`$, the system would asymptotically approach the separatrices and so the durations of each state would grow indefinitely. For a finite $`\sigma `$, the duration of each state scales as $`\mathrm{log}\sigma `$.

In the above example, patterns are retrieved from the spatial memory periodically in time. However, it may be desirable for a system to be able to control the duration of individual patterns in the sequence. This can be easily achieved by modulating the overall strength of inhibitory connections $`V_{ij}+\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$. While $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)>1V_1`$, all fixed points are stable nodes, and so a single principle neuron keeps firing. In order to advance to the next patter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is suppressed to zero for a short period of time ($`O(\mathrm{log}\sigma )`$). An example of such non-periodic retrieval of images is shown in Fig. 3,b.

In conclusion, we demonstrated the new principle of operation for the sequential spatial memory which is based on the winnerless competition. This principle is embodied in the two-layer neuronal structure with the first layer serving as a sensory input for the second layer which performs winnerless competition among representative principal neurons. We introduced the learning rules for the projection and the competition matrices which lead naturally to the desired function of the network. We also demonstrated that external perturbations can influence the timing of the transitions among the stored patterns, however, the sequence of patterns is robust against external perturbations. The model can operate in two regimes: externally-timed switching controlled by global modulation of inhibitory connections and spontaneous periodic switching between patterns. The latter can be relevant for route replays during sleep. Of course, our model only describes a generic mechanism of sequential spatial memory, in real biological systems neurons generate non-stationary spike trains and synaptic dynamics is timing-dependent (see markram ; poo ). Moreover, instead of a single PN a given pattern can be represented by a group of neurons which would increase the structural stability of the memory. All these generalizations will be addressed in our future work.

Authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Engineering Research Program of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences at the U.S. Department of Energy, grant DE-FG03-96ER14592 and from NSF grant EIA-013708.


text:
# Interpreting experimental bounds on 𝐷⁰ - (𝐷⁰)̄ mixing in the presence of CP violation

## I Introduction

The ongoing searches for $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing Link et al. (2000); Godang et al. (2000); Link et al. (2001); Schwartz (2001); Csorna et al. (2002); Abe et al. (2002); Aubert et al. (2001); Pompili (2002) have not yet detected a signal of such mixing. Thus, the experimental data place an upper bound on the mixing amplitude. The value of this upper bound, however, depends on the assumptions one makes when analysing the experimental results. Specifically, the question of CP violation in $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing has an important impact on the final answer. Most often, $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing experiments are analysed assuming no CP violation. While this assumption is valid for the standard model, it does not hold for many new physics models.111In fact, since it has been recently suggested that the $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing amplitude may be large even in the standard model Falk et al. (2002), CP violation may be the most valuable clue for new physics in this system. (See, for example, the supersymmetric models in Nir and Seiberg (1993); Leurer et al. (1994).) Obviously, if the constraint on $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing is to be used to test such new physics models, the experimental data should be interpreted in an appropriate framework Blaylock et al. (1995). We therefore present here the analysis of experimental results allowing for CP violation in mixing.222We do not consider, however, CP violation in $`D^0`$ decays, which is absent in most new physics extensions Bergmann and Nir (1999).

The organization of this work is as follows: In section II we present our formalism. We review the most recent experimental data in section III , and perform the analysis in section IV. We conclude in section V.

## II Notation and formalism

We follow mostly the formalism of ref. Bergmann et al. (2000). The mass eigenstates are given by

$$|D_{1,2}=p|D^0\pm q|\overline{D^0},$$
(1)
The mass and the width differences are parameterized as follows:

$$x\frac{m_2m_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},y\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(2)
with the average mass and width defined as

$$m\frac{m_1+m_2}{2},\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2}.$$
(3)
We define the $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D^0}`$ decay amplitudes by

$$A_ff\left|_d\right|D^0,\overline{A}_ff\left|_d\right|\overline{D^0},$$
(4)
and the complex observable $`\lambda _f`$ as

$$\lambda _f\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}_f}{A_f}.$$
(5)
In almost all models, CP violation in decay of the relevant modes can be safely neglected Bergmann et al. (2000); Bergmann and Nir (1999) (for an exception, see D’Ambrosio and Gao (2001)), leading to

$$A_f=\overline{A}_{\overline{f}}.$$
(6)
Now we can parametrize the effects of indirect CP violation in the relevant decay processes: The doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) $`D^0`$ $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, the singly-Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) $`D^0`$ $`K^+K^{}`$, the Cabibbo-favoured (CF) $`D^0`$ $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, and the three conjugate processes. We denote333Note that $`A_m`$ in our definition is twice smaller than the $`A_m`$ used by CLEO Godang et al. (2000).

