text:
# Bloch-like oscillations in a one-dimensional lattice with long-range correlated disorder

thanks: On leave from “S.I. Vavilov State Optical Institute”, Birzhevaya Linia 12, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia

## Abstract

We study the dynamics of an electron subjected to a uniform electric field within a tight-binding model with long-range-correlated diagonal disorder. The random distribution of site energies is assumed to have a power spectrum $`S(k)1/k^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha >0`$. Moura and Lyra \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3735 (1998)\] predicted that this model supports a phase of delocalized states at the band center, separated from localized states by two mobility edges, provided $`\alpha >2`$. We find clear signatures of Bloch-like oscillations of an initial Gaussian wave packet between the two mobility edges and determine the bandwidth of extended states, in perfect agreement with the zero-field prediction.

The single-parameter scaling hypothesis predicts localization of a single quasiparticle in one (1D) and two dimensions with time-reversal symmetry, independently of the disorder strength present in the system Abrahams79 . There exist, however, low-dimensional systems that do not obey the single-parameter scaling framework. Thus, the absence of Anderson localization in the presence of spatial short-range correlations in disorder Flores89 ; Dunlap90  was put forward to explain transport properties of semiconductor superlattices with intentional correlated disorder Bellani99 . Further, it was demonstrated that long-range correlated diagonal Moura98 ; Izrailev99  and off-diagonal Moura99  disorder also acts towards delocalization of 1D quasiparticle states. Furthermore, long-range correlations can result in the emergence of a phase of extended states in the thermodynamic limit. This phase appears at the band center and is separated from localized states by two mobility edges Moura98 . This theoretical prediction was experimentally validated by measuring microwave transmission spectra of a single-mode waveguide with inserted correlated scatterers Kuhl00 . In the case of short-range correlated disorder the delocalized phase does not appear: the number of delocalized states increases proportionally to the square root of the system size, and thus this phase has zero measure in the thermodynamic limit.

In this Letter we focus on the dynamical properties of an electron in a system with long-range correlated diagonal disorder. Interplay between the delocalization effect, preserved by the long-range correlated disorder, and the dynamic localization, caused by an electric field acting on the system, is of our interest. We compute the behavior of an initial Gaussian wave packet in the presence of a uniform electric field solving numerically the 1D time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the complete Hamiltonian. We found clear signatures of Bloch-like oscillations Bloch28  of the wave packet between the two mobility edges of the delocalized phase of states. The amplitude of the oscillatory motion of the centroid allows us to determine the bandwidth of the delocalized phase.

We consider a tight-binding Hamiltonian with long-range-correlated diagonal disorder and an external dc electric field on a regular 1D open lattice of spacing $`a`$ Dunlap86

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_nean\right)|nn|`$
$`J{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(|nn+1|+|n+1n|\right),`$ (1)
where $`|n`$ is a Wannier state localized at site $`n`$ with energy $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_n`$, $``$ is the external uniform electric field, and $`N`$ is even. The intersite coupling is restricted to nearest-neighbors and assumed to be uniform over the entire lattice with $`J>0`$. In terms of the Wannier amplitudes $`\psi _n(t)=n|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, the Schrödinger equation reads Nazareno99

$$i\dot{\psi }_n=(\epsilon _nFn)\psi _n\psi _{n+1}\psi _{n1},$$
(2)
where we introduced the dimensionless parameters $`\epsilon _n=\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_n/J`$, $`F=ea/J`$, and time is expressed in units of $`\mathrm{}/J`$.

The source of disorder is the stochastic fluctuations of energies $`ϵ_n`$, which we are going to consider as being long-range correlated. One of the simplest ways to numerically generate a power-law correlated sequence of on-site potentials $`\epsilon _n`$ is to write its Fourier decomposition as follows Moura98

$$\epsilon _n=C(\alpha )\underset{k=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}\frac{1}{k^{\alpha /2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi nk}{N}+\varphi _k\right).$$
(3)
Here, $`\varphi _k`$ are $`N/2`$ independent random phases uniformly distributed within the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$, and $`C(\alpha )`$ is a normalization constant. We will normalize the energy sequence to have $`\epsilon _n=0`$ and $`\epsilon _n^2=1`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates average over the random phases $`\varphi _k`$. The long-range nature of the potential correlations results from the power-law dependence of the amplitudes on the wave-vector characterizing each Fourier component. Several stochastic processes in nature are known to generate long-range correlated random sequences which have no characteristic scale, for example, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA molecules Peng92 . The relevance of the underlying long-range correlations for the electronic transport in DNA has been recently discussed in Ref. Carpena02 . Furthermore, interface roughness appearing during growth often displays height-height correlations with power-law spectra Barabasi95 ; thus, the subsequent random potential arising from the rough interface would be long-range correlated. Recently, transport properties of systems with long-range correlated disorder was explored, both theoretically and experimentally, in the design of devices for filtering of electrical and optical signals Krokhin02 .

Having introduced the model of disorder, we can solve numerically (2) by means of an implicit integration algorithm Press86 . The initial condition is set to a Gaussian wave packet of width $`\sigma `$ and centered at $`n_0=N/2`$

$$\psi _n(0)=A(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}\left[(nn_0)2/4\sigma 2\right],$$
(4)
$`A(\sigma )`$ being the normalization factor. Once Eq. (2) is solved for the initial condition (4), we compute the mean position of the wave packet (centroid)

$$x(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(nn_0)|\psi _n(t)|^2.$$
(5)
It is to be noticed that all eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (1) contribute to $`x(t)`$.

It is well known that a uniform electric field applied to a periodic lattice causes the dynamic localization of the initially extended states of an electron and gives rise to an oscillatory behavior of the electron wave packet, the so-called Bloch oscillations Bloch28 . The length of the segment over which the electron oscillates (twice the amplitude) and the period of these oscillations are estimated from semiclassical arguments to be (in dimensionless units) $`L_F=W/F`$ and $`\tau _B=2\pi /F`$ respectively (e.g., see Ref. Ashcroft76 ), where $`W`$ is the width of the Bloch band in units of the coupling integral $`J`$ ($`W=4`$ in our case). Notice that this approach requires slowly varying wave functions to be valid, implying that $`L_F>1`$. Similar condition was pointed out in Ref. Arrachea02 . The question we aim to clarify is to what extent will the corresponding phenomenology be valid if long-range correlated disorder, that allows for a delocalized phase, is present. In other words, whether the biased phase of extended states bounded by two mobility edges behaves similarly to a biased Bloch band. If so, it provides us with a method to measure the energy width of the delocalized phase $`W^{}`$ from the relationship $`L_F^{}=W^{}/F`$, where $`L_F^{}`$ is twice the amplitude of the oscillatory motion of the centroid. Below, we present a numerical proof of this conjecture.

In Fig. 1 we show the asymptotic dynamics ($`t\tau _B`$) of the Wannier amplitudes $`\psi _n(t)`$ of a initial Gaussian wave packet $`\psi _n(t)`$ ($`\sigma =10`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`F=0.1`$) calculated for two values of the exponent $`\alpha `$, 0.5 (the phase of delocalized states is absent in the unbiased system) and 3.0 (the phase of delocalized states is present in the unbiased system). At $`\alpha =0.5`$ \[see Fig. 1a)\], the disorder is almost uncorrelated and the system is similar to the standard Anderson model, with no signatures of Bloch oscillations. On the contrary, the plot in Fig. 1b) calculated for $`\alpha =3.0`$ shows an oscillating in time pattern. This result suggests that Bloch oscillations can take place *even in the presence of disorder*.

The time-domain evolution of the centroid, $`x(t)`$, provides more detailed information about what is happening. In Fig. 2 one can see that there are no signatures of Bloch oscillations for $`\alpha =0.5`$ (dotted line), at least for a moderate field amplitude. Oscillations, which are present at the very beginning, achieve in a short time a weakly fluctuating (stationary in average) value. This is a clear indication of the existence of disorder-induced decoherence effects, as is expected for the localized regime. On the contrary, at $`\alpha =3.0`$ the centroid displays an oscillatory, amplitude-modulated pattern after an initial transient, where the amplitude of the oscillations is reduced (solid line). This oscillatory displacement of the wave packet is not accompanied by in-phase oscillation of its width. In other words, breather modes are absent for the specified initial condition.

Valuable information can be extracted from a detailed inspection of the centroid dynamics. First, we notice that the period of the oscillations is a well defined quantity, as is seen from Fig. 3. Furthermore, within the numerical uncertainty, its value is equal to $`\tau _B=2\pi /F`$, being the period of Bloch oscillations in a homogeneous lattice. At the initial stage of the motion, the spatial region within which the wave packet oscillates is roughly given by $`4/F`$, as for an ideal Bloch band. Disorder results in a relatively fast decrease of the oscillation amplitude. After this transient stage, oscillations are not damped further and remains amplitude-modulated with an envelope which depends on the realization of disorder. Dotted lines in Fig. 3 bound the spatial region within which the wave packet oscillates for a long time. On average, the width of this region $`L_F^{}`$ is found to be $`L_F^{}W^{}/F`$, where $`W^{}`$ is independent of the applied field $`F`$. From the data in Fig. 3 we obtain $`W^{}1`$. This value agrees remarkably well with the width of the band of extended states reported in Ref. Moura98  for $`\alpha =3.0`$. Thus, we arrive at the main conclusion of this work, namely there exist clear signatures of Bloch-like oscillations of a biased Gaussian wave packet between the two mobility edges.

To provide further confirmation of this claim, we calculated numerically the Fourier transform of the centroid, $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\omega )`$, as shown in Fig. 4. Results were obtained by averaging over 1000 realization of disorder. For $`\alpha =0.5`$, the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\omega )`$ is rather broad, suggesting that $`x(t)`$ is similar to a white noise signal. On the contrary, for $`\alpha =3.0`$ the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\omega )`$ shows a well-defined, narrow peak at about $`\omega =F`$, despite averaging. The variance of $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\omega )`$, $`\sigma _\omega ^2`$, displays a rather different trend below and above $`\alpha =2.0`$, as seen in the inset of Fig. 4. For $`\alpha <2.0`$ the Fourier transform is broad, but for $`\alpha >2.0`$ the width of the Fourier transform is rather small and independent of the electric field. The onset for the appearance of Bloch oscillations $`\alpha =2`$ (see the inset of Fig. 4) is in excellent agreement with the value obtained in Ref. Moura98  for the occurrence of the phase of extended states.

Before concluding, some words concerning the influence of the width of the initial wave packet are in order. The above results for $`F0`$ were obtained with a relatively broad wave packet ($`\sigma 1`$) with initial velocity equal to zero. Consequently, its Fourier components span a very narrow set of states at the bottom of the band. We performed also a study for initial moving wave packets located initially deep in the band. In short, in the very beginning the wave packet explores the entire band in either case and oscillates within a spatial region of size $`4/F`$. On increasing time, the amplitude of $`x(t)`$ is always reduced to a region of size $`L_F^{}=W^{}/F`$, where $`W^{}`$ is the width of the delocalized phase. This picture changes slightly for narrower initial wave packets, for which the large-amplitude transient is absent. Figure 5 shows the centroid dynamics of an initial Kronecker $`\delta `$ wave packet at $`\alpha =3.0`$ and $`F=0.125`$. The extent of the spatial region within which the wave packet asymptotically oscillates is again $`L_F^{}=W^{}/F`$. Thus, we can confidently state that Bloch-like oscillations are rather insensitive to initial conditions.

