text:
# Exact Solution of the Muñoz-Eaton Model for Protein Folding

## Abstract

A transfer-matrix formalism is introduced to evaluate exactly the partition function of the Muñoz-Eaton model, relating the folding kinetics of proteins of known structure to their thermodynamics and topology. This technique can be used for a generic protein, for any choice of the energy and entropy parameters, and in principle allows the model to be used as a first tool to characterize the dynamics of a protein of known native state and equilibrium population. Applications to a $`\beta `$-hairpin and to protein CI-2, with comparisons to previous results, are also shown.

Recent experimental findings on the folding of small proteins suggest that, despite the complex microscopical dynamics of the proteins in solution, the overall characteristics of the folding kinetics (e.g, the equilibrium rates) could be quite simple, and principally related to the topology of the native state. This has led to the construction of some simple models eatnat ; AlmBak99 ; GaFi99 ; Bak00 ; Amos  that, basing on the knowledge of the native fold, aim to predict the kinetic properties and their changes upon mutations.

Even if, usually, the interest in the folding is related to prediction of the native structure, the understanding of the folding process of proteins of known structure is nonetheless of great importance, both for theoretical reasons, and because important diseases are due to the aggregation of partially folded or misfolded proteins landsbury99 .

The importance of these models is that they are simple enough to be dealt with quite easily, and have proved to provide relevant information on the folding process as a whole at physiological temperatures. They are useful to test the hypothesis that a reaction coordinate exists, with one or a few major rate-limiting steps, and that motion along it is ruled by the formation of just the native contacts, so that all the others can be effectively averaged out. So, in a sense, they are complementary of the more realistic all-atoms models, that, due to their computational cost, can be applied to characterize just a small part of the folding process at room temperature, or to follow the unfolding at unrealistically high temperatures from a biological point of view.

In this letter we focus on the Muñoz-Eaton (ME) model eatnat ; eathair ; eatprot , where a protein is described by a chain of peptide bonds that can live in just two states: native and unfolded. Two residues can interact only if they do so in the native structure and if all the intervening residues in the chain between them are native.

In the application to several proteins eatprot , the authors do not consider a detailed dynamics, but rather relate the relaxation rates to the free energy profiles $`F_j`$ (i.e. the free energy as a function of the number of native bonds $`j`$). Moreover, to reduce the huge number of configurations that any protein can live in, even after the discretization of the states, they calculate these profiles resorting to the “single/double/triple sequence” approximation (SSA/DSA/TSA): they consider only the contribution to the free energy of configurations where just one/two/three stretches of native bonds are present, thus effectively lowering the entropy of the unfolded state. Exact solutions of the ME model under the assumption of homogeneous (i.e. residue independent) interactions have been carried out in Amos  for the $`\beta `$-hairpin and the $`\alpha `$-helix structures, together with a mean field approximation whose accuracy, in comparison with a Monte Carlo simulation, was assessed for protein CI-2.

The main result in this letter is the presentation of a way to drop these approximations and calculate the exact free energy, correlation functions and any other relevant thermodynamical quantity for any given protein, within the model assumptions. The existence of an exact solution is interesting for at least two reasons: the first, is that, in general, exact solutions are rare, and provide useful benchmarks to test approximations and simulations. The second is that, in this case, the solution is also easy to implement, and allows the evaluation of a protein free energy in a few seconds of CPU time. As an illustration, we apply our technique to the C-terminal $`\beta `$-hairpin of streptococcal protein G B1 and to protein CI2, finding relevant differences from approximate results.

In the ME model eatnat ; eathair ; eatprot  the state of a protein of $`N+1`$ residues can be described by a binary variable $`m_i`$ for each peptide bond $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (peptide bond $`i`$ connects residues $`i`$ and $`i+1`$). The values $`m_i=0,1`$ indicate that the bond is unfolded or native, respectively. The hamiltonian (indeed a free energy function) reads

$$H(\{m_k\})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\underset{k=i}{\overset{j}{}}m_kT\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }s_im_i,$$
(1)
The first term assigns an energy $`ϵ_{ij}<0`$ to the contact between bonds $`i`$, $`j`$ (also accounting for the contact between residues $`i`$, $`j+1`$). This energy gain is present provided that all the bonds from $`i`$ to $`j`$ are native, and that the contact exists also in the native structure ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=1`$ in that case; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=0`$ otherwise). The second term represents the entropic cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_i<0`$ of ordering bond $`i`$ in the native state. From the above equation, it follows that the contribution $`w(\{m_k\})=\mathrm{exp}[H(\{m_k\})/(RT)]`$ of any configuration $`\{m_k\}=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N)`$ to the partition function $`𝒵=_{\{m_k\}}w(\{m_k\})`$ is just the product of the weights of the stretches of native bonds contained in that configuration; namely:

$$w_{j,i}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{RT}\left(\underset{k=i}{\overset{j1}{}}\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{j}{}}ϵ_{kl}\mathrm{\Delta }_{kl}T\underset{k=i}{\overset{j}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }s_k\right)\right],$$
(2)
for a native stretch going from bond $`i`$ to bond $`j`$ ($`ij`$); for later use we define $`w_{jj+1}=1`$.

We start by mapping the original one-dimensional (1D) model, with long range interactions, to a 2D one, with nearest-neighbour interactions. We do so by introducing

$$m_{j,i}=\underset{k=i}{\overset{j}{}}m_k,$$
(3)
whence the obvious constraints $`m_{j,i}=0,1`$ and $`m_{j,i}=m_{j1,i}m_{j,i+1}`$ follow. The 2D representation of a generic configuration of the original model is reported in Fig. 1.

It can be shown that, in the new variables, it is possible to apply the Cluster Variation Method cvm  to write a variational free energy function, whose minimum provides the exact free energy of the model unpub . Here we follow an alternative route, and notice that the states of row $`j`$ below the diagonal in the 2D model are completely defined specifying the number of 1’s in the row. Notice in fact that all the 1’s stay necessarily at the right end of the row (Fig. 1): this is the key observation, allowing the introduction of an efficient transfer matrix formalism to solve the model. In fact, while the diagonal (i.e. the set of original variables of the model) can assume $`2^N`$ configurations, row $`j`$ in the lattice (but the same is also true for the columns) can assume only $`j+1`$ states, according to how many 1’s are present. Let $`𝒗_k^j`$ represent the state with $`k`$ 1’s ($`k=0,\mathrm{},j`$) of row $`j`$. The transfer matrix from row $`j+1`$ to row $`j`$ will be defined by its action on the vectors $`𝒗_k^{j+1}`$ by the equation:

$`Q_{j+1}^j(\lambda )𝒗_k^{j+1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒗_{k1}^j,\text{for }k=1,\mathrm{},j+1\text{;}`$ (4a)
$`Q_{j+1}^j(\lambda )𝒗_0^{j+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}}\lambda ^kw_{j,j+1k}𝒗_k^j,`$ (4b)
where $`\lambda `$ is a dummy variable whose exponent takes into account the number of 1’s (and hence, of native residues) being introduced at row $`j`$. This will serve to generate the free energy profiles at fixed number of native residues, as explained below. In components, observing that, for each $`j`$, $`𝒗_k^j`$ ($`k=0,\mathrm{},j`$) can be considered the basis of a $`(j+1)`$-dimensional space, we write $`(𝒗_k^j)_l=\delta _{l,k+1}`$ and

$$\left(Q_{j+1}^j(\lambda )\right)_{l,m}=(1\delta _{m,1})\delta _{l,m1}+\delta _{m,1}\lambda ^{l1}w_{j,j+2l},$$
(5)
where $`l=1,\mathrm{},j+1`$ and $`m=1,\mathrm{},j+2`$. Thus, $`Q_{j+1}^j`$ are rectangular matrices; the biggest one, $`Q_{N+1}^N`$, is an $`(N+1)\times (N+2)`$ matrix.

The partition function of the model will be calculated as $`𝒵𝒵(\lambda =1)`$, where

$$𝒵(\lambda )=𝒗_0^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{N+1}^0(\lambda )𝒗_0^{N+1}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}Z_j\lambda ^j.$$
(6)
Here and below $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j^i(\lambda )Q_{i+1}^i(\lambda )\mathrm{}Q_j^{j1}(\lambda )`$. From the above expressions it is clear that $`𝒵(\lambda )`$ is the generating function for the contributions $`Z_j`$ coming from the configurations with fixed number of native bonds $`j`$: from here we recover the free energy as a function of the native bonds as

$$F_j=RT\mathrm{log}Z_j.$$
(7)
In the same fashion it is possible to evaluate the average values of $`m_{j,i}`$, Eq. (3): introducing the matrix $`P_{i,j}`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}P_{i,j}𝒗_k^j=0\hfill & \text{for }k<ji+1\text{,}\hfill \\ P_{i,j}𝒗_k^j=𝒗_k^j\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
we will have

$$m_{j,i}=\frac{1}{𝒵}𝒗_0^0\mathrm{\Pi }_j^0(1)P_{i,j}\mathrm{\Pi }_{N+1}^j(1)𝒗_0^{N+1}.$$
(9)
Since $`m_{j,i}=1`$ represents a native stretch going from $`i`$ to $`j`$, $`m_{j,i}`$ is the probability of observing such a stretch. Other important quantities in defining the folding pathways are the $`\mu _{j,i}=(1m_{i1})(_{k=i}^jm_k)(1m_{j+1})`$, which represent the probability of a native stretch going from bonds $`i`$ to $`j`$, preceded and followed by a non-native bond. They can be calculated as

$$\mu _{j,i}=\frac{1}{𝒵}𝒗_0^0\mathrm{\Pi }_j^0E_{i,j}Q_{j+1}^jO_{j+1,j+1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{N+1}^{j+1}𝒗_0^{N+1},$$
(10)
where $`Q_j^{j1}Q_j^{j1}(\lambda =1)`$; the matrix $`E_{i,j}`$ propagates only the state with a stretch of $`ji+1`$ native bonds between $`i`$ and $`j`$:

$$E_{i,j}𝒗_k^j=\delta _{k,ji+1}𝒗_{ji+1}^j,$$
(11)
while $`O_{j,j}`$ forces bond $`j`$ to be non native:

$$O_{j,j}𝒗_k^j=\delta _{k,0}𝒗_0^j.$$
(12)
We have applied our technique to the 16 C-terminal residues from protein G B1, folding in a $`\beta `$-hairpin eatnat ; eathair . In order to compare our results with those in eathair , we set the contact matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ in Eq. (1) according to Fig. 1 in eathair , and specialize $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_i`$ and $`ϵ_{ij}`$ to the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_i=\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\text{conf}}`$ and $`ϵ_{ij}=p\mathrm{\Delta }H_{hb}+q\mathrm{\Delta }G_{sc}`$, where $`p`$ is the number of backbone-backbone hydrogen bonds between peptide bonds $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`q`$ is the number of side-chain hydrophobic interactions between residue $`i`$ and $`j+1`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{hb}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{sc}`$ are the (free) energy contributions of hydrogen bonds and “hydrophobic” interactions, respectively, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{conf}`$ is the entropy loss upon fixing a bond in its native conformation (refer to the original article for a detailed discussion). We fix $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{hb}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{sc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{conf}`$ by fitting $`m_{13,3}`$, the population of the stretch with formed hydrophobic cluster, to the experimental data in eathair , Fig. 3. We find that the exact solution Eq. (7) yields free energy profiles which are smoother than those obtained with SSA, with considerably lower barriers (see Fig. 2). As expected, the differences are greater in the unfolded part of the profile, where the entropic contribution of partially ordered conformations dominates.