$`\left|q/p\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`1+2A_m,`$ (7)
$`\lambda _{K^+\pi ^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R_D}\left(1A_m\right)e^{i(\delta +\varphi )},`$ (8)
$`\lambda _{K^{}\pi ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R_D}\left(1+A_m\right)e^{i(\delta \varphi )},`$ (9)
$`\lambda _{K^+K^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+A_m\right)e^{i\varphi },`$ (10)
where the $`\varphi `$ and $`\delta `$ are the weak phase and the strong phase, respectively, and

$$R_D=\left|\frac{A_{K^+\pi ^{}}}{\overline{A}_{K^+\pi ^{}}}\right|^2=\left|\frac{\overline{A}_{K^{}\pi ^+}}{A_{K^{}\pi ^+}}\right|^2.$$
(11)
Next we define

$`x^{}`$ $``$ $`x\mathrm{cos}\delta +y\mathrm{sin}\delta ,`$ (12)
$`y^{}`$ $``$ $`y\mathrm{cos}\delta x\mathrm{sin}\delta .`$
The rates of the DCS, SCS and CF decays are expanded for short times $`t1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }[D^0(t)K^+\pi ^{}]=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left|A_{K^{}\pi ^+}\right|^2\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[R_D+\sqrt{R_D}(1+A_m)(y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi x^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }t+\frac{1+2A_m}{4}(y^2+x^2)(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^2\right],\end{array}$$
(13)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{D^0}(t)K^{}\pi ^+]=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left|A_{K^{}\pi ^+}\right|^2\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[R_D+\sqrt{R_D}(1A_m)(y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }t+\frac{12A_m}{4}(y^2+x^2)(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^2\right],\end{array}$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[D^0(t)K^+K^{}]=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left|A_{K^+K^{}}\right|^2\times \left[1(1+A_m)(y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi x^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }t\right],$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[D^0(t)K^{}\pi ^+\right]=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\overline{D^0(t)}K^+\pi ^{}\right]=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\left|A_{K^{}\pi ^+}\right|^2.$$
(16)
Several experiments measure the parameter $`y_{CP}`$, defined by

$$y_{CP}=\frac{\tau (D^0K^{}\pi ^+)}{\tau (D^0K^+K^{})}1,$$
(17)
with $`\tau `$ being the measured lifetime fitted to a pure exponential decay rate for the specific modes Link et al. (2000); Bergmann et al. (2000). If CP is a good symmetry in the relevant processes, this definition of $`y_{CP}`$ corresponds to

$$y_{CP}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{CP even})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{CP odd})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{CP even})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{CP odd})},$$
(18)
since then the $`K^+K^{}`$ state is an even CP state and the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ state is an equal mixture of CP even and CP odd states. By fitting the decay rates in (15) and (13) to exponents, and expanding for small $`A_m`$ we get Bergmann et al. (2000):

$$y_{CP}=y\mathrm{cos}\varphi A_mx\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(19)
We are interested in the dispersive part of the mixing amplitude, $`M_{12}^D`$: Short distance contribution from new physics can affect $`M_{12}^D`$ in a significant way. In terms of measurable quantities, $`\left|M_{12}^D\right|`$ is given by Branco et al. (1999)

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|^2=\frac{4(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2+A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}{16(1A_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})},$$
(20)
or, using eq. (2),

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\frac{x^2+A_m^2y^2}{4(1A_m^2)}.$$
(21)
## III Experimental data on $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing

The neutral $`D`$ system is studied by various experiments. First, the CLEO experiment Godang et al. (2000) measures the rates (13), (14):

$`R_D`$ $`=`$ $`(0.48\pm 0.13)\%,`$
$`y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(2.5_{1.6}^{+1.4})\%,`$
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0\pm 1.5)\%,`$ (22)
$`2A_m`$ $`=`$ $`0.23_{0.80}^{+0.63},`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0.00\pm 0.60.`$
The FOCUS experiment Link et al. (2001) provides a measurement of the ratio between the branching ratio of the DCS and CF decays. This measurement is consistent with CLEO data at the level of $`0.8\sigma `$. However, as no direct measurement of the parameters is done, no stronger bounds on the parameters result.