We studied a biased random tight-binding model where the on-site disorder is long-range correlated with the power spectrum $`S(k)1/k^\alpha `$, $`\alpha >0`$. The unbiased model supports a phase of delocalized states in the center of the band provided $`\alpha >2`$ Moura98 . We found clear signatures of Bloch-like oscillations for $`\alpha >2`$ and their absence for $`\alpha <2`$. The period of the oscillations agrees well with the period in an ideal Bloch band. Thus, the amplitude of the oscillations provides a direct way to estimate the energy difference between the two mobility edges of the delocalized phase. We found that this energy difference is in perfect agreement with the results reported in Ref. Moura98 . This finding opens the possibility to experimentally measure the bandwidth of the delocalized phase. Actual technological advances made it possible to monitor the amplitude of Bloch oscillations in uniform semiconductor superlattices Lyssenko97 . Recently, intentionally disordered superlattices were used to demonstrate the absence of localization in short-range correlated disordered systems Bellani99 . Thus, we conjecture that intentionally disordered superlattices with long-range correlated disorder would allow for a clearcut validation of the present results. In addition, metallic rings threaded by magnetic fields linearly rising in time also display Bloch oscillations Arrachea02 , thus opening new experimental ways to test our predictions.

###### Acknowledgements.

V. A. M. acknowledges support through a NATO Fellowship. Work at Madrid was supported by DGI-MCyT (MAT2000-0734). Work at Brazil was supported by CNPq and CAPES (Brazilian research agencies) and FAPEAL (Alagoas State agency).


format: text

text:
# Investigations on the deconfining phase transition in QCD

## 1 INTRODUCTION

To detect the deconfinement phase transition in pure gauge theories the expectation value of the trace of the Polyakov loop is used as an order parameter. In presence of dynamical fermions the Polyakov loop ceases to be an order parameter since Z(N) symmetry is no longer a symmetry of the action. Alternatively deconfinement could be detected by looking at Abelian monopole condensation which can be detected  by means of the vacuum expectation value of a magnetically charged operator whose expectation value is different from zero in the confined phase and goes to zero at the deconfining phase transition.

In a different way, abelian monopole condensation can be signaled by the free energy needed to create an abelian monopole in the vacuum. This free energy can be computed  through a gauge invariant lattice effective action which in turn is defined at zero temperature by means of the lattice Schrödinger functional and at finite temperature by means of a thermal partition functional. Since abelian monopole condensation is not related, as the Polyakov loop, to a symmetry of the lattice action, it could still be useful in order to detect a phase transition even if dynamical fermions are included into the action. The lattice thermal partition functional in presence of a static background field is defined  as

$$𝒵_T\left[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}\right]=_{U_k(L_t,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k(0,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟Ue^{S_W},$$
(1)
$`T=1/aL_t`$ is the physical temperature. T he spatial links belonging to the time slice $`x_t=0`$ are constrained to the value of the external background field,

$$U_k(x)|_{x_t=0}=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x}),(k=1,2,3),$$
(2)
$`U_k^{\text{ext}}(x)`$ being the lattice version of the external continuum gauge field, the temporal links are not constrained. At finite temperature the relevant quantity is the free energy functional:

$$\frac{F[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}]}{T_{\text{phys}}}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{𝒵_T[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}]}{𝒵_T[0]}.$$
(3)
When including dynamical fermions, the thermal partition functional in presence of a static external background gauge field, Eq. (1), becomes:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒵_T\left[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}\right]=\hfill \\ & =_{U_k(L_t,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k(0,\stackrel{}{x})=U_k^{\text{ext}}(\stackrel{}{x})}𝒟Ue^{S_W}detM,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`S_W`$ is the Wilson action and $`M`$ is the fermionic matrix. Notice that the fermionic fields are not constrained and the integration constraint is only relative to the gauge fields: this leads, as in the usual QCD partition function, to the appearance of the gauge invariant fermionic determinant after integration on the fermionic fields.

To detect monopole condensation we consider  the following quantity defined in terms of free energy $`F`$ needed to create a monopole in the vacuum:

$$e^{F/T_{\text{phys}}}=\frac{𝒵_T\left[\stackrel{}{A}^{\text{ext}}\right]}{𝒵_T[0]}.$$
(4)
In presence of monopole condensation $`F`$ is finite and $`e^{F/T_{\text{phys}}}0`$. In practice it is easier to compute $`F^{}(\beta )`$ the $`\beta `$-derivative of the free energy (eventually, since $`F=0`$ at $`\beta =0`$, $`F`$ can be obtained by numerical integration of $`F^{}(\beta )`$).

## 2 SU(3) PURE GAUGE

We consider SU(3) pure gauge in an abelian monopole background field. The gauge potential in the continuum is

$$g\stackrel{}{b}^a(\stackrel{}{x})=\delta ^{a,3}\frac{n_{\mathrm{mon}}}{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{n}}{|\stackrel{}{x}|(|\stackrel{}{x}|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n})},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is the direction of the Dirac string and $`n_{\text{mon}}`$ (integer) is the number of monopoles. On the lattice the spatial links exiting from the sites at the boundary of the time slice $`x_t=0`$ are constrained to the (lattice version of) the gauge potential Eq. (5). Links at spatial boundaries ($`x_t0`$) can be constrained to the monopole background field (“spatial fixed boundary conditions”) or can be periodic (“spatial periodic boundary conditions”). These two different choices (for the monopole field which vanishes at infinity) are equivalent in the thermodynamical limit. The simulations were performed on lattices of different spatial sizes ($`16^3`$, $`24^3`$, and $`32^3`$) and fixed the temporal extent ($`L_t=4`$), using APEmille/crate in Bari. We find that our data for $`F^{}(\beta ,L_s^{\text{eff}})`$ can be fitted according to the following scaling law

$$F^{}(\beta ,L_s^{\text{eff}})=\frac{a_1(L_s^{\text{eff}})^\gamma }{\left|(L_s^{\text{eff}})^{1/\nu }(\beta \beta _c)d_1\right|^\alpha },$$
(6)
where the above scaling relation holds quite well for a large range of the scaling variable $`x=(L_s^{\text{eff}})^{1/\nu }(\beta \beta _c)`$, with $`\nu =0.334\pm 0.021`$ consistent with a first order phase (see Fig. 1).

## 3 QCD ($`N_f=2`$)

We study QCD with two dynamical staggered fermions. We simulate the theory with a “cold” time-slice where (as in the case of pure gauge) the spatial links are constrained to the abelian monopole background field.

In Fig. (2) the derivative of the free energy with respect to the gauge coupling $`F^{}(\beta )`$ is displayed together with chiral condensate data suggest that the peak in $`F^{}(\beta )`$ corresponds to the drop of the chiral condensate. Using our data for $`F^{}(\beta )`$ on different spatial volumes and different bare quark masses we try to infer the critical behavior of two flavors full QCD near the phase transition. We varied the lattice size $`L_s`$ ($`L_s=16,20,32`$) and the staggered quark mass $`m_q`$ ($`m_q=0.075,0.2676,0.5003`$). At fixed $`m_q`$, as in the quenched case, the peak increases as the lattice volume is increased. At fixed spatial volume the critical coupling depends on $`m_q`$. All our lattice data can be described by a finite size scaling function where the gauge critical coupling now does depend on the quark mass and is determined by the chiral critical point

$$\begin{array}{cc}& F^{}(\beta ,L_s^{\text{eff}},m_q)=\hfill \\ & \frac{a_1(L_s^{\text{eff}})^\gamma }{\left|(L_s^{\text{eff}})^{1/\nu }(\beta \beta _c(0)cm_q^\eta )d_1\right|^\alpha },\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
the relevant chiral critical exponents being compatible with those of the three-dimensional O(4) symmetric spin models . We find that the critical exponent $`\nu =0.31\pm 0.03`$ is consistent with a first order phase transition, even though weaker than in SU(3) pure gauge (analogous indications have been obtained by the Pisa group ).

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We investigated the phase transition in SU(3) pure gauge theory and in full QCD with two flavors of degenerate staggered fermions. To locate the phase transition we looked at the free energy to create a monopole in the vacuum. In the pure gauge case our finite size scaling analysis is consistent with the well known weak first order phase transition. In the case of QCD we find that the phase transition is compatible with a weak first order phase transition (contrary to the expectation of a crossover for not too large quark masses).


text:
# On Borcherds products associated with lattices of prime discriminant

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(V,q)`$ be a real quadratic space and $`LV`$ an even lattice with dual $`L^{}`$. In the description of the theta lifting from elliptic modular forms on $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ to modular forms for the orthogonal group of $`L`$ it is often convenient to work with vector valued modular forms for the full group $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ rather than with scalar valued modular forms for congruence subgroups. In particular, such vector valued modular forms occur naturally in the theory of automorphic products due to Borcherds \[Bo1\]. Their transformation behavior under $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ is dictated by the Weil representation associated with the discriminant group $`L^{}/L`$.

However, there is no smooth structure theory for vector valued modular forms. For instance, they do not form a weight-graded algebra, and there is no natural action of the full Hecke algebra and the Galois group over $``$.

In the present note, we consider the special case that the discriminant group has odd prime order $`p`$. This implies that the lattice has even dimension. We show that the relevant spaces of vector valued modular forms can be described using scalar valued modular forms for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$, whose Fourier expansion is supported on either the squares or the non-squares modulo $`p`$ (see Theorem 5). In the proof we use some basic properties of the Weil representation and an idea due to Krieg, who considered the special case that $`L`$ is given by the ring of integers in an imaginary quadratic field \[Kr\]. Related results for certain lattices of odd dimension were obtained earlier by Eichler, Zagier and Skoruppa (cf. \[EZ\] chapter 5, \[Sk\]).

If the signature of $`L`$ is $`(2,n)`$ one obtains a very explicit description of the Borcherds lifting: It maps scalar valued modular forms of weight $`1n/2`$ as above which are holomorphic except for a pole at the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$ to meromorphic modular forms for the orthogonal group attached to $`L`$. Furthermore, using the Serre-duality result of \[Bo2\] one gets an existence criterion for Borcherds products involving a similar space of cusp forms of weight $`1+n/2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ (see Theorem 6). In section 4 we present these ideas in the special $`\mathrm{O}(2,2)`$-case of Hilbert modular surfaces of prime discriminant (Theorem 9). Since we feel that this case is of particular interest and since there are no explicit examples in the literature so far (to the best of our knowledge), we work out some Borcherds products in detail. In the computation of the Weyl vectors we need to apply a result of \[Br2\]. For instance, we construct the product of theta-series for $`(\sqrt{5})`$ considered by Gundlach in \[Gu\] as a Borcherds product.