Even if we do not attempt a microscopic dynamics, upon assuming that a single-residue dynamics in the equilibrium landscape may represent the true kinetics we can try to characterize the (equilibrium) folding barriers. To this end, we consider the values of the $`\mu _{j,i}`$ of Eq. (10). They allow to follow the kinetic pathway of the hairpin, since the length of the native stretches must increase on approaching the native state, and it can be verified that, for the hairpin, it is most likely that a $`n`$-bonds native stretch is created by adding a native site at one end of $`(n1)`$-stretch, rather than filling a 1-bond gap between two shorter stretches and merging them. Fig. 3 suggests that the barrier in the folding/unfolding pathway corresponds to the formation of six-bond-long stretches, either from peptide bond 5 (Y45-D46) to 10 (K50-T51) or from 6 (D46-D47) to 11 (T51-F52). The presence of a folding barrier thus appears as a feature of the model, and not just of SSA, and contrasts with the results in Dineal99 .

Coming to proteins, we have applied our exact solution to the 65 terminal residues of protein CI-2 (2CI2), choosing the values of $`ϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ in Eq. (1) according to the following procedure. As in eatprot , we define an atomic contact to be present if two nonhydrogen atoms, from residues $`i`$ and $`j>i+2`$, are closer than 0.4 nm and we give an energy $`kϵ`$ to residues contacts involving $`5(k1)<n_{at}5k`$ atomic contacts. Moreover, we get the native secondary structure from rcsbpdb  and assign to the peptide bond preceding a residue marked by B, E, G, H, I, T, the entropy cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_1`$ of the “structured” elements, while the other symbols will get the entropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_0`$ of the “less structured” parts (i.e. coils, loops). Then, to fix $`ϵ`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_0`$ we assume that the protein has a two-state thermodynamics: the equilibrium population of the native state will be given by $`\theta =𝒵_{nat}/𝒵`$, where $`𝒵_{nat}`$ is the sum of the contributions from the right of the barrier in Fig. 4. Then, we fit the calorimetric data for $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=G_uG_n`$ in Privalov , by asking that $`(1\theta )/\theta =\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }G/RT)`$.

We can then study the differences between the SSA/DSA and the exact free energy profiles, as well as the equilibrium values for the $`\mu _{j,i}`$ of Eq. (10). The results are reported in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively, at the temperature of equal native and unfolded population $`T=343.54`$ K Privalov .

It is clear that SSA and DSA deeply underestimate the configurational entropy of the unfolded state, yielding different barriers to folding and unfolding. The exact free energy profile is also much smoother than the approximate ones. Fig. 5 suggests that, in the unfolded state, the helix (13-24) and the region including a turn (51-56) are the most populated. Experimentally, the unfolded state is devoid of fixed structure Fersht95 , but the N-terminal part of the helix, together with the residues L50, I58 note , constitute the folding nucleus: the model gives interesting clues about this, even if with a turn overestimation note2 . The helix was already noticed to be particularly populated in AlmBak99 ; Amos ; Mieal99 .

From Fig. 5 we can also speculate about the folding pathway: assuming an equilibrium folding dynamics, with the number of native bonds increasing of at most one bond per time step, we try to characterize the unfolding pathway by asking whether a $`\mu _{j,i}`$ will more likely drop an end, producing $`\mu _{j1,i}`$ or $`\mu _{j,i+1}`$, or will split in two stretches $`(i,k1)`$ and $`(k+1,j)`$ for some $`k`$. Upon reverting the unfolding pathway, the above analysis suggests that the folding starts with the formation of the turn at 54-55; it grows up to the last residue and then towards the N-terminus; that folds last. Although this result correctly suggests that the helix alone cannot nucleate the folding Fersht95 ; AlmBak99 , this pathway does not agree with the experimental one: this could be partially due to our one-residue “dynamics”; notice though that the model cannot account for interactions as those in the folding nucleus, involving residues that are not in the same native stretch: this is probably its major limit.

In conclusion, we have presented the complete exact solution for the thermodynamics of the ME model, in a form which is also easy to implement and to apply to real proteins. We have analyzed the cases of a $`\beta `$-hairpin peptide and of protein CI-2, finding in both cases relevant differences from previously published results. Our solution opens a wide range of applications to real proteins, especially after a better characterization of the relationship between equilibrium properties and folding dynamics is found: work is in progress along these lines.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to A. Maritan, F. Cecconi and A. Flammini for drawing our attention to the ME model, for communicating their results prior to publication and for fruitful discussions. We are also indebted to M. Vendruscolo for kindly sharing with us his computer program to calculate contact maps.


format: text

text:
# Immirzi Ambiguity in the Kinematics of Quantum General Relativity

## I Introduction

The formulation of general relativity in terms of connection variables, introduced by Ashtekar Ash ; book , constitutes one of the most promising approaches to the quantization of gravity. In the Ashtekar formalism, the gravitational field is described by a complex $`SU(2)`$ connection and a canonically conjugate, densitized $`SU(2)`$ soldering form. The shift of emphasis from geometrodynamics to connection dynamics allows the import of techniques employed in the quantization of gauge field theories, providing a common mathematical language for the analysis of quantum gravity and matter. In addition, the expressions of the gravitational constraints in Ashtekar variables are extremely simple, raising renewed hopes for their resolution in the quantum theory.

The price to be paid is that the Ashtekar connection is complex for Lorentzian general relativity. This leads to serious technical and conceptual difficulties, both owing to the lack of a suitable mathematical machinery to deal with the complex $`SU(2)`$ group and because the real part of the Lorentzian connection turns out to depend on the densitized soldering form, a fact that is incorporated in the quantization program by imposing the so-called reality conditions book ; Mat .

In order to circumvent these problems, essentially two different avenues have been followed. A possible solution was proposed by Thiemann, who showed that the Lorentzian and Euclidean sectors of Ashtekar gravity can be related by an automorphism on the algebra of functions on phase space TT ; AT . This automorphism, often called the Thiemann transform, can be regarded as the composition of a Wick transform and a complex constant scale transformation GM ; LG . It maps the Lorentzian to the Euclidean constraints and, more importantly, the Ashtekar connection of Lorentzian general relativity to its Euclidean counterpart, which is real. Nonetheless, the complications show up when one tries to implement the Thiemann transform quantum mechanically.

The other possibility was put forward by Barbero. He proved the existence of a (generalized) canonical transformation that converts the Lorentzian complex connection into a real connection Fer  (which we will call the Ashtekar-Barbero connection from now on). The only drawback of this change of phase-space variables is that the expression of the Hamiltonian constraint loses its original simplicity. But this relative complication is overwhelmingly compensated for by the availability of the real $`SU(2)`$ group as the operationally relevant gauge group.

This real connection formalism has been extensively used for the quantization of general relativity, mainly in the framework of loop quantum gravity loop . Actually, the Ashtekar-Barbero connection can easily be generalized to a one-parameter family of real connections, all of them related by means of canonical transformations Fer ; Gio . The associated parameter is usually called the Immirzi parameter, and we will denote it by $`\gamma `$. The remarkable point noticed by Immirzi is that the physical predictions of the quantum theory depend on $`\gamma `$. This is something striking, because the Immirzi parameter designates just equivalent descriptions of the same phase space. From a classical point of view, its value does not affect the physics. Quantum mechanically, however, there exists an ambiguity in $`\gamma `$ that appears, e.g., as a multiplicative constant in the area spectrum Gio .

Recently, a radically different alternative to the Ashtekar-Barbero formulation has been suggested which is apparently free of the Immirzi ambiguity. This alternative consists in developing a manifestly Lorentz invariant formalism Ale . By retaining the full Lorentz group, one ensures that the choice of quantization scheme does not result in the appearance of anomalies, which could cause the Immirzi ambiguity. In addition, this approach preserves the correct spacetime interpretation of the gravitational variables. In this sense, it is worth commenting that the Ashtekar-Barbero connection has been proved not to transform as the pull-back of a spacetime connection under diffeomorphisms which are normal to the sections of constant time Samuel . However, the formalism and phase space of this Lorentz invariant approach are much more intricate than those of the original Ashtekar-Barbero theory, and further progress is needed to extract and comprehend its physical predictions.

Since the family of real connections obtained by Immirzi leads to different quantum results, it is clear that the canonical transformations that relate these connections cannot be implemented unitarily RT . This obstruction for unitarity is not well understood. To shed some light on its origin, the Immirzi ambiguity has been compared with other quantum ambiguities or anomalies. Rovelli and Thiemann RT  have tried to construct a finite dimensional analogue, but their attempt seems to have been unsuccessful Sam . In fact, if one could associate an independent Immirzi ambiguity with every degree of freedom (a finite dimensional system), the ambiguity in general relativity would admit an extension from a constant parameter to two functions of the spatial position Samuel . However, this hypothetical extension conflicts with diffeomorphism invariance Gul . On the other hand, Corichi and Krasnov have discussed the possible parallelism between the Immirzi ambiguity and a factor ambiguity that appears in the electric charge of Maxwell theory CK . But, among standard quantum field theories, the closest similarity is probably found with the $`\theta `$ ambiguity of Yang-Mill theories GOP . Unlike what happens in that case, however, the Immirzi ambiguity does not arise as a consequence of a multiply connected configuration space Sam ; Mon . In this situation, further investigation is required to clarify the roots and implications of the Immirzi ambiguity in quantum gravity.

Some proposed interpretations of this ambiguity have been considered and criticized by Rovelli and Thiemann RT , among them the possibility that the Immirzi parameter amounts to multiplying the classical action by a constant factor. Although both ambiguities are not equivalent, a relation between them should not be discarded. The main reason is that, as pointed out by Rainer Martin , the semiclassical predictions of quantum gravity may lead to subtle differences between what we call the Planck length in low-energy physics, $`\mathrm{}_p`$, and what constitutes the fundamental length scale in the quantum theory, $`\mathrm{}_{}`$. This fundamental length is determined by the overall factor that multiplies the symplectic structure Kras  (or, equivalently, the Poisson brackets). We will return to this issue later in our work.

