format: text

text:
# Iterative techniques for the decomposition of long-slit spectra

## 1 Introduction

Long-slit spectroscopy can be used to advantage in the investigation both of point sources and of extended emission. But for optimum results, reduction packages of some sophistication are required since the observed spectrum comprises the superposed spectra of all objects falling within the slit. Thus, for a point source, the spectrum of the underlying extended emission and the spectra of any nearby point sources need to be subtracted in order to extract the uncontaminated 1-D spectrum of the target. Correspondingly, for an extended object, the spectra of any superposed point sources must be subtracted in order to extract the uncontaminated 2-D spectrum of the target.

The subtraction tasks described above are clearly straightforward if the intensity of the extended emission has an approximately linear variation along the slit and if point sources are well separated. For such cases, standard IRAF procedures are applicable and not easily improved upon. But these same procedures must be expected to perform poorly when the observed field is not so simple. Accordingly, the aim of this investigation is to develop procedures for treating such cases. Examples which require more complex treatment include spectra of star clusters, planetary nebulae in Local Group Galaxies, H II regions in spiral arms, jets in young stars and galaxies, galactic nuclei and gravitational lenses.

Software that performs the above subtraction tasks in the more challenging circumstances where the extended emission is structurally complex and where the broadened spectra of point sources overlap are described and tested in this paper. Of course, given the errors associated with real data, no procedure can carry out these extraction tasks perfectly. Thus, some cross contamination will always remain in the extracted spectra of overlapping point sources as also between the extracted spectrum of a point source and that of the underlying extended emission. Nevertheless, procedures that perform such extractions with close to the optimum achievable reliability are clearly desirable.

Section 2 introduces two channel restoration in imaging and points out its relevance for the decomposition of long-slit spectra. Section 3 presents the iterative technique for a homogeneous background and section 4 for the general case of an inhomogeneous background. Section 5 presents simulations and applications of both methods to real data. As this investigation was underway, other authors have presented their treatments of essentially the same problem and a comparison between these various approaches is given in Section 6. The software implementation of the two new methods is briefly described in Section 7 and the conclusions in section 8.

## 2 Two channel restorations

The two iterative schemes for decomposing long-slit spectra, to be described in Sections 3 and 4, are variants of a previously-developed two-channel restoration procedure for astronomical images. Accordingly, we first recall salient aspects of this earlier work and identify an important innovation adopted here.

The problem of extracting reliable spectra of point sources and background from a long-slit spectrum is technically similar to that of achieving high photometric accuracy when restoring an image containing point sources superposed on extended emission. For this latter problem, Richardson-Lucy (RL) ((Richardson (1972), Lucy (1974)) or MaxEnt restorations are not satisfactory because of the ringing that occurs in the background close to the point sources.

Following earlier work by Frieden & Wells (1978), Hook & Lucy (1994b) and Lucy (1994) adopted a two channel approach to overcome this problem. All objects that the investigator deems to be point sources are allocated to one channel and all remaining emission to the second channel. The merit of this approach is that, rather than being presented with the impossible task of discovering delta functions from noisy and band-limited data, the restoration procedure is told which objects are to be restored as delta functions. Nevertheless, in order for the iterative procedure to find the desired solution, it also proves necessary to prevent the second channel from partially modelling the point sources as sharp peaks in the extended emission. This is accomplished by limiting the resolution of the second channel.

In the Lucy-Hook scheme (Hook & Lucy, 1994b), the angular resolution of $`\psi `$, the model of the extended emission, was limited by adding an entropic regularization term to the objective function to be maximized. This term penalizes differences between $`\psi `$ and $`<\psi >`$, the convolution of $`\psi `$ with an appropriate resolution kernel. Although effective, this procedure has the disadvantage of introducing a free parameter $`\alpha `$, the constant controlling the relative importance of the regularization term in the objective function. An implementation of the Lucy-Hook scheme for long-slit spectra has been described by Walsh (1997) and applied (Walsh, 2001).

In this paper, the required resolution limit is instead imposed by defining the restored background $`\psi `$ to be the convolution of a non-negative auxiliary function $`\chi `$ with a resolution kernel $`R`$. Clearly, $`R`$ itself then represents the narrowest feature that can appear in $`\psi `$. Accordingly, if the FWHM of $`R`$ exceeds that of the PSF, the convolution of $`\psi `$ with the PSF cannot fit the observed profile of a point source, which must therefore be modelled in the first channel as a delta function of appropriate amplitude.

As with images, an astronomer reducing a long-slit spectrum will often be confident in identifying some objects as point sources and will wish to benefit from the improved reduction that can result from providing such input.

## 3 Homogeneous background

The two techniques described in this paper differ only in their assumptions about the background. In this section, we make the strong, restrictive assumption that the background source is homogeneous. Thus, although the intensity of the background emission may vary along the slit, its spectrum does not. An example is a long-slit spectrum in the core of a globular cluster: numerous faint members then form a smooth background whose spectrum to a good approximation is spatially-invariant because of orbit-mixing.

### 3.1 Simplification

To simplify the description of the scheme, we assume that the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$ is a continuous function of the two variables $`\lambda `$ and $`y`$, where $`\lambda `$ denotes wavelength and $`y`$ is the spatial coordinate perpendicular to the direction of dispersion. We further suppose that the spectra of the point sources have $`\lambda `$ -independent centroids $`y_n`$ \- i.e., they are dispersed horizontally. Of course the actual code works with pixellated data and can correct for the curvature of the point-source spectra.

### 3.2 Model

Let $`f_n(\lambda )`$ be the spectrum of the $`n`$th point source and let $`F(\lambda )`$ be the spatially-invariant spectrum of the homogeneous background whose normalized spatial profile is $`\psi (\eta )`$. Then, if $`P(y\eta ,\lambda )`$ is the spatial distribution of a point source at $`y=\eta `$ due to instrumental broadening and seeing (for a ground-based telescope), the two- dimensional model for the observed spectrum is

$$\varphi (\lambda ,y)=F(\lambda )\theta (y,\lambda )+\underset{n}{}f_n(\lambda )P(yy_n,\lambda )$$
(1)
where

$$\theta (y,\lambda )=\psi (\eta )P(y\eta ,\lambda )𝑑\eta $$
(2)
is the broadenened and therefore $`\lambda `$-dependent profile of the background.

Now, as discussed in Sec. 2, the model as defined by Eqs. (1) and (2) is not yet satisfactory since a point source (especially one with a spectrum similar to that of the background) can be partially modelled as a peak in $`\psi (\eta )`$. To eliminate this near indeterminacy, we impose a resolution limit on $`\psi `$ by writing

$$\psi (\eta )=\chi (\zeta )R(\eta \zeta )𝑑\zeta $$
(3)
where $`\chi (\zeta )`$ is a non-negative normalized auxiliary function and $`R(\eta \zeta )`$ is a non-negative normalized kernel function. If $`R`$ is a bell-shaped function with FWHM significantly greater than that of $`P`$, then point-like peaks cannot appear in $`\psi (\eta )`$. By thus preventing the point-sources from partially contaminating our model of the background, we simultaneously improve the accuracy of the extracted point-source spectra.

Eqs. (1)-(3) define the model used to decompose a long-slit spectrum under the assumption that the background is homogeneous. In fitting this model to an observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$, the unknowns to be estimated are the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ and the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$. Note that the spatial profile of the background $`\psi (\eta )`$ is not a basic unknown but is obtained incidentally from $`\chi (\zeta )`$ via Eq.(3).

The point-spread function $`P(y\eta ,\lambda )`$ and the resolution kernel $`R`$ are user-supplied and thus treated as known functions in the iterative fitting procedure described below. The centroids $`y_n`$ of the point-source spectra are also user-supplied and are held fixed during the iterations. These $`y_n`$ can be input by the user or determined by cross-correlation with the point-spread function.

