text:
# The Power of LOCCq State Transformations

## I Introduction

Entanglement is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. It has been found useful for various information processing tasks such as teleportationBennett et al. (1993), superdense codingBennett and Wiesner (1992), entanglement assisted classical and quantum communicationBennett et al. (1999, 2002), quantum algorithmsShor (1994), and quantum cryptographyBennett and Brassard (December 1984). Since it is such an important resource, much effort has been put into quantifying it. Entanglement for two-party pure states is completely understood. For mixed states the situation is not as clear, there being various different measures. Recently, Bennett et al. (2001) have proposed a program to quantify multipartite entanglement using the idea of reversible state transformations induced by entanglement non-increasing operations. It is well known that asymptotic local operations and classical communication (LOCC) are required to get a simple operational measure of bipartite pure state entanglement. For bipartite mixed states and multipartite pure states it is likely that a more powerful class of operations will be needed. To this end Bennett et al. (2001) have defined more powerful versions of state transformations (or reducibilities), namely LOCCq (asymptotic LOCC with a sublinear amount of quantum communication) and CLOCC (asymptotic LOCC with catalysis). In this paper we show that LOCCq state transformations are only as powerful as asymptotic LOCC state transformations for multipartite pure states. We first generalize the concept of entanglement gambling from two parties to multiple parties: any pure multipartite entangled state can be transformed to an EPR pair shared by some pair of parties and that any non-trivial $`m`$ $`(m2)`$ party pure state can be used to create any other state (pure or mixed), using only local operations and classical communication (LOCC). We then use this tool to prove the result. We mention some applications of multipartite entanglement gambling to multipartite distillability and to characterizations of multipartite minimal entanglement generating sets. Finally we discuss generalizations of this result to mixed states by defining the class of cat distillable states.

## II Multipartite Entanglement Gambling

We begin by looking at entanglement gambling for bipartite pure states. Bennett, Bernstein, Popescu and Schumacher introduced the idea of entanglement gambling in Bennett et al. (1996). The idea is to produce an EPR pair with a positive probability using local operations and classical communication (LOCC) starting from any other entangled bipartite pure state. We briefly review the bipartite entanglement portocol. Let us consider an arbitrary entangled pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ shared by A and B. It is well known that for a bipartite pure state can always be written in a Schmidt decomposition

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_i|i^\mathrm{A}i^\mathrm{B},$$
(1)
where $`k2`$ since the state is entangled, $`\{a_i>0|i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`|i^\mathrm{A}`$ form an orthonormal basis for $`A`$ and $`|i^\mathrm{B}`$ form an orthonormal basis for $`B`$. Now A and B can apply the local projectors $`P^{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}=|0^{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}0^{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}|+|1^{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}1^{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}|`$ on their halves of the state. This produces state

$$\psi _1=c|00+d|11$$

with probability $`p=a_1^2+a_2^2`$, where

$$c=\frac{a_1}{p}\mathrm{and}d=\frac{a_2}{p}.$$

Then Alice applies the local quantum operation given by the superoperator with operator elements

$`A_1=d|00|+c|11|`$
$`A_2=\sqrt{1d^2}|00|+\sqrt{1c^2}|11|,`$
then the outcome corresponding to $`A_1`$ gives an EPR pair with probability $`2c^2d^2`$. Thus the total success probability for the whole process is $`(2a_1^2a_2^2)/(a_1^2+a_2^2)`$ which is non-zero. Thus any pure bipartite entangled state can be converted to an EPR pair with a positive probability.

Let us now write the above result in the notation used by Bennett et al. (2001)111In Bennett et al. (2001) state transformations are also called as reducibilities: If $`\psi `$ is transformed to $`\varphi `$ we can say that the problem of creating $`\varphi `$ is reducible to the problem of creating $`\psi `$. This provides the intuition behind the name reducibility. In this paper we will use the state transformations language instead of reducibilities.. First we briefly review the notation. We start with state transformations for one copy of a state involving probabilistic outcomes, where the procedure for the reducibility may fail some of time. This is called stochastic state transformation.

We say a state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is stochastic LOCC transformable to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with yield $`p`$, written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}\mathrm{\Phi }^p`$ if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi })}{\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi })},$$
(2)
where $``$ is a multilocally implementable superoperator222A multilocally implementable superoperator is just a mathematical representation of a LOCC protocol. such that $`\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi })=p`$. This means that a copy of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be obtained from a copy of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with probability $`p`$ by LOCC operations. When $`p=1`$ it is called an exact transformation or an exact reducibility.

Let $`_2`$ denote the set of bipartite pure entangled states, then the bipartite entanglement gambling result can be expressed as

$$\psi _2,p>0,\psi \mathrm{EPR}^p.$$
(3)
Clearly a generalized version of stochastic transformations is obtained if we allow a finite number of copies of the source and target states. We say state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is multicopy stochastic LOCC transformable to state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with yield $`p`$, written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}\mathrm{\Phi }^p`$, if and only if

$$_{,m,n}\mathrm{\Phi }^n=\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^m)}{\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi }^m)},$$
(4)
where $``$ is a multilocally implementable superoperator such that $`\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi })=pm/n`$. This means that $`n`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be obtained from $`m`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with yield $`p`$ per copy by LOCC operations.

Let us return to bipartite entanglement gambling again. It gives us an EPR pair with positive probability starting from any entangled pure state. Since EPR pairs can be used in a teleportation protocol to create an arbitrary bipartite state, clearly any bipartite pure entangled state may be converted to any other bipartite state with a positive probability. Notice that this protocol will in general require multiple copies of the source state since the target state may be a state with higher Schmidt number. Thus a stronger version of bipartite gambling can be written using the multicopy stochastic reducibility as

$$\psi _2,p>0,\psi \varphi ^p,$$
(5)
where $`_2`$ denotes the set of bipartite pure entangled states and $`\varphi `$ is any bipartite state, pure or mixed, in finite dimensions.

Now let us consider the multi-party scenario: There are $`m`$ parties $`(m2)`$ labelled as $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Given a non-trivial subset $`X`$ of the parties and its complement $`\overline{X}`$, we say that $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$ defines a cut between $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$. We say that pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is factorizable across the cut $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$ of the parties if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written as a tensor product of two states, one with the parties in set $`X`$ and the other with the parties in the complement $`\overline{X}`$. We say that a state is entangled if it is not factorizable across some cut. We define a pure state to be irreducible if it is not factorizable across all cuts. Thus an irreducible $`m`$-party pure state captures the notion of a true $`m`$-party state. Now we are ready to generalize entanglement gambling.

It turns out that for multiple parties, gambling can be generalized in different ways. First we generalize the weaker result shown in equation 3. In this case we show that an entangled pure multipartite state can be transformed under LOCC to an EPR pair between some pair of parties. We write this as a lemma333This lemma was independently proved in D$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$r (2001).

###### Lemma 1

: If state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an $`m`$-partite pure state that is entangled across the cut $`\{\{i_1\},\{i_2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_m\}\}`$ then there exists $`p>0`$ and two parties say $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ such that,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{EPR}^{\mathrm{P}_1\mathrm{P}_2})^p.$$
(6)
Proof: We argue by induction on the number of parties $`m`$. The first non-trivial case is when $`m=2`$. Here entanglement gambling protocols Bennett et al. (1996) we discussed in the introduction guarantee the result. So let us assume that the result is true for $`m<k`$. We need to prove that it is true for $`m=k>2`$. For this we will use the idea of entanglement of assistance DiVincenzo et al. (1999). We let $`A=i_1`$ be the helper and $`B=i_2`$ be the first party and $`\{i_3,i_4,\mathrm{},i_m\}=C`$ be the (composite) second party. Consider the entanglement of assistance of $`\rho ^{\mathrm{BC}}`$. If it is zero then from the result on zero entanglement of assistance from DiVincenzo et al. (1999) implies that either $`\rho ^{\mathrm{BC}}=\rho ^\mathrm{B}|\psi ^\mathrm{C}\psi ^\mathrm{C}|`$ or $`\rho ^{\mathrm{BC}}=|\psi ^\mathrm{B}\psi ^\mathrm{B}|\rho ^\mathrm{C}`$. Then either $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi ^{\mathrm{AB}}\psi ^\mathrm{C}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi ^{\mathrm{AC}}\psi ^\mathrm{B}`$. In the first case, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ was entangled across the partition $`\{\{i_1\},\{i_2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_m\}\}`$, $`\psi ^{\mathrm{i}_1,\mathrm{i}_2}`$ has to be entangled, in which case we apply the $`m=2`$ case to get an EPR pair between $`i_1`$ and $`i_2`$. Similarly for the second case $`\psi ^{\mathrm{i}_1,\mathrm{i}_3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{m}}`$ must be entangled across the cut $`\{\{i_1\},\{i_3,\mathrm{},i_m\}\}`$, this by the induction hypothesis can give an EPR pair between some two parties. If the entanglement of assistance is not zero, then A can help B and $`C`$ to get (with finite probability) an entangled state $`\psi ^{\mathrm{BC}}`$ i.e. state $`\psi ^{\mathrm{i}_2,\mathrm{i}_3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{m}}`$ that is entangled across the partition $`\{\{i_2\},\{i_3,\mathrm{},i_m\}\}`$. This by the induction hypothesis can give an EPR pair between some two parties. Thus the result is proved.

Note that the result does not require multiple copies of the starting state. Note that for proving the above result we used the necessary and sufficient condition for a state to have zero entanglement of assistance. It is quite reasonable that the entanglement of assistance would be useful for a multipartite scenario, since the motivation for it relies on a three party scenario.

Now we generalize the stronger version of bipartite entanglement gambling shown in Eq. 4. The generalization involves showing that any irreducible $`m`$-party state can generate any other $`m`$-party state (pure or mixed) with positive probability using the multicopy stochastic LOCC operations. We prove this by showing that we can get an EPR pair between every pair of parties from any irreducible $`m`$-partite pure state. Then using teleportation, any other state can be generated from these EPR pairs. We state this result below.

###### Theorem 1

If state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an irreducible $`m`$-partite state then for any two parties say $`P_2`$ and $`P_1`$ there exists $`p>0`$ such that,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}(\mathrm{EPR}^{P_1P_2})^p.$$
(7)
Proof: To prove this we argue by induction on the number of parties $`m`$. The first non-trivial case is when $`m=2`$. Since the state is irreducible, it is an entangled bipartite state and we get the result directly from lemma 1. Assuming the result to be true for $`m<k`$, we show that it is true for $`m=k`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is irreducible, by lemma 1 we can stochastically get an EPR pair between some two parties say $`A`$ and $`B`$. If these two are the required parties $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ then we are done. Otherwise by teleportation through these EPR pairs, the parties $`A`$ and $`B`$ can implement any operation they could if they were in the same lab. Thus we can look on them as forming a composite party say $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. Then we have reduced the problem to the $`m=k1`$ partite case thus proving the result.

## III The Power of a Little Quantum Communication

In this section we will prove the main result — For pure states asymptotic LOCCq transformations are only as powerful as asymptotic LOCC state transformations. First we need to define these notions of state transformations.

State $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is said to be asymptotically LOCC transformable state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, if and only if

$`_{\delta >0,ϵ>0}_{n,n^{},}|(n/n^{})1|<\delta \mathrm{and}`$
$`F((\mathrm{\Psi }^n^{}),\mathrm{\Phi }^n)1ϵ`$ . (8)
Here $``$ is a multi-locally implementable superoperator that converts $`n^{}`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into a high fidelity approximation to $`n`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus asymptotic reducibility captures the possibility of state transformations as the number of source and target copies tends to infinity. Also note that if $`\psi \varphi ^p`$ then $`\psi \varphi ^p`$ because of the properties of a binomial distribution with probability $`p`$ of success.

Asymptotic reducibilities can have non-integer yields. This can be expressed using tensor exponents that take on any nonnegative real value, so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^y\mathrm{\Phi }^x`$ denotes

$`_{\delta >0}_{n,n^{},}|(n/n^{})x/y|<\delta \mathrm{and}`$
$`F((\mathrm{\Psi }^n^{}),\mathrm{\Phi }^n)1ϵ`$ . (9)
In this case we say $`x/y`$ is the asymptotic efficiency or yield with which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be obtained from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This justifies the notation used while writing the stochastic state transformations.

A stronger version of asymptotic LOCC state transformation is obtained if we allow a sublinear amount of quantum communication during the transformation process. This is called (asymptotic LOCCq) state transformation. We say state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is asymptotically LOCCq transformable to state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCCq}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if and only if

$`_{\delta >0,ϵ>0}_{n,k,}(k/n)<\delta \mathrm{and}`$
$`F((\mathrm{\Gamma }^k\mathrm{\Psi }^n),\mathrm{\Phi }^n)1ϵ`$ , (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the $`m`$-Cat state $`|0^m+|1^m`$. The $`m`$-Cat states used here are a convenient way of allowing a sublinear amount $`o(n)`$ of quantum communication, since they can be used as described in Bennett et al. (2001) to generate EPR pairs between any two parties which in turn can be used to teleport quantum data between the parties. The $`o(n)`$ quantum communication allows the definition to be simpler in one respect: a single tensor power $`n`$ can be used for the input state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and output state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, rather than the separate powers $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ used in the definition of ordinary asymptotic LOCC reducibility without quantum communication, because any $`o(n)`$ shortfall in number of copies of the output state can be made up by using the Cat states to synthesize the extra output states de novo. This definition is more natural than that for ordinary asymptotic LOCC reducibility in that the input and output states are allowed to differ in any way that can be repaired by an $`o(n)`$ expenditure of quantum communication, rather than only in the specific way of being $`n`$ versus $`n^{}`$ copies of the desired state where $`nn^{}`$ is $`o(n)`$.

Clearly $`_{\mathrm{LOCC}}`$ implies $`_{\mathrm{LOCCq}}`$ because as discussed above asymptotic LOCC state transformation is a special case of LOCCq state transformations. An important question is whether LOCCq state transformations are stronger. It turns out that LOCCq state transformations are not stronger than asymptotic LOCC for pure states. This constitutes the main result of the paper.

We start by showing that a state that is factorizable across some cut can give rise to only states that are factorizable across that cut under asymptotic LOCCq state transformations. We prove this in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2

: Given state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that is factorizable across the partition $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCCq}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be factorizable across the same partition.

Proof: This is essentially a two party problem, with $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ as the two compound parties. We argue by contradiction. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was non-factorizable across the partition $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$ with bipartite entanglement $`x>0`$. Then $`n`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would have $`nx`$ bipartite entanglement across the partition. However, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has no entanglement across the partition and since LOCCq protocols only allow a sub linear amount of $`m`$-Cat states along with LOCC, they cannot increase the entanglement across the partition by more than $`o(n)`$. Thus, no asymptotic LOCCq protocol can give rise to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ starting from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Now we prove that for irreducible pure states, asymptotic LOCCq and asymptotic LOCC are equally powerful.

###### Lemma 3

For an irreducible $`m`$-partite pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and any arbitrary state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCCq}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(11)
Proof Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is irreducible, it is cat distillable from theorem 1. Hence we can use a $`o(n)`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to generate $`o(n)`$ copies of $`m`$Cat by LOCC, which we can use for the $`o(n)`$ quantum communication required for LOCCq. Since only $`o(n)`$ extra copies of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are required than the LOCCq protocol, this does not change the yield asymptotically, and hence the LOCCq protocol can be simulated by an LOCC protocol. This proves the result.

Now we are ready to combine the results from the above lemmas to prove the general result as the theorem below.

###### Theorem 2

For $`m`$-partite pure states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCCq}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{LOCC}}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(12)
Proof We argue by induction on the number of parties $`m`$. Consider the first non-trivial case $`m=2`$. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is irreducible, then theorem 1 along with lemma 3 gives us the result. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is factorizable, in this case a product state, then by lemma 2 $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be a product state too and thus can be created trivially by LOCC operations. Now let the theorem be true for all $`m<k`$, then we show that it is true for $`m=k`$. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is irreducible, then theorem 1 along with lemma 3 gives us the result. Otherwise $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is factorizable across some cut $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$. Then lemma 2 implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is factorizable across the same cut i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1^\mathrm{X}\varphi _2^{\overline{\mathrm{X}}}`$. Applying this theorem for $`m<k`$, to the states $`\varphi _1^\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\varphi _2^\mathrm{X}`$ we have the result.

Thus we have shown that LOCC and LOCCq are equivalent for pure states.

Let us now turn our attention to an application of entanglement gambling to multipartite distillability.

## IV Entanglement Gambling and Multipartite Distillability

In this section we will study some implications of the entanglement gambling result to the notion of distillability in multi-party systems.

One of the main problems with defining distillable entanglement for multiple parties is that since there are many different kinds of entanglement, it is impossible to maximize over the yield of all those states. However, we may easily generalize the notion of distillability from the bipartite scenario to get the following general definition of distillability: We say $`\rho `$ is distillable if and only if $`\rho \mathrm{\Psi }^x`$ for some positive $`x`$, where $`\psi `$ is some entangled pure state.

However, operationally it is more useful to have EPR pairs or Cat-states as the target state to be produced in the distillation procedure, since they can then directly be used to achieve other information processing tasks. Thus, one may define EPR distillability as: We say $`\rho `$ is distillable if and only if $`\rho \mathrm{\Psi }^x`$ for some positive $`x`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an EPR pair between some pair of parties. Similarly, one may define Cat distillability as EPR distillability, except the target state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is now required to be a $`m`$-Cat state.

The relation between general distillability and EPR/Cat distillability is an interesting issue. In the bipartite case since any pure entangled state can be converted to an EPR pair, it turns out that EPR-distillability and distillability are identical. Clearly we would want this property to be true for multipartite states also. Clearly all we need to show is that any entangled multipartite pure state can give some EPR pair asymptotically, since then the entangled pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the general definition distillability above, can be converted to an EPR pair. This is precisely the result of lemma 1! Thus we can say that A $`m`$-partite state $`\rho `$ is distillable if and only if it is EPR distillable.

Clearly, if a state is Cat-distillable it is also distillable and EPR distillable. Clearly, the converse is not true in general. Cat-distillable states are interesting because they can generate all other states and hence form a minimal entanglement generating set (MEGS), that is a minimal set of states that can generate any other state under asymptotic LOCC. Since the reversibility of the state transformations is not required, this is a very coarse grained entanglement measure. Let us consider a state that is factorizable across some cut of parties $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$. Then it cannot be cat-distillable because that would imply that a separable bipartite state can be made into an entangled one with LOCC operations, which we know is impossible. Thus only irreducible states can be cat-distillable. Then lemma 1 shows that any irreducible pure state is cat-distillable. Putting these together we see that a pure state is cat-distillable if and only if it is irreducible. But dropping the requirement of reversibility still gives a qualitative broad picture of multipartite entanglement. This is analogous to classifying bipartite mixed states as distillable and undistillable to get a coarse grained measure of distillable entanglement. In this light, the result is very satisfying because it says that: If we allow ourselves to waste entanglement during transformation of states, then any irreducible state is equivalent to any other, and is more powerful entanglement-wise than any factorizable state, thus giving a hierarchy of qualitatively different entangled states which factorize into irreducible parts of various sizes.

A natural question is whether a non-factorizable mixed state is also cat-distillable. This obviously is false, because that would imply separable but non-factorizable bipartite states could generate entanglement, which we know cannot happen. So we need to generalize the idea of irreducibility to mixed states. The natural way to do this is by replacing the idea of factorizability to that of separability. So we say that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is reducible across a partition $`\{X,\overline{X}\}`$ of parties if it is separable across that partition. We say a state is irreducible if it is not separable across any partition of the parties. This generalization is not useful because of the existence of bound entangled states, that is states which are inseparable but not distillable. So, we could generalize irreducibility to mixed states using distillability across cuts: We say a state is irreducible if it is distillable across all cuts. Given this generalization of the definition, it is an open question whether cat-distillability and irreducibility are equivalent for mixed states, because lemma 1 does not hold for mixed states in general Smolin (2001); Shor et al. . This just means that our approach from theorem 1 won’t carry over to mixed states.

## V Discussions and Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that asymptotic LOCC and LOCCq state transformations are equally powerful for pure states. Clearly an important question is whether LOCCq is more powerful than asymptotic LOCC for mixed states. Obviously, for cat-distillable (mixed) states our result showing that the two have equal power should hold since we can use $`o(n)`$ Cat-states to achieve $`o(n)`$ quantum communication. Thus, the open question is mainly regarding the mixed states that are not cat-distillable. This is an important future direction. One possible way to get the full mixed state result just as we did for pure states, using induction and showing that factorizable states can only give rise to factorizable states under LOCCq transformations, leads to the problem of how to define irreducible mixed states such that they are cat-distillable and at the same time would facilitate an inductive argument.

We have shown here that any irreducible (non-factorizable) pure state is cat-distillable, however our protocols are not very efficient, and that was not the goal either. However, in reality, we need cat-distillable protocols that are efficient. Finding such protocols is another important future direction.

###### Acknowledgements.

AVT acknowledges support from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Laboratory, Air Force Material Command, USAF, under Contract No. F30602-01-2-0524, also from the USA Army Research Office, under grants DAAG-55-98-C-0041, and DAAG-55-98-1-0366, and support from IBM Research. JAS acknowledges support from the USA Army Research Office, under grant DAAG-55-98-C-0041.


format: text

text:
# Observational constraints on the curvaton model of inflation

## I Introduction

Recent detailed measurements of the acoustic peaks in CMB anisotropy power spectrum by the WMAP satellite G. Hinshaw et al. (2003); H. V. Peiris et al. (2003) are consistent with the standard model of a predominantly adiabatic, approximately scale invariant primordial power spectrum in a spatially flat Universe. Frequently it is assumed the initial power spectrum is entirely adiabatic, though there is still no compelling justification for this assumption. Although adiabatic perturbations are predicted from single field models of inflation Liddle and Lyth (2000), if one allows the possibility of multiple fields in the early Universe then there is also the possibility of *isocurvature* perturbations (also known as *entropy* perturbations) Kofman and Linde (1987); Polarski and Starobinsky (1994); Garcia-Bellido and Wands (1996); Linde and Mukhanov (1997); Sasaki and Tanaka (1998); Langlois (1999); Gordon et al. (2001); Hwang and Noh (2000); Starobinsky et al. (2001); Bartolo et al. (2001); Groot Nibbelink and van Tent (2002); Wands et al. (2002); Tsujikawa et al. (2002). In particular, the recently proposed curvaton model uses a second scalar field (the ‘curvaton’) to form the perturbations Mollerach (1990); Lyth and Wands (2002); Lyth et al. (2003); Moroi and Takahashi (2001, 2002); Moroi and Murayama (2003). The motivation for this is it makes it easier for otherwise satisfactory particle physics models of inflation to produce the correct primordial spectrum of perturbations Dimopoulos and Lyth (2002). Various candidates for the curvaton have been proposed Postma (2003); Enqvist et al. (2003); Bastero-Gil et al. (2002); Dimopoulos et al. (2003a, b). A curvaton mechanism has also been considered in the pre big bang scenario Copeland et al. (1997); Lidsey et al. (2000); Enqvist and Sloth (2002); Sloth (2003); Bozza et al. (2002) where it can be used to produce an almost scale invariant spectrum.

The curvaton scenario also has the feature of being able to generate isocurvature perturbations of a similar magnitude to the adiabatic perturbation without fine tuning, and therefore is open to observational test.

Early studies of non-adiabatic perturbations, either considered purely isocurvature cold dark matter perturbations Efstathiou and Bond (1986) or mixtures of adiabatic and uncorrelated cold dark matter isocurvature perturbations R. Stompor et al. (1996); Pierpaoli et al. (1999); Kawasaki and Takahashi (2001); Enqvist et al. (2000). However, as first realized by Langlois Langlois (1999), the adiabatic and isocurvature components can be correlated and this correlation may have interesting observational consequences Langlois and Riazuelo (2000). In Ref. Bucher et al. (2001a) they identified four regular isocurvature modes, which in general can have arbitrary correlations with each other and with the adiabatic mode. Such general models have many degeneracies and are badly constrained by pre-WMAP data Trotta et al. (2001, 2003). Detailed CMB polarization data is expected to help with this Bucher et al. (2001b). In Ref. H. V. Peiris et al. (2003) (following Ref. Amendola et al. (2002) with pre-WMAP data) they considered a CDM isocurvature mode with an arbitrary correlation to an adiabatic mode and found that though not favored by the data, a significant isocurvature contribution was still permitted. Constraints on a specific model that doesn’t produce isocurvature modes were given in Ref. Bartolo and Liddle (2002).

Here we start in Section II by making some general remarks about mixed isocurvature models, and discuss the corresponding CMB power spectra predictions. Then in Section III we discuss current observational constraints on totally correlated (or anti-correlated) adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, as predicted by the curvaton model. Various scenarios within the curvaton model predict specific ratios of adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, and can be tested directly. In general we find constraints on when the curvaton decayed.

We use the CMB temperature and temperature-polarization cross-correlation anisotropy power spectra from the WMAP111http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/ L. Verde et al. (2003); G. Hinshaw et al. (2003); A. Kogut et al. (2003) observations, as well as seven almost independent temperature band powers from ACBAR222http://cosmologist.info/ACBAR C.L. Kuo et al. (2002) on smaller scales. In addition we use data from the 2dF galaxy redshift survey W. Percival et al. (2002), HST Key Project W. L. Freedman et al. (2001), and nucleosynthesis Burles et al. (2001) using a slightly modified version of the CosmoMC333http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc Markov-Chain Monte Carlo program, as described in Ref. Lewis and Bridle (2002).

For simplicity we assume a flat universe with a cosmological constant, uninteracting cold dark matter, and massless neutrinos evolving according to general relativity.

## II Primordial perturbations and the CMB anisotropy

It is well known that the curvature perturbation, in the constant density or comoving frame (gauge444In the context of this article the term frame and gauge are effectively interchangeable. See Appendix A for further discussion. ) is conserved on super-Hubble scales for adiabatic perturbations Bardeen (1980); Bardeen et al. (1983); Lyth (1985); Kodama and Sasaki (1984); Mukhanov et al. (1992). This is not the case in the presence of isocurvature modes since these source changes to the curvature perturbation. However, as shown in Ref. Wands et al. (2000) (and reviewed in Appendix A), in the presence of isocurvature modes the large scale evolution can still be analysed easily using the curvature perturbation in the frame in which the density is unperturbed, $`\zeta `$. This can be expressed in terms of the curvature perturbations in the frames in which individual species are unperturbed $`\zeta _i`$ using

$$\zeta =\frac{_i\rho _i^{}\zeta _i}{_i\rho _i^{}},$$
(1)
where the dash denotes the derivative with respect to conformal time. For non-interacting conserved particle species the individual $`\zeta _i`$ are conserved on large scales if there is a definite equation of state $`p_i=p_i(\rho _i)`$. In this case the evolution of $`\zeta `$ follows straightforwardly from Eq. (1) depending on the evolution of the background energy densities. An adiabatic perturbation is one in which $`\zeta _i=\zeta `$ for all $`i`$, in which case $`\zeta `$ is constant in time on large scales. The isocurvature perturbations are defined as Malik et al. (2003)

$$𝒮_{i,j}3(\zeta _i\zeta _j)=3\left(\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\rho _i^{}}\frac{\delta \rho _j}{\rho _j^{}}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\delta \rho _i=\rho _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ (no sum) is the density perturbation in any frame and $``$ is the conformal Hubble rate. We consider a fluid consisting of photons ($`\gamma `$), massless neutrinos ($`\nu `$), cold baryons ($`b`$) and cold dark matter (CDM, $`c`$), where it is conventional to describe the perturbations with $`j=\gamma `$, in which case the second index can be omitted so $`𝒮_b𝒮_{b,\gamma }`$, etc. The isocurvature perturbations are conserved on large scales where the photon-baryon coupling is unimportant. The $`\zeta _i`$ are related to the fractional density perturbations in the unperturbed curvature frame by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i=3(1+p_i/\rho _i)\zeta _i`$, and for matter with constant equation of state $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ are also conserved on large scales.

In general isocurvature perturbations give rise to perturbations in the density, and the universe is no longer exactly FRW. One exception to this is when the two matter perturbations exactly compensate, so $`\delta \rho _c=\delta \rho _b`$, in which case the total matter density is unperturbed, and hence the universe evolves as though there were no perturbations. In such a universe the CMB anisotropy would be dominated by tiny small scale linear effects due to non-zero pressure of the baryons or dark mater, and second order effects due to the perturbation in the electron number density associated with the baryons. At linear order $`\delta \rho _c=\delta \rho _b`$, $`\zeta =\delta \rho _\gamma =\delta \rho _\nu =0`$ is a time independent solution to the pressureless perturbation equations, and adding this solution to any other solution will make no difference to the linear CMB anisotropy or matter power spectrum. It follows that an initial isocurvature perturbation with $`𝒮_b=1,𝒮_c=0`$ is observationally essentially indistinguishable from one with $`𝒮_b=0,𝒮_c=\rho _b/\rho _c`$.

We now derive an approximate analytic form for the large scale CMB temperature anisotropy in the presence of primordial isocurvature and adiabatic perturbations. Neglecting a local monopole and dipole contribution, taking recombination to be instantaneous at at conformal time $`\tau _{}`$, and assuming the reionization optical depth is negligible, the monopole and Integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW) contributions to the temperature anisotropies due to scalar perturbations are given by

$$\frac{\delta T}{T}\left[\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma +2\varphi \right]_\tau _{}+2_\tau _{}^{\tau _0}\varphi ^{}𝑑\lambda ,$$
(3)
where $`\varphi `$ is the Weyl potential (see Appendix A) and $`\tau _0`$ is the conformal time today and the integral is along the comoving photon line of site. Additional terms which arise due to the velocities, quadrupoles and polarization at last scattering are generally sub-dominant on large scales. Since the pressures are assumed to be zero the perturbations are purely adiabatic in the matter era, and hence $`\zeta `$ is constant on large scales. During matter domination the potential evolves as $`\varphi =C_1+C_2/\tau ^5`$, and can be related to $`\zeta `$ using Eq. (34) when the anisotropic stress is negligible

$$\varphi =\frac{3}{5}\zeta +\frac{C_2}{\tau ^5}.$$
(4)
Since the radiation to matter density ratio only falls off as $`1/\tau ^2`$ when the matter dominates, when the approximation of matter domination is accurate it should also be valid to neglect the decaying mode $`1/\tau ^5`$ and assume $`\varphi \frac{3}{5}\zeta `$. Using $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma =4\zeta _\gamma `$, and neglecting the ISW contribution Eq. (3) then becomes

$$\frac{\delta T}{T}\zeta _\gamma \frac{6}{5}\zeta $$
(5)
where from Eq. (1) in matter domination

$$\zeta R_b\zeta _b+R_c\zeta _c.$$
(6)
Here we define the matter fractions $`R_b\rho _b/\rho _m`$, $`R_c\rho _c/\rho _m`$, where $`\rho _m=\rho _c+\rho _b`$.

During early radiation domination $`\zeta ^{\text{rad}}R_\gamma \zeta _\gamma +R_\nu \zeta _\nu `$ from Eq. (1), where we define the radiation density fractions $`R_\nu \rho _\nu /(\rho _\gamma +\rho _\nu ),R_\gamma \rho _\gamma /(\rho _\gamma +\rho _\nu )`$. Using Eqs. (2) and (5) and the constancy of the large scale $`\zeta _i`$ we can therefore relate the large scale temperature anisotropy to the primordial adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations

$$\frac{\delta T}{T}\frac{1}{5}\zeta ^{\text{rad}}\frac{2}{5}\left(R_c𝒮_c+R_b𝒮_b\right)+\frac{1}{15}R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(7)
We can take $`\zeta ^{\text{rad}}`$ as a measure of the primordial adiabatic perturbation. So this formula shows the effect of a mixture of adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations on the observed large scale CMB temperature anisotropy. This result agrees with that in Langlois and Riazuelo (2000), despite errors in their derivation which arise from an invalid ansatz for the time evolution of the velocities and anisotropic stress (demonstrated by counterexample in Appendix B). However in matter domination the velocities are negligible so the error is harmless, and for the adiabatic and neutrino modes the assumption is correct to the required order during radiation domination. However unfortunately their general result for the evolution of the potential is incorrect and cannot be used to improve on the above much simpler argument.

This analytic argument shows the main qualitative features, though in reality recombination is far from being completely matter dominated, and the ISW and other contributions will not be negligible. It is however straightforward to compute the CMB and matter power spectra numerically Seljak and Zaldarriaga (1996); Lewis et al. (2000) starting from a series solution in the early radiation dominated era (Appendix B).

## III Constraining the Curvaton model

The curvaton scenario provides a mechanism for allowing the inflation potential to have more natural properties, at the expense of introducing an additional unidentified scalar field which generates the perturbations. In the curvaton model the inflaton field drives the initial expansion and generates an era of radiation domination after it decays. The expansion rate then slows and the curvaton field can reach the minimum of its potential and start to oscillate. During oscillation the curvaton field acts effectively like a matter component, and its perturbation acts like a matter isocurvature mode. As the radiation redshifts further the equation of state then changes to matter domination as the curvaton density comes to dominate. As the background equation of state changes, a curvature perturbation is generated from the isocurvature mode. The curvaton then decays into (predominantly) radiation well before nucleosynthesis, and we enter the usual primordial radiation dominated epoch.

Primordial correlated isocurvature modes can be generated if the baryons or CDM are generated by, or before, the curvaton decays, as discussed in detail below. If one or both were created before the curvaton decays, the current model assumes that the curvaton had a negligible density when they decayed Lyth et al. (2003). We assume that the curvaton is the only cosmologically relevant scalar field after inflaton decay, and that the perturbations in the inflaton field are negligible. Generically such models predict a very small tensor mode contribution, which we assume can be neglected. We assume there is no lepton number at neutrino decoupling so that there are no neutrino isocurvature modes, though see Lyth et al. (2003) for other possibilities.

As discussed in Section II, the baryon and CDM isocurvature modes predict proportional results, so we can account for $`𝒮_c`$ by using just an effective baryon isocurvature perturbation

$$𝒮_b^{\text{eff}}=𝒮_b+\frac{R_c}{R_b}𝒮_c.$$
(8)
The baryon and CDM isocurvature perturbations are completely correlated (or anti-correlated) with each other and the adiabatic perturbation, so $`𝒮_b^{\text{eff}}=B\zeta ^{\text{rad}}`$ where $`B`$ measures the isocurvature mode contribution and is taken to be scale independent555 Our sign convention for $`B`$ differs from that in Ref. Amendola et al. (2002). In our convention $`B>0`$ corresponds to a positive correlation and the modes contribute with the same sign to the large scale CMB anisotropy. . From Eq. (7), the large scale CMB anisotropy variance is then given approximately by

$$\frac{\delta T^2}{T^2}\frac{1}{25}(1+2R_bB)^2𝒫_\zeta ,$$
(9)
where $`𝒫_\zeta =𝒫_\zeta ^{\text{rad}}`$ is the initial power spectrum. We assume $`𝒫_\zeta `$ is well parameterized by $`𝒫_\zeta =A_s(k/k_0)^{n_s1}`$ where $`A_s`$ gives the normalization, $`n_s`$ is the scalar spectral index and $`k_0`$ is a choice of normalization point. Note that our number of degrees of freedom is actually less than generic inflation, because although we have introduced $`B`$ we now no longer have the amplitude and slope of the tensor component to consider. The slope of the isocurvature perturbation is predicted to be the same as the adiabatic perturbation and the tensors are predicted to be negligible in the curvaton scenario Lyth et al. (2003).

The isocurvature modes have little effect on small scales, but as can be seen from Eq. (9) they can either raise or lower the Sachs Wolfe plateau relative to the acoustic peaks depending on the sign of $`B`$. This is in contrast to tensor perturbations which can only raise the Sachs Wolfe plateau relative to the acoustic peaks.

Computing the full predictions numerically and assuming a flat prior on $`B`$, Fig. 1 shows the posterior distribution for the various cosmological parameters when the possibility of a totally correlated mixture of matter isocurvature and adiabatic perturbations is allowed. The posterior distribution of $`B`$ and $`n_s`$ is shown in Fig. 2, marginalized over the other parameters. On small scales the isocurvature modes have only a small effect, so the main observational constraint comes from the relative amplitudes of the large and small scale power. This is partially degenerate with the spectral index as clearly demonstrated in the figure. The relative large scale amplitude is also affected by the reionization optical depth, and although this is constrained by WMAP’s polarization measurements the experimental noise and cosmic variance still leave a significant residual uncertainty.

We find the ratio of the mean likelihood allowing for isocurvature modes to that for purely adiabatic models is about $`0.7`$ (for discussion of mean likelihoods see Ref. Lewis and Bridle (2002)). Thus the isocurvature modes do not improve the already good fit to the data of the standard purely adiabatic case. By the same token, the current data is still consistent with a significant isocurvature contribution, with the $`95\%`$ marginalized confidence interval $`0.53<B<0.43`$. If new data favored $`B>0`$ this would be largely degenerate with a tensor contribution predicted by standard single field inflationary scenarios, and would be hard to distinguish without good CMB polarization data. Evidence for $`B<0`$ would be a smoking gun for an isocurvature mode, though the large scale polarization data has large enough cosmic variance that to distinguish it from an adiabatic model with an unexpected initial power spectrum shape would be difficult.

The $`95\%`$ confidence marginalized constraint on the spectral index $`0.90<n_s<1.02`$ translates into a constraint on the potential $`V`$ during inflation (in general a function of the inflation field $`\psi `$ and the curvaton field $`\sigma `$Lyth et al. (2003)

$$0.12\left(\eta _{\sigma \sigma }ϵ\right)0.02$$
(10)
where

$$\eta _{\sigma \sigma }\frac{M_\mathrm{p}^2}{V}\frac{^2V}{\sigma ^2}ϵ\frac{1}{2}M_\mathrm{p}^2\left(\frac{1}{V}\frac{V}{\psi }\right)^2,$$
(11)
$`M_\mathrm{p}`$ is the reduced Planck mass, and the quantities are evaluated at horizon crossing during inflation. In standard inflationary models the potential has to satisfy $`V^{1/4}0.03ϵ^{1/4}M_\mathrm{p}`$ to obtain the correct fluctuation amplitude, which is difficult without using unnatural values of the model parameters Dimopoulos and Lyth (2002). In the curvaton scenario we assume the inflaton perturbations are negligible, and hence the potential merely has to be much smaller than this number. These conditions are therefore much easier to satisfy with natural values for the model parameters in the curvaton case Dimopoulos and Lyth (2002). In both cases the inflaton component of the potential also has to provide more than about 60 e-folds of inflation.

If the CDM is created before the curvaton decays, and while the curvaton still has negligible energy density, its density is essentially unperturbed. After the curvature perturbation is generated there is therefore a relative isocurvature perturbation, given by Lyth et al. (2003)

$$𝒮_c3\zeta .$$
(12)
If the curvaton decays before its energy density completely dominates, a CDM isocurvature perturbation is produced Lyth et al. (2003)

$$𝒮_c3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta ,$$
(13)
where $`r`$ measures the transfer function from $`\zeta _{\text{curvaton}}`$ before curvaton decay to $`\zeta `$ after decay, $`\zeta =r\zeta _{\text{curvaton}}`$. Ref. Lyth et al. (2003) find the approximate result $`r\rho _{\mathrm{curvaton}}/\rho _{\mathrm{total}}`$ where $`\rho `$ is the energy density at curvaton decay, to an accuracy of about 10% Malik et al. (2003). The same formulas, Eqs. (12) and (13), apply for the baryons with $`𝒮_c`$ replaced by $`𝒮_b`$. If either the CDM or the baryon number was created after the curvaton decayed then there would be no isocurvature perturbation in that quantity Lyth et al. (2003). If both were created after the curvaton decayed there would be no isocurvature modes.

There is no immediately compelling particle physics model for the curvaton scenario Postma (2003), so we consider nine basic scenarios depending on whether the CDM and baryons are generated before, by, or after curvaton decay:

1. If both the CDM and baryon number is created after the curvaton decay then there is no isocurvature perturbation:

$$B=0.$$
(14)
This scenario is consistent with the data and indistinguishable from an inflation model with negligible tensor component.
2. If the CDM is created before the curvaton decays and the baryon number after the curvaton decays then from Eqs. (12) and (8)

$$B=3\frac{R_c}{R_b}.$$
(15)
This scenario is ruled out at high significance.
3. If the baryon number is created before the curvaton decays and the CDM after the curvaton decays then from Eq. (12)

$$B=3.$$
(16)
This scenario is ruled out at high significance.
4. If the CDM is created by the curvaton decay and the baryon number after the curvaton decays then from Eqs. (13) and (8)

$$B=3\frac{R_c}{R_b}\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right).$$
(17)
Solving for $`r`$ gives

$$r=\frac{1}{1+(R_b/R_c)B/3}.$$
(18)
5. If the baryon number is created by the curvaton decay and the CDM after the curvaton decays then from Eq. (13)

$$B=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right).$$
(19)
Solving for $`r`$ gives

$$r=\frac{1}{1+B/3}.$$
(20)
6. If the CDM and baryons are both created before the curvaton decays then from Eqs. (8) and (12)

$$B=\frac{3}{R_b}.$$
(21)
This scenario is ruled out at high significance.
7. If CDM and baryons were both created by the curvaton then from Eqs. (8) and (13)

$$B=\frac{3}{R_b}\frac{1r}{r}.$$
(22)
Solving for $`r`$ gives

$$r=\frac{1}{1+R_bB/3}.$$
(23)
8. If the CDM is created before the curvaton decay and the baryons are created by the curvaton decay then from Eqs. (8), (12) and (13)

$$B=\frac{3(R_br)}{rR_b}.$$
(24)
Solving for $`r`$ gives

$$r=\frac{R_b}{1+R_bB/3}.$$
(25)
9. If the CDM is created by the curvaton and the baryons are created before the curvaton decays we have from Eqs. (8), (12) and (13)

$$B=\frac{3(R_cr)}{rR_b}.$$
(26)
Solving for $`r`$ gives

$$r=\frac{R_c}{1+R_bB/3}.$$
(27)

For the cases that are not immediately ruled out we obtain a constraint on $`r`$. The posterior probability distribution for this quantity can easily be constructed from the Monte Carlo samples, and a plot of it is shown in Fig. 3 for the various cases. The peaks at $`r=1`$ are when there are no isocurvature modes. The curves which peak at $`rR_b`$ and $`rR_c`$ are when compensating baryon and CDM isocurvature modes are created before and by curvaton decay, giving a total effective isocurvature perturbation close to zero.

The amount of non-Gaussianity in the CMB is dependent on $`r`$ with the conventional governing parameter Lyth et al. (2003)

$$f_{nl}\frac{5}{4r}$$
(28)
assuming $`f_{nl}1`$. Using this equation we can convert the likelihood plots for $`r`$ into those for $`f_{nl}`$ as is shown in Fig. 4. The values near $`f_{nl}1`$ should not be taken too seriously as there will be additional second order non-Gaussian contributions from fields other than the curvaton. The current one year WMAP data has $`f_{nl}<134`$ $`(95\%)`$ and is predicted to reach $`f_{nl}<80`$ $`(95\%)`$ with the four year WMAP data E. Komatsu et. al (2003). So if WMAP eventually detects non-Gaussianity it will rule out all the models considered here. The Planck satellite is predicted to ultimately be able to detect $`f_{nl}5`$ Komatsu and Spergel (2001). If this is realized Planck will be able to distinguish between the case where the CDM is created before curvaton decay and the baryon number by curvaton decay and the other possibilities.

## IV Conclusions

The curvaton model provides a simple scenario that can give rise to correlated adiabatic and isocurvature modes of similar size. The current data do not favor a large isocurvature contribution, but a significant amplitude is still allowed.

We point out that the CDM and baryon isocurvature modes differ only by the addition of an observationally null mode in which the two perturbations compensate. The CDM isocurvature mode can therefore be treated as a scaled baryon isocurvature mode. A simple analytical approximation for the effect of mixtures of large scale isocurvature and adiabatic perturbations on the CMB temperature anisotropy was given. Numerically, we found that the data was consistent at the two sigma level with the presence of an effective correlated baryon isocurvature perturbation of about 50% the magnitude of the adiabatic perturbation. The individual baryon and CDM isocurvature modes can be even larger if they compensate each other. Models in which either the baryon number or CDM was created before the curvaton dominated the energy density are ruled out unless counter-balanced by the other species being created by the curvaton decay. The levels of non-Gaussianity expected for the various scenarios were evaluated and in the case of the CDM being created before the curvaton decayed and the baryon number by the curvaton decay, could be high enough to detectable by the Planck satellite.

###### Acknowledgements.

AL thanks Anthony Challinor for some very useful notes and the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics where part of this work was done. CG thanks David Lyth and David Wands for helpful discussions. The Beowulf computer used for this analysis was funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ontario Innovation Trust. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY94-07194 and by PPARC (UK).

## Appendix A Covariant perturbation equations

The covariant approach to cosmological perturbation theory gives a set of gauge invariant equations in which all the terms are covariant and have a physical interpretation Ellis et al. (1983); Challinor and Lasenby (1999). The quantities can be calculated in any frame (labelled by a 4-velocity $`u_a`$) and the equations remain the same. Individual quantities measuring a particular perturbation do in general depend on what frame $`u_a`$ is used to calculate them, so when talking about (for example) a density perturbation it is important to make clear what frame one is referring to.

The spatial gradient of the 3-Ricci scalar $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ vanishes in a homogeneous universe, and $`\eta _a=\frac{1}{2}SD_a{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ is a natural covariant measure of the scalar curvature perturbation in some frame with 4-velocity $`u_a`$. Here $`S`$ is the scale factor and $`D_a`$ is the spatial covariant derivative orthogonal to $`u_a`$ (we use the signature where $`u_au^a=1`$). Other covariant quantities useful for studying perturbations are defined in Challinor and Lasenby (1999); Lewis and Challinor (2002), along with derivations of the equations of General Relativity that relate them. Here we only consider scalar modes at linear order in a spatially flat universe666The equations given here generalize trivially to a non-flat universe by the substitution $`\eta \eta /(13K/k^2)`$., and perform a harmonic expansion as described in Challinor and Lasenby (1999), leaving the $`k`$-dependence of scalar quantities implicit. For example we describe the curvature perturbation by the scalar harmonic coefficient $`\eta `$.

Frame invariant quantities can be constructed from combinations of covariant quantities that depend on the choice of frame $`u_a`$. These often have an interpretation in terms of the value of a particular quantity in some specified frame. In particular

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\eta +\frac{\sigma }{k},$$
(29)
where $`\sigma `$ is the scalar shear and $`=3S^au_a`$ is the conformal Hubble parameter, is proportional to the curvature perturbation in the zero shear frame (the Newtonian gauge). The acceleration $`A`$ in the zero shear frame

$$\mathrm{\Psi }A+(\sigma ^{}+\sigma )/k$$
(30)
defines a second frame invariant quantity, which is related to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\kappa S^2\mathrm{\Pi }}{k^2}$$
(31)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the anisotropic stress. The Weyl tensor is the part of the Riemann tensor which is not determined by the local stress-energy, and defines a frame independent scalar potential777The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Ref. Challinor and Lasenby (1999) has a different sign convention where $`\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi `$. $`\varphi `$ Challinor and Lasenby (1999) which is related to the above via

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(32)
We define a frame invariant curvature perturbation

$$\zeta \frac{\eta }{2}\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho ^{}},$$
(33)
proportional to the curvature perturbation in the uniform density frame. Here $`\delta \rho =_i\delta \rho _i=_i\rho _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is the total density perturbation. This is related to the comoving curvature perturbation

$$\chi \frac{\eta }{2}+\frac{q}{k(\rho +p)}=\left[\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{2}{3}\frac{^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }}{1+w}\right].$$
(34)
by $`\chi =\zeta \overline{\delta \rho }/\rho ^{}`$, where $`\overline{\delta \rho }`$ is the comoving density perturbation and $`q=_i(\rho _i+p_i)v_i`$ is the total heat flux and $`v_i`$ are the velocities. The Poisson equation relates the density and potential via $`k^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\kappa S^2\overline{\delta \rho }`$. It follows that for adiabatic modes where $`\chi `$ is non-zero initially $`\chi \zeta `$ on large scales.

A local scale factor $`S`$ can be defined (up to an initial value) by integrating the local expansion rate $``$, and the quantity $`h_aD_aS=SD_aS/S`$ (scalar harmonic coefficient $`h`$) provides a measure of the perturbation to local volume elements. The derivative $`h^{}`$ with respect to conformal time $`\tau `$ is unambiguously defined, and describes the rate of change of local volume element perturbations. In the frame in which $`h^{}`$ is zero fractional perturbations in number densities of conserved species remain constant if there are no matter flows. The evolution of the curvature perturbation is given by

$$\eta ^{}=2h^{}\frac{2}{3}k\sigma $$
(35)
so on large scales the $`h^{}=0`$ frame coincides with the $`\eta ^{}=0`$ frame. Thus $`\eta `$ is conserved on large scales in the frame in which number density perturbation fractions are constant Lyth et al. (2003). This result is purely a result of linear torsionless spacetime geometry.

The time evolution of the local scale factor perturbation sources growth of density perturbations of uninteracting conserved species via the energy conservation equation

$$\delta \rho _i^{}+3(\delta \rho _i+\delta p_i)+k(\rho _i+p_i)v_i=3h^{}(\rho _i+p_i),$$
(36)
where $`\delta p_i`$ is the pressure perturbation. The $`h^{}=0`$ frame therefore coincides with the $`\delta \rho _i=0`$ frame on large scales if $`\delta p_i=0`$ in the $`\delta \rho _i=0`$ frame. For a particular species one can define the curvature perturbation in the frame in which its density is unperturbed

$$\zeta _i\frac{\eta }{2}\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\rho _i^{}},$$
(37)
where in the absence of energy transfer $`\rho _i^{}=3(\rho _i+p_i)`$. The evolution equation that follows from Eqs. (36) and (35) is Wands et al. (2000)

$$\zeta _i^{}=\frac{}{\rho _i+p_i}\left[\delta p_i\frac{p^{}}{\rho ^{}}\delta \rho _i\right]\frac{kV_i}{3},$$
(38)
where $`V_iv_i+\sigma `$ is the Newtonian gauge velocity. If there is an equation of state $`p_i=p_i(\rho _i)`$ the first term on the right hand side is zero, and the $`\zeta _i`$ are therefore constant on large scales where $`k\tau 1`$. If the equation of state parameter $`w_ip_i/\rho _i`$ is constant this implies that the fractional density perturbations in the unperturbed curvature frame evolve as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{}=k(1+w_i)V_i,$$
(39)
and hence the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ are also conserved on large scales. The curvature perturbation in the frame in which the total energy is unperturbed is given from the $`\zeta _i`$ by Eq. (1). In the frame in which the acceleration $`A=0`$ (and hence $`u_a`$ coincides with the CDM velocity) $`\eta _s=\eta /2`$, $`h_s^{}=6h^{}`$ where $`\eta _s`$ and $`h_s^{}`$ are the synchronous gauge quantities (e.g. see Ma and Bertschinger (1995)).

## Appendix B Isocurvature initial conditions

In the early radiation dominated era there are in general five regular solutions to the perturbation equations Bucher et al. (2001a), assuming there is only one distinct species of cold dark matter. If there are several species of dark matter the additional modes are unobservable without measuring the distinct dark matter species directly. Performing a series expansion in conformal time $`\tau `$, the Friedman equation gives

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0^2}{\omega ^2}\left(\omega \tau +\frac{1}{4}\omega ^2\tau ^2+𝒪(K\omega \tau ^3)\right)$$
(40)
where $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_m_0/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu }`$ with $`_0`$ the Hubble parameter today and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ the density today in units of the critical density. At lowest order in the tight coupling expansion, assuming the baryons and dark matter have negligible pressure, the CDM isocurvature mode at early times is

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c(4R_\nu 15)\omega k^2\tau ^3}{2R_\nu +15}}`$ (41)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b={\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c\omega k^2\tau ^3}{2(R_\nu +15)}}`$ (42)
$`V_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c(4R_\nu 15)\omega k\tau ^2}{2R_\nu +15}}`$ (43)
$`V_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`V_\nu =V_b={\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c\omega k\tau ^2}{2R_\nu +15}}`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c(4R_\nu 15)\omega \tau }{2R_\nu +15}}`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_c(4R_\nu +15)\omega \tau }{2R_\nu +15}}`$ (46)
where equalities apply at the given order in $`\tau `$. The baryon isocurvature mode is given by subtracting the observationally null mode $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c=R_b\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b/R_c`$ from the above solution. Series solutions for the adiabatic and isocurvature modes to any order are easily computed using computer algebra packages, for a Maple derivation of the solutions in the zero acceleration frame see http://camb.info/theory.html. The above solution was calculated by constructing the frame invariant quantities above from the quantities in the zero acceleration frame.

The $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ are constant to order $`(k\tau )^2`$. However the lowest order terms in the velocities are of order $`(\omega \tau )(k\tau )`$, demonstrating explicitly that the assumption that $`V_i=\text{const}\times k\tau +𝒪((k\tau )^2)`$ in Langlois and Riazuelo (2000) is incorrect for isocurvature modes.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Homogeneous magnetic fields provide an interesting example of a non-trivial deformation compatible with two-dimensional conformal invariance. The study of their effect in String Theory is relatively simple for string coordinates are still described in terms of free fields and the magnetic deformations only affect the world-sheet dynamics by modifying boundary and periodicity conditions for open and closed strings.

Despite their simple rôle in world-sheet dynamics, magnetic fields lead to new interesting phenomena in D-branes and orientifold constructions. Considered at the very beginning as an interesting tool to break supersymmetry, deeper investigations have shown how they can affect the geometry of branes and O-planes. As usual, vacuum expectations values of gauge fields, after appropriate T-dualities, admit a very elegant and simple geometrical interpretation: while Wilson lines correspond to brane displacements, magnetic backgrounds translate into brane/O-plane rotations. As a result, the corresponding brane/O-plane configurations are no longer BPS and typically break supersymmetry. In lower dimensions, however, some amount of supersymmetry can be recovered if background fields, i.e. rotation angles, are chosen appropriately.

## 2. Open-string magnetic field

Let us start with open-string magnetic fields. As already stated, the study of their effect is relatively simple, for they interact only with the string ends .

For simplicity, let us consider the bosonic string in the presence of a uniform magnetic field $`H`$ in a plane with coordinates $`(X^1,X^2)`$. The variational principle for the world-sheet action

$`\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d\tau _0^\pi d\sigma _\alpha X^a^\alpha X^a}`$
$`+iq_\mathrm{L}H{\displaystyle d\tau ϵ_{ab}X^a_\tau X^b}|_{\sigma =0}+iq_\mathrm{R}H{\displaystyle d\tau ϵ_{ab}X^a_\tau X^b}|_{\sigma =\pi },`$
yields the wave equation

$$\left(\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}\frac{^2}{\sigma ^2}\right)X^a=0,$$
(2)
together with the boundary conditions

$`_\sigma X^a2\pi \alpha ^{}q_\mathrm{L}Hϵ^{ab}_\tau X_b`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_\sigma X^a+2\pi \alpha ^{}q_\mathrm{R}Hϵ^{ab}_\tau X_b`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3)
Eq. (3) admits an alternative geometric formulation in terms of rotated branes. Indeed, after performing a T-duality along the $`X^2`$ direction, so that $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ derivatives are interchanged,

$$_\tau X^2_\sigma Y^2,_\sigma X^2_\tau Y^2,$$
(4)
the boundary conditions become standard Neumann and Dirichlet ones, say, at $`\sigma =0`$

$`_\tau \left(\mathrm{cos}\theta X^1\mathrm{sin}\theta Y^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_\sigma \left(\mathrm{sin}\theta X^1+\mathrm{cos}\theta Y^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
for a rotated set of coordinates, where the angle $`\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1(2\pi \alpha ^{}q_\mathrm{L}H)`$ is determined by the magnetic field $`H`$.

The interesting feature of intersecting brane constructions that has triggered a massive interest is that, in general, chiral fermions emerge from strings with charged ends while supersymmetry is generically broken.

From eq. (5), however, it is not hard to see that something special can happen if one introduces a second magnetic field on a different two-plane, or, alternatively, if one further rotates the branes along another pair of directions. In this case, the choice $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\frac{1}{2}\pi `$ yields a configuration of orthogonal D7-branes that preserve half of the supersymmetries. As a result, one can use magnetised, or rotated, branes to construct, for example, new $`T^4/\text{}_2`$ type I vacua as in .

As a remark, rotated branes are recently playing a pivotal role in brane world constructions, where the Standard Model degrees fo freedom live at their intersections

## 3. Compactification on Melvin spaces

We can now turn to the case of closed-string magnetic backgrounds, corresponding to non-vanishing vacuum expectation values for the graviphotons. This background belongs to the class of Melvin metrics

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=G_{\mu \nu }(\gamma ,R)\mathrm{d}X^\mu \mathrm{d}X^\nu =\mathrm{d}\rho ^2+\rho ^2\left(\mathrm{d}\varphi +\frac{\gamma }{R}\mathrm{d}y\right)^2+\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{d}x_i\mathrm{d}x^i,$$
(6)
where $`\gamma `$ is related to the background magnetic field, $`(\rho ,\varphi )`$ are polar coordinates on a two-plane, $`y`$ is the compact coordinate on a circle of radius $`R`$ and $`x^i`$ are spectator coordinates.

According to eq. (6), the string dynamics in the Melvin space–time is governed by the world–sheet Action

$$\mathrm{S}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d\sigma d\tau G_{\mu \nu }(\gamma ,R)_\alpha X^\mu ^\alpha X^\nu .$$
(7)
This model has a very simple equivalent description after introducing the complex coordinate

$$Z=\rho \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi }=\rho \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\left(\varphi +\frac{\gamma }{R}y\right)},$$
(8)
that actually corresponds to a free boson

$$\left(\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}\frac{^2}{\sigma ^2}\right)Z=0$$
(9)
with the twisted boundary condition

$$Z(\tau ,\sigma +2\pi )=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}n\gamma }Z(\tau ,\sigma ),$$
(10)
where $`n`$ is the winding number in the compact $`y`$ direction.

As a result, we can use all the techniques of orbifold compactifications to solve exactly the model in eq. (7).

The background we are considering has the nice property of preserving the invariance of the IIB superstring under the world–sheet parity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the spirit of , we can then proceed to construct the associated orientifolds, that, as we shall see, have interesting features .

Aside from the standard $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ projection, that due to lack of space we shall not discuss here (see, however, ), one has actually the option of combining world–sheet parity with other geometrical symmetries as, for example, parities along the angular $`\phi `$ and compact $`y`$ coordinates, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_\phi \mathrm{\Pi }_y`$. The resulting action on the world–sheet coordinates $`(y,Z)`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}y(\tau ,\sigma )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^1=y(\tau ,\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}Z(\tau ,\sigma )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^1=Z^{}(\tau ,\sigma ),$$
(11)
and, together with the identification (10), implies that

$$y=y+2\pi sR,\phi =\phi +2\pi s\gamma +2\pi m,(s,m\text{})$$
(12)
whose fixed points

$$(y,\phi )_1=(s\pi R,s\pi \gamma ),(y,\phi )_2=(s\pi R,s\pi \gamma +\pi ),$$
(13)
identify the positions of orientifold planes. Actually, we are now dealing with two infinite sets of rotated O-planes, the angle being proportional to the twist, or magnetic background, $`\gamma `$. Moreover, O-planes in different sets undergo a relative $`\pi `$ rotation. As a result, they carry opposite R-R charge, a result that we shall soon recover from the corresponding Klein-bottle partition function.

In this orientifold construction, although the string partition function accounts for the whole spectrum of physical states, built from the vacuum with string oscillators and/or Kaluza-Klein modes, a proper derivation of the divergent contributions to the tree-channel amplitudes is quite involved. In fact, as we have seen, a key feature of Melvin compactifications is that the twist on the complex coordinate $`Z`$ is coupled to the number of times the closed string winds the compact coordinate $`y`$. This means that each winding state has a different correpsonding “twisted sector”, and, as such, in the partition function the characteristics of the theta-functions are shifted accordingly. For example, the direct-channel Klein-bottle amplitude reads

$$\mathrm{K}\frac{1}{\tau _2^{7/2}\eta ^6}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{K}(n)q^{\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}(nR)^2},$$
(14)
with

$`\mathrm{K}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _2^{1/2}\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^4\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]}{\eta ^4}},`$
$`\mathrm{K}(n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\pi \gamma n(2\beta 1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^3\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right]}{\eta ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +\gamma n}{\beta }\right]}{\vartheta \left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1/2+\gamma n}{1/2}\right]}}.`$ (15)
(Here $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=(1)^{2\alpha +2\beta +4\alpha \beta }`$ denotes the standard GSO projection.) Therefore, one can not perform explicitly the $`S`$-modular transformation, and the resulting amplitude does not manifest the usual physical interpretation.

However, divergent contributions originate only from massless states. Hence, to extract their tadpole it suffices to restrict ourselves to the massless Hamiltonian and to its Kaluza-Klein modification

$$H=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho \frac{}{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\frac{^2}{y^2}+\frac{1}{R^2}\left(k+\mathrm{i}\gamma \frac{}{\varphi }\right)^2\right].$$
(16)
As a result, the leading contributions to the transverse-channel Klein-bottle amplitude can be extracted from

$$c|\mathrm{e}^{\pi \mathrm{}H}|c=\underset{\mathrm{\Psi }}{}c|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{e}^{\pi \mathrm{}E_\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|c,$$
(17)
where $`H|\mathrm{\Psi }=E_\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Taking into account only the zero-mode contributions to the boundary state $`|c`$, one gets

$$c|\mathrm{e}^{\pi \mathrm{}H}|c_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS}}\underset{m,k}{}\left[1+(1)^m\right]\left[1+(1)^k\right]\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{}}{2R^2}(k\gamma m)^2}$$
(18)
for the NS-NS sector, and

$$c|\mathrm{e}^{\pi \mathrm{}H}|c_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{R}}\underset{m,k}{}\left[1(1)^m\right]\left[1+(1)^k\right]\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{}}{2R^2}(k\gamma m)^2}$$
(19)
for the R-R sector, where $`k`$ is the momentum quantum number and $`m`$ is the quantised angular momentum on the two-plane. From eq. (18) we can then extract the non-vanishing dilaton tadpole (for $`m=0`$ and $`k=0`$), as well as informations on the geometry of the O-planes. The factor $`1+(1)^k`$ suggests that in the $`y`$ direction there are O-planes sitting at $`0`$ and $`\pi R`$, while the projector $`1+(1)^m`$ implies that, in $`(\rho ,\phi )`$ space, there are pairs of orientifold planes rotated by a $`\pi `$ angle. Furthermore, from eq. (19) one can read that O-planes differing by a $`\pi `$ rotation have opposite R-R charge, in agreement with (13). This phenomenon is reminiscent of the intersecting brane models discussed in the previous section. Although the overall R-R tadpole vanishes, cancellation of the NS-NS one calls for the introduction of D-branes, as in standard orientifold constructions .

Also in this case, one can generalise the construction considering multiple two-planes subject to independent twists. We have now the option to couple each twist to the same $`S^1`$ or to different ones. While the latter choice corresponds to a trivial generalisation of the single twist previously reviewed, the former turns out to be quite interesting and leads to amusing phenomena.

To be more specific let us consider the case of two two-planes with twists $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. A simple analysis of Killing spinors on this Melvin background shows that whenever the $`\gamma _i`$ are even integers all supersymmetry charges are preserved. However, one has the additional possibility of preserving only half of the original supersymmetries if

$$\gamma _1\pm \gamma _22\text{}.$$
(20)
This is very reminiscent of the condition one gets for orbifold compactifications. Modding out by $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_y\mathrm{\Pi }_{\phi _1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\phi _2}`$ then introduces O-planes at the fixed points of the involution. Particularly interesting is the case $`\gamma _i=\frac{1}{2}`$. The resulting model is the traditional $`(\text{}^2\times S^1)/\text{}_2`$ orbifold, where the $`\text{}_2`$ acts as a reflection on the $`\text{}^2`$ coordinates accompanied by a momentum or a winding shift along the compact circle, and mutually orthogonal O6 planes are generated, as pertains to a $`(\text{}^2\times S^1)/\text{}_2`$ orientifold.

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to thank the organisers of the first SP2002 conference, and of the $`35^{\mathrm{th}}`$ International Symposium Ahrenshoop on the Theory of Elementary Particles for their kind invitation.


text:
# Global Observations from PHOBOS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The data described in this paper were taken during the Year 2000 and Year 2001 runs of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The PHOBOS apparatus , shown schematically in Figure 1, was used to take data at three energies: $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=19.6`$, 130, and 200 GeV. A partial test detector was also used to take data at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=56`$ GeV .

The full PHOBOS apparatus comprises several subdetectors. Silicon detectors are employed for vertex finding, particle tracking and multiplicity measurements. This set of detectors has nearly full azimuthal coverage over a large pseudorapidity range $`|\eta |<5.4`$. The detector setup also includes two sets of 16 scintillator counters (“paddle counters”) located at $`\pm 3.21`$ m relative to the nominal interaction point along the beam ($`z`$) axis. These counters cover pseudorapidity in the range $`3<|\eta |<4.5`$ and served as the primary event trigger. The collision centrality is characterized by the average number of nucleon participants $`N_{part}`$, determined as described in Refs. . These references also tabulate the values and systematic errors of $`N_{part}`$ for each centrality bin.

## 2 SURVEY OF BASIC MEASUREMENTS

A key goal in the design of the PHOBOS experiment was to perform a broad and systematic survey of hadronic particle production in heavy ion collisions. While this survey is still incomplete in terms of energies and species explored, significant progress has been made toward this goal. This section summarizes the basic measurements available so far: multiplicity, particle spectra and azimuthal asymmetry of particle production.

The pseudorapidity densities ($`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$) and particle yields ($`d^2N/dydp__T`$) given here refer to primary produced particles and do not include feed-down products from weak decays of neutral strange particles. Corrections were made for residual effects from secondary interactions and weak decay feed-down as well as for particles which were absorbed or produced in the material surrounding the collision (primarily the Beryllium beampipe and the magnet steel).

The unique features of the PHOBOS experiment relevant for the charged particle multiplicity measurements are the large acceptance of the detector and the 12 m long, 1 mm thick, Beryllium beampipe which limits the absorption of low momentum particles and the production of secondaries. Figure 2 shows the charged particle pseudorapidity distributions ($`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$) measured at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 19.6, 130, and 200 GeV for a variety of centrality bins for pseudorapidity in the range $`5.4<\eta <5.4`$ . Due to the large coverage in $`\eta `$, $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ is measured over almost the full range, except for a small missing fraction at very high $`|\eta |`$. For central events, this missing fraction is estimated to be less than 2%. The multiplicity results are discussed further in Sections 3 and 4.

Figure 3 shows the results of elliptic flow as a function of pseudorapidity from PHOBOS for 130 and 200 GeV. A unique feature of these results is the broad pseudorapidity reach covering almost 11 units of pseudorapidity and showing that there is no broad boost-invariant region near mid-rapidity. The error bars represent 1$`\sigma `$ statistical errors and the boxes represent 90% confidence level systematic errors for the 200 GeV data points. These results were measured using a hit-based analysis . A new, track-based, analysis is also available both as a cross-check and to provide $`v_2`$ as a function of particle $`p__T`$ .

Figure 5 shows the unidentified charged particle yield measured by PHOBOS for a range of centralities, with rapidity, $`y_\pi `$, defined using the pion mass. These data cover rapidity in the range $`0.2<y_\pi <1.4`$ and transverse momenta in the range $`0.2<p__T<5.0`$ GeV/c, corresponding to six decades of change in the magnitude of the yield. Figure 5 shows the invariant yields at very low $`p__T`$ measured by PHOBOS . These particles, which make it through the beampipe and then range out in the active Silicon detectors in the field free region of the spectrometer, are mass-identified but not charge-identified. The yields are shown for ($`\pi ^\pm `$), ($`K^\pm `$) and ($`p+\overline{p}`$) measured at mid-rapidity $`(0.1<y<0.4)`$ in the transverse momentum ranges from 30 to 50 MeV/c for charged pions, 90 to 130 MeV/c for kaons and 140 to 210 MeV/c for protons and antiprotons for the 15% most central Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$ = 200 GeV.