In connection with the above comments, it has been argued that the Immirzi parameter plays simply the role of a scaling of the Planck length. Since $`\gamma `$ appears as a global factor in the spectrum of the area operators Gio , the Planck length would be multiplied by $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$. However, the scalar constraint displays a non-homogeneous dependence on $`\gamma `$ that seems to conflict with this interpretation GOP . One of the aims of the present paper is to discuss the actual relation between the Immirzi ambiguity and a constant scale transformation. We will prove that there indeed exists an equivalence if one restricts all considerations to the kinematics of the Ashtekar-Barbero formulation, i.e., if one disregards dynamics. This analysis will be carried out in gravity with matter fields Mat , so that we can also clarify the extent to which the Immirzi ambiguity is or is not affected by the introduction of matter (see the preliminary discussion in Ref. GOP ).

We will also discuss the implications of our results for one of the most outstanding predictions of loop quantum gravity: the entropy formula of a quantum black hole. This entropy is calculated assuming a horizon with fixed area $`𝒜`$ and adopting a loop quantization with given Immirzi parameter QBH ; QBH1 ; IH . Apparently, therefore, nothing prevents the value of $`\gamma `$ from depending on $`𝒜`$. This would destroy the linear dependence on the area in the deduced entropy QBH ; QBH1 . A way out of this conundrum turns out to be provided by the kinematical equivalence between a change in $`\gamma `$ and a change of scale. As we will show, this equivalence allows one to regain the Bekenstein-Hawking formula.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we succinctly describe the Ashtekar formalism for gravity coupled with matter fields. The real Ashtekar-Barbero connection is introduced in Sec. III, where we also revisit the action of constant changes of scale and of some suitable extensions of the Wick and Thiemann transforms. In addition, we analyze the relation between these extended transforms and the canonical transformations introduced by Immirzi. Then, we prove in Sec. IV that the Immirzi ambiguity amounts to a constant scaling as far as the kinematics of general relativity is concerned. The physical consequences of this equivalence are analyzed in Sec. V. In particular, we show that the effect of the Immirzi ambiguity in the formula of the black hole entropy can be absorbed into a change of length scale. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. VI. Finally, an Appendix is added where we include the expression of the scalar constraint in the presence of matter fields and study how it is affected by the Immirzi ambiguity.

## II Gravity with matter fields

Let us briefly review the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity in the presence of matter fields book ; Mat . We will consider a matter content consisting of a massive scalar field $`\varphi `$, massive spin-$`1/2`$ fields $`\xi _A`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_A`$, and a Yang-Mills connection $`𝔸_a`$. All these fields are defined on a certain three-manifold, and we will collectively denote them as $`\{q^k\}`$. We call $`\{p_k\}`$ their respective canonical momenta $`\{\pi _\varphi ,\rho ^A,\omega ^A,𝔼^a\}`$. By canonically conjugate we mean variables whose Poisson bracket is the identity multiplied by $`8\pi \mathrm{}_{}^2`$, with $`\mathrm{}_{}=\sqrt{G\mathrm{}}`$. Here, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant (i.e., the fundamental quantum of action), $`G`$ is the true Newton constant that appears in the gravitational action Kras , and we have taken $`c=1`$. Our notation is very similar to that introduced in Ref. LG . Internal Yang-Mills indices are not displayed, and spatial indices are denoted with lowercase Latin letters from the beginning of the alphabet. Capital Latin letters, on the other hand, designate $`SU(2)`$ spinors when used as indices. They are raised and lowered with the alternating tensors $`ϵ^{AB}`$ and $`ϵ_{AB}`$ book . Whenever they are not necessary for understanding the formulas, we will also suppress them.

As for the gravitational part of the phase space, it can be described by the canonical pair $`(a_{aA}^B,i\sqrt{2}\sigma _A^{aB})`$, where $`a_a`$ is the (complex) $`SU(2)`$ Ashtekar connection and $`\sigma ^a`$ is the densitized soldering form book . The Ashtekar connection can be written as $`a_a=\mathrm{\Gamma }_aiV_a`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ denotes the spin connection compatible with $`\sigma ^a`$, and $`V_a=K_a+iC_a`$, with $`K_a`$ and $`C_a`$ being the extrinsic-curvature and fermionic contributions book ; LG :

$`K_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_{ab}\sigma ^b}{\sqrt{2}\sigma }},`$
$`C_a^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\sigma _a^{AC}y_C^B+\sigma _a^{BC}y_C^A).`$ (1)
In this formula, $`K_{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature, $`\sigma _a`$ is the inverse of $`\sigma ^a`$, $`\sigma =[\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{tr}\{\sigma ^a\sigma ^b\})]^{1/4}`$, and

$$y_{AB}=\rho _A\xi _B+\omega _A\overline{\eta }_B.$$
(2)
For the action proposed by Ashtekar, Romano and Tate book ; Mat , the explicit expressions of the kinematical constraints are the following:

$`𝔾`$ $`=`$ $`g^1𝔻_a𝔼^a,`$
$`𝒢_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\sigma _{AB}^ay_{(AB)},`$ (3)
$`𝒱_a`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^b_{ab})\rho _A\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\xi ^A\omega _A\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\overline{\eta }^A`$
$`\pi _\varphi _a\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}(𝔼^b𝔹_{ab}).`$
Here, $`𝒢`$ and $`𝔾`$ are the Gauss constraints associated with the Ashtekar and Yang-Mills connections (the latter scaled by the Yang-Mills coupling constant $`g^1`$ as compared with that in Ref. book ), and $`𝒱_a`$ is the vector constraint. The scalar constraint is given in the Appendix.

We will denote as $`\{\chi _l\}`$ this set of kinematical constraints $`\{𝔾,𝒢,𝒱_a\}`$. In their expressions, $`𝔻_a`$ is the derivative operator associated with the Yang-Mills connection and $`𝔹_{ab}`$ is twice its curvature,

$`𝔻_a𝔼^a`$ $`=`$ $`_a𝔼^a+g[𝔸_a,𝔼^a],`$ (4)
$`𝔹_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`2(_a𝔸_b_b𝔸_a+g[𝔸_a,𝔸_b]).`$ (5)
In addition, $`\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a`$ is the derivative operator associated with the Ashtekar connection and $`_{ab}`$ is its curvature,

$`\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\xi ^A`$ $`=`$ $`_a\xi ^Aa_{aB}^A\xi ^B,`$
$`_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_aa_b_ba_a+[a_a,a_b].`$ (6)
It is worth noting that the only coupling constant on which the kinematical constraints depend is the Yang-Mills one, $`g`$. As we show in the Appendix, the scalar constraint depends not just on $`g`$, but also on the fermionic mass $`m`$ and the scalar field mass $`\mu `$. Besides, it contains the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, if we allow for a cosmological term in the Hamiltonian. We will generically refer to such parameters as coupling constants and denote their set as $`\kappa :=\{g,m,\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. Finally, the line element can be expressed in terms of the soldering form, the shift vector $`N^a`$ and the densitized lapse function $`N`$ (with weight equal to $`1`$) as

$$ds^2=\sigma ^2N^2dt^2+h_{ab}(dx^a+N^adt)(dx^b+N^bdt),$$
(7)
the metric $`h_{ab}`$ being the inverse of $`h^{ab}=\sigma ^2\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^a\sigma ^b)`$.

## III Ashtekar-Barbero connections

The Ashtekar connection is not real for two reasons. First, because it is a complex linear combination of the spin connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and the momenta of the soldering forms $`V_a=K_a+iC_a`$. Second, because these momenta $`V_a`$ are genuinely complex when fermions are present book ; LG . With the aim of addressing the former of these issues, we introduce the connections

$${}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\gamma V_a,$$
(8)
where $`\gamma >0`$ is the Immirzi parameter. Since our definition reproduces that of Ref. Fer  in the absence of matter, we will call $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}`$ the Ashtekar-Barbero connections. It should however be clear that such connections are not real when fermions are allowed. The canonically conjugate momenta of $`\sqrt{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}`$ are $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}=\gamma ^1\sigma ^a`$.

Formulations with different values of the Immirzi parameter $`\gamma `$ are related by an extended Wick transform $`R_\gamma `$ LG ; WT  such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_\gamma {}_{}{}^{1}a_{a}^{}={}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{},\hfill & R_\gamma q^k=q^k,\hfill \\ R_\gamma \sigma ^a=\sigma ^a,\hfill & R_\gamma p_k=\gamma p_k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Note that the action on the gravitational connection can be rephrased as $`R_\gamma V_a=\gamma V_a`$. Similarly to the interpretation accepted for the case of the (inverse) Wick rotation, where $`\gamma `$ would be equal to $`i`$, the simultaneous multiplication by $`\gamma `$ of $`V_a`$ and all the momenta of the matter fields can be regarded as the consequence of a scaling of the lapse LG . Consequently, the action of $`R_\gamma `$ on phase space is supplemented with the following transformation laws on the lapse and shift WR :

$$R_\gamma N=\gamma ^1N,R_\gamma N^a=N^a.$$
(10)
In addition, it seems natural to admit that the transform does not affect the coupling constants, $`R_\gamma \kappa =\kappa `$.

This extended Wick transform does not preserve the symplectic structure. However, as in the case that leads to the Thiemann transform LG , one can complement the extended Wick transform with a constant scale transformation and construct a symplectomorphism that relates formulations with different values of $`\gamma `$. To show how this can be done, let us first introduce the constant scale transformations:

$$C_\beta X=\beta ^{D(X)}X.$$
(11)
Here, $`D(X)`$ is the dimension of $`X`$ (a generic field or parameter). Adopting the convention that the dimensionality of the line element is carried by the metric and not by the coordinates, it is possible to show that LG

$$\begin{array}{cc}D({}_{}{}^{1}a_{a}^{})=0,\hfill & D(q^k)=(1)^{2s_k}s_k,\hfill \\ D(\sigma ^a)=2,\hfill & D(p_k)=2(1)^{2s_k}s_k,\hfill \\ D(N)=2,\hfill & D(N^a)=0,\hfill \\ D(\mathrm{\Lambda })=2,\hfill & D(m)=D(\mu )=D(g)=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
In these formulas, $`s_k`$ denotes the spin of the field $`q^k`$.

