text:
# Properties of the 𝑎₀ resonances

## 1 Introduction

Among the scalar mesons there are only two isovector resonances $`a_0(980)`$ and $`a_0(1450)`$ . Physical properties of both mesons are, however, not well known, for example the widths and branching ratios are poorly determined. Also the mass determination is problematical. The proper interpretation of the resonant states can be obtained in terms of the S-matrix poles but the data are rarely analysed in such a way. Two $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ thresholds at $`m_{\mathrm{K}^+}+m_\mathrm{K}^{}=987.4`$ MeV and at $`2m_{\mathrm{K}^0}=995.3`$ MeV lie close to $`a_0(980)`$. Therefore a description of the $`a_0(980)`$ line shape using the simple Breit-Wigner formula leads to a distortion of the $`a_0(980)`$ mass and width (compare, for example differences between the results given in  and ). In  Montanet indicated important differences of the $`a_0(1450)`$ masses and widths found in the $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation by the Crystal Barrel Collaboration  and by the OBELIX Collaboration . Recently the WA102 Collaboration has observed the $`a_0(980)`$ production in the pp central collisions at 450 GeV, however the $`a_0(1450)`$ resonance has not been seen .

The main decay channels of the $`a_0`$ resonances are $`\pi \eta `$ and $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$. In the first part of this paper the $`a_0(980)`$ production and decays will be discussed using the Flatté model . Next we shall present the results following from the coupled channel model formulated in 1996  and further developed in .

## 2 How the $`a_0(980)`$ splits into two poles?

Two experimental collaborations have used the Flatté model to analyse their data . Two different $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ thresholds have not been distinguished. In the Flatté model the effective mass distribution in the $`j`$channel ($`j=\pi \eta ,\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$) is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _j}{dm}=c|F_j|^2,$$
(1)
where c is a constant and the production amplitudes are given by

$$F_j=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}}{m_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m^2im_R(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \eta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}})}.$$
(2)
The $`\pi \eta `$ partial width is a product of the coupling constant $`g_{\pi \eta }`$ and the $`\pi \eta `$ momentum $`k_1`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \eta }=g_{\pi \eta }k_1`$. Similarly above the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}=g_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}k_2`$. However, below the threshold this width becomes imaginary: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}=ig_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}|k_2|`$, where $`|k_2|=\sqrt{m_{K}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m^2/4}`$ and $`m_K`$ denotes the kaon mass. Near the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \eta }`$ varies slowly and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}`$ varies rapidly. Therefore the $`\pi \eta `$ distribution is narrowed on both sides of the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold as compared to the Breit-Wigner shape characteristic for the constant width (independent on $`m`$). The second important feature of the Flatté model is the existence of two complex poles of the production amplitudes $`F_i`$ at different energies corresponding to the same meson $`a_0(980)`$.

Let us derive the pole positions following from the parameter values used by the E852 Group in their analysis of the reaction $`\pi ^{}p\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}n`$ . At the beginning one has to correct the coupling constants for the finite experimental energy resolution. Then the $`\pi \eta `$ coupling constant reduces to the value $`g_{\pi \eta }=0.210\pm 0.015`$ from which we have found two poles at $`E_1=(1006i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25})`$ MeV on sheet II and $`E_2=(988i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}44})`$ MeV on sheet III. These values are in very good agreement with the pole positions of the Crystal Barrel Collaboration recalculated and corrected by us: $`E_1=(1005i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25})`$ MeV on sheet II and $`E_2=(985i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}46})`$ MeV on sheet III. The energy differences are indeed quite large: $`ReE_1ReE_2=20`$ MeV; the corresponding difference of the total widths is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=43`$ MeV.

In Fig. 1 we show crosses with errors corresponding to our two pole determination of the real energy parts for the experiments  and . One can notice that about 3$`\sigma `$ discrepancy between the E852 value, based on the Breit-Wigner form, and the mean value determination by the Particle Data Group  disappears when one considers the pole value on sheet II at 988 MeV.

By looking at Fig. 1 one can try to answer often asked question: where is located the $`a_0(980)`$, below or above the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold? The most probable answer is: the first $`a_0(980)`$ pole on sheet III is located below and the second $`a_0(980)`$ pole on sheet II is located above the $`\mathrm{K}^0\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0`$ threshold. One remark is relevant here: it would be useful to print in the Review of Particle Physics the $`a_0(980)`$ masses and its widths in the form of the complex energy values corresponding to different determinations of the T-matrix poles. Such a presentation is already given for the $`f_0(600)`$ and the $`f_0(1370)`$ .

The $`a_0(980)`$ coupling to the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ channel is responsible for the appearance of two $`a_0(980)`$ poles. If $`g_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}=0`$ then $`E_2=E_1`$. If, however, $`g_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}0`$ then

$$ReE_2ReE_1g_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}g_{\pi \eta }\frac{m_Kq_1}{4Req_2}$$
(3)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_12g_{\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}}Req_2.$$
(4)
In these equations $`q_1`$ is the $`\pi \eta `$ relative momentum at the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold and $`q_2`$ denotes the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ momentum at the $`a_0(980)`$ pole on sheet III.

## 3 Coupled channel model of the $`a_0(980)`$ and the $`a_0(1450)`$ resonances

Below we present results of the simple two-channel model of $`a_0`$ resonances applied in  to the analysis of experimental results. In this model four reactions: $`\pi \eta \pi \eta `$, $`\pi \eta \mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$, $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}\pi \eta `$ and $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ are described simultaneously using the separable interactions in the form

$$𝐩|V_{ij}|𝐪=\lambda _{ij}f_i(p)f_j(q),i,j=1,2.$$
(5)
Here $`\lambda _{ij}`$ are the real coupling constants and $`f_i`$ are the Yamaguchi form factors inversely proportional to $`p^2+\beta _i^2`$, where $`p`$ is the c.m. momentum and $`\beta _i`$ are constants. The model has altogether only five independent parameters: the $`\pi \eta `$ coupling constant $`\lambda _{11}`$, the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ coupling constant $`\lambda _{22}`$, the interchannel coupling $`\lambda _{12}`$ and two range parameters $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$. The T-matrix satisfies the Lippmann–Schwinger equation $`T=V+VGT`$, where G is the propagator matrix.

We fix four model parameters by choosing the $`a_0(980)`$ pole of the T-matrix on sheet II at $`(1005i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}24.5})`$ MeV and the $`a_0(1450)`$ pole on sheet III at $`(1474i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}132.5})`$ MeV. The fifth model parameter is constrained by the experimental $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$/$`\pi \eta `$ branching ratio near the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold

$$BR=\frac{_{m_2}^{m_{max}}\rho _2|F_2(m)|^2𝑑m}{_{m_1}^{m_{max}}\rho _1|F_1(m)|^2𝑑m},$$
(6)
where $`\rho _i=2k_i/m`$. We have chosen $`m_1=m_{\pi ^0}+m_\eta `$ and $`m_2=2m_{\mathrm{K}^0}`$, corresponding to the branching ratio for the neutral $`a_0(980)`$ decays. The branching ratio depends very strongly on the upper integration limit $`m_{max}`$ as shown in Fig. 2. The Crystal Barrel result  $`BR=0.23\pm 0.05`$ corresponds to large value of $`m_{max}=2m_pm_{\pi ^0}=1741`$ MeV. The upper limit of the WA102 group  is lower as it is equal to $`1147`$ MeV since this group studied the $`f_1(1285)`$ decay into $`\pi \pi \eta `$. Their measured value $`0.166\pm 0.01\pm 0.02`$ agrees well with the theoretical value 0.19 shown in Fig. 2. The OBELIX ratio $`0.26\pm 0.06`$  is also in a good agreement with the theoretical curve.

## 4 Model prediction in the $`a_0(1450)`$ range

According to  we take the $`a_0(1450)`$ mass equal to $`M=1474`$ MeV and its total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=265`$ MeV. Then the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$/$`\pi \eta `$ branching ratio calculated in the limits of $`m`$ between $`M\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ and $`M+\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ is equal to 0.98. When this ratio is evaluated in the slightly larger limits between $`1300`$ MeV and $`1741`$ MeV then it decreases to $`0.78`$. Both numbers stay well within the experimental value $`0.88\pm 0.23`$ found by the Crystal Barrel Collaboration . Thus the model provides us with the theoretical branching ratios consistent with the experimental findings for both $`a_0`$ mesons.

## 5 Other results following from the model

There are many other predictions coming from the coupled channel model described previously. One can calculate the elastic and transition amplitudes, the effective mass distributions in two channels, positions of other T-matrix poles not initially imposed in the procedure of fixing the model parameters and the coupling constants in two channels at each pole. Some of these predictions have been already published in . We have calculated rather important energy difference of the $`a_0(980)`$ poles: $`ReE_1ReE_2=13.5`$ MeV and the width difference $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=18`$ MeV. These numbers are in qualitative agreement with the results found in Sect. 2 using the Flatté model.

Three interesting physical quantities are related to the diagonal S-matrix elements in two channels:

$$S_{jj}=\eta e^{2i\delta _j},j=1,2.$$
(7)
The inelasticity $`\eta `$ is common for both channels, what follows from the unitarity condition, however the phase shifts $`\delta _i`$ are different in both channels, as shown in Fig. 3. The sudden rise of the $`\pi \eta `$ phase shifts near the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold is due to the presence of the $`a_0(980)`$ pole on sheet II. Rather weak variation of the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ phase shifts near $`1`$ GeV is a result of the destructive interference between two related $`a_0(980)`$ poles lying on sheets II and III. The interference effects are also seen near $`1450`$ MeV where in the $`\pi \eta `$ channel the $`a_0(1450)`$ pole interferes with the $`S_{11}`$ zero related to the second $`a_0(1450)`$ pole. In the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ channel, however, the interference is constructive and the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ phase shifts rise very quickly in vicinity of $`1500`$ MeV. The presence of the $`a_0`$ resonances leads to two characteristic dips of the inelasticity coefficient $`\eta `$.

## 6 Nonexistence of the bound $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ isovector state

The present model is suitable to study the question whether a $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ pair can form a bound S-wave isospin $`1`$ state. This question is relevant since the coupling between kaons in that state is negative so the forces in the isovector state are attractive. In order to answer this interesting question we have studied the evolution of the T-matrix poles in the limit of vanishing interchannel coupling constant $`\lambda _{12}`$. In this limit one can find that the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ resonance exists at the complex effective mass equal to $`(1270i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}77})`$ MeV. If the interchannel coupling is switched on then this resonance evolves into the $`a_0(1450)`$ pole and not into the $`a_0(980)`$ pole. The energy of the bound state would be real and smaller than the sum of two kaon masses. Since this is not a case in our model the answer about the presence of the bound $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ isovector state is negative.

## 7 Conclusions

We have found that the $`a_0(980)`$ meson can be described in terms of two distinct poles lying near the $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ threshold on sheets II and III. This result is a common feature of the two models, namely the Flatté model, often used to describe a single $`a_0`$ resonance, and the coupled channel model of two $`a_0`$ resonances, constructed recently by us. The second model has been constrained in the $`a_0(980)`$ mass range and then successfully applied at higher effective $`\pi \eta `$ or $`\mathrm{K}\overline{\mathrm{K}}`$ masses where the $`a_0(1450)`$ resonance is present. The two channel model can be extended to treat more decay channels.


format: text

text:
# Duality and conformal twisted boundaries in the Ising model

## 1 Introduction

Quantum spin chains are one-dimensional models of interacting quantum systems. They have been used to model magnetic properties of materials, in particular when strongly anisotropic behaviour suggests a one-dimensional modelling. They also arise as limits of two-dimensional lattice models of classical statistical mechanics, in an anisotropic limit where the lattice spacing in one space direction vanishes. In particular, the Ising quantum chain discussed below is related to the classical Ising model in this way; and the parameter in the Hamiltonian corresponds to the temperature variable of the two-dimensional classical model.

At criticality, quantum spin chains as well as two-dimensional lattice models possess scaling limits that correspond to $`(1+1)`$-dimensional conformal field theories. The critical exponents describing the non-analytic behaviour of thermodynamic quantities are given by conformal dimensions of certain conformal operators. For translationally invariant quantum chains, the scaling limit corresponds to a conformal field theory on the torus, and the partition function is a quadratic expression in terms of Virasoro characters, distinguishing left and right moving excitations. For free or fixed boundary conditions, we have a conformal field theory on the half plane, with a partition function which is linear in Virasoro characters.

If the spin chain possesses global symmetries, we can define toroidal boundary conditions, i.e., specific twists at the boundary that do not destroy translational invariance. However, this does not seem to yield all possible boundary conditions one might expect from the conformal field theory. Recently, such “conformal twisted boundary conditions” have attracted growing attention , and were realised in solvable lattice models . Here, we consider the simplest possible example of such an exotic boundary condition. At least in this case, it is once more related to a symmetry of the model, which turns out to be duality . Furthermore, the complete spectrum of the Hamiltonian is obtained exactly , even for finite chains of length $`N`$. The scaling limit partition function is computed, verifying the result expected from a mapping to the XXZ Heisenberg quantum spin chain which originally led to the discovery of these duality twisted boundary conditions in the Ising model .

Before we come to the particular example of the Ising quantum chain, we first discuss the construction of toroidal boundary conditions in more generality.

## 2 Quantum Chains and Translational Invariance

For simplicity, we consider quantum spin chains with nearest neighbour couplings only. In this case, the Hamiltonian for a system of $`N`$ spins has the form

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_{j,j+1},H_{j,j+1}=\underset{a,b}{}ϵ_{a,b}\sigma _j^a\sigma _{j+1}^b+\underset{a}{}\delta _a\sigma _j^a,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{a,b}`$ and $`\delta _a`$ are arbitrary constants which are independent of $`j`$. The Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of local spin operators $`\sigma _j^a`$ acting on a tensor product space $`𝒱`$,

$$\sigma _j^a=\mathrm{𝟏}_V^{(j1)}\sigma ^a\mathrm{𝟏}_V^{(Nj)},𝒱=V^N=\underset{N\text{ factors}}{\underset{}{VV\mathrm{}V}},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_V`$ denotes the identity operator on the vector space $`V`$. Let us assume periodic boundary conditions for the moment, i.e., $`H_{N,N+1}H_{N,1}`$, so the last spin couples to the first in the same way as the neighbouring spins along the chain. We define a unitary translation operator $`T`$ by its action on the local spin operators

$$T\sigma _j^aT^1=\sigma _{j+1}^a,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}jN1,T\sigma _N^aT^1=\sigma _1^a,$$
(3)
which obviously commutes with the Hamiltonian $`H`$, so $`THT^1=H`$. As $`T^N=\mathrm{𝟏}`$, the identity operator on $`𝒱`$, the eigenvalues of $`T`$ are of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}k/N)`$, with $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$, and define the lattice momenta of the one-dimensional chain.

Consider now the case where the Hamiltonian has a global symmetry, i.e., it commutes with an operator $`Q=gg\mathrm{}g=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_N`$, where $`g`$ belongs to a representation of some group. We can then define a modified Hamilton operator $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ by setting

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{j,j+1}=H_{j,j+1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}jN1,\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,N+1}\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,1}=g_1H_{N,1}g_1^1,$$
(4)
so $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ differs from $`H`$ only in the coupling term at the boundary, which is twisted by the local transformation $`g`$. On first view, this may appear to be no longer translationally invariant, due to the different coupling between the first and the last spin. However, the transformation $`Q=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_N`$ is a symmetry of the model, which means that the nearest neighbour coupling $`H_{j,j+1}`$ commutes with the product $`g_jg_{j+1}`$. We thus can define a modified translation operator $`\stackrel{~}{T}=g_1T`$ which commutes with $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{H}_{j,j+1}\stackrel{~}{T}^1`$ $`=`$ $`g_1TH_{j,j+1}T^1g_1^1=H_{j+1,j+2}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{j+1,j+2},1jN1,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{H}_{N1,N}\stackrel{~}{T}^1`$ $`=`$ $`g_1TH_{N1,N}T^1g_1^1=g_1H_{N,1}g_1^1=\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,1},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{H}_{N,1}\stackrel{~}{T}^1`$ $`=`$ $`g_1Tg_1H_{N,1}g_1^1T^1g_1^1=g_1g_2TH_{N,1}T^1g_2^1g_1^1`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`g_1g_2H_{1,2}(g_1g_2)^1=H_{1,2}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{1,2},`$
the corresponding boundary conditions are known as toroidal boundary conditions.

The Hamiltonian of the Ising quantum chain is given by

$$H_{j,j+1}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\sigma _j^z+\sigma _{j+1}^z+2\lambda \sigma _j^x\sigma _{j+1}^x\right),H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _j^z+\lambda \sigma _j^x\sigma _{j+1}^x,$$
(6)
where $`\sigma ^x`$ and $`\sigma ^z`$ are Pauli matrices, so $`V^2`$. It has global spin reversal symmetry, i.e., $`H`$ commutes with the operator $`Q=\sigma ^z\sigma ^z\mathrm{}\sigma ^z=_{j=1}^N\sigma _j^z`$. Corresponding to this $`C_2`$ symmetry we have periodic ($`H^\mathrm{P}`$ with $`g=\mathrm{𝟏}_V`$) and antiperiodic ($`H^\mathrm{A}`$ with $`g=g^1=\sigma ^z`$) boundary conditions, the latter yielding a change in sign of the $`\sigma _N^x\sigma _1^x`$ coupling term, because $`\sigma _1^z\sigma _1^x\sigma _1^z=\sigma _1^x`$. It turns out that it is useful to consider the mixed-sector Hamiltonians  $`H^+=H^\mathrm{P}P_++H^\mathrm{A}P_{}`$ and $`H^{}=H^\mathrm{A}P_++H^\mathrm{P}P_{}`$ instead, where $`P_\pm =(\mathrm{𝟏}\pm Q)/2`$ are projectors.

## 3 Duality Twist in the Ising Quantum Chain

Duality is a symmetry that relates the ordered and disordered phases of the classical Ising model. It provides an equality between the partition functions at two different temperatures, the critical temperature being mapped onto itself. In the quantum chain language, duality relates the Hamiltonians $`H`$ with parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`1/\lambda `$; the critical point corresponds to $`\lambda =1`$.

In order to understand the duality transformation, it is advantageous to rewrite the mixed-sector Hamiltonians $`H^\pm `$ as follows

$$H^\pm (\lambda )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{2N1}{}}[(e_{2j1}\frac{1}{2})+\lambda (e_{2j}\frac{1}{2})][(e_{2N1}\frac{1}{2})\lambda (e_{2N}^\pm \frac{1}{2})],$$
(7)
where the Temperley-Lieb operators $`e_j`$ are given by

$$e_{2j1}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}+\sigma _j^z),e_{2j}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}+\sigma _j^x\sigma _{j+1}^x),e_{2N}^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{𝟏}\pm Q\sigma _N^x\sigma _1^x).$$
(8)
Defining invertible operators $`g_j=(1+\mathrm{i})e_j\mathrm{𝟏}`$, with $`g_j^1=g_j^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{i}^2=1`$, the appropriate duality transformations are $`D^+=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_{2N1}`$ and $`D^{}=D^+\sigma _N^x`$ . The corresponding duality maps are $`D^\pm H^\pm (\lambda )=\lambda H^\pm (1/\lambda )D^\pm `$. Evidently, $`D^\pm `$ act on the operators $`e_j`$ like a translation, i.e., $`D^\pm e_j=e_{j+1}D^\pm `$ for $`1j2N2`$, and at the boundary $`D^\pm e_{2N1}=e_{2N}^\pm D^\pm `$ and $`D^\pm e_{2N}^\pm =e_1D^\pm `$. Thus the squares of the duality transformations $`D^\pm `$ commute with the corresponding Hamiltonians $`H^\pm `$ and are nothing but the appropriate translation operators $`T^\pm =(D^\pm )^2`$ of the mixed-sector Hamiltonians .

At criticality, when $`\lambda =1`$, duality itself becomes a symmetry, as $`D^\pm H^\pm (1)=H^\pm (1)D^\pm `$. Thus we can define corresponding twisted boundary conditions. This works in a slightly different way as for the periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions discussed above, as we have to consider an odd number of generators $`e_j`$. The corresponding mixed-sector Hamiltonians are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm =\underset{j=1}{\overset{2N2}{}}(e_j\frac{1}{2})(e_{2N1}^\pm \frac{1}{2}),$$
(9)
where the operators $`e_j`$, for $`1j2N2`$, are defined as in equation (8) above, and where $`e_{2N1}^\pm =(\mathrm{𝟏}\pm Q\sigma _N^y\sigma _1^x)/2`$. So the duality-twisted Ising Hamiltonian contains coupling terms of the type $`\pm \sigma _N^y\sigma _1^x`$ at the boundary, and, in particular, does not contain a term $`\sigma _N^z`$.

The Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm `$ are translationally invariant , the corresponding translation operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}^\pm =(\stackrel{~}{D}^\pm )^2`$ can be constructed as above as the squares of the appropriate duality transformations $`\stackrel{~}{D}^+=g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_{2N2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{}=\stackrel{~}{D}^+\sigma _N^z`$, which commute with the critical Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}`$, respectively, of equation (9).

## 4 Spectrum and Partition Function

The spectrum of the duality-twisted Ising quantum chain can be calculated by a modified version  of the standard approach. Essentially, the Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm `$ (9) are rewritten in terms of fermionic operators by means of a Jordan-Wigner transformation, and the resulting bilinear expressions in fermionic operators are subsequently diagonalised by a Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation, see  for details. The diagonal form of the Hamiltonian is

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm =\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\eta _k^{}\eta _k+E_0\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(10)
where $`\eta _k^{}`$ and $`\eta _k`$ are fermionic creation and annihilation operators, respectively. The energies of the elementary fermionic excitations are given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_k=2|\mathrm{sin}(\frac{p_k}{2})|,p_k=\frac{4k\pi }{2N1},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1.$$
(11)
The ground-state energy $`E_0`$ is

$$E_0=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{k\pi }{\stackrel{~}{N}})=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{N}})}{2\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{N}})}=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{N}}{\pi }\frac{\pi }{24(\stackrel{~}{N})}+\mathrm{O}[(\stackrel{~}{N})^3]$$
(12)
which shows the expected finite-size corrections of a translational invariant critical quantum chain with an effective number of sites of $`\stackrel{~}{N}=N1/2`$, reminiscent of the fact that it is related to the XXZ Heisenberg quantum chain with an odd number $`2\stackrel{~}{N}=2N1`$ of sites . With the appropriate finite-size scaling, the linearised low-energy spectrum in the infinite system is

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{N}}{2\pi }(\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{N}}{N}E_0^\mathrm{P}\mathrm{𝟏})\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{}\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[ra_r^{}a_r+(r+\frac{1}{2})b_r^{}b_r]+\frac{1}{16}$$
(13)
where the fermionic operators $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$ follow from the $`\eta _k`$ by suitable renumbering, and where $`E_0^\mathrm{P}=1/\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{2N})`$ denotes the ground-state energy of the $`N`$-site Ising quantum chain with periodic boundary conditions. The conformal partition functions are given by the combinations $`(\chi _0+\chi _{1/2})\overline{\chi }_{1/16}`$ and $`\chi _{1/16}(\overline{\chi }_0+\overline{\chi }_{1/2})`$, respectively, of characters $`\chi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of irreducible representations with highest weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the $`c=1/2`$ Virasoro algebra, corresponding to operators with conformal spin $`1/16`$ and $`7/16`$.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

For the Ising and Potts quantum chains , “exotic” conformal twisted boundary conditions can be realised by means of twists related to duality, which is a symmetry of the model at criticality. It would be interesting to know whether this is a more general feature. If this is the case, this observation might help to identify non-trivial symmetries in quantum chains or two-dimensional solvable lattice models of statistical mechanics.

## References


text:
# Exotic hybrid mesons from improved Kogut-Susskind fermions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Experimental evidence suggests the existence of particles with “exotic” quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+`$, such as the $`\pi _1(1400)`$  and the $`\pi _1(1600)`$ . Explanations of these include four-quark states and hybrid mesons — mesons with gluonic excitations. Several lattice studies  have used quenched Wilson and improved Wilson fermions to explore the possibility of such hybrid states. Using both quenched and dynamical Kogut-Susskind quarks, the MILC Collaboration has studied the $`1^+`$ hybrid closer to the physical quark mass limit.

## 2 $`1^+`$ HYBRID MESON OPERATOR

We can construct a $`1^+`$ hybrid meson operator as the cross product of a color octet rho meson and the chromomagnetic field: $`\rho \times B`$ . We have several choices of rho meson operators, but it is convenient to choose the K-S flavor singlet $`\rho _s`$, with the spin $``$ flavor structure $`\gamma _i\mathrm{𝟏}`$. This is because each spin component of the $`1^+`$ includes two terms, for example:

$$1_x^+=\rho _yB_z\rho _zB_y.$$
(1)
If the flavor of the $`\rho `$ is dependent on its spin state, the resulting contribution is not a flavor eigenstate.

In computing the field strength, we apply 32 APE smearing  iterations to the spatial gauge field links. There is a subtlety in using the chromomagnetic field to generate the full $`1^+`$ hybrid source operator. We might first determine the magnetic field strength everywhere, then multiply at each site by the quark source vector, and finally symmetrically shift to get the appropriate antiquark source vector. Alternately, we might first apply the symmetric shift to the quark source to form an antiquark source, then multiply by the value of the chromomagnetic field. These methods are equivalent to measuring the $`B`$-field at the site of the quark (Fig. 1a) and antiquark (Fig. 1b), respectively. Because the quark and antiquark are spatially separated in the flavor singlet $`\rho _s`$, neither of these represents an eigenstate of charge conjugation. To get an eigenstate of $`C`$, we use a symmetrized combination of these for the $`1^+`$ hybrid operator.

## 3 SIMULATION & MEASUREMENT

We measured the connected correlator of the $`1^+`$ hybrid state on three sets of $`28^3\times 96`$ lattices generated with the “$`a_{\mathrm{tad}}^2`$” action . To isolate the effects of dynamical quarks, we used matched quenched and full QCD lattices with $`\beta =8.40`$, $`m_{\mathrm{val}}a=0.016,0.04`$, for the quenched quarks, $`\beta =7.18`$ for lattices with three degenerate flavors of dynamical sea quarks at the strange quark mass ($`ma=0.031`$) and $`\beta =7.11`$ for lattices with $`m_{u,d}=0.4m_s`$ ($`ma=0.0124`$). These choices of $`\beta `$ give approximately the same lattice spacing ($`0.09`$ fm) in the three cases. The corresponding choices of quark mass allow simulation at roughly equivalent values of $`(m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_V)^2`$, the square of the ratio of the psuedoscalar to vector meson masses.

## 4 RESULTS

We fit the measured correlators to the sum of oscillating and normal exponentials:

$`C(t)=A_1e^{M_{1^+}t}`$ $`+`$ $`A_2(1)^te^{m_2t}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`A_3(1)^te^{m_3t},`$
where $`M_{1^+}`$ is the hybrid meson mass of interest and $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ are masses of nonexotic parity partner states which have oscillating correlators in the Kogut-Susskind formulation. We performed both four and five parameter fits. For the four parameter fits, we fix $`A_3=m_3=0`$. For the five parameter fits we fix $`m_3`$ to a pre-determined $`a_1`$ meson mass and fit for $`A_3`$ as well. We varied the range of the fit and tried to choose values for $`M_{1^+}`$ corresponding to high-confidence fits that were insensitive to $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the limits of the fit range.

In Fig. 2 we summarize our results along with the results of previous Wilson quark studies by the MILC group  and the UKQCD collaboration  as well as recent results from the Zhongshan University group  using Wilson quarks on an anisotropic lattice. We use the string tension $`\sigma `$ to establish the lattice length scale and plot $`M_{1^+}/\sqrt{\sigma }`$. For comparison, we include the $`1^+`$ experimental candidates $`\pi _1(1400)`$ and $`\pi _1(1600)`$ at the physical value of $`(m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_V)^2=(m_\pi /m_\rho )^2=0.033`$. We use $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440\pm 38\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$  for the vertical scale.

For the quenched lattices we were able to fit the data with reasonable confidence levels (25-50%) for valence quark masses $`ma=0.016`$ and $`ma=0.040`$. Fig. 3 shows an example of fits for the quenched lattices for $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=15`$. We performed a linear extrapolation of these results to the physical value of $`(m_{\mathrm{PS}}/m_V)^2`$. (Fig. 2.)

For lattices with three degenerate sea quarks at $`m_s`$, we were also able to extract a value for $`M_{1^+}`$ in reasonable agreement with the quenched result. The fits, however, exhibited slightly larger statistical errors, and a slight dependence on range.

The lattices with $`m_{u,d}=0.4m_s`$ proved more interesting. In the case of a valence quark mass equal to $`m_s`$ ($`ma=0.031`$), we use the masses of the $`s\overline{s}`$ pseudoscalar state and the vector $`\varphi `$ state, measured on the same lattices, for $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ and $`m_V`$ respectively. The fitted mass agrees with those of the quenched and three-flavor results within two standard deviations, but with larger systematic errors, estimated from the dependence on fit range.

In the case of the light valence quark ($`ma=0.0124`$), we were unable to say much about the $`1^+`$ hybrid mass with any confidence. The fits were very range dependent, indicating the likely presence of four-quark states into which the hybrid can decay.

## 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of lattice results depends crucially on understanding the lattice length scale. We use the string tension $`\sigma `$ as opposed to other static potential scales such as $`r_0`$ or $`r_1`$ for two reasons. First, hybrid mesons are extended objects that feel the linear part of the static quark potential, where $`\sigma `$ is defined, more than the Coulombic part, where $`r_0`$ is defined. Second, using $`\sigma `$ to define the lattice spacing brings quenched and dynamical quark data into closer agreement for both the hybrids and for low-lying non-exotic hadrons . Note that if we use $`r_1=0.34`$ fm, our quenched data extrapolates to 2033(70) MeV, whereas using $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV we get 1854(65) MeV, quoting statistical errors only.

The $`m_{u,d}=0.4m_s`$ data illustrates that dynamical quarks introduce new and significant processes that contribute to the $`1^+`$ propagator. Mixing with four-quark states is one possibility. We now have ahead of us the task of understanding these contributions so that we can make useful predictions of the $`1^+`$ hybrid mass in the presence of dynamical quarks.

## 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Computations for this work were performed at SDSC, PSC, ORNL and NERSC. This work was supported by the U. S. DOE and NFS.


text:
# Survival-extinction phase transition in a bit-string population with mutation

## I Introduction

Many mathematical models have been proposed to describe the evolution of populations, focusing on varied aspects, for example, mutation accumulation , and adaptation . In the first case, how deleterious mutations are passed to offspring, and the consequences for individual growth, are of particular interest. In the second, the principal interest is the influence of different environmental conditions on the population. One goal in this area is the development of a simple model capable of describing the response of a population to environmental mutability. Of interest, for example, is the ability of a population to adapt to rapid changes in its environment. Penna’s bit-string model  seems well suited to this purpose.

In this paper, we propose a model for evolution of an adapting population, to study the consequences of variation of conditions affecting survival, related to environmental flexibility, and the genetic variability of the population. Our main interest is to describe the conditions determining the extinction or survival of the population. The population evolves in discrete time with non-overlapping generations. It consists of haploid organisms defined by their genotype (a bit-string of $`G`$ positions, or genes). The individuals undergo asexual reproduction, subject to mutation, competition and selection. Selection is represented though a survival probability that depends on the difference between a genome and a certain ideal genome. Environmental changes can be represented via alteration of this ideal. In the present study, however, the ideal genome is fixed, allowing a systematic study of the effect of various other parameters upon survival.

We develop a mean-field (MFT) description, which describes the evolution of an infinite population exactly, since it has no spatial structure. We also perform Monte Carlo simulations for the model. The latter are useful for studying fluctuations due to finite population size, that are not captured in the MFT. We determine the survival/extinction phase boundary, and compare the temporal evolution, and the genomic distribution of the population predicted by MFT against simulation results.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we define the model and in Sec. III develop the MFT. Sec. IV describes the Monte Carlo simulation algorithm, while Sec. V reports MFT and simulation results. We present our conclusions in Sec. VI.

## II Model

We study a model for evolution of a population of haploid individuals defined by their genomes, and subject to competition, asexual reproduction with mutation, and selection. In this model, successive generations do not overlap. Each individual is represented by a bit-string of $`G`$ positions (genes), denoted by the vector $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _G)`$, where $`\sigma _i=0`$ or $`1`$. The fitness of an individual to the environment is measured in relation to a “model individual” (or “ideal genome”), represented by the sequence $`\sigma _i=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},G`$. Each gene in state 1 represents a reduction in fitness, and carries the same weight, independent of its position $`i`$. Thus the Hamming distance from the ideal genome, given by $`H=_i\sigma _i`$, characterizes an individual’s fitness (This manner of characterizing fitness has been used in several studies of age-structured populations .) The dependence of fitness on $`H`$ is through the survival probability

$$S(H)=\frac{1+e^B}{e^{H/G\tau }+e^B}.$$
(1)
$`S(H)`$ is the probability for an individual to survive up to the stage in which she must compete with the rest of the population; individuals that survive the competition stage go on to reproduce offspring, as detailed below. The parameter $`\tau `$, which plays a role analogous to temperature in equilibrium statistical mechanics, represents environmental flexibility, while $`B`$, which is related to the genetic variability of the population, represents mutational tolerance. $`S(H)=1`$ for $`H=0`$, and decays monotonically with $`H`$. We note that for fixed $`H`$ and $`B`$, the survival probability is an increasing function of $`\tau `$, and that for fixed $`H`$ and $`\tau `$, $`S`$ is an increasing function of $`B`$. The Fermi-like function $`S(H)`$ was used in a similar manner in the model of Thoms et al . These authors define a death probability $`p_d=[e^{\beta (ba)}+1]^1`$, where $`\beta `$ is an inverse temperature and $`(ba)`$ represents the difference between the typical number of mutations in the population, and the number of mutations of the individual.

At reproduction, each organism is replaced by two offspring. The latter are copies of their parent, with a certain number $`m`$ of mutations. Each position has a probability of $`\lambda `$ to mutate (mutations $`01`$ and $`10`$ are considered equally likely), with mutations at different positions constituting independent events. The number of mutations $`m`$ therefore follows a binomial distribution. The mean number of mutations per reproduction event, $`\lambda G`$, is set to unity in this study.

Competition amongst individuals is represented by the familiar Verhulst factor,

$$V=1\frac{N(t)}{N_{max}},$$
(2)
where $`N(t)`$ is the population at time $`t`$ and $`N_{max}`$ is the maximum capacity of the environment. The evolution of the population proceeds by discrete time steps: at each step, the Verhulst factor is applied by selecting at random (independently of $`H`$), $`NV`$ survivors; the survivors go on to reproduce as described above.

## III Mean-field theory

We have developed a mean-field description of the model defined above. For this model, which has no spatial structure, the deterministic mean-field description describes the infinite-size limit ($`N_{max}\mathrm{}`$) exactly. Differences between theory and simulation are due to fluctuations that appear in finite sized systems, but that are absent in the infinite-size limit.

In the full stochastic description there are $`2^G`$ distinct genomes $`\sigma `$, and an integer-valued random variable $`N_\sigma (t)0`$ for each. Our first step in constructing a simplified description is to reduce the set of variables to $`N(H,t)`$: the number of individuals with Hamming distance $`H`$ from the ideal, at time $`t`$. Since the model does not distinguish between individuals with the same Hamming distance, the probability distribution at any time $`t>0`$ will be a function of $`H`$ only, if it is so at $`t=0`$. We shall always suppose this to be the case.

In the mean-field theory, the discrete-time evolution of the population may be written so:

$$N(H,t+1)=𝖤[N(H,t+1)|\{N(H,t)\}],$$
(3)
where $`\{N(H,t)\}`$ represents the entire set of population variables at step $`t`$. In other words, the population at step $`t+1`$ is approximated by its expected value, given the distribution at step $`t`$. (The latter, in turn, is given by the expected distribution, given that for time $`t1`$, and so on.) The integer-valued random variables of the exact description are therefore replaced by a set of real-valued, deterministic variables.

Each step of the evolution consists of two stages: (1) death of individuals due to competition for resources (‘Verhulst stage’); (2) reproduction/selection. In the Verhulst stage, the total population size $`N=_HN(H)`$ is evaluated; then each subpopulation is reduced by the same factor, $`V=1N/N_{max}`$, yielding the values:

$$N^{}(H)=VN(H),(H=0,\mathrm{},G).$$
(4)
Note that the Verhulst stage involves an interaction between individuals ($`N^{}(H)`$ is a nonlinear function of all of the $`N(H)`$), and that each individual interacts equally with all others in this process.

In the reproduction stage each individual is replaced by a pair of offspring that have, in general, Hamming distances different from those of the parent. We assume independent, equally probable mutations at each site, so that the number of mutations $`m`$ in a given reproduction event is binomially distributed:

$$P(m)=\left(\begin{array}{c}G\\ m\end{array}\right)\lambda ^m(1\lambda )^{Gm}.$$
(5)
(Since $`G1`$ while the mean number of mutations $`\lambda G`$ is of order unity, we may approximate $`P(m)`$ by a Poisson distribution in simulations; we retain the binomial distribution in the MFT analysis.)

Each reproduction event may be represented schematically as $`H^{}H_1,H_2`$, where $`H^{}`$ denotes the Hamming distance of the parent and $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ those of the offspring. Since $`H^{}H_1`$ and $`H^{}H_2`$ are independent events (even though they happen simultaneously), it suffices to consider one such, i.e., $`H^{}H`$; let $`W(H|H^{})`$ represent its probability. If the offspring differs from its parent at exactly $`m`$ positions, then,

$`\mathrm{max}[0,H^{}m]H\mathrm{min}[H^{}+m,G].`$Let $`m=m_0+m_1`$, with $`m_0`$ the number of mutations $`01`$ and $`m_1`$ the number of type $`10`$. Each event is characterized by $`H^{}`$, $`m`$, and $`m_0`$. (Evidently, $`H=H^{}+m_0m_1=H^{}+2m_0m`$.) The probability of such an event is given by the hypergeometric distribution:

$$p(m_0|m,G,H^{})=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{c}GH^{}\\ m_0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H^{}\\ mm_0\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c}G\\ m\end{array}\right)}.$$
(6)
Now using $`m_0=(HH^{}+m)/2`$, we have,

$$W(H|H^{})=(GH^{})!H^{}!\underset{m=0}{\overset{G}{}}\frac{\lambda ^m(1\lambda )^{Gm}}{\left(\frac{HH^{}+m}{2}\right)!\left(\frac{H^{}H+m}{2}\right)!\left(G\frac{H+H^{}+m}{2}\right)!\left(\frac{H^{}+Hm}{2}\right)!}.$$
(7)
Next we observe that the expected number of surviving offspring with Hamming distance $`H`$ produced by a parent with Hamming distance $`H^{}`$ is: $`\stackrel{~}{W}(H|H^{})2S(H)W(H|H^{})`$. Thus the expected number of individuals with Hamming distance $`H`$, at step $`t+1`$ is:

$$𝖤[N(H,t+1)|\{N(H^{},t)\}]=\underset{H^{}=0}{\overset{G}{}}\stackrel{~}{W}(H|H^{})N^{}(H^{}),$$
(8)
where $`N^{}(H^{})`$ is the distribution just after the Verhulst step. The evolution of the population is found via numerical iteration of Eqs. (4) and (8).

## IV Simulation algorithm

We study the evolution of the model population in Monte Carlo simulations. Initially, $`N_0=N_{max}/10`$ individuals of $`G=128`$ bits are generated, each with a random gene sequence, $`\sigma =(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _G)`$, where $`\sigma _i=0`$ or $`1`$ with equal likelihood. The procedure is as follows:

i) The Verhulst factor $`V=1N(t)/N_{max}`$ is evaluated. Then for each individual, a random number $`s`$ is generated; the individual survives (dies) if $`s<V`$ ($`s>V`$).

ii) Each individual reproduces: 2 copies are created, with possible mutations. The number of mutations $`m`$ is given by a random integer, chosen from a Poisson distribution with parameter 1. The mutation loci are selected at random.

iii) For each daughter, the Hamming distance $`H`$ from the ideal is evaluated, and a random number $`r`$, uniform on  is generated. If $`rS(H)`$, the individual survives; otherwise, it dies.

During the simulations, we record the population, average Hamming distance, the average survival probability,

$$S(t)=\frac{1}{N(t)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N(t)}{}}S(H_i),$$
(9)
and the survival rate, $`𝒮(t)N(t)/N(t1)`$. (Note that in general $`S(t)<1`$, while $`𝒮(t)`$ may, in principle, take any nonnegative value, and is unity in the stationary state.) Depending on the parameters $`\tau `$, $`B`$, and $`N_{max}`$, the population may survive until a certain maximum time ($`t_{max}=\mathrm{30\hspace{0.33em}000}`$ steps in the simulations), attaining a quasi-stationary state, or may go extinct. We record the Hamming distance distribution in the quasi-stationary state.

## V Results and Discussion

Depending on the values of $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ that characterize the survival probability function $`S(H)`$, Eq. (1), the population either survives or goes extinct. In the mean-field theory this is a sharp transition. In simulations, due to finite population size, fluctuations into the absorbing state (population zero) are to be expected. Indeed, for any finite system size the population must eventually go extinct, if the process is permitted to continue indefinitely. We adopt $`t_{max}=\mathrm{30\hspace{0.33em}000}`$ as a convenient maximum time, allowing us to discriminate between survival and extinction, and (in the former case), study quasi-stationary properties, except very near the transition, where, as noted, the sharp distinction is blurred by fluctuations.

Fig. 1 shows the phase boundary between survival and extinction in the $`B`$ \- $`\tau `$ plane, comparing the mean-field prediction against simulations using $`N_{max}`$ = $`10^4,10^5`$ and $`5\times 10^5`$. As $`N_{max}`$ is increased, the survival/extinction line found in simulation approaches the MFT prediction, as expected. For small values of $`\tau `$, (a “hard” or inflexible environment), survival of population requires high values of $`B`$, the mutational tolerance. The mean-field survival/extinction line of the diagram is obtained by fixing the parameter $`\tau `$ and measuring the stationary population density $`\rho =N/N_{max}`$ as a function of $`B`$. Near the transition, $`\rho `$ depends linearly on $`B`$: $`\rho BB_c(\tau )`$, as is normally the case in mean-field descriptions of a continuous phase transition to an absorbing state . The line $`B_c(\tau )`$ is readily obtained via linear regression to the $`\rho (B)`$ data near the transition. Note that $`B_c=0`$ for $`\tau >0.192`$. For $`\tau 1`$, on the other hand, $`B_c1/\tau `$. (Increasing the mutation probability $`\lambda `$, the phase boundary is displaced upward and to the right, enlarging the extinction region.) Fig. 2 is a three-dimensional plot of the population density as a function of $`B`$ and $`\tau `$; the extinction region is evident, as is the monotonic growth of $`\rho `$ with either parameter.

Fig. 3 presents a typical evolution of the population density $`\rho (t)`$. For $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ in the survival phase, the population exhibits a rapid initial decay and then evolves to a quasi-stationary state. Simulation and MFT evolutions are in good agreement, despite fluctuations in the former.

The quasi-stationary distribution of Hamming distances obtained in simulation is compared in Fig. 4 with the stationary distribution predicted by mean-field theory. In all cases, the distribution peaks near the mean value $`<H>`$, and has a generally Gaussian appearance. For fixed $`\tau `$, we observe that $`<H>`$ increases monotonically with $`B`$, attaining a plateau, if $`\tau `$ is sufficiently large. The plateau value is $`<H>64`$, i.e., half the genome size. For fixed $`B`$, we observe that $`<H>`$ increases with $`\tau `$, until attaining $`<H>=64`$. The variance of the distribution behaves similarly. Its saturation value is about 32, giving a standard deviation $`\sigma 5.7`$. This is not surprising, given that $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ both represent tolerance of differences from the ideal genome. Fig. 5 shows the stationary values of $`<H>`$ and $`\sigma _H`$ as functions of $`B`$, as predicted by MFT; simulations yield very similar behaviour. In simulations, extinction occurs at larger $`B`$ values than are predicted by MFT, due to finite-size effects, as noted above; the difference between simulation and theory diminishes with increasing system size.

## VI Summary

We propose a bit-string model of the evolution a simple haploid population. Similarly to previous studies , the model includes the effect of enviromental flexibility and tolerance to genetic differences on the survival probability. Unlike previous works, we employ a survival probability that is a monotonic increasing function of the parameters $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ that represent tolerance of genetic difference between a given genome and the ideal. The model is studied via computer simulations and mean-field theory, which are in good agreement.

The model, like many others in population dynamics or epidemic analysis, exhibits a continuous transition between an active phase (survival) and an absorbing one (extinction). We map out the phase boundary in the $`B`$ \- $`\tau `$ plane, and find clear evidence of mean-field-like critical behavior, as in other population models lacking spatial structure . The mean-field description is exact in the infinite-size limit, but provides no information regarding fluctuations. On the other hand, simulations for parameter values in the active phase yield information on the quasi-stationary state of a finite system ($`N_{max}<\mathrm{}`$). It is also of interest to obtain the lifetime of this quasi-stationary state, or, equivalently, the mean first-passage time to extinction. Such information can in principle be obtained from simulations, or from a probabilistic analysis of finite populations, starting from the master equation . Given the large number of random variables involved ($`G+1`$, if we assume that the probability depends only on Hamming distance $`H`$), the multivariate Fokker-Planck equation would seem the most convenient tool; theoretical analysis of finite populations is left as subject for future work. The simulation results reported here should prove useful in testing such theories.

Another interesting direction for future study is the response of the population to changes in the environment. Such changes can be represented by variations in the ideal genome (as presented in ) and/or in the parameters $`\tau `$, $`B`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`N_{max}`$. A related question is that of transitions in the genome distribution when two or more ideals (corresponding to distinct, well adapted types in the fitness landscape), exist. Studies of these problems using the bit-string model are in progress.

Acknowledgments

ATB acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Departamento de Física-UFMG. This work was partially supported by the Brazilian Agencies CNPq, FINEP and FAPEMIG.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Survival/extinction phase boundary in the $`B`$-$`\tau `$ plane for $`\lambda G=1`$. The solid line is the MFT prediction; dashed lines represent simulation results for $`N_{max}=5\times 10^5`$, $`10^5`$ and $`10^4`$ (bottom to top).

Fig. 2. Population density $`\rho `$ as a function of $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ from MFT. For $`\tau 0.192`$, the population survives for any value of $`B`$.

Fig. 3. Time evolution of the population density $`\rho `$ for $`\tau =0.1`$ and $`B=4`$, in MFT (smooth curve) and simulation ($`N_{max}=10^5`$).

Fig. 4. Stationary Hamming-distance distribution for various parameters, as indicated.

Fig. 5. Dependence of Hamming distance on $`B`$ for $`\tau =0.1`$ in MFT. Central line: mean Hamming distance, $`<H>`$; upper and lower lines represent one standard deviation above or below the mean.


text:
# Finite-Size Scaling and Universality of the Thermal Resistivity of Liquid 4He near 𝑇_𝜆

## Abstract

We present measurements of the thermal resistivity $`\rho (t,P,L)`$ near the superfluid transition of 4He at saturated vapor pressure and confined in cylindrical geometries with radii $`L=0.5`$ and 1.0 $`\mu `$m ($`tT/T_\lambda (P)1`$). For $`L=1.0\mu `$m measurements at six pressures $`P`$ are presented. At and above $`T_\lambda `$ the data are consistent with a universal scaling function $`F=\left(L/\xi _0\right)^{x/\nu }\left(R/R_0\right)`$, $`X=\left(L/\xi _0\right)^{1/\nu }t`$ valid for all $`P`$ ($`R_0`$ and $`x`$ are the pressure-dependent amplitude and effective exponent of the bulk resistivity $`R`$ and $`\xi =\xi _0t^\nu `$ is the correlation length).

The modern theory of critical phenomena Fisher (1998) predicts that continuous phase transitions belong to distinct universality classes which are determined by such general properties of the system as the number of degrees of freedom of the order parameter and the spatial dimensionality. Within a given class, exponents and amplitude ratios are identical (i.e. universal) for all members and independent of irrelevant variables. An example of an irrelevant variable is the pressure $`P`$ of a liquid helium sample at which measurements near the superfluid transition temperature $`T_\lambda `$ are made. Within a given universality class, the dependence of many properties upon certain parameters can be represented by scaling functions which are the same for all systems. The present paper is an experimental study of the scaling function which describes the effect of confinement in a cylindrical geometry with radius $`L`$ on critical properties. For static properties this finite-size scaling has been studied by a number of precise experiments. For example, the heat capacity near the superfluid transition of 4He has been measured for confinement sizes which vary by a factor of 500, and the data to a large extent can be collapsed upon a unique function when properly reduced Mehta and Gasparini (1997); Lipa et al. (2000). Even for static properties, however, we are not aware of any measurements which test the universality of finite-size scaling. For transport properties there are, to our knowledge, no prior experiments which test scaling and universality for finite-size effects. There has been only one experiment on the effects of confinement on a transport property Kahn and Ahlers (1995); Ahlers (1999), namely the measurements of the thermal conductivity $`\lambda `$ of helium near $`T_\lambda `$ in cylindrical tubes. These measurements can be used to derive a scaling function which would be expected to be universal, but since they were performed only for the one value $`L=1\mu `$m and only at saturated vapor pressure (SVP), they provided a test of neither finite-size scaling nor of the universality of the derived function.

We present experimental results for the thermal resistivity $`\rho (t,P,L)1/\lambda (t,P,L)`$ near $`T_\lambda (P)`$ of liquid 4He confined in cylinders of two different radii and at various pressures as a function of the reduced temperature $`tT/T_\lambda 1`$. The use of two confinement sizes allows us to directly test finite-size scaling, while the use of different pressures for one size provides a test of universality. For bulk helium $`\rho (t,P,\mathrm{})`$ depends strongly on pressure Tam and Ahlers (1985), so that a comparison of an appropriate scaling function for $`\rho (t,P,L)`$ at different pressures provides a sensitive test of universality. These two aspects were tested in separate experiments: measurements as a function of $`L`$ were taken at SVP, and measurements as a function of $`P`$ were taken at a single confinement size $`L=1.0\mu `$m.

Theoretical predictions for $`\lambda `$ are still quite limited. Monte Carlo calculations give the shape of a scaling function, but only to within a multiplicative factor Nho and Manousakis (2001). Within its precision this shape agrees well with the measurements of Ref. Kahn and Ahlers (1995). Very recently, a one-loop renormalization group (RG) calculation of $`\lambda (t,P,L)`$ for $`t0`$ and at SVP was carried out by Töpler and Dohm Töpler and Dohm (2002), but at present there are no such calculations for $`t<0`$ and for higher pressures. Thus, in order to provide a broader framework for the analysis of our data, we use a phenomenological approach. We assume that the temperature and size dependence of $`\rho `$ are separable and that the size dependence is a function only of $`L/\xi `$ where $`\xi =\xi _0t^v`$ is the correlation length: $`\rho (t,P,L)=\rho (t,P,\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{F}\left(L/\xi \right)`$. Since $`\rho (t,P,\mathrm{})`$ goes to zero as $`t`$ does while $`\rho (t,P,L)`$ remains finite, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ diverges at $`t=0`$. To avoid this difficulty, we re-define the scaling function as $`F(X)=\left(L/\xi \right)^{x/\nu }\stackrel{~}{F}`$ which avoids the divergence at $`t=0`$. Consistent with experiment Tam and Ahlers (1985), we have written $`\rho `$ for bulk helium as a power law $`\rho (t,P,\mathrm{})=\rho _0t^x`$ with effective exponents $`x(P)`$ and amplitudes $`\rho _0(P)`$. We now have

$$F(X)=\left[\frac{L}{\xi _0(P)}\right]^{x/\nu }\left[\rho (t,P,L)/\rho _0(P)\right]$$
(1)
with

$`X=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\xi _0}}\right)^{1/\nu }t`$
$`=`$ $`t/t_0,`$ (2)
Note that $`t_0`$ is the temperature at which the correlation length grows to the size of the container, i.e. $`\xi L`$. The correlation length has a pressure-dependent amplitude $`\xi _0(P)`$ and a universal exponent $`\nu `$. The values of $`\xi _0,\rho _0,`$ and $`x`$ are known from bulk measurements Tam and Ahlers (1985) and are summarized in Table 1.

We used two different thermal conductivity cells. One (Cell I) was described in detail elsewhere Kahn and Ahlers (1995). It was used for measurements of the resistivity as function of $`P`$ at $`L=1.0\mu `$m. It consisted of two cylindrical metal plates made of OFHC (Oxygen-Free High-Conductivity) copper separated by a stainless steel sidewall. A glass microchannel plate (MCP) was epoxied to the inside of the sidewall, so that when assembled the liquid helium between the plates would be confined to the channels with little extraneous liquid between the endplates and the glass. A small bulk thermal conductivity cell, called a “lambda device”, was attached to the bottom (hot) copper plate for the determination of $`T_\lambda `$ in bulk helium. The bottom of the lambda device was $`1.25`$ cm below that of the confinement cell, and as a result the value of $`T_\lambda `$ had to be corrected for the hydrostatic pressure difference between the bottom of the lambda device and the middle of the MCP Ahlers (1968, 1991). Since the lambda device was attached to the bottom plate, it could only be used before and after a data acquisition sequence because the heat applied to it necessarily flowed through the confining cell. The cell was filled through an overflow volume located on the top (cold) copper plate.

Cell II, used for measurements of the resistivity as a function of $`L`$ at SVP, was designed for use with microchannel plates which were surrounded by a solid glass ring. Whereas the MCP in Cell I was epoxied into a stainless steel sidewall which in turn was sealed to the copper endplates with indium gaskets, the glass ring in the second type was directly sealed to the copper using indium. A stainless steel sidewall was used as a spacer, but its length was chosen so that the different thermal expansion coefficients of the copper endplates and the stainless steel compensated each other. As a result the force applied to the microchannel plate was constant. The cryogenic apparatus used with this cell design could accommodate three thermal conductivity cells, all of which were suspended from a common temperature-regulated platform. One of these cells was a bulk conductivity cell constructed with an open glass ring. It served to locate $`T_\lambda `$ of the bulk fluid. The vertical centers of the cells were nearly the same, so that the gravity correction mentioned for the first cell was greatly reduced. The three cells were independent of each other, so that the bulk thermal conductivity could be measured at the same time as the thermal conductivity for two different confinement sizes. The fill line entered the bottom of the cell, and the portion of the fill line located in the bottom plate was packed with $`0.05\mu `$m alumina powder to suppress the superfluid transition. Thus the liquid helium contained in the bottom plate was always normal. The fill line was connected to an overflow volume on the shield stage, which was maintained a few mK above $`T_\lambda `$.

Saturated vapor pressure was maintained in both sets of experiments by partially filling the overflow volumes. Pressures other than SVP were reached in Cell I using a “hot volume” Mueller et al. (1976), a separate thermal stage filled with fluid whose temperature was controlled to regulate the pressure in the thermal conductivity cell. The pressure was measured using a capacitative strain gage Straty and Adams (1969) mounted on the top of the cell. The fluid in the cell and the hot volume was isolated from the rest of the cryostat by a normally-closed low-temperature valve.

The resistivity $`\rho `$ was computed from the temperature difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ which was measured across the fluid layer when a power $`Q`$ was applied to the bottom plate of a cell: $`\rho =(A/d)\left[\left(Q/\mathrm{\Delta }TC_W\right)^1R_b\right]`$, where $`A`$ is the cross-sectional area of the fluid, $`d`$ is the spacing between the plates, $`C_W`$ is the parallel conductance of the stainless steel sidewall and the glass of the MCP, and $`R_b`$ is the boundary resistance between the copper endplates and the fluid. The boundary resistance $`R_b`$ was measured far below $`T_\lambda `$, where the resistance of the fluid layer can be neglected. The size of the correction is relatively small, and its temperature dependence near $`T_\lambda `$ Kuehn et al. (2002) was neglected. The parameters $`A/d`$ and $`C_W`$ were obtained by fitting the measured $`\lambda (t,P,L)`$ to the known $`\lambda (t,P,\mathrm{})`$ several mK above $`T_\lambda `$ where the effects of confinement are negligible. For Cell I, the pressures at which measurements were made were chosen to match those for which prior measurements for bulk helium were available Tam and Ahlers (1985); the value $`d/A=0.386`$ so obtained was found to be independent of pressure and agreed with the value $`0.39`$ previously determined for this cell Kahn and Ahlers (1995). The $`0.5`$ and $`1\mu `$m data, taken with Cell II, yielded $`d/A=0.0781`$ and $`0.0605`$ respectively. All values for $`d/A`$ are in good agreement with values from gas flow-impedance measurements on and electron micrographs of the microchannel plates. The values for $`C_W`$ for each size and pressure are shown in Table 1 (for $`P=11.25`$ bar, there were no bulk conductivity data, and $`C_W`$ was obtained by interpolation between other pressures). Each conductivity data point was assigned to the mean temperature $`\overline{T}=T_{\text{top}}+\mathrm{\Delta }T/2`$, and a corresponding curvature correction Tam and Ahlers (1985) was applied to correct for the use of a finite $`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$.

The resistivity at SVP is plotted versus $`t`$ in Fig. 1 for two different values of $`L`$. The data show the effect of confinement, with the smallest size showing the greatest rounding of the transition and the greatest increase of $`\rho (t=0)`$. The scaling variable $`F`$ (Eq. 1) is plotted versus $`X`$ (Eq. 2) for the two sizes in Fig. 2. Except perhaps for $`X2`$, the data collapse onto a single curve, thus supporting the concept of finite-size scaling. It is difficult to tell whether the small difference in $`F`$ between the two data sets below $`X2`$ is significant or due to unknown systematic experimental errors.

Figure 3 shows $`\rho (t,P,L)`$ as a function of $`t`$ for six different values of $`P`$ and $`L=1.0\mu `$m. The resistivity does not drop to zero below $`t=0`$, as is the case for the bulk fluid Tam and Ahlers (1985). The value of $`\rho (t=0,P,L)`$ varies by nearly a factor of three for the pressures used.

In Fig. 4 the function $`F`$ is plotted versus $`X`$ for six different pressures. Within our resolution the data collapse on the same curve, suggesting that a single scaling function describes all six pressures. The collapse occurs despite the large variation of $`\rho `$ at constant $`t`$. The values of $`F`$ at $`X=0`$ are given in Table 1.

The thermal conductivity $`\lambda `$ is plotted on a logarithmic scale versus $`t`$ on a linear scale in Fig. 5 for temperatures below $`T_\lambda (P)`$. It is consistent with an exponential growth below $`T_\lambda (P)`$ as noted previously Kahn and Ahlers (1995). The amplitudes and arguments of the exponential are approximately the same for all pressures. These results suggest that $`\lambda `$, rather than the scaling function $`F`$, is independent of pressure in this temperature region, and that universality breaks down below $`T_\lambda (P)`$.

Aside from testing scaling and universality, an important issue is to what extent detailed theoretical calculations can reproduce the conductivity. As discussed above, the theoretical information is limited. Monte Carlo calculations, which give the shape of the scaling function quite well, involve as yet undetermnined parameters. However, the recent renormalization group calculations have yielded results for $`\lambda `$ at SVP Töpler and Dohm (2002). In Fig. 6 we show data for $`\lambda (t=0)`$ as a function of $`L^1`$ on logarithmic scales. The phenomenological scaling function Eq. 1 predicts $`\lambda (t=0)L^{x/\nu }`$ which, for $`x/\nu =0.656`$ is shown by the dashed straight line. The RG prediction is given by the solid line(note that the horizontal axis differs from the original; here, $`L`$ is the radius of the channel, not the diameter). Although it comes modestly close to the data points, it does not follow a pure power law, as manifested by curvature of the solid line in the figure. Near $`L1`$ the effective exponent (i.e. the local slope of the line in Fig. 6) is close to $`0.56`$, which differs significantly from the prediction based on Eq. 1. Although the data points tend to favor the larger exponent $`x/\nu `$, they do not cover a sufficient range of $`L`$ to be decisive. Future plans call for the measurement of the resistivity at larger $`L`$, with the largest ($`50\mu `$m) to be flown on the International Space Station, extending the range covered to two decades in $`L`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Michael Töpler and Volker Dohm for sending us their results prior to publication. This work was supported by NASA Grant No. NAG8-1429.


text:
# The ground state of three quarks Talk presented by Ph. de Forcrand.

## 1 Introduction

The static $`q\overline{q}`$ potential has been studied extensively on the lattice. In the quenched theory, the elementary ansatz $`V_{q\overline{q}}(r)=V_0\frac{\alpha }{r}+\sigma _{q\overline{q}}r`$ turns out to be remarkably accurate. The next simplest system is one of 3 static quarks, from which one can gain phenomenological insight about the forces inside a baryon. Moreover, the 3 quarks must be connected by 3 glue strings to form a gauge-covariant object. These strings meet at a “gluon junction”, which has been conjectured to be a non-perturbative excitation of the QCD vacuum , and might play an important role at the hadronization stage in heavy-ion collisions.

We extract the potential between 3 static quarks in $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory from the exponential decay with $`T`$ of the expectation value of the baryonic Wilson loop Fig. 1. We aim at improving the accuracy of our earlier work  through several technical refinements. This new accuracy, augmented by insight from Potts model simulations, allows us to reach conclusions about the merits of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz  and the $`Y`$-ansatz .

At short distances, the potential is described by perturbation theory, which gives it the form (constant + Coulomb). $`(i)`$ The constant term is caused by UV divergences arising from the perimeter of the loop. For large $`T`$, the baryonic loop perimeter is $`\frac{3}{2}`$ that of a rectangular, mesonic loop, so that the constant term in the potential is multiplied by $`\frac{3}{2}`$ (for the same lattice spacing $`a`$). $`(ii)`$ The exchange of one gluon between two of the quarks gives $`\frac{1}{2}`$ the one-gluon exchange term between a quark and antiquark at the same locations. Together, $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ imply

$$V_{qqq}(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i<j}{}V_{q\overline{q}}(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_j)V_{qqq}^\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)$$
(1)
At large distances, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz predicts that the potential grows linearly with the perimeter $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the quark triangle: $`V_{qqq}\sigma _{q\overline{q}}\frac{L_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}`$, so that Eq.(1) still holds. It is derived from a model of confinement by center vortices using a beautiful topological argument . The $`Y`$-ansatz predicts instead $`V_{qqq}\sigma _{q\overline{q}}L_Y`$, where $`L_Y`$ is the minimal length of the 3 flux tubes necessary to join the 3 quarks at the so-called Steiner point. It is derived from strong coupling arguments , and is consistent with the dual superconductivity confinement scenario . Since $`L_Y>\frac{L_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}`$ for all 3-quark geometries, the $`Y`$-ansatz predicts a steeper potential

$$V_{qqq}^Y(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)=V_{qqq}^\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)+\sigma _{q\overline{q}}(L_Y\frac{L_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})$$
(2)
with $`V_{qqq}^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as per Eq.(1). Both ansätze are constrained to reproduce the diquark limit $`\stackrel{}{r}_j\stackrel{}{r}_k`$, $`V_{qqq}(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_j,\stackrel{}{r}_k)V_{q\overline{q}}(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_j)`$ exactly, and therefore contain no free parameter once $`V_{q\overline{q}}`$ is given. In this respect we differ from the analogous lattice study of , where $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}}`$ and $`\sigma _{qqq}`$ are fitted separately and therefore not strictly equal.

## 2 Technical refinements

Because the difference between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- and the $`Y`$-ansätze is very small ($`1\frac{L_Y}{L_\mathrm{\Delta }/2}\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}`$), high accuracy in the determination of $`V_{qqq}`$ is mandatory. The main difficulty at large quark separation is the contribution of excited $`qqq`$ states. Besides smearing the spatial links as in , we use three additional techniques to control these systematic errors. $`(i)`$ We form a variational basis with different junction locations ($`x,y`$ in Fig. 1). $`(ii)`$ We use multihit for the timelike links. $`(iii)`$ We generalize the multilevel algorithm of , originally proposed for Polyakov loop correlators, to baryonic Wilson loops. This method provides a variance reduction exponential in $`T`$, which allows us to extract the potential from longer loops, with crucially improved filtering of excited states.

## 3 Results

A sample of current results based on 160 analyzed $`16^3\times 32`$ configurations at $`\beta =5.8`$ and $`6.0`$ is shown in Fig. 2 (3 quarks in an equilateral triangle). They are compatible with our earlier measurements , but the reduced errors now clearly show that neither ansatz gives a proper description of the potential. It approaches the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz at short distances as expected, but seems to rise faster, perhaps as fast as the $`Y`$-ansatz, at large distances. Furthermore, the larger the quark separation, the more our variational groundstate favors junctions located near the Steiner point.

To elucidate the asymptotics of the potential, we turned to the 3-state Potts model. This toy model preserves the center degrees of freedom of $`SU(3)`$ and is thus more likely to agree with center-vortex-based predictions of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz. In this model, we measured the 3-spin correlation, after adjusting the coupling to match the $`\beta _{SU(3)}=6.0`$ correlation length. High-precision cluster Monte Carlo results were obtained for multiple 3-spin geometries, in $`2d`$ and $`3d`$. In all cases, the 3-spin correlation behaved just like in $`SU(3)`$, falling “in-between” the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- and the $`Y`$-ansätze. But we could establish that the potential was rising asymptotically $`L_Y`$. Large separations are required to see this. An example is shown in Fig. 3, where the change in action density caused by the 3 sources $`(a)`$ is compared with the superposition $`(c)`$ of $`q\overline{q}`$ action densities $`(b)`$, as predicted by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz. A $`Y`$ string pattern is visible, but the strings are “fat” ($`0.8`$ fm) compared to their length, even though the “quark” separation is $`2.8`$ fm.

Remarkably, the approach to $`Y`$-asymptotia is well described by the same ansatz in the $`2d`$-, $`3d`$\- Potts model and in $`SU(3)`$. As shown in Fig. 4, the measured value of the 3-spin correlation (or $`V_{qqq}`$) falls short of the $`Y`$-prediction by an amount

$$V_{qqq}V_{qqq}^Yc_0+c_1\mathrm{exp}(L_\mathrm{\Delta }/c_2)$$
(3)
where $`c_0,c_1,c_2`$ depend on the $`qqq`$ triangle geometry. For the $`SU(3)`$ equilateral case, $`c_22`$ fm.

## 4 Conclusions

Our results show that the baryonic static potential is neither of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\- nor of the $`Y`$-type. It approaches the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz at short distances, but rises like the $`Y`$-ansatz at large distances. For an equilateral $`qqq`$ arrangement, departure from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz is not significant until $`d_{qq}0.7`$ fm, so that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-ansatz may be the more relevant one for quarks confined inside a hadron.

The delay in the onset of the $`Y`$-behavior is presumably caused by fluctuations in the location of the junction. In the Potts model, locations $`x_J`$ away from the Steiner point are suppressed only if the associated length $`L(x_J)`$ of the “glue” strings exceeds the minimum $`L_Y`$ by an amount comparable to the correlation length $`\xi `$. For a junction coinciding with one of the “quarks”, for example, the inequality $`L(x_J)L_Y\xi `$ becomes satisfied only if $`d_{qq}1.7`$ fm.

Unfortunately, the $`Y`$-behavior at large distances does not help to rule out the center vortex picture of confinement. Rather, the failure of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-type prediction of  appears to be due to additional hidden assumptions about the independence of certain linking numbers.


text:
# UWThPh-2002-26 Four-pion productionWork supported in part by TMR, EC-Contract No. ERBFMRX-CT980169 (EURODAΦNE).

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The production of four pions in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and in $`\tau `$ decays is interesting in its own right but it also represents a non-negligible component of hadronic vacuum polarization. In fact, almost 5 $`\%`$ of the lowest-order hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $`a_\mu `$ is due to four pions . At the level of accuracy required for a comparison of the standard model prediction for $`a_\mu `$ with the recent BNL measurement , better knowledge of this contribution would be welcome (see the discussion in Ref. ). For the determination of the fine structure constant at $`s=M_Z^2`$, the relative importance of the four-pion contribution is even bigger but in this case the available precision is sufficient for the time being.

In this talk, I report on the work of Ref.  where we have constructed the relevant amplitudes up to invariant four-pion masses of about 1 GeV. This is not enough for the purpose of calculating $`a_\mu `$, but it is a first step in this direction. Even if it is impossible to calculate the amplitudes directly from QCD our aim was to construct amplitudes that are at least consistent with QCD. This program turned out to have some surprises in store.

The procedure of Ref.  starts from a calculation to next-to-leading order in the low-energy expansion of QCD, employing the methods of chiral perturbation theory (CHPT) . The corresponding low-energy amplitudes cannot be used directly in the physical region because the four-pion threshold of 560 MeV is already close to the resonance region. But the low-energy amplitudes contain nontrivial information how to continue to higher energies. At next-to-leading order, the traces of $`\rho `$ and scalar meson exchange appear in the amplitudes. Supplemented by $`\omega `$, $`a_1`$ and double $`\rho `$ exchange, the resulting $`e^+e^{}`$ cross sections describe the available experimental data very well up to cms energies of about 1 GeV.

## 2 SYMMETRIES AND LOW-ENERGY LIMIT

There are altogether four different channels accessible in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\tau `$ decays into four pions. In the isospin limit that we assume throughout, the amplitudes of either $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$  or $`\tau ^{}\nu _\tau 2\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$  are sufficient to determine all four amplitudes. One important advantage of the chiral approach is that not only chiral symmetry but also charge conjugation invariance, Bose symmetry and electromagnetic gauge invariance are manifest at each stage of the calculation.

At leading order in the low-energy expansion, the amplitude is completely determined by “virtual” bremsstrahlung. From the diagrams in Fig. 1, the matrix element of the electromagnetic current governing the amplitude for $`e^+e^{}2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is found to be

$`\pi ^0(p_1)\pi ^0(p_2)\pi ^+(p_3)\pi ^{}(p_4)|J_{\mathrm{elm}}^\mu (0)|0`$ $`=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{sM_\pi ^2}{F_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p_3^\mu }{2p_3qq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_4^\mu }{2p_4qq^2}}\right),`$ (1)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$, $`q=p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4`$ and $`F_\pi =`$ 92.4 MeV is the pion decay constant. This matrix element has a very suggestive structure: $`(sM_\pi ^2)/F_\pi ^2`$ is the (lowest-order) scattering amplitude for $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and the second term reduces to the usual bremsstrahlung factor for real photons ($`q^20`$).

Although the amplitude (1) is by itself not of direct phenomenological relevance we can use the isospin relations  and calculate also the leading-order $`\tau `$ decay amplitudes. In the chiral limit ($`M_\pi =0`$), those amplitudes should coincide with those of Ref. . Unfortunately, there are two (identical) misprints in Ref.  that have moreover propagated into some of the subsequent literature ( and references therein). Although the structure is correct, the normalization is not: the correct amplitude (1) and the corresponding $`\tau `$ decay amplitudes are smaller by a factor $`\sqrt{2}/(3\sqrt{3})`$ (or $`1/13.5`$ in rate). This normalization error also affects the so-called CLEO current  in the Monte Carlo package TAUOLA .

The “current algebra” amplitude (1) is important for checking the low-energy limit of QCD but it is not a realistic approximation in the physical region. In order to see the traces of meson resonance exchange, we have to go at least to next-to-leading order.

## 3 RESONANCE EXCHANGE

At next-to-leading order in the chiral expansion, the amplitude consists of two parts: a loop amplitude  and a tree amplitude containing the (renormalized) coupling constants of the chiral Lagrangian of $`O(p^4)`$ . With the standard values of those constants, one arrives at cross sections that are still unrealistic. As indicated by the dotted curves in Figs. 2,3, the theoretical cross sections are significantly smaller than the measured ones.

The seeds of meson resonance exchange appear first in the coupling constants of $`O(p^4)`$. In fact, those constants are known to be saturated by meson resonance exchange to a large extent . This saturation makes the matching between the strictly chiral amplitude to $`O(p^4)`$ and a more realistic meson resonance exchange amplitude almost trivial. Using the standard chiral resonance Lagrangian , the resonance amplitudes are guaranteed to exhibit the correct low-energy behaviour to $`O(p^4)`$.

In four-pion production, only the $`\rho `$ and the (isoscalar) scalar mesons contribute at $`O(p^4)`$. As could have been expected, $`\rho `$ exchange dominates by far. The overall contribution from scalar exchange turns out to be very small so that the controversial structure of the scalar sector is not relevant in practice.

The modified amplitudes with $`\rho `$ and scalar exchange are definitely more realistic than the chiral low-energy amplitudes. However, except in the vicinity of the $`\rho `$ pole, the resulting cross sections are still too small (not shown in Figs. 2,3). The obvious lesson is that important ingredients of the amplitudes are still missing that only show up at orders $`p^6`$ or higher in the chiral expansion.

The most important missing degrees of freedom are easily found: both quantum number considerations and experimental information  indicate that $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange must be incorporated. Whereas the lowest-order coupling of the $`\omega `$ to pions is unique, there is some ambiguity in the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings (to be resolved eventually by studies of three-pion production ). With a simplifying assumption for those couplings , including double $`\rho `$ exchange that also comes in at $`O(p^6)`$ and performing a resummation of some terms making up the $`\rho `$-dominated pion form factor, the amplitudes assume their final form. Except for the ambiguity in the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings, all resonance couplings can be determined from the respective decay widths.

## 4 COMPARISON WITH DATA

The two main assets of our amplitudes are:

* They contain the relevant degrees of freedom for describing four-pion production up to energies of about 1 GeV.
* They exhibit the correct low-energy behaviour to $`O(p^4)`$ by construction.

For energies below 1 GeV, annihilation data are available for the channel $`2\pi ^+2\pi ^{}`$ mainly. In Fig. 2, the theoretical cross sections are compared with the most recent (and most precise) data from the CMD-2 Collaboration  (see Ref.  for the full data set). The cross section for our model is shown as the full curve. The dashed curve corresponds to omitting the loop amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$  (except for the contribution to the width of the $`\rho `$ meson). The obvious conclusion is that the amplitude is completely dominated by resonance exchange. Although a possible enhancement of the cross section in the region between 800 and 900 MeV could not be explained with our amplitude the gross features of the data can be reproduced over a range of two orders of magnitude with almost no free parameters. In retrospect, the simplifying assumption for the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings (that actually has a theoretical basis ) is justified by comparison with experiment: other choices for the couplings could not reproduce the data. Note that $`\omega `$ exchange does not contribute in this channel: the cross section near 1 GeV is completely dominated by $`a_1`$ exchange.

The experimental situation is less satisfactory for the other annihilation channel $`2\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The most precise experiment  has measured the cross section at only two energies below 1.05 GeV. The comparison between theory and experiment is shown in Fig. 3. The loop contribution is even less relevant in this case. The theoretical cross section increases by three orders of magnitude from the $`\rho `$ resonance to match the two data points. For this channel, the cross section near 1 GeV is dominated by $`\omega `$ exchange. The theoretical prediction is therefore less sensitive to assumptions about the $`a_1\rho \pi `$ couplings.

Our amplitudes and the corresponding cross sections cannot be extended to the phenomenologically most interesting region above 1 GeV without further input. The reason is that the amplitudes do not satisfy the high-energy constraints of QCD. In fact, the theoretical cross sections exceed the data soon above 1 GeV of cms energy. Additional higher-mass states must be included to access the region up to 2 GeV and to ensure a proper high-energy behaviour. Resummations similar to the pion form factor may also be necessary.

From our amplitudes we can also extract the branching ratios for the four-pion decay modes of the $`\rho ^0`$. For $`q^2=M_\rho ^2`$ several contributions to the amplitudes are of comparable size, with partly destructive interference. In this way, uncertainties in the resonance couplings are enhanced. We therefore quote predictions for the branching ratios with a 40 $`\%`$ uncertainty:

$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^+2\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(6.7\pm 2.7)\times 10^6`$ (2)
$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(5.0\pm 2.0)\times 10^6.`$ (3)
For comparison, the Particle Data Group  lists

$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^+2\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.8\pm 0.9)\times 10^5`$ (4)
$`BR(\rho ^02\pi ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`<`$ $`4\times 10^5.`$ (5)
## 5 CONCLUSIONS

The following features of our model for four-pion production are worth repeating:

* The amplitudes exhibit the correct low-energy structure to $`O(p^4)`$ in the chiral expansion.
* All symmetries of the transitions are manifest in the QFT framework of CHPT: (broken) chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, Bose symmetry and charge conjugation.
* In addition to $`\rho `$ (and the less important scalar) exchange, $`\omega `$ and $`a_1`$ exchange are crucial for understanding the experimental results already at energies below 1 GeV.
* Good agreement with available data is obtained, covering several orders of magnitude in cross sections.
* To extend the amplitudes to energies above 1 GeV, the correct high-energy behaviour still needs to be implemented. For the same reason, comparison with $`\tau `$ decay data is postponed.


text:
# Generation of pulsed polarization entangled photon pair via a space cascaded two-crystal geometry

## Abstract

The generation of pulsed polarization entangled photon pair has been realized using type-I phase matching in the spontaneous parametirc downconversion process in a space cascaded two-crystal geometry. The optical axes of the crystal are aligned in such a way that the horizontal polarization photon pair is produced from up crystal, and the vertical polarization photon pair is produced from down crystal. These two processes are simultaneous, but are separable in space. We get the high entangled polarization photon pair by using the single mode fiber to erase the spatial information between these two processes. This photon pair exhibits more than 86% high-visibility quantum interference for polarization variable without the narrowband filter and temporal compensation.

42.50.Dv

Quantum entanglement is one of the most striking features of quantum mechanics. Entangled states of two or more particles not only provide possibilities to test basic concepts of quantum mechanics, but also form the basis of quantum information, make such phenomena as quantum cryptography , teleportation , dense coding  and quantum computation  possible. So, it is clear that preparation of maximally entangled state , or Bell state , is an important subject in modern experiment quantum optics. At present, the most accessible and controllable source of entanglement is the process of Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC) in a nonlinear crystal. \[6-10\] SPDC can be used to generate the entangled photon states using type-I or type-II phase matching. In type-I phase matching, the two paired down-converted photons have the same polarizations and they emitted along concentric cones around the direction of pump beam. In type-II phase matching, the down-converted photons have orthogonal polarizations. Those differently polarized photons are emitted along two different cones with cone axes at opposite sides of the pump beam. For two particular emission directions, the correlated photons are produced in the state $`|HV+|VH`$ . Recently, Kwiat et. al used two thin nonlinear crystals to prepare Bell state using non-collinear type-I SPDC.  In their scheme, these two crystals were arranged in cascade with their optical axes perpendicular to each other. By pumping with two orthogonally polarized pump beams , one can generated , for example, horizontal photons from the first crystal or vertical photons from the second crystals. With cw pump, these two down-conversions are mutually coherent and form an entangled state. Another kind of entangled state called ”Time-Bin” entangled was discussed by Gisin’s group . In cw pumped SPDC, there are readily available well-developed methods of preparing the polarization Bell state. For applications in quantum information field, cw pumped SPDC is not very useful, because the entangled photon pairs occur randomly with the coherence length of the pump laser. This huge time uncertainty makes it difficult to use in many applications, such as quantum teleportation, quantum swapping, the generation of multi-photon entangled state  and so on, because in these processes, the interaction between different photons generated from different sources are required. One way to solve this difficulty is using a femtosecond pulsed laser as a pump. Unfortunately, femtosecond pulse pumped type-II SPDC shows very poor quantum correlation compared to cw case due to the very different behavior of two-photon wavepacket . In order to get high visibility of quantum interference, usually, two ways are used: one is using very thin nonlinear crystal; another way is using a very narrow interference filter in front of detector. But even we use one of these two ways or both, we also can not achieve high interference visibility in principle , besides reduce the available flux of entangled photon pair significantly.

Recently, Kim et. al present a way for preparation of Bell state using femtosecond pulse pumped SPDC.  In their scheme, an interferometric technique is used to remove the intrinsic distinguishability in femtosecond-pulse-pumped SPDC process. The two photon entangled state exhibits high-visibility quantum interference. The advantages of this method is: visibility is insensitive to the thick of crystals, also insensitive to the narrow-band filter. Usami et. al used the same crystal geometry as Kwiat’s, but pumped by femtosecond pulse laser to produce entangled polarization photon pair. In order to restore the high entanglement, they used a narrow band interference filter in their experiment. Nambu et. al  used the same crystal but used pre-compensation method to get high entanglement. Bitton et. al  also present a scheme to produce the polarization-entangled photon pair pumped by femtosecond laser. The geometry of crystal is also similar to Kwiat’s geometry. The difference is two cascaded crystals are cut with type-II phase matching. Very recently, Kim and Grice  give a theoretical method to generate the pulsed polarization entangled photon pair via temporal and spectral engineering. In schemes , a suitable optical delay should be included. If without this delay, no Bell state can be produced. In Ref. , a very narrow band interference filter is needed in order to get good quantum correlation. In this paper, we present a novel way to produce pulsed polarization entangled photon pair using type-I phase matching SPDC process in a space cascaded two-crystal geometry, this polarization entangled photon pair exhibits high-visibility quantum inference for polarization experimentally. The main advantages of this scheme are as follows: we do not need to consider the suitable time compensation; In principle, visibility should be insensitive to the thickness of crystal, so we can use thicker crystal to increase the intensity of photon pair; The post-selection on spectrum by the narrow bandwidth filter is not needed. In the follows, we show our scheme in detail.

In our two-crystal geometry, two identical 5x2.5x1mm BBO crystals (produced by CASIX optronics Inc.) are used. They are oriented with their optical axes aligned in perpendicular plane, and stacked in vertical direction. Please refer to Fig. 1. These two crystals are cut collinearly in type-I phase matching, phase matching angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m=29.18^{}`$. If one beam with diameter a and 45 degree polarization pumps these two crystals , then for example, up crystal will produce horizontal polarization photon pair $`|HH`$, and down crystal will produce vertical polarization photon pair $`|VV`$. Obviously, these two processes are simultaneous, but are separable in space. If we make the spatial information about these two possible SPDC process indistinguishable, (In our experiment, we use the single mode fiber to realize it.) then these two possible downconversion processes are coherent. In our two-crystal geometry, we just consider the collinear process, so a postselection on amplitude is needed in order to get the polarization entangled state $`|HH+|VV`$. (But postselection is not needed in principle, for example, we can use non-degenerated phase matching to solve it)

Observation of high-visibility quantum interference is a test of the degree of quantum entanglement. In quantum interference experiment for polarization, more than 86% visibility of two-photon quantum interference is obtained without narrow band filter and any time compensation. Consider the experimental setup shown in Fig. 2. A femtosecond laser from a mode-locked Ti: sapphire laser (coherent: Vitesse) is used to pump a 1mm BBO crystal cut with type-I phase matching to get frequency doubled radiation. The wavelength of femtosecond laser is 800nm, the pulse width is less than 100fs. Power of laser is about 870mw. Repetition rate is 80MHz. A prism , two dichroic mirrors which transmit 800nm light and reflect 400nm light , one 40nm interference filter with center wavelength 400nm and a polarizer are combined to cut remainder 800nm light. After pass a half waveplate, about 70mw 400nm laser with 45 degree polarization is used to pump our two-crystal SPDC source. We use another two dichroic mirrors and one prism to cut remainder 400nm light. After that, we couple photon pair to a 1m long single mode fiber (operation wavelength 800nm). The output of fiber is input to a 50/50 beamsplitter. At each output port of the beamsplitter, a detector package consisting of a Glan-Thompson analyzer A1 or A2 and a single-photon detector (PerkinElmer SPCM-AQR-14-FC) are placed. We do not use any narrow interference filter before detector, just place a bandpass filter (CVI company, LPF-750-1.00, transmit from 750nm) before the beamsplitter. The outputs of detectors are sent to coincidence circuit for coincidence counting. The coincidence circuit consists of a time-to-amplitude converter and single-channel analyzer (TAC/SCA) and a counter. The time window of coincidence counting is 2ns. The key of this experiment is how to make coincidence counting producing from two crystals equal. In experiment, we do it by adjusting the height of crystal. Then we fix the polarizer A2 in 45 degree, and rotate the polarizer A1 with each step 10 degree. From theory, we know, for the state $`|HH+|VV`$, it should exhibit the polarization interference in coincidence counting rate if we do the two-photon interference experiment, and interference pattern should correspond to the expression: $`R_c\mathrm{cos}^2(\mathrm{\Theta }_1+\mathrm{\Theta }_2)`$, where, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are angles of polarizer A1 and A2. Experimentally, we get the polarization interference pattern shown in Fig. 3. The visibility is more than 86% (including accidental coincidence counting). In principle, visibility should be 100%. The reason that it does not reach 100% , we think, it mainly is that the photon pairs from different crystals are not equal exactly. We can make them equal in principle, but it is difficult during the experiment. From the Fig. 3, we see that the first peak is lower than the second peak. We try experiment several times, this phenomena always exists, so we think that it may be caused by the small position shift of polarizer when it is rotated. During experiment, the single counting is almost unchanged. We measure that the fluctuation of single counting is less than 7%. This small change maybe due to expectedly high background light, for example, from BBO crystals. In our experiment, background count is almost equal to true single count from SPDC . Such high background light mainly consists of two parts: one is from bad dark condition of our laboratory; another is from light reflected from many optical components, such as prisms, BBO crystals, mirrors etc. To make sure the state is really a polarization Bell state, we change the polarizer A2 to different angles and do the same experiments. Experimentally, interference patterns also shift the same angle as polarizer A2 shifts and almost same visibilities of quantum interference are observed, which means that the state we observed is truly a polarization entangled state.

One of main advantage of this scheme is that no any temporal compensation is needed. In our setup, two pumps arrive at crystal at the same time. In each crystal, the SPDC light is ordinary light, so no delay is introduced between two SPDC processes if two crystals have same length. The photon pair from up or down crystal leaves the crystal at the same time averagely, they are just separable in space. So from temporal point, we do not need to do any compensation like in previous experiments \[15-19\] using optical delay or narrow band interference filter. Another advantage is that our scheme is insensitive to length of crystal. The wavepackets of photon pairs from up crystal and from down crystals are the same irrespective of crystal lengthen. So, we can increase photon pair flux by using thicker crystal. The disadvantage of this scheme is that it need erase the space distinguishable information between two possible SPDC processes. In our experiment, we use the degenerate collinear phase-matching, so it need amplitude postselection to get the entangled state. But in principle, we can overcome this problem, for example, using collinear non-degenerate phase-matching.

The other three Bell states can be prepared by inserting the combination of a half waveplate and a $`\pi `$ phase shifter. Using our scheme, non-maximally-entangled state , i.e., states of the form $`HH+ϵVV,`$where, $`\left|ϵ\right|1`$, may be produced, simply by adjusting the height of crystals or the angle of half waveplate. This kind of state has been shown useful in reducing the required detector efficiencies in loop-free tests of Bell’s inequalities . Moreover, by our scheme, the arbitrary (partially) mixed state of type $`\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }|HHHH\left|+\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\right|VVVV|`$ can be produced. We need only do no compensation in space (for mixed state ) or partially compensate in space (for partially mixed state).

In summary. We present a novel scheme to produce Bell state using femtosecond pulse pump. We also show strong polarization correlation experimentally. One of main advantage is that no optical delay or narrow band interference filter for high quantum interference visibility. Besides, we can use thick crystal to get high intensity of photon pair. The disadvantage of this scheme is that the spatial compensation is needed.

We thank Prof. Imai for support. We thank K. Usami , Dr. S. Kouno for valuable discussions and technical support. Shi also thank Dr. Y. K. Jiang of Universit$`\stackrel{\mathrm{`}}{a}`$ dell’ Insubria for careful reading this manuscript and useful comments.