## 2. Vector valued modular forms

We begin by fixing some notation. We denote by $`L`$ an even lattice of signature $`(b^+,b^{})`$ equipped with a non-degenerate quadratic form $`q(x)=\frac{1}{2}(x,x)`$. We write $`L^{}`$ for the dual lattice, $`m=b^++b^{}`$ for the dimension, and put $`r=b^+b^{}`$.

Throughout we assume that the discriminant group $`L^{}/L`$ has prime order $`p3`$. This implies that $`m`$ and $`r`$ are even. If $`S`$ denotes the Gram matrix of $`L`$, then it is well known that $`(1)^{m/2}det(S)=(1)^{r/2}p`$ is a discriminant and therefore congruent to $`1`$ modulo $`4`$. Thus $`p`$ determines $`r`$ modulo $`4`$.

The following argument shows that $`p`$ modulo $`4`$ together with the type of the quadratic form on $`L^{}/L`$ induced by $`q`$ determine $`r`$ modulo $`8`$: Let $`\chi _p()=(\frac{}{p})`$ denote the Dirichlet character given by the Legendre symbol and define

$$\epsilon _p=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & p1(mod4),\hfill \\ i,\hfill & p3(mod4).\hfill \end{array}$$

On $`L^{}/L𝔽_p`$ the quadratic form is equivalent to $`q(x)=\alpha x^2/p`$, where $`\alpha 𝔽_p\{0\}`$ is either a square or a non-square, i.e. the type of $`q`$ is determined by $`ϵ=\chi _p(\alpha )`$. We use Milgrams formula for the general Gauss sum

(1)
$$\underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}e(q(\gamma ))=\sqrt{|L^{}/L|}e(r/8),$$

where $`e(\tau )=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$ as usual. The left hand side is equal to the standard Gauss sum $`_{x(p)}e(\alpha x^2/p)=\chi _p(\alpha )\epsilon _p\sqrt{p}`$. Inserting this into (1) we find that $`ϵ\epsilon _p=e(r/8)`$. We obtain the following table for $`r`$ modulo $`8`$:

Let $`T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ denote the standard generators of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$, and write $`(𝔢_\gamma )_{\gamma L^{}/L}`$ for the standard basis of the group algebra $`[L^{}/L]`$. Recall that there is a unitary representation $`\rho =\rho _L`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ on $`[L^{}/L]`$ given by

$`\rho (T)𝔢_\gamma `$ $`=e(q(\gamma ))𝔢_\gamma ,`$
$`\rho (S)𝔢_\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i^{r/2}}{\sqrt{|L^{}/L|}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\delta L^{}/L}{}}e((\gamma ,\delta ))𝔢_\delta .`$
This is essentially the Weil representation corresponding to the quadratic module $`(L^{}/L,q)`$. For further properties of $`\rho `$ we refer to \[Sh, Bo1, Br1, Od\]. The negative identity matrix acts as $`\rho (E)𝔢_\gamma =(1)^{r/2}𝔢_\gamma `$.

Let $`k`$. Similarly as in \[Bo1\] and \[Br1\] we denote by $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ the space of nearly holomorphic modular forms for $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ of weight $`k`$ with representation $`\rho `$. These are $`[L^{}/L]`$-valued holomorphic functions $`F(\tau )=_{\gamma L^{}/L}F_\gamma (\tau )𝔢_\gamma `$ on the upper complex half-plane $``$ satisfying the usual transformation law and having a Fourier expansion

$$F(\tau )=\underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}n+q(\gamma )\\ n\mathrm{}\end{array}}{}a(\gamma ,n)e(n\tau )𝔢_\gamma .$$

Thus $`F`$ may have a pole at the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$. The subspace of holomorphic modular forms (resp. cusp forms) is denoted by $`_{k,\rho }`$ (resp. $`𝒮_{k,\rho }`$).

The transformation behavior under $`E`$ implies that the components $`F_\gamma `$ of $`F`$ satisfy

$$F_\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}F_\gamma ,\hfill & kr/2(mod2),\hfill \\ F_\gamma ,\hfill & kr/2(mod2).\hfill \end{array}$$

For the purposes of this paper we have to assume that $`kr/2(mod2)`$.

## 3. Scalar valued modular forms

We normalize the usual weight $`k`$ Petersson slash operator on functions $`f:`$ by

$$(f_kM)(\tau )=(detM)^{k/2}(c\tau +d)^kf(M\tau )$$

for $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GL}_2^+()`$. We will often omit the subscript $`k`$ if it is clear from the context.

We write $`A_k(p,\chi _p)`$ for the space of nearly holomorphic modular forms of weight $`k`$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ with character $`\chi _p`$. These are holomorphic functions on $``$ which satisfy the transformation law $`f_kM=\chi _p(d)f`$ for all $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ and are meromorphic at the cusps. The subspace of holomorphic modular forms (resp. cusp forms) is denoted by $`M_k(p,\chi _p)`$ (resp. $`S_k(p,\chi _p)`$). Moreover, for $`ϵ\{\pm 1\}`$ we define the subspaces

$$A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)=\left\{f=_na(n)q^nA_k(p,\chi _p)\text{}a(n)=0\text{ if }\chi _p(n)=ϵ\right\}.$$

Here $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$ as usual. A classical Lemma due to Hecke (cf. \[Ogg\] Lemma 6, p. 32) implies that

$$A_k(p,\chi _p)=A_k^+(p,\chi _p)A_k^{}(p,\chi _p).$$

If $`f=_na(n)q^nA_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$, then the Fourier polynomial

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ n<0\end{array}}{}a(n)q^n$$

is called the principal part of $`f`$. Finally, we define the spaces $`M_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ and $`S_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ analogously.

Let $`F𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ and write $`F_\gamma =_na(\gamma ,n)q^n`$ for its components. It is well known that the restriction of $`\rho `$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ acts on $`𝔢_0`$ by multiplication with the character $`\chi (M)=\chi _p(d)`$ for $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ (see \[Sh\], \[Od\]). Therefore the component $`F_0`$ belongs to $`A_k(p,\chi _p)`$. Since the Fricke involution

$$W_p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ p& 0\end{array}\right)$$

acts on $`A_k(p,\chi _p)`$, the function $`F_0W_p`$ is also contained in $`A_k(p,\chi _p)`$. By means of the operator $`V_p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ it can be rewritten as follows:

$`F_0W_p`$ $`=F_0SV_p`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i^{r/2}}{\sqrt{p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}}F_\gamma V_p`$
(2) $`=i^{r/2}p^{(k1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}}F_\gamma (p\tau ).`$
We get the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

The assignment $`Ff`$, where

$$f=\frac{i^{r/2}}{2}p^{(1k)/2}F_0W_p=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}F_\gamma (p\tau ),$$

defines an injective homomorphism $`𝒜_{k,\rho }A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$. Here $`ϵ=\chi _p(\alpha )`$ is given by the quadratic form on $`L^{}/L`$. The function $`f`$ has the Fourier expansion

$$f=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\gamma L^{}/L\\ pq(\gamma )n(p)\end{array}}{}a(\gamma ,n)q^n.$$

Conversely, for given $`f=_na(n)q^nA_k(p,\chi _p)`$ we define a function $`H𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ as follows. The $`[L^{}/L]`$-valued function $`𝔢_0(fW_p)`$ can be viewed as a nearly holomorphic modular form with representation $`\rho `$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$. Thus the induced function

$$H=\underset{M\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)\backslash \mathrm{SL}_2()}{}\left(\rho (M)^1𝔢_0\right)fW_pM$$

belongs to $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$. We now compute its Fourier expansion. A system of representatives for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)\backslash \mathrm{SL}_2()`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),ST^j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& j\end{array}\right)\text{for }j=0,\mathrm{},p1\text{.}$$

Therefore

$`H`$ $`=𝔢_0fW_p+{\displaystyle \underset{j(p)}{}}\left(\rho (ST^j)^1𝔢_0\right)f\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& j\\ 0& p\end{array}\right)`$
$`=𝔢_0fW_p+(1)^kp^{k/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j(p)}{}}\left(\overline{\rho (T^j)}\overline{\rho (S)}𝔢_0\right)f(\tau /p+j/p)`$
$`=𝔢_0fW_p+(1)^kp^{k/2}{\displaystyle \frac{i^{r/2}}{\sqrt{p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}}𝔢_\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{j(p)}{}}e(q(\gamma )j)f(\tau /p+j/p).`$
Using the assumption $`kr/2(mod2)`$ and inserting the Fourier expansion of $`f`$, we find

$`H`$ $`=𝔢_0fW_p+i^{r/2}p^{1/2k/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}}𝔢_\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p){\displaystyle \underset{j(p)}{}}e\left((npq(\gamma ))j/p\right)`$
$`=𝔢_0fW_p+i^{r/2}p^{1/2k/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}}𝔢_\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ npq(\gamma )(p)\end{array}}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p).`$
We obtain the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`f=_na(n)q^nA_k(p,\chi _p)`$. Then the function

(3)
$$F=\underset{\gamma L^{}/L}{}𝔢_\gamma F_\gamma =i^{r/2}p^{k/21/2}\underset{M\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)\backslash \mathrm{SL}_2()}{}\left(\rho (M)^1𝔢_0\right)fW_pM.$$

belongs to $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$. The components $`F_\gamma `$ have the Fourier expansion

(4) $`F_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ n0(p)\end{array}}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p)+i^{r/2}p^{k/21/2}fW_p,`$
(5) $`F_\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ npq(\gamma )(p)\end{array}}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p)(\gamma 0).`$
If $`fA_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$, then the Fourier expansion of $`F_0`$ can be simplified, avoiding the term $`fW_p`$ (i.e. the Fourier expansion of $`f`$ at the cusp $`0`$). To this end, similarly as in \[Kr\], we first characterize $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ using the Hecke operator $`U_p`$ defined by

$$fU_p=\underset{j(p)}{}f\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& j\\ 0& p\end{array}\right).$$

Observe that

$$fU_p=p^{1k/2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ n0(p)\end{array}}{}a(n)e(n\tau /p)$$

for $`f`$ as above. So our normalization of $`U_p`$ is slightly different than as usual.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`f=_na(n)q^nA_k(p,\chi _p)`$ and $`ϵ\{\pm 1\}`$. Then $`f`$ belongs to $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$, if and only if

(6)
$$fU_p=ϵ\epsilon _p\sqrt{p}fW_p.$$

###### Proof.

The function $`h=fU_pW_p`$ is contained in $`A_k(p,\chi _p)`$ and (6) is equivalent to

$$h=ϵ\overline{\epsilon _p}\sqrt{p}f.$$

We have

$`h`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j(p)}{}}f\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& j\\ 0& p\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ p& 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`=fW_pV_p+{\displaystyle \underset{j(p)^{}}{}}f\left(\begin{array}{cc}j& 1\\ p& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$
where the summation in $`_{j(p)^{}}`$ runs through all primitive residues modulo $`p`$. For a given $`j`$ that is coprime to $`p`$ let $`b,d`$ such that $`jdpb=1`$. Then $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}j& b\\ p& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ and

(7)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}j& 1\\ p& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}j& b\\ p& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& d\\ 0& p\end{array}\right).$$

Thus

$`h`$ $`=fW_pV_p+{\displaystyle \underset{d(p)^{}}{}}\chi _p(d)f\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& d\\ 0& p\end{array}\right)`$
$`=fW_pV_p+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}a(n)q^n{\displaystyle \underset{d(p)^{}}{}}\chi _p(d)e(nd/p).`$
If we insert the value of the latter Gauss sum, we obtain

(8)
$$h=fW_pV_p+\overline{\epsilon _p}\sqrt{p}\underset{n}{}\chi _p(n)a(n)q^n.$$

From this identity the assertion can be deduced. For the implication “$``$” we additionally have to use the fact that a nearly holomorphic modular form $`gA_k(p,\chi _p)`$ with Fourier coefficients $`c(n)`$ vanishes identically, if $`c(n)=0`$ for all $`n`$ coprime to $`p`$ (\[Ogg\] Lemma 6). ∎

An alternative proof of this lemma can be obtained by considering the vector valued function $`F`$ attached to $`f`$ via Proposition 2. One has to insert (4) and (5) into the formula (2) for $`F_0W_p`$ and carefully compare Fourier expansions on both sides.

###### Corollary 4.

Let $`f`$ be a holomorphic function on $``$ that has the transformation behavior and the Fourier expansion of an element of $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$. Suppose that $`f`$ is meromorphic (or holomorphic or vanishes, respectively) at the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$. Then it is also meromorphic (or holomorphic or vanishes, respectively) at the cusp $`0W_p\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`f=_na(n)q^nA_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ and define $`F`$ by (3) as before. Then $`F𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ and the components $`F_\gamma `$ have the Fourier expansion

(9) $`F_0`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ n0(p)\end{array}}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p),`$
(10) $`F_\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}n\\ npq(\gamma )(p)\end{array}}{}}a(n)e(n\tau /p)(\gamma 0).`$
The map $`fF`$ and the map described in Lemma 1 are inverse isomorphisms between $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ and $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$.

###### Proof.

According to Proposition 2 we only have to prove (9). It suffices to show that

$$fU_p=i^{r/2}\sqrt{p}fW_p.$$

But this immediately follows from Lemma 3 and the fact that $`i^{r/2}=ϵ\epsilon _p`$. ∎

From now on we assume that $`k0`$. For an integer $`n`$ we define

(11)
$$s(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2,\hfill & \text{if }n0(modp),\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }n0(modp).\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, we put $`\delta =\chi _p(1)ϵ`$. The next theorem gives a criterion for the existence of nearly holomorphic modular forms in $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ with prescribed principal part. We need to consider the space of modular forms $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$ of dual weight $`\kappa =2k2`$. Recall that there are the $`2`$ Eisenstein series

(12) $`G_\kappa `$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L(1\kappa ,\chi _p)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{dn}{}}d^{\kappa 1}\chi _p(d)q^n,`$
(13) $`H_\kappa `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{dn}{}}d^{\kappa 1}\chi _p(n/d)q^n`$
in $`M_\kappa (p,\chi _p)`$ (cf. \[He\] Werke p. 818), the former corresponding to the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$, the latter corresponding to the cusp $`0`$. The linear combination

(14)
$$E_\kappa ^\delta =1+\underset{n1}{}B(n)q^n=1+\frac{2}{L(1\kappa ,\chi _p)}\underset{n1}{}\underset{dn}{}d^{\kappa 1}\left(\chi _p(d)+\delta \chi _p(n/d)\right)q^n$$

belongs to $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$. The space $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$ can be decomposed as a direct sum

$$M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)=E_\kappa ^\delta S_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p).$$

###### Theorem 6.

There exists a nearly holomorphic modular form $`fA_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ with prescribed principal part $`_{n<0}a(n)q^n`$ (where $`a(n)=0`$ if $`\chi _p(n)=ϵ`$), if and only if

$$\underset{n<0}{}s(n)a(n)b(n)=0$$

for every cusp form $`g=_{m>0}b(m)q^m`$ in $`S_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$. The constant term $`a(0)`$ of $`f`$ is given by the coefficients of the Eisenstein series $`E_\kappa ^\delta `$:

$$a(0)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n<0}{}s(n)a(n)B(n).$$

###### Proof.

Beside $`L`$ we consider the lattice $`L(1)`$, which is given by $`L`$ as a $``$-module but equipped with the quadratic form $`q()`$. The type of this quadratic form on $`L^{}/L`$ is obviously determined by the sign $`\delta =\chi _p(1)ϵ`$. Observe that the representation $`\rho _{L(1)}`$ attached to $`L(1)`$ is equal to the dual representation $`\overline{\rho }=\overline{\rho }_L`$ of $`\rho _L`$. Thus, by Theorem 5 we find that the space $`_{\kappa ,\overline{\rho }}`$ of vector valued modular forms of weight $`\kappa `$ with representation $`\overline{\rho }`$ can be identified with $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$.

On the other hand we already know that $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ can be identified with $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$.

According to Borcherds’ duality theorem (Theorem 4.1 in \[Bo2\], see also \[Br1\] chapter 1.3), the obstructions to finding modular forms in $`𝒜_{k,\rho }`$ with prescribed principal part are given by modular forms in $`_{\kappa ,\overline{\rho }}`$. If we work out all identifications explicitly, we obtain the stated result. ∎

If one wants to use Theorems 5 and 6 in the context of Borcherds’ theory of automorphic products, then the following two propositions will also be important (see section 4). Notice that from the outset analogous results are not available for the corresponding spaces of vector valued modular forms (see \[Bo2\] p. 227).

For $`f=a(n)q^nA_k(p,\chi _p)`$ and a Galois automorphism $`\sigma \mathrm{Gal}(/)`$ we define the $`\sigma `$-conjugate of $`f`$ by

$$f^\sigma =\underset{n}{}a^\sigma (n)q^n.$$

Here $`a^\sigma (n)`$ denotes the conjugate of $`a(n)`$. It is well known that the spaces $`M_\kappa (p,\chi )`$, where $`\chi `$ denotes a quadratic character, have a basis consisting of modular forms with integral rational coefficients (cf. \[DI\] Corollary 12.3.8, Proposition 12.3.11). This implies that $`f^\sigma A_k(p,\chi _p)`$.

###### Proposition 7.

The space $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$ has a basis of modular forms with integral rational coefficients.

###### Proof.

It is easily seen that $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$ has a basis of modular forms with coefficients in the ring of integers of a fixed number field $`K`$. The assertion follows from the fact that the Galois group of $`K/`$ acts on $`M_\kappa ^\delta (p,\chi _p)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`f=a(n)q^nA_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$ and suppose that $`a(n)`$ for $`n<0`$. Then all coefficients $`a(n)`$ are rational and have bounded denominator (i.e. there is a positive integer $`c`$ such that $`cf`$ has coefficients in $``$).

###### Proof.

Let $`\sigma \mathrm{Gal}(/)`$. Then $`h=ff^\sigma `$ lies in $`A_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$. The assumption on the coefficients $`a(n)`$ with $`n<0`$ implies that $`h`$ is holomorphic at the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$. By Corollary 4 it is also holomorphic at the cusp $`0`$ and therefore contained in $`M_k^ϵ(p,\chi _p)`$. Since $`k0`$, it has to vanish identically.

Varying $`\sigma `$, we find that $`f`$ is invariant under $`\mathrm{Gal}(/)`$ and therefore has rational coefficients. Since the product $`f\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ of $`f`$ with a large power of the delta function $`\mathrm{\Delta }=q_{n1}(1q^n)^{24}`$ is contained in $`M_{k+12N}(p,\chi _p)`$, it has coefficients with bounded denominator. Hence $`f`$ itself has coefficients with bounded denominator. ∎

## 4. Borcherds products on Hilbert modular surfaces

The results of the previous section can be used to obtain a very smooth and explicit formulation of the Borcherds lifting (Theorem 13.3 in \[Bo1\], and \[Bo2\]) for lattices of odd prime determinant and signature $`(2,b^{})`$. To simplify the presentation and notation we only illustrate this in the special $`\mathrm{O}(2,2)`$-case of Hilbert modular surfaces.

Let $`p1(mod4)`$ be an odd prime and $`K=(\sqrt{p})`$ the real quadratic field of discriminant $`p`$. Let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integers and $`𝔡=(\sqrt{p})`$ the different in $`K`$. We write $`xx^{}`$ for the conjugation, $`\mathrm{N}(x)=xx^{}`$ for the norm in $`K`$, and $`\mathrm{tr}(x)=x+x^{}`$ for the trace in $`K`$.

Then $`L=^2𝒪`$, with the quadratic form $`q(a,b,\lambda )=\mathrm{N}(\lambda )ab`$ for $`(a,b,\lambda )L`$, is an even lattice of signature $`(2,2)`$. The dual lattice is $`L^{}=^2𝔡^1`$ and the quadratic form on $`L^{}/L𝔽_p`$ represents the squares, i.e. $`ϵ=+1`$.

By Theorem 5 the space $`𝒜_{0,\rho }`$ of modular forms with representation $`\rho `$ of weight $`k=0`$ is isomorphic to $`A_0^+(p,\chi _p)`$, and the space $`_{2,\overline{\rho }}`$ of holomorphic modular forms with dual representation $`\overline{\rho }`$ of weight $`\kappa =2`$ is isomorphic to $`M_2^+(p,\chi _p)`$.

The Hilbert modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K=\mathrm{SL}_2(𝒪)`$ acts on the product of two upper half planes in the usual way. We use $`(z_1,z_2)`$ as a standard variable on $`\times `$ and write $`(y_1,y_2)`$ for its imaginary part. Recall that for every positive integer $`m`$ the subset

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}(a,b,\lambda )L^{}\\ ab\mathrm{N}(\lambda )=m/p\end{array}}{}\{(z_1,z_2)\times ;az_1z_2+\lambda z_1+\lambda ^{}z_2+b=0\}$$

defines a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$-invariant algebraic divisor $`T(m)`$ on $`\times `$, the Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor of discriminant $`m`$. It is the inverse image of an algebraic divisor on the quotient $`X_K=(\times )/\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$, which will also be denoted by $`T(m)`$. Here we understand that all irreducible components of $`T(m)`$ are assigned the multiplicity $`1`$. This divisor is non-zero if $`\chi _p(m)1`$ and is compact if $`m`$ is not the norm of an ideal in $`𝒪`$.

The subset

$$S(m)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\lambda 𝔡^1\\ \mathrm{N}(\lambda )=m/p\end{array}}{}\{(z_1,z_2)\times ;\lambda y_1+\lambda ^{}y_2=0\}$$

of $`\times `$ is a union of hyperplanes of real codimension $`1`$. It is invariant under the stabilizer of the cusp $`\mathrm{}`$. For a subset $`W\times `$ and $`\lambda 𝔡^1`$ we write $`(W,\lambda )>0`$, if $`\lambda y_1+\lambda ^{}y_2>0`$ for all $`(z_1,z_2)W`$.

For basic facts on Hilbert modular forms we refer to \[Fr\], \[Ge\]. It is well known that Hilbert modular forms on $`\times `$ for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$ can be identified with modular forms for the orthogonal group of the lattice $`L`$. (In this identification the Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor $`T(m)`$ essentially corresponds to the Heegner divisor $`y_{m,\gamma }`$ in the terminology of Borcherds \[Bo2\].)

Using Theorem 5, Proposition 8, and the above identifications, we may restate Theorem 13.3 in \[Bo1\] as follows:

###### Theorem 9.

Let $`f=_na(n)q^nA_0^+(p,\chi _p)`$ and assume that $`s(n)a(n)`$ for all $`n<0`$ (where $`s(n)`$ is defined by (11)). Then there is a meromorphic function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,z_2)`$ on $`\times `$ with the following properties:

1. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a meromorphic modular form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$ with some unitary character of finite order. The weight of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is equal to the constant coefficient $`a(0)`$ of $`f`$. It can also be computed using Theorem 6.

2. The divisor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is determined by the principal part of $`f`$. It equals

$$\underset{n<0}{}s(n)a(n)T(n).$$

3. Let $`W\times `$ be a Weyl chamber attached to $`f`$, i.e. a connected component of

$$\times \underset{\begin{array}{c}n<0\\ a(n)0\end{array}}{}S(n);$$

and put $`N=\mathrm{min}\{n;a(n)0\}`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the Borcherds product expansion

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z_1,z_2)=e(\rho _Wz_1+\rho _W^{}z_2)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\nu 𝔡^1\\ (\nu ,W)>0\end{array}}{}\left(1e(\nu z_1+\nu ^{}z_2)\right)^{s(p\nu \nu ^{})a(p\nu \nu ^{})}.$$

Here $`\rho _W`$ and $`\rho _W^{}`$ are algebraic numbers in $`K`$ that can be computed explicitly. The product converges normally for all $`(z_1,z_2)`$ with $`y_1y_2>|N|/p`$ outside the set of poles.

4. There exists a positive integer $`c`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^c`$ has integral rational Fourier coefficients with greatest common divisor $`1`$.

Note that automorphic products for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$ are constructed in a different way in \[Br2\]. There the exponents are given by the coefficients of nearly holomorphic Poincaré series of weight $`2`$. Using non-holomorphic Poincaré series of weight $`0`$ as in \[Br1\], these coefficients could be related to the coefficients of nearly holomorphic modular forms of weight $`0`$. But this requires a considerable amount of work. An important point of the above formulation of Borcherds’ theorem is that we also get the last assertion on the integrality properties of the Fourier coefficients of the lifting. This will be vital for some arithmetic applications.

For the computation of the Weyl vector $`(\rho _W,\rho _W^{})`$ one cannot apply the result of \[Bo1\] (Theorem 10.4), since the lattice $`𝒪`$ is not isotropic. However, we may use the formula given in \[Br2\] p. 72 or \[Br1\] chapter 2.3. Let $`W`$ be as in the theorem. It turns out that $`\rho _W`$, $`\rho _W^{}`$ are the uniquely determined numbers in $`K`$ such that

(15)
$$\rho _Wy_1+\rho _W^{}y_2=\underset{n<0}{}s(n)a(n)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\lambda 𝔡^1\\ \lambda >0\\ \mathrm{N}(\lambda )=n/p\end{array}}{}\mathrm{min}(|\lambda y_1|,|\lambda ^{}y_2|)$$

for all $`(z_1,z_2)W`$. Let $`\epsilon _0>1`$ be the fundamental unit of $`K`$. It has norm $`1`$, because $`K`$ has prime discriminant. For every negative integer $`n`$ with $`a(n)0`$ there are only finitely many $`\lambda 𝔡^1`$ such that $`\lambda >0`$, $`\mathrm{N}(\lambda )=n/p`$, and

$$\lambda y_1+\lambda ^{}y_2<0,\epsilon _0^2\lambda y_1+\epsilon _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\lambda ^{}y_2>0,$$

for all $`(z_1,z_2)W`$. Denote the set of these $`\lambda `$ by $`R(W,n)`$. By Dirichlets unit theorem we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\lambda 𝔡^1\\ \lambda >0\\ \mathrm{N}(\lambda )=n/p\end{array}}{}}\mathrm{min}(|\lambda y_1|,|\lambda ^{}y_2|)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda R(W,n)}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\epsilon _0^{2n}\lambda y_1{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\epsilon _0^{2n}\lambda ^{}y_2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda R(W,n)}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _0^2\lambda }{\epsilon _0^21}}y_1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{\epsilon _0^21}}y_2\right)`$
(16) $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tr}(\epsilon _0)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda R(W,n)}{}}\left(\epsilon _0\lambda y_1+\epsilon _0^{}\lambda ^{}y_2\right).`$
Inserting this into (15) we obtain a formula for $`\rho _W`$ and $`\rho _W^{}`$. In particular we find that these numbers are conjugate and contained in $`(\mathrm{tr}\epsilon _0)^1𝔡^1`$.

Finally, we remark that by Theorems 8 and 9 of \[Br2\] any meromorphic modular form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$, whose divisor is a linear combination of Hirzebruch-Zagier divisors, is given by a Borcherds product as in the above theorem.

By a classical result of Hecke \[He\], the dimension of the space $`S_2(p,\chi _p)`$ (where $`p1(mod4)`$ is a prime) is equal to $`2\left[\frac{p5}{24}\right]`$. It is easily seen that the dimension of the obstruction space $`S_2^+(p,\chi _p)`$ is half the dimension of $`S_2(p,\chi _p)`$. Hence, $`S_2^+(p,\chi _p)=0`$ if and only if $`p=5`$, $`13`$, or $`17`$. Let us assume that $`p`$ is one of these primes. Then by Theorem 6 any Fourier polynomial can be realized as the principal part of a nearly holomorphic modular form in $`A_0^+(p,\chi _p)`$. If $`m`$ is a positive integer with $`\chi _p(m)1`$, we write

$$f_m=\underset{nm}{}a_m(n)q^n$$

for the unique element of $`A_0^+(p,\chi _p)`$, whose principal part is equal to $`s(m)^1q^m`$. The Borcherds lift $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ of $`f_m`$ is a holomorphic modular form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K`$ of weight $`a_m(0)=B(m)/2`$, where $`B(m)`$ is the $`m`$-th coefficient of the Eisenstein series $`E_2^+M_2^+(p,\chi _p)`$. The divisor of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ equals $`T(m)`$. The functions $`f_m`$ can be easily constructed. We now indicate this in the case $`p=5`$.

The normalized Eisenstein series of weight $`2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(5)`$ with trivial character is given by

$$𝔈_2=1+6\underset{n1}{}(\sigma (n)5\sigma (n/5))q^n,$$

where $`\sigma (n)=_{d|n}d`$ denotes the sum of divisors of $`n`$. The Eisenstein series $`G_2`$ and $`H_2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(5)`$ defined by (12) and (13) can be expressed in terms of the eta function $`\eta =q^{1/24}_{n1}(1q^n)`$ as follows:

$$G_2(\tau )=\eta (\tau )^5/\eta (5\tau ),H_2(\tau )=\eta (5\tau )^5/\eta (\tau ).$$

In particular these Eisenstein series do not vanish on $``$. Thus $`𝔈_2/H_2A_0(p,\chi _p)`$ has a first order pole at $`\mathrm{}`$ and is holomorphic on $``$ and at the cusp $`0`$. This implies that it equals $`f_1`$. Similarly it can be seen that

$$f_4=G_2/H_2(f_1^3+108f_1)9f_1^3+1128f_1.$$

The function $`f_5`$ can be constructed as the product $`\frac{1}{2}E_2^+(\tau )J(5\tau )`$, where $`J(\tau )`$ is the unique modular form of weight $`2`$ for $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ that is holomorphic on $``$ and whose Fourier expansion starts with $`q^1+O(1)`$. Now the other functions $`f_m`$ can be obtained inductively by multiplying the above functions with powers of $`j(5\tau )`$ and subtracting suitable multiples of the $`f_m^{}`$ with smaller index $`m^{}`$. Here $`j=q^1+744+196884q+\mathrm{}`$ denotes the usual $`j`$-function. One finds that the first $`f_m`$ are:

$`f_1`$ $`=q^1+5+11q54q^4+55q^5+44q^6395q^9+340q^{10}+296q^{11}1836q^{14}+\mathrm{},`$
$`f_4`$ $`=q^4+15216q+4959q^4+22040q^590984q^6+409944q^9+1388520q^{10}+\mathrm{},`$
$`f_5`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}q^5+15+275q+27550q^4+43893q^5+255300q^6+4173825q^9+\mathrm{},`$
$`f_6`$ $`=q^6+10+264q136476q^4+306360q^5+616220q^635408776q^9+\mathrm{},`$
$`f_9`$ $`=q^9+353555q+922374q^4+7512885q^553113164q^6+953960075q^9+\mathrm{},`$
$`f_{10}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}q^{10}+10+3400q+3471300q^4+9614200q^5+91620925q^6+5391558200q^9+\mathrm{}.`$
Since the divisor of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ is equal to $`T(1)`$, it has to be equal to a multiple of the classical Hilbert modular form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constructed by Gundlach in \[Gu\] as a product of $`10`$ theta functions. Because $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ has integral coprime Fourier coefficients, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has integral Fourier coefficients with greatest common divisor $`64`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{1}{64}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl chamber attached to $`f_1`$ that contains the point $`(i\epsilon _0^{},i\epsilon _0)`$, where $`\epsilon _0=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{5})`$ denotes the fundamental unit of $`(\sqrt{5})`$. Since the set of $`\lambda 𝔡^1`$ with norm $`1/5`$ is given by $`\{\pm \epsilon _0^{2n}/\sqrt{5};n\}`$, we obtain that

$$R(W,1)=\{1/\sqrt{5}\}.$$

According to (16) we have $`\rho _W=\epsilon _0/\sqrt{5}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ has the product expansion

(17)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1(z_1,z_2)=e\left(\epsilon _0z_1/\sqrt{5}\epsilon _0^{}z_2/\sqrt{5}\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\nu 𝔡^1\\ \epsilon _0\nu ^{}\epsilon _0^{}\nu >0\end{array}}{}\left(1e(\nu z_1+\nu ^{}z_2)\right)^{s(5\nu \nu ^{})a_1(5\nu \nu ^{})}.$$

If the divisor $`T(m)`$ on $`X_K`$ is compact, then $`S(m)`$ is empty and $`\times `$ is the only Weyl chamber for $`f_m`$. Thus

(18)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_m(z_1,z_2)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\nu 𝔡^1\\ \nu 0\end{array}}{}\left(1e(\nu z_1+\nu ^{}z_2)\right)^{s(5\nu \nu ^{})a_m(5\nu \nu ^{})}.$$


text:
# Quantum convolution and quantum correlation algorithms are physically impossible

## 1. Introduction

The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is arguably the most important algorithm in computer science. Many applications, from image processing, signal processing, pattern matching, polynomial multiplication, number multiplication, and many others are accomplished efficiently by utilizing the FFT to compute a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of some set of data (see \[4, Chapter 32\] and \[7, Chapter 3\]). Naively, the DFT of $`N=2^n`$ complex values has complexity $`O(N^2)`$, but the famous paper by Cooley and Tukey  introduced the Fast Fourier Transform, reducing the complexity to $`\mathrm{\Theta }(N\mathrm{log}N)=\mathrm{\Theta }(n2^n)`$, making Fourier transforms extremely useful in computer algorithms. This efficiency is the basis of fast convolution and correlation algorithms, which do a DFT on each input sequence, then a componentwise multiplication, then an inverse DFT, computing convolution or correlation with complexity $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$.

In the last decade, quantum computing has become well known due to the integer factoring algorithm of Shor  and the database search of Grover , both of which have complexities much better than their classical counterparts. There are other problems  for which quantum computers perform exponentially better than any classical (Turing) computer. A quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) can be done on a quantum state consisting of $`N=2^n`$ complex values with complexity $`O(\mathrm{log}^2N)=O(n^2)`$ (see for example, \[2, Chapter 5\]), making it exponentially faster than the classical counterpart, but unfortunately the peculiarities of quantum mechanics disallows using this algorithm as a direct replacement for all FFT algorithms. In fact, after the breakthrough algorithms of Shor and Grover, no algorithms of similar importance have been found, although there has been intense work in this direction.

Since the QFT and inverse QFT are more efficient than their classical counterparts, and the FFT and inverse FFT are the cornerstones for convolution and correlation algorithms, it is reasonable to attempt to construct quantum analogues of convolution and correlation algorithms that outperform their classical counterparts. *The key point of this paper is that there is no physically realizable method to compute the normalized convolution or correlation of the coefficients of two quantum states.* Thus replacing classical algorithms that rely on convolution or correlation cannot be done in a simple, direct algorithm replacement manner, but must be approached by more sophisticated techniques, avoiding the method examined in this paper. The precise definitions of quantum convolution and quantum correlation are in section 3, and it is shown in section 4 that they cannot be computed without violating quantum mechanics.

## 2. Background

Since this paper touches upon several areas, we review some key ideas to make it clearer for readers coming from different backgrounds. In particular, we will recall how convolution and correlation are done classically, followed by a review of rules for quantum computation, sufficiently covered for our needs. Then we will state the convolution and correlation problem for quantum states. Finally, we will prove such an approach is doomed to fail, since it would allow a violation of quantum mechanics.

### 2.1. Classical convolution and correlation

Convolution and correlation have many uses in algorithms, which we will not go into here. Since different authors and fields of study use slightly different definitions for the following terms, we define them here, and choose a form amenable to making quantum versions. In particular, different authors use different factors where the $`\sqrt{N}`$ appears in our definitions, depending on how they will use them. We choose the conventions below to make our definitions mimic the quantum versions in section 2.2.1, where the factors are dictated by unitarity.

###### Definition 1 (Discrete Fourier Transform).

Given a sequence $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{N1}`$ of $`N`$ complex numbers, the *Discrete Fourier Transform* (DFT) of the sequence is defined to be the sequence $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{N1}`$ given by

$`a_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\alpha _ke^{2\pi ijk/N}j=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$
###### Definition 2 (Inverse DFT).

Given a sequence $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{N1}`$ of $`N`$ complex numbers, the *Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform* (IDFT) of the sequence is defined to be the sequence $`\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{N1}`$ given by

$`\alpha _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}a_je^{2\pi ijk/N}k=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$
The IDFT and DFT are inverses, so are 1-1 on sequences.

###### Definition 3 (Convolution).

The *convolution* of two sequences of $`N`$ complex numbers $`S_1=(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1})`$ and $`S_2=(\beta _0,\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{N1})`$ is defined to be the sequence $`S_3=(\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{N1})`$ given by

$$\gamma _k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\alpha _j\beta _{kj}\text{ for }k=0,1,\mathrm{}N1$$

where subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$.

###### Definition 4 (Correlation).

The *correlation* of two sequences of $`N`$ complex numbers $`S_1=(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _{N1})`$ and $`S_2=(\beta _0,\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{N1})`$ is defined to be the sequence $`S_3=(\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{N1})`$ given by

$$\gamma _k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\alpha _j^{}\beta _{k+j}\text{ for }k=0,1,\mathrm{}N1$$

where $`\alpha _j^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\alpha _j`$ and subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$.

#### 2.1.1. Convolution/correlation algorithm

It is a simple exercise to check that an algorithm to compute the convolution (or correlation) of two length $`N`$ sequences in time $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ is:

1. FFT - apply the FFT to each sequence in time $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$, giving two sequences of length $`N`$.
2. Multiply - multiply the resulting sequences componentwise in time $`O(N)`$, assuming each entry can be multiplied in constant time. If doing correlation, conjugate the first FFT sequence in time $`O(N)`$.
3. Invert - Apply the inverse FFT to the resulting sequence with time complexity $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$, and multiply each number by $`\sqrt{N}`$, giving the convolution sequence.

### 2.2. The rules of quantum computing

A quantum system is determined by a quantum state vector, often denoted $`|\psi `$. Mathematically, a quantum state on $`n`$ two-state particles (each called a qubit) is a unit vector in a $`N=2^n`$ dimensional complex Hilbert space. For the rest of this paper $`N`$ will be $`2^n`$ for some positive integer $`n`$. The Hilbert space is equipped with an orthonormal basis labelled $`|i`$, for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. This state is written as

$$|\psi =\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_i|i$$

where the $`a_i`$ are complex numbers, $`|i`$ is the $`i^{th}`$ orthonormal basis element, and the $`a_i`$ satisfy the *normalization condition* $`_i|a_i|^2=1`$. Quantum mechanics allows two methods to change the state of a system:

1. Unitary transformations. Any state change of an isolated system must be reversible, and must satisfy the normalization condition above, which leads to unitary operations on the state. That is, a state $`|\psi `$ can be transformed to the state $`U|\psi `$ via the unitary matrix $`U`$. Unitary means $`U^{}U=I=UU^{}`$ where $`I`$ is the identity matrix, and $``$ is the conjugate transpose.
2. Measurement operators. Applying a measurement to a quantum state returns an “answer” with a probability related to the magnitude of the coefficients, and places the system into the state whose value was returned from the measurement. Precisely, a quantum measurement consists of a collection $`\{M_m\}`$ of *measurement operators*, which must satisfy $`_mM_m^{}M_m=I`$ to preserve probability. When applied to a system $`|\psi `$, with probability

$$p(m)=\psi |M_m^{}M_m|\psi $$

the state becomes the state

$$|\psi \stackrel{M_m}{}\frac{M_m|\psi }{\sqrt{p(m)}}$$

and outcome $`m`$ is observed by the measurement. See \[2, Chapter 2\] for details and examples.
3. Combining states The concatenation of two quantum systems on $`n`$ and $`m`$ qubits with states $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ respectively is the tensor product state $`|\psi |\varphi `$ in complex $`2^{n+m}`$ dimensional space. Shorthand is

$$\left(\underset{i}{}a_i|i\right)\left(\underset{j}{}b_j|j\right)=\underset{i,j}{}a_ib_j|ij$$

For the purpose of this paper it is necessary to define what we mean by “physically realizable computation”. There are many approaches to this question, but for our purposes it is enough to take a very general definition, under which we show convolution and correlation to be impossible, since they remain impossible under more confining and precise definitions. A quantum computation can utilize extra states called “ancillary qubits” as working space, so we allow a finite number of extra qubits to be used internally to the system.

###### Definition 5 (Physically realizable).

A mapping $`P`$ of quantum states

$`|\varphi `$ $`\stackrel{𝑃}{}`$ $`|\psi `$
is called *physically realizable* if there exists a finite fixed sequence of unitary transformations and measurement operators and a quantum state $`|\rho `$ (called the ancillary qubits) performing the mapping. That is, for all $`|\varphi `$, the fixed sequence $`S`$ performs the mapping

$`|\varphi |\rho `$ $`\stackrel{𝑆}{}|\psi `$
Note in particular, the mapping is a composition of linear operators, so is a linear operator. There are some researchers working on nonlinear quantum mechanics, but there is no experimental evidence to date that supports nonlinearity . One interesting result is that if quantum mechanics is nonlinear, then quantum computers can solve NP-complete and #P problems in polynomial time , which some believe is very good evidence that quantum mechanics is strictly linear. For our purposes we use the standard view that quantum mechanics has linear evolution.

#### 2.2.1. The Quantum Fourier Transform

Similar to the classical Fourier Transform and inverse defined in section 2.1, we can define quantum analogues, operating on sequences of complex numbers stored as quantum state coefficients.

###### Definition 6 (Quantum Fourier Transform).

The *Quantum Fourier Transform* (QFT) is the unitary map defined on basis states $`|j`$ as

$`|j`$ $`\stackrel{QFT}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi ijk/N}|k`$
and extended by linearity.

###### Definition 7 (Inverse QFT).

The *Inverse Quantum Fourier Transform* (IQFT) is the unitary map defined on basis states $`|k`$ as

$`|k`$ $`\stackrel{IQFT}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi ijk/N}|j`$
and extended by linearity.

###### Note 8.

*It is easy to check these are inverses on quantum states, and that each transform is unitary.*

The quantum state $`|\psi =a_i|i`$ then transforms as

(1) $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}a_j|j`$ $`\stackrel{QFT}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}a_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi ijk/N}|k`$
(2) $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}a_je^{2\pi ijk/N}\right)|k`$
One reason some quantum algorithms are superior to classical ones is that the QFT has complexity $`O(\mathrm{log}^2N)=O(n^2)`$ \[2, Chapter 5\], *which is exponentially faster than the classical $`O(n2^n)`$ version!* It is precisely this exponential speedup that allows Shor’s integer factoring algorithm to out-perform the best known classical one.

## 3. Problem Statement

In this section we describe an attempt to construct quantum versions of the convolution and correlation algorithms, based on the classical algorithms 2.1.1. Since the QFT operates on quantum coefficients, we will encode the sequences in a quantum state, with the sequence entries stored in the coefficients. Since a quantum state $`_i\alpha _i|i`$ requires $`_i|\alpha _i|^2=1`$, we require each sequence to have at least one nonzero entry, and then we normalize the sequence to have norm 1. We ignore the physical method the quantum state is constructed from the sequence, since the many ways to construct it would lead us. So we have a (hypothetical) method of converting a nonzero sequence of complex numbers into a representative quantum state.

The problems become:

###### Definition 9 (The Quantum Convolution Problem).

Given quantum states representing the two initial sequences, compute a quantum state representing the convolution sequence. That is, given the two states (for $`N=2^n`$)

(3) $`|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\alpha _i|i`$
(4) $`|\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\beta _j|j`$
compute a state

(5)
$$|\gamma =\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\gamma _k|k$$

where $`|\gamma `$ represents the normalization of the sequence given by

(6)
$$c_k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\alpha _j\beta _{kj}\text{ for }k=0,1,\mathrm{}N1$$

and subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$.

###### Definition 10 (The Quantum Correlation Problem).

Given quantum states representing the two initial sequences, compute a quantum state representing the correlation sequence. That is, given the two states (for $`N=2^n`$)

(7) $`|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\alpha _i|i`$
(8) $`|\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\beta _j|j`$
compute a state

(9)
$$|\gamma =\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\gamma _k|k$$

where $`|\gamma `$ represents the normalization of the sequence given by

(10)
$$c_k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\alpha _j^{}\beta _{k+j}\text{ for }k=0,1,\mathrm{}N1$$

and subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$.

###### Note 11.

*For each definition to make sense, the resulting sequence $`c_k`$ cannot be all zeros. This can be guaranteed by requiring that the initial sequences are each not all zero, and then padding each initial sequence by appending $`N`$ zeros. Then, choose $`i_0`$ and $`j_0`$ each minimal so that $`\alpha _{i_0}0`$ and $`\beta _{j_0}0`$. Then $`c_{i_0+j_0}=\alpha _{i_0}\beta _{j_0}0`$ in the convolution sequence. Pick $`i_1`$ maximal so that $`\alpha _{i_1}0`$, then $`c_{j_0i_1}=\alpha _{i_1}^{}\beta _{j_0}0`$ in the correlation sequence, with subscripts taken $`(modN)`$. Padding by $`N`$ zeros requires adding only one more qubit, so we assume for the rest of this paper that this is the case. Then each problem is well-defined. This changes each problem slightly, but proving impossibility in these slightly amended case suffices to prove impossibility in general.*

## 4. Impossibility proof

This section gives a proof that the problems given in definitions 9 and 10 cannot be computed by any device obeying quantum mechanics. Precisely, we prove in section 4.3:

###### Theorem 12 (Impossibility of quantum convolution).

There is no physically realizable process $`P`$ to compute the (normalized) convolution of the coefficients of two quantum states. That is, for arbitrary quantum states $`_ia_i|i`$ and $`_jb_j|j`$, there is no physically realizable process $`P`$ to compute the state

(11)
$$\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_ib_j|ij\stackrel{𝑃}{}\lambda \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_jb_{kj}|k$$

where $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{|a_ib_j|^2}`$ is the normalization factor, subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$, and $`N=2^n`$ for some integer $`n>0`$.

and

###### Theorem 13 (Impossibility of quantum correlation).

There is no physically realizable process $`P`$ to compute the (normalized) correlation of the coefficients of two quantum states. That is, for arbitrary quantum states $`_ia_i|i`$ and $`_jb_j|j`$, there is no physically realizable process $`P`$ to compute the state

(12)
$$\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_ib_j|ij\stackrel{𝑃}{}\lambda \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_j^{}b_{k+j}|k$$

where $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{|a_ib_j|^2}`$ is the normalization factor, subscripts are taken $`(modN)`$, and $`N=2^n`$ for some integer $`n>0`$.

This is done in several parts. First, we show that step 2 in algorithm 2.1.1 has no quantum analogue by studying requirements on a linear transformation that attempts step 2. Then we show no physical process consisting of arbitrary sequences of unitary operations and measurements can perform step 2. This proves that step 2 is impossible to compute on quantum states. Finally, we show that any physical process able to compute quantum convolution or correlation as in definitions 9 and 10 would be able to compute the impossible step 2, a contradiction. Thus there can be no quantum convolution or correlation done on quantum states.

### 4.1. Linearity considerations

Suppose we try to obtain the componentwise product of two states, using some linear operator on the initial state. Heuristically, this should fail, since all components in the outcome may be zero. Even if we remove this case (which is reasonable, see note 11), we show such an operation is still not possible. Since linear operators encompass both unitary operations and measurement systems, we analyze the linear operator case first. As in definition 5, we allow the algorithm to use arbitrary finite “workspace” in the form of a third quantum state $`_kc_k|k`$ on $`m`$ qubits in order to show the problem cannot even be computed with extra working space.

###### Lemma 14.

There is no linear operator $`L`$ and a quantum state $`c_k|k`$ such that for arbitrary quantum states $`a_i|i`$ and $`b_j|j`$ with $`|a_ib_i|0`$, the following operation is performed on quantum states:

(13)
$$\underset{i,j,k}{}a_ib_jc_k|ijk\stackrel{𝐿}{}\left(\lambda \underset{i}{}a_ib_i|i\right)\left(\underset{j,k}{}d_{jk}|jk\right)$$

where the $`d_{jk}`$ are functions of the $`a_i,b_j`$, and $`c_k`$, with $`|d_{jk}|^2=1`$, and $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{_i|a_ib_i|^2}`$ is a normalization factor.

###### Proof.

Assume there is a linear operator $`L`$ and initial state $`_kc_k|k`$ satisfying 13. Write $`L`$ as

$$L=\underset{\begin{array}{c}a,b,c\\ r,s,t\end{array}}{}e_{rstabc}|rstabc|$$

and apply it to the initial state to get

(14) $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}a,b,c\\ r,s,t\end{array}}{}}e_{rstabc}|rstabc|\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}a_ib_jc_k|ijk\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r,s,t\\ i,j,k\end{array}}{}}a_ib_jc_ke_{rstijk}|rst`$
We want this state to equal the desired outcome, giving

(15)
$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}r,s,t\\ i,j,k\end{array}}{}a_ib_jc_ke_{rstijk}|rst=\lambda \underset{r,s,t}{}a_rb_rd_{st}|rst$$

Looking at the $`|0st`$ component, we require for a fixed $`s,t`$ that

(16)
$$\lambda a_0b_0d_{st}=\underset{i,j,k}{}a_ib_jc_ke_{0stijk}$$

Equation 16 must hold for any $`a_i`$ and $`b_j`$ coefficients giving a quantum state. Fix $`ϵ(0,1)`$, and pick sequences of coefficients as

(17) $`\{a_i\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{ϵ,\sqrt{1ϵ^2},0,0,0\mathrm{},0\}`$
(18) $`\{b_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{1,0,0,\mathrm{},0\}`$
Then $`\lambda =1/ϵ`$, $`a_0b_0=ϵ`$, $`a_1b_0=\sqrt{1ϵ^2}`$, and $`a_ib_j=0`$ for all other $`i,j`$ combinations. Equation 16 becomes

(19) $`d_{st}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_ke_{0st00k}+\sqrt{1ϵ^2}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_ke_{0st01k}`$
(20) $`=`$ $`ϵC_1+\sqrt{1ϵ^2}C_2`$
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants depending on the initial choices for $`L`$ and $`c_k`$. Normalization requires

(21) $`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}|d_{s,t}|^2`$
(22) $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}|ϵC_1+\sqrt{1ϵ^2}C_2|^2`$
(23) $`=`$ $`MN\left(ϵ^2C_1^2+2ϵ\sqrt{1ϵ^2}C_1C_2+(1ϵ^2)C_2^2\right)`$
(24) $`=`$ $`MNC_2^2+ϵ^2MN(C_1^2C_2^2)+2ϵ\sqrt{1ϵ^2}MNC_1C_2`$
Equation 24 must hold true for all $`ϵ[0,1]`$. When $`ϵ=0`$, the last two terms are zero, forcing $`C_2=1/\sqrt{MN}0`$. When $`ϵ=1`$, the last term is zero, and the middle term must be zero, forcing $`C_2^2=C_1^20`$. Now the middle term is zero for all $`ϵ`$. However, when $`ϵ=1/2`$, equation 24 is a contradiction, so there can be no linear operator $`L`$ and initial state $`c_k|k`$ satisfying 13 for arbitrary input states.

Note lemma 14 is a purely mathematical statement, driven by physical requirements, and cast in quantum mechanics language. The following variation is used later to prove the impossibility of quantum correlation.

###### Corollary 15.

There is no linear operator $`L`$ and a quantum state $`c_k|k`$ such that for arbitrary quantum states $`a_i|i`$ and $`b_j|j`$ with $`|a_ib_i|0`$, the following operation is performed on quantum states:

(25)
$$\underset{i,j,k}{}a_ib_jc_k|ijk\stackrel{𝐿}{}\left(\lambda \underset{i}{}a_i^{}b_i|i\right)\left(\underset{j,k}{}d_{jk}|jk\right)$$

with $`|d_{jk}|^2=1`$, and $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{_i|a_ib_i|^2}`$ is a normalization factor.

###### Proof.

The proof is the same as lemma 14, since the sequences needed in the proof were real numbers. ∎

### 4.2. Unitary transforms and measurements fail

###### Theorem 16.

There is no physical process $`P`$ capable of either of the transformations

(26) $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_ib_j|ij`$ $`\stackrel{𝑃}{}`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_ib_i|i`$
(27) $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_ib_j|ij`$ $`\stackrel{𝑃}{}`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^{}b_i|i`$
on arbitrary quantum states with $`|a_ib_i|0`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a normalization factor.

###### Proof.

Since unitary transforms are linear operators, both lemma 14 and corollary 15 remain true when the phrase “linear operator $`L`$” is replaced with “unitary transform $`L`$”. So no single unitary operation $`L`$ can perform either transformation. Similarly, a measurement operator $`\{M_m\}`$ is a collection of linear transforms on a quantum state, so no single measurement operator can perform either transformation. Finally, given any (finite) sequence of unitary operations and measurement operations, we can always apply all the unitary operations first, and then apply the measurements, by the “Principle of Deferred Measurement” \[2, Chapter 4\]. Then the unitary operations compose to a single unitary operation, and the measurements combine to form a single measurement operation \[2, Exercise 2.57\]. A unitary operation $`U`$ followed by a measurement operator $`\{M_m\}`$ is the measurement operator $`\{UM_m\}`$, which also cannot perform either transformation. So there is no physical process $`P`$ to perform either transform. ∎

### 4.3. Quantum convolution and correlation are impossible

Finally, we can prove the main theorems 12 and 13:

###### Proof of theorem 12.

Suppose such a process $`P`$ existed. Then the composition $`\left(IQFTIQFT\right)PQFT`$ is physically realizable, which performs transformation 26 in theorem 16, a contradiction.

Thus there can be no physically realizable quantum convolution process. ∎

Note: this proof could use the fact that $`P`$ would be linear, as would the composition, which would contradict lemma 14.

###### Proof of theorem 13.

The proof is the same as the proof of theorem 12 with minor changes. Thus there can be no physically realizable quantum correlation process. ∎

## 5. Conclusion and open problems

We have shown there is no physical way to compute the convolution or correlation on quantum states. This is unfortunate for many applications, yet there may remain ways to attack specific sequences which yield efficient quantum algorithms. For example, it is possible to use a measurement to compute the transform $`a_ib_j|ij\lambda a_ib_i|ii`$, but the probability of obtaining this state tends to 0 as $`N\mathrm{}`$, likely rendering it useless in algorithms.

A final interesting point is that given a sequence of numbers on a classical computer, we could compute a convolution, and prepare the quantum states in lemma 14, which seems to violate theorem 16. The point is that once the input sequences are in the quantum states, without knowing the classical information so we can make copies, there is no way to get the output state. Quantum states cannot be copied by the No Cloning Theorem , otherwise the transform of theorem 16 could be computed by sampling enough copies of the input to determine the classical sequences, classically computing the convolution, then constructing the output state. This approach is prevented by the No Cloning Theorem. The key point is that storing a classical information theory sequence of numbers into the quantum state coefficients is not a reversible process, since there is no way to read all the coefficients back out of the state.

A final note: this result was inspired by a comment made by David Meyer, who obtained similar results independently.


text:
# In Search of Evidence for Toroidal B Fields Associated with the Jets of AGN

## 1. Introduction

BL Lac objects are a subset of Active Galactic Nuclei that are observationally similar to radio-loud quasars in many respects, but display systematically weaker optical line emission. BL Lac objects are also characterised by strong and variable polarisation at ultraviolet through radio wavelengths. The radio emission and much of the higher-frequency emission is almost certainly synchrotron radiation.

VLBI polarization observations of radio-loud BL Lac objects have shown a tendency for the dominant magnetic (B) fields in the parsec-scale jets to be transverse to the local jet direction (Gabuzda, Pushkarev, & Cawthorne 2000 & references therein). This has often been interpreted as evidence for relativistic shocks that enhance the B-field component in the plane of compression, perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the shock (Laing 1980; Hughes, Aller, & Aller 1989).

It has been suggested more recently that the transverse jet B fields of BL Lac objects often correspond to the toroidal B-field component of the jet itself (e.g., Gabuzda 1999, 2003; Gabuzda & Pushkarev 2002). Such fields would come about naturally, for example, as a result of “winding up” of an initial “seed” field with a significant longitudinal component by the rotation of the central accreting object (e.g. Ustyugova et al. 2000; Nakamura, Uchida, & Hirose 2001).

It is therefore of interest to identify robust observational tests that can distinguish between transverse B fields due to a toroidal field component and due to shock compression. One possibility is to search for rotation-measure (RM) gradients across the jets, which should arise in the case of a toroidal B-field structure due to the systematic change in the line-of-sight magnetic field across the jet. Asada et al. (2002) claim to have detected such a gradient across the VLBI jet of 3C273. We present and discuss here evidence for transverse RM gradients in a number of BL Lac objects.

## 2. Observations

We are engaged in an ongoing study of the 34 sources in the complete sample of northern BL Lacertae objects defined by Kühr & Schmidt (1990). As a first step in a search for transverse RM gradients in these sources, we initially concentrated on several sources that seemed to be good candidates for such studies, because their jets were rich in intensity and polarization structure and relatively well resolved in the transverse direction.

The observations considered here were carried out in February 1997 (0820+225, 1652+398 (Mrk501), 1749+701), April 1997 (1219+285, 1308+326, 1803+784), and May 2001 (1749+701, 1823+568) at 6, 4 & 2 cm using the NRAO Very Long Baseline Array. The total intensity ($`I`$) and linear polarization ($`P`$) calibration and imaging were done in AIPS using standard techniques. We then made 2, 4 and 6-cm matched-resolution (corresponding to the 6-cm beam) images of the Stokes parameters $`I`$, $`Q`$ and $`U`$ for each of the sources. The $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images were combined to make maps of the polarized flux and polarization position angle, $`\chi `$. After subtracting the rotation corresponding to the known integrated (assumed to be largely Galactic) rotation measures (Pushkarev 1999) at each wavelength, the $`\chi `$ maps at each of the three wavelengths were then used to derive the RM distributions using the AIPS task RM.

## 3. Results

We included 0820+225 in this initial study because its curved jet is well resolved and very rich in $`I`$ and $`P`$ structure, extending tens of milliarcseconds from the core (Gabuzda, Pushkarev, & Garnich 2001). Although a comparison of the 4-cm and 6-cm polarization angles indicates the presence of a transverse RM gradient beyond the westward bend of the jet (Fig. 1), we did not attempt to obtain a three-wavelength RM map for this source, since the 2-cm emission was weak beyond the innermost jet.

We found reasonable to good evidence for transverse RM gradients in all the remaining sources except for 1308+326. Fig. 2 shows our RM map of 1652+398 as an example, together with plots of the observed polarization position angles $`\chi `$ as functions of the square of the observing wavelength, $`\lambda ^2`$, for the two opposite sides and the center of the VLBI jet. These plots show that the $`\chi `$ values display the linear dependence on $`\lambda ^2`$ expected for Faraday rotation.

## 4. Discussion

Of the seven sources investigated, we found clear systematic RM gradients transverse to the VLBI jets in 1652+398 and 1823+568, with $`\lambda ^2`$ laws being obeyed well in both cases. Some indications of transverse RM gradients were also found in 1219+285 and 1749+701. A comparison of the 4 cm and 6 cm polarization-angle distributions for 0820+225 shows a clear transverse gradient in the RM distribution, but we were not able to verify this on the basis of data obtained at more than two wavelengths. Finally, although our own RM map of 1803+784 did not show convincing evidence for transverse RM gradients, the RM map of this source recently presented by Zavala & Taylor (2003), based on six wavelengths in the VLBA 2 cm and 4 cm bands, clearly shows a transverse RM gradient about 4 mas from the VLBI core. Thus, we consider this initial search for transverse RM gradients to have been successful.

It is natural to interpret the observed transverse RM gradients as reflecting the presence of a toroidal or helical B field associated with these VLBI jets. In this case, the origin of the gradients is the systematic change in the line-of-sight B field component across the jet. The fact that we detected transverse RM gradients in several of the sources considered in this initial study suggests that they may be common in BL Lac objects.

A helical B-field structure could come about in a natural way as a consequence of “winding up” of a seed field threading the central accretion disk by the joint action of the rotation of the accretion disk and the jet outflow (e.g., Ustyugova et al. 2000; Nakamura, Uchida, & Hirose 2001). It is intriguing that a B field with a predominant toroidal component would also come about if a non-zero current flows along the jet (e.g., Istomin & Pariev 1996). Indeed, one can turn the problem around, and assert that the presence of a substantial toroidal B-field component requires that there be a non-zero current in the jet!

In the simplest case when we are viewing a toroidal or helical B field “from the side” (i.e., at $`90^{}`$ to the jet axis) in the rest frame of the source and the distribution of thermal electrons is approximately uniform, we would expect to observe a rotation measure close to zero along the jet axis (since the line-of-sight B-field component there is close to zero) and RMs of opposite sign on either side of the axis. This is roughly the behavior shown by the RM distribution in Fig. 2, where the RM is positive on the southwestern side of the jet and negative on the northeastern side of the jet. When the B field is viewed at some other angle to the jet axis, there will still be a systematic gradient in the RM across the jet, however the gradient “peak” will be shifted, and the RM will not necessarily pass through zero.

Note that viewing the jet at $`90^{}`$ to its axis in the rest frame of the jet is equivalent to viewing the jet at an angle of $`1/\gamma `$ in the rest frame of the observer, where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of the bulk motion of the jet flow. Thus, since we know the jets of AGN such as BL Lac objects make relatively small angles to the line of sight, of order $`\theta 1/\gamma `$, it may be that we should expect to see such relatively symmetrical transverse RM distributions in these sources fairly often.

## 5. Conclusions

The results of our initial search for rotation-measure gradients transverse to the VLBI jets of BL Lac objects have yielded good evidence for such gradients in several sources. This lends further support to earlier arguments that the “transverse” B fields that characterize the jets of these objects are associated with toroidal or helical structure of the intrinsic jet B fields. This underlines the view of these jets as fundamentally electromagnetic structures, and suggests that they may well carry non-zero currents.

The occurrence of Faraday rotation requires both a non-zero line-of-sight B-field component and the presence of free electrons in the medium through which the linearly polarized radiation propagates. This complicates searches for systematic behavior of the RM distribution across jet structures, since the density of free electrons is likely to drop off with distance from the core (e.g., Taylor 1998, 2000; Reynolds, Cawthorne, & Gabuzda 2001; Gabuzda & Chernetskii 2003). Higher resolution can be attained by moving toward observations at shorter wavelengths, but such observations will be less sensitive to Faraday rotation, since the rotation measure increases in proportion to $`\lambda ^2`$. It appears that the use of multiple wavelengths within the VLBA 2 cm, 4 cm and 6 cm bands represents the best available approach for such studies in terms of providing both good resolution and good sensitivity to Faraday rotation. We have recently acquired such data for 0820+225, 1219+285, 1652+398, 1749+701, and 1803+784 in order to confirm the presence of transverse RM gradients across their VLBI jets and to study the properties of these gradients in more detail.

### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Patrick Cronin for help in the preparation of the figures presented here.

## References

Asada, K. et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, L39

Gabuzda, D. C. 1999, New Astronomy Reviews, 43, 695

Gabuzda, D. C. 2003, The Physics of Relativistic Jets in the CHANDRA and XMM Era, New Astronomy Reviews, in press

Gabuzda, D. C. & Chernetskii, V. A. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 669

Gabuzda, D. C. & Pushkarev, A. B. 2002 in Particles and Fields in Radio Galaxies, R. Laing and K. Blundell, Editors, ASP Conf. Ser., 250, 180

Gabuzda, D. C., Pushkarev, A. B., & Cawthorne, T. V. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 1109

Gabuzda, D. C., Pushkarev, A. B., & Garnich, N. N. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1

Hughes, P. A., Aller, H. D., & Aller, M. F. 1989, ApJ, 341, 68

Istomin, Ya. N. & Pariev, V. I. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1

Kühr, H. & Schmidt, G.D. 1990, AJ, 90, 1

Laing, R. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 439

Nakamura, M., Uchida, Y. & Hirose, S. 2001, New Astronomy, 6(2), 61

Pushkarev A.B. 2001, Astronomy Reports, 45, 667; astro-ph/0307176

Reynolds, C.R., Cawthorne, T.V., & Gabuzda, D.C. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1071

Taylor, G.B. 1998, ApJ, 506, 637

Taylor, G.B. 2000, ApJ, 533, 95

Ustyugova, G. V. et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, L21

Zavala R.T. & Taylor G.B. 2003, ApJ, 589, 126