We have now all the ingredients necessary to construct the extended Thiemann transform $`T_\gamma `$:

$$T_\gamma :=C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}R_\gamma .$$
(13)
Its action on phase space is

$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`T_\gamma {}_{}{}^{1}a_{a}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\gamma V_a,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}`$ $`:=`$ $`T_\gamma \sigma ^a=\gamma ^1\sigma ^a,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }q_{}^{k}`$ $`:=`$ $`T_\gamma q^k=\gamma ^{(1)^{2s_k}s_k/2}q^k,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }p_{k}^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`T_\gamma p_k=\gamma ^{(1)^{2s_k}s_k/2}p_k.`$ (14)
The standard Thiemann transform would be attained with $`\gamma =i`$, except for the fact that our extended transform not only acts on fields but also on coupling constants. Actually, for $`\gamma =i`$, $`T_\gamma `$ reproduces the modification of the Thiemann transform proposed in Ref. AT , which has a nontrivial effect on $`\kappa `$ LG . We have

$$T_\gamma \kappa =\gamma ^{D(\kappa )/2}\kappa .$$
(15)
From the above equations, we see that our extended Thiemann transform preserves the canonical Poisson brackets and canonically implements the change from one Ashtekar-Barbero connection to another. Note also that $`T_\gamma `$ leaves invariant the shift and densitized lapse,

$$T_\gamma N=N,T_\gamma N^a=N^a.$$
(16)
Therefore,

$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }ds^2`$ $`:=`$ $`T_\gamma ds^2=\sigma ^2\gamma ^3N^2dt^2`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`\gamma ^1h_{ab}(dx^a+N^adt)(dx^b+N^bdt),`$
i.e., it amounts to a constant scale transformation of the line element plus a change of lapse.

Introducing an index $`\alpha `$ to denote the different fields present in the theory (gravitational, scalar, fermionic, and Yang-Mills fields), the extended Thiemann transform can be further generalized to

$$T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}=\underset{\alpha }{}T_{\gamma _\alpha }^\alpha ,$$
(18)
where $`T_{\gamma _\alpha }^\alpha `$ is the restriction of $`T_{\gamma _\alpha }`$ to the field $`\alpha `$ (viewed as a canonical pair of phase-space variables) and its associated coupling constant $`\kappa _\alpha `$. In other words, we may allow each field $`\alpha `$ to transform according to its own parameter $`\gamma _\alpha `$.

It is easy to check that, when acting on phase-space variables, the transformation $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}`$ is generated via Poisson brackets by LG

$$𝒯_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}=\frac{i}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{ln}\gamma _\alpha D(q^\alpha )d^3xp_\alpha q^\alpha ,$$
(19)
where $`\{q^\alpha \}`$ denotes the set of variables $`\{\sqrt{2}\sigma ^a,q^k\}`$, their canonically conjugate variables $`\{V_a,p_k\}`$ are denoted as $`\{p_\alpha \}`$, and traces over $`SU(2)`$ and Yang-Mills indices are implicitly assumed. The generator of the standard Thiemann transform is obtained for $`\gamma _\alpha =i,\alpha `$ LG .

As mentioned above, the connections $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}`$ are still complex in the presence of fermions, because $`V_a`$ then has a non-vanishing imaginary contribution. More precisely, let us use the Pauli matrices $`\tau _A^{jB}`$ (with $`j=1,2,3`$) to express the Ashtekar-Barbero variables in the form book

$${}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{j}^{a}\tau ^j,{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{}=\frac{i}{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{j}\tau ^j,$$
(20)
where $`\sigma _j^a=\gamma {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{j}^{a}`$ is the densitized triad. It turns out that the imaginary part of $`V_a^j=i\mathrm{tr}(V_a\tau ^j)`$ can be taken equal to $`i\sigma _a^j\mathrm{tr}(y)/4`$ LG , which differs from zero when the system includes fermions. In that case, one can still recover a real connection by simply replacing $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{j}`$ with its real part, namely, with

$${}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{j}={}_{}{}^{\gamma }a_{a}^{j}+\frac{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{a}^{j}}{4}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }y).$$
(21)
Here, we have employed that $`y={}_{}{}^{\gamma }y`$ and $`\gamma \sigma _a={}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{a}^{}`$. More importantly, it is not difficult to check that the above change of connections can indeed be promoted to a canonical transformation by introducing the following new set of fermionic variables LG :

$$\{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{},{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{}^{},{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{}^{},{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{}^{}\}=\{\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma }{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi ,{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho /\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma },\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma }{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta },{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega /\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma }\},$$

with $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma =\sqrt{\mathrm{det}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{j}^{a})}`$. In this way, one attains the desired description of the gravitational field in terms of a real $`SU(2)`$ connection while preserving the canonical structure on phase space. Finally, note that from the definition of the new fermionic fields and the connection $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$, the extended Thiemann transform continues to map canonical variables with $`\gamma =1`$ to their counterpart with a generic value of the positive parameter $`\gamma `$.

## IV Kinematics and Immirzi ambiguity

The kinematical constraints (II) can be written in terms of the real connections $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$ and the rest of the new canonical variables introduced in the previous section. After some calculations that involve the compatibility between the spin connection and the soldering form, the Bianchi identities, and the relations between Pauli matrices $`(\tau ^j\tau ^k)_A^B=iϵ^{jkl}\tau _A^{lB}+\delta ^{jk}\delta _A^B`$ book , the constraints become

$`𝔾`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }g_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔻_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{}^{a}:={}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔾,`$
$`𝒢_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{AB}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{(AB)}^{}:={}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢_{AB}^{},`$ (22)
$`𝒱_a`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒱_{a}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\sqrt{2}\gamma }}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{}^{})\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{a}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\gamma }}\mathrm{tr}[{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{})],`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}`$ is the derivative operator associated with the connection $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }F_{ab}^{}`$ is its curvature, and

$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒱_{a}^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }F_{ab}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{A}+{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{}^{A}\right)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{A}+{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒟_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{}^{A}\right){}_{}{}^{\gamma }\pi _{\varphi }^{}_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\varphi `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔹_{ab}^{})\mathrm{tr}[{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{})].`$
In addition, $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{(AB)}^{}`$ is the counterpart of expression (2) for the new fermionic variables, and $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔻_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{}^{a}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔹_{ab}^{}`$ stand for the result of evaluating Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively, at the scaled Yang-Mills variables $`({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔸_{a}^{},{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{}^{a})`$ employing the new coupling constant $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }g:=C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}g`$.

We hence see that the physical constraints of Lorentzian general relativity $`\{\chi _l\}=\{𝔾,𝒢,𝒱_a\}`$ are equivalent to the new constraints $`\{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\chi _{l}^{}\}=\{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔾,{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢,{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒱_{a}^{}\}`$. We can therefore use the latter as the kinematical constraints in the real connection formulation. Furthermore, note that the functional dependence of $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\chi _{l}^{}`$ on the corresponding set of canonical variables, specified by the parameter $`\gamma `$, is the same for all values of $`\gamma `$ provided that the Yang-Mills coupling constant is also scaled with this parameter (according to the definition of $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }g`$). Actually, this property continues to hold even when we allow the parameter $`\gamma `$ to take different values for each of the fields that are present in the system, namely, when the canonical variables and coupling constants denoted with the index $`\gamma `$ are in fact those obtained with the set of parameters $`\{\gamma _\alpha \}`$ introduced in Eq. (18).

It is now straightforward to check that the extended Thiemann transform $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}`$ leaves the kinematical structure invariant. We have already seen that the transform preserves the canonical Poisson brackets. Then, we only have to show that it does not alter the kinematical constraints. By construction, $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}`$ maps the canonical set of variables (and the coupling constants) with $`\gamma =1`$ to those with parameters $`\{\gamma _\alpha \}`$; so, $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}{}_{}{}^{1}\chi _{l}^{}={}_{}{}^{\gamma }\chi _{l}^{}`$ with our notation. But Eqs. (IV) ensure that $`\{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\chi _{l}^{}\}`$ is equivalent to $`\{{}_{}{}^{1}\chi _{l}^{}\}`$. The set of constraints $`\{{}_{}{}^{1}\chi _{l}^{}\}`$ is thus invariant under the extended Thiemann transform. As a consequence, we can identify the symplectomorphism $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}`$ with the identity transformation at the kinematical level.

Since, $`T_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}𝟙`$ as far as the kinematical structure is concerned, the action of the transforms $`R_{\{\gamma _\alpha \}}`$ and $`C_{\{\gamma _\alpha ^{1/2}\}}`$ can be regarded as equivalent at this level. It is worth noting that the latter of these transforms amounts to a constant change of scale if (and only if) $`\gamma _\alpha =\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$. To see this point clearly, it is convenient to introduce a formalism in which all fields and coupling constants (that we denote generically by the symbol $`X`$) are dimensionless. This can be accomplished by introducing the universal length scale $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ and defining $`{}_{}{}^{}X:=\mathrm{}_{}^{D(X)}X`$, so that

$$C_{\gamma _\alpha ^{1/2}}{}_{}{}^{}X={}_{}{}^{}X\text{and}C_{\gamma _\alpha ^{1/2}}\mathrm{}_{}=\gamma _\alpha ^{1/2}\mathrm{}_{}.$$
(24)
Obviously, the scaling transformations of $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ for each kind of field $`\alpha `$ are incompatible unless all the parameters $`\gamma _\alpha `$ coincide. Then, in the case $`\gamma _\alpha =\gamma `$ $`\alpha `$, we see that the action of the extended Wick transform can indeed be interpreted as a constant scale transformation if we restrict ourselves to kinematical considerations:

$$R_\gamma C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}.$$
(25)
The main reason underlying this result is that both the constraints $`{}_{}{}^{1}\chi _{l}^{}`$ and the fundamental non-vanishing Poisson brackets have the same dimension (namely, 2), as well as the same degree of homogeneity (namely, 1) in the variables

$$\{P_\alpha \}:=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{1}A_{a}^{},\pi _\varphi ,{}_{}{}^{1}\rho _{}^{},{}_{}{}^{1}\omega _{}^{},𝔼^a\},$$
(26)
up to terms that vanish because of the Bianchi identities or the compatibility of the triad with the spin connection. Notice that the extended Wick transform $`R_\gamma `$ multiplies each of the elements in $`\{P_\alpha \}`$ by a factor of $`\gamma `$ while leaving invariant their canonically conjugate variables

$$\{Q^\alpha \}:=\{\sqrt{2}\sigma ^a,\varphi ,{}_{}{}^{1}\xi _{}^{},{}_{}{}^{1}\overline{\eta }_{}^{},𝔸_a\}.$$
(27)
We now want to discuss the implications of the equivalence (25) for the Immirzi ambiguity that arises in loop quantum gravity at the kinematical level. With this aim, let us consider an (abstract) operator $`\vartheta (\sigma )`$ constructed from the soldering form, its dimension being $`D(\vartheta )`$. We assume that this operator is an observable, at least from a kinematical point of view. Let us call $`\mathrm{Sp}[\vartheta (\sigma )]`$ and $`\mathrm{Sp}_\gamma [\vartheta (\sigma )]`$ its spectra in the loop representations based, respectively, on the real connections $`{}_{}{}^{1}A_{a}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$, adopting in both cases as configuration variables for the matter fields the elements of $`\{Q^\alpha \}`$ other than the soldering form. Since $`R_\gamma Q^\alpha =Q^\alpha `$ and $`R_\gamma {}_{}{}^{1}A_{a}^{}={}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$, the two representations are related via the extended Wick transform. Using in our kinematical analysis that $`R_\gamma C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}`$, one concludes that the spectrum $`\mathrm{Sp}_\gamma [\vartheta (\sigma )]`$ is the image of $`\mathrm{Sp}[\vartheta (\sigma )]`$ under a constant scale transformation: namely,

$$\mathrm{Sp}_\gamma [\vartheta (\sigma )]=\mathrm{Sp}[C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}\vartheta (\sigma )]=\gamma ^{D(\vartheta )/2}\mathrm{Sp}[\vartheta (\sigma )].$$
(28)
This spectrum is obviously different from $`\mathrm{Sp}[\vartheta (\sigma )]`$ if it contains a discrete component, as happens for instance for the area operator area .

The discrepancy between the spectra of geometric operators in the loop representations obtained with different connections $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$ is called the Immirzi ambiguity Gio . As we have seen, the ambiguity existing in vacuo persists also in the presence of matter fields. But much more importantly, our discussion shows that, owing to the relation $`R_\gamma C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}`$, the Immirzi ambiguity can be considered equivalent to a constant scale transformation at the kinematical level.

We should note that the presence of matter has introduced a subtle modification in our analysis with respect to the pure gravitational situation. As a result of a direct extrapolation of the conclusions for vacuum gravity, the Immirzi ambiguity is usually thought to arise in loop representations that are related by a transform like $`R_\gamma `$, but restricted to act only on the gravitational field. With the notation of Sec. III, this would correspond to the replacement of $`\gamma `$ with a collection of parameters $`\{\gamma _\alpha \}`$ (one for each field) such that they all equal the unity except for the gravitational component. The remarkable point is that the same Immirzi ambiguity appears when the extended Wick transform acts on all fields with identical value of $`\gamma `$. Moreover, as we have proved, the transform can be consistently interpreted in this case, from a kinematical point of view, as a constant scale transformation that equally affects all fields and parameters, not only those associated with the gravitational sector.

Finally, it should be stressed that the equivalence between the extended Wick transform (whose implementation results in the Immirzi ambiguity) and a constant scale transformation is only valid for kinematical considerations. Indeed, as shown in the Appendix, the scalar constraint is not invariant under the action of $`T_\gamma `$. Therefore, the equivalence does not hold dynamically and, consequently, the Immirzi ambiguity cannot be associated with the multiplication of the classical action by a constant (removable by means of a change of scale) when dynamics is taken into account RT ; GOP .

## V Black hole entropy

A particular example of a geometric operator with a discrete spectrum is that representing the area $`𝒜`$ of an isolated horizon in loop quantum gravity QBH1 ; area . Since the dimension of the area operator is $`2`$, Eq. (28) gives the relation between the eigenvalues $`𝒜(J)`$ and $`𝒜_\gamma (J)`$ in the respective loop representations with connections $`{}_{}{}^{1}A_{a}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$:

$$𝒜_\gamma (J)=\gamma 𝒜(J).$$
(29)
Here, the symbol $`J`$ labels the different eigenvalues of the spectrum.

The explicit form of the area spectrum for an isolated horizon, which is deduced from purely kinematical considerations, is one of the keystones in the calculation of the statistical entropy $`S`$ of a black hole, obtained in the Ashtekar approach by counting degrees of freedom in the Hilbert space of loop quantum gravity. An important point in this deduction of the black hole entropy is that, since the full theory of quantum gravity is not known, the calculation is carried out by studying only the sector of isolated horizons with constant area $`𝒜`$. This sector is quantized in a loop representation with a certain Immirzi parameter $`\gamma `$. In the limit of a large horizon area, the resulting entropy is QBH ; QBH1

$$S=\frac{\gamma _0𝒜}{4\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2},\text{with}\gamma _0=\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi \sqrt{3}}.$$
(30)
To recover the Bekenstein-Hawking formula $`S=𝒜/(4\mathrm{}_p^2)`$ (where $`\mathrm{}_p`$ is the Planck length of low-energy physics), it is then argued that the Immirzi parameter must be fixed so that $`\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2=\gamma _0\mathrm{}_p^2`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_p`$ coincide, $`\gamma `$ must be chosen equal to $`\gamma _0`$ in order to reach an acceptable semiclassical prediction.

There is however a potential loophole in the above line of reasoning that had remained unperceived so far. Namely, since the calculation of the black hole entropy is performed for a fixed value of the horizon area and with a certain choice of the Immirzi parameter, there seems to be no obstacle to select $`\gamma `$ in terms of $`𝒜`$, so that $`\gamma `$ becomes in practice a function of this quantity. Obviously, this would spoil the linear relation between the entropy and the area. A way out of this problem consists in proving that the appearance of the Immirzi parameter in the entropy formula amounts in fact to a change of scale. As we will show, imposing that the Planck scale be unique for all the observers that carry out the measurements will then eliminate the postulated dependence of $`\gamma `$ on the area.

Note that, to attain our goal, we only have to demonstrate that the Immirzi parameter can be absorbed through a constant scaling in all the steps where the dynamical structure enters the calculation of the entropy. For all other considerations we simply have to apply the results of Sec. IV, where we proved the kinematical equivalence of the Immirzi ambiguity with a change of scale. Actually, the dynamical structure appears in the entropy calculation only through the isolated-horizon boundary conditions. These conditions code dynamical information and intervene in the analysis inasmuch as they are utilized to prove the following results QBH1 ; IH :

1. The surface terms of the action, necessary for a well-posed variational problem, correspond to a Chern-Simons theory whose $`U(1)`$ connection is $`W_a=\mathrm{tr}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_ar)`$. The underline denotes the pull-back to the spatial sections of the horizon, which are topologically $`S^2`$, and $`r=ir_j\tau ^j/\sqrt{2}`$ is a fixed smooth function from the sphere to the Lie algebra of $`SU(2)`$ with $`\mathrm{tr}(r^2)=1`$. We note that both $`r`$ and the spin connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ are invariant under constant scale transformations.
2. The level $`k`$ of this $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory is $`k=𝒜/(4\pi \gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2)`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the constant area of the horizon. This level determines the overall factor in the Chern-Simons contribution to the symplectic structure. Notice that $`\gamma `$ appears in $`k`$ exactly as a scaling of the universal length $`\mathrm{}_{}`$.
3. The curvature of the Chern-Simons connection is $`\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ab}^{}r)/(2k\mathrm{}_{}^2)`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}:=\eta _{abc}\sigma ^c`$ and $`\eta _{abc}`$ is the Levi-Cività form-density. Since $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}^{}=\gamma ^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ab}`$, we see that the Immirzi parameter appears again as a constant scaling of $`\mathrm{}_{}`$.

Remarkably, the isolated-horizon boundary conditions ensure in addition that there do not exist non-trivial Hamiltonian gauge transformations at the horizon, so that we do not have to impose the scalar constraint on it. This means that the dynamical aspects of the matter content do not affect the physics at the horizon and, as a consequence, the specific choice of the Immirzi parameter for the matter fields does not affect the entropy calculation.

The only issue, purely non-dynamical, remaining in the calculation of the entropy is counting the physical states whose area eigenvalue $`𝒜_\gamma (J)`$ (in the loop representation based on $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$) lies within the interval

$$\frac{𝒜}{\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2}\delta \frac{𝒜_\gamma (J)}{\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2}\frac{𝒜}{\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2}+\delta .$$
(31)
The counting is made for large $`𝒜/(\gamma \mathrm{}_{}^2)`$ and assuming that $`\delta >4\pi \sqrt{3}`$ (to ensure the existence of at least one eigenvalue that corresponds to an even number of spin insertions). Following the steps in QBH1 , one then obtains the entropy formula (30).

As we have already argued, the Immirzi ambiguity is kinematically equivalent to a constant scale transformation. We have also seen that all the dynamical arguments involved in the entropy calculation indicate that $`\gamma `$ appears as a constant scaling of the universal length $`\mathrm{}_{}`$, even though the scalar constraint and hence the dynamics in general do not support such interpretation. Therefore, we can conclude that the appearance of the Immirzi ambiguity in the entropy formula is equivalent to a scaling of $`\mathrm{}_{}`$.

In our discussion, there seem to exist two length scales which, for the time being, have been treated as independent Martin . One of them would be the fundamental length scale $`\mathrm{}_{}`$, which appears in front of the action and determines the Poisson bracket structure LG ; Kras , and hence the strength of the quantum gravitational effects. The other would be a low-energy length scale, which would characterize the low-energy behavior of quantum gravity, and whose square would provide the quantum of area. Let us call this length scale the Planck length and define it as

$$\mathrm{}_p=\mathrm{}_{}\sqrt{\gamma /\gamma _0},$$
(32)
so that

$$S=\frac{𝒜}{4\mathrm{}_p^2}.$$
(33)
Our definition of $`\mathrm{}_p`$ is feasible because, as we have shown, the Immirzi ambiguity amounts to a change of scale, at least as far as the area spectrum and the entropy formula are concerned. From this point of view, fixing $`\gamma `$ is equivalent to fixing the effective value of the low-energy Planck length $`\mathrm{}_p`$ in terms of the fundamental length $`\mathrm{}_{}`$.

Let us remember that, because the whole entropy analysis has been performed under the assumption that the area of the isolated horizon is fixed and given a priori, the Immirzi parameter might in principle be made dependent on $`𝒜`$, thus spoiling the linearity of the relation between entropy and area. Fortunately, the possible effects of this potential dependence of $`\gamma `$ on the area can now be eliminated on the basis of a physical requirement: when comparing low-energy and large-horizon physics for different horizons, the comparison must be carried out by observers that assign the same value to the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_p`$. Since $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ is a universal constant and $`\gamma _0`$ is just a numerical factor, this fixes the value of $`\gamma `$ to be the same for all observers and, of course, independent of the area.

## VI Summary and discussion

In this paper, we have shown that the Immirzi ambiguity can be described at a kinematical level in terms of constant scale transformations. With this aim, we have considered the Ashtekar-Barbero formulation of general relativity coupled with fermions, a scalar field, and a Yang-Mills field. In this framework, the Immirzi ambiguity appears when one calculates the spectra of geometric operators using loop representations that are based on different real connections for the gravitational field. We have shown that these representations can be related via an extended Wick transform that, in addition to introducing the Immirzi parameter in the gravitational connection, has also the effect of multiplying the matter momenta by the same parameter. This extended Wick transform admits a geometric interpretation as a scaling of the lapse function, and we have proved that it can be completed with a constant scale transformation to reach a symplectomorphism. In a sense, the constructed symplectomorphism provides an extension of the Thiemann transform that maps the Lorentzian to the Euclidean formulation of Ashtekar gravity.

Such an extended Thiemann transform has been shown to preserve the kinematical constraints of the system, so that it can be viewed as equivalent to the unit transform as far as one disregards the dynamical evolution. Based on this fact, we have argued that the Immirzi ambiguity in loop quantum gravity can be understood in terms of a constant scale transformation for all kinematical considerations. Indeed, the physical spectra of geometric operators in loop quantum gravity are affected by the Immirzi parameter in a way which appropriately depends on the dimension of the operators. The corresponding scale transformation implies a change of conformal frame that can be considered responsible for the quantum ambiguity.

The scalar constraint, on the other hand, is not invariant under the extended Thiemann transform, and hence the Immirzi ambiguity cannot be absorbed dynamically into a change of scale. This can also be rephrased by saying that the four-dimensional line elements obtained with a constant scale transformation and with a constant scaling of the lapse do not lead to dynamically equivalent theories. The breakdown of this equivalence with respect to the kinematical situation makes us suspicious of the special role played by time in the Ashtekar-Barbero formulation, which can be traced back to the time gauge fixing that is introduced in such a formalism and the consequent loss of a genuine spacetime interpretation for the gravitational connection Gio ; Ale ; Samuel .

The Immirzi ambiguity affects one of the most outstanding predictions of loop quantum gravity, namely, the entropy formula for isolated horizons. The derivation of this formula involves not only kinematical but also dynamical processes. However, the dynamical structure turns out to enter the calculation only coded in the isolated-horizon boundary conditions. It is worth commenting that an analogous conclusion has been recently reached by Padmanabhan from a completely independent point of view Pad . He has deduced the entropy of a spherically symmetric spacetime with a horizon by studying the partition function of a canonical ensemble with fixed temperature on that horizon. This analysis does not assume that the spacetimes in the ensemble are solutions to the Einstein equations; moreover, it is seen that the result depends only on the form of the metric near the boundary supplied by the horizon.

Returning to our study of the loop approach, we have shown that, whenever the Immirzi parameter appears in the calculation of the black hole entropy through the conditions on the horizon, remarkably, it behaves in fact as though it came from a constant scale transformation. The remaining arguments that lead to the entropy formula are strictly kinematical. It then follows from our discussion that the Immirzi ambiguity in the relation between entropy and area can be understood as a conformal ambiguity in the length scale employed to measure large horizon areas and low-energy processes in general. This is important because the entropy calculation is performed for isolated horizons with a constant area that is given a priori. Therefore, the choice of Immirzi parameter in the loop quantization might in principle be made dependent on this area, and this would ruin the possibility of deducing the Bekenstein-Hawking formula. However, this potential dependence on the area of the Immirzi parameter disappears if we insist that the results for different large isolated horizons be compared by observers which agree on the value of the length scale that controls the semiclassical gravitational effects from the low-energy point of view, i.e., Planck length, because the Immirzi parameter can be absorbed into this length scale.

###### Acknowledgements.

G.A.M.M. is very thankful to J.F. Barbero G. for enlightening discussions. This work was supported by funds provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology under the Research Project No. BFM2001-0213.

## Appendix A Scalar constraint

In this appendix, we present the expressions of the scalar constraint in terms of the Ashtekar connection and of the real connections $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$. In the Ashtekar formulation of Lorentzian gravity with matter fields, the scalar constraint is book ; Mat ; LG :

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^a\sigma ^b_{ab})+im(\sigma ^2\xi ^A\overline{\eta }_A\rho ^A\omega _A)`$
$`+`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\sigma _A^{aB}(\rho _B\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\xi ^A+\omega _B\stackrel{˘}{𝒟}_a\overline{\eta }^A)+\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _\varphi ^2}{16\pi }}+4\pi \sigma ^2\mu ^2\varphi ^24\pi \mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^a\sigma ^b)_a\varphi _b\varphi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sigma ^2}}\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^a\sigma ^c)\mathrm{tr}(\sigma ^b\sigma ^d)\mathrm{tr}(𝔼_{ab}𝔼_{cd}+𝔹_{ab}𝔹_{cd}),`$
where we have employed the notation of Sec. II, $`m`$ and $`\mu `$ denote the masses of the fermionic and scalar fields, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, and $`𝔼_{ab}=\eta _{abc}𝔼^c`$, with $`\eta _{abc}`$ being the Levi-Cività form-density.

This constraint leads to the Einstein-Cartan theory, which is quartic in the fermionic variables. Nevertheless, one can attain the Einstein-Dirac theory, quadratic in fermionic fields, by simply adding to $`𝒮`$ the term book ; LG :

$$𝒮_\mathrm{f}=\frac{3}{16}\left(y_A^Ay_B^B+y_{AB}y^{AB}+y_{AB}y^{BA}\right).$$

In terms of the real connection $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}`$, the scaled soldering form $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}`$, and the canonical set of matter variables specified by the parameter $`\gamma `$ (here, we concentrate on the case of interest $`\gamma _\alpha =\gamma `$ $`\alpha `$), the scalar constraint can be written as follows:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒮+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma (\gamma 1){}_{}{}^{\gamma }Y(\gamma ^21){}_{}{}^{\gamma }Z`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma D_a\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}),`$
where $`D_a`$ is the derivative operator compatible with the triad, obtained with the spin connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$, and

$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒮`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }F_{ab}^{})+\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_b{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{b}^{}])`$
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }+i{}_{}{}^{\gamma }m{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{A}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{A}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma D_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`4\pi {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\mu _{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\varphi _{}^{2}4\pi \mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b})_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\varphi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{2}}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{c})\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{d})\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔹_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔹_{cd}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }Z{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }Y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}D_a\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒢{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }Y`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}\{D_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{}+D_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{}^{}D_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{}^{}D_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\overline{\eta }_{}^{}\}\right),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }Z`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_b{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{b}^{}])+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}[\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{}^{})]^2`$
$``$ $`i{}_{}{}^{\gamma }m{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma {}_{}{}^{\gamma }\rho _{}^{A}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\omega _{A}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }y_{}^{}\tau ^k)\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}\tau ^k\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a{}_{}{}^{\gamma }A_{a}^{}\})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\pi _{\varphi }^{2}}{16\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{2}}}\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{c})\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{b}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\sigma _{}^{d})\mathrm{tr}({}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝔼_{cd}^{}).`$
We have used the notation introduced in Secs. III and IV, and the scaled coupling constants are $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }\kappa :=\gamma ^{D(\kappa )/2}\kappa `$. $`D(\kappa )`$ is equal to $`1`$ except for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, whose dimension is $`2`$.

Taking $`\gamma =1`$, we see from the above expressions that $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝒮=𝒮`$ modulo the gravitational Gauss constraint. We can hence use $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝒮`$ as the scalar constraint in the real connection formulation with $`\gamma =1`$. On the other hand, recalling that the different sets of canonical phase-space variables and coupling constants parametrized by $`\gamma `$ are related by the extended Thiemann transform $`T_\gamma `$ and using our definition of $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒮`$, we straightforwardly obtain that $`T_\gamma {}_{}{}^{1}𝒮={}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒮`$. However, $`{}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒮`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝒮`$ differ when $`\gamma 1`$ even modulo the kinematical constraints, as can be easily checked from Eq. (34). As a consequence, the dynamical structure is not invariant under the extended Thiemann transform. Therefore, the kinematical equivalence $`R_\gamma C_{\gamma ^{1/2}}`$ is not maintained when dynamics is taken into account.


text:
# STRANGE PARTICLE PRODUCTION IN NUCLEAR COLLISIONS AT CERN-NA49

## 1 Introduction

NA49 is a general purpose large acceptance hadron spectrometer. It’s main tracking devices are 4 large volume TPCs, which make particle identification possible. The experiment has collected data on a wide range of hadronic interactions (p-p, d-p, $`\pi `$-p, p-Pb, $`\pi `$-Pb, Pb-Pb). These data are used to make a systematic study and understand the complex A-A interactions.

## 2 Isospin Effects on the $`K`$ and $`\pi `$ Production

In order to trace the signatures of new physics, heavy ion collisions are usually compared to elementary (p-p or p-A) collisions. Beyond the possible ’interesting’ differences there is a ’trivial’ difference however: heavy ions are composed of neutrons and protons (for Pb the mixture is 60% n, 40% p). In order to study differences between proton and neutron fragmentation, NA49 has collected data with a deuteron beam incident upon a proton target with $`p_{\text{beam}}`$=158 GeV/nucleon. By tagging on a spectator proton with $`p`$ 158 GeV one can select neutron-proton collisions.

Charged kaon and pion yields were determined via dE/dx measurements. Figure 1 shows the transverse momentum distributions in p-p and n-p collisions in the projectile (n or p) hemisphere at fixed Feynman-x. The flip of positive and negative pions and the unchanged kaon yields, when replacing the proton projectile by a neutron projectile, are clearly visible. Consequently the $`R^+=K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio is higher, the $`R^{}=K^{}/\pi ^{}`$ ratio is lower in n than in p fragmentation (fig. 2a). A properly weighted average (40%p + 60%n fragmentation) is used then to estimate the magnitude of isospin effects in Pb-Pb collisions. Figures 2 b.) and c.) show the $`R_{\text{pPb, PbPb}}^\pm /R_{\text{pp}}^\pm `$ double ratios as a function of Feynman-x, after the elimination of the isospin effect from the Pb-Pb results. Note that above $`x_F=0.05`$ the p-Pb and Pb-Pb results agree within errors. The deviation close to $`x_F=0`$ is due to the target feed-over: target nucleons in p-Pb and Pb-Pb behave differently. They suffer 1 (in p-Pb) or several collisions (in Pb-Pb).

## 3 Strange Baryon Production

### 3.1 Strangeness Enhancement

Strange and multistrange baryons are reconstructed via their weak decay, using two independent reconstruction methods. The acceptance extends over a wide rapidity range ($`\pm `$1 unit around midrapidity), and covers the full $`p_T`$ range. Rapidity distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ are shown in figure 3. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) results have been feeddown-corrected with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+,\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) channel. For this the measured $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ yields were used. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0`$) yields were estimated as $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0=1.5\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^0=0.66\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$.

Strangeness enhancement in heavy ion collisions is often defined as the increase of the strangeness/number-of-participants ratio compared to p-p collisions. Strangeness enhancement can be attributed to the presence of the Quark Gluon Plasma, or the higher number of collisions suffered by an average participant. Assuming the latter, p-A data can be used to make a study of enhancement as a function of the number of collisions $`\nu `$.

Midrapidity yields are contributed to by both the target ($`T`$) and the projectile ($`P`$). In the symmetric p-p collisions both contributions are therefore $`T_{pp}=P_{pp}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dN}{dy}|_{pp}^{y=0}`$. In the asymmetric p-A collisions no enhancement per nucleon is assumed on the target side (since each target nucleon suffers only 1 collision). The target contribution ($`T_{pA}`$) is therefore assumed to be the target contribution derived from the p-p results ($`T_{pp}`$), scaled by the number of colliding target nuclei ($`\nu `$). All the enhancement ($`E_\nu `$) is attributed to the projectile, suffering $`\nu `$ collisions: $`\frac{dN}{dy}|_{pA}^{y=0}=\nu \frac{1}{2}\frac{dN}{dy}|_{pp}^{y=0}+E_\nu \frac{1}{2}\frac{dN}{dy}|_{pp}^{y=0}`$. The enhancement in the symmetric A-A collisions is defined as $`\frac{dN}{dy}|_{AA}^{y=0}=E_\nu \frac{N_W}{2}\frac{dN}{dy}|_{pp}^{y=0}`$, where $`N_W`$ is the number of wounded nucleons. Panels (a) and (c) of figure 4 show the enhancement $`E_\nu `$ for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ in p-Be, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions as a function of $`\nu `$ (which is the average number of collisions suffered by the projectile for p-A collisions, and by an average nucleon for A-A collisions). Enhancement factors for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ are larger than for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$. The enhancement factors for both the baryon and the antibaryon are of the same order in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions.

Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ production from a neutron or a proton can be different, isospin effects can also play a role in strangeness enhancement. In order to take this into account, we redefined strangeness enhancement, with this isospin effect detached:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{pA}^{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{pp}^{y=0}+E_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{pp}^{y=0}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{AA}^{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`E_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{N_W}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{pp}^{y=0}`$ (2)
where the $`\alpha `$ factor accounts for the increase or decrease of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ yield due to the proton-neutron composition of the lead nucleus. This could be derived by comparing an appropriately weighted average of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ yields from proton (40%) and neutron (60%) induced reactions to the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ yield in proton-induced reactions. Our limited statistics of n+p data did not allow a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ production, therefore the $`\alpha `$ factor for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ could only be estimated: we used the factors measured for proton and antiproton: $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=\alpha _{\overline{p}}=1.3`$ and $`\alpha _{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+}=\alpha _p=0.7`$. The enhancements as defined in equations 1 and 2 are shown in the panels (b) and (d) of figure 4 for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, respectively. After taking into account the isospin effects the enhancement factors for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ approached each other, and p-Pb and Pb-Pb results are still of the same order.

### 3.2 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Production in p-p Collisions

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ signals have been observed in p-p collisions for the first time. Panels (a) and (b) of figure 5 show the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ mass spectra in p-p collisions; panel (c) shows the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ mass spectrum in Pb-Pb collisions. From the absence of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ signal in p-p events we estimate the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ratio to be less than 0.5 with a confidence level of 95%.

## 4 Conclusions

Results obtained from p-p and n-p collisions indicate a sizeable isospin-dependence of the $`K/\pi `$ ratio. Using these data to eliminate isospin effects from Pb-Pb results the $`K/\pi `$ ratio in Pb-Pb and p-Pb collisions in the forward hemisphere agree within errors.

The final $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and feeddown-corrected $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ results in p-p and Pb-Pb collisions at the NA49 experiment are obtained. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-enhancements at midrapidity in p-A and A-A collisions with respect to p-p collisions are of the same order. An increased statistics should make the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ particles in n-p collisions possible in the near future. In the present study the isospin effect on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ production in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions was estimated using the factors determined for protons and antiprotons from p-p and n-p collisions. Isospin-corrected enhancement factors of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ approach each other.

An $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ signal has been observed in p-p collisions for the first time. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ ratio is estimated to be less than 0.5 with a confidence level of 95%. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production has also been observed in Pb-Pb collisions in NA49.

## Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) under the contracts F034707 and T0032293.

## References


text:
# Thermomagnetic history effects in SmMn2Ge2

## I Introduction

There have been a continued interest in the past decade in understanding the magnetization behavior of the body centered tetragonal rare-earth transition-metal germanides and silicides (RMn2Ge2 and RMn2Si2). Various kinds of magnetic phase transitions, viz., paramagnetic (PM) to ferromagnetic (FM), PM to antiferromagnetic (AFM), FM to AFM, AFM to FM or ferrimagnetic state (at low temperature, T) can be observed in different compounds belonging to this class of materials. The unit cell in these compounds, consists of layered structure ..-Mn-Mn-R-Ge(or Si)-R-Mn-Mn-.. stacked along the c-axis. Within the ab-plane, the Mn-Mn interaction is FM-like for all temperatures below the highest ordering temperature. It is known that in all the RMn2Ge2 and RMn2Si2 compounds, the various properties including magnetization (M) are strongly dependent on the intralayer Mn-Mn distance, d$`{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{MnMn}{}^{}`$ (Ref.). It has been established that there exist a critical value of d$`{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{MnMn}{}^{}`$ below (above) which the Mn-spins in one FM layer interact antiferromagnetically (ferromagnetically) with those in the neighbouring FM-layer. Among the various members of the entire family, the compound SmMn2Ge2 is unique, in the sense that the intralayer d$`{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{MnMn}{}^{}`$ is very close to the critical value of 2.84A at room temperature. Accordingly, significant structural distortions occur in the unit cell of SmMn2Ge2 as one varies temperature in the range of 360 to 5 K. With a PM to FM transition around 350 K (i.e., TC), these distortions leads to (i) an intermediate-T FM to AFM transition around 145 K (T1), and (ii) a low-T AFM to re-entrant FM transition near 100K (T2). In addition, the easy axis in SmMn2Ge2 changes from $`<`$001$`>`$ above $``$145 K to $`<`$110$`>`$ below $``$100 K.

The intermediate AFM-regime can undergo metamagnetic transition for magnetic field strengths, H $``$ 5 kOe, by which the alternate antiparallel spin-configuration of the FM-layers is transformed to a parallel one. Neutron scattering, NMR  and Mossbauer  studies have revealed that the magnetic structure of each magnetic phase possessed non-collinear arrangement of spins. Later, a thorough neutron scattering investigation on a sample containing isotopically enriched Sm, revealed the existence of much more complicated cone-structures in AFM as well as low-T re-entrant FM-regime. This ternary compound SmMn2Ge2 has gained further interest due to the observed giant magnetoresistance (GMR) associated with the AFM phase. Magnetoresistance of varying magnitude from 8% to about 16% was reported in these studies. Technologically, this is interesting since most GMR materials are artificially grown as thin film multilayers.

At this juncture, we would like to recall that we reported the thermomagnetic history effects across the first order FM to AFM transition in polycrystalline Ce(Fe0.96Al0.04)2. It was shown that the supercooling and superheating of two magnetic phases across the first order transition (FOT) leads to metastable behaviour which resulted in the thermomagnetic irreversibility (TMI) that was found to increase with the increase in H, in sharp contrast with the TMI observed, say for example, in spin-glass and long range magnetically ordered systems which gets suppressed with the increase in H. In particular, it was found that both M and magnetoresistivity ($`\rho `$) at any (T,H) point below the Neel temperature (TN) were strongly history dependent. Although all the generic features associated with the FOT were observed in Ce(Fe0.96Al0.04)2, the superheating signatures were quite subtle compared with those associated with supercooling. In this context, the compound SmMn2Ge2 provides an unique opportunity to probe the aspect of TMI in the view of two first order transitions, as it has been established that both the transitions – at T1, and T2 – are first order in nature. This system thus is a natural choice for observing all the characteristics of a FOT (including superheating) as we approach the AFM-regime (displaying negligible moment relative to the FM-state) both while heating from the low-T FM-regime as well as while cooling from the high-T FM-regime. We thus demonstrate through TMI measurements the observation of the metastable phases of both kinds (i.e., supercooled and superheated) so clearly in SmMn2Ge2. In this paper, we present the thermomagnetic history effects observed on variation of field and temperature across the 145 K first order transition in SmMn2Ge2. Thermomagnetic history effects associated with the low temperature transition (i.e., at $``$100 K) in this compound are still under investigation, and are not addressed in this paper.

## II Experimental Details

Polycrystalline samples of SmMn2Ge2 were prepared by argon-arc melting. Details of sample preparation and characterisation can be found in Ref.. The M vs. T and/or H data have been recorded using a commercial SQUID magnetometer (Model MPMS5) with a scan-length of 4 cm. The measurement of M is being done in three different experimental protocols, viz., Zero field cooling (ZFC), Field cooled cooling (FCC) and Field cooled warming (FCW). These protocols are explained in detail in Ref. .

## III Results and Discussion

Before we present the detailed results on thermomagnetic history effects across T1, we would like to discuss the M vs. T as well as M vs. H behavior, to serve as a prelude to interpret TMI data. Figure 1 shows the M vs. T plot for SmMn2Ge2 sample recorded in a low-field of 50 Oe both in ZFC and FCW protocols. The PM to FM transition takes place at TC $``$345 K. This high T FM-phase continues down to T1 $``$145 K, below which the M vs. T curve displays a sudden loss of M thereby entering into an AFM-regime, which persists down to $``$100 K. Below this T, which we are referring to as T2, the magnetization once again increases due to the formation of the (low T) re-entrant FM-phase. \[Henceforth, these two FM-phases existing at high and low T would be represented by FM1 and FM2, respectively.\] It may be noted in passing that the high T FM1-phase (extending over a T-range from 145 to 345 K) displays a concave curvature for T$`<`$ 180 K, in contrast to a typical M vs. T behavior represented by Brillouin function. A large TMI \[i.e., MFCW(T) $``$ MZFC(T)\] is distinctly observed below 100 K. Conventionally, such a TMI in MFCW and MZFC is commonly taken as finger-print of spin-glass behaviour. However, it is now established that long range magnetically ordered systems (i.e., FM, AFM, etc.) can also show significant TMI in their M vs. T data, which arises mainly from hindrance to domain-rotation caused by the magnetocrystalline anisotropy and/or domain-wall pinning effects. One may recall that when TMI arises due to these domain-related effects, it gets suppressed with increase in H. Thus, the small TMI in the FM1-phase of SmMn2Ge2 above 145 K (despite the low field of 50 Oe) is definitely indicative of relatively small domain-wall pinning effects. Besides, in view of highly anisotropic magnetization behavior of SmMn2Ge2, the small TMI in the FM1-phase also suggests that either there is a relatively small magnetocrystalline anisotropy or there is some preferential orientation of $`<`$001$`>`$ grains parallel to applied H in this polycrystalline sample. However, on the basis of data of Fig. 1 alone, it is not possible to decipher which one of the above two factors is causing the small TMI observed above T1.

To know about the H-dependence of the TMI behavior in SmMn2Ge2, we show in Fig. 2 the M vs. T plots for H, namely 5 kOe, 20 kOe and 50 kOe. We find that,

1. Instead of loss of magnetization as observed at low-H (see Fig. 1) in the AFM-regime, a ”dip” like feature is now observed in M vs. T plot for H=5 kOe, indicating that the AFM-regime is narrowed down in high H. We also want to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that relative to the TMI in small H (see Fig. 1), the increase of H to a moderate value, for instance, 5 kOe has almost smeared out the T2-transition, whereas the T1-transition is less affected qualitatively. Furthermore, in presence of high fields (H $``$ 5 kOe), the moment in the FM1-phase is distinctly larger than that in FM2-phase, which is in sharp contrast with the situation at 50 Oe (see Fig. 1). At further higher H, the M vs. T plots do not show any dip in magnetization at T2-transition (i.e., for both H=20 kOe and 50 kOe). Instead, magnetization (in H=50 kOe) rises with T right from T $`>`$ 30 K.
2. The TMI (see, e.g., magnetization at 5 K) decreases as one goes from 50 Oe (Fig. 1) to 20 kOe (Fig. 2). However, at 50 kOe, we find that TMI has a different sign, i.e., MFCW(T) $`<`$ MZFC(T). This change in sign of TMI at higher H is quite anomalous, the origin of which is unclear at present.
3. The peak in M (observed in both FCW as well as ZFC protocols) shifts to a lower T with increase in strength of H, and this implies complex intermediate tempearture magnetic phase at higher H.

As mentioned in the preceeding discussion, in order to identify these critical fields of metamagnetic transition Hmeta(T), we recorded various isothermal M vs. H plots within the AFM-regime. Figure 3a shows one such plot at 135 K, in which (a) the initial M vs. H curve recorded after reaching to 135 K point strictly in ZFC-manner from above TC (i.e., the virgin-curve), (b) a portion of H-reversal cycle from the maximum 50 kOe down to -50 kOe through 0 T (i.e., reverse-envelope curve), and (c) a portion of field ascending M-H curve initiated after field excursion from -50 kOe, i.e., forward-envelope curve) are shown for the SmMn2Ge2 sample.

A slow increase in M until about 3 kOe is consistent with the low-field AFM-state in the present SmMn2Ge2 sample at 135 K. With further increase in H, a number of jumps in M are clearly resolved until about 6 kOe along the virgin M-H branch (Fig. 3a). At higher field strengths, the observation of usual saturation-like behavior (typical of a FM-state) indicates the completion of field-induced AFM to FM transition in SmMn2Ge2 sample. The observed randomness in both the magnitude as well as the position of these various jumps (which are as much as 10 in number in the present case of SmMn2Ge2 sample (see Fig. 3a)), may be attributed to a distribution of Hmeta due to possible inhomogenieties/disorder in the polycrystalline sample together with the high anisotropy of SmMn2Ge2. From the first and the last jumps in the virgin M vs. H curve, one can identify the critical field for the onset and completion of metamagnetic transition at 135 K. In Fig. 3b, we plot these two critical fields as a function of T covering the entire AFM-regime. We shall refer to this phase diagram when we discuss our measurements to look for metastable (supercooled/superheated) states by varying T in fixed H. Finally, it is worth noting that the virgin M vs. H curve lies anomalously outside the full hysteretic loop obtained by cycling the field between +50 kOe and -50 kOe (see Fig. 3a). A similar anomalous virgin curve was observed in the M vs. H and $`\rho `$ vs. H data of Ce(Fe0.96Al0.04)2.

We stress here that the MFCW(T) data presented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 have been recorded after cooling the sample (in presence of respective H’s) across the two FOTs (and not one FOT as reported in Ref. in Ce(Fe0.96Al0.04)2 system). We further point out here that a great care is required when dealing systems like the present SmMn2Ge2 sample, since metastabilities across both the first order transitions (i.e., FM1 to AFM, and AFM to FM2) may mask the magnetic character of that particular phase (due to the supercooling and superheating of various phases across the two transitions.) Thus, the TMI effects in SmMn2Ge2 may be different not only from those encountered in only FM- or only AFM-ordered compounds, but also from the TMI observed across a single FOT from FM to AFM as discussed in Ref.. In this paper, we will focus on TMI effects only across the T1-transition. To limit the contributions to the overall TMI (say near the transition-temperature) arising from the metastable effects related with domain pinning/hindrance, the strength of H should be small enough so as not to drive the AFM-state into a FM-state while preparing the field-cooled state from, say at 135 K.

In Fig. 4, we show the effect of strength of H on the TMI (near the T1-transition) obtained from the M vs. T plots which have been recorded while warming the sample;
(a) after cooling in zero field from above TC to 120 K (thereby ensuring the initial phase at 120 K to be purely AFM) at which the appropriate field is applied (i.e., ZFC protocol), and
(b) from 135 K which the sample reached in presence of H when cooled from a temperature T0 ($`>`$ T1) (i.e., FCW protocol). \[The T0 is the temperature upto which the sample is warmed while recording MZFC(T)-data as explained in step-(a) above.\]

Note that the M vs. T plots in Figs. 4a-g are normalized to their maximum value at the transition T1, to allow a proper comparison of the effect of the strength of applied field on the TMI. It can be seen that the TMI observed below T1 \[i.e., MFCW(135 K)- MZFC(135 K)\] rises with the increase in H from 20 Oe to 2 kOe (see Fig. 4h). As discussed above, such a TMI between ZFC and FCW – i.e., increasing with field – indicates (at first place) the first order nature of the magnetic transition taking place at T1, rather than having an origin due to domain-related behavior wherein the TMI gets suppressed with the increase in H. However, with further increase in H, the drastic decrease of TMI at 135 K is observed. It thus turns out from the foregoing data that TMI at intermediate H (i.e., $``$ 2-4 kOe) is higher than the TMI observed both in low (i.e., 20 Oe and 1 kOe) or high fields (i.e., 6, 10, and 20 kOe). This is remarkably a peculiar finding. We now discuss the possible origin of this behavior.

We note from Fig. 3b, that the sample undergoes a complete metamagnetic transition at 120 K by $``$ 7.5 kOe field (see Fig. 3b), with the result that along the ZFC warming M vs. T curve (open data symbols in Figs. 4a-g), the sample is completely in FM-state for H = 10 kOe and 20 kOe, and partly in AFM- and partly in FM-state for 3.2 kOe $`<`$ H $`<`$ 7.5 kOe. The TMI increasing with the increase in H from 20 Oe to 2 kOe should predominantly be due to the superheating of the (metastable) AFM-phase while warming along the ZFC-protocol and also due to the additional metastability in MFCW(T) along the FCW-run (filled data symbols in Figs. 4a-g) as there is always a probability that a finite fraction of the FM1-phase may get supercooled down to 135 K (the starting T of the FCW-run). This initial trend of TMI \[i.e., increasing with H, and consistent with the arguments by Chaddah and Roy \] is also identical to the one observed in the M(T,H)- and $`\rho `$(T,H)-data of Ce(Fe0.96Al0.04)2 exhibiting a FOT from FM to AFM at $``$100 K.  The TMI in SmMn2Ge2 for H $``$4 kOe or higher may be attributed to arise from both the metastable-effects associated with domain-related causes, as well as the metastable-effects associated with the FOT at T1. This is so, because for H $``$4 kOe (but $``$7.5 kOe), the sample also consists of a finite fraction of FM1-phase (see Fig. 3b) along the ZFC-cycle right from 120 K onwards, which would result in higher MZFC below $``$T1, thereby resulting in a small TMI as is experimentally observed in Figs. 4d and 4e. This finite FM-fraction in ZFC would also contribute in further reduction in TMI with increase in H, becasue of the known supression of TMI arising due to domain-related effects with increase in H. On the other hand, given the first order nature of the transition at T1, one may still argue that the FCW data of M vs. T plot (for 10 kOe or higher) could still result due to the supercooling of high-T FM1-phase. We shall defer this question for time being, and point out that (a) the thermal hysteresis at the onset of transition while cooling and warming in presence of field, and (b) its dependence on H are both instructive to know the dominance of metastable effects associated with any FOT. In the next section, we shall now present results of H-dependence of thermal hysteresis across the T1-transition.

In Fig. 5, we show the results of thermal cycling of SmMn2Ge2 sample across the T1-transition in presence of different field strengths. (It should once again be noted that the M vs. T data for different H’s (for both FCC- as well as FCW- protocols) is normalised with respect to the highest M-value observed along the FCC-curve). For each H, we first brought the sample to 150 K in ZFC-manner from above TC, then the field is applied and FCC-data is first collected down to 120 K followed by recording of FCW-data by warming the sample upto and above T1. Akin to the multiple jumps seen in the M vs. H curves within the AFM regime (Fig. 3a), more than one jump in M are also observed in these thermal cyclings as well. A significant amount of thermal hysteresis is visible for all the field strengths upto H=4 kOe. \[This presence of thermal hysteresis itself indicates the first order nature of T1-transition.\] However, the absence of thermal hysteresis between the FCC- and FCW-curves recorded in high magnetic field strengths (see inset to Fig. 5 for H=20 kOe case) immediately confirms that T1-transition is a second-order transition in presence of higher H. In our opinion, this transition at H=20 kOe involves a gradual transformation of FM1-state with a particular easy-axis to another FM-state (possibly FM2-like) with different easy-axis. (i.e., the transition in higher H is associated with the change in anisotropy in SmMn2Ge2 near 145 K.)

The amount of thermal-hysteresis (near the mid-point of the total magnetization-change at T1-transition) increases from about $``$7 K in 20 Oe, and to $``$12 K at 0.5 kOe to $``$13 K at 1 kOe, and then decreases to $``$10 K at 2 kOe, and then to $``$4 K at 4 kOe. The initial increase of thermal hysteresis from 20 Oe to 1 kOe is consistent within the picture of FOT. This is explained as follows: while cooling (warming) the sample in presence of H from 150 K (120 K) a finite fraction of high (intermediate) temperature FM1 (AFM) phase supercools (superheats) below (above) T1 down (up) to the lower-T (higher-T) metastable limit T(H) (T∗∗(H)), which is the temperature at which the hysteresis collapses on lower-T (higher-T) side. Within this FOT picture, it is very well necessary that the hysteretic regime in SmMn2Ge2 should also widen with increase in H. The results shown in Fig. 5 support this beyond any doubt until 1 kOe. Although further increase in H suppresses the hysteresis, the presence of hysteresis above H $``$ 1 kOe itself is indicative of first-order like transition upto 4 kOe. (or upto the H, where one could still observe the hysteresis in SmMn2Ge2.) In field strengths H $``$1 kOe, the reduction in the thermal-hysteresis with H could be associated with the varying fractions of AFM- and FM- phases in SmMn2Ge2 while traversing the phase coexistence regime (see Fig. 3b) on either sides (during the FCC- and FCW-runs) or to the distribution in Hmeta(T) in the sample.

## IV Conclusion

We have probed the thermomagnetic history effects for the first time in a compound, viz., SmMn2Ge2, exhibiting two first order magnetic transitions. We have mainly focussed the present study on a FM to AFM transition occuring around 145 K in SmMn2Ge2. The most unusual finding is that higher TMI is observed at intermediate field strengths. The results reveal that there are two kinds of metastable effects giving rise to the observed TMI in SmMn2Ge2: (a) the metastable effects associated with a first order transition (i.e., supercooling and superheating) dominate at lower fields, and (b) the metastable effects resulting from the hindrance to the domain rotation process caused due to the high magnetocrystalline anisotropy and/or due to the pinning of domain-walls at lattice defects dominate above 4 kOe.