text:
# Lattice calculation of gluon screening masses

## I Introduction

One of the most interesting features of QCD (quantum chromodynamics) is the transition from the confinement to the deconfinement phase. In this new state of QCD, quarks and gluons confined in the hadron at zero temperature move freely when the system reaches a sufficiently high temperature. The quark gluon plasma (QGP) was realized at high temperature in the early universe, and is expected to be produced in heavy-ion collision experiments at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS), BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), and CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Thus it is an urgent task to accumulate theoretical knowledge about the QGP.

The massless gluon in the QGP medium is changed into a dressed massive gluon after quantum corrections. The screening effect is characterized by a mass pole of the propagator and is closely related to thermal QCD phenomenology. One example is a screened heavy quark potential, which is frequently discussed in relation to $`J/\psi `$ or $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ suppression. For calculations of jet quenching, which might be a fingerprint of a QGP, a model including the electric and magnetic masses has been proposed wang . A nonperturbative quantitative study in the vicinity of $`T_c`$ and up to several times $`T_c`$ is of great importance for understanding QGP physics.

The thermal field theory Gross ; Kapusta ; Bellac  is the most basic method of studying the QGP and has provided many informative observations. At zero temperature, many calculations based on perturbative QCD have described experiment results Muta  and there is no doubt that QCD is a theory of strong interaction. It is natural to employ the perturbative approach to thermal QCD. Because of the asymptotic freedom at high temperature, the coupling constant is expected to become small enough to carry out the perturbations. In such a high energy state, quarks and gluons must behave as an ideal gas; yet this simple consideration is spoiled by an infrared divergence Linde , which is known to bear a hierarchy on the energy scale in the QGP system Kapusta ; Bellac . One usually defines $`1/T`$ as a perturbative length scale, and furthermore $`1/gT`$ must be introduced as an electric (Debye) scale, whose influence appears as a Yukawa-type potential rather than a Coulomb-like one, and $`1/g^2T`$ as a magnetic scale. In QCD, the magnetic mass, which cannot be accessed perturbatively, acts as a cutoff factor in the infrared problem and consequently becomes an essential element of thermal QCD.

The QCD coupling constant strength near the critical temperature $`T_c`$ is still of the order of 1. Therefore perturbation theory is not applicable. However, these regions are currently being investigated with great interest in much theoretical and experimental research. After hard-thermal-loop (HTL) resummation was consistently formulated by Braaten and Pisarski, there were several improvements BP ; Niegawa  for unsolved problems. Comparison of this method with lattice numerical data has been reported; one-loop HTL calculations of the free energy of a QGP are in good agreement with the lattice numerical result Andersen ; Andersen2 . However, a recent two-loop HTL calculation indicates that it does not yet have adequate convergence Andersen3 . As another approach, 3D reduction theory has also been widely studied and has yielded some promising arguments Kajantie , but this method, which is defined only for the high temperature limit, cannot be applied to confinement/deconfinement physics.

For reliable phenomenological analyses of high energy heavy-ion collisions, it is important to obtain information on the magnetic and electric masses of gluons nonperturbatively; a numerical study of lattice QCD as a first-principles calculation should play an important role here.

There have been many lattice studies of finite-temperature QCD, but only a few calculations of the electric and magnetic screening masses can be found in the literature Ogilvie , other than for the case of color $`SU(2)`$ Heller ; Cucchieri . The electric mass has been estimated from the Polyakov loop correlation functions to obtain the screened heavy-quark-antiquark potential Irback ; Gao ; Kaczmarek .

The main aim of our study is to obtain reliable $`SU(3)`$ electric and magnetic masses through large-scale lattice QCD simulations and to reveal their temperature dependence saito . We also compare our numerical data with the predictions of leading order perturbation (LOP), HTL resummation, and other analyses.

Since our mass extraction is based on measuring a gauge dependent gluon propagator, it is important to check the gauge invariance of both screening masses Cucchieri2 . This test is essential particularly for the magnetic mass because it has a poor definition in the frame of the perturbation.

Gluons are essential ingredients in QCD dynamics, and QCD undergoes a phase transition from the confinement to the deconfinement phase when the temperature increases. Therefore, we expect gluon propagators to show different behavior in each phase, and their study provides information on confinement/deconfinement dynamics Nakamura2 .

We measure gluon propagators, which depend on the gauge used, and therefore a gauge-fixing procedure is indispensable. However, gauge fixing on the lattice is difficult practically and conceptually. Usually, gauge fixing is carried out by the iterative technique Mandula , and it is very time consuming. The conceptual difficulty is that the gauge is not uniquely fixed; this is known as the Gribov copy problem Gribov . In order to overcome these difficulties, we adopt here a stochastic quantization with Zwanziger’s gauge-fixing term Zwanziger ; Seiler ; Mizutani , instead of the path integral method.

In this paper, we extend our previous results from the $`20^2\times 32\times 6`$ lattice simulations saito  to the level that the present computer power can reach; we add more detailed values for the electric and magnetic masses and results at higher temperature from the larger lattice $`32^2\times 48\times 6`$ simulation. We also give a detailed description of the algorithm employed in this study. In Sec. II, we describe the stochastic gauge quantization together with the Gribov copy problem. The definitions of the gluon propagator and electric and magnetic masses are given. A large part of Sec. III is devoted to our simulation results on the small lattice $`20^2\times 32\times 6`$. First we describe all input parameters of the simulation and the statistics needed to measure reliable gluon propagators. Then we show the gluon behavior and the electric and magnetic masses extracted from it. The gauge dependence check and temperature dependence for both screening masses are also given. Finally, we compare the numerical data with the perturbative argument, add the higher temperature result, and comment on the finite volume effect. Section IV gives the conclusions.

The main part of the calculation was carried out on the SX-5(NEC) vector-parallel computer of RCNP(CMC), Osaka University. We used a parallel queue with 4, 8 and 16 CPUs and required about six months to complete this work.

## II Stochastic gauge fixing on lattices and gluon propagators

### II.1 Lattice gauge action

The lattice regularization scheme of QCD is the gauge invariant Euclidean theory which enables us to perform a nonperturbative calculation based on the Monte Carlo numerical technique Wilson . The simplest standard Wilson gauge action of lattice QCD can be defined from the continuum QCD as

$$S_g=\beta (1\frac{1}{3}\text{Re Tr}\left[U_\nu (x)U_\mu (x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x)\right]),\beta =\frac{2N_c}{g^2}.$$
(1)
Here a link variable, $`U_\mu (x)`$, stands for the $`SU(3)`$ color gauge field:

$$U_\mu (x)=e^{iga_\mu A_\mu (x)},$$
(2)
where $`a_\mu `$ is the lattice spacing, i.e, the lattice cutoff, and $`A_\mu `$ represents the gauge potential of the gluon. In this study, we adopt the quenched lattice simulation (pure gauge QCD) without a dynamical quark effect, using Eq. (1).

### II.2 Gauge fixing and Gribov copy on lattices

We are interested in a direct calculation of the gluon propagator, and the extraction of electric and magnetic screening masses from it. Therefore we must fix the gauge of the gluon fields on the lattice, where the gauge transformation is given by

$$U_\mu (x)\omega ^{}(x)U_\mu (x)\omega (x+\widehat{\mu }).$$
(3)
$`\omega `$ stands for a gauge rotation matrix $`SU(3)`$ on the lattice.

In this study, we focus on a Lorentz-type gauge, which is defined in the continuum as

$$_\mu A_\mu (x)=0,$$
(4)
while in the discrete lattice theory

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^a(x)\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{4}{}}2\text{ Im Tr }t^a\{U_\mu (x)U_\mu (x\widehat{\mu })\}=0.$$
(5)
Here $`t^a`$ is the $`SU(N)`$ generator with the relation $`\text{Tr}[t^at^b]=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$. The above condition (5) is equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _\omega I\hfill & =\hfill & 0,\hfill \\ I\hfill & \hfill & _{x,\mu }\text{Re Tr}\omega ^{}(x)U_\mu (x)\omega (x+\widehat{\mu }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Wilson Wilson80  and Mandula and Ogilvie Mandula  suggested the following condition for the gauge fixing method on the lattice:

$$\text{Max.}_\omega I.$$
(7)
The continuum version of Eq. (7) was discussed in Refs. Maskawa  and Semenov .

The conditions (6) and (7) are not equivalent to each other since there may be local maxima or minima of $`I`$ which satisfy Eq. (6). The gauge-fixing configuration cannot be uniquely fixed; this is called the “Gribov copy” Gribov  and is illustrated in Fig. 1. If we study this problem using a numerical lattice simulation based on the iterative procedure, it is very difficult to find a true maximum.

### II.3 Stochastic gauge fixing

Our approach to the gauge-fixing procedure is to use the stochastic gauge quantization instead of the Monte Carlo path integral. The stochastic quantization is based on the Langevin equation which introduces virtual time in addition to the Euclidean coordinate. Zwanziger introduced a gauge-fixing term as

$$\frac{dA_\mu ^a}{d\tau }=\frac{\delta S}{\delta A_\mu ^a}+\frac{1}{\alpha }D_\mu ^{ab}(A)_\nu A_\nu ^b+\eta _\mu ^a,$$
(8)
where $`D_\mu ^{ab}(A)`$ is a covariant derivative, $`\tau `$ stands for Langevin time, and $`\eta `$ is a Gaussian noise term. The second term on the right-hand side is a gauge-fixing term. $`\alpha `$ is a gauge parameter; $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to the Lorentz gauge and $`\alpha =1`$ to the Feynman gauge.

Mizutani and Nakamura Mizutani  developed the lattice version of the stochastic gauge fixing. The link variables are rotated through the following gauge transformation depending on the virtual time:

$$U_\mu (x,\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=\omega ^{}(x,\tau )e^{if_\mu ^at^a}U_\mu (x,\tau )\omega (x+\widehat{\mu },\tau ).$$
(9)
Here $`f`$ stands for the force

$$f_\mu ^a=\frac{S}{A_\mu ^a}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau +\eta ^a\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau },$$
(10)
and the gauge rotation matrix is given by

$$\omega =e^{i\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^at^a\mathrm{\Delta }\tau /\alpha }.$$
(11)
If $`\omega =I`$, Eq. (9) is a lattice Langevin process. Gauge rotation, Eq. (9), with Eq. (11), leads to the gauge fixing term as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$. Equation (9) means that the gauge rotation and Langevin step are executed alternately, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

In this stochastic quantization with Lorentz-type gauge fixing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ fluctuates around the gauge-fixing plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a=0`$. For example, when we take $`\alpha =1.0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.01`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ on $`4^3\times 8`$ with $`\beta =6.0`$ behaves as shown in Fig. 3. We confirm that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ fluctuates around $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a=0`$ which indicates that good gauge fixing is achieved.

There are two reasons for using the stochastic gauge-fixing method in this study. One is a practical issue. When we use the standard Wilson-Mandula gauge-fixing method Mandula , the iterative procedure is applied to accepted gauge configurations for each Monte Carlo step in Fig. 2. Then the number of iterations is unpredictable, particularly for large lattices. On the other hand, in algorithm (9), we simultaneously repeat the step of update and gauge rotation in Fig. 2 and are free from the convergence problem of gauge fixing. Therefore we can estimate the CPU time precisely. Moreover, this algorithm, in which the gauge parameter $`\alpha `$ can be changed at will, is advantageous when testing gauge invariance.

A conceptual problem is the Gribov ambiguity Gribov . The algorithm has a noteworthy feature, i.e., the second term of Eq. (8) gives rise to a configuration such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d}{d\tau }_x\mathrm{\Delta }^2\hfill & <\hfill & 0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ & >\hfill & 0\text{ out of }\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ stands for the Gribov region,

$$\text{Gribov region}:\mathrm{\Omega }\{A_\mu ^a(x)|_\mu A_\mu ^a(x)=0,_\mu D_\mu ^{ab}>0\}.$$
(13)
That is, the stochastic gauge-fixing term is attractive (repulsive) inside (outside) the Gribov region Zwanziger ; Seiler  if we start from the trivial configuration $`\{A_\mu =0\}`$. Although our algorithm may not completely eliminate copies, we conclude that it is a more effective method.

Since the update algorithm described here is not as popular as the Metropolis or pseudo-heat-bath method, we show the autocorrelation of the Polyakov lines $`L(\tau )L(\tau +n\tau )`$ in Fig. 4 together with that of the pseudo-heat-bath.

### II.4 Definition of gluon propagators

We define the gauge field $`A_\mu (x)`$ in terms of the link variables as

$$A_\mu (x)=2\underset{a}{}t^a\text{Im}\text{Tr}t^aU_\mu (x).$$
(14)
We calculate massless gluon correlation functions with finite momentum,

$$G_{\mu \nu }(p_x,p_y,p_t,z)=\text{Tr}A_\mu (p_x,p_y,p_t,z)A_\nu (p_x,p_y,p_t,0).$$
(15)
In our study, to avoid a mixture of the longitudinal and transverse modes, we adopt the transverse conditions $`p_iA_i=0`$ and measure the partially Fourier transformed propagator including one momentum $`p_x=2\pi /N_x`$ or $`p_y=2\pi /N_y`$ Nakamura . We will obtain the gluon mass using a lattice energy momentum relation. This is different from other calculations Heller ; Ogilvie , where the mass extraction from zero momentum propagator was studied.

In thermal perturbative QCD Gross ; Kapusta ; Bellac , the electric mass is defined from the temporal part of the gluon polarization tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$, while its spatial part is considered as the magnetic mass. Thus we can construct an electric propagator using a temporal one:

$$G_e(p,z)\frac{1}{2}\left[G_{tt}(\frac{2\pi }{N_x},0,0,z)+G_{tt}(0,\frac{2\pi }{N_y},0,z)\right].$$
(16)
In the same way, a magnetic propagator is defined by spatial components:

$$G_m(p,z)\frac{1}{2}\left[G_{xx}(0,\frac{2\pi }{N_y},0,z)+G_{yy}(\frac{2\pi }{N_x},0,0,z)\right].$$
(17)
Because the screening mass is given as a pole of the denominator of the momentum space propagator, $`1/(p^2+m^2)`$, $`G_e(z)`$ and $`G_m(z)`$ are expected to behave as exponential damping functions in the z direction on distances, $`Z1/T`$ with the masses,

$$G_{e(m)}(z)e^{E_{e(m)}(p)z}.$$
(18)
## III Results

### III.1 Simulation parameters

We use mainly the lattice of the size $`N_xN_yN_zN_t=20^2\times 32\times 6`$ which satisfies the condition $`N_x3N_t`$. On this lattice the long range area corresponds to $`z1/T`$ and thus reliable information for screening physics may be produced.

We summarize lattice cutoff values and the corresponding temperature in Table 1. Varying $`\beta `$, i.e., the lattice coupling constant, we change the temperature $`T=1/N_ta`$. The pure gauge lattice with $`N_t=6`$ has critical $`\beta _c5.89`$ and we adopt $`T_c256`$ Boyd  as the critical temperature. To estimate the lattice cutoff value, we employ the results in Refs. QCD\_TARO ; Allton .

In addition, we prepare a lattice of the size $`32^2\times 48\times 6`$ in order to investigate the finite size effect of screening masses, and to obtain them at higher temperature.

### III.2 Necessary statistics to obtain reliable gluon propagators

We observe a large fluctuation of the gauge propagators, particularly at long distances, i.e., we suffer from a long autocorrelation time. We show in Fig. 5 the typical behavior of gluon propagators $`G(z)`$ as a function of the Langevin step. In order to analyze the gluon propagator and measure the screening masses we require $`0.20.4\times 10^6`$ steps as the typical number of simulation data.

### III.3 Gluon propagators

Although the gluon propagator itself is gauge dependent, it gives us some insights into the gluon dynamics of the confinement/deconfinement physics.

The electric propagator is shown in Fig. 6 111In the following, all the propagators are normalized at $`z=0`$, namely they are divided by $`G_{e(m)}(z=0)`$ to compare each other., where the free massless propagator is also shown by the dashed line. Gluons at short distances, i.e., $`z<6=1/T`$, have very similar behavior to the free propagator. However, at long distances, gluon propagators decrease more rapidly than the free one. This indicates that the electric screening mass does not vanish at all temperatures.

Comparing data below and above $`T_c`$, we find that the dynamics of the gluon is completely different in the confinement and deconfinement regions. The electric gluon mass in the confinement region becomes heavier; the electric gluon is completely screened in the confinement regions. This was first observed in Ref. Nakamura2 . Consequently, we cannot employ the assumption Eq. (18). On the contrary, the propagator in the deconfinement regions decreases exponentially even at long distances with a finite mass.

Similar behavior is seen in the magnetic parts in Fig. 7; although the long distance magnetic gluons have large errors here, all magnetic gluons are found to be massive at long distances in the confinement/deconfinement phase, and their effective mass in the confinement phase is heavier. We notice that the short distance behavior of magnetic gluons in the deconfinement regions looks unconventional. The magnetic gluon propagators follow a convex curve at short distances while the electric ones do not. The magnetic gluons behave as if they had an imaginary screening mass or negative spectral function, which may be the reason why the magnetic mass is not screened at least in LOP calculation.

As clearly seen in Fig. 7 and as we discuss below, the effective mass of the magnetic mass is $`z`$ dependent. We take the value around $`z=1/T`$ as the electric case, since it is a relevant quantity at finite temperature screening.

Gluons are essential ingredient of QCD but they are confined below $`T_c`$. As shown in Fig. 8, their propagator is convex upward at several regions. This is possible only when the spectral function is not positive definite. This peculiar behavior was first observed in Ref. Mandula  and confirmed in Ref. Nakamura95 . The feature does not contradict the fundamental postulate of quantum field theories, because gluons in the confinement region are not physically observable particles. Instead, this is a glimpse of the confinement mechanism in the infrared region which is still far from our understanding. Gribov’s conjecture for the gluon propagator

$$G(p)\frac{Z}{p^2+b^4/p^2},$$
(19)
vanishes at $`p^2=0`$, and its Fourier transformation to the coordinate space is not convex downward, 222We thank E. Seiler and D. Zwanziger for helpful discussions on this point.

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(t)\frac{Z}{r}e^{rt\mathrm{cos}\varphi }\mathrm{cos}(rt\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\varphi ),$$
(20)
where $`r(|\stackrel{}{p}|^4+b^4)^{1/4}`$ and $`\varphi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1(b^2/\stackrel{}{p}^2)`$. The upward convex shape of the gluon propagators in the deconfinement region may provide us with hints about the glue dynamics.

Below the critical temperature $`T_c`$, we obtain a similar result even for electric gluons at short distances. This seems natural since the perturbative argument in the confinement regions is generally not suitable and the confining correlation function would also give the negative spectral function.

### III.4 Mass as a pole

To obtain the screening mass from the propagators, the following formula is used:

$$G_{e(m)}\mathrm{cosh}[E_{e(m)}(p)(zN_z/2)].$$
(21)
We employ data for $`z1/T(=N_ta)`$, because the screening effect occurs at sufficiently long distances. All fittings are done from $`z=6`$ to $`N_z/2`$, and $`\chi ^2/NDFO(1)`$, where $`NDF`$ indicates the number of degrees of freedom.

To obtain the final result at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0`$, we must extrapolate the data with respect to Langevin step width. The Runge-Kutta algorithm is applied to reduce the finite Langevin step $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ dependence Batrouni . We perform simulations for a set of parameters with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =0.030.05`$. Table 2 and Fig. 9 represent $`E(p)`$ measured here versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. The slight dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ enables us to use a linear function when fitting data.