### 3.3 Iterative technique

We now estimate the unknown functions $`f_n`$, $`F`$ and $`\chi `$ by iteratively improving the fit of $`\varphi `$ to the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. This iterative technique, which is based on the RL algorithm (Richardson 1972; Lucy 1974), alternates between improving the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ and improving the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$.

The scheme is initiated with flat, featureless estimates for the unknown functions. Thus we take $`f_n(\lambda )=F(\lambda )=1`$ and set the normalized auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )=1/Y`$, where $`Y`$ is the spatial extent of the spectrum.

#### 3.3.1 Correcting the spectra

After initiation (iteration $`i=1`$) or after a failed test of convergence ($`i>1`$), improved estimates of the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ are obtained as follows:

1) With the current estimate of the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$, the profile of the background $`\psi (\eta )`$ is computed from Eq.(3).

Following this initial calculation, the remaining steps are carried out at each discrete $`\lambda `$ in the observed spectrum.

2) The broadened profile of the background $`\theta (y,\lambda )`$ is computed from Eq. (2).

3) With the current estimates of $`f_n`$ and $`F`$, the $`y`$-dependence of $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)`$ is derived from Eq. (1)

4) Improved values of the amplitudes $`f_n`$ are obtained by applying the correction factors

$$c_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)}{\varphi (\lambda ,y)}P(yy_n,\lambda )𝑑y$$
(4)
5) An improved value of $`F`$ is obtained by applying the correction factor

$$C=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)}{\varphi (\lambda ,y)}\theta (y,\lambda )𝑑y$$
(5)
When the above correction factors have been applied at all $`\lambda `$’s, the improved spectra are input to this iteration’s next stage - Sec.3.3.2 -wherein $`\chi (\zeta )`$ is improved.

#### 3.3.2 Correcting the auxiliary function

Since the background is here assumed to have a spatially-invariant spectrum, the profile function $`\psi (\eta )`$ and the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$ from which it is derived are $`\lambda `$-independent. In principle, therefore, these functions could be estimated from the data at a single $`\lambda `$, but at the price of then neglecting information at other $`\lambda `$’s. To avoid this, we project the model and the data onto the $`y`$-axis - i.e., we integrate over $`\lambda `$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ denote the integral of $`\varphi (y,\lambda )`$. Then, from Eq.(1),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)+\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(y)$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(y)`$ are the corresponding integrals of the broadened background $`F(\lambda )\theta (y,\lambda )`$ and of the $`n`$th broadened point source $`f_n(\lambda )P(yy_n,\lambda )`$, respectively.

Now, using Eqs (1),(2) and (5), we can relate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)`$ to the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$. The result is the integral equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)=\chi (\zeta )Q(y\zeta )𝑑\zeta $$
(7)
where $``$ denotes the integral of $`F(\lambda )`$ and

$$Q(y\zeta )=\frac{1}{}F(\lambda )P(y\eta ,\lambda )R(\eta \zeta )𝑑\lambda 𝑑\eta $$
(8)
Note that $`Q(y\zeta )`$ is a normalized non-negative function.

Having derived this basic integral equation, we can now describe the steps that result in an improved estimate for the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$.

1) The effective broadening function $`Q(y\zeta )`$ defined by Eq. (8) is computed.

2) The integrated model $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ is computed from Eqs. (6) and (7).

3) An improved $`\chi (\zeta )`$ is obtained by applying the correction factor

$$𝒞(\zeta )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(y)}{\mathrm{\Phi }(y)}Q(y\zeta )𝑑y$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(y)`$ denotes the $`\lambda `$-integrated observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$.

When the above correction has been made, control moves to this iteration’s next stage wherein convergence is tested.

#### 3.3.3 Test of convergence

As measures of the corrections made in Sec. 3.3.1 to the spectra, we compute

$$\delta _n=|\mathrm{\Delta }f_n|𝑑\lambda /f_n𝑑\lambda $$
(10)
for each point source, and the corresponding quantity $`\delta _F`$ for the background. The symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the difference in value between successive iterations.

Similarly, we assess the corrections made in Sec. 3.3.2 to the normalized function $`\chi (\zeta )`$ by computing the quantity

$$\delta _\chi =|\mathrm{\Delta }\chi |𝑑\zeta $$
(11)
If any of the quantities $`\delta _n`$, $`\delta _F`$ or $`\delta _\chi `$ exceeds an appropriately small quantity $`ϵ`$, control returns to Sec. 3.3.1 in order to carry out the $`(i+1)`$-th iteration.

#### 3.3.4 Output

If the above convergence test is satisfied, the reduction is finished and it remains only to output the quantities of scientific interest. These are the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ and the normalized profile of the background $`\psi (\eta )`$. For some problems, the spectra of some or all of the point sources will be of primary interest; in others, the spectrum of the background; in yet others, the spatial profile of the background.

In addition, the two-dimensional residual spectrum $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$ is computed and displayed. Ideally, these residuals will be entirely attributable to statistical fluctuations in the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$. But if some residuals are significant, a flawed or incomplete reduction is indicated - see comment f) below. Of particular interest in this regard is the use of this residual spectrum to discover evidence that the background’s spectrum is not spatially-invariant and to identify the astrophysical source - e.g., nebular emission. Note that a weak departure from spatial invariance is likely to be less evident if the spectrum were reduced without this assumption (Sec. 4) and then such a departure sought by inspecting the two-dimensional background spectrum $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$ that is part of the output in the inhomogeneous case.

The auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta )`$ is not part of the standard output. In particular, this function does not provide a better model of the background’s profile than does $`\psi (\eta )`$.

### 3.4 Comments

The following comments are intended to clarify various aspects of this iterative scheme:

a) The correction factors defined by Eqs. (4) and (5) are obtained from the RL algorithm by noting that the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ are spatially broadened into their respective contributions to the observed spectrum according to the functions $`P(yy_n,\lambda )`$ and $`\theta (y,\lambda )`$. Similarly, the correction factor defined by Eq. (9) follows from noting that $`\chi (\zeta )`$ is broadened into $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)`$ according to the function $`Q(y\zeta )`$. Note that all these correction factors are unity if the model exactly matches the observed spectrum.

b) The scheme does not correct the extracted spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ for instrumental broadening in the $`\lambda `$\- direction, and thus they are not affected by deconvolution artifacts. Accordingly, the subsequent analysis of one of these point-source spectra can be carried out exactly as if it were the spectrum of an isolated point source extracted with a conventional package. Similarly, the spectrum of the background can be analysed as if the observation was of a source not contaminated by point sources.

c) In conventional applications of the RL algorithm, it is advisable to limit the number of iterations in order to avoid fitting statistical fluctuations in the data (Lucy 1974). Here this is prevented by the resolution limit imposed by the kernel $`R`$, and so the iterations can be continued to convergence.

d) In the software package, the unknown functions $`f_n`$, $`F`$ and $`\chi `$ are represented as finite vectors. The converged solution obtained with the above iteration scheme effectively determines the elements of these vectors from the Principle of Maximum Likelihood (Lucy 1974).

e) Statistical fluctuations in the extracted spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and $`F(\lambda )`$ are not reduced by imposing a resolution limit in the $`\lambda `$-direction nor by restricting the number of iterations. Instead, noise in the $`f_n`$ is reduced by an effective weighted co-addition in the spatial direction using the broadening function $`P(yy_n,\lambda )`$ (cf Horne 1986; Robertson 1986). Similarly, noise in $`F`$ is reduced by an effective weighted co-addition using the broadening function $`\theta (y,\lambda )`$.

f) The model $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)`$ obtained with the above iterative scheme will not necessarily fit the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$ to within errors. Significant residuals will remain if the assumptions underlying the model are violated. In particular, the background’s spectrum may not be spatially-invariant. Also the user-supplied broadening function $`P(yy_n,\lambda )`$ may be inaccurate.

Point sources not allocated to the first channel will also give significant residuals since, by design, the resolution kernel $`R`$ then prevents a close fit. In this case, a second reduction with additional designated point sources is clearly called for. A further cause of significant residuals would be a marginally-resolved source with FWHM less than that of $`R`$.

## 4 Inhomogeneous background

In this section, we relax the constraint that the background is homogeneous. Thus the general case is now treated where the background’s spectrum varies with position along the slit.

### 4.1 Model

If the background is inhomogeneous, its spectrum $`F(\eta ,\lambda )`$ is not separable into the product $`\psi (\eta )F(\lambda )`$ as assumed in Sec. 3.2. Accordingly, in this case, the model for the two-dimensional spectrum is

$$\varphi (\lambda ,y)=\omega (\lambda ,y)+\underset{n}{}f_n(\lambda )P(yy_n,\lambda )$$
(12)
where

$$\omega (\lambda ,y)=F(\lambda ,\eta )P(y\eta ,\lambda )𝑑\eta $$
(13)
is the broadened spectrum of the background.

Now, as in Sec. 3.2, we must prevent point sources from being partially modelled as peaks in $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$. To eliminate this possibility, we again impose a limit on the spatial resolution of the background by writing

$$F(\lambda ,\eta )=\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )R(\eta \zeta )𝑑\zeta $$
(14)
where $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ is a non-negative auxiliary function and $`R(\eta \zeta )`$ is a non-negative normalized kernel function.

Eqs. (12)-(14) define the model used to decompose a long-slit spectrum of an inhomogeneous background with superposed point-sources In fitting this model to an observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$, the unknowns to be estimated are the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$. The spatially-varying spectrum of the background $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$ is not a basic unknown but is obtained incidentally from the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ via Eq.(14).

As in Sec. 3, the point-spread function $`P(y\eta ,\lambda )`$ and the resolution kernel $`R`$ are user-supplied, thus treated as known functions in the iterative fitting procedure described below, and the centroids $`y_n`$ of the point source spectra also remain fixed.

### 4.2 Iterative technique

We now estimate the unknown functions $`f_n`$ and $`\chi `$ by iteratively improving the fit of $`\varphi `$ to the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. This iterative technique, which is again based on the RL algorithm, repeatedly sweeps through the spectrum improving both the spectra $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and the auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ until convergence is achieved.

The scheme is initiated with $`f_n(\lambda )=1`$ for all $`n`$ and with $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )=1`$. In addition, the normalized effective broadening function

$$Q(y\zeta ,\lambda )=P(y\eta ,\lambda )R(\eta \zeta )𝑑\eta $$
(15)
that maps $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ into $`\omega (\lambda ,y)`$ \- see Eqs. (13) and (14) - is computed and stored for use during the iterations.

At each iteration, the following calculations are made at every discrete $`\lambda `$ in the observed spectrum:

1) The $`y`$-dependence of the broadened background $`\omega (\lambda ,y)`$ is computed by convolving the current estimate of $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ with $`Q(y\zeta ,\lambda )`$.

2) The $`y`$-dependence of $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)`$ is computed from Eq.(12) using the current estimates of the amplitudes $`f_n`$.

3) Improved point-source amplitudes $`f_n`$ are obtained by applying the correction factors

$$c_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(y,\lambda )}{\varphi (y,\lambda )}P(yy_n,\lambda )𝑑y$$
(16)
4) The auxiliary function $`\chi (\zeta ,\lambda )`$ is improved by applying the correction factor

$$C(\zeta ,\lambda )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(y,\lambda )}{\varphi (y,\lambda )}Q(y\zeta ,\lambda )𝑑y$$
(17)
#### 4.2.1 Test of convergence

When steps 1)-4) have been carried out at all $`\lambda `$’s, convergence is tested. The quantities tested are $`\delta _n`$ as previously defined by Eq.(10) and $`\delta _\chi `$, which is redefined here as

$$\delta _\chi =|\mathrm{\Delta }\chi |𝑑\zeta 𝑑\lambda /\chi 𝑑\zeta 𝑑\lambda $$
(18)
If any of the $`\delta _n`$ or $`\delta _\chi `$ exceeds an appropriately small quantity $`ϵ`$, control returns to step 1) above in order to carry out a further iteration.

#### 4.2.2 Output

If the above convergence test is satisfied, the reduction is finished and it remains only to output the quantities of scientific interest. These are the spectra of the point sources $`f_n(\lambda )`$ and the two-dimensional spectrum of the background $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$. This latter quantity is computed from the converged auxiliary function $`\chi `$ via Eq.(14).

From $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$, one-dimensional plots of the background spectrum at different positions $`\eta `$ along the slit can be displayed. Alternatively, one-dimensional plots of the background’s spatial profile at different $`\lambda `$’s can be extracted.

As in the homogeneous case, the two-dimensional residual spectrum $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$ is also computed and displayed. If some residuals are statistically significant, a flawed or incomplete reduction is indicated - see comment b) below.

### 4.3 Comments

The following comments refer to differences between this iteration scheme and that of Sec. 3.

a) Statistical fluctuations in the extracted background spectrum $`F(\lambda ,\eta )`$ are reduced by an effective weighted co-addition in the spatial direction using the broadening function $`Q(y\zeta ,\lambda )`$ given by Eq. (15).

b) The converged model $`\varphi (\lambda ,y)`$ obtained with the above iterative scheme will not necessarily fit the observed spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\lambda ,y)`$ to within errors. But significant residuals are less likely than in the previous case because the restrictive assumption of a spatially-invariant background spectrum has been dropped. Nevertheless, as previously, significant residuals will remain if the user-supplied broadening function $`P(yy_n,\lambda )`$ is inaccurate, if the second channel still contains point-sources, or if the background contains structure or resolved sources with widths narrower than that of $`R`$.

## 5 Applications

The two techniques are distinguished by their treatment of the extended source. If the spectrum of the extended source changes with spatial position across the slit, then the inhomogeneous technique should be applied; if the spectrum of the extended source is expected not to vary with position then the homogeneous code is applicable and will give a more robust estimation for the extended source with incidental improvements in the extracted spectra of the point sources.

The capabilities are illustrated by Figure 1 which shows a simulated 2D spectrum and the results of extraction of the point source spectra using the inhomogeneous technique (Sect. 4). The extended source consists of two spectral components with differing spatial extents - one with a sloping background and the other with line emission. The point sources have respectively a continuum with an absorption line and a flat continuum with emission lines. The difference in the continua of the two point sources is 1.75mag. at the short wavelength end of the spectrum. The results for the restored spectrum are shown: the match of the restored extracted point source spectra (integrated over the spatial extent) and the input templates are excellent. The difference between the restored long-slit spectrum (point and extended sources) and the input shows only random noise and no systematics, validating, in practice, the techniques described in Section 4.

In reality, the spectrum of the PSF (hence called the Slit Spread Function SSF) is often not a perfect match to the data because of instrumental effects and changing seeing (for ground-based data); the exact position of the point source(s) (required to shift the SSF to the position of a point source) are also not known. Ideally a PSF star should be placed on the slit together with the target, or, in the case of mulit-slit instruments, on another slitlet. However even having a star on the slit is not a guarantee of a good SSF. Experiments with ground-based data on a visual binary with separation $``$ seeing, using an SSF derived from a star at the edge of the slit, resulted in systematic residuals of the restoration which were spectrally varying. Thus the SSF at the edge of the slit was not identical to that at the centre on account of optical aberrations in the spectrometer. For HST spectra taken with STIS, for example, a spectrum of a point source at approximately the same position on the slit as the source could be used for the SSF. However very often suitable stars have lower signal-to-noise than the target or were not similarly centred in the slit. In addition two HST SSF’s may not be identical because of ”breathing” (thermally induced changes in the telescope focal length), particularly if the exposure times differ greatly between the object and SSF star.

In the case of space-based or adaptive optics long-slit spectra, the SSF can be constructed from an optical model, such as TinyTim for HST (Krist, 1995). Tiny Tim delivers a monochromatic PSF or a PSF integrated over a filter passband. Integrating the PSF with a slit of the correct size and pixel sampling allows a monochromatic long-slit PSF to be formed. Interpolating several such across the wavelength range of a long-slit spectrum allows construction of a high fidelity SSF image. In order to obtain the utmost from the slit spectra to be decomposed, precuations should be taken at the time of observation, or even at the time of instrument design in the case of a specialized instrument.

In the following three sub-sections, examples of the application of the two techniques to a variety of particular problems are illustrated.

### 5.1 Decomposition of AGN spectrum from its galaxy

Figure 2 shows a long-slit spectrum of the nucleus of the Seyfert I galaxy NGC 4151 taken by STIS with the G430M grating (PI:Hutchings; Programme ID:7569 ; see Hutchings et al (1999)). This was actually taken without a slit. An SSF image was constructed from five TinyTim PSF’s interpolated over the wavelength range of 4830 to 5090Å and with a broad slit (0.8<sup>′′</sup>). The inhomogeneous code (Sect. 4) is obviously necessary for this application since the spectrum of the extended source has different emission line contributions across the slit. The extracted point source spectrum of the nucleus of NGC 4151 is shown in the Fig. 2. Here the scientific aim is to extract the spectrum of the point source nucleus, uncontaminated by the extended line emission. Several values of the width of the Gaussian smoothing kernel were tried but the flux of the resulting bright point source showed relatively little sensitivity to the kernel width. The other aspect of this extraction would be to study the emission line spectrum in the close vicinity of the nucleus from the extended emission with the point source removed. The veracity of the reconstruction in such a case depends critically on how well the model SSF matches the SSF at the time of observation.

### 5.2 Separating extended line emission from a damped QSO line trough

An important class of astronomical problems involve detecting the spectra of faint extensions around bright point sources, such as the underlying galaxy of a QSO, the optical jet emission from a Pre-Main Sequence star or an AGN. Such cases mandate the careful subtraction of the point source spectrum to reveal the extended spectral features near the point source. Both techniques presented here are well suited to such problems and present a systematic alternative to the ad-hoc approach of PSF fitting (e.g. Moller (2000)). Figure 3 shows an example of a long-slit spectrum across a broad-absorption line QSO (Q2059-360). This is a raw spectrum with sky lines included; the broad Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorption line is well seen with a trace of extended emission towards its long wavelength edge. The upper, extended object, spectrum is of another galaxy. The data was kindly provided by B. Leibundgut and was taken with the ESO NTT and EMMI spectrometer. There was no suitable bright star nearby to provide the SSF and the spectrum of a spectrophotometric standard with the same set-up had different seeing. The spectrum of the BAL QSO itself was used, with the Ly$`\alpha `$ region interpolated and smoothed in the dispersion direction. The inhomogeneous technique was employed to separate the Ly$`\alpha `$ emission source from the BAL continuum spectrum. The right hand panel of Fig.3 shows the result: the bright BAL QSO continuum is very effectively subtracted. The homogeneous technique could also have been used to model the sky background, which when subtracted from the spectrum in Fig.3 reveals the extended Ly$`\alpha `$ emission source.

### 5.3 Extracting many stellar spectra in a globular cluster

The last example is a long-slit spectrum of a globular cluster, in this case NGC 5272 taken with the STIS spectrometer and G430L grating (PI M. Shara, HST proposal 8226). Figure 4 shows how crowded the spectrum is and that there is essentially no region which can be used to estimate the background. About 120 point source spectra could be discerned by eye in this 2D spectrum. Clearly it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to extract the spectra of all the stars on the slit without resort to profile fitting. The positions of all the stars were determined by fitting Gaussians or simple centroids and a PSF was provided by the brightest star in the spectrum, suitably cleaned of its neighbouring spectra. The background is assumed to be composed of sky, very faint cluster members from orbit mixing and bright sources close to the slit edge. Assuming this background does not change its spectral signature across the slit, then the homogeneous technique should be applied. The right hand diagram of Fig.4 shows the spatial profile along the slit and the restored profile of the background with the stars removed. The first attempts showed point source spectra remaining in the background from stars that were closely blended and that were missed in the visual identification. Finally the positions of 129 stars were used as input to the task and their stellar spectra were recovered. Some high excursions in the background remain which suggest the presence of stars omitted from the input catalogue of point sources.

## 6 Comparison with other techniques

A variety of other methods for separating the spectra of point sources from the spectrum of an extended source have recently appeared. Courbin et al (2000) use an adaption of the MCS image deconvolution algorithm (Magain et al, 1998). The required PSF for the deconvolved image is chosen, and the PSF, which should be applied to restore the data to this chosen PSF, is applied in the deconvolution. In the long-slit case each spectral element is deconvolved independently and three functions are minimized for the fit of the point sources, the smoothness (on the length scale of the output resolution) of the background and the length scale of the correlation in the spectral direction (viz. spectral resolution). The $`\chi ^2`$ minimization requires the assignment of two Lagrange multipliers. Since the position of the point-sources is not fitted in the two techniques presented here, only one user-specified parameter - the width of the smoothing kernel for the extended object spectrum - is required in comparison.

Direct PSF fitting has also been applied to the separation of point and extended sources from the spatial component of long-slit spectra. Hynes (2002) presented a method based on the optimal extraction technique to extract spatially blended spectra, but prior subtraction of the extended sources is assumed and not explicitly treated. The maximum entropy method has been used by Khmil & Surdej (2002) in application to overlapping spectra but here separate $`\chi ^2`$ minimization cycles are required for the spectra of the point sources, the position of the point sources and the determination of the SSF. Again spatially varying extended sources are not covered by the extraction technique. The two R-L based methods presented here treat the extended source explicitly as part of the restoration process and thus offer a wider range of astrophysical applicability. Both these techniques are based on a well-known image restoration technique.

For unblended spectra of point sources, results obtained with the techniques described here can be compared with those for the optimal extraction method of Horne (1986). As expected - see Sect. 3.4e, the results are then similar, in particular with regard to achieved signal-to noise.

## 7 Software

The homogeneous and inhomogeneous background extraction codes are included in the STECF IRAF<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract to the National Science Foundation of the United States. layered package ‘specres’ to extract spectra from longslit or 2-D spectra with an a priori SSF. The input data are the 2D spectrum and the SSF and a table listing the positions of the point sources. The output products are the extracted spectra of the point sources and the restored background image, either with or without the point sources included. A task is also provided in the package to produce an SSF image from sets of (2-D spatial) PSF’s at different wavelengths, simulating the spatial profile produced by placing a long-slit over a point source. Further information and help pages for the routines are available at: http://www.stecf.org/ jwalsh/specres/ The algorithms have been made flexible, can deal with slightly tilted spectra, spatially subsampled SSF’s, and allow the position of point sources to be refined by cross-correlation. A separate table file is output for each extracted point source. Data quality of the input 2D spectrum is considered in order to neglect bad pixels and, if statistical errors are available, then multiple trials can be performed to determine the error estimates on the restored spectra.

## 8 Conclusions

Two iterative techniques, based on the Richardson-Lucy algorithm, have been presented for decomposing a long-slit spectrum into its constituent parts, namely into the spectra of the point sources and the spectrum of the background. These techniques are applicable to complex fields where standard extraction routines fail or perform poorly. A variety of tests, with real and simulated data, confirm the ability of these techniques to provide effective reductions for complex fields.

We would like to thank Richard Hook for allowing us to use his IRAF ‘cplucy’ code as a basis for the Lucy-Hook algorithms described here and for generous advice on implementation of restoration methods. We also thank Ian Howarth and Bruno Leibundgut for providing their ground based spectra for testing the techniques.


text:
# Quantum Hall Effect under Rotation and Mass of the Laughlin Quasiparticles

## Abstract

We consider the quantum Hall effect induced by magnetic field and rotation, which can drive the Hall samples into the quantum Hall regime and induce fractional excitations. Both the mass and the charge of the Laughlin quasiparticles are predicted to be fractionally quantized. The observable effects induced by rotation are discussed. Based on the usual Hall samples under rotation, we propose an experimental setup for detecting the macroscopic quantization phenomena and the fractional mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles.

In condensed matter, two-dimensional (2D) electron gases are of particular interest due to the discovery of fractional quantum Hall (QH) effect by Tsui, Stormer, and Gossard exp Tsui . It is one of the spectacular macroscopic quantization phenomens and has been investigated for two decades both theoretically and experimentally Hall . One of the exotic aspects is the Laughlin quasiparticles of fractional charge $`\frac{e}{l}`$ ($`l`$ odd for fundamental fractional filling fraction) Laughlin  which has been demonstrated recently by several beautiful experiments fraction charge . Similar ideas have been explored in another strongly correlated system–dilute cold neutral atoms in Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) in recent years theory Wilkin ; zoller ; Ho ; Chen . The rapidly rotating BECs, which can be treated as 2D interacting atoms, will lie in the lowest landau level (LLL) and the nondegenerate ground state is of the form of the famous Laughlin state theory Wilkin ; zoller . In our previous paper Chen , we predicted some macroscopic quantization phenomena which are the “atomic twin of the electronic brother” on the base of the similarity between these two strongly correlated many-body systems. The quantized “mass-conductance” $`\sigma ^{(m)}`$ and the quasiparticles of fractional mass replace, respectively, the electron-conductance $`\sigma ^{(e)}`$ and fractionally charged quasiparticles in the usual QH effect. But the requirements for observing similar QH physics in BECs are demanding due to the difficulty in the current BEC experiments to deposit a large enough angular momentum to reach the QH regime.

Essentially, the phenomena predicted in Ref. Chen  in rapidly-rotating stongly-correlated cold atoms are induced by the noninertial force on massive particles in the rotating frame. Thus, these effects should also occur in other strongly correlated many-body systems, even in the electron gases. The detection of effects induced by rotation in magnetizable and metals has a history of more than one hundred year Maxwell . The famous experiment on this respect was done by Barnett who measured the magnetic field induced by rotation in $`1915`$ Barnett . Recent experiments on the rotating effect were to measure the mass of the current carriers (Cooper pairs) in superconductors Zimmerman . Recently, Fischer et al. Fischer  have studied the rotation in QH samples using a twofold $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance.

The charge of the current carriers (the Laughlin quasiparticles) in fractional QH effect is fractionized as $`\nu e`$ for simple Hall droplet, as is now well known. Now a fascinating question arises: Is the mass of the fractionally charged quasiparticles in a fractional QH liquid also fractionized? To the best of our knowledge, this question has not been investigated up to date. Its answer is not as obvious as in a superconductor where the current carriers are the Cooper pairs with mass $`m_{CP}`$ being duplation of electron’s mass $`m_e`$, namely, $`m_{CP}=2m_e`$. In usual quantum Hall effect an excitation can be induced by piercing a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$. However, there is no physical principle to determine the mass of the excitations.

Motivated by our previous work Chen , in this paper we deal with such kind of problems from a microscopic view. Namely, we are concerned with QH effect under rotation. Of particular interest is the properties (e.g., the mass) of the fractional excitations. By using the usual QH samples under rotation, we propose an experiment to measure the fractional mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles, which could be tested under current experimental conditions.

First, we consider a 2D rotating QH sample (see Fig. $`1`$) under a high magnetic field $`B\widehat{z}`$, which is perpendicular to the 2D plane. Assume that the sample is confined by a harmonic potential with trapping frequency $`\omega _0`$ and then rotated, along the $`\widehat{z}`$-direction, at an angular frequency $`\omega =\omega _0`$. In the rotating frame the 2D electrons are described by explanation

$$H_{tot}=\underset{i}{}H_i+\underset{i<j}{}V(𝐫_i𝐫_j).$$
(1)
Here $`H_i=\frac{(𝐩_im\omega \widehat{z}\times 𝐫_i+e𝐀_i)^2}{2m}`$ is the single-body Hamiltonian; $`V(𝐫_i𝐫_j)`$ describes the two-body interaction, which in this case is the Columb interaction $`\frac{e^2}{|𝐫_i𝐫_j|}`$ between electrons as is familiar in QH effect. The Hamiltonian (1) can be naturally realized in a rotating quantum-dot system under the same conditions specified above.

Now let us first consider the single-body Hamiltonian. As is done in our previous paper Chen , one can deal with the rotation and the magnetic field in a uniform way, namely

$$q^{}𝐀^{}=m\omega \widehat{z}\times 𝐫+e𝐀,$$
(2)
where $`𝐀=\frac{1}{2}B\widehat{z}\times 𝐫`$ (with $`𝐁`$ $`=\times 𝐀`$ and $`𝐁^{}=\times 𝐀^{}`$) and $`q^{}`$ is the effective charge. Then single-body Hamiltonian is simplified to be

$$H=\frac{(𝐩q^{}𝐀^{})^2}{2m}=\frac{[𝐩(m\omega +\frac{eB}{2})\widehat{z}\times 𝐫]^2}{2m},$$
(3)
which is completely analogous to the Hamiltonian with only effective magnetic field $`𝐁^{}`$. So when the magnetic field $`B`$ or/and the rotating frequency $`\omega `$ is large enough, the system can be studied only in the lowest landau level (LLL). In LLL the single-body states read $`\psi _l(\eta )=N_l\eta ^l\mathrm{exp}[|\eta |^2/(4a_0)^2]`$ $`(l=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ in terms of the 2D complex coordinate $`\eta =x+iya_0\overline{\eta }`$. Here $`N_l=[\pi l!(2a_0)^{l+1}]^{1/2}`$ is the normalization constant and $`a_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(2m\omega +eB)}`$ is the effective magnetic length.

We can also define the filling fraction as usual

$$\nu =\frac{2\pi n\mathrm{}}{q^{}B^{}}=\frac{2\pi n\mathrm{}}{2m\omega +eB}.$$
(4)
In this case the many-body system will show some macroscopic quantum phenomena due to the repulsive two-body interaction as in the electron or atom QH effect. Its nondegenerate ground state is the Laughlin state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l=𝒩_l\underset{i<j}{}(\overline{\eta }_i\overline{\eta }_j)^le^{\frac{1}{4}_i|\overline{\eta }_i|^2},$$
(5)
which was first put forward by Laughlin in a classic paper in 1983 Laughlin  to explain the fundamental filling fraction in the fractional QH effect. Here $`𝒩_l`$ is an unimportant normalization constant, and $`l>0`$ is an even number for bosons or an odd number for fermions. Then in this state the filling fraction will be quantized as usual $`\nu =\frac{1}{l}`$. The “atomic Hall-conductance” in atomic QH effect Chen  and the usual quantized Hall-conductance in electron QH effect Hall  is naturally unified as

$$\frac{e^2}{\sigma ^{(e)}2\pi \mathrm{}}+\frac{m^2}{\sigma ^{(m)}2\pi \mathrm{}}=l.$$
(6)
This means that neither of the two Hall conductances is quantized, but their combination is quantized.

The equivalent electron-number current (the real current carriers are not the electron but the quasiparticles, as will be discussed below) is

$$j_x=\frac{\nu }{2\pi \mathrm{}}(eE_y+mg_y),$$
(7)
where $`E_y`$ and $`g_y`$ are induced Hall electric field and gravitational-like acceleration field, respectively. Equation (7) is identical to the twofold $`U(1)`$ gauge invariant current obtained in Ref. Fischer . It means that when one inputs a particle current in the sample, the current will induce not only the Hall electrostatic field but also the gravitational-like acceleration field. The two induced fields are caused by the two-body interaction. Then the equivalent particle current induced by the change of magnetic field $`B`$ (piercing a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$) or rotating velocity $`\omega `$ (piercing a vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}`$) can be described in a uniform way

$$j=\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{\nu }{2\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dt},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=m𝛀\times \mathrm{𝐝𝐫}e𝐀\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}=N_v2\pi \mathrm{}`$ is the total fluxes and $`j`$ is also the equivalent electron-number current. So filling fraction naturally reads $`\nu =\frac{N}{N_\nu }`$. This equation means that either piercing a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$ or piercing a vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}`$ in a disk or cylinder sample will induce a particle current as long as the sample is in Hall regime.

The exotic fractional excitations, which are the current carriers, are of particular interest in electron QH effect Laughlin  and in atom QH effect Chen . What is the relation between these two kinds of excitations? The answer to this question can be approached in the present case. As usual, the fractional charge should read $`Q^{}=\frac{q^{}}{l}`$. In order to see clearly its meaning we add the external field $`E^{}`$, which is induced by piercing flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ Chen  and reads

$$Q^{}E^{}=\frac{eE+mg}{l}=\frac{e}{l}E+\frac{m}{l}g.$$
(9)
This relation means that the quasiparticles will respond to the electric field as $`\frac{e}{l}`$ and acceleration field as $`\frac{m}{l}`$. This fact implies that the quasiparticles are of both the fractional charge and the fractional mass. Thus, piercing a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$ and/or piercing a vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}`$ in the rotating Hall sample will induce excitations from the unique vacuum state (i.e., the Laughlin state) and lead to the same Laughlin quasiparticle state Laughlin ; Chen . Consequently, the excitations possess simultaneously fractional charge and fractional mass. This result is necessarily the property of the nondegenerate ground state and does not depend on the origin of the ground state. So what we got above should be correct even in usual nonrotating Hall sample under high magnetic field $`𝐁`$, namely, the fractional excitations with charge $`\frac{e}{l}`$ in electron QH effect possess the fractional mass $`\frac{m}{l}`$.

It seems that the electron-conductance will not be quantized as usual due to the relation $`I_x=\frac{\nu }{2\pi \mathrm{}}(eV+m\mathrm{\Phi })`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the induced gravational-like potential Chen , $`I_x`$ is the equivalent electron current) if we add source and drain on the rotating QH sample. But this is not the case. In fact, the quantum Hall voltage or the gravitational-like potential are all caused by the two-body interaction, which is now the Columb interaction. The gravational-like force is also induced by the two-body interaction and behaves as another electrostatic field $`eV^{}m\mathrm{\Phi }`$. What is actually measured is the total Hall voltage $`V_{tot}=V+V^{}`$. Then the quantization relation in usual QH effect is formally preserved

$$\sigma ^{(em)}\frac{eI_x}{V_{tot}}=\nu \frac{e^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}.$$
(10)
Now let us consider how to measure the effects induced by rotation, in particular, the fractional mass of the quasiparticles. This issue is currently difficult for BECs for which the current experiments are far from the Hall regime. We turn to other samples, such as the electron Hall sample, to find a way to measure these effects for there have been some experiments to measure the rotating effects and the mass of Cooper pairs in superconductors Zimmerman . In the following we will consider a special case and propose a method to measure the physical effects induced by rotation and the fractional mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles.

First we consider a usual Hall Corbino disk sample Hall  without rotation. The Hamiltonian describing the system is

$$H_{tot}=\underset{i}{}H_i^{}+\underset{i<j}{}V(𝐫_i𝐫_j),$$
(11)
where $`H_i^{}=\frac{(𝐩_i+e𝐀_i)^2}{2m}`$. Laughlin’s gedanken experiment is to pierce a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$, which will induce a fractional charge transfer in the Hall sample, as has already been demonstrated by experiments Dolgopolov ; Dolgopolovb ; Jeanneret . Based on the similar sample one can also measure the mass of the fractionally charged quasiparticles which are the current carriers in QH sample.

Let us consider the case of piercing a vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}`$ in the sample by rotating the fractional Hall Corbino disk. Due to Faraday’s law Chen ; Fischer , this process will induce an acceleration field and excite the electron gas. As described above it will induce a radial Hall mass current Chen

$$mj_r=\nu \frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}g_\varphi .$$
(12)
Note that the current carriers are quasiparticles. Assuming $`e^{}`$ and $`m^{}`$ are the charge and mass of the quasipaticles, respectively, one can get the electric current $`ej_r=\nu \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}g_\varphi `$ with $`g_\varphi =\frac{\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{2\pi R}`$. The charge transferred through this process is

$`Q`$ $`=2\pi R{\displaystyle ej_r𝑑t}=2\pi R{\displaystyle 𝑑t\nu \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}g_\varphi }`$
$`=\nu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=\nu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{m}}`$
$`=\nu e^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m^{}}}.`$ (13)
According to the above results that $`e^{}=\frac{e}{l}`$ and $`m^{}=\frac{m}{l}`$ we will get $`Q=\nu e`$. This transferred charge is equal to piercing a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{e}`$. While the fractional charge of the Laughlin quasiparticles has been demonstrated by several experiments through measuring the shot noise in tunneling effect fraction charge , the fractional mass is unnoticed and thus, not determined up to date. So this process opens a door to determine the fractional mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles.

For this purpose we propose a way to measure the proportion $`\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}`$ between the charge and the mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles to demonstrate the fractional mass. The experimental device is depicted in Fig. 2. This device has been used in QH effect to test Laughlin’s gedanken experiment Jeanneret ; Dolgopolovb . The Corbino disk has reached the fractional quantum Hall regime under high magnetic field $`𝐁`$ perpendicular to the 2D plane. Then rotating the sample to excite the quasiparticles will induce charge to transfer from one edge to the other. The charge transferred in this process is

$$Q=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\pi R^2\nu \frac{m^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}2\mathrm{}\omega ,$$
(14)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the Corbino disk, $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the rotation angular velocity. This transferred charge can be detected by measuring the voltage in capacitance, $`V=\frac{Q}{C}`$. Now the rotation only plays the role of exciting the QH sample. Since the accuracy of the typical measurements in QH effect is high, the rotation frequency does not need to be too large, say, about $`10^310^4s^1`$, is enough for current experimental conditions Barnett ; Zimmerman ; Fischer  to observe the predicted effects. The methods to observe similar phenomenon in QH effect by changing magnetic field in this sample are familiar in the usual electron QH effect, where the quantized conductance is measured. This result is also available to integer QH effect where $`\nu =\mathrm{integer}`$ and the current carriers are electrons.

In summary, we have exploited the quantum Hall effect induced by magnetic field and/or rotation. In this case both the magnetic field and the rotation are available to reach the quantum Hall regime and can induce the fractional excitations. Both the mass and charge of the quasiparticles, which are the current carriers in the Hall sample, are fractionally quantized. The observable effects induced by rotation have been discussed. An experimental proof of the macroscopic quantization phenomena and the fractional mass of the Laughlin quasiparticles has been proposed. We hope that our prediction can be verified in the near future by using the usual quantum Hall samples under rotation.

We thank Professor Yong-De Zhang for helpful discussion and U. P. Fischer for bringing Ref. Fischer  into our attention. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Natural Fundamental Research Program (under Grant No. 2001CB309300).


text:
# Geometrical phases for the 𝐺(4,2) Grassmannian manifold

## I Introduction

Geometrical phases have attracted much interest since the seminal work by Berry . The simple example of the abelian Berry phase produced, e.g. by the adiabatic transition of a spin-1/2 particle that follows a rotating magnetic field, has found many applications in quantum optics, molecular physics and so on. Theoretically, it was extended to non-abelian phases by Wilczek and Zee  by additionally employing to the setup of the usual Berry phase a degenerate structure that allows geometrical unitary evolutions of higher dimensionality describing transitions of population within the degenerate eigenspace. There are different applications of geometrical evolutions in the literature  and in particular related to quantum information. Special attention has been given to the evolutions that are parameterized by the $`n`$-dimensional complex projective manifold, $`CP^n`$. It corresponds to the parametric manifold $``$ of a physical model where $`n`$ states out of $`n+1`$ are preserved degenerate at all times . For this case the parametric space $``$ is given by

$`CP^n{\displaystyle \frac{U(n+1)}{U(n)\times U(1)}},`$ (1)
where the dictated control transformations are between the non-degenerate state and each degenerate one. By performing adiabatically closed paths in this parametric space geometrical unitary operators are generated, called holonomies, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, acting solely on the degenerate states. Their relevance for performing quantum computation was first demonstrated in . Since then they enjoyed theoretical applications in quantum optical models with laser beams , trapped ions , optical cavities  or quantum dots .

A further generalization of the parametric control space is realized by employing the Grassmannian manifolds. They are given by the coset space structure

$`G(m,n){\displaystyle \frac{U(m)}{U(n)\times U(mn)}}.`$ (2)
The complex projective manifolds can be considered as a special case of the Grassmannian ones. In particular, for $`m=2`$ and $`n=1`$ we obtain the $`CP^1`$ space where the Berry phases are defined, while for $`m=n+1`$ we have the identity $`G(n+1,n)CP^n`$. There are two degenerate eigenspaces corresponding to the $`G(m,n)`$ model that are $`n`$ and $`mn`$ dimensional. With the same adiabatic control procedure in the parametric space $`=G(m,n)`$ non-trivial holonomies are generated in both of them, contrary to all previously studied examples. Here, we shall restrict to the $`G(4,2)`$ case, where the connection components, the corresponding field strengths and a set of holonomies will be explicitly given.

## II Holonomies and Physical models

### A Berry phases

The well known Berry phase can be produced by performing loops in the $`G(2,1)CP^1`$ parametric space of external control parameters that determine the unitary evolution of two level system as sketched in Figure 1(a). Let us present one possible Berry phase implementation in atomic physics.

Consider the case of an atom with two non-degenerate ground levels $`|+`$ and $`|`$, with corresponding eigenvalues $`E_+=\omega /2`$ and $`E_{}=\omega /2`$, and an excited one $`|e`$. By performing a Raman adiabatic transfer  between levels $`|+`$, $`|`$ with the help of two detuned laser fields with Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and common detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is possible to adiabatically eliminate level $`|e`$ and create in the basis $`\{|+,|\}`$ the following unitary transformation

$`𝒰(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}& ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\\ ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}\end{array}\right),`$

where $`\theta =2|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{eff}}|t`$, $`\varphi =\text{arg}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{eff}}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}/(4\mathrm{\Delta })`$. In the above evolution we have neglected the A.C. Stark shift effect which can be compensated with properly detuned lasers. In accordance the initial free Hamiltonian of the $`|+`$ and $`|`$ states, given by $`H_0=\frac{\omega }{2}\sigma _z`$, is transformed as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}𝒰(\theta ,\varphi )\sigma _z𝒰^{}(\theta ,\varphi ).`$ (3)
Assume that at time $`t=0`$ we have $`\theta =\varphi =0`$ and the initial state of the system is given by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (0)=|\pm `$. Let us consider the evolution resulting when a closed path $`C`$ is spanned very slowly in the parametric plane $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ in time interval $`T`$. Due to cyclicity and adiabaticity no population has moved from one state to the other at the end of the loop, that is, the energy of the system has not changed. Still the states are allowed to obtain a geometrical phase factor at the end of this evolution, which can be calculated from the time evolution operator of the system given by the Schrödinger equation. A dynamical phase does not appear due to the geodesic character of Raman evolutions. In particular, we obtain that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+(T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^+(C)|+`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^{}(C)|`$ that is the states acquire a geometrical phase factor that depend on the spanned loop $`C`$, and a connection $`A`$. The components of the latter are defined, and analytically given for this case, by

$`A_\theta ^\pm =\pm |𝒰^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}𝒰|\pm =0\text{and}A_\varphi ^\pm =\pm |𝒰^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}𝒰|\pm =\pm i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (4)
In terms of the connection $`A`$ the phase factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\pm (C)e^{i\phi _\pm }`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\pm (C)=\mathrm{exp}_CA^\pm =\mathrm{exp}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi F_{\theta \varphi }^\pm (\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(5)
where $`F_{\theta \varphi }^\pm (\theta ,\varphi )=_\theta A_\varphi ^\pm _\varphi A_\theta ^\pm =\pm i\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ is the non-zero component of the field strength associated with $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ is the surface on the plane $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ bounded by the loop $`C`$. The second step in (5) is due to Stokes theorem. For any $`C`$ we obtain the relation $`\phi _+=\phi _{}=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ between the two Berry phases. Note that $`\phi _+=\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle spanned by the circulation of a unit vector with directions given by the $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ angles. The half factor reflects the spin-1/2 transformation properties of the employed two atomic levels. This physical evolution produces a measurable abelian Berry phase. Their generalization to unitary matrices (holonomies) with the employment of degenerate structures is given in the following for the case of the Grassmannian manifold $`G(4,2)`$.

### B Holonomies for the Grassmannian manifold $`G(4,2)`$

The Grassmannian manifold $`G(4,2)`$ corresponds to the parametric space of the Hamiltonian $`H=𝒰H_0𝒰^{}`$ where $`H_0=\omega /2\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`𝒰`$ are $`U(4)`$ unitary transformations that act non-trivially on the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$. Clearly, $`H_0`$ has the following eigenvectors $`|+_1|1=(1,0,0,0)`$, $`|+_2|2=(0,1,0,0)`$, $`|_1|3=(0,0,1,0)`$ and $`|_2|4=(0,0,0,1)`$. The first two states span the degenerate eigenspace $`S_+`$ with eigenvalue $`E_+=\omega /2`$, while the last two span the eigenspace $`S_{}`$ with eigenvalue $`E_{}=\omega /2`$. The schematic representation of this model is given in Figure 1(b), where the eligible transformations are depicted by arrows. Each arrow correspond to a $`U(2)`$ transformation $`U(z_{ij})`$ parameterized by a complex number $`z_{ij}=\theta _{ij}\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _{ij}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`j=3,4`$. Hence, the real decomposition of the parametric space $`G(4,2)`$ is given by $`\{\theta _{ij},\varphi _{ij}\}\{\sigma _{ij}\}`$. Here we adopt the following ordering for the general unitary transformation, $`𝒰(\sigma )=U(z_{13})U(z_{14})U(z_{23})U(z_{24})`$.

Now we can define the connection components for each degenerate eigenspace. They are given from the following equation

$$(A_\sigma ^\pm )_{\alpha \beta }\alpha |𝒰^{}(\sigma )\frac{}{\sigma }𝒰(\sigma )|\beta ,$$
(6)
where the basis vector $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ belong in the same degenerate eigenspace of $`H_0`$. From (6) we see that the matrix $`A_\sigma ^\pm `$ is anti-hermitian. For $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}=\{1,2\}`$ we obtain the elements of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`A^+`$, while for $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}=\{3,4\}`$ we obtain the elements of $`A^{}`$. The holonomic unitary operator, generated when a closed path, $`C`$, is spanned adiabatically in the space of the control parameters $``$, is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\pm (C)𝐏\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _C}A^\pm .`$ (7)
The path ordering symbol does not allow to calculate the path integral first and then to exponentiate the result as the different components of the connection $`A`$ do not commute in general. For those cases the simple form of Stokes theorem does not apply . Still it is possible to analytically calculate the holonomies which result from the commuting components of the connection $`A`$ in the same way as we did for the abelian case. Alternatively, the non-abelian version of Stokes theorem can be employed as in .

Before moving to the analytic calculation of the holonomies, let us see how the transformations $`𝒰(\sigma )`$ can be physically realized for example by an atomic system. According to Figure 1(b) we can generalize the model of the two level atom with four levels, pair-wise degenerate and apply laser beams connecting these states via additional exciting states by Raman adiabatic transfers. As in the case of the two-level system presented in the previous subsection, a $`U(2)`$ unitary transformation results from each Raman transition. Successive applications of those unitaries are able to construct the general unitary transformation $`𝒰(\sigma )`$ parameterized by the $`G(4,2)`$ manifold. A detailed study of the generation of the Berry phases with $`=CP^2`$ control manifold with an atomic system manipulated by Raman transitions is given in .

## III Connection and Field Strength Components

### A Connection $`A`$

In this subsection we shall present the connection components related to the parametric space $`G(4,2)`$ by employing definition (6). In particular, they are $`2\times 2`$ matrices paired in the following with respect to the $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ degenerate eigenspaces they act on. Thus, we obtain

$`A_{\theta _{13}}^+=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\theta _{13}}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\theta _{14}}^+=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}& 0\end{array}\right),A_{\theta _{14}}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\theta _{23}}^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),A_{\theta _{23}}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}& 0\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\theta _{24}}^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),A_{\theta _{24}}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$

The matrix elements of $`A_{\varphi _{13}}`$ are given by

$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^+)_{11}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{14},`$ (8)
(9)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^+)_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ie^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ie^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24},`$ (10)
(11)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^+)_{21}=(A_{\varphi _{13}}^+)_{12}^{},`$ (12)
(13)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^+)_{22}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}`$ (14)
(15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}+\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24},`$ (16)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^{})_{11}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23},`$ (17)
(18)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^{})_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ie^{i(\varphi _{23}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ie^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24},`$ (19)
(20)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^{})_{21}=(A_{\varphi _{13}}^{})_{12}^{},`$ (21)
(22)
$`(A_{\varphi _{13}}^{})_{22}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}`$ (23)
(24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{13}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24},`$ (25)
$`A_{\varphi _{14}}^+=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\text{ctan}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\text{ctan}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\varphi _{14}}^{}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\varphi _{23}}^+=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\varphi _{23}}^{}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}\text{ctan}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}\text{ctan}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`A_{\varphi _{24}}^+=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),A_{\varphi _{24}}^{}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$

### B Field strength $`F`$

In this subsection we shall calculate the field strength $`F`$ associated with the previous connections $`A`$. Its components are given by $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$. Here, we shall restrict on the field strength components for which the commutator part $`[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ is zero for all values of the parameters $`\theta _{ij}`$ and $`\varphi _{ij}`$. For them the computation of their holonomies is straightforward as we shall see in the following subsection. Let us present first the $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ field strength components. The ones that are obtained from commuting connection components acting on the $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ eigenspaces are given by

$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^+)_{11}=0,`$ (26)
(27)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^+)_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24},`$ (28)
(29)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^+)_{21}=(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^+)_{12}^{},`$ (30)
(31)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^+)_{22}=i\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23})+i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}+\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{24},`$ (32)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^{})_{11}=0,`$ (33)
(34)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^{})_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{i(\varphi _{23}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24},`$ (35)
(36)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^{})_{21}=(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^{})_{12}^{},`$ (37)
(38)
$`(F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{13}}^{})_{22}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14})i\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{24},`$ (39)
$`F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{14}}^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}ie^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\\ \frac{1}{2}ie^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}& i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{14}}^{}=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{23}}^+=i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{23}}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}ie^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\\ \frac{1}{2}ie^{i(\varphi _{24}+\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}& i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{24}}^+=i\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),F_{\theta _{24}\varphi _{24}}^{}=i\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

From the connection components where only the ones that act on $`S_+`$ commute we obtain the following field strength components

$`F_{\theta _{23}\varphi _{13}}^+=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}`$ (44)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}& 2\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}+2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}+\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$
$`F_{\theta _{23}\varphi _{23}}^+=i\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

while $`F_{\theta _{23}\varphi _{14}}^+=F_{\theta _{23}\varphi _{24}}^+=0`$. From the connection components where only the ones that act on $`S_{}`$ commute we obtain the following field strength components

$`F_{\theta _{14}\varphi _{13}}^{}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}`$ (49)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14})}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14})}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}& 2\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}+2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$
$`F_{\theta _{14}\varphi _{14}}^{}=i\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{24}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{14}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$

while $`F_{\theta _{14}\varphi _{23}}^{}=F_{\theta _{14}\varphi _{24}}^{}=0`$. Finally, the $`(\theta ,\theta )`$ field strength components are given by

$`F_{\theta _{13}\theta _{24}}^+=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{13}\theta _{24}}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{14}\theta _{23}}^+=F_{\theta _{14}\theta _{23}}^{}=0`$ (50)
$`F_{\theta _{14}\theta _{24}}^+=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{24})}& 0\end{array}\right),F_{\theta _{14}\theta _{13}}^{}=0`$

$`F_{\theta _{23}\theta _{24}}^+=0F_{\theta _{23}\theta _{24}}^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})}& 0\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{13}\theta _{23}}^+=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{23})}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{13}\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{24}\varphi _{23})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{14}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right),`$

$`F_{\theta _{13}\theta _{14}}^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{24}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}\\ e^{i(\varphi _{14}\varphi _{13})}& 2i\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{14}+\varphi _{23}\varphi _{13}\varphi _{24})\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{24}\end{array}\right).`$

### C Holonomies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

In general, the explicit calculation of the Holonomies of matrix connections $`A`$ is non-straightforward as they involve the path ordering procedure when exponentiating their loop integral. On the other hand it is possible to restrict our cyclic evolutions to specific planes $`(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ that correspond to commuting components $`A_\sigma `$ and $`A_\sigma ^{}`$. For those loops we can employ Stokes theorem for the abelian theories and obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A^\pm (C)𝐏\mathrm{exp}_CA^\pm =\mathrm{exp}_CA^\pm =\mathrm{exp}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\sigma ^{}F_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^\pm (\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),$$
(51)
where the rest of the variables are considered constant. The path ordering symbol has been taken out at the second step as the connection components on the $`(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ commute with each other. Hence, Stokes theorem can be applied straightforwardly as presented in the previous section for the abelian Berry phase. An analytic expression for the holonomies can be obtained by exponentiating the $`2\times 2`$ matrices resulting from the surface integral of the field strength components presented in the previous subsection.

## IV Discussion

A theoretical model has been presented for the construction of non-abelian holonomies for the $`G(4,2)`$ Grassmannian manifold. This is the generalization of the usual abelian Berry phase to the case of a quantum system consisting of a doubly degenerate energy eigenspace. The evolution of both degenerate spaces has been presented that are produced from the same cyclic adiabatic evolution. The main difference with the abelian case is that it is possible to have manipulations of state population in each degenerate space rather than just generation of overall phase factors. This can be achieved for example by spanning loops $`C`$ on the $`(\theta _{24},\varphi _{13})`$ plane where population can be interchanged in a well defined way between the states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ as well as between $`|3`$ and $`|4`$. In contrast, loops on the $`(\theta _{24},\varphi _{24})`$ plane contribute only Berry-like phases on the conjugate states $`|2`$ and $`|4`$ (see Figure 1). It is worth noticing that the holonomic evolution is not producing any correlations between the two different eigenspaces $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ due to the cyclicity of the adiabatic procedure. Even though it is possible to have each degenerate eigenspace evolving with a different holonomy there is a correspondence between the evolutions as can be easily seen in the previous section facilitating eventually their detection in a physical system and the verification of the above results. Indeed, the components $`F^+`$ and $`F^{}`$ of the field strength have a similar functional dependence on the variables $`(\theta _{ij},\varphi _{ij})`$ and their surface integral in (51) bears a common dependence in the area $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$. These holonomic characteristics can be verified in the laboratory with present technology by employing an atomic cloud and manipulating the atomic states with external laser beams.