The unique features of PHOBOS relevant for the momentum-measured particles are the close proximity of the detector to the interaction region (10–80 cm), the precise vertex determination (0.1–0.3 mm), good segmentation (0.4–1 mm) of the silicon detectors in the bend direction and, again, the small amount of material between the interaction and the first layers of silicon. These features allow the measurement of particles with good momentum resolution over a broad range of transverse momenta from 0.03–5.0 GeV/c and beyond (when statistics allow), as well as providing the ability to reject most secondaries and decay products.

The broad $`p__T`$ range, particularly the coverage to very low $`p__T`$, will be important for constraining the role of dynamical processes such as rescattering and radial expansion in these collisions. The charged particle multiplicity (and elliptic flow) measurement spans roughly 11 units of pseudorapidity, $`2\pi `$ in azimuth, and a factor of 10 in beam energy, in a single experiment, providing strong constraints on any description of the initial state and subsequent dynamics. From this broad dataset, three empirical scaling rules have emerged. Sections 35 describe each of them in turn. These rules, at the very least, provide a compact description of the data which must be respected by any model. At best, these empirical scaling rules may point the way to a more accurate description of the dynamics of these collisions.

## 3 THE LIMITING CURVE FOR PARTICLE PRODUCTION

The pseudorapidity distributions were shown in Figure 2 for three different collision energies ($`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$). In order to separate the trivial kinematic broadening of the $`dN_{ch}/d\eta `$ distribution from the more interesting dynamics, the data for $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collisions at different energies can be viewed in the rest frame of one of the colliding nuclei. Such an approach led to the ansatz of “limiting fragmentation” , which successfully predicted the energy dependence of particle production away from mid-rapidity in hadron collisions, including pA  and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ . This ansatz states that, at high enough collision energy, both $`d^2N/dy^{}dp__T`$ and the mix of particle species (and therefore also $`dN/d\eta ^{}`$) reach a limiting value and become independent of energy in a region around $`y^{}0`$, where $`y^{}yy_{beam}`$ and rapidity $`y\mathrm{tanh}^1\beta _z`$, with the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis defined as the beam (collision) axis.

Figure 6 shows the scaled, shifted pseudorapidity distributions $`dN_{ch}/d\eta ^{}/N_{part}/2`$ . The results are folded about mid-rapidity (positive and negative $`\eta `$ bins are averaged). The distributions are observed to be independent of collision energy over a substantial $`\eta ^{}`$ range. This is consistent with and extends a similar observation made by BRAHMS  over a more restricted $`\eta ^{}`$ range. Both the 19.6 and 130 GeV data reach 85–90% of their maximum value before deviating significantly (more than 5%) from the common limiting curve.

The data presented here demonstrate that limiting fragmentation applies in the $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ system, and that the “fragmentation region” in $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ is rather broad, covering more than half of the available range of $`\eta ^{}`$ over which particles are produced. In particular, the fragmentation region grows significantly between 19.6 GeV and 130 GeV, extending more than two units away from the beam rapidity. Particle production appears to approach a fixed limiting curve which extends far from the original beam rapidity, indicating that this limiting curve is an important feature of the overall interaction and not simply a nuclear breakup effect. This result is in sharp contrast to the boost-invariance scenario  which predicts a fixed fragmentation region and a broad central rapidity plateau that grows in extent with increasing energy.

## 4 SIMILARITY OF AA AND $`e^+e^{}`$ AT HIGH ENERGY

In the upper part of Figure 8, total charged multiplicity data from $`\mathrm{pp}`$, $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, and AA (scaled by $`N_{part}/2`$) are shown as a function of the appropriate $`\sqrt{s}`$ for each system. See Ref.  for more details and  for the non-PHOBOS data. The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data serves as a reference sample, describing the behavior of a simple color dipole system with a large $`\sqrt{s}`$. The curve is a description of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data, given by the functional form: $`C\alpha _s(s)^Ae^{\sqrt{B/\alpha _s(s)}}`$ with the parameters A and B calculable in perturbative QCD and the constant parameter C determined by a fit to the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ data . In order to compare them with $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, the $`\mathrm{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ data were plotted at an effective energy $`\sqrt{s_{eff}}=\sqrt{s}/2`$, which approximately accounts for the “leading particle effect” . Finally, central AA collisions, $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ from the AGS and RHIC, and $`\mathrm{Pb}+\mathrm{Pb}`$ from CERN are shown. Over the available range of RHIC energies from 19.6 to 200 GeV, the $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ results are consistent with the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ results, suggesting a universality of particle production at high energy. In addition, the $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ data approximately agrees with the scaled $`\mathrm{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ data suggesting that the effective energy of a high energy AA collision is approximately just $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$. The lower part of Figure 8 shows these same results, but divided by the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ fit. This figure illustrates the approach of AA from lower energies towards the high energy scaling result.

Figure 8 compares the pseudorapidity distribution for central $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collisions to the closest available analog in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions: the thrust-axis-rapidity distribution, where the pion mass was used for all charged particles in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ . This shows that particle production in $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions approximately agree in longitudinal particle distribution as well as in the total yield.

## 5 PARTICIPANT SCALING OF PARTICLE PRODUCTION

Participant scaling was first established in the context of the total charged particle multiplicity produced in $`\mathrm{pA}`$ collisions . In high energy AA collisions, small deviations from participant scaling for mid-rapidity $`dN/d\eta `$ have been seen. For instance, Figure 10 shows the mid-rapidity $`dN/d\eta `$ scaled by $`N_{part}/2`$ measured with the same apparatus for $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$ = 19.6, 130, and 200 GeV. Results of this type are sometimes interpreted in terms of a mixture of “hard” and “soft” components scaling as $`N_{part}^{4/3}`$ and $`N_{part}`$ respectively . This interpretation is somewhat ambiguous, however, since saturation models  describe the data more economically, as can be seen in Figure 10, and since both dynamic and kinematic effects can shift particles around in pseudorapidity as centrality changes.

Due to the large acceptance of the PHOBOS detector, we can integrate the total charged particle production in these collisions. Figure 10 shows $`N_{ch}/N_{part}/2`$ as a function of $`N_{part}`$ for the three different energies. Also shown are the equivalent results for $`\mathrm{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ as well as $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions at the same values of $`\sqrt{s}`$. It should be noted that the $`\mathrm{pp}`$/$`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ data are shown at their collision $`\sqrt{s}`$ for this plot and not $`\sqrt{s_{eff}}`$. Three conclusions can be drawn from this result. First, total charged multiplicity in high energy AA collisions approximately scales with wounded nucleons ($`N_{part}`$). Second, total particle production in AA collisions per participant pair is the same as the total particle production in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ at the same energy for a broad range of centralities, not just for central collisions. Finally, particle production in $`\mathrm{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions is reduced compared to AA and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$.

While the overall charged particle production scales with $`N_{part}`$, at high $`p__T`$, particle production is expected to scale with $`N_{coll}N_{part}^{4/3}`$. Deviations from this scaling at high $`p__T`$ are likely to indicate high density effects in the initial or final state. PHENIX and STAR have already shown that high $`p__T`$ hadron production is suppressed with respect to $`N_{coll}\times \sigma _{pphX}`$ . Recalling that Figure 10 indicates that $`\mathrm{pp}`$ collisions may not be the ideal reference sample, we investigate the scaling of high $`p__T`$ hadron production in AA collisions internally, using a mid-central $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collision as a reference rather than $`\mathrm{pp}`$ data.

Figure 11 shows $`d^2N/dydp__T/N_{part}/2`$ as a function of $`N_{part}`$ scaled by the value of the most peripheral point for $`0.5<y<1.3`$ for various values of $`p__T`$. The centrality bins used here are specified in Figure 5. The solid curve in the lower right-hand panel is $`(N_{coll}/N_{part})/(N_{coll}/N_{part})_{periph.}`$. This curve shows the expectation if $`N_{coll}`$ scaling for

$`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collisions held true over the centrality range shown. This ratio varies by a factor of two over this centrality range, and yet the particle production approximately scales with $`N_{part}`$ for most $`p__T`$ bins. This confirms the empirical observation that particle production at high $`p__T`$ is suppressed with respect to the “hard scaling” expectation. However, we note the additional intriguing fact that, for $`N_{part}>65`$, we see approximate $`N_{part}`$ scaling of both low and high $`p__T`$ particle production. Mid-range particles with $`p__T1.5`$ GeV/c show a small violation of $`N_{part}`$ scaling, but are still suppressed with respect to the naïve scaling expectations. This particular form of “high $`p__T`$ suppression” could be an indication of initial state suppression (e.g. parton saturation) or that the final state suppression (e.g. “jet quenching”) reaches a geometric maximum involving one power of length scale $`R_{Au}N_{part}^{1/3}`$. Of course, this apparent $`N_{part}`$ scaling could also be accidental.

## 6 SUMMARY

The PHOBOS experiment has measured a systematic dataset of Au+Au collisions at the RHIC collider. These data span an energy range from $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$ = 19.6 to 200 GeV, a pseudorapidity range from -5.4 to +5.4 and a centrality range from 65 to 340 participating nucleons. It also includes particle spectra covering the $`p__T`$ range from 0.03 to 5.0 GeV/c.

Three empirical observations have emerged from this dataset. First, there is clear evidence of limiting fragmentation in $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collisions: an energy-independent region of $`\eta ^{}`$ ($`\eta ^{}\eta y_{beam}`$). This energy-independent region grows with energy, allowing only a limited region (if any) of longitudinal boost-invariance. Second, there is a striking, unexplained, similarity of particle production in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and particle production per participating nucleon pair in $`\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}`$ collisions. Finally, particle production has been found to approximately scale with number of participating nucleon pairs for $`N_{part}>65`$. This scaling occurs for the total multiplicity and also for high $`p__T`$ particles (including 3 $`<p__T<`$ 4.5 GeV/c).

These empirical observations serve, at least, to characterize heavy ion collisions in an economical way and to challenge models. At best, the observed scaling and universalities may point the way to a fairly simple partonic description of this high density matter and thus advance our knowledge of the strong interaction.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by U.S. DOE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, and W-31-109-ENG-38 as well as NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish group was partially supported by KBN grant 2-P03B-10323. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.