The value of $`y_{CP}`$ is measured by the various experiments. Table 1 presents the various results.

The world weighted average of $`y_{CP}`$ is hence:

$$y_{CP}=(1.0\pm 0.7)\%.$$
(23)
## IV Interpretation of the experimental data

Our aim is to constrain the $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing amplitude $`M_{12}^D`$. First we combine (12) and (19) to get

$$y_{CP}+A_m\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left(x^{}\mathrm{cos}\delta +y^{}\mathrm{sin}\delta \right)=y^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\delta x^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
(24)
The measured values of (III) and (23) can be used to constrain $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Assuming first444A similar procedure was followed in ref. Bergmann et al. (2000). $`A_m=0`$ and also $`\left|\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right|0`$ we find

$$(1.0\pm 0.7)\%=(2.5_{1.6}^{+1.4})\%\mathrm{cos}\delta (0.0\pm 1.5)\%\mathrm{sin}\delta ,$$
(25)
which implies a certain distribution for $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Due to the sign difference between $`y_{CP}`$ and $`y^{}`$ and due to the relative smallness of $`x^{}`$ it is expected that this distribution of $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ will be biased to negative values. By a full analysis, considering the measured values of $`A_m`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ we can characterize the bias by stating the total confidence level value:

$$\mathrm{cos}\delta 0.7(95\%\text{ C.L.}),$$
(26)
(and $`\mathrm{cos}\delta 0.0`$ at $`68\%`$ C.L.).

Since we have now a distribution for $`x^{}`$, $`y^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$, we may invert (12) to solve for $`x`$ and $`y`$:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`x^{}\mathrm{cos}\delta y^{}\mathrm{sin}\delta ,`$ (27)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`y^{}\mathrm{cos}\delta +x^{}\mathrm{sin}\delta .`$
We note that the signs of $`x`$ and $`y`$ in (27) are not measured by current experimental results. Since the measured value for $`x^{}`$ is distributed around zero the sign for $`y`$ is determined by the sign of $`y^{}`$ which, in turn, depends on the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$. This sign is not provided by any measurement (all we know is that $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right|1`$). Similarly, the sign of $`x`$ is determined by the sign of both $`y^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\delta `$, which are not measured.

The resulting distributions for $`x`$ and $`y`$ are therefore in the form of two superimposed distributions for the two possible sign choices (denoted by the $`\pm `$ sign). We obtain:

$`x`$ $``$ $`(\pm 2.8\pm 2.5)\%,`$ (28)
$`y`$ $``$ $`(\pm 0.9\pm 3.6)\%.`$
We note that these values are different from those quoted in Groom et al. (2000) where it is assumed that $`\delta =\varphi =0`$. When we consider the distribution of $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$, the bound on $`x`$ (and hence the bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$) is weakened by a factor of about $`2.2`$. The bound on $`y`$, however, (and hence the bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is strengthened. For comparison, table 2 shows the $`95\%`$ C.L. ranges for $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the two cases: One which assumes $`\mathrm{cos}\delta =1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi =1`$, and one which takes the values mentioned.

We evaluate now the $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing amplitude. Taking the average decay width Groom et al. (2000)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D=(1.595\pm 0.011)\times 10^9\text{MeV},$$
(29)
and using (21), we obtain a distribution for $`M_{12}`$ which is maximal near zero:

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|6.2\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}),$$
(30)
(and $`\left|M_{12}^D\right|3.3\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }`$ at $`68\%`$ C.L.).

It is interesting to compare this value to the ones obtained by using some simplifying assumptions. First, assuming no CP violation in mixing, we set $`A_m=0`$ but allow for $`\delta ,\varphi 0`$. We get

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|5.4\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}).$$
(31)
Second, we set $`A_m=\varphi =0`$ and allow $`\delta 0`$. We get

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|4.0\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}).$$
(32)
Third, we set $`\delta =0`$, but allow $`A_m,\varphi 0`$. We get

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|3.9\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}).$$
(33)
Last, we set $`A_m=\varphi =\delta =0`$ and get555Actually, it is enough to assume $`A_m=\delta =0`$ since, in this case, the value of $`\varphi `$ affects only $`y`$, which does not contribute to $`M_{12}^D`$.

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|2.3\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}).$$
(34)
This is the value which appears in Groom et al. (2000). Thus, allowing CP violation, the resulting constraint is about $`2.7`$ weaker (i.e. larger) then the one which is obtained with the maximal set of assumptions.

## V Conclusions.

We interpret the most recent data from the experimental searches for $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing. Allowing CP violation in mixing, we obtain the upper bound

$$\left|M_{12}^D\right|6.2\times 10^{11}\text{MeV }(95\%\text{C.L.}),$$
(35)
which is $`2.7`$ times weaker than the naive calculation.

The actual upper bound for $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing amplitude depends, therefore, on the model in question. Assuming that CP is conserved in $`D^0`$ \- $`\overline{D^0}`$ mixing, as is the case in the standard model, the bound is the one in (32). (If, in addition, one is willing to assume that $`SU(3)`$-flavour symmetry holds in $`D`$ decays, the bound is given by (34).) For a more general model, with new sources of CP violation, eq. (35) gives the present bound. Taking into account this weaker bound leads to modifications Nir and Raz  compared to analyses that consider only the CP conserving bound Hou (2001); Chang et al. (2002); Chua and Hou (2001).

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Yossi Nir for his help and guidance.


text:
# Relations for classical communication capacity and entanglement capability of two-qubit operations

## Abstract

Bipartite operations underpin both classical communication and entanglement generation. Using a superposition of classical messages, we show that the capacity of a two-qubit operation for error-free entanglement-assisted bidirectional classical communication can not exceed twice the entanglement capability. In addition we show that any bipartite two-qubit operation can increase the communication that may be performed using an ensemble by twice the entanglement capability.

Classical communication can only occur between two systems via an interaction – that is, a bipartite or multipartite operation. Similarly, interactions are essential for generating entanglement between two systems. We establish relations between the capacities for bipartite operations to perform these two tasks.

In the static case there is equality between entanglement and shared classical information. The Schmidt decomposition of a bipartite state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=_{n=1}^N\sqrt{\lambda _n}|\phi _n|\chi _n`$, with $`|\phi _n`$ and $`|\chi _n`$ orthonormal bases for the two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$, has an entropy of entanglement given by $`E=\lambda _n\mathrm{log}_2\lambda _n`$ Ben96 . This entropy of entanglement is also the mutual information. That is, if system $`A`$ is measured in the basis $`|\phi _n`$ and system $`B`$ is measured in the basis $`|\chi _n`$, then identical results will be obtained. The two sets of measurement results will then share mutual information $`E`$. The mutual information, which is classical, equals the entropy of entanglement, which is quantum. Of course, this mutual information cannot be used for communication as the measurement results are obtained in a completely random way, and not on the basis of pre-existing information.

It is known that there is equality for some simple operations. The CNOT operation can increase entanglement by a maximum of one ebit (an ebit is the entanglement contained in one Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or EPR, pair). Similarly it is possible to use a CNOT to communicate one bit in each direction simultaneously collins . Analogously the SWAP gate may produce a maximum of two ebits or perform two bits of communication in both directions simultaneously using superdense coding eisert ; super . In these two cases, the classical communication capacity in each direction is identical to the entanglement capability. It is reasonable to hypothesise that this may be true for all two-qubit operations.

To establish relations, it is useful to consider the entanglement that is generated by a superposition of classical messages. We employ this concept to prove an inequality between the entanglement capability and the error-free classical communication capacity. This result is compared with the recent result of Bennett *et al.* (BHLS) bennett  where the classical communication is not assisted by entanglement; i.e. entanglement is not provided as a “free resource”. We then derive initial ensembles such that the communication that can be performed using these ensembles may be increased by the entanglement capability via a two-qubit operation.

We adopt the BHLS terminology, and their manuscript provides an excellent background on the mathematical foundations for studying entanglement capability and classical communication capacity. The maximum increase in entanglement that may be produced by a single implementation of the transform $`U`$ is denoted $`E_U`$. The case of a single implementation of $`U`$ is sufficient to establish this bound as it is not possible to generate more entanglement per operation via multiple operations bennett . Here we specifically address the case that entanglement is quantified by the entropy of entanglement. We employ base-2 logarithms so $`E_U`$ is in units of ebits.

In addition, we adopt the BHLS definitions for the asymptotic communication capacities. The bidirectional communication is described by the pair of numbers $`(R_{},R_{})`$. The pair $`(R_{},R_{})`$ is said to be “achievable” if, for any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a $`t`$ such that it is possible to communicate $`tR_{}`$ bits from Alice to Bob and $`tR_{}`$ bits from Bob to Alice with fidelity $`1ϵ`$ via $`t`$ applications of $`U`$ interspersed with local unitary operations. The explicit mathematical expression for this is given by BHLS. The total capacity is then defined by

$$C_+^E=sup\{R_{}+R_{}:(R_{},R_{})\mathrm{is}\mathrm{achievable}\mathrm{by}U\}$$
(1)
Here we use the superscript $`E`$ to indicate that any arbitrary amount of entanglement is allowed to assist communication. The case where no additional entanglement is allowed to assist communication is denoted by $`C_+`$ (we do not consider this case).

Here we consider the case of error-free communication ($`ϵ=0`$) for simplicity. We denote the capacity for error-free communication by $`\overline{C}_+^E`$. It is shown in Ref. eps  that the same results are obtained for imperfect communication in the limit $`ϵ0`$. In order to derive an inequality for $`\overline{C}_+^E`$, we consider a quantum superposition of classical messages. This technique is similar to that applied by BHLS to derive the inequality $`E_UC_+`$. Let us consider a protocol that transmits $`n_a`$ bits from Alice to Bob and $`n_b`$ bits from Bob to Alice, with $`t`$ uses of $`U`$. By taking sufficiently large $`t`$, the total bidirectional communication per operation, $`(n_a+n_b)/t`$, can be made arbitrarily close to $`\overline{C}_+^E`$.

We consider an input state $`|x_{A_1}|y_{B_1}|\psi _{A_2B_2}`$, where subsystem $`A_1`$ contains Alice’s message $`x`$ and subsystem $`B_1`$ contains Bob’s message $`y`$. $`A_2`$ and $`B_2`$ are auxiliary subsystems possessed by Alice and Bob, respectively, and may contain as much entanglement as is necessary in order to perform the entanglement assisted communication. Via $`t`$ applications of $`U`$, together with local unitary transformations, we obtain the output state $`|\eta _{xy}=|y_{A_1}|x_{B_1}|c_{xy}_{A_2B_2}`$. That is, the message $`y`$ is transferred to Alice, $`x`$ is transferred to Bob, and the auxiliary subsystems $`A_2`$ and $`B_2`$ are left in a state which may, in general, depend on $`x`$ and $`y`$.

The change in the entanglement is then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{xy}=S\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|c_{xy}_{A_2B_2})\right]S\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|\psi _{A_2B_2})\right]$$
(2)
for $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \mathrm{log}\rho )`$, and adopting the convention that $`\mathrm{Tr}_X(|\psi )\mathrm{Tr}_X(|\psi \psi |)`$.

Now we may consider the case that the input $`A_1`$ is maximally entangled with another ancilla $`A_3`$, and similarly for $`B_1`$. Then the input state is

$$2^{(n_a+n_b)/2}\underset{xy}{}|x_{A_1}|x_{A_3}|y_{B_1}|y_{B_3}|\psi _{A_2B_2}$$
(3)
and the output state is

$$2^{(n_a+n_b)/2}\underset{xy}{}|y_{A_1}|x_{A_3}|x_{B_1}|y_{B_3}|c_{xy}_{A_2B_2}.$$
(4)
The increase in the entanglement for $`t`$ applications of $`U`$ is then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=S\left[2^{(n_a+n_b)}{\displaystyle \underset{xy}{}}|y_{A_1}y|x_{A_3}x|\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|c_{xy}_{A_2B_2})\right]`$
$`S\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|\psi _{A_2B_2})\right]`$
$`=(n_a+n_b)+2^{(n_a+n_b)}{\displaystyle \underset{xy}{}}S\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|c_{xy}_{A_2B_2})\right]`$
$`S\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{B_2}(|\psi _{A_2B_2})\right]`$
$`=(n_a+n_b)+2^{(n_a+n_b)}{\displaystyle \underset{xy}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{xy}.`$ (5)
For sufficiently large $`t`$, we may obtain $`(n_a+n_b)/t\overline{C}_+^E`$ with arbitrary accuracy. In addition let $`E_U^{}`$ denote the maximum amount by which $`U`$ can decrease the entanglement. We therefore obtain the inequality $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/t\overline{C}_+^EE_U^{}`$, implying

$$E_U+E_U^{}\overline{C}_+^E.$$
(6)
For the case of two-qubit operations, we may simplify this result. In this case the maximum increase in the entanglement $`E_U`$ is equal to the maximum decrease in the entanglement $`E_U^{}`$, which may be shown in the following way. Any two-qubit interaction $`U`$ is equivalent, up to local operations, to an operation of the form Kraus

$$U_d=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\alpha _1\sigma _1\sigma _1+\alpha _2\sigma _2\sigma _2+\alpha _3\sigma _3\sigma _3\right)\right],$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _k`$, for $`k\{1,2,3\}`$ are the Pauli operators. As entanglement capability and classical communication capacity are independent of local operations, we may restrict to operations of this form. It is then simple to show that $`U_d^{}=U_d^{}=U_d^1`$. As discussed in Ref. Kraus , for any measure of entanglement $`E(|\mathrm{\Psi })=E(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$. This means that, if the operation $`U_d`$ acting on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ generates the maximum increase in entanglement, then this operation performed on the state $`U_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ decreases the entanglement by $`E_U`$. Therefore, the operation may decrease the entanglement at least as much as it may increase it. Similarly it is simple to show the converse, and therefore $`E_U=E_U^{}`$. Thus we find that, for two-qubit operations, we have the inequality

$$2E_U\overline{C}_+^E.$$
(8)
This means that the sum of the communication capacities in each direction cannot be greater than twice the entanglement capability. As mentioned above, in the case of a CNOT or SWAP operation there is equality. That is, the communication that may be performed in each direction is equal to $`E_U`$, for a total of $`2E_U`$. It would be convenient if we were able to apply a similar argument to prove the converse. That is, if we were able to decompose any operation creating entanglement into a superposition of classical messages, then we would be able to prove $`2E_U\overline{C}_+^E`$ and therefore equality. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be possible to establish such a direct equivalence between classical communication and entanglement generation in this way. Nevertheless we will show that, via a two-qubit operation with an entanglement capability of $`E_U`$, it is possible to increase the communication that can be performed in each direction using an ensemble by $`E_U`$ bits.

We will now describe how to obtain initial ensembles for two-qubit operations such that the Holevo information may be increased by $`E_U`$ under operation $`U`$. In general, for classical message $`i`$, Bob receives the reduced density matrix $`\rho _i`$. When message $`i`$ is encoded with probability $`p_i`$, we have the output ensemble $`𝖤=\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$. Similarly we will denote the ensemble of pure states shared by Alice and Bob by $`=\{p_i,|\psi _i_{AB}\}`$. We use the subscript $`A`$ to indicate the entire subsystem held by Alice and $`B`$ to indicate the entire subsystem held by Bob. The Holevo information $`\chi `$ for ensemble $`𝖤`$ is given by

$$\chi (𝖤)=S\left(\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _i\right)\underset{i}{}p_iS(\rho _i).$$
(9)
This communication may be achieved via coding over multiple states Holevo .

The entanglement-assisted communication capacity in a single direction is bennett

$$C_{}^E=sup\{R:(R,0)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{achievable}\mathrm{by}U\}.$$
(10)
As the two-qubit operation is symmetric between Alice and Bob, all results for this case also apply to communication in the opposite direction, $`C_{}^E`$. BHLS show that $`C_{}^E`$ is given by

$$C_{}^E=\underset{}{sup}\left[\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_AU)\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_A)\right].$$
(11)
Similarly to BHLS we adopt the notation convention

$`U`$ $`=\{p_i,U|\psi _i_{AB}\},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{Tr}_A`$ $`=\{p_i,\mathrm{Tr}_A(|\psi _i_{AB})\}.`$ (13)
The reason why the communication rate is of the form of a difference in the Holevo information is that, for any $`ϵ,\delta >0`$, for sufficiently large $`n`$ it is possible to construct $`n`$ copies of the ensemble $``$ with fidelity $`1ϵ`$ using communication $`n[\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_A)+\delta ]`$ berry ; Shor . In the limit of small $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$, this means that $`\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_A)`$ bits are required for construction of each ensemble $``$. The communication that may be performed after the operation $`U`$ is then $`\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_AU)`$. As communication $`\chi (\mathrm{Tr}_A)`$ was required to construct the ensemble, the additional communication per operation is as given by Eq. (11).

In order to see how to obtain communication equal to $`E_U`$, note that the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (9) is the average of the entanglement of the coding states. Therefore, if each of the initial states $`|\psi _i_{AB}`$ are chosen such that the entanglement of these states is decreased by the maximum $`E_U`$ by operation $`U`$, then the second term in (9) will be decreased by $`E_U`$ by the operation. If the first term is constant, then the total communication will be $`E_U`$.

In order to obtain such an ensemble, let us start with an initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that the entanglement is decreased by the maximum $`E_U`$ via operation $`U`$. We then wish to find a set of operations $`\{V_i^AV_i^B\}`$, where $`V_i^A`$ are local operations on Alice’s side, $`V_i^B`$ are local operations on Bob’s side, and $`V_iV_i^AV_i^B`$ commutes with $`U`$. This means that each state $`V_i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will have its entanglement decreased by $`E_U`$ for operation $`U`$. We also require $`_ip_i\mathrm{Tr}_A(V_i|\varphi )`$ to be a multiple of the identity for all input states $`|\varphi `$. Then

$$\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{Tr}_A(UV_i|\mathrm{\Psi })=\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{Tr}_A(V_iU|\mathrm{\Psi })𝟙.$$
(14)
This means that the first term on the right side of (9) will be unchanged by the operation $`U`$, and therefore that the total one-way communication possible is $`E_U`$.

Let us consider the case that, in addition to the two qubits upon which $`U`$ acts, Alice and Bob each possess one auxiliary qubit. It has been found leifer  that the maximal increase in entanglement may be achieved using only one auxiliary qubit on each side, and no improvements are obtained using additional auxiliary qubits. We will label Alice’s auxiliary qubit 1, the two qubits upon which $`U`$ acts that Alice and Bob possess as 2 and 3, respectively, and Bob’s auxiliary qubit as 4. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we will restrict to operations $`U`$ given in the form (7). In this case the operators $`\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}`$, for $`i\{0,1,2,3\}`$, commute with $`U`$. Here we take the notation convention that $`\sigma _0`$ is the identity and the superscripts indicate the qubits upon which these operators act. Similarly the operators $`\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(4)}`$ commute with $`U`$. Let us then consider the set of 16 operators $`\{\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\}`$. Given a single state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for which $`U`$ decreases the entanglement by $`E_U`$, we obtain a set of 16 states $`\{\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ for which the entanglement will be decreased by $`E_U`$. In addition, it is easily shown that, for any two-qubit state $`\rho `$,

$$\underset{ii^{}}{}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\rho \sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}𝟙.$$
(15)
This implies that

$$\underset{ii^{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{12}\left(\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }\right)𝟙.$$
(16)
Thus we find that, by coding with equal probabilities $`p_{ii^{}}=1/16`$ each of the 16 states $`\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it is possible to communicate $`E_U`$ bits in one direction using operation $`U`$.

Next we consider the more complicated case of bidirectional communication. Let $`i`$ be the classical message encoded by Alice, and $`j`$ be the classical message encoded by Bob. The output ensemble is then $`=\{p_i,q_j,|\psi _{ij}_{AB}\}`$. We will denote the bidirectional communication that it is possible to perform using ensemble $``$ by $`\chi ^{}()`$. We also define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _U^{}=\underset{}{sup}[\chi ^{}(U)\chi ^{}()].$$
(17)
We again consider a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`U`$ decreases the entanglement by the maximum $`E_U`$. Alice encodes via the set of 16 operators $`\{\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\}`$, and Bob encodes via the 16 operators $`\{\sigma _j^{}^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\sigma _j^{(3)}\sigma _j^{}^{(4)}\}`$. Note that Alice and Bob’s operators commute, so the order in which these operators are applied is irrelevant. We therefore have a total ensemble of 256 states

$$=\{p_{ii^{}},q_{jj^{}},\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\sigma _j^{}^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\sigma _j^{(3)}\sigma _j^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }\},$$
(18)
where we take $`p_{ii^{}}=q_{jj^{}}=1/16`$. As each of the operators applied by Alice and Bob commutes with $`U`$ \[for $`U`$ in the form (7)\], the entanglement will be decreased by $`E_U`$ for all of these states.

For this type of bidirectional ensemble, the bidirectional communication that it is possible to perform is given by eps

$$\chi ^{}()=\chi ^{}(\mathrm{Tr}_A)+\chi ^{}(\mathrm{Tr}_B),$$
(19)
where we have defined

$`\chi ^{}𝖤`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}q_j\left[S\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i\rho _{ij}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iS(\rho _{ij})\right],`$ (20)
$`\chi ^{}𝖤`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i\left[S\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}q_j\rho _{ij}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}q_jS(\rho _{ij})\right],`$ (21)
for the ensemble $`𝖤=\{p_i,q_j,\rho _{ij}\}`$.

Now using the relation (15), we find that

$$\underset{ii^{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{12}\left(\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\sigma _j^{}^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\sigma _j^{(3)}\sigma _j^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }\right)𝟙$$
(22)
and

$$\underset{jj^{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{34}\left(\sigma _i^{}^{(1)}\sigma _i^{(2)}\sigma _i^{(3)}\sigma _i^{}^{(4)}\sigma _j^{}^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(2)}\sigma _j^{(3)}\sigma _j^{}^{(4)}|\mathrm{\Psi }\right)𝟙.$$
(23)
These relations mean that the first terms in the sums in (20) and (21) are constant under the action of operation $`U`$. As the entanglement $`S(\rho _{ij})`$ decreases by $`E_U`$ for each state, we find that the total communication that it is possible to perform in each direction using the ensemble is increased by $`E_U`$, for a total increase of $`2E_U`$.

Thus we have shown the sequence of inequalities $`\overline{C}_+^E2E_U\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _U^{}`$. From Ref. eps , the same results are obtained for asymptotically perfect communication as for error-free communication, so $`C_+^E2E_U\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _U^{}`$. We conjecture that, similarly to the case for communication in a single direction berry ; Shor , we may obtain $`n`$ copies of the ensemble of states $``$ using bidirectional communication of $`n[\chi ^{}()+\delta ]`$. In the limit of large $`n`$, this would imply that the ensemble $``$ may be constructed using bidirectional communication per ensemble $`\chi ^{}()`$. Given this conjecture, we may achieve an average bidirectional communication of $`C_+^E=\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _U^{}`$ per operation $`U`$, using a scheme equivalent to that considered by BHLS for the case of communication in a single direction. Together with the above results, this would imply that $`C_+^E`$ is equal to twice the entanglement capability of the operation. That is, we may communicate $`E_U`$ bits in each direction per operation.

In summary, we have shown that any two-qubit operation $`U`$ can increase the communication that may be performed using an ensemble by an amount equal to the entanglement capability of $`U`$. This applies both to cases of communication in just one direction and communication in both directions simultaneously. Furthermore, if the conjecture that the initial pure-state ensemble $``$ may be constructed using as much classical communication as can be performed using this ensemble (in the limit of a large number of samples) is valid, then the total communication that may be performed in each direction per operation equals the entanglement capability $`E_U`$ in the limit of a large number of operations. Even if this conjecture is not valid (which would be very interesting in itself), we have established that, for arbitrary $`U`$, there exists $``$ such that the communication that can be performed using this ensemble increases by $`E_U`$ after application of $`U`$ to $``$.

Acknowledgments: This project has been supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant.