text:
# The Role of Phonon Mechanism in Electron Coupling

## Abstract

In this article in the framework of generalized Frolich model we consider electron-spin-phonon system. A parameter of electron-spin-phonon interaction is found. It is shown its interrelation with experiments on isotope-effect on high temperature superconductors and asymptotic transformation to BCS theory .

PACS: 74.70.H

Keywords: Cooper’s pairs; Spin-fluctuation and phonon mechanism; Electron-spin-phonon interaction

Experimental study of high temperature superconductors have shown that electron-phonon interaction decreases with the raise of critical temperature $`T_c`$ . Thus electron coupling based only on phonon mechanism – the technique used to explain low temperature superconductivity – fails to explain high critical temperatures . One can propose that in order to explain high $`T_c`$ a theory with more complex mechanism in which the role of phonons decreases but does not vanish should be considered.

In this article in the framework of generalized Frolich model we will consider electron-spin-phonon interaction which is formed by the sum of electron-phonon, electron-spin and electron-spin-phonon interacting terms.

We start from the Hamiltonian of electron-spin-phonon system

$`\widehat{H}_{e+ph+s}=\widehat{H}_e+\widehat{H}_{ph}+\widehat{H}_s+\widehat{H}_{eph}+\widehat{H}_{es}+\widehat{H}_{sph}+\widehat{H}_{esph}`$ (1)
Now let us write the terms corresponding to the interaction of electrons with phonons and longitudinal spin modes

$`\widehat{H}_{eph}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{ph}}{\omega _D}i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{ck\nu }}{2}}(n_\nu e_\nu )(\widehat{b}_{k_1\nu }+\widehat{b}_{k_1\nu }^+)\widehat{c}_{k_2}^+\widehat{c}_{(k_2k_1)}}`$ (2)
$`\widehat{H}_{es}=\eta {\displaystyle \frac{(p_{\nu e}n_\nu )}{\sqrt{\mu _e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{sk}}{2}}(\widehat{a}_{k_1z}\widehat{a}_{k_1z}^+)\widehat{c}_{k_2}^+\widehat{c}_{(k_2k_1)}}`$ (3)
$`\widehat{H}_{esph}=\zeta \eta {\displaystyle \frac{(p_{\nu ^{}e}n_\nu ^{})}{\sqrt{\mu _e}}}(n_\nu e_3){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{ck3}}{2}}(\widehat{b}_{k_13}\widehat{b}_{k_13}^+)\widehat{c}_{k_2}^+\widehat{c}_{(k_2k_1)}}`$ (4)
here $`g_{ph}`$, $`\zeta `$, $`\eta `$ – are the coupling constants of electron and phonon subsystem, spin and phonon subsystem, electron and spin subsystem, $`a^+`$, $`a`$; $`b^+`$, $`b`$; $`c^+`$, $`c`$ – creation and annihilation operators of magnons, phonons, and electrons, $`\omega _D`$ – is the Debye frequency, that is the maximum frequency of phonons which take part in the interaction, vectors $`e_\nu `$ represent phonon polarizations ($`\nu =1,2,3`$), $`n_\nu =k_\nu /|k_\nu |`$, where $`k_\nu `$ is the wave vector, $`c`$ – the sound velocity, $`\omega _{sk}=J_0s\sqrt{(k/k_c)^21}`$ – the frequency of the longitudinal spin mode linearly coupled with phonons, $`J_0`$ – the exchange potential, $`s=1/2`$ is the spin of electron, $`k_c=2\pi /r_c`$, $`r_c`$ – the exchange correlation radius, $`\omega _{ck1,2}=ck`$ and $`\omega _{ck3}=ck\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}`$ – the frequency of the phonon mode linearly coupled with the longitudinal spin mode, $`p_{e\nu }`$ – momentum of electron, $`\mu _e`$ – electron mass.

Using generalized Bogoliubov’s transformation we represent operators $`a^+`$, $`a`$ and $`b^+`$, $`b`$ in the following form

$$\widehat{a}_{zk}=u_{zzk}\widehat{c}_{zk}+v_{zz;k}^{}\widehat{c}_{z;k}^++u_{z3k}\widehat{d}_{3k}+v_{z3;k}^{}\widehat{d}_{3;k}^+$$
(5)
$$\widehat{a}_{z;k}^+=u_{zz;k}^{}\widehat{c}_{z;k}^++v_{zzk}\widehat{c}_{zk}+u_{z3;k}^{}\widehat{d}_{k;3}^++v_{z3k}\widehat{d}_{k;3}$$
(6)
$$\widehat{b}_{3k}=u_{33k}\widehat{d}_{3k}+v_{33;k}^{}\widehat{d}_{3;k}^++u_{3zk}\widehat{c}_{zk}+v_{3z;k}^{}\widehat{c}_{z;k}^+$$
(7)
$$\widehat{b}_{3;k}^+=u_{33;k}^{}\widehat{d}_{3;k}^++v_{33k}\widehat{d}_{3k}+u_{3z;k}^{}\widehat{c}_{z;k}^++v_{3zk}\widehat{c}_{3k}$$
(8)
The integral equation for the energy gap is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\epsilon )=_0^{\mathrm{}\omega _c}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\epsilon ^{})}{\epsilon ^{}}Q(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})th\frac{\epsilon ^{}}{2T}𝑑\epsilon ^{},$$

where $`\omega _c`$ is close to the order of maximum coupled spin-phonon oscillations. The kernel of this integral equation can be written in the form $`Q=Q_{eph}+Q_{es}+Q_{esph}`$. Each term can be presented as the sum of the Green functions using coefficients in (2)-(4) . Considering the long-waves limit we get

$$Q_{eph}(k)=N(0)\frac{2g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}}+N(0)\frac{g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}}[|u_{33k}+v_{33k}|^2\frac{\omega _{ck3}}{\epsilon _{3k}}+|u_{3zk}+v_{3zk}|^2\frac{\omega _{ck3}}{\epsilon _{sk}}]$$

$`Q_{es}(k)=N(0){\displaystyle \frac{p_F^2}{3\mu _e}}\eta ^2[|u_{zzk}v_{zzk}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{sk}}{\epsilon _{sk}}}+|u_{z3k}v_{z3k}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{sk}}{\epsilon _{3k}}}]`$ (9)
$$Q_{esph}(k)=N(0)\zeta ^2\frac{p_F^2}{9\mu _e}\eta ^2[|u_{33k}v_{33k}|^2\frac{\omega _{ck3}}{\epsilon _{3k}}+|u_{3zk}v_{3zk}|^2\frac{\omega _{ck3}}{\epsilon _{sk}}]$$

here $`\omega _{D_0}`$ – is the representative value of Debye frequency in the BCS theory of low temperature superconductors, while $`\omega _{D_1}=\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}`$ is the Debye frequency in the electron-spin-phonon system, $`\epsilon _{sk}`$ and $`\epsilon _{3k}`$ – are the frequencies of coupled spin-phonon oscillations, and $`N(0)`$ – is the density of electron states on Fermi surface. Please note that $`g_{ph}`$ is equal to zero when $`k>2k_F`$, while $`\zeta `$ and $`\eta `$ are constants.

Let us now consider the additional contribution to the Coulomb repulsion of electrons which appears as a result of spin-electron interaction. In the simplest case of isotropic Fermi surface this contribution is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =N(0){\displaystyle \frac{p_F^2}{3\mu _e}}\eta ^2`$ (10)
Now let us write the value of $`Q_{es}(k)`$ with this contribution

$$Q_{es}(k)=N(0)\frac{p_F^2}{3\mu _e}\eta ^2[|u_{zzk}v_{zzk}|^2\frac{\omega _{sk}}{\epsilon _{sk}}+|u_{z3k}v_{z3k}|^2\frac{\omega _{sk}}{\epsilon _{3k}}1]$$
(11)
Substituting the explicit values of functions $`u_{33k}`$, $`v_{33k}`$, $`u_{3zk}`$, $`v_{3zk}`$, $`u_{z3k}`$, $`v_{z3k}`$, $`u_{zzk}`$, $`v_{zzk}`$, to (9), (11) we obtain

$$Q_{eph}(k)=N(0)\frac{2g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}}+\nu (\epsilon _F)\frac{g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}}q_{eph}(k)$$

$`Q_{es}(k)=N(0){\displaystyle \frac{p_F^2}{3\mu _e}}\eta ^2\left[q_{es}1\right]`$ (12)
$$Q_{esph}(k)=N(0)\frac{p_F^2}{9\mu _e}\eta ^2\zeta ^2q_{esph}(k)$$

where

$$q_{eph}(k)=\frac{z^2\omega _{sk}^2\omega _{ck3}^2}{(\epsilon _{3k}^2\epsilon _{sk}^2)(\epsilon _{3k}^2\omega _{ck3}^2)}+\frac{(\epsilon _{sk}^2\omega _{sk}^2)}{(\epsilon _{sk}^2\epsilon _{3k}^2)}$$

$$q_{es}(k)=\frac{z^2\omega _{sk}^4\omega _{ck3}^2}{\epsilon _{sk}^2(\epsilon _{sk}^2\epsilon _{3k}^2)(\epsilon _{sk}^2\omega _{sk}^2)}+\frac{\omega _{sk}^2(\epsilon _{3k}^2\omega _{ck3}^2)}{\epsilon _{3k}^2(\epsilon _{3k}^2\epsilon _{sk}^2)}$$

$$q_{esph}(k)=\frac{z^2\omega _{sk}^2\omega _{ck3}^4}{\epsilon _{3k}^2(\epsilon _{3k}^2\epsilon _{sk}^2)(\epsilon _{3k}^2\omega _{3k}^2)}+\frac{\omega _{3k}^2(\epsilon _{sk}^2\omega _{sk}^2)}{\epsilon _{sk}^2(\epsilon _{sk}^2\epsilon _{3k}^2)}$$

Let us now compute $`Q_{eph}(k)`$, $`Q_{es}(k)`$, and $`Q_{esph}(k)`$ explicitly. We introduce the following functions

$`w_{eph}=q_{eph}(k);`$ (13)
$$w_{es}=\frac{1}{1+\zeta ^2}q_{es}(k);$$

$$w_{esph}=\frac{1}{1+\zeta ^2}q_{esph}(k).$$

For $`k>k_c`$ the functions $`w_{eph}`$, $`w_{es}`$, and $`w_{esph}`$ are equal to $`1`$. Let us note that since the pairing is performed in the range $`r<r_c`$ and $`k_c=2\pi /r_c`$ the range $`k>k_c`$ is of our interest. Thus using (13) we get

$$q_{eph}(k)=1;$$
(14)
$$q_{es}(k)=1+\zeta ^2;$$

$$q_{esph}(k)=1+\zeta ^2.$$

Results of numerical simulation of these functions are presented on Fig.1.

Using these results we simplify (12) getting

$`Q_{eph}(k)=N(0){\displaystyle \frac{2g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}}}+N(0){\displaystyle \frac{g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}}}`$ (15)
$$Q_{es}(k)=N(0)\frac{p_F^2}{3\mu _e}\eta ^2\zeta ^2$$

$$Q_{esph}(k)=N(0)\zeta ^2\frac{p_F^2}{9\mu _e}\eta ^2(1+\zeta ^2).$$

Now $`Q(k)`$ will be

$`Q(k)=N(0)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_F^2}{9\mu _e}}\zeta ^2\eta ^2(4+\zeta ^2)\right]`$ (16)
Let us consider two frequency ranges. The range $`\omega <\omega _{D_0}`$ corresponds to low temperature super conductivity, while the range $`\omega >\omega _{D_0}`$ corresponds to high temperature superconductivity.

In the range $`\omega >\omega _{D_0}`$ the expression (16) takes the form

$$Q(k)=N(0)\left[\frac{g_{ph}^2}{3\omega _{D_0}\sqrt{1+\zeta ^2}}+\frac{p_F^2}{9\mu _e}\zeta ^2\eta ^2(4+\zeta ^2)\right]$$
(17)
From (17) we see that electron-phonon interaction decreases with the raise of critical temperature (that is with the raise of frequency). This fact is supported by experiments on isotope-effect, which shows that electron-phonon interaction should be taken into consideration . Although since electron-phonon interaction alone is not enough to explain high critical temperatures, one should consider more complex interaction, like spin-electron-phonon interaction, as it is done in the present work.It was shown in experiments on La2CuO4 that for $`T>T_N`$ spin fluctuations have high energy and the velocity of spin fluctuations ($`10^6`$ cm/s) is greater than the sound velocity ($`10^5`$ cm/s) .

In the range $`\omega <\omega _{D_0}`$ we have

$$\zeta =\frac{\sqrt{3}g\mathrm{}k_c}{\sqrt{J_0sM}}0$$

here $`M`$ is the reduced mass of ion, $`g=U/J_0`$, where $`U`$ is the electron-ion potential. Now the expression (16) takes the form

$$Q(k)=N(0)\frac{g_{ph}^2}{\omega _{D_0}},$$

which is exactly the electron-phonon interaction term in BCS theory.

Let us note that spin fluctuations exist in all superconductors. Although in low temperature superconductors this fluctuations are small and thus do not seriously affect electron coupling. On the other hand in high temperature superconductors these fluctuations increases due to the second term in (17).

Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to B.I. Sadovnikov for constant attention to this work, the author is also grateful to M.A. Savchenko for fruitful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Once again about beam-size or MD-effect at colliding beams

## I INTRODUCTION

### I.1 Beam-size or MD-effect

The so called beam-size or MD-effect is a phenomenon discovered in experiments Blinov82  at the MD-1 detector (the VEPP-4 accelerator with $`e^+e^{}`$ colliding beams , Novosibirsk 1981). It was found out that for ordinary bremsstrahlung, macroscopically large impact parameters should be taken into consideration. These impact parameters may be much larger than the transverse sizes of the interacting particle bunches. In that case, the standard calculations, which do not take into account this fact, will give incorrect results. The detailed description of the MD-effect can be found in review KSS .

In $`1980`$$`1981`$ a dedicated study of the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma `$ has been performed at the collider VEPP-$`4`$ in Novosibirsk using the detector MD-1 for an energy of the electron and positron beams $`E_e=E_p=1.8`$ GeV and in a wide interval of the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ from $`0.5`$ MeV to $`E_\gamma E_e`$. It was observed Blinov82  that the number of measured photons was smaller than that expected. The deviation from the standard calculation reached $`30\%`$ in the region of small photon energies and vanished for large energies of the photons. A. Tikhonov Tikhonov82  pointed out that those impact parameters $`\varrho `$, which give an essential contribution to the standard cross section, reach values of $`\varrho _m5`$ cm whereas the transverse size of the bunch is $`\sigma _{}10^3`$ cm. The limitation of the impact parameters to values $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$ is just the reason for the decreasing number of observed photons.

The first calculations of this effect have been performed in Refs. BKS  and BD  using different versions of quasi–classical calculations in the region of large impact parameters. Further experiments, including the measurement of the radiation probability as function of the beam parameters, supported the concept that the effect arises from the limitation of the impact parameters. Later on, the effect of limited impact parameters was taken into account when the single bremsstrahlung was used for measuring the luminosity at the VEPP–$`4`$ collider Blinov88  and at the LEP-I collider Bini94 . In the case of the VEPP–$`4`$ experiment Blinov88 , it was checked that the luminosities obtained using either this process or using other reactions (such as the double bremsstrahlung process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$, where the MD-effect is absent) agreed with each other.

A general scheme to calculate the finite beam size effect had been developed in paper KPS85a  starting from the quantum description of collisions as an interaction of wave packets forming bunches. Since the effect under discussion is dominated by small momentum transfer, the general formulae can be considerably simplified. The corresponding approximate formulae were given. They are obtained from an analysis of Feynman diagrams and it allows to estimate the accuracy of approximation. In a second step, the transverse motion of the particles in the beams can be neglected. The less exact (but simpler) formulae, which are then found, correspond to the results of Refs. BKS  and BD . It has also been shown that similar effects have to be expected for several other reactions such as bremsstrahlung for colliding $`ep`$–beams KPS85b , KPSS88 , $`e^+e^{}`$– pair production in $`e^\pm e`$ and $`\gamma e`$ collisions KPS85a . The corresponding corrections to the standard formulae are now included in programs for simulation of events at linear colliders. The influence of MD-effect on polarization had been considered in Ref. KKSS89 .

The possibility to create high-energy colliding $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ beams is now wildly discussed. For several processes at such colliders a new type of beam-size effect will take place — the so called linear beam-size effect KMS . The calculation of this effect had been performed by method developed for MD-effect in KPS85a .

In 1995 the MD-effect was experimentally observed at the electron-proton collider HERA Piot95  on the level predicted in KPSS88 .

It was realized in last years that MD-effect in bremsstrahlung plays important role for the problem of beam lifetime. At storage rings TRISTAN and LEP-I, the process of a single bremsstrahlung was the dominant mechanism for the particle losses in beams. If electron loses more than $`1\%`$ of its energy, it leaves the beam. Since MD-effect reduced considerable the effective cross section of this process, the calculated beam lifetime in these storage rings was larger by about $`25\%`$ for TRISTAN Funakoshi  and by about $`40\%`$ for LEP-I Burkhard  (in accordance with the experimental data) then without taken into account the MD-effect.

According to our calculations KS02 , at B-factories PEP-II and KEKB the MD-effect reduces beam losses due to bremsstrahlung by about 20%.

It is seen from this brief listing that the MD-effect is a phenomenon interesting from the theoretical point of view and important from the experimental point of view.

### I.2 Essence of the Baier-Katkov paper

In recent paper BK02 , previous results BKS , BD , KPS85a  about bremsstrahlung spectrum had been revised. It was claimed that an additional “subtraction associated with the extraction of pure fluctuation process” has to be done. The reason to perform such an subtraction explained as follows: “At the beam collision the momentum transfer may arise due to interaction of the emitting particle with the opposite beam as a whole (due to coherent interaction with average field of the beam) and due to interaction with an individual particle of the opposite beam. Here we consider the incoherent process only (connected with the incoherent fluctuation of density) and so we have to subtract the coherent contribution”. Analysis, performed in paper BK02 , results in the conclusion that this additional “subtraction term” in the spectrum is not important for the MD-1 experiment Blinov82 , but it should be taken into account in processing the HERA experiment Piot95 ; it also may be important for the future experiments at linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. It should be noted that in paper BK02  there is no derivation of the starting formulae, and all physical reasons for such a subtraction were cited above. On the other hand, in paper BK02  there is a general remark that their consideration was motivated by corresponding calculations for bremsstrahlung of ultra-relativistic electrons on oriented crystals.

In the present paper we analyze the coherent and incoherent contributions in the conditions, considered in paper BK02 , when the coherent length $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}`$ is much smaller than the bunch length $`l`$ but much larger than the mean distance between particles $`a`$, i.e. $`al_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$. We derive expressions for the coherent and incoherent contributions and show that under these conditions the coherent contribution is completely negligible and, therefore, there is no need to revise the previous results. This conclusion is quite natural. A usual bunch at colliders can be considered as a gaseous media with a smooth particle distribution which has characteristic scales of the order of bunch sizes. In particular, the average particle density in such a bunch has the only scale in the longitudinal direction — the length of the bunch $`l`$. Therefore, the average field of the bunch has the spectral components in the region of frequancies $`\omega =q_zcc/l_{\mathrm{coh}}c/l`$ and vanishes in the region of much higher frequencies considered here. On the contrary, in the crystal case there is another scale related to the size of the particle localization in the crystal structure. In this case, the additional subtraction should be taken into account for incoherent contribution. It seems that the electron radiation on oriented crystals played a misleading role for consideration of the MD-effect in BK02 . To clarify a question we present our calculations in full details.

## II QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE MD-EFFECT

Qualitatively we describe the MD–effect using as an example the $`epep\gamma `$ process111Below we use the following notations: $`N_e`$ and $`N_p`$ are the numbers of electrons and protons (positrons) in the bunches, $`\sigma _z=l`$ is the longitudinal, $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are the horizontal and vertical transverse sizes of the proton (positron) bunch, $`\gamma _e=E_e/(m_ec^2)`$, $`\gamma _p=E_p/(m_pc^2)`$ and $`r_e=e^2/(m_ec^2)`$ is the classical electron radius.. This reaction is defined by the diagrams of Fig. 1 which describe the radiation of the photon by the electron (the contribution of the photon radiation by the proton can be neglected). The large impact parameters $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$, where $`\sigma _{}`$ is the transverse beam size, correspond to small momentum transfer $`\mathrm{}q_{}(\mathrm{}/\varrho )(\mathrm{}/\sigma _{})`$. In this region, the given reaction can be represented as a Compton scattering (Fig. 2) of the equivalent photon, radiated by the proton, on the electron. The equivalent photons with frequency $`\omega `$ form a “disk” of radius $`\varrho _m\gamma _pc/\omega `$ where $`\gamma _p=E_p/(m_pc^2)`$ is the Lorentz-factor of the proton. Indeed, the electromagnetic field of the proton is $`\gamma _p`$–times contracted in the direction of motion. Therefore, at distance $`\varrho `$ from the axis of motion a characteristic longitudinal length of a region occupied by the field can be estimated as $`\lambda \varrho /\gamma _p`$ which leads to the frequency $`\omega c/\lambda \gamma _pc/\varrho `$.

In the reference frame connected with the collider, the equivalent photon with energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the electron with energy $`E_e\mathrm{}\omega `$ move toward each other (Fig. 3) and perform a Compton scattering. The characteristics of this process are well known. The main contribution to the Compton scattering is given by the region where the scattered photons fly in a direction opposite to that of the initial photons. For such a backward scattering, the energy of the equivalent photon $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and the energy of the final photon $`E_\gamma `$ and its emission angle $`\theta _\gamma `$ are related by

$$\mathrm{}\omega =\frac{E_\gamma }{4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)}\left[1+(\gamma _e\theta _\gamma )^2\right]$$
(1)
and, therefore,

$$\mathrm{}\omega \frac{E_\gamma }{4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)}.$$
(2)
As a result, we find the radius of the “disk” of equivalent photons with the frequency $`\omega `$ (corresponding to a final photon with energy $`E_\gamma `$) as follows:

$$\varrho _m=\frac{\gamma _pc}{\omega }\lambda _e\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\gamma _e\gamma _p\frac{E_eE_\gamma }{E_\gamma },\lambda _e=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_ec}=3.8610^{11}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(3)
For the HERA collider with $`E_p=820`$ GeV and $`E_e=28`$ GeV one obtains

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 0.2\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(4)
Equation (3) is also valid for the $`e^{}e^+e^{}e^+\gamma `$ process with replacement protons by positrons. For the VEPP-4 collider it leads to

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 15\text{ MeV },$$
(5)
for the PEP-II and KEKB colliders we have

$$\varrho _m1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{for}E_\gamma 0.1\text{ GeV }.$$
(6)
The standard calculation corresponds to the interaction of the photons forming the “disk” with the unbounded flux of electrons. However, the particle beams at the HERA collider have finite transverse beam sizes of the order of $`\sigma _{}10^2`$ cm. Therefore, the equivalent photons from the region $`\sigma _{}\varrho \varrho _m`$ cannot interact with the electrons from the other beam. This leads to the decreasing number of the observed photons and the “observed cross section” $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is smaller than the standard cross section $`d\sigma `$ calculated for an infinite transverse extension of the electron beam,

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}=d\sigma d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}.$$
(7)
Here the correction $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}`$ can be presented in the form

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_\gamma )dn(\omega )$$
(8)
where $`dn(\omega )`$ denotes the number of “missing” equivalent photons and $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}`$ is the cross section of the Compton scattering. Let us stress that the equivalent photon approximation in this region has a high accuracy (the neglected terms are of the order of $`1/\gamma _p`$). But for the qualitative description it is sufficient to use the logarithmic approximation in which this number is (seeBLP , §99)

$$dn=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dq_{}^2}{q_{}^2}.$$
(9)
Since $`q_{}1/\varrho `$, we can present the number of “missing” equivalent photons in the form

$$dn=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{d\varrho ^2}{\varrho ^2}$$
(10)
with the integration region in $`\varrho `$:

$$\sigma _{}\varrho \varrho _m=\frac{\gamma _pc}{\omega }.$$
(11)
As a result, this number is equal to

$$dn(\omega )=2\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varrho _m}{\sigma _{}},$$
(12)
and the correction to the standard cross section with logarithmic accuracy is222Within this approximation, the standard cross section has the form
$$d\sigma =d\sigma _\mathrm{C}\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dq_{}^2}{q_{}^2}=\frac{16}{3}\alpha r_e^2\frac{dy}{y}\left(1y+\frac{3}{4}y^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{4\gamma _e\gamma _p(1y)}{y}$$
with the integration region $`\mathrm{}\omega /(c\gamma _p)\mathrm{}q_{}m_ec`$ corresponding to the impact parameters $`\varrho `$ in the interval $`\lambda _e\varrho \varrho _m`$.

$$d\sigma _{\mathrm{cor}}=\frac{16}{3}\alpha r_e^2\frac{dy}{y}\left(1y+\frac{3}{4}y^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{4\gamma _e\gamma _p(1y)\lambda _e}{y\sigma _{}},y=\frac{E_\gamma }{E_e}.$$
(13)
## III APPROXIMATIONS

For future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders the transverse sizes of the beams will change significantly during the time of interaction due to a mutual attraction of very dense beams. However, for most of the ordinary accelerators, including practically all $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`ep`$ storage rings, the change of the transverse beam sizes during the collisions can be neglected. Below we use two main approximations: 1) the particle movement in the bunches has a quasi-classical character; 2) the particle distribution remains practically unchanged during the collision. Besides, in calculating the coherent contribution, we neglect correlations in particle coordinates. All these approximation just the same as in Ref. BK02 . For definiteness, we use again the $`ep`$ collisions as an example.

Therefore, if the proton (electron) bunch moves along (opposite) the direction of $`z`$-axis with the velocity $`v_p`$ ($`v_e`$), its density has the form

$$n_p=n_p(\mathit{\varrho },zv_pt),n_e=n_e(\mathit{\varrho },z+v_et).$$
(14)
We also introduce so called “transverse densities”

$$n_p(\mathit{\varrho })=n_p𝑑z,n_e(\mathit{\varrho })=n_e𝑑z$$
(15)
which is equal to the total number of protons (electrons) which cross a unit area around the impact parameter $`\mathit{\varrho }`$ during the collision.

Below we consider in detail the case when an electron deflection angle $`\theta _e`$ is smaller than the typical radiation angle $`1/\gamma _e`$. It is easy to estimate the ratio of these angles. The electric E and magnetic B fields of the proton bunch are approximately equal in magnitude, $`|𝐄||𝐁|eN_p/(\sigma _x+\sigma _y)`$. These fields are transverse and they deflect the electron into the same direction. In such fields the electron moves around a circumference of radius $`R\gamma _em_ec^2/(eB)`$ and gets the deflection angle $`\theta _el/R`$. Therefore, the ratio of these angles is of the order of

$$\frac{\theta _e}{(1/\gamma _e)}\eta =\frac{r_eN_p}{\sigma _x+\sigma _y}.$$
(16)
The parameter $`\eta 1`$ only for the SLC and future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, in most of the colliders $`\eta 1`$.

In our consideration we use the equivalent photon approximation. In the region of interest (where impact parameters are large, $`\varrho \sigma _{}`$) this simple and transparent method has a high accuracy. On the other hand, the operator quasi-classical method, used in Ref. BK02 , just coincides in this region with the equivalent photon approximation.

## IV COHERENT AND INCOHERENT CONTRIBUTIONS

### IV.1 General formulae

The corresponding formulae for the number of events in a single collision of the electron and proton bunches can be found in papers Ginzyaf , ESS1 . To calculate the MD-effect, we need to know the distribution of equivalent photons (EP) for large values of impact parameters. In this region we can consider the electron–proton scattering as the scattering of electrons on the electromagnetic field of the proton bunch. Replacing this field by the flux of EP with some energy distribution, we obtain the number of the produced photons in the form

$$dN_\gamma =dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_\gamma );dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )=n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega n_e(\mathit{\varrho })d^2\varrho .$$
(17)
Here $`n_e(\mathit{\varrho })`$ is the transverse electron density and $`n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega `$ is the transverse density of EP with the frequencies in the interval from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega +d\omega `$. The quantity $`dL_{\gamma e}(\omega )`$ denotes the differential luminosity for the collisions of EP and electrons and $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_\gamma )`$ is the Compton cross section for the scattering of the equivalent photon with the frequency $`\omega `$ on the electron.

The transverse density of the EP is

$$n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )d\omega =\frac{c}{4\pi ^2}𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })^2\frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{}\omega }$$
(18)
where $`𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })`$ is the spectral component of the collective electric field of the proton bunch. The sign $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the averaging over fluctuations of the field connected, for example, with the fluctuations of particle positions for many collisions of bunches in a given experiment. This field depends on a distribution of charges in the proton bunch at $`t=0`$. We introduce the exact (fluctuating) density of the proton bunch $`n(𝐫)`$ and the averaging density

$$n_p(𝐫)=n(𝐫)$$
(19)
as well as their form factors

$$F(𝐪)=n(𝐫)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}d^3r,F_p(𝐪)=F(𝐪)=n_p(𝐫)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}d^3r$$
(20)
with the normalization

$$F(0)=n(𝐫)d^3r=F_p(0)=N_p.$$
(21)
In the classical limit

$$n(𝐫)=\underset{a}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_a),F(𝐪)=\underset{a}{}\text{e}^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}_a}$$
(22)
where $`𝐫_a`$ is the radius-vector of the $`a`$-th proton. In these notations, the exact (fluctuating) collective field is

$$𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{\mathrm{i}e}{\pi c}\frac{𝐪_{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐪_{}\mathit{\varrho }}}{𝐪_{}^2+\omega ^2/(c\gamma _p)^2}F(𝐪)d^2q_{}$$
(23)
with $`q_z=\omega /c`$.

As a result, the number of events

$$dN_\gamma n_\gamma (\mathit{\varrho },\omega )=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi ^4\omega }\frac{(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{})\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{})\mathit{\varrho }}}{[𝐪_{}^2+\omega ^2/(c\gamma _p)^2][(𝐪_{}^{})^2+\omega ^2/(c\gamma _p)^2]}Ad^2q_{}d^2q_{}^{}$$
(24)
depends on the quantity

$$A=F(𝐪)F^{}(𝐪^{})=n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}𝐪^{}𝐫^{})}d^3rd^3r^{}$$
(25)
in which

$$q_z=q_z^{}=\omega /c.$$
(26)
### IV.2 Coherent and incoherent bremsstrahlung

The obtained general formulae include the coherent and incoherent contributions. The coherent contribution is determined by the average field which is given by Eq. (23) with the replacement $`F(𝐪)`$ by $`F_p(𝐪)`$ or with the replacement of the exact density by the average density. The averaged density of the proton bunch has a single scale in the longitudinal direction — the length of the bunch $`l`$. Therefore, the average field of the bunch is essential in the region of frequencies $`\omega =cq_zc/l`$ and should be small in the region of large frequencies $`\omega c/l`$. In particular, if the proton bunch has the Gaussian distribution, its form factor is equal to

$$F_p(𝐪)=N_p\text{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(q_x\sigma _x)^2\frac{1}{2}(q_y\sigma _y)^2\frac{1}{2}(\omega l/c)^2\right]$$
(27)
and vanishes in the discussed region of frequencies from the interval $`c/l\omega c/a`$ where $`a`$ is the mean distance between particles.

A bunch at colliders can be treated as a continues media with a smooth average particle distribution of the Caussian type. If we neglect the correlations of the particle coordinates in such media, the average product of densities $`n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})`$ is expressed only via the average densities as follows (see, for example, LL5 )

$$n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})=n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{})+\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫).$$
(28)
As a result, the quantity $`A`$ can be presented as a sum of coherent and incoherent contributions:

$$A=A_{\mathrm{coh}}+A_{\mathrm{incoh}}.$$
(29)
The coherent contribution is related to the first item $`n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{})`$ in Eq. (28) and is equal to

$$A_{\mathrm{coh}}=F_p(𝐪)F_p^{}(𝐪^{}).$$
(30)
This formula was used in Refs. Ginzyaf , ESS1  to obtain main characteristics of the coherent bremsstrahlung. It also allows us to obtain the following estimate for the Gaussian beams in the region of interest (at $`|q_x|1/\sigma _x`$ and $`|q_y|1/\sigma _y`$):

$$A_{\mathrm{coh}}N_p^2\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right].$$
(31)
The incoherent contribution is connected with the second item $`\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})n_p(𝐫)`$ in Eq. (28) and is equal to (taking into account Eq. (26))

$$A_{\mathrm{incoh}}=F(𝐪_{}𝐪_{}^{}).$$
(32)
Note, that this expression is determined by the transverse average density of the proton bunch and it does not depend on $`\omega `$. For the Gaussian beams in the region of interest, we obtain from (32) an estimate

$$A_{\mathrm{incoh}}N_p.$$
(33)
Formula (32) was used to derive the previous results about MD-effect (for details see review KSS ). It is seen from the above consideration that the incoherent contribution for usual colliding beams has no “additional subtraction” related to the average electromagnetic field of the proton bunch.

### IV.3 Comparison with the approach used in BK02

We derive the final expression for the incoherent contribution from general equations (17), (18) and (23) as a simple consequence of natural assumptions about the particle distribution in a proton bunch. It is useful to rewrite these equations in the form convenient for comparison with the corresponding equations in BK02 . To do this, we note that the Compton cross section $`d\sigma _\mathrm{C}(\omega ,E_\gamma )|\mathrm{𝐞𝐌}_\mathrm{C}|^2`$ where $`\mathrm{𝐞𝐌}_\mathrm{C}`$ is the amplitude of the Compton scattering for the EP with the polarization vector $`𝐞`$. Therefore, the number of events

$$dN_\gamma |M|^2,M=𝐄_\omega (\mathit{\varrho })𝐌_\mathrm{C}$$
(34)
where the quantity $`M`$ is proportional to the probability amplitude of the process. Further, we use Eq. (22) and the well known equality

$$\frac{𝐪_{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐪_{}\mathit{\varrho }}}{𝐪_{}^2+(1/b)^2}d^2q_{}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}\frac{\mathit{\varrho }}{\varrho }K_1(\varrho /b)$$
(35)
where $`K_n(x)`$ denotes the modified Bessel function of third kind with integer index $`n`$ (McDonald function). Then we obtain

$$M=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}M_a,M_a=𝐄_\omega ^{(a)}(\mathit{\varrho })𝐌_\mathrm{C},𝐄_\omega ^{(a)}(\mathit{\varrho })=\frac{2e}{c\varrho _m}\frac{\mathit{\varrho }_a^{}}{\varrho _a^{}}K_1\left(\varrho _a^{}/\varrho _m\right)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c}$$
(36)
where $`\mathit{\varrho }_a^{}=\mathit{\varrho }_a\mathit{\varrho }`$ is the impact parameter between the $`a`$-th proton and the electron and the parameter $`\varrho _m=\gamma _pc/\omega `$ is the radius of the “disc” of EP (see Fig. 3). The item $`M_a`$ is the contribution to $`M`$ related to the interaction of the electron with the $`a`$-th proton.

Our expression for $`M_a`$ coincides with the corresponding expression in BK02  with the only (but essential!) exception: in paper BK02  the factor

$$\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c}$$
(37)
is absent. It means that in Ref. BK02  it was neglected by the dependence of the exact and average density of the proton bunch on longitudinal coordinates. However, according to the consideration given above, this dependence is crucial for description of the coherent contribution.

Let us clarify this point by the following simple calculations. Our incoherent contribution corresponds to the average square of the individual fields of protons, i.e. to the sum

$$S=\underset{a}{}|M_a|^2$$
(38)
in which the expression $`|M_a|^2`$ does not depend on $`z_a`$. In that case the sum over $`a`$ transforms to the following integral over the transverse coordinates

$$\underset{a}{}\mathrm{}d^2\varrho _a𝑑z_an_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a,z_a)\mathrm{}=d^2\varrho _an_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a)\mathrm{}.$$
(39)
After the substitution $`\mathit{\varrho }_a=\mathit{\varrho }+𝐫_{}`$, we obtain the expression

$$S=\frac{4e^2}{c^2\varrho _m^2}|\mathrm{𝐞𝐌}_\mathrm{C}|^2n_p(\mathit{\varrho }+𝐫_{})K_1^2(r_{}/\varrho _m)d^2r_{}$$
(40)
which is equivalent to the previous result (32).

It was claimed in paper BK02  that an additional subtraction $`S_1`$ has to be done which corresponds to the square of average individual fields of protons, i.e.

$$SSS_1,S_1=\underset{a}{}\left|M_a\right|^2.$$
(41)
As we can jude from the final expression for $`S_1`$, the averaging in this case means averaging over the transverse coordinates of protons only,

$$M_a=M_a\frac{n_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a)}{N_p}d^2\varrho _a.$$
(42)
It would be natural if the expression $`M_a`$ would not depend on the longitudinal coordinates of protons $`z_a`$.

But according to our analysis, it is not the case since

$$M_a\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega z_a/c}.$$
(43)
Taking into account this very fact, one has to perform averaging over the longitudinal coordinates $`z_a`$ as well, i.e. instead of (42) we have

$$M_a=M_a\frac{n_p(\mathit{\varrho }_a,z_a)}{N_p}d^2\varrho _a𝑑z_a.$$
(44)
It changes the final result dramatically, since in the discussed region of frequencies $`\omega c/l`$ the expression $`M_a`$ disappears. For example, in the case of the Caussian distribution we have

$$M_a\text{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\omega l/c)^2\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\text{at }\omega c/l.$$
(45)
## V CONCLUSIONS

Let us compare the coherent and incoherent contributions for the Gaussian beams. In this case, the ratio

$$\frac{A_{\mathrm{coh}}}{A_{\mathrm{incoh}}}N_p\text{exp}\left[(\omega l/c)^2\right]$$
(46)
is determined by the parameters $`\omega l/c`$. Since $`\mathrm{}\omega E_\gamma /[4\gamma _e^2(1E_\gamma /E_e)]`$, it is also useful to introduced the coherence length

$$l_{\mathrm{coh}}=\frac{4\gamma _e^2\mathrm{}c}{E_\gamma }(1E_\gamma /E_e)$$
(47)
and the critical energy for the coherent bremsstrahlung

$$E_c=\frac{4\gamma _e^2\mathrm{}c}{l}.$$
(48)
If the coherence length is large, $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$, or if the final photon energy is small, $`E_\gamma E_c`$, the parameter $`\omega l/c1`$ and the coherent contribution is dominant.

On the contrary, in the region of large photon energy, $`E_\gamma E_c`$, or small coherence length, $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}l`$, considered in paper BK02 , the incoherent contribution dominates. In particular, at $`\omega l/c>6`$ and $`N_p10^{11}`$, the ratio

$$\frac{A_{\mathrm{coh}}}{A_{\mathrm{incoh}}}N_p\text{e}^{36}1,$$
(49)
the coherent contribution is completely negligible and the previous formulae for the MD-effect are valid.

This consideration shows that the effect, derived in paper BK02 , is absent just in the region, discussed in this paper. At the end of this section we reconsider the experiments analyzed in paper BK02 .

The HERA experiment Piot95 . In this case $`E_e=27.5`$ GeV and $`l=8.5`$ cm, therefore, $`E_c=27`$ keV. For the observed photon energies $`E_\gamma =2÷8`$ GeV, the parameter

$$\frac{\omega l}{c}\frac{E_\gamma }{E_c}>10^4,$$
(50)
and the coherent contribution is completely negligible333Moreover, in the HERA experiment the coherence length is of the order of the mean distance between particles in the proton bunch, $`l_{\mathrm{coh}}a\left(l\sigma _x\sigma _y/N_p\right)^{1/3}`$.. Therefore, the new correction to the previous results on the level of $`10`$ %, obtained in BK02 , is, in fact, absent.

The VEPP-4 experiment Blinov82 . In this case $`E_e=1.84`$ GeV and $`l=3`$ cm, therefore, $`E_c=0.34`$ keV. For the observed photon energies $`E_\gamma 1`$ MeV, the parameter

$$\frac{\omega l}{c}\frac{E_\gamma }{E_c}>10^3,$$
(51)
and the coherent contribution is completely negligible.

The case of a “typical linear collider” with $`E_e=500`$ GeV and $`E_\gamma =E_e/1000`$. This example, considered in paper BK02 , is irrelevant for the discussed problem, since the coherent radiation (or beamstrahlung) at a typical linear collider is absolutely dominated in this very region over the ordinary incoherent bremsstrahlung — see, for example, the TESLA project TDR .

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to V. Dmitriev, V. Fadin, I. Ginzburg, V. Katkov, I. Kolokolov and A. Milshtein for useful discussions.


text:
# The BlueGene/L SupercomputerTalk presented by D. Chen.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

IBM has previously announced a multi-year initiative to build a petaflops scale supercomputer for computational biology research . The BlueGene/L machine is a first step in this program . It is based on a different and more general architecture than the original BlueGene announcement. In particular, BlueGene/L uses embedded PowerPC processor cores developed by IBM Microelectronics  for ASIC products.

The lattice community has seen great success of some special-purpose, massively parallel machines dedicated for QCD, for example, the combined 1 Teraflops QCDSP machine  and the follow-on 20 Teraflops QCDOC machine  currently being developed at Columbia University in collaboration with IBM Research.

The BlueGene/L design philosophy has been influenced by QCDSP and QCDOC. Contrasting to the current commercial approach of building large-scale supercomputers by clustering general purpose yet complex SMP systems, BG/L leverages IBM’s system-on-a-chip silicon technology and builds a large parallel system consisting of more than 65,000 nodes, yet at a significantly lower price/performance and power consumption/performance versus conventional approaches. Compared to QCDOC, BG/L will be using a newer generation of IBM’s silicon technology, with enhancements in single node performance as well as a more general network supporting hardware point-to-point message passing (cut-through routing). This makes BG/L suitable for a wide variety of applications.

The BlueGene/L project is a jointly funded research partnership between IBM and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as part of the US Department of Energy ASCI Advanced Architecture Research Program. The main research and development effort is centered at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, with supports from IBM Enterprise Server Group and IBM Microelectronics. Application performance and scaling studies have been initiated with partners at a number of academic and government institutions, including the San Diego Supercomputing Center and the California Institute of Technology.

A large machine with a peak performance of 360 Teraflops is anticipated to be built at the LLNL in the 2004-2005 time frame. A smaller, 100 Teraflops machine is expected to be built at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center for computational biology studies.

## 2 BG/L OVERVIEW

BlueGene/L is a massively parallel, scalable system. A single parallel job can use up to 65,536 compute nodes. The system is configured as a 32$`\times `$32$`\times `$64 three-dimensional torus of compute nodes. Each node consists of a single compute ASIC and memory. Each node can support up to 2 GB of local memory. Balancing cost and application requirements, our current plan calls for 256 MB of DDR-SDRAM per node.

The ASIC will be manufactured on IBM CMOS CU-11 0.13 micron copper technology with an expected 11.1 $`mm^2`$ die size. This is the next generation IBM CMOS technology compared to the one used by QCDOC. There are two PowerPC 440 32 bit integer CPU cores in each BG/L ASIC, each core connects to a “double” floating point unit capable of 2 fused floating point multiply-adds per CPU clock cycle. At a target frequency of 700 MHz, each core can achieve a peak performance of 2.8 Gflops. In normal operations, we expect that one CPU will be mainly doing computation while the other one will be busy handling communications. However, for certain kinds of applications, if the communication requirement are small compared to the amount of compute, or if there are separate computation and communication steps, then both cores can be utilized for compute, leading to 5.6 Gflops peak performance per node. We therefore quote the performance per node as 2.8/5.6 Gflops.

Figure 1 shows the steps of building the BlueGene/L supercomputer. 2 compute ASIC chips along with their associated local memory are put onto a compute card. A node board will have 16 compute cards. A cabinet includes 2 mid-planes. A total of 32 node boards are plugged into both sides of the 2 mid-planes. Within a cabinet, the compute nodes form a geometry of 8$`\times `$8$`\times `$16 (8$`\times `$8$`\times `$8 per mid-plane) with a peak performance of 2.9/5.7 Tflops and a total of 256 GB memory. The BlueGene/L system consists of 64 cabinets connected as a 32$`\times `$32$`\times `$64 torus. The total peak performance is 180/360 Tflops and the total amount of memory is 16 TB. The system will occupy an area of about 250 $`m^2`$, and the total power is estimated at approximately 1 MW.

In addition to the computing nodes in the system, there are also I/O nodes. Each I/O node contains the same ASIC as in a compute node, but with 512 MB of memory. These additional I/O cards are plugged into the same node board with compute cards. An I/O node connects to a number of compute nodes through a custom high speed network, and to outside host and disk farm through a Gigabit Ethernet. These I/O nodes are used to offload the work required for disk I/O and host communications from the compute nodes. We plan to install one I/O node per 64 compute nodes. The maximum ratio is one I/O node for every 8 compute nodes.

Besides the active 64 cabinets, the large BG/L system also includes a number of spare cabinets, Gigabit Ethernet switches racks, disk I/O racks plus a host computer. The Gigabit switches connect to the BG/L I/O nodes, the host computer and the disk farm.

## 3 BG/L ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of the BG/L node ASIC is shown in Figure 2. Each ASIC integrates two PowerPC 440 cores, each with a PowerPC 440 FP2 core, 2 small L2 buffers, 4 MB embedded DRAM configured as L3 cache, DDR-SDRAM memory controller for connecting to external memory, custom designed high speed torus and tree network logic, a Gigabit Ethernet and a JTAG control interface.

### 3.1 PowerPC core

The 440 is a standard 32-bit integer microprocessor core product from IBM Microelectronics. The same core for a previous generation technology is used in the QCDOC project. Each core has 32 general purpose registers. It has integrated 32 KB instruction L1 cache and 32 KB data L1 cache. They provide one cycle access from the CPU. There are three 128 bit buses coming out of the core, one each dedicated for data read, data write and instruction load. This core supports all common PowerPC instructions as well as instructions defined in the PowerPC Book E standard for embedded processors.

The 440 FP2 core is an enhanced “double” 64-bit floating-point unit. It consists of a primary and a secondary unit, each of which is a complete FPU with their own register sets. The primary FPU supports standard PowerPC floating point instructions. It can do a single fused 64 bit multiply-add in one processor cycle. Through a SIMD like instruction extension, both FPU units can be utilized to execute 2 fused 64 bit multiply-adds per cycle. In addition, a separate floating point load/store operation can be executed in parallel to the multiply-adds. The load/store unit supports 128 bit “quad-word” load/store from either the L1 cache or the 440 memory interface, to a pair of registers, one each from the two FP units. This increased load/store bandwidth to FP registers is to match the increased floating point performance. It is also used to efficiently move data to and from the custom high-speed network interfaces, as the 32 bit integer unit does not have the adequate bandwidth to its internal registers to support high speed data movements. The floating point instruction extension is also powerful enough to allow the exchange of register contents between the two FP units while they are executing multiply-adds, without extra instruction overheads.

### 3.2 Memory Subsystem

Each of the 440 processor core is directly connected to a small 2KB L2 cache, then to a shared L3 directory which controls 4 MB of embedded DRAM as the L3 cache. The L3 controller directly connects to a DDR-SDRAM controller for external memory. Both the 4 MB L3 cache and the external DDR-SDRAM are ECC protected.

Because the 440 hardware does not support SMP protocols for its L1 cache, the L1 cache of the two processors are not coherent. We have therefore implemented a lock box and a small fast multi-port SRAM behind the two L2 caches to facilitate processor-to-processor communications. The L2 and L3 caches are coherent for both processors.

A data prefetch engine is built into each L2 cache to reduce the latency for sequential data accesses from L3 and external memory. The memory subsystem is being designed for low latency, high bandwidth accesses to cache and memory. An L2 hit returns in 6 to 10 processors cycles, an L3 hit in about 25 cycles, and an L3 miss (loading from external DRAM) in about 75 cycles. Various memory bandwidth numbers are listed in Table 1 as they are compared to QCDOC.

The L2 caches are also directly connected to a set of FIFOs to allow for fast and high bandwidth access to both a 3-d torus network and a global tree network.

### 3.3 3-D Torus Network

The 3-d torus is a high speed network used for general-purpose, point-to-point message passing operations. Each ASIC has 6 torus links build in. On a compute node, these 6 links are connected to its 6 nearest neighbors, in the $`+x`$, $`x`$, $`+y`$, $`y`$, $`+z`$ and $`z`$ directions, respectively. There is one link between a pair of nearest neighbors. Each link is a bi-directional serial connection with a target speed of 1.4 Gbit/s per direction.

Figure 3 illustrates the torus logic. Within a node ASIC, 2 sets of injection FIFOs and 2 sets of reception FIFOs are directly connected to the L2 cache. These FIFOs along with 6 input links and 6 output links are then connected through a global cross-bar switch. A packet injected on one node will route through the 3-d torus network in hardware without any software overhead until it reaches its destination, where it will then be pulled out by a CPU from a reception FIFO. A packet could vary in size from 32 bytes to 256 bytes in 32-byte granularity. Even though in the normal operating mode, we envision that one CPU will be used for compute and the other for network and I/O traffic, there is no hardware limitation as to which CPU can access which FIFO. The design is symmetric in this respect.

Virtual channels are used to in the torus network to avoid dead-locks . A token based flow control mechanism is used to improve throughput . The torus switch is highly pipelined and implements virtual cut-through routing . In addition, the torus network supports both adaptive and deterministic minimal-path routing . Figure 4 illustrates adaptive routing. Packets could take different paths to reach their destination as long as the paths are minimal, i.e., every hop a packet makes should reduce its distance to the destination. The actual path a packet goes through is determined dynamically on each node depending on local traffic. All these features combined optimize both the throughput and latency over the torus network.

In addition to the point-to-point message passing, we have also implemented multicast operations in the torus hardware to allow for one node to broadcast a message to a “class” of nodes. This feature has been proven to be very useful for a number of applications.

All data and token flow-control packets are protected by CRC. If an error happens on a link, the bad packet that got received will be automatically deleted from the network, and the good packet will be retransmitted over the same link. The error and retransmission protocol is handled automatically by the torus hardware.

### 3.4 Global Tree Network

On a large scale parallel machine like BlueGene/L, one constraint that affects the scalability of a large class of applications is the time it takes for a global reduction operation, for example, a global sum.

To reduce the latency of global reduction operations, the BG/L supercomputer implements a global tree network. This is a binary-tree like network shown in Figure 5. The global tree network supports global broadcast from a single node to all nodes, and global reduction operations including global integer maximum, global integer sum and certain binary operations like global AND, OR and XOR. The tree network logic is also integrated into the node ASIC.

During a global reduction, each node contributes a message. All messages from all nodes are combined into a single message and are then broadcast to each contributing nodes. A single round-trip latency on the global tree network is about 5 $`\mu s`$. A global floating point sum (implemented by first an integer max to scale the exponents, then an integer sum) requires 2 round-trips over the network and therefore has a latency of approximately 10 $`\mu s`$. Each tree link maintains a constant bandwidth of 2.8 Gbit/s per link per direction.

In addition to the global operations mentioned above, the tree network also supports point-to-point messaging from the root of a segment of the tree to all its sub-leaves. I/O nodes are connected to compute nodes through the tree network.

### 3.5 I/O

Each BG/L node ASIC has an integrated Gbit Ethernet. On a compute node, this Ethernet port is not used. While on an I/O node, the Gbit Ethernet is connected to central Gbit Ethernet switches, which in turn connects to the host computer and I/O disk farm.

Each I/O node connects to a number of compute nodes through the high speed tree network. Depending on the I/O requirement, the maximum I/O node to compute node ratio is one I/O node for every 8 compute nodes. On BG/L, we plan to install one I/O node for every 64 compute nodes leading to a total of 1024 I/O nodes for the 64K node machine. The total peak I/O bandwidth is therefore 1 Terabit/s.

### 3.6 System Partitioning

On a large scale parallel supercomputer, it is often desirable that a big machine can be partitioned into smaller machines. On BG/L, partitioning is achieved through software configuration.

Figure 6 illustrates the basic idea of BG/L partitioning. Within a BG/L cabinet, there are 2 mid-planes, each with 512 compute nodes attached forming a $`8\times 8\times 8`$ 3-d lattice. On the edge of each mid-plane, there is a set of re-drive chips. They capture the high speed torus and tree network signals coming from node ASICs over a certain length of mid-plane board trace, then re-drive them over the cable connecting different cabinets. This improves the high speed signal quality. These re-drive chips can be programmed by the host to either include the nodes of the current cabinet in the torus loop for a large partition, or to skip over them, therefore creating a separate physical partition.

This scheme allows each partition to be electrically isolated. Each partition has its own torus and tree networks that do not communicate with other partitions. With a few more spare cabinets in the system and proper diagnostic software, the BG/L system can detect failures and swap the cabinet that has bad nodes with a good cabinet, and automatically restart the application from the last checkpoint on a complete good machine partition. This provides added reliability for the BG/L system.

Figure 7 shows the complete system expected to be built at the LLNL. There are 64 main cabinets plus 8 cabinets for spares and code development. These cabinets are then connected through racks of Gigabit Ethernet switches to disk I/O racks. A host computer is connected directly to the Gigabit switch complex. An example of partitioning would be to have a large 32 cabinet system (32$`\times `$32$`\times `$32 torus), a number of medium 4 cabinet systems (16$`\times `$16$`\times `$16 torus) and a number of small 1/2 cabinet systems (8$`\times `$8$`\times `$8 torus).

## 4 SOFTWARE

Scalable system software that supports efficient execution of parallel applications is an integral part of the BlueGene/L architecture. Our plan is to have a lightweight high-performance kernel running on compute nodes, and to expect Linux running on I/O nodes. The lightweight compute kernel approach was motivated by the Puma and Cougar kernels at Sandia National Laboratory and the University of New Mexico.

The BG/L compute kernel is a single user OS that supports execution of a single dual-threaded (one thread for each of the two processors within a node) user process. It provides a single and static virtual address space to the one running compute process. There is no need for context switching. Because the PowerPC 440 processor core supports large pages, demand paging is not necessary. The user process will receive full resource utilization, yet the OS is still protected from the user application through a virtual memory system.

I/O nodes will support multiple processes. They will only execute system software, no user applications. They provide I/O support to compute nodes, i.e., file operations to the disk farm, control and monitoring support for the host, etc.

In terms of development tools and environment, IBM’s XL-C, XL-C++ and XL-FORTRAN compilers are expected to be ported to support both the PPC 440 integer unit as well as the FP2 floating point unit. The GNU-C compiler already supports the common set of PowerPC instructions, albeit it does not support the FP2 instruction extensions, which the IBM compilers are expected to support. A set of highly optimized math libraries is also expected to be provided to facilitate high performance application development. As for parallel environment, we anticipate to provide MPI support as well as a user level, low latency system programming interface to facilitate the utilization of the high speed torus and tree networks.

## 5 APPLICATIONS

The BG/L team has been doing extensive studies of a wide variety of applications . The results of these studies are very encouraging. They show that a large class of applications scales well on the BG/L architecture, even to the level of 65,536 nodes.

In this section, for the interest of the lattice community, we will compare the architecture of BG/L to QCDOC, as applied to QCD type applications. Reference  shows that for Wilson fermions, on a $`2^4`$ lattice per node, QCDOC can sustain about 50% of the peak performance.

Table 1 shows a comparison of various performance and memory bandwidth numbers between QCDOC and BG/L. For Lattice QCD applications, because most of the communications are between nearest neighbors, we expect that both processors on a BG/L node will be available for computation. From QCDOC to BG/L on a per node basis, the sustained memory read bandwidth from EDRAM improves by a factor of 2.8, the external memory bandwidth by a factor of 2.15 and the torus network bandwidth by a factor of 2.8. While the peak floating performance is increased from 1 Gflops to 5.6 Gflops, we expect the overall performance improvement per node will be determined mainly by the memory bandwidth, therefore about a factor 2.15 to 2.8. Given the high efficiency of QCDOC, we expect BG/L to also perform well for QCD applications.

## 6 CONCLUSION

System-on-a-chip technology has opened new possibilities of building large scale supercomputers. By optimizing the overall system, great reduction in cost/performance, power consumption/performance and machine size/performance can be achieved.

BlueGene/L is a first step in IBM’s commitment to petaflops scale computing by exploring a new architecture of building massively parallel machines. With more applications ported and optimized for this kind of architecture, there will be great scientific benefits and rewards.


text:
# The polynomial invariants of four qubits

## I Introduction

Various classifications of states with up to four qubits have been recently proposed, with the aim of understanding the different ways in which multipartite systems can be entangled Dür et al. (2000); Brylinski ; Brylinski and Brylinski ; Verstraete et al. (2002); Miyake . However, one cannot expect that such classifications will be worked out for an arbitrary number $`k`$ of qubits, and there is a need for a coarser classification scheme which would be computable for general $`k`$. In Klyachko , Klyachko proposed to assimilate entanglement with the notion of semi-stability of geometric invariant theory. In this context, a semi-stable state is one which can be separated from 0 by a polynomial invariant of $`SL(2,)^k`$, the point in the geometric approach being that explicit knowledge of the invariants is in principle not necessary to check this property.

In this paper, we construct a complete set of algebraic invariants of 4-qubit states. This allows us to identify the semi-stable states in the classification of Verstraete et al. Verstraete et al. (2002), and to obtain a simple closed form for the hyperdeterminant.

Let $`V=^2`$ be the local Hilbert space of a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle, and $`=V^4`$ be the state space of four particles, regarded as the natural representation of the group $`G=SL(2,)^4`$, known in the context of quantum information theory (QIT) as the group of reversible stochastic local quantum operations assisted by classical communication (SLOCC) Bennett et al. (2001); Dür et al. (2000).

If $`|j`$, $`j=0,1`$ is any basis of $`V`$, a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i,j,k,l=0}{\overset{1}{}}A_{ijkl}|i|j|k|l$$
(1)
and the question of which normal form can be achieved for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by varying independently the bases of the four copies of $`V`$ has been solved only recently Verstraete et al. (2002) , although the case of three-qubit states is classical and relatively simple 111 In the physics literature, the solution appears in Dür et al. (2000), but an equivalent problem had been solved in classical invariant theory since at least 1881 Paige (1881); Schwartz (1922). Note also that a problem equivalent to the classification of four-qubit states had been studied by Segre in 1922 Segre (1922), but he only obtained a partial classification..

In the following, we give a complete 222 We note that a combinatorial method for computing invariants of fourth-rank tensors is proposed in Tapia . The point in the present paper is that we can prove that our system of invariants is complete. description of the polynomial functions $`f(A_{ijkl})`$ which are invariant under the SLOCC group $`SL(2,)^4`$. This amounts to the construction of a moduli space for four qubit states. Our strategy is to find first the Hilbert series of the algebra of invariants $`𝒥`$. Next, we construct by classical methods four invariants of the required degrees. The knowledge of the Hilbert series reduces then the proof of algebraic independence and completeness to simple verifications. The values of the invariants on the orbits of Verstraete et al. (2002) are tabulated in the Appendix.

## II The Hilbert series

Let $`𝒥_d`$ be the space of $`G`$-invariant homogeneous polynomial functions of degree $`d`$ in the variables $`A_{ijkl}`$. Using some elementary representation theory, it is not difficult to show that $`𝒥_d`$ is zero for $`d`$ odd, and that for $`d=2m`$ even, the dimension of $`𝒥_d`$ is equal to the multiplicity of the trivial character of the symmetric group $`𝔖_{2m}`$ in the fourth power $`(\chi ^{mm})^4`$ of its irreducible character corresponding to the partition $`[m,m]`$. This is the same as the scalar product $`(\chi ^{mm})^2|(\chi ^{mm})^2`$, which can be evaluated by means of the formulas of Thibon (1991); Scharf et al. (1993) giving the decomposition into irreducible characters of any product $`\chi ^\lambda \chi ^\mu `$ when $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ have at most two parts. This yields the Hilbert series of $`𝒥=_d𝒥_d`$ in the form 333 This is a tedious method. With the help of computer algebra system, the Hilbert series is more straightforwardly obtained by a residue calculation. Similar computations (for $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(2)`$ invariants) appear in Grassl et al. .

$$\underset{d0}{}dim𝒥_dt^d=\frac{1}{(1t^2)(1t^4)^2(1t^6)}.$$
(2)
This formula shows that Conjecture 2.6.5.3 of Klyachko  cannot be correct, since it predicts that the hyperdeterminant, which is of degree 24, should be one of the generators. Actually, the algebra of invariants is free on generators of degrees $`2,4,4,6`$, as suggested by the Hilbert series.

## III A fundamental set of invariants

Indeed, it is possible to construct invariants of the required degrees and to check that they are algebraically independent. To reduce the size of the expressions, we shall write the components of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$A_{ijkl}=a_r,r=0,\mathrm{},15,$$
(3)
where $`r`$ is the integer whose binary expression is $`ijkl`$, that is, $`r=8i+4j+2k+l`$. We shall consider them as the coefficients of a quadrilinear form

$$A(𝐱,𝐲,𝐳,𝐭)=\underset{i,j,k,l=0}{\overset{1}{}}A_{ijkl}x_iy_jz_kt_l$$
(4)
on $`V\times V\times V\times V`$. Such a form is known to have an invariant $`H`$ of degree 2, which is also one of the hyperdeterminants introduced by Cayley 444Cayley actually considered several different notions under the same generic name, see Luque and Thibon .. It is given by

$`H=`$ $`a_0a_{15}a_1a_{14}a_2a_{13}+a_3a_{12}`$ (5)
$`a_4a_{11}+a_5a_{10}+a_6a_9a_7a_8,`$
and the two independent invariants of degree 4 are any two of the 3 determinants which can be formed by interpreting $`A`$ as a linear map $`^4^4`$ (see Segre (1922))

$`L=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}a_0\hfill & a_4\hfill & a_8\hfill & a_{12}\hfill \\ a_1\hfill & a_5\hfill & a_9\hfill & a_{13}\hfill \\ a_2\hfill & a_6\hfill & a_{10}\hfill & a_{14}\hfill \\ a_3\hfill & a_7\hfill & a_{11}\hfill & a_{15}\hfill \end{array}\right|`$ (10)
$`M=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}a_0\hfill & a_8\hfill & a_2\hfill & a_{10}\hfill \\ a_1\hfill & a_9\hfill & a_3\hfill & a_{11}\hfill \\ a_4\hfill & a_{12}\hfill & a_6\hfill & a_{14}\hfill \\ a_5\hfill & a_{13}\hfill & a_7\hfill & a_{15}\hfill \end{array}\right|`$ (15)
$`N=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}a_0\hfill & a_1\hfill & a_8\hfill & a_9\hfill \\ a_2\hfill & a_3\hfill & a_{10}\hfill & a_{11}\hfill \\ a_4\hfill & a_5\hfill & a_{12}\hfill & a_{13}\hfill \\ a_6\hfill & a_7\hfill & a_{14}\hfill & a_{15}\hfill \end{array}\right|`$ (20)
One has the relation

$$L+M+N=0,$$
(22)
but it is easily checked that any two of them are linearly independent, and also that $`H^2`$ cannot be expressed as a linear combination of them.

To construct a sextic invariant algebraically independent from the previous ones, we shall apply the methods of classical invariant theory, and first find some covariants, that is, homogeneous $`G`$-invariant polynomials in the form coefficients $`A_{ijkl}`$ and in the original variables (see, e.g., Olver (1999) for a modern presentation). The dimension of the space $`𝒞_{d,k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}`$ of covariants which are of degree $`d`$ in $`A`$, $`k_1`$ in $`𝐱`$, and so on, is equal to the multiplicity of the trivial character of $`𝔖_d`$ in the product

$$\chi ^{l_1+k_1,l_1}\chi ^{l_2+k_2,l_2}\chi ^{l_3+k_3,l_3}\chi ^{l_4+k_4,l_4}$$
(23)
where $`d=2l_i+k_i`$ for all $`i`$. This can still be evaluated from the knowledge of the products $`\chi ^\lambda \chi ^\mu `$ of two-part characters, and one can see that $`A`$ has six covariants of degree 2, which are biquadratic forms in all possible pairs of variables. Such covariants are easily constructed, these are the determinants of order 2 of the partial derivatives of $`A`$ with respect to the complementary pair of variables, e.g.,

$$b_{xy}(𝐱,𝐲)=det\left(\frac{^2A}{z_it_j}\right).$$
(24)
Each of these biquadratic forms can be interpreted as a bilinear form on the three-dimensional space $`S^2(^2)`$, and one can define $`3\times 3`$ matrices by

$$b_{xy}(𝐱,𝐲)=[x_0^2,x_0x_1,x_1^2]B_{xy}\left[\begin{array}{c}y_0^2\\ y_0y_1\\ y_1^2\end{array}\right]$$
(25)
and similarly for the other pairs. Let, for any pair of vector variables $`(𝐮,𝐯)`$,

$$D_{uv}=det(B_{uv}).$$
(26)
These determinants are sextic invariants of $`A`$. Since the space of sextic invariants is four-dimensional, they must be linearly dependent. In fact,

$$D_{xy}=D_{zt},D_{xz}=D_{yt}\mathrm{and}D_{xt}=D_{yz}$$
(27)
but $`D_{xy}`$, $`D_{xz}`$ and $`D_{xt}`$ are linearly independent. One can check that

$`HL`$ $`=D_{xz}D_{xt}`$ (28)
$`HM`$ $`=D_{xt}D_{xy}`$ (29)
$`HN`$ $`=D_{xy}D_{xz}`$ (30)
and that $`H^3`$ is not in the subspace spanned by the $`D_{uv}`$. The above results, together with the knowledge of the Hilbert series, allows now to prove that the algebra of invariants is free, and that any of the $`D_{uv}`$’s can be taken as the generator of degree 6. Indeed, it is sufficient to check that the Jacobian matrix of the choosen generators has rank 4 (this is easily done using the specialization $`G_{abcd}`$ of the Appendix).

We will use in the sequel

$$𝒥=[H,L,M,D_{xt}].$$
(31)
## IV The hyperdeterminant in terms of the fundamental invariants

Here, according to the general formula of Gelfand et al. (1994), the Cayley hyperdeterminant (in the sense of Gelfand et al. (1994); Miyake ) is of degree 24. It must therefore admit an expression in terms of the fundamental invariants, whose explicitation is an interesting question. To answer it, we shall need again the covariants $`b_{uv}`$. Let us use, for example, $`b_{xt}`$. We can consider $`A`$ as a trilinear form $`T`$ in $`𝐱,𝐲,𝐳`$, the fourth variable $`𝐭`$ being treated as a parameter. The Cayley hyperdeterminant $`\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐭}(T)`$ of this trilinear form is homogeneous of degree 4 in its coefficients, which are themselves linear forms in $`𝐭`$. Hence, $`R(𝐭)=\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐭}(T)`$ is a binary quartic in $`t_0,t_1`$, and we can form its discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which will be an invariant of $`A`$. According to Schläfli Schläfli (1852) (see also Gelfand et al. (1994); Miyake ), in this case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐭}(A)`$.

It follows from the well-understood invariant theory of binary trilinear forms Paige (1881); Schwartz (1922) that $`R(𝐭)`$ is equal to the discriminant of the quadratic form in $`𝐱`$

$$Q_t(𝐱)=b_{xt}(𝐱,𝐭),$$
(32)
that is

$$R(𝐭)=det\left(\frac{^2b_{xt}}{x_ix_j}\right).$$
(33)
Let

$$R(𝐭)=c_0t_0^4+4c_1t_0^3t_1+6c_2t_0^2t_1^2+4t_0t_1^3+c_4t_1^4.$$
(34)
It is well-known that the algebra of invariants of the binary quartic is free over the two generators

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`c_0c_44c_1c_3+3c_2^2,`$ (35)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`c_0c_2c_4c_0c_3^2+2c_1c_2c_3c_1^2c_4c_2^3,`$ (36)
and that its discriminant is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=S^327T^2.$$
(37)
In the classical language, $`S`$ is the apolar of $`R`$ with itself, and $`T`$ is its catalecticant (see Olver (1999)).

The invariants $`S`$ and $`T`$ of $`R`$ being obviously invariants of $`A`$, the problem of expressing $`\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐭}(A)`$ is terms of the fundamental invariants of $`A`$ is reduced to the one of finding the expressions of $`S`$ and $`T`$ 555The values of $`S`$ and $`T`$ may depend on our choices of the pair of variables $`(x,t)`$ and then on the choice of eliminating $`x`$, but the combination $`S^327T^2`$ will not depend on these choices..

With the help of a computer algebra system, we obtain the values

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H^4{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H^2L+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H^2M2HD_{xt}`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(L^2+LM+M^2)`$
and

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{216}}H^6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}H^4(LM){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H^3D_{xt}`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}H^2(2L^2LM+2M^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H(LM)D_{xt}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}(L^3M^3){\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}LM(LM)+D_{xt}^2.`$
Setting $`D=D_{xt}`$, $`U=H^24(LM)`$ and $`V=12(HD2LM)`$, these expressions can be recast into the more elegant form

$`12S`$ $`=`$ $`U^22V,`$ (40)
$`216T`$ $`=`$ $`U^33UV+216D^2.`$ (41)
This suggests that $`U`$ and $`V`$ might have a geometric meaning. Actually, similar expressions occur in the course of Schläfli’s calculations Schläfli (1852). He does not mention their invariant theoretic meaning, however, and prefers to end up with an expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a polynomial in $`H`$, $`W=D_{xy}+D_{xz}+D_{xt}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=L^2+M^2+N^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(LM)(MN)(NL)`$, which are invariant under permutations of the indices $`ijkl`$.

## V Conclusion

A fundamental issue in QIT is the understanding of entanglement. However, as pointed out in Klyachko , there is no universal agreement on the precise definition of entanglement and on what should be its proper measure. It is apparently this lacune which motivated recent attempts to obtain a complete classification of $`k`$-qubit states under the SLOCC group $`G`$ Bennett et al. (2001); Dür et al. (2000); Miyake .

Some familiarity with classical invariant theory leaves little hope that such a classification can be achieved in general. If we compare with the somewhat easier classical problem of binary forms, which, in physical terms, amounts to the classification of single spin $`s`$ states under $`SL(2,)`$, a complete solution is known only up to spin $`s=4`$ (with still some unsolved questions in the case $`s=7/2`$), and most experts agree that the other cases will remain out of reach.

So, it is unlikely that the complete SLOCC classification of $`k`$-qubit states will ever be found for $`k8`$, and it is probable that formidable computational difficulties will arise well before this value 666For 5 qubits, the generic orbits depend on 16 free parameters, and for eight qubits, the moduli space would be of dimension 231.. Actually, the orbit structure is still completely unknown for $`k>4`$.

Now, if we adopt the definition of entanglement proposed in Klyachko , that is, to identify entangled states with the semi-stable vectors of geometric invariant theory, the main result of the present paper can be interpreted as a numerical criterion of entanglement for 4-qubit states. Indeed, a semi-stable state is by definition a state which can be separated from 0 by some invariant polynomial. Thus, according to Klyachko , an entangled 4-qubit state would be one for which at least one of the four polynomials $`H,L,M,D`$ takes a nonzero value. As we shall see below, this definition needs to be improved. However, it is plausible that refined entanglement measures for four-qubit states might be built from the absolute values of these invariants. These would be natural generalizations of the concurrence $`C`$ and the 3-tangle $`\tau `$ in the two and three qubit cases, which are proportional repectively to the absolute values of the determinant and of the hyperdeterminant Miyake , the only polynomial invariants in these cases.

From a geometric point of view, our results show that the moduli space of entangled states is the weighted projective space $`(1,2,2,3)`$, which can be embedded as a rational threefold in 13-dimensional projective space. Of course, the approach to semi-stability and moduli spaces by explicit construction of the polynomial invariants has its limits,and it is unlikely that this can be done for more that 5 qubits.

Note also that the notion of semi-stability can be used only to characterize some generic kind of entanglement. Indeed, even in the three-qubit cases, the so-called $`W`$-state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|001+|010+|100)`$ is not semi-stable (its hyperdeterminant is zero), although it should certainly be considered as entangled (even in a strong sense, according to Dür et al. (2000)). The natural candidates for constructing further measures of entanglement appropriate to such states are the covariants of classical invariant theory, which are completely known in the three-qubit case Schwartz (1922).

We expect to be able to describe in a forthcoming paper the algebra of covariants in the 4-qubit case, which would not only reproduce the complete classification of the orbits, but also to give the equations of their closures, which are algebraic varieties, and provide new insights about entanglement measures for unstable states. Another case whichs seems to be readily tractable is the case of three spin 1 states. The geometric classification of the orbits was known by 1938 Thrall and Chanler (1938), and numerical calculation of the Hilbert series of invariants up to degree 108 indicates that it should be

$$h(t)=\frac{1}{(1t^6)(1t^9)(1t^{12})}.$$
(42)
Since independent invariants $`I_6,I_9,I_{12}`$ of the appropriate degrees are known Chanler (1939), one can consider that the SLOCC classification and the semi-stability problems are essentially solved in this case.

Other cases of less practical importance, such as those including two spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles and one particle of spin $`s1`$, are easily solved. For $`s=1`$, there is only one invariant of degree 6, the hyperdeterminant. For $`s=3/2`$, the hyperdeterminant is identically zero, but there is still one invariant of degree 4, which is the only determinant that can be formed by displaying the components of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. Finally, for $`s2`$, there are no invariant polynomials.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank A. Klyachko and A. Miyake for their comments on preliminary versions of this text, and in particular M. Grassl for pointing out a gap in our original argument, together with a way of filling it.

## Appendix A Application to the classification of Verstraete et al.

To conclude, let us discuss the semi-stability of the orbits obtained in Verstraete et al. (2002) (see this reference for notation). For the family $`G_{abcd}`$, the values of the fundamental invariants are 777It is interesting to observe that these polynomials can be regarded as a fundamental system of invariants for the standard action of the Weyl group $`D_4`$ on the four-dimensional vector space spanned by $`a,b,c,d`$.

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2)`$ (43)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`abcd,`$ (44)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{cd}{2}}\right)^2\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{ab}{2}}\right)^2\right]\left[\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)^2\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{c+d}{2}}\right)^2\right]`$ (45)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(adbc)(acbd)(abcd)`$ (46)
and the hyperdeterminant is $`\frac{1}{256}V(a^2,b^2,c^2,d^2)^2`$, where $`V`$ denotes the Vandermonde determinant. For $`L_{abc_2}`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a^2+b^2+2c^2)`$ (47)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`abc^2`$ (48)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[c^2\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)^2\right]\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{ab}{2}}\right)^2`$ (49)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c^2(ab)^2(abc^2),`$ (50)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. For $`L_{a_2b_2}`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`a^2+b^2`$ (51)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`a^2b^2`$ (52)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (53)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (54)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. For $`L_{ab_3}`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3a^2+b^2)`$ (55)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`a^3b`$ (56)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[a^2\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{a+b}{2}}\right)^2\right]\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{ab}{2}}\right)^2`$ (57)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a^3(ab)^3`$ (58)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. For $`L_{a_4}`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`2a^2`$ (59)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`a^4`$ (60)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (61)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (62)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. For $`L_{a_20_{3\overline{1}}}`$, there is still one nonzero invariant

$$H=a^2,$$
(63)
so that all the above 6 families of orbits are semi-stable, whilst the remaining three are unstable.


text:
# References

Topological Transitions and Enhançon-like Geometries in Calabi-Yau Compactifications of M-Theory
T. Mohaupt1 444corresponding author : mohaupt@tpi.uni-jena.de
1 Theoretisch-Physikalisches Institut, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena,

Max-Wien Platz 1, D-07743 Jena, Germany

Abstract: We study the impact of topological phase transitions of the internal Calabi-Yau threefold on the space-time geometry of five-dimensional extremal black holes and black strings. For flop transitions and $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry enhancement we show that solutions can always be continued and that the behaviour of metric, gauge fields and scalars can be characterized in a model independent way. Then we look at supersymmetric solutions which describe naked singularities rather than geometries with a horizon. For black strings we show that the solution cannot become singular as long as the scalar fields take values inside the Kähler cone. For black holes we establish the same result for the elliptic fibrations over the Hirzebruch surfaces $`_0,_1,_2`$. These three models exhibit a behaviour similar to the enhançon, since one runs into $`SU(2)`$ enhancement before reaching the apparent singularity. Using the proper continuation inside the enhançon radius one finds that the solution is regular.

M-theory generalizes quantum field theory by the introduction of extended objects: strings and branes. This leads to surprising new phenomena, which include topological phase transitions and the smoothing or excision of space-time singularities. The enhançon  and similar phenomena in Horava-Witten theory  show that degenerations in the internal space and the absence of space-time singularities are closely related. In this paper we briefly summarize new results along these lines.111A more datailed account will be given in a separate publication.

The compactification of eleven-dimensional supergravity on a Calabi-Yau threefold yields minimal five-dimensional supergravity coupled to $`n_V=h_{1,1}1`$ abelian vector multiplets and $`n_H=h_{2,1}+1`$ hypermultiplets. The hypermultiplets are trivial in the space-time geometries considered here. The couplings of vector multiplets are encoded in the so-called very special geometry of the scalar manifold, which is a cubic hypersurface

$$𝒱\left(X\right)=\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}X^IX^JX^K=1,I,J,K=0,\mathrm{}n_V.$$
(1)
The function $`𝒱(X)`$ is called the prepotential, and all couplings of the vector multiplets can be computed from it. Thus the Lagrangian is fully determined by the (locally) constant, real symmetric tensor $`C_{IJK}`$.

The electric BPS solutions of this theory take the following form :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱\left(Y\right)^{4/3}dt^2+𝒱\left(Y\right)^{2/3}dx_{\left(4\right)}^2`$
$`F_{tm}^I`$ $`=`$ $`_m\left(𝒱\left(Y\right)^1Y^I\right),\varphi ^x=Y^x/Y^0.`$ (2)
The solution is parametrized in terms of rescaled scalar fields $`Y^I=aX^I`$, where $`a^3=\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}Y^IY^JY^K=𝒱(Y)`$. This is convenient because all space-time quantities, i.e., the metric, the gauge fields $`F_{\mu \nu }^I`$ fields and unconstrained scalars $`\varphi ^x`$ are functions of the $`Y^I`$. Note that the $`Y^I`$ (or, equivalently, $`X^I`$) are subject to one constraint. The unconstrained scalars $`\varphi ^x`$, $`x=1,\mathrm{},n_V`$ can be obtained by solving (1). Above we used ’special coordinates’ $`\varphi ^x=X^x/X^0=Y^x/Y^0`$.

The scalars $`Y^I`$ have to satisfy the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(C_{IJK}Y^JY^K\right)=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the (flat) Laplacian with respect to the four spatial coordinates. The solution can be expressed in terms of $`n_V+1`$ harmonic functions $`H_I`$ by solving the so-called generalized stabilization equations :

$$C_{IJK}Y^JY^K=2H_I.$$
(3)
This is a coupled system of quadratic equations for which no closed solution exists, though one knows explicit solutions for specific choices of $`C_{IJK}`$. We will only consider single-centered harmonic functions $`H_I=c_I+\frac{q_I}{r^2}`$, where $`r`$ is the transverse radial coordinate. Thus the solution depends on $`2(n_V+1)`$ parameters: whereas the $`c_I`$ determine the values of the scalars at infinity (one parameter is fixed by normalizing the metric), the $`q_I`$ are the electric charges carried by the solution.

Not all such solutions describe black holes. To exhibit potential singularities we look at the Ricci scalar:

$$R=\frac{6aa^{}+4r\left(a^{}\right)^2+2raa^{\prime \prime }}{ra^4},$$
(4)
where $`a`$ was defined above and $`a^{}=\frac{da}{dr}`$, etc. As discussed in  the solution has a regular horizon isometric to (a slice of) $`AdS^2\times S^3`$ if the number of Killing spinors doubles at $`r=0`$. In this case the values of the scalars at $`r=0`$ are fixed in terms of the charges. This is the celebrated supersymmetric attractor mechanism .

We will focus here on the much less studied question whether naked singularities can occure at $`r=r_{}>0`$, i.e., before reaching a horizon. By inspection of (4) one finds that this happens if either $`a(r)`$ vanishes at $`r_{}`$, or if $`a^{}(r)`$ or $`a^{\prime \prime }(r)`$ diverge.222The analysis of other curvature invariants does not change the discussion. The presence or absence of such a behaviour imposes inequalities (and not equalities) on the parameters $`c_I,q_I`$: singular and regular solutions are equally generic.

We will argue later that the solutions with naked singularities are unphysical in M-theory. But first we have to consider the global structure of the scalar manifold. If our five-dimensional supergravity theory has been obtained by compactification of eleven-dimensional supergravity on a Calabi-Yau threefold , then all its data are determined in terms of topological properties of the internal space. In particular, the constants $`C_{IJK}`$ are the triple-intersection numbers of the Calabi-Yau space, the scalars parametrize deformations of its Kähler structure, and the scalar manifold is a hypersurface in the Kähler cone.333The scalar corresponding to the total volume of the internal space sits in a hypermultiplet and is constant for our solutions.

The Kähler cone has boundaries, which correspond to singular Calabi-Yau spaces. The generic singularities and their physical interpretation were explained in :

1. the collapse of a two-cycle to a zero-cycle is related to a flop transition. In physical terms one gets massless charged hypermultiplets at the boundary. One can add a new Kähler cone to obtain the extended Kähler cone.
2. the collapse of a four-cycle to a two-cycle yields two charged vector multiplets which enhance a $`U\left(1\right)`$ factor of the gauge group to $`SU\left(2\right)`$. One can continue the moduli beyond this boundary, but the new Kähler cone is a gauge equivalent copy (obtained by an elementary transformation) of the original cone . One can either work with the extended parameter space (the extended movable cone) or restrict oneself to one cone, as we will see below.
3. the collapse of a four-cycle to a zero-cycle results in tensionless strings. In this case no continuation is possible.

In the following we will study the cases (1) and (2), where a continuation is possible. We assume that the Kähler cone can be parametrized by $`Y^I>0`$, where $`Y^I`$ is proportional to the volume of a holomorphic curve which collapses on the boundary $`Y^I=0`$.444This is always possible for toric Calabi-Yau threefolds, and, more generally, if there is a basis for the homological two-cycles consisting of cycles which are ’nef’ (numerically effective). In this basis the $`C_{IJK}`$ are non-negative. We thank Albrecht Klemm for explaining this to us. Then the continuation of the prepotential beyond the boundary $`Y^b=0`$, $`b\{I\}`$ is :

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}\left(Y\right)=\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJK}Y^IY^JY^K,$$
(5)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJK}=C_{IJK}+\left(\delta n_V\delta n_H\right)\delta _{Ib}\delta _{Jb}\delta _{Kb}.$$
(6)
Here $`\delta n_V`$ and $`\delta n_H`$ are the numbers of charged vector and hypermultiplets which become massless at $`Y^b=0`$.555They become massive again for negative $`Y^b`$.

Now suppose that we have found a solution of (3) such that $`Y^I(r)>0`$ for $`r>r_{}`$ and $`Y^b(r_{})=0`$. In order to continue the solution to $`r<r_{}`$ we must take into account that the coefficients $`C_{IJK}`$ change when $`Y^b`$ changes sign. Therefore the interior solution, where $`r<r_{}`$, is obtained by solving

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJK}Y^JY^K=2\stackrel{~}{H}_I.`$ (7)
Then one has to glue the two branches of the solution at $`r=r_{}`$. Note that it is not clear a priori whether the interior solution depends on the same harmonic functions as the exterior solution. Since the general solution depends on $`2(n_V+1)`$ parameters, we need to impose $`2(n_V+1)`$ conditions to obtain a unique continuation. The natural matching conditions are:

$`Y_{\text{(ext)}}^I\left(r_{}+\right)=Y_{\text{(int)}}^I\left(r_{}\right),F_{tr\text{(ext)}}^I\left(r_{}+\right)=F_{tr\text{(int)}}^I\left(r_{}\right),`$ (8)
which require that scalars and gauge fields are continuous at $`r_{}`$. This implies that the metric is continuous as well, since it is an algebraic function of $`𝒱(Y)`$. Note that although the coefficients $`C_{IJK}`$ jump at $`Y^b=0`$, the function $`𝒱(Y)`$ is continuous: the only coefficient which changes is $`C_{bbb}`$, but this is multiplied with $`Y^b`$, which vanishes precisely when $`C_{bbb}`$ jumps. This type of argument can be used to investigate the behaviour of various quantities at the transition point . The result for the case at hand is as follows:

1. the harmonic functions occuring in the exterior and interior solution are the same, i.e., the parameters $`c_I`$ and $`q_I`$ are the same.
2. the scalar fields $`Y^I`$ are continuously differentiable at $`r_{}`$, but the second derivatives are discontinuous.
3. the function $`𝒱\left(Y\right)`$ and, hence, the metric is two-times continuously differentiable at $`r_{}`$. Higher derivatives are discontinuous.

Thus one does not need to introduce a source of stress energy or charge at $`r_{}`$ in order to continue the solution.

So far our discussion applies equally to flops and to $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry enhancement. But there is a crucial difference, which we have to discuss now. For flops the branches $`Y^b>0`$ and $`Y^b<0`$ of the extended parameter space are inequivalent, because the corresponding families of Calabi-Yau spaces are not biholomorphically equivalent. This is different for $`SU(2)`$ enhancement, where $`Y^b`$ is equivalent to $`Y^b`$. In physical terms both values are related by an $`SU(2)`$ gauge transformation, the Weyl twist, while in geometrical terms they are related by a so-called elementary transformation of divisors. The triple intersection numbers are related by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJK}=C_{MNP}R_I^MR_J^NR_K^P$$
(9)
where $`(R_I^M)GL(n_V+1,𝐙)`$ satisfies $`R_I^MR_N^I=\delta _N^M`$. As a consequence the theory based on the prepotential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(Y)`$ can be obtained from the theory defined by $`𝒱(Y)`$ by applying the above transformation. In particular one can obtain the solutions $`Y^I=\stackrel{~}{f}^I[\stackrel{~}{H}]`$ of (7) by transforming solutions $`Y^I=f^I[H]`$ of (3):

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^I\left[\stackrel{~}{H}\right]=R_J^If^J\left[\stackrel{~}{H}R\right].$$
(10)
As discussed above, the matching conditions imply that the same harmonic functions appear in the interior and exterior solution. Therefore a solution crossing an $`SU(2)`$ boundary takes the form:

$`Y_{\text{(ext)}}^I\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f^I\left(H\left(r\right)\right),\text{for }r>r_{},`$ (11)
$`Y_{\text{(int)}}^I\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`R_J^If^J\left(H\left(r\right)R\right),\text{for }r<r_{}.`$ (12)
For $`r<r_{}`$ the scalars take values in the reflected cone $`\{R_J^IY^J>0\}`$. Since this is gauge-equivalent to the original cone $`\{Y^I>0\}`$, we can also parametrize the solution exclusively in terms of scalars which take values in one of the cones. For example, we can apply the Weyl twist to the interior solution, $`Y^I\widehat{Y}^I=R_J^IY^J`$ and obtain:

$`Y_{\text{(ext)}}^I\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f^I\left(H\left(r\right)\right),\text{ for }r>r_{},`$ (13)
$`\widehat{Y}_{\text{(int)}}^I\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f^I\left(H\left(r\right)R\right),\text{ for }r<r_{}.`$ (14)
Now the scalars take values inside the original cone for both the exterior and interior part, but one has to apply a gauge transformation when the solution reaches $`r_{}`$ in order to connect the two branches of the solution.

Let us now return to the issue of singularities. Since (3) cannot be solved in closed form it is difficult to obtain results in a model-independent way. However, the study of a specific family of Calabi-Yau spaces suggests that solutions cannot become singular as long as the scalars take values inside the Kähler cone. We consider the elliptic fibrations over the Hirzebruch surfaces $`_0,_1,_2`$ . Let $`Y^I>0`$ be the Kähler cone and introduce new scalars $`S,T,U`$ by

$$Y^0=U,Y^1=TU,Y^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}SU,\hfill & \text{ for }_0,\hfill \\ S\frac{1}{2}\left(T+U\right),\hfill & \text{ for }_1,\hfill \\ ST,\hfill & \text{ for }_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Though the variables $`S,T,U`$ are not adapted to the Kähler cone, they are convenient, because the prepotentials of all three models take the same simple form:

$$𝒱=STU+\frac{1}{3}U^3.$$
(16)
In this basis the solution of (3) is :

$$U=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}},T=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}H_S,S=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}H_T,\text{where}\mathrm{\Delta }=H_U\sqrt{H_U^24H_SH_T}.$$
(17)
One finds that there are two situations where (4) becomes singular:

1. $`H_S\left(r_{}\right)H_T\left(r_{}\right)=0`$, which implies $`U\left(r_{}\right)=0`$. $`U=0`$ is a boundary of the Kähler cone where the volume of some of the two-cycles goes to zero while the volumes of others diverge.666 A more generic realization of this singularity is the collapse of the six-cycle to a four-cycle. In our model this cannot happen because the total volume is fixed. This case is not covered by the above list, and no five-dimensional interpretation is known to the author. However, if one considers type II string theory on the same Calabi-Yau space, then $`U=0`$ corresponds to a non-geometrical Landau-Ginsburg phase. We thank Albrecht Klemm for drawing our intention to the string theory interpretation. The metric on the Kähler cone becomes singular and the five-dimensional effective theory breaks down.
2. $`H_U\left(r_{}\right)^2=4H_S\left(r_{}\right)H_T\left(r_{}\right)`$. This does not correspond to a special locus in moduli space, but the derivatives of the scalars $`S,T,U`$ diverge whenever the above equation holds. However, if the scalars take values inside the Kähler cone, then $`T>U`$, which implies $`H_U>H_S+H_T`$. Thus one reaches the boundary $`T=U`$ first and the solution is regular at this point.777 If the solution has been fine-tuned such that $`T(r_{})=U(r_{})=S(r_{})`$, then the singularity occures precisely when the boundary is reached. $`T=U=S`$ is a special point on the boundary where one does not get $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry enhancement, but tensionless strings .

We conclude that all solutions are regular as long as the scalars take values inside the Kähler cone. Whether a solution becomes singular when the boundary is reached depends on the kind of singularity the internal manifold develops. Note that a solution in the reflected cone is singular if and only if the gauge-equivalent solution in the original cone is singular. Since all solutions in the original cone are regular, it is guaranteed that the continuation of a black hole solution through $`SU(2)`$ enhancement yields a regular solution.

We have established for our three models that naked singularities are either related to a breakdown of the effective theory at the boundary of the Kähler cone or removed by an enhançon-like mechanism. It is tempting to speculate that this holds generally. We find it suggestive that the linear equation characterising the $`SU(2)`$ boundary is the discriminante of a quadratic equation which determines the presence or absence of a space-time singularity.

It is straightforward to extend the above analysis to magnetic black string solutions, which take the form :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱\left(Y\right)^{1/3}\left(dt^2+dz^2\right)+𝒱\left(Y\right)^{2/3}dx_{\left(3\right)}^2,`$
$`F_{mn}^I`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{mnp}_pY^I,\varphi ^x=Y^x/Y^0.`$ (18)
This time the rescaled scalars themselves have to be harmonic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y^I=0`$. Thus the analogue of (3) simply is: $`Y^I=H^I`$. Proceeding in the same way as before one obtains the following results:

1. naked singularities occure if and only if $`𝒱\left(Y\left(r_{}\right)\right)=0`$. This can only happen on the boundary of the Kähler cone. Thus the solution is guaranteed to be regular as long as the scalars take values inside the Kähler cone. Note that in contrast to black holes we are able to prove this for any choice of $`𝒱\left(Y\right)`$, because we know the solution explicitly in terms of the harmonic functions.
2. black string solutions can be continued through flop transitions and through $`SU\left(2\right)`$ enhancement. The scalars $`Y^I`$ and the gauge fields are smooth at $`r_{}`$, whereas the metric is two times continuously differentiable.

Let us now compare our results to analogous results for the domain walls of five-dimensional Horava-Witten theory . Here it was shown that one can continue the bulk solution through flop transitions . This is very similar to the above analysis for black holes. However, for domain walls the scalars are only continuous and the metric is only continuously differentiable. This reflects that one needs to introduce a source of G-flux (though none of stress energy) at the transition point. The case of $`SU(2)`$ enhancement remains to be analysed and poses new problems, since the $`SU(2)`$ enhancement is generically incompatible with the background G-flux. We hope to report on this question in a future publication. One can also analyse the question of naked curvature singularities in Horava-Witten domain walls. Since the domain wall solution is determined by an algebraic equation of the form (3), there is a one to one correspondence between domain walls and black holes. It is straightforward to show that a domain wall exhibits a naked curvature singularity if and only if the corresponding black hole solution does. This reflects that both space-time geometries are determined by the same dynamical system on the Kähler cone, as advocated in . Also note that the above analysis of singularities of black holes solutions for a particular set of Calabi-Yau compactifications is identical to the one carried out for the corresponding Horawa-Witten domain walls in .

Finally we comment on the relation of our results to the enhançon . The point in common is that an apparent naked curvature singularity of a supergravity solution is absent in M-theory because one first runs into $`SU(2)`$ enhancement. The difference is that enhançon geometries generically require to place branes as sources of charge and stress energy at the transition point. Moreover the interior solution is typically of a different type than the exterior one. Our solution seems closest to a particular type of enhançon solutions where the interior solution is a black hole . It will be interesting to find the relations of the various incarnations of the enhançon mechanism. We close with speculating that there is a universal mechanism in M-theory which avoids space-time singularities by the intervention of additional light modes, which are related to degenerations and topological transitions of the internal space.

Acknowledgement I would like to thank the organisers of the symposium Ahrenshoop 2002 for organizing a stimulating meeting and for the opportunity to present this work, and I thank Laur Järv, Albrecht Klemm, Christoph Mayer, Frank Saueressig and Marco Zagermann for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript.