text:
# Quantum state filtering and discrimination between sets of Boolean functions

## Abstract

In quantum state filtering one wants to determine whether an unknown quantum state, which is chosen from a known set of states, $`\{|\psi _1,\mathrm{}|\psi _N\}`$, is either a specific state, say $`|\psi _1`$, or one of the remaining states, $`\{|\psi _2,\mathrm{}|\psi _N\}`$. We present the optimal solution to this problem, in terms of generalized measurements, for the case that the filtering is required to be unambiguous. As an application, we propose an efficient, probabilistic quantum algorithm for distinguishing between sets of Boolean functions, which is a generalization of the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.

Optimal discrimination among quantum states plays a central role in quantum information theory. Interest in this problem was prompted by the suggestion to use nonorthogonal quantum states for communication in certain secure quantum cryptographic protocols, most notably in the one based on the two-state procedure as developed by Bennett bennett . The reason why until recently the area has shown relatively slow progress within the rapidly evolving field of quantum information is that it poses quite formidable mathematical challenges. Except for a handful of very special cases, no general exact solution has been available involving more than two arbitrary states. In this paper we present an exact solution to an optimum measurement problem involving an arbitrary number of quantum states, with no restriction on the states. The resulting method has the potential for widespread applications in quantum information processing. In particular, it lends itself quite naturally to a quantum generalization of probabilistic classical algorithms. Whenever it is possible to find a one-to-one mapping of classical alternatives onto quantum states, our method can discriminate among these quantum alternatives in a single step with optimum success probability.

We illustrate the strength of the method on the example of a probabilistic quantum algorithm to discriminate between sets of Boolean functions. A Boolean function on $`n`$ bits is one that returns either 0 or 1 as output for every possible value of the input $`x`$, where $`0x2^n1`$. The function is uniform (or constant) if it returns the same output on all of its arguments, i.e. either all 0’s or all 1’s; it is balanced (or even) if it returns 0’s on half of its arguments and 1’s on the other half; and it is biased if it returns 0’s on $`m_0`$ of its arguments and 1’s on the remaining $`m_1=2^nm_0`$ arguments ($`m_0m_10`$ or $`2^n1`$). Classically, if one is given an unknown function and told that it is either balanced or uniform, one needs $`2^{(n1)}+1`$ measurements to decide which. Deutsch and Jozsa DJ  developed a quantum algorithm that can accomplish this task in one step. To discriminate a biased Boolean function from an unknown balanced one, $`2^{(n1)}+m_1+1`$ measurements are needed classically, where, without loss of generality, we have assumed that $`m_1<m_0`$. Here we propose a probabilistic quantum algorithm that can unambiguously discriminate a known biased Boolean function from a given set of balanced ones in one step.

The method is based on the optimum unambiguous quantum state filtering scenario which, in turn, is a special case of the following more general problem. We know that a given system is prepared in one of $`N`$ known non-orthogonal quantum states, but we do not know which one. We want to assign the state of this system to one or the other of two complementary subsets of the set of the $`N`$ given states where one subset has $`M`$ elements and the other has $`NM`$ ($`MN/2`$). Since the subsets are not mutually orthogonal, the assignment can not be done with a 100% probability of success. For the case that the assignment is required to be unambiguous, at the expense of allowing inconclusive results to occur the probability of which is minimized, the problem has recently been solved for $`N=3`$ sun2 . For the case that the assignment is to be performed with minimum error, the solution has been found for arbitrary $`M`$ and $`N`$ under the restriction that the Hilbert space spanned by the states is two-dimensional HB . We refer to either case as quantum state filtering when $`M=1`$ and $`N3`$.

Unambiguous filtering is related to unambiguous quantum state discrimination: one is given a quantum system, prepared in a state that belongs to a known set of non-orthogonal states, and one wants to determine, without possibility of error, which state the system is in chefrev . Since the states are not mutually orthogonal, at first glance the problem appears impossible. However, it becomes possible if we allow the procedure to fail a certain fraction of the time. That is, when we apply the procedure, we will either find out what the quantum state of the system is, or we will fail to do so, but we will never make an erroneous identification. The optimal method for discriminating between two states was found in Refs. ivanovic -peres . No general solution is known for more than two states but there are special cases that can be solved, and some features of the general solution have been extracted terno -sun1 . Chefles has shown chefles1  that the states have to be linearly independent for unambiguous state discrimination to succeed but orthogonality is not required.

We begin by presenting the solution to the unambiguous quantum state filtering problem. Suppose we are given a quantum system prepared in the state $`|\psi `$, which is guaranteed to be a member of the set of $`N`$ non-orthogonal states $`\{|\psi _1,\mathrm{},|\psi _N\}`$, but we do not know which one. We denote by $`\eta _i`$ the a priori probability that the system was prepared in the state $`|\psi _i`$. We want to find a procedure that will unambiguously assign the state of the quantum system to one or the other of two complementary subsets of the set of the $`N`$ given non-orthogonal quantum states, either $`\{|\psi _1\}`$ or $`\{|\psi _2,\mathrm{}|\psi _N\}`$. Quantum measurement theory tells us that non-orthogonal states cannot be discriminated perfectly. If we are given $`|\psi _i`$, we will have some probability $`p_i`$ to correctly assign it to one of the subsets and, correspondingly, some failure probability, $`q_i=1p_i`$, to obtain an inconclusive answer. The average probabilities of success and of failure are $`P=_{i=1}^N\eta _ip_i`$, and

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\eta _iq_i,$$
(1)
respectively. Our objective is to find the set of $`\left\{q_i\right\}`$ that minimizes the probability of failure, $`Q`$.

It is easy to see that a standard quantum measurement (SQM, a von Neumann projective measurement) can achieve error-free filtering. If we project on either of the two sets (state selective measurement, first strategy) a “no click” will indicate that we were given a state from the other set, assuming perfect detectors. A somewhat better approach is to project on a direction that is perpendicular to one of the sets (nonselective measurement, second strategy). Now, a detector “click” indicates that we were given a state from the other set and perfect detectors are not required. For example, if we measure the operator $`F^{(1)}=I|\psi _1\psi _1|`$, then a click (corresponding to the eigenvalue $`1`$) shows that the vector is not $`|\psi _1`$ and the measurement has succeeded. If we do not obtain a click (eigenvalue $`0`$), then the measurement has failed, and we do not know which vector we were given. The probability of failure, $`Q_{SQM}^{(1)}`$, is given by

$$Q_{SQM}^{(1)}=\eta _1+S,$$
(2)
where $`S=_{i=2}^N\eta _i|\psi _1|\psi _i|^2`$ is the average overlap between the two subsets.

A second possibility is to split $`|\psi _1`$ into two components, $`|\psi _1=|\psi _1^{}+|\psi _1^{}`$. Here $`|\psi _1^{}`$ is orthogonal to the subspace, $`_2`$, that is spanned by the vectors $`|\psi _2,\mathrm{}|\psi _N`$, and $`|\psi _1^{}`$ lies in $`_2`$. Their normalized versions are $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}=|\psi _1^{}/\psi _1^{}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}=|\psi _1^{}/\psi _1^{}`$, respectively, where the norm is defined in the usual way, $`\psi ^2=\psi |\psi `$. We then introduce the operator $`F^{(2)}=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}|(I|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}||\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1^{}|)`$, which has eigenvalues $`1`$, $`0`$, and $`1`$. If we measure $`F^{(2)}`$ and obtain $`1`$, then the vector was $`|\psi _1`$, if we obtain $`1`$, then the vector was in the set $`\{|\psi _2,\mathrm{}|\psi _N\}`$, and if we obtain $`0`$, the procedure failed. In this case the probability of failure, $`Q_{SQM}^{(2)}`$, is given by

$$Q_{SQM}^{(2)}=\eta _1\psi _1^{}^2+\frac{S}{\psi _1^{}^2}.$$
(3)
Which of these two particular strategies is better is determined by which of these two failure probabilities is smaller. In particular, $`Q_{SQM}^{(1)}>Q_{SQM}^{(2)}`$ if $`\eta _1\psi _1^{}^2>S`$, and vice versa.

Now, the question arises: Is this the best we can do? The answer is that under certain conditions a generalized measurement based on positive-operator valued measures (POVM, kraus ) can do better in an intermediate range of parameters, and can achieve a higher probability of success than a standard von Neumann measurement. The POVM can be implemented by a unitary evolution on a larger space and a selective measurement. The larger space consists of two orthogonal subspaces, the original system space and a failure space. The unitary evolution transforms the input sets into orthogonal sets in the original system space and maps them onto the same vector in the failure space. A click in the detector measuring along this vector corresponds to failure of the procedure, since all inputs are mapped onto the same output. A no-click corresponds to success since now the non-orthogonal input sets are transformed into orthogonal output sets in the system space. The one-dimensionality of the failure space follows from the requirement that the filtering is optimum. Namely, suppose that $`|\psi _1`$ is mapped onto some vector in the failure space and the inputs from the other set are mapped onto vectors that have components perpendicular to this vector. Then a single von Neumann measurement along the orthogonal direction could identify the input as being from the second set, i.e. further filtering would be possible, lowering the failure probability and the original filtering could not have been optimum.

In particular, let $`_S`$ be the $`D`$-dimensional system space spanned by the vectors $`\{|\psi _1,\mathrm{}|\psi _N\}`$ where, obviously, $`DN`$. We now embed this space in a space of $`D+1`$ dimensions, $`_{S+A}=_S_A`$, where $`_A`$ is a one-dimensional auxiliary Hilbert space, the failure space or ancilla. The basis in this space is denoted by $`|\varphi ^{(A)}`$. Thus, the unitary evolution on $`_{S+A}`$ is specified by the requirement that for any input state $`|\psi _i(=|\psi _i^{(S)})`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) the final state has the structure

$$|\psi _i_{out}=U|\psi _i=\sqrt{p_i}|\psi _i^{(S)}+\sqrt{q_i}e^{i\theta _i}|\varphi ^{(A)}.$$
(4)
From unitarity the relation, $`p_i+q_i=1`$, follows. Furthermore, $`p_i`$ is the probability that the transformation $`|\psi _i|\psi _i^{}`$ succeeds and $`q_i`$ is the probability that $`|\psi _i`$ is mapped onto the state $`|\varphi ^{(A)}`$. In order to identify $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ with the state-specific success and failure probability for quantum filtering we have to require that

$$\psi _1^{}|\psi _i^{}=0,$$
(5)
for $`i=2,\mathrm{}N`$. We now introduce the operator $`F^{(3)}=|\psi _1^{}\psi _1^{}|(I^{(S+A)}|\psi _1^{}\psi _1^{}||\varphi ^{(A)}\varphi ^{(A)}|)`$, which has eigenvalues $`1`$, $`0`$, and $`1`$. If we measure $`F^{(3)}`$ and obtain $`1`$, then the input was $`|\psi _1`$, if we obtain $`1`$, then the input was from the other the set, and if we obtain $`0`$, the procedure failed.

In order to optimize the POVM, we have to determine those values of $`q_i`$ in Eq. (4) that yield the smallest average failure probability $`Q`$. Taking the scalar product of $`U|\psi _1`$ and $`U|\psi _i`$ in Eq. (4), and using Eq. (5), gives

$$|\psi _1|\psi _i|^2=q_1q_i,$$
(6)
for $`i=2,\mathrm{},N`$, and Eq. (1) can be cast in the form $`Q(q_1)=\eta _1q_1+S/q_1`$. Unitarity of the transformation $`U`$ delivers the necessary condition that $`q_1`$ must lie in the range $`\psi _1^{}^2q_11`$. Details of the derivation, along with a discussion of the sufficient conditions for the existence of $`U`$, will be presented in a future publication BHH . Provided that a POVM-solution exists, the minimum of $`Q(q_1)`$ is reached for $`q_1=\sqrt{S/\eta _1}`$ and is given by

$$Q_{POVM}=2\sqrt{\eta _1S}.$$
(7)
Thus, the failure probability for optimal unambiguous quantum state filtering can be summarized as

$`Q=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\sqrt{\eta _1S}\hfill & \text{if }\eta _1\psi _1^{}^4S\eta _1,\hfill \\ \eta _1+S\hfill & \text{ if }S>\eta _1,\hfill \\ \eta _1\psi _1^{}^2+\frac{S}{\psi _1^{}^2}\hfill & \text{ if }S<\eta _1\psi _1^{}^4.\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
The first line represents the POVM result, Eq. (7), and it gives a smaller failure probability, in its range of validity, than the von Neumann measurements, Eqs. (2) and Eq. (3), cf. Fig. 1. Outside of the POVM range of validity we recover the von Neumann results. It should be noted that for these results to hold, unlike for unambiguous state discrimination, linear independence of all states is not required. Instead, the less stringent requirement of the linear independence of the sets is sufficient, in agreement with the findings in zhang .

We can now apply this result to distinguishing between sets of Boolean functions. Let $`f(x)`$, where $`0x2^n1`$, be a Boolean function, i.e. $`f(x)`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$. One of the sets we want to consider is a set of balanced functions. In our example, the second set has only two members, and we shall call it $`𝒲_k`$. A function is in $`𝒲_k`$ if $`f(x)=0`$ for $`0x<[(2^k1)/2^k]2^n`$ and $`f(x)=1`$ for $`[(2^k1)/2^k]2^nx2^n1`$, or if $`f(x)=1`$ for $`0x<[(2^k1)/2^k]2^n`$ and $`f(x)=0`$ for $`[(2^k1)/2^k]2^nx2^n1`$. We now wish to distinguish between the given balanced functions and functions in $`𝒲_k`$, that is, we are given an unknown function that is in one of the two sets, and we want to find out which set it is in. We note that the two functions in $`𝒲_k`$ are biased functions, so that this is a special case of a more general problem of distinguishing a set of biased functions from balanced functions.

This is by no means the only example the method can handle, but it is a particularly simple one and represents a generalization of the Deutsch-Jozsa problem DJ . In that case one is given an unknown function that is either balanced or constant, and one wants to determine which. Classically, in the worst case one would have to evaluate the function $`D/2+1`$ times, where we have set $`D=2^n`$, but in the quantum case only one evaluation is necessary. The solution makes use of the unitary mapping

$$|x|y|x|y+f(x),$$
(12)
where the first state, $`|x`$, is an $`n`$-qubit state, the second state, $`|y`$, is a single qubit state, and the addition is modulo $`2`$. The state $`|x`$, where $`x`$ is an $`n`$-digit binary number, is a member of the computational basis for $`n`$ qubits, and the state $`|y`$, where $`y`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$, is a member of the computational basis for a single qubit. In solving the Deutsch-Jozsa problem, this mapping is employed in the following way

$$\underset{x=0}{\overset{D1}{}}|x(|0|1)\underset{x=0}{\overset{D1}{}}(1)^{f(x)}|x(|0|1).$$
(13)
This has the effect of mapping Boolean functions to vectors in the $`D`$-dimensional Hilbert space, $`_D`$, and we shall do the same. The final qubit is not entangled with the remaining $`n`$ qubits and can be discarded. The vectors $`_{x=0}^{D1}(1)^{f(x)}|x`$ that are produced by balanced functions are orthogonal to those produced by constant functions. This is why the Deutsch-Jozsa problem is easy to solve quantum mechanically. In our case, the vectors produced by functions in $`𝒲_k`$ are not orthogonal to those produced by balanced functions. However, unambiguous quantum state filtering provides an optimum probabilistic quantum algorithm for the solution of this problem.

In order to apply the filtering solution, we note that both functions in $`𝒲_k`$ are mapped, up to an overall sign, to the same vector in $`_D`$, which we shall call $`|w_k`$. The vectors that correspond to balanced functions are contained in the subspace, $`_b`$, of $`_D`$, where $`_b=\{|v_D|_{x=0}^{D1}v_x=0\}`$, and $`v_x=x|v`$. This subspace has dimension $`2^n1=D1`$, and it is possible to choose an orthonormal basis, $`\{|v_i|i=2,\mathrm{}D\}`$, for it in which each basis element corresponds to a particular balanced Boolean function BHH .

Let us first see how the filtering procedure performs when applied to the problem of distinguishing $`|w_k(=|\psi _1)`$ from the set of the $`D1`$ orthonormal basis states, $`|v_i(=|\psi _i)`$, in $`_b`$. We assume their *a priori* probabilities to be equal, i.e. $`\eta _i=\eta =(1\eta _1)/(D1)`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{}D`$, where $`\eta _1`$ is the *a priori* probability for $`|w_k`$. For $`\psi _1^{}^2=w_k^{}^2f_k`$ we obtain $`f_k=(2^k1)/2^{2k2}`$. Then the average overlap, $`S_k`$, between $`|w_k`$ and the set of balanced basis vectors can be written as

$$S_k=\frac{1\eta _1}{D1}f_k,$$
(14)
in terms of $`f_k`$ BHH . The failure probabilities are given by Eq. (11), using $`S=S_k`$ and, to good approximation, the POVM result holds when $`1/2^{k2}D\eta _12^{k2}`$. For example, in the case in which all of the *a priori* probabilities are equal, i.e. $`\eta _1=1/D`$, we find that $`Q_{SQM}^{(1)}=Q_{SQM}^{(2)}=Q_{SQM}=(1+f_k)/D`$. From Fig. 1 the difference between the POVM and the von Neumann measurement is at its largest. To good approximation, $`Q_{POVM}/Q_{SQM}=4/2^{k/2}`$, which, for $`k1`$, shows that the POVM can perform substantially better than the von Neumann measurements.

Now that we know how this procedure performs on the basis vectors in $`_b`$, we shall examine its performance on any balanced function, i.e. we apply it to the problem of distingushing $`|w_k`$ from the set of all states in $`_b`$ that correspond to balanced functions. The number of such states is $`N=D!/(D/2)!^2`$ and we again assume their a priori probabilities to be equal, $`\eta =(1\eta _1)/N`$. It can be shown BHH  that the average overlap between $`|w_k`$ and the set $`\{|v\}`$ is given by the same expression, Eq. (14), as in the previous case. Therefore, much of what was said in the previous paragraph remains valid for this case, as well, with one notable difference. The case $`\eta _1=1/D`$ now does not correspond to equal a priori probability for the states but, rather, to a priori weight of the sets that is proportional to their dimensionality. In this case it is the POVM that performs best. In the case of equal a priori probability for all states, $`\eta _1=1/(N+1)`$, we are outside of the POVM range of validity and it is the first standard quantum measurement (SQM1) that performs best. Both the POVM and the SQM1 are good methods for distinguishing functions in $`𝒲_k`$ from balanced functions. Which one is better depends on the *a priori* probabilities of the functions.

Classically, in the worst case, one would have to evaluate a function $`2^n[(1/2)+(1/2^k)]+1`$ times to determine if it is in $`𝒲_k`$ or if it is an even function. Using quantum information processing methods, one has a very good chance of determining this with only one function evaluation. This shows that Deutsch-Jozsa-type algorithms need not be limited to constant functions; certain kinds of biased functions can be discriminated as well.

Unambiguous state discrimination is a procedure that is of fundamental interest in quantum information theory. Its only application so far has been to quantum cryptography. The results presented here suggest that related methods can also serve as a tool in the development of quantum algorithms.

This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research (Grant No. N00014-92-J-1233), the National Science Foundation (Grant No. PHY-0139692), the Hungarian Science Research Fund (Grant No. T 03061), a PSC-CUNY grant, and a CUNY collaborative grant.


format: text

text:
# Multicritical phenomena in O(𝑛₁)⊕O(𝑛₂)-symmetric theories.

## I Introduction.

The competition of distinct types of ordering gives rise to multicritical behavior. More specifically, a multicritical point (MCP) is observed at the intersection of two critical lines characterized by different order parameters. MCP’s arise in several physical contexts. The phase diagram of anisotropic antiferromagnets in a uniform magnetic field $`H_{}`$ parallel to the anisotropy axis presents two critical lines in the temperature-$`H_{}`$ plane, belonging to the $`XY`$ and Ising universality classes, that meet at a MCP . A MCP is also observed in 4He. It arises from the competition of crystalline and superfluid ordering in the temperature-pressure phase diagram . MCP’s are also expected in the temperature-doping phase diagram of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. Within the SO(5) theory  of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity, it has been speculated that the antiferromagnetic and superconducting transition lines meet at a MCP in the temperature-doping phase diagram, which is bicritical and shows an effective enlarged O(5) symmetry. On the other hand, the recent experimental evidence of a coexistence region between the antiferromagnetic and superconducting phases is suggestive of a tetracritical behavior . A MCP should also appear in the temperature baryon-chemical-potential phase diagram of hadronic matter, within the strong-interaction theory with two massless quarks .

Different phase diagrams have been observed close to a MCP. If the transition at the MCP is continuous, one may observe either a bicritical or a tetracritical behavior. A bicritical behavior is characterized by the presence of a first-order line that starts at the MCP and separates the two different ordered low-temperature phases, see Fig. 1. In the tetracritical case, there exists a mixed low-temperature phase in which both types of ordering coexist and which is bounded by two critical lines meeting at the MCP, see Fig. 2. It is also possible that the transition at the MCP is of first order. A possible phase diagram is sketched in Fig. 3. In this case the two first-order lines, which start at the MCP and separate the disordered phase from the ordered phases, end in tricritical points and then continue as critical lines.

If the order parameters have respectively $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ components and the interactions are invariant under O($`n_1`$) and O($`n_2`$), the critical behavior at the MCP can be studied by starting from the most general Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) Hamiltonian that is symmetric under O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) transformations and contains up to quartic terms :

$`={\displaystyle d^dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[(_\mu \varphi _1)^2+(_\mu \varphi _2)^2\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left(r_1\varphi _1^2+r_2\varphi _2^2\right)+\frac{1}{4!}\left[u_1(\varphi _1^2)^2+u_2(\varphi _2^2)^2+2w\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2\right]\right\}}.`$ (1)
Here, the two fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ have $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ components respectively. The critical behavior at the MCP is determined by the stable fixed point (FP) of the renormalization-group (RG) flow when both $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ are tuned to their critical value. An interesting possibility is that the stable FP has O($`N`$) symmetry, $`Nn_1+n_2`$, so that the symmetry gets effectively enlarged when approaching the MCP. This picture has been put forward for the multicritical behavior of anisotropic antiferromagnets in an external magnetic field , for systems with quadratic and cubic anisotropy , and for high-$`T_c`$ superconductors .

The phase diagram of the model with Hamiltonian (1) has been investigated within the mean-field approximation in Ref.  (see also Ref. ). This analysis predicts the existence of a bicritical or tetracritical point, as observed experimentally. The nature of the MCP depends on the sign of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }=u_1u_2w^2`$, which is relevant in the study of the stability domain of the Hamiltonian (1). If $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ the MCP is tetracritical as in Fig. 2, while for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ it is bicritical, as in Fig. 1.

The critical behavior of the model has been investigated in the framework of the $`ϵ`$ expansion . A low-order calculation  shows that the isotropic O($`N`$)-symmetric FP ($`Nn_1+n_2`$) is stable for $`N<N_c=42ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$. With increasing $`N`$, a new FP named biconal FP (BFP), which has only O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) symmetry, becomes stable. Finally, for large $`N`$, the decoupled FP (DFP) is the stable FP. In this case, the two order parameters are effectively uncoupled at the MCP. The extension of these $`O(ϵ)`$ results to three dimensions suggests that for $`n_1=1`$ and $`n_2=2`$, the case relevant for anisotropic antiferromagnets, the MCP belongs to the O(3) universality class, while for $`n_1=2`$ and $`n_2=3`$, of relevance for the SO(5) theory of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity, the stable FP is the BFP. The $`O(ϵ)`$ computations provide useful indications on the RG flow in three dimensions, but a controlled extrapolation to $`ϵ=1`$ requires much longer series and an accurate resummation exploiting their Borel summability. As we shall see, the above-reported hypotheses on the three-dimensional systems with $`n_1=1,n_2=2`$ and $`n_1=2,n_2=3`$ will be both contradicted by a higher-order analysis.

The stability properties of the DFP can be established using nonperturbative arguments , which allow us to compute the RG dimension $`y_w`$ of the operator $`w\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2`$ at the DFP. The stability of the DFP depends on the sign of $`y_w`$: if $`y_w<0`$, the DFP is stable. It turns out that in three dimensions $`y_w>0`$ for $`N3`$, and $`y_w<0`$ for $`N4`$ for any $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, showing that the DFP is stable for $`N4`$. We should note that the stability of the DFP does not allow us to exclude the existence of another stable FP. This possibility, which is usually considered rather unlikely , has been put forward  to explain the Monte Carlo results of Refs. , which apparently support the stability of a multicritical O(5) FP.

The phase diagram of the model (1) was studied in Refs. . The DFP is expected to be generically tetracritical: indeed, in this case the MCP should correspond to a generic intersection of the two critical lines with O($`n_1`$) and O($`n_2`$) symmetry. The stable O($`N`$) FP—as we shall see, this is the case only for $`N=2`$—can be either bicritical or tetracritical. The possibility of two different phase diagrams for the same FP is due to the presence of a dangerously irrelevant operator . Little is known for the BFP, although a phenomenological extension of the mean-field arguments would predict a tetracritical behavior . When the initial parameters of the Hamiltonian are not in the attraction domain of the stable FP, the transition between the disordered and ordered phases should be of first order in the neighborhood of the MCP . However, the transition along the critical lines may become continuous sufficiently far from the MCP . A possible phase diagram is sketched in Fig. 3.

In this paper we extend the analysis of the multicritical RG flow to $`O(ϵ^5)`$. The stability of the O($`N`$) FP is also discussed in the framework of fixed-dimension expansion in three dimensions, for which six-loop series have been computed. These calculations allow us to obtain a rather conclusive picture of the multicritical RG flow in three-dimensional systems. In particular, the O($`N`$) FP is stable only for $`N=2`$. Therefore, the symmetry enlargement occurs only when the competing order parameters have Ising symmetry. For $`N3`$, the O($`N`$) FP is unstable and therefore the enlargement of the symmetry to O($`N`$) at the MCP requires an additional tuning of the parameters: beside tuning $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$, a third parameter must be properly fixed to decouple the additional relevant interaction. The crossover exponent associated with this RG instability is $`\varphi _{4,4}0.01`$ for $`N=3`$, $`\varphi _{4,4}0.08`$ for $`N=4`$, $`\varphi _{4,4}0.15`$ for $`N=5`$, and $`\varphi _{4,4}1`$ for $`N\mathrm{}`$. For $`N=3`$ the stable FP is the BFP. The critical exponents are however very close to the Heisenberg ones, so that distinguishing experimentally the O(3) FP and the BFP is a very hard task, taking also into account the very small crossover exponent governing the unstable flow from the O(3) FP. The case $`N=5`$, $`n_1=2`$, $`n_2=3`$ is relevant for the SO(5) theory  of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, which proposes a description in terms of a three-component antiferromagnetic order parameter and a $`d`$-wave superconducting order parameter with U(1) symmetry, with an approximate O(5) symmetry. For $`N=5`$ the only stable FP is the DFP which predicts, if the transition is continuous, a tetracritical behavior. This may explain a number of recent experiments, see, e.g., Refs. , that provided evidence of a coexistence region of the antiferromagnetic and superconducting phases. The O(5) FP is unstable with a crossover exponent $`\varphi _{4,4}0.15`$, which, although rather small, is nonetheless sufficiently large not to exclude the possibility of observing the RG flow towards the eventual asymptotic behavior for reasonable values of the reduced temperature , even in systems with a moderately small breaking of the O(5) symmetry, for instance in those described by the projected SO(5) model discussed in Refs. . Of course, when the effective Hamiltonian parameters are outside the attraction domain of the stable FP, the transition at the MCP is expected to be of first-order type. Some of the results concerning the stability properties of the O($`N`$) FP were already presented in Ref. .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present our five-loop calculations in the framework of the $`ϵ`$ expansion. In Sec. III we discuss the stability of the O($`N`$)-symmetric FP under generic perturbations. The results are then applied to establish the stability properties of the O($`N`$) FP. In Sec. IV the multicritical RG flow is analyzed. In Sec. V we draw our conclusions and discuss their relevance for some physical systems.

## II $`ϵ`$ expansion of the O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) theory

We extended the $`ϵ`$ expansion of the critical exponents at the different FP’s for the O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) symmetric theory to $`O(ϵ^5)`$. For this purpose, we considered the minimal subtraction (MS) renormalization scheme . We computed the divergent part of the irreducible two-point functions of the fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, of the two-point correlation functions with insertions of the quadratic operators $`\varphi _1^2`$ and $`\varphi _2^2`$, and of the three independent four-point correlation functions $`\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _1\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _2`$, and $`\varphi _2\varphi _2\varphi _2\varphi _2`$. The diagrams contributing to this calculation are a few hundreds. We handled them with a symbolic manipulation program, which generated the diagrams and computed the symmetry and group factors of each of them. We used the results of Ref. , where the primitive divergent parts of all integrals appearing in our computation are reported. We determined the renormalization constants $`Z_{\varphi _1}`$ and $`Z_{\varphi _2}`$ associated with the fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ respectively, the $`3\times 3`$ renormalization matrix $`Z_{ij}^g`$ of the quartic couplings defined by $`g_{B,i}=\mu ^ϵZ_{ij}^gg_{R,j}`$ where $`g_{B,i}(u_1,u_2,w)`$, and the $`2\times 2`$ renormalization matrix $`Z_{ij}^{\varphi ^2}`$ of the quadratic operators $`\varphi _1^2`$ and $`\varphi _2^2`$. The $`\beta `$ functions $`\beta _i(g_{R,j})`$ and the RG dimensions $`\gamma _{\varphi _1}`$, $`\gamma _{\varphi _2}`$, $`\gamma _{ij}^{\varphi ^2}`$ are determined using the relations

$`\beta _i(g_{R,i})=\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g_{R,i}}{\mu }}|_{g_{B,j}},`$ (2)
$`\gamma _{\varphi _i}(g_{R,i})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\beta _j{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\varphi _i}}{g_{R,j}}},`$ (3)
$`\gamma _{ij}^{\varphi ^2}(g_{R,i})={\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\beta _k{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{kl}^{\varphi ^2}}{g_{R,i}}}(Z^{\varphi ^2})_{lj}^1.`$ (4)
The zeroes $`g_{R,i}^{}`$ of the $`\beta `$-functions provide the FP’s of the theory. In the framework of the $`ϵ`$ expansion, they are obtained as perturbative expansions in $`ϵ`$ and are then inserted in the RG functions to determine the $`ϵ`$ expansion of the critical exponents. The stability of each FP is controlled by the $`3\times 3`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=\frac{\beta _i(g_{R,k})}{g_{R,j}}|_{g_{R,k}=g_{R,k}^{}}.$$
(5)
The two exponents $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$, related to the short-distance behavior of the two-point functions of the fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, are given by $`\eta _1=\gamma _{\varphi _1}(g_{R,i}^{})`$ and $`\eta _2=\gamma _{\varphi _2}(g_{R,i}^{})`$. From the eigenvalues $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ of the matrix $`\gamma _{ij}^{\varphi ^2}`$, if $`\nu _1>\nu _2`$, one obtains $`\nu =\nu _1`$ and $`\varphi =\nu _1/\nu _2`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the crossover exponent associated with the quadratic instability.

We performed several checks of the perturbative series. In particular, the critical-exponent series agree with the existing $`O(ϵ^5)`$ ones for the O($`N`$)-symmetric theory  in the proper limit. Morover, as we shall discuss in the following section, we can also compare with some results for the O($`N`$) theory in the presence of cubic anisotropy , finding agreement. Some of the five-loop perturbative series will be reported in the following sections. The complete list of series is available on request.

Since the $`ϵ`$ expansion is asymptotic, the series must be properly resummed to provide results for three-dimensional systems. We used the Padé-Borel method except for the series at the O($`N`$) FP. In this case, we applied the conformal-mapping method  that takes into account the known large-order behavior of the expansion. See, e.g., Refs.  for reviews of resummation methods.

## III Stability of the O($`N`$) fixed point

In this section we discuss the stability of the O($`N`$) FP, where $`N=n_1+n_2`$, to establish in which cases the enlargement of the symmetry O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) to O($`N`$) is realized at the MCP without the need of further tunings.

Let us consider the general problem of an O($`N`$)-symmetric Hamiltonian in the presence of a perturbation $`P`$, i.e.,

$$=d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{1}{2}r\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{4!}u(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2+h_pP\right],$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an $`N`$-component field and $`h_p`$ an external field coupled to $`P`$. Assuming $`P`$ to be an eigenoperator of the RG transformations, the singular part of the Gibbs free energy for the reduced temperature $`t0`$ and $`h_p0`$ can be written as

$$_{\mathrm{sing}}(t,h_p)|t|^{d\nu }\widehat{}\left(h_p|t|^{\varphi _p}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\varphi _py_p\nu `$ is the crossover exponent associated with the perturbation $`P`$, $`y_p`$ is the RG dimension of $`P`$, and $`\widehat{}(x)`$ is a scaling function. If $`y_p>0`$ the pertubation is relevant and its presence causes a crossover to another critical behavior or to a first-order transition.

In order to discuss the stability of the O($`N`$) FP in general, we must consider any perturbation of the O($`N`$) FP. We shall first consider perturbations that are polynomials of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$. Any such perturbation can be written  as a sum of terms $`P_{m,ł}^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_ł}`$, $`mł`$, which are homogeneous in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ of degree $`m`$ and transform as the $`ł`$-spin representation of the O($`N`$) group. Explicitly, we have

$$P_{m,ł}^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_ł}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^{mł}Q_ł^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_ł}$$
(8)
where $`Q_ł^{a_1,\mathrm{},a_ł}`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`ł`$ that is symmetric and traceless in the $`ł`$ indices. The lowest-order even polynomials are

$`Q_2^{ab}=\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\delta ^{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ (9)
$`Q_4^{abcd}=\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+4}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\left(\delta ^{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^d+\delta ^{ac}\mathrm{\Phi }^b\mathrm{\Phi }^d+\delta ^{ad}\mathrm{\Phi }^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c+\delta ^{bc}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^d+\delta ^{bd}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^c+\delta ^{cd}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^b\right)`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(N+2)(N+4)}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2\left(\delta ^{ab}\delta ^{cd}+\delta ^{ac}\delta ^{bd}+\delta ^{ad}\delta ^{bc}\right).`$ (11)
The classification in terms of spin values is particularly convenient, since polynomials with different spin do not mix under RG transformations. On the other hand, operators with different $`m`$ but with the same $`ł`$ do mix under renormalization. At least near four dimensions, we can use standard power counting to verify that the perturbation with indices $`m,ł`$ mixes only with $`P_{m^{},l}`$, $`m^{}m`$. In particular, $`P_{l,l}`$ renormalizes multiplicatively and is therefore a RG eigenoperator. Moreover, if $`y_{m,ł}`$ is the RG dimension of the appropriately subtracted $`P_{m,ł}`$, one can verify that for small $`ϵ`$, $`y_{m,ł}<0`$, for $`l5`$, i.e. the only relevant operators have $`ł4`$. We will assume this property to hold up to $`ϵ=1`$. We notice that it is certainly incorrect in two dimensions where perturbations are relevant ($`N3`$) or marginal ($`N=2`$) for all values of $`ł`$. In principle, we should also consider terms with derivatives of the field, but again, using power counting, one can show that they are all irrelevant or redundant. Therefore, beside the O($`N`$)-symmetric terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2`$ there are only three other perturbations that must be considered, $`P_{2,2}^{ab}`$, $`P_{4,2}^{ab}`$, and $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$. Note that, according to the above-reported discussion, $`P_{2,2}^{ab}`$ and $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$ are RG eigenoperators, while $`P_{4,2}^{ab}`$ must be in general properly subtracted, i.e. the RG eigenoperator is $`P_{4,2}^{ab}+zP_{2,2}^{ab}`$ for a suitable value of $`z`$. The determination of the mixing coefficient $`z`$ represents a subtle point in the fixed-dimension expansion , but is trivial in the MS scheme in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions, in which operators with different dimensions never mix so that $`z=0`$.

According to the above-presented general analysis, the stability properties of the O($`N`$) FP can be obtained by determining the RG dimensions of the five operators reported above. Of course, the result does not depend on the specific values of the indices and thus one can consider any particular combination. We now show that such dimensions determine the crossover exponent $`\varphi `$ and the eigenvalues of the stability matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the O($`N`$) FP for the O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) theory. Starting from the general expressions, one can construct combinations that are invariant under the symmetry group O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$). Explicitly, they are given by

$`𝒫_{2,0}=\mathrm{\Phi }^2,𝒫_{2,2}={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}P_{2,2}^{aa}=\varphi _1^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{N}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2,`$ (12)
$`𝒫_{4,0}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2,𝒫_{4,2}=\mathrm{\Phi }^2𝒫_{2,2},`$ (13)
$`𝒫_{4,4}={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=n_1+1}{\overset{n_2}{}}}P_{4,4}^{aabb}=\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2(n_1\varphi _2^2+n_2\varphi _1^2)}{N+4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2}{(N+2)(N+4)}}.`$ (14)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the $`N`$-component field $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$. The RG dimensions of $`𝒫_{2,0}`$ and of $`𝒫_{4,0}`$ are well-known and can be computed directly in the O($`N`$)-invariant theory. In particular, $`y_{2,0}=1/\nu `$ and $`y_{4,0}=\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the leading irrelevant exponent in the O($`N`$)-invariant theory. The RG dimension $`y_{2,2}`$ of $`𝒫_{2,2}`$, and therefore of the operator $`P_{2,2}^{ab}`$, provides the crossover exponent $`\varphi =y_{2,2}\nu `$ at the MCP. We denote such exponent by $`\varphi _T`$ to stress the fact that it is associated with the tensor quadratic operator. Setting

$$\varphi _T=1+\underset{i=1}{}p_iϵ^i,$$
(15)
we obtain at five loops

$`p_1={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2(N+8)}},p_2={\displaystyle \frac{N(N^2+24N+68)}{4(N+8)^3}},`$ (16)
$`p_3={\displaystyle \frac{N(N^4+48N^3+788N^2+3472N+5024)}{8(N+8)^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{6N(5N+22)\zeta (3)}{(N+8)^4}},`$ (17)
$`p_4={\displaystyle \frac{N(N^6+72N^5+2085N^4+28412N^3+147108N^2+337152N+306240)}{16(N+8)^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N(N^4+13N^3544N^24716N8360)\zeta (3)}{(N+8)^6}}`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N(5N+22)\pi ^4}{20(N+8)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{20N(2N^2+55N+186)\zeta (5)}{(N+8)^5}}`$ (19)
$`p_5={\displaystyle \frac{N(17677824+28388096N+19390624N^2+6723904N^3+1177480N^4+95668N^5+4154N^6+96N^7+N^8)}{32(8+N)^9}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N(8360+4716N+544N^213N^3+N^4)\pi ^4}{120(8+N)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5N(186+55N+2N^2)\pi ^6}{189(8+N)^5}}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N(554064+465592N+125232N^2+7584N^3661N^4+9N^5)\zeta (3)}{(8+N)^8}}`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2N(24528+14468N+2028N^2+39N^3+4N^4)\zeta (3)^2}{(8+N)^7}}`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N(466016+280596N+33832N^22857N^3230N^4)\zeta (5)}{2(8+N)^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{441N(526+189N+14N^2)\zeta (7)}{2(8+N)^6}}.`$ (24)
This series extends the three-loop results of Ref.  and the four-loop results of Ref. . In the appropriate limit, it is in agreement with the $`O(N^2)`$ expression of Ref. . In Table I we report the estimates of $`y_{2,2}`$ and $`\varphi _T`$ for $`N=2,3,4,5`$ obtained from the analysis of the five-loop perturbative expansion (24). As expected, since $`y_{2,2}>0`$ in all cases, the quadratic perturbation $`P_{2,2}^{ab}`$ is always relevant. The results are compared with the estimates obtained from the analysis of its six-loop fixed-dimension expansion  and of its large-$`N`$ expansion to $`O(1/N^2)`$ , and by using high-temperature techniques  and Monte Carlo simulations . We also mention that consistent results were obtained from the analysis of the four-loop series of $`\varphi _T`$ : $`\varphi _T=1.177`$ for $`N=2`$ and $`\varphi _T=1.259`$ for $`N=3`$. Some experimental results for $`\varphi _T`$ can be found in Ref. .

The perturbative expansions of the RG dimensions of the operators $`𝒫_{4,ł}`$, and therefore of the more general operators $`P_{4,ł}`$, can be obtained from the eigenvalues of the stability matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the O($`N`$) FP. For this purpose, it is convenient to perform a change of variables, replacing $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$, and $`w`$ with $`g_ł`$, $`ł=0,2,4`$, which are the quartic couplings associated with the operators $`𝒫_{m,ł}`$ and are explicitly defined by the relation

$$u_1(\varphi _1^2)^2+u_2(\varphi _2^2)^2+2w\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2=g_0𝒫_{4,0}+g_2𝒫_{4,2}+g_4𝒫_{4,4}.$$
(25)
In this basis $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is diagonal and the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are simply given by

$$\omega _ł=\frac{\overline{\beta }_ł(g_0,g_2,g_4)}{g_ł}|_{g_0=g_N^{},g_2=0,g_4=0},$$
(26)
where $`ł=0,2,4`$, $`\overline{\beta }_ł`$ are the $`\beta `$-functions associated with the couplings $`g_ł`$, and $`g_N^{}`$ is the FP value of the quartic coupling in the O($`N`$)-symmetric theory. The critical exponent $`\omega _0`$ is the leading irrelevant operator in the O($`N`$)-symmetric theory. Its $`O(ϵ^5)`$ expansion can be found in Refs. ; several estimates are reported in Refs. . The RG dimension $`y_{4,ł}`$ of the perturbation $`P_{4,ł}`$ is given by

$$y_{4,ł}=\omega _ł.$$
(27)
We report here the five-loop $`ϵ`$ expansion of $`y_{4,2}`$ and $`y_{4,4}`$. Setting

$$y_{4,ł}=\underset{i=1}{}c_{ł,i}ϵ^i,$$
(28)
we have

$`c_{2,1}={\displaystyle \frac{8}{N+8}},c_{2,2}={\displaystyle \frac{336+68N+7N^2}{(8+N)^3}},`$ (29)
$`c_{2,3}={\displaystyle \frac{76544+26176N+3264N^2+28N^3N^4}{4(8+N)^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{12(352+82N+7N^2)\zeta (3)}{(8+N)^4}}`$ (30)
$`c_{2,4}={\displaystyle \frac{(20796416+10251520N+2207744N^2+271328N^3+24824N^4+820N^5+5N^6)}{16(8+N)^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{(352+82N+7N^2)\pi ^4}{10(8+N)^4}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(9292834776N7544N^2928N^367N^4+N^5)\zeta (3)}{(8+N)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{80(2232+632N+60N^2+N^3)\zeta (5)}{(8+N)^5}}`$ (32)
$`c_{2,5}={\displaystyle \frac{6019366912+3720851456N+994704384N^2+135243264N^3+6891584N^4590816N^560520N^61732N^713N^8}{64(8+N)^9}}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(92928+34776N+7544N^2+928N^3+67N^4N^5)\pi ^4}{60(8+N)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{20(2232+632N+60N^2+N^3)\pi ^6}{189(8+N)^5}}`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(117872640+62925184N+14334912N^2+1577392N^3+67848N^41872N^5+200N^67N^7)\zeta (3)}{4(8+N)^8}}`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(104832+100312N+24994N^2+2571N^3+83N^4+2N^5)\zeta (3)^2}{(8+N)^7}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(7263744+3733728N+1095516N^2+170284N^3+14035N^4+322N^5)\zeta (5)}{(8+N)^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{441(16832+5590N+631N^2+23N^3)\zeta (7)}{(8+N)^6}}`$ (37)
and

$`c_{4,1}={\displaystyle \frac{N4}{8+N}},c_{4,2}={\displaystyle \frac{152+14N+5N^2}{(8+N)^3}},`$ (38)
$`c_{4,3}={\displaystyle \frac{170241568N1464N^2398N^313N^4}{4(8+N)^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{48(46+7N+N^2)\zeta (3)}{(8+N)^4}},`$ (39)
$`c_{4,4}={\displaystyle \frac{(2995712+402304N+223328N^2+112856N^3+27272N^4+1516N^5+29N^6)}{16(8+N)^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(46+7N+N^2)\pi ^4}{5(8+N)^4}}`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3(21568+1664N+1592N^2+256N^38N^4+N^5)\zeta (3)}{(8+N)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{120(712+130N+13N^2)\zeta (5)}{(8+N)^5}},`$ (41)
$`c_{4,5}={\displaystyle \frac{365813760+95377408N+75546624N^2+35042816N^3+11477472N^4+2184488N^5+148600N^6+4712N^7+61N^8}{64(8+N)^9}}`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(21568+1664N+1592N^2+256N^38N^4+N^5)\pi ^4}{40(8+N)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10(712+130N+13N^2)\pi ^6}{63(8+N)^5}}`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(37827072+13773568N+3633344N^2+689728N^3+54184N^43272N^5+188N^65N^7)\zeta (3)}{4(8+N)^8}}`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{12(11456+24112N+6648N^2+790N^3+5N^4)\zeta (3)^2}{(8+N)^7}}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1018944+128152N3060N^29018N^3+347N^4+12N^5)\zeta (5)}{(8+N)^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{2646(1268+272N+25N^2+N^3)\zeta (7)}{(8+N)^6}}.`$ (46)
At one loop, these results agree with those reported in Ref. . The results of the analyses of these series are reported in Table I. They show that $`y_{4,2}`$ is always negative, so that the corresponding spin-2 perturbation $`P_{4,2}^{ab}`$ is always irrelevant. On the other hand, the sign of $`y_{4,4}`$ depends on $`N`$: it is clearly negative for $`N=2`$ and positive for $`N4`$. For $`N=3`$ it is marginally positive, suggesting the instability of the O(3) FP. This fact will be confirmed by the more accurate results discussed below. The corresponding crossover exponents $`\varphi _{m,ł}y_{m,ł}\nu `$ can be determined using the following estimates of $`\nu `$: $`\nu =0.67155(27)`$ for $`N=2`$ , $`\nu =0.7112(5)`$ for $`N=3`$ , $`\nu =0.749(2)`$ for $`N=4`$ , and $`\nu =0.762(7)`$ for $`N=5`$ . Other estimates of $`\nu `$ can be found in Ref. .

The RG dimension $`y_{4,4}`$ can also be obtained starting from the cubic-symmetric LGW Hamiltonian,

$$_c=d^dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i)^2+r\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\right]+\frac{1}{4!}\left[u(\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2)^2+v\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^4\right]\right\},$$
(47)
see, e.g., Ref. , and in particular from the results for the stability properties of the O($`N`$) FP in the presence of a cubic-symmetric anisotropy. The point is that the cubic-symmetric perturbation is a particular combination of the spin-4 operators $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$ and of the spin-0 term $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2`$. Indeed, one may rewrite

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^4=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}P_{4,4}^{aaaa}+\frac{3}{N+2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2.$$
(48)
Thus, the stability of the O($`N`$) FP against the cubic-symmetric perturbation $`_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^4`$ is controlled by the RG dimension $`y_{4,4}`$ of the spin-4 operator $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$.

The RG flow for the cubic-symmetric theory has been investigated by employing field-theoretical methods, based on perturbative expansions  or approximate solutions of continuous RG equations , and lattice techniques, such as Monte Carlo simulations  and high-temperature expansions ; see, e.g., Ref.  for a recent review. In particular, the RG functions have been computed to five loops in the $`ϵ`$ expansion , and to six loops in a fixed-dimension expansion in powers of the zero-momentum quartic couplings . In these perturbative schemes

$$y_{4,4}=\frac{\beta _v(u,v)}{v}|_{u=g_N^{},v=0},$$
(49)
where $`\beta _v`$ is the $`\beta `$-function associated with the quartic coupling $`v`$, and $`g_N^{}`$ is the FP value of the quartic coupling in the O($`N`$)-symmetric theory. This allows us to determine $`y_{4,4}`$ using the five-loop expansions reported in Ref. . We reobtain again Eq. (46), confirming the correctness of our calculation. Moreover, using Eq. (49) and the results reported in Ref. , one can also compute $`y_{4,4}`$ in the framework of the fixed-dimension expansion to six loops. The resulting estimates, obtained by using the conformal-mapping method, are reported in Table I. They show that the spin-4 perturbation $`P_{4,4}`$ is relevant for all $`N3`$. In Table I the Monte Carlo results of Ref.  are also shown; they were obtained by simulating the standard $`N`$-vector model and computing the RG dimension of the cubic-symmetric term $`_is_i^4`$, where $`s_i`$ is the $`N`$-component spin variable. We may also consider the value $`N_c`$ such that for $`N>N_c`$ the cubic-symmetric anisotropy, and therefore the spin-4 perturbation $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$, becomes relevant at the O($`N`$) FP. All studies reported in the literature indicate $`N_c3`$ and definitely $`N_c<4`$, see, e.g., Refs. . The most accurate results have been provided by analyses of high-order perturbative field-theory expansions, which predict $`N_c2.9`$ in three dimensions. In particular, different analyses of the six-loop fixed-dimension series yielded the estimates $`N_c=2.89(4)`$  and $`N_c=2.862(5)`$ ; similar results were also obtained from shorter series, see, e.g., Refs. . These results have been confirmed by the analysis of the $`O(ϵ^5)`$ series . A constrained analysis taking into account the two-dimensional value of $`N_c`$, $`N_c=2`$, provided the estimate $`N_c=2.87(5)`$ , which makes the evidence supporting $`y_{4,4}>0`$ for $`N=3`$ stronger than the estimate $`y_{4,4}=0.003(4)`$ obtained from the direct analysis of its $`O(ϵ^5)`$ series.

In conclusion, these results provide a rather robust evidence that for $`N3`$ the O($`N`$) FP is unstable with respect to spin-4 perturbations $`P_{4,4}^{abcd}`$, and, as a consequence, that the O($`N`$) FP is a unstable MCP for $`N3`$.

## IV RG flow at the multicritical point

As already shown by the $`O(ϵ)`$ computations of Ref. , the O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) theory at the MCP has six FP’s. Three of them, i.e. the Gaussian, the O($`n_1`$) and the O($`n_2`$) FP’s, are always unstable. The other three FP’s are the O($`N`$) fixed point (FP), the biconal fixed point (BFP), and the decoupled fixed point (DFP). The stability of these FP’s depends on $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. In particular, in the preceding section we have established that the O($`N`$) FP is stable for $`N=2`$ and unstable for $`N3`$, for any $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$.

The stability properties of the DFP can be determined using nonperturbative scaling arguments . At the DFP, the quartic coupling term $`w\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2`$ scales as the product of two energy-like operators, which have RG dimensions $`(1\alpha _i)/\nu _i`$ where $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\nu _i`$ are the critical exponents of the O($`n_i`$) universality classes. Therefore, the RG dimension related to the $`w`$-perturbation is given by

$$y_w=\frac{\alpha _1}{2\nu _1}+\frac{\alpha _2}{2\nu _2}=\frac{1}{\nu _1}+\frac{1}{\nu _2}d.$$
(50)
Note that this relation is satisfied order by order in the $`ϵ`$ expansion. Indeed, the $`ϵ`$ expansion of $`y_w`$ obtained from the stability matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the DFP coincides with the series obtained from the right-hand side of Eq. (50), using the five-loop expansions of $`\nu _i`$ for the O($`n_i`$) universality classes. Taking into account that the DFP is stable with respect to the other two RG directions, one can determine the stability properties of the DFP from the sign of $`y_w`$. Using the estimates of the critical exponents of the three-dimensional O($`n_i`$) universality classes (see, e.g., Ref.  for a review), $`y_w`$ turns out to be negative for $`Nn_1+n_24`$, and positive for $`N=2,3`$. Three-dimensional estimates of $`y_w`$ for $`N5`$ are reported in Table II. These results show that the tetracritical DFP is stable for $`N4`$ for any $`n_1,n_2`$.

The results concerning the O($`N`$) FP and the DFP suggest that the stable FP for $`N=3`$ is the BFP. This is substantially confirmed by the five-loop analysis of the stability matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the BFP. Below we report the expansions of the critical exponents at the BFP for $`n_1=1`$ and $`n_2=2`$. The eigenvalues of the stability matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are

$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},1}=ϵ0.579364ϵ^2+1.344815ϵ^34.058162ϵ^4+14.526420ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (51)
$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},2}=0.491105ϵ0.084149ϵ^2+0.361174ϵ^30.776741ϵ^4+2.593212ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (52)
$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}=0.130195ϵ+0.278782ϵ^20.379711ϵ^3+0.868886ϵ^42.656984ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6).`$ (53)
The expansions of the critical exponents are

$`\eta _{\mathrm{bi},1}=0.0208306ϵ^2+0.0182941ϵ^30.00777325ϵ^4+0.0210296ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (54)
$`\eta _{\mathrm{bi},2}=0.0200806ϵ^2+0.0195184ϵ^30.00848020ϵ^3+0.0236398ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (55)
$`\nu _{\mathrm{bi},1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+0.1114875ϵ+0.0667684ϵ^20.00616190ϵ^3+0.0779498ϵ^40.193367ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (56)
$`\nu _{\mathrm{bi},2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+0.0234143ϵ+0.0289670ϵ^20.00547548ϵ^3+0.0381483ϵ^40.106076ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (57)
$`\varphi _{\mathrm{bi}}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{\mathrm{bi},1}}{\nu _{\mathrm{bi},2}}}=1+0.176147ϵ+0.0673541ϵ^20.0147318ϵ^3`$ (58)
$`+0.0783198ϵ^40.190099ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6).`$ (59)
We analyzed these series using the Padé-Borel resummation method. The estimates of the eigenvalues of the stability matrix are $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},1}=0.79(2)`$, $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},2}=0.57(4)`$, and $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}=0.01(1)`$. They are all positive, supporting the stability of the BFP, although the result for $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}`$ is not sufficiently precise to definitely exclude the opposite sign. Concerning the critical exponents, we obtained $`\eta _{\mathrm{bi},1}=0.037(5)`$, $`\eta _{\mathrm{bi},2}=0.037(5)`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{bi}}=\nu _{\mathrm{bi},1}=0.70(3)`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{bi}}=1.25(1)`$. Note first that $`\eta _{\mathrm{bi},1}\eta _{\mathrm{bi},2}`$, as it can be directly guessed by looking at the coefficients of their expansions. A direct analysis of their difference gives the bound $`|\eta _{\mathrm{bi},1}\eta _{\mathrm{bi},2}|0.0005`$. Second, note that, within the errors, the BFP exponents are very close to the Heisenberg ones, whose best estimates are $`\eta _H=0.0375(5)`$, $`\nu _H=0.7112(5)`$, and $`\varphi _H=1.250(15)`$ from high-temperature techniques , $`\eta _H=0.0355(25)`$, $`\nu _H=0.7073(35)`$, and $`\varphi _H=1.27(2)`$ from the six-loop fixed-dimension expansion , $`\eta _H=0.0375(45)`$, $`\nu _H=0.7045(55)`$, and $`\varphi _H=1.260(11)`$ from the five-loop $`ϵ`$ expansion . Rather stringent bounds on the differences between the biconal and Heisenberg exponents can be obtained by considering the expansions of their differences, which have much smaller coefficients. Their analysis yields

$`|\eta _{\mathrm{bi},1}\eta _H|0.0005,`$ (60)
$`|\eta _{\mathrm{bi},2}\eta _H|0.0001,`$ (61)
$`|\nu _{\mathrm{bi}}\nu _H|0.001,`$ (62)
$`|\varphi _{\mathrm{bi}}\varphi _H|0.005.`$ (63)
We have also studied the stability of the BFP for larger values of $`N`$. For $`N=4`$, and in both cases $`n=1`$, $`n_2=3`$ and $`n_1=n_2=2`$, the five-loop calculation gives the expansions of the critical exponents at the BFP only to $`O(ϵ^4)`$, because of the additional degeneracy of the O(4) FP and of the BFP at $`O(ϵ)`$. In particular, for the smallest eigenvalue we obtain

$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}(n_1=1,n_2=3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ^20.3306439ϵ^3+0.7376491ϵ^4+O(ϵ^5),`$ (64)
$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}(n_1=2,n_2=2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}ϵ^20.319872ϵ^3+0.696458ϵ^4+O(ϵ^5).`$ (65)
It is difficult to extract reliable estimates from these series. In both cases, we find that $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}`$ is small, but we are unable to determine reliably its sign.

For $`N5`$ we find that the BFP is unstable for all values of $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. In particular, for $`N=5`$, $`n_1=2`$, $`n_2=3`$, for the smallest eigenvalue we obtain

$`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}=0.052584ϵ+0.0331401ϵ^20.242179ϵ^3+0.358964ϵ^41.242100ϵ^5+O(ϵ^6),`$ (66)
which gives $`\omega _{\mathrm{bi},3}=0.07(5)`$.

## V Conclusions and discussion

We have studied the multicritical behavior at a MCP, where two critical lines with O($`n_1`$) and O($`n_2`$) symmetry meet. It has been determined by studying the RG flow of the most general O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$)-symmetric LGW Hamiltonian involving two fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ with $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ components respectively. We have extended the $`ϵ`$ expansion of the critical exponents and of the stability matrix of the FP’s, previously known to one-loop order, to five loops. The stability of the O($`N`$) FP has also been discussed in the framework of the fixed-dimension expansion in three dimensions to six loops.

The main properties of the RG flow of the O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$)-symmetric system at the MCP can be summarized as follows.

* The O($`N`$) FP is stable only for $`N=2`$, i.e. when two Ising-like critical lines meet. It is unstable in all other cases, i.e. for all $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ such that $`n_1+n_2=N3`$. Beside being unstable with respect to the spin-0 and spin-2 quadratic perturbations, for $`N3`$ the O($`N`$) FP is also unstable with respect to quartic perturbations belonging to the spin-4 representation of the O($`N`$) group, cf. Eq. (11). This implies that for $`N3`$ the enlargement of the symmetry O($`n_1`$)$``$O($`n_2`$) to O($`N`$) requires an additional parameter to be tuned, beside those associated with the quadratic perturbations, $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ in the LGW Hamiltonian. The associated crossover exponents $`\varphi _{4,4}y_{4,4}\nu `$ are: $`\varphi _{4,4}0.01`$ for $`N=3`$, $`\varphi _{4,4}0.08`$ for $`N=4`$, $`\varphi _{4,4}0.15`$ for $`N=5`$, and $`\varphi _{4,4}1`$ for $`N\mathrm{}`$ (see Table I).
* For $`N=3`$, i.e. for $`n_1=1`$ and $`n_2=2`$, the critical behavior at the MCP is described by the BFP, whose critical exponents turn out to be very close to those of the Heisenberg universality class, see Eq. (63).
* For $`N4`$ and for any $`n_11`$ and $`n_21`$, the tetracritical DFP is stable. This has been inferred using nonperturbative arguments  that allow us to write the relevant stability eigenvalue $`y_w`$ in terms of the critical exponents of the O($`n_i`$) universality classes, cf. Eq. (50). The $`ϵ`$-expansion analysis shows that the BFP is unstable for all cases with $`N5`$, while it is not conclusive for the cases with $`N=4`$.
* When the initial parameters of the Hamiltonian are not in the attraction domain of the stable FP, the transition between the disordered and ordered phases should be of first order in the neighborhood of the MCP. In this case, a possible phase diagram is given in Fig. 3. Close to the MCP all transition lines are first-order ones. However, far from the MCP, the high-temperature transitions may become continuous, belonging to the O($`n_1`$) and O($`n_2`$) universality classes.

As already mentioned in the introduction, a multicritical behavior has been observed in several systems.

Anisotropic antiferromagnets in a uniform magnetic field $`H_{}`$ parallel to the anisotropy axis present a MCP in the $`TH_{}`$ phase diagram, where two critical lines belonging to the XY and Ising universality classes meet . The results presented above predict a multicritical BFP. The mean-field approximation assigns a tetracritical behavior to the MCP , but a more rigorous characterization, that requires the computation of the corresponding scaling free energy, is needed to draw a definite conclusion. Experimentally, the MCP appears to be bicritical, see, e.g., the experimental results of Refs. ; numerical Monte Carlo results hint at the same behavior, although with much less confidence . Our results contradict the $`O(ϵ)`$ calculations of Refs. , suggesting the stability of the O(3) FP. Notice that it is very hard to distinguish the biconal from the O(3) critical behavior. For instance, the correlation-length exponent $`\nu `$ differs by less than 0.001 in the two cases. However, one may still hope to distinguish the two FP’s by measuring some universal amplitude ratio that varies more significantly in the two cases. The crossover exponent describing the crossover from the O(3) critical behavior is very small, i.e., $`\varphi _{4,4}0.01`$, so that systems with a small effective breaking of the O(3) symmetry cross very slowly towards the biconal critical behavior or, if the system is outside the attraction domain of the BFP, towards a first-order transition; thus, they may show the eventual asymptotic behavior only for very small values of the reduced temperature.

Isotropic antiferromagnets in a magnetic field are quite a special case. Indeed, the critical transition at $`H=0`$ is a MCP with O(3) symmetry, as observed experimentally, see, e.g., Ref. . As we discussed, for $`H0`$, two relevant perturbations are switched on, and they can give rise in principle to a more complex phase diagram. Finally, it should be noted that in real antiferromagnets additional nonisotropic interactions are present, giving rise to lower-symmetry MCP’s. In Ref.  the magnetic phase diagram of NiCl2$``$4H2O was studied. The orthorombic symmetry of the crystal gives rise to Ising transition lines both for small and large $`H_{}`$, so that $`n_1=n_2=1`$. As predicted by the theory, the MCP is a bicritical XY point. A similar experiment is reported in Ref. . A tetracritical XY MCP is observed in anisotropic antiferromagnets when the magnetic field is perpendicular to the symmetry axis, see, e.g., Ref.  for an experimental study.

High-$`T_c`$ superconductors are other interesting physical systems in which MCP’s may arise from the competition of different order parameters. At low temperatures these materials exhibit superconductivity and antiferromagnetism depending on doping. The SO(5) theory  attempts to provide a unified description of these two phenomena, involving a three-component antiferromagnetic order parameter and a $`d`$-wave superconducting order parameter with U(1) symmetry, with an approximate O(5) symmetry. This theory predicts a MCP arising from the competition of these two order parameters when the corresponding critical lines meet in the temperature-doping phase diagram. Neglecting the fluctuations of the magnetic field and the quenched randomness introduced by doping, see, e.g., Ref.  for a critical discussion of this point, one may consider the O(3)$``$O(2)-symmetric LGW Hamiltonian to infer the critical behavior at the MCP, see, e.g., Refs. . In particular, the analysis of Ref. , which uses the projected SO(5) model  as a starting point, shows that one can use Eq. (1) as an effective Hamiltonian. Different scenarios have been proposed for the critical behavior at the MCP. In Refs. , it was speculated that the MCP is a bicritical point where the O(5) symmetry is asymptotically realized. On the other hand, on the basis of the $`O(ϵ)`$ results of Refs. , Refs.  predicted a tetracritical behavior governed by the BFP. However, since it was expected that the BFP is close to the O(5) FP, it was suggested that at the MCP the critical exponents were in any case close to the O(5) ones.

The O(5)-symmetric scenario would require the stability of the O(5) FP. Evidence in favor of this picture has been recently claimed using Monte Carlo simulations for a five-component O(3)$``$O(2)-symmetric spin model . The numerical results show that, within the parameter ranges considered, the scaling behavior at the MCP is consistent with an O(5)-symmetric critical behavior. Similar results have been obtained in Ref.  by a quantum Monte Carlo study of the quantum projected SO(5) model in three dimensions. On the other hand, the interpretation of these numerical results as an evidence for the stability of the O(5) FP  is untenable, because the results discussed in this paper definitely show that the O(5) FP is unstable, and that the asymptotic approach to the MCP is characterized by a decoupled critical behavior or by a first-order transition. The O(5) symmetry can be asymptotically realized only by tuning a further relevant parameter, beside the double tuning required to approach the MCP. We note that the crossover exponent $`\varphi _{4,4}`$, related to the spin-4 pertubation of the O(5) FP, $`\varphi _{4,4}0.15`$, is much larger than its $`O(ϵ)`$ approximation, i.e., $`\varphi _{4,4}\frac{1}{26}ϵ`$ from which one would obtain $`\varphi _{4,4}0.04`$ setting $`ϵ=1`$. It is of the same order of the crossover exponent appearing in many other physical systems. For instance, in randomly dilute uniaxial magnetic materials—a class of systems whose asymptotic critical behavior has been precisely observed both numerically and experimentally, see, e.g, Refs.  for reviews—the pure Ising fixed point is unstable with crossover exponent $`\varphi 0.11`$, which is even smaller than the above-reported estimate for the O(5) case. Therefore, contrary to some recent claims , it cannot be excluded a priori that experiments are able to observe the unstable flow out of the O(5) fixed point, even in those systems with a moderately small breaking of the O(5) symmetry, such as the projected SO(5) model. Evidence in favor of a tetracritical behavior has been recently provided by a number of experiments, see, e.g., Refs. , which seem to show the existence of a coexistence region of the antiferromagnetic and superconductivity phases. The possible coexistence of the two phases has been discussed in Refs. .

Finally, we mention that a multicritical behavior with two XY order parameters is expected in liquid crystals, at the nematic–smectic-A–smectic-C multicritical point  and in the presence of ferromagnetic and nematic interactions .


text:
# Globular Cluster Populations: Signatures and Implications

## 1. Introduction

The formation of populous secondary star cluster systems is a widespread phenomenon in mergers of gas-rich galaxies. Many, if not most, of those clusters are massive and compact enough to be young globular clusters (GCs). GC systems in most E/S0 galaxies feature bimodal color distributions with a fairly universal blue peak similar to the blue peak of halo GCs in the Milky Way (MW) and M31, and a variable red peak. Due to the well-known age – metallicity degeneracy of optical broad-band colors, the metallicities and ages, and, hence, the origin of the red peak GCs are not yet known. We use evolutionary synthesis models for GC systems of various metallicities to study the time evolution of their luminosity functions (LFs) in various bands U,…, K and of their color distributions. By comparison with the universal blue peak GC population we investigate for which combinations of age and metallicity a second GC population can or cannot be identified in typical observations of GC color distributions and we discuss implications for the GC LF as a distance indicator.

## 2. Evolutionary Synthesis Models for GC Populations

Our evolutionary synthesis models for Simple Stellar Populations (SSPs $`=`$ single burst single metallicity), based on isochrones from the Padova group, combined with stellar model atmosphere libraries for different metallicities extend over wavelengths from the UV through the NIR (cf. Schulz et al. 2002). They provide theoretical color – metallicity calibrations which for old and low metallicity GCs agree well with empirical calibrations from MW or M31 GCs. However, they also show that the theoretical calibrations steepen considerably for metallicities \[Fe/H\]$`>0.5`$ and change significantly for ages younger than $`11`$ Gyr. Hence, at a given color, the theoretical calibrations predict considerably lower metallicities for clusters with \[Fe/H\]$`>0.5`$ and considerably higher metallicity for clusters younger than 11 Gyr. We stress that – as long as ages and metallicities of the red-peak GCs are not known – empirical color – metallicity calibrations should not be used for their analysis.

The universal blue peak in bimodal color distributions of E/S0 GC systems is compatible with SSP models for \[Fe/H\]$`=1.6`$ and age $`12`$ Gyr. We take this universal blue GC population as a reference for a typical primary GC population and assume that the width of the color distribution is the same for the secondary and primary GC populations. We then analyse for what combinations of age and metallicity a second GC population might be distinguished observationally from a primary one and which combinations might explain the red peak in bimodal optical GC color distributions.

For sample sizes of 100 – 200 (500 – 1000) GCs two peaks can be distinguished observationally if they are separated by at least 2.5 – 3 (2) times the observational uncertainty in the respective color (Ashman, Bird & Zepf 1994). Our models show that for many combinations of ages and metallicities a second GC population may be hidden within the blue peak in optical colors like $`\mathrm{V}\mathrm{I}`$, but should clearly be detectable in optical$``$NIR or UV$``$optical colors, and that many combinations of age and metallicity are possible for the optical red-peak of GC populations, which, in turn, should result in significant differences in other colors (cf. Fritze – v. Alvensleben 2002, A&A in prep.). We show that multi-color observations including the NIR (and ideally also the UV) will allow to disentangle ages and metallicities of the GC population(s) in a red peak and, hence, shed light on the time and environment of their formation.

## 3. Effects of Bimodal GC Color Distributions on LFs and H0

For all the metallicities we also explore the resulting LFs in their time evolution assuming that the width of the LF is dominated by the width of the star cluster mass function also assumed to be the same for both GC populations, and we compare to the LF of the blue-peak GCs. As an example, we here apply our models to the GC system in NGC 4472. Larsen et al. (2001) show that it has a bimodal color distribution in $`\mathrm{V}\mathrm{I}`$ with peaks at $`\mathrm{V}\mathrm{I}=0.943`$ and 1.207, respectively, and they also determine the LFs separately for the blue- and red-peak GCs, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{b}=7.55`$ and $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{r}=7.05`$ mag. We find the red peak to allow for a wide range of age – metallicity combinations (\[Fe/H\], age) $`=(0.4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}14}\mathrm{Gyr}),(0.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}\mathrm{Gyr}),(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\mathrm{Gyr}),(+0.4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.5}\mathrm{Gyr})`$ and predict $`(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{K},\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{V})`$ values as different as $`(3.10,6.7),(3.23,6.9)`$, $`(3.30,7.1)`$, $`(3.60,7.7)`$ for these. Additional K-band observations allow to select one of these combinations and the comparison of the observed red-peak $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{r}`$ with the one predicted by our models under the assumption of a uniform underlying cluster mass function will allow to verify or reject this assumption conclusively. It does not seem to make sense in systems with bimodal color distributions to use “the” GC LF as a distance estimator and for the determination of the Hubble constant. Note that the observed difference of 0.5 mag between the red and blue GC LFs in NGC 4472 translates into a difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{H}_0/\mathrm{H}_0>15\%`$! If the blue peak of bimodal GC color distributions will be confirmed to be as universal as it presently seems, we suggest that the use of the LF of the blue peak clusters may serve as a very precise distance indicator out to large distances $`>100`$ Mpc and allow for reliable estimates of H0.

## References

Ashman, K. M., Bird, C. M., & Zepf, S. E. 1994, AJ, 108, 2348

Larsen, S. S., Brodie, J. P., Huchra, et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 2974

Schulz, J., Fritze – v. Alvensleben, U., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 1