We finally obtain the mass from $`E(p)`$ by the following lattice energy-momentum relation Heller  333We “assume” this relation to extract the mass.:

$$\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{Ea}{2}=\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{ma}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{p_ia}{2}.$$
(22)
### III.5 Gauge invariance

The screening mass is physical and expected to be gauge invariant. However, since the gluon propagators defined by Eqs. (16) and (17) are gauge dependent, it is important to check whether the screening masses obtained here are gauge invariant or not. In addition, since the magnetic mass cannot be defined by a perturbative calculation, it is particularly important to check its gauge dependence. In Fig. 10, we show the gauge parameter $`\alpha `$ dependence of electric and magnetic masses. The gauge dependence of both screening masses is found to be very slight, namely, the result strongly suggests that they are gauge invariant and physical observables.

### III.6 Temperature dependence

We study the temperature dependence of the screening mass in the range $`T/T_c=16`$ which would be realized in high energy heavy-ion collision experiments such as RHIC or LHC Muller . Table 3 and Fig. 11 show electric and magnetic masses as a function of the temperature. The magnetic part definitely has nonzero mass in this temperature region. As $`T`$ increases, both $`m_{e(m)}/T`$ decrease monotonically, and at almost all temperatures, the magnetic mass is less than the electric one, except very near $`T_c`$ where the electric mass decreases very quickly as $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$.

### III.7 Comparison with LOP and HTL resummation results

We perform a fitting analysis for our numerical results using the following ansatz:

$$\frac{m_e}{T}=C_eg(T),\frac{m_m}{T}=C_mg^2(T),$$
(23)
whose g dependence is predicted by the perturbative and 3D reduction analysis Kapusta ; Bellac  and we assume $`C_e`$ and $`C_m`$ are free parameters. In the following discussion, the data above $`T1.5T_c`$ are used. Here we use the running couplings as

$$g^2(\mu )=\frac{1}{2b_0\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })}\left(1\frac{b_1}{2b_0}\frac{\mathrm{log}(2\mathrm{log}\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })}\right),$$
(24)
and we set $`\mu =2\pi T`$, which is the Matsubara frequency as the renormalization point and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.03T_c`$ Andersen  as the QCD mass scale. $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$ are the first two universal coefficients of the renormalization group,

$$b_0=11N_c/48\pi ^2,b_1=(34/3)(N_c/(16\pi ^2))^2.$$
(25)
As a result, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_e& =1.63(3),\hfill & \chi ^2/\text{NDF}=0.715,\\ C_m& =0.482(31),\hfill & \chi ^2/\text{NDF}=0.979.\end{array}$$
(26)
The scalings expected in Eq. (23) for electric and magnetic masses are found to work well. However, the magnitude of $`C_e`$ is larger than $`C_e^{LOP}=1`$. On the other hand, for magnetic mass, a self-consistent inclusion technique in Ref. Alexanian  gives $`m_g=0.568g^2T`$, which is close to our fitting result.

The HTL resummation technique applying the free energy of hot gluon plasma has been widely discussed Andersen ; Andersen2 . Rebhan gave a formula for the electric mass in the one-loop HTL perturbation theory Rebhan  and for the case of $`SU(3)`$,

$$m_e^2=m_{e,0}^2\left[1+\frac{3g}{2\pi }\frac{m_e}{m_{e,0}}\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{2m_e}{m_m}\frac{1}{2}\right)+O(g^2)\right],m_{e,0}=gT.$$
(27)
Here we assume the magnetic mass to be of the order of $`g^2`$. Substituting our fitted value for $`m_m`$, we can solve the above equation iteratively. In Fig. 11, we show this HTL resummation together with the LOP result. The HTL result gives a better description than the naive perturbation, upon comparing with our numerical experiment.

The electric mass was obtained also by a heavy $`q\overline{q}`$ potential from the $`SU(3)`$ Polyakov loop correlator at finite temperature in Refs. Gao ; Kaczmarek . Our results here are inconsistent with theirs, since the mass extraction from the heavy $`q\overline{q}`$ potential cannot be consistently performed due to ambiguity of its fitting assumption. In addition, a 3D reduction argument Kajantie  has shown that $`m_e/gT`$ goes down when $`T`$ increases, but even at $`T1000\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ the electric mass is still about $`3m_{e,0}`$. This observation agrees qualitatively with our analysis.

### III.8 Higher T and finite size effect

Although the main result in this paper is based on studies for the small lattice size $`20^2\times 32\times 6`$ as discussed in the previous section, we additionally perform the simulation on the large lattice $`32^2\times 48\times 6`$ to go to higher temperature regions and to check the finite-size effect of the screening masses. However, as the lattice size increases, the behavior of the long distance gluon cannot be controlled because of a large fluctuation. A typical result on the large lattice is shown in Fig. 12. Even after the $`0.30.4\times 10^6`$ measurements, we could not determine the electric gluon propagator at long distances ($`z16`$), while the magnetic gluon is properly correlated.444 Magnetic propagator determination is also difficult near $`T_c`$. Nevertheless, provided that we adopt only the data for the intermediate regions above $`z=6`$ until the disappearance of the propagator, we obtain similar results for the electric and magnetic masses as seen in Fig. 12 in the same temperature regions.

Using the criterion describing above, we may consistently obtain both screening masses on the large lattice, and can argue that the magnetic mass has a stronger finite-size effect than the electric one. $`E(p)`$ appearing in Eq.(17) are shown in Table 4 at $`T/T_c=8.99`$ and $`16.12`$. The momenta for the small and large lattices are $`p_x=2\pi /N_x0.314`$ and $`p_x=2\pi /N_x0.196`$, respectively; namely, the result on the small lattice implies that the magnetic mass at high temperature ($`T/T_c>5`$) seems to be going to zero, while on the large lattice it remains finite. 555Note that the data of $`\beta =7.5`$ and $`8.0`$ for the small lattice are considered to be preliminary and indeed we do not use these data for our main studies by the previous section.

Although it is very difficult to measure the long distance gluon propagators, we can add the higher temperature results ( $`T/T_c=8.99,16.12`$ ) summarized in Table 5. In Fig. 13 we again fit the data including these new points. The fit for the large lattice data by Eq. (23) hence results in

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_e& =1.69(4),\hfill & \chi ^2/NDF=0.66,\\ C_m& =0.549(16),\hfill & \chi ^2/NDF=1.27\end{array}$$
(28)
These results are shown in Fig. 13. It should be noticed that $`C_e`$ is the same value as given in Eq. (26), while $`C_m`$ $`10\%`$ larger on the large lattice and is very close to $`m_g=0.568g^2T`$ calculated by the self-consistent inclusion technique in Ref. Alexanian .

## IV Conclusions

We have measured the gluon propagators and obtained the electric and magnetic masses by lattice QCD simulations in the quenched approximation for SU(3) between $`T=T_c`$ and $`6T_c`$. Features of the QGP in this temperature region will be extensively studied theoretically and experimentally in the near future.

Our screening mass studies are the first reliable measurement in $`SU(3)`$ lattice calculation. We mainly investigate the temperature dependence for the electric and magnetic masses which do not vanish on $`20^2\times 32\times 6`$ lattices. In all temperature regions we find that the electric mass $`m_e`$ is always larger than the magnetic one $`m_m`$, except near critical temperature point. As the temperature goes down toward $`T_c`$, $`m_e/T`$ drops down quickly, while $`m_m/T`$ is still going up. Consequently, using data above $`T/T_c1.5`$ we conclude that the scalings $`m_egT`$ and $`m_mg^2T`$ work well. Furthermore, a HTL resummation calculation has recently been developed and compared with nonperturbative lattice simulations. We have also compared our numerical results with LOP and HTL resummation and find a good improvement of the HTL electric mass. These comparison studies of $`SU(3)`$ screening masses qualitatively seem to agree with the case of $`SU(2)`$ Heller .

The electric masses obtained here are not consistent with those obtained by heavy $`q\overline{q}`$ potential calculations from an $`SU(3)`$ Polyakov loop correlator at finite temperature in Refs. Gao ; Kaczmarek . In Ref. Kaczmarek , the authors did extensive analyses with three different temporal extents and two different gauge actions, obtaining a very reliable potential as a function of the temperature. They observe that the potential above $`T_c`$ cannot be described properly by the leading order perturbation calculation up to a few $`T_c`$: They exclude the two-gluon exchange as the dominant screening mechanism, and suggest that some kind of one-gluon exchange may describe the potential effectively as a result of the complex interaction, and that at about $`(1.53)T_c`$ a mixture of one- and two-gluon exchange may explain the behavior. Therefore, due to the ambiguity of the fitting assumptions, it is not clear whether we can compare our screening masses directly with those obtained by the potential calculation.

In order to investigate the nature of the QGP, especially the excitation modes in the plasma, Datta and Gupta recently calculated glueball masses at finite temperature and made an interesting observation. They measured the screening masses of $`A_1^{++}`$ (scalar) and $`A_2^{}`$ (glueball), which allow two- and three-gluon exchange, and their ratio $`1.7`$ is near 3/2. The $`A_2^{}`$ mass is twice that obtained by Kaczmarek et al, and shows similar temperature dependence. There are now several nonperturbative methods to study QGP: our direct measurement of the gluon propagators, glueball screening masses, and Polyakov line correlators. These analyses strongly suggest that the QGP above $`T_c`$ is far from a free gas and has a nontrivial structure. Much more detailed analyses in future are highly desirable.

The screening mass on the lattice is extracted from the gauge dependent propagator, and the magnetic mass is not well defined in perturbation theory. We have nonperturbatively confirmed the gauge invariance of both screening masses. In Ref. Cucchieri2  it was reported that the $`SU(2)`$ magnetic propagator exhibits a complicated gauge dependent structure at low momentum. Therefore, since the gauge dependence for the screening masses is investigated within Lorentz-type gauge fixing based on stochastic gauge quantization in this study, we plan to extend our analysis to a simulation with Coulomb-type gauge fixing.

We have seen a qualitative difference of the gluon dynamics between the confinement and deconfinement phase by direct propagator measurement. The electric and magnetic gluons in the confinement phase indicate a very massive particle behavior, while after the phase transition, they have a finite mass. In addition, in the deconfinement phase, the magnetic gluon at short distances seems to be still in the confinement phase. This may be related to the difficulty of the perturbative argument for spatial gluon components and the fact that a magnetic Wilson loop gives non-zero spatial string tension even at high temperatures Fingberg .

The magnetic mass has been the subject of many discussions. Perturbatively, it is difficult to handle. To our knowledge, there is no complete perturbative calculation which is free from any assumption or model. The naive expectation is that it vanishes, but it is necessary to have a finite value as a cutoff factor in the infrared regime. On the other hand, the finite spatial string tension even at $`T>T_c`$ indicates “confinement” in the magnetic sector.

Our screening gluon magnetic propagators indeed show nontrivial behavior. At very short distances, this may be consistent with massless behavior, but at finite distance we cannot fit them by a simple ansatz. The behavior is distance dependent. Confinement is a long range property, and the propagators there drop. Therefore it will be a very interesting task in future to investigate the magnetic propagators at very long distance.

We calculated the gluon propagators on the larger lattice $`32^2\times 48\times 6`$ and observed a large error and strange behavior at long distances. Nevertheless, the screening masses were estimated, and we find that the magnetic mass is sensitive to the lattice size effect. Thus on a too small lattice we cannot deal with the magnetic mass consistently. Moreover, the simulations even at higher temperature $`T/T_c9`$ and $`16`$ show that nonperturbative results are far from LOP. This observation is compatible with that of Ref. Kajantie ; Heller .

For quantization with gauge fixing, stochastic gauge fixing was adopted. We think the stochastic gauge fixing has better features to reduce some of the difficulties of nonperturbative gauge fixing. It is consequently possible to do a practical simulation of gluon screenings effectively. However, we also see that the gluon propagators have large fluctuations and unexpected behavior at long distances and may need further calculations.

The color screening data we obtained here are useful information for QGP phenomenology, for instance, jet quenching or the heavy quark potential. We plan to study the $`q\overline{q}`$ as well as the $`qq`$ potential relating a baryon bound state, a nonperturbative QCD vertex calculation, quark propagators, etc., using stochastic gauge fixing, which will help us to understand QGP.

## V Acknowledgement

We would like to thank A. Ni$`\stackrel{´}{\text{e}}`$gawa, S. Muroya, T. Inagaki and I. Pushkina for many helpful discussions. The calculation was done on an SX-5(NEC) vector-parallel computer. We really appreciate the warm hospitality and support of the RCNP administrators. An HPC computer at INSAM, Hiroshima University was also used. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research by Monbu-Kagaku-sho (No.11440080, No. 12554008, and No. 13135216)


format: text

text:
# Structure of self-organized Fe clusters grown on Au(111) analyzed by Grazing Incidence X-Ray Diffraction

## I Introduction

Nanometer-sized objects like metallic clusters or wires grown by controlled self-organization processes on surfaces exhibiting a defined strain-field (*e.g.* reconstructed surfaces and patterned surfaces) are currently under extensive study. Because of the reduced dimensionality and the inflated importance of surface phenomena these new objects exhibit original properties. In particular, they are models for investigating the magnetic properties of low dimensionality systems.Gambardella02 ; Ohresser01 ; Shen03  As a matter of fact, the magnetic properties are closely related to the intimate crystalline structure. Very small objects can present new and/or highly strained crystallographic phases with respect to the bulk equilibrium ones. These phases may in turn lead to peculiar spin phases or magnetic anisotropies. Investigating the structure of such small objects is therefore important but very difficult because of the very small amount of deposited material. Recently, the magnetic properties of self-organized Fe deposits on the reconstructed Au(111) surface were investigated by X-ray Magnetic Circular Dichroism (XMCD). Three different spin-phases were identified, as a function of coverage.Ohresser01  To fully understand these magnetic properties it is mandatory to precisely determine the crystalline structure of the Fe deposits. For such small clusters grown on a surface with a large lattice mismatch, one may expect strong differences compared to the bulk structure.

In this paper, the crystalline structure and strain relaxation of Fe deposits on Au(111) is investigated by Grazing Incidence X-Ray Diffraction (GIXD) as a function of Fe coverage. In a first part, the characteristics of the reconstructed Au(111) surface are given, and the reciprocal lattice is analyzed by GIXD. In a second part the structure of Fe layers by GIXD as a function of coverage is studied. The structural evolution of these Fe clusters is then discussed with respect to the structural and morphological properties of the reconstructed Au(111) surface. The analyzed Fe thicknesses range from isolated and self-organized clusters to several monolayers (ML). It is shown that Fe clusters first grow in close registry on the highly inhomogeneous reconstructed Au(111) surface, then after the coalescence, a relaxation starts upon the growth of the second layer. Above 3 ML, the film undergoes a phase transition from a fcc(111) phase to a bcc(110) phase.

## II Experimental

The experiments were performed in ultra-high vacuum conditions on the Surface Diffraction Beamline (ID3) at the ESRF on a z-axis diffractometer.FCO95 ; ESRFWWW  The single crystalline Au substrate was of (111) orientation within $`\pm `$0.1. It was prepared in situ by Ar+ sputtering and annealing cycles, up to 1000 K. The Fe was evaporated from a high purity-rod, heated by electron bombardment in an evaporation cell equipped with a flux monitor. During the evaporation the pressure was in the low $`10^{10}`$ mbar range. The growth was made with the substrate held at room temperature. After each analyzed coverage, the sample was cleaned and the Fe deposition repeated. The thickness of the deposit was controlled by fitting the specular reflectivity Kiessig fringes. The surface and Fe deposits cleanliness were controlled by Auger Electron Spectroscopy. The (111) single crystalline surface was described by the classical triangular unit cell.SMZ91 ; Grubel  defined by the surface in-plane basis vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{a}_2`$, making a 120 angle ($`a_1`$=$`a_2`$=$`a_0/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`a_0`$= 2.88 Å is the fcc bulk parameter of gold) and $`\stackrel{}{a}_3`$, perpendicular to the surface ($`a_3=\sqrt{3}a_0`$). In this way the reciprocal space indices $`H`$ and $`K`$ describe the in-surface plane momentum transfer, and $`L`$ the perpendicular to the surface momentum transfer. The photon energy was set to 17.176 keV. The angular resolution for in-plane scans was 0.03 mdeg and the incidence angle was tuned close to the value for total external reflection of the X-rays ($``$0.3  at 17.176 kev).

## III Au(111) surface reconstruction

In order to understand the modifications in the X-ray diffraction scans induced by the evaporation of very small amounts of Fe it is important to first precisely describe the Au(111) reciprocal lattice. The strong relativistic effects experienced by the electrons in gold produce a large mismatch between the bulk equilibrium interatomic distance and the surface one.relat ; BGO02  Moreover, since the chemical nature of the surface and bulk atoms is the same, the interactions between two surface atoms and between a surface and a bulk atom have approximately the same magnitude. Hence, for the surface atoms, a competition results between the trend to get closer, or to adopt the bulk equilibrium distance. In the case of the Au(111) surface, the most favorable energetic situation consists of a surface split into domains of two different types: domains where the interatomic distance is the one of an ideal gold surface (hcp stacking) and domains with the bulk interatomic distance (fcc stacking). The two types of domains are separated by discommensuration lines, several atomic distances wide, which make the junction between the hcp and the fcc domains. The interatomic distances between surface atoms are very inhomogeneous since they vary from 2.65 Å to 2.86 Å.BGO02  The periodic succession of parallel fcc and hcp stripe domains along the denser $`<\overline{1}01>`$ atomic direction forms an uniaxial $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction. The density increase along $`<\overline{1}01>`$ rows (by introducing one additional Au atom every 22 bulk atoms) produces stress in the other symmetry equivalent directions (Au(111) belongs to the *F*m3m space group). Hence the stripe domain reconstruction is unstable for large areasalerhand ; marchenko  and the best compromise is the formation of three types of stripe domain reconstructions, each of them associated with one of the three equivalent $`<\overline{1}01>`$ directions. The intersection between the discommensuration lines of the different stripe domains induces the formation of kinks. The kinks are themselves ordered, and this leads to a structure in which two of three possible rotational equivalent domains of the stripe domain structure alternate periodically across the surface, forming the well-known zigzag pattern.Barth ; SMZ91 ; Vanderbilt

In summary, the herringbone-reconstructed Au(111) surface can be understood as the superposition of three different lattices (figure 1a):

1. The fcc bulk lattice with lattice parameter $`a_0`$.
2. The surface reconstruction lattice, used to be called $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$, which is the consequence of the density increase along the $`<\overline{1}01>`$ rows. In a $`<\overline{1}01>`$ direction there is a 22a0 super-periodicity, whereas in the perpendicular $`<1\overline{2}1>`$ direction, the super-periodicity is $`\sqrt{3}a_0`$.
3. The rectangular ($`l\times L`$) kink super-lattice with $`l`$=7.2 nm (fixed precisely by the 22a0 reconstruction periodicity), and $`L`$ varying typically between 15 nm and 50 nm. The length $`L`$ experiences very large fluctuations from one sample to another, depending on the preparation conditions and the density of defects in the crystal.Fruchart03

The resulting Au(111) reciprocal space is made of the superposition of the reciprocal lattices of the three different lattices and the symmetry-equivalent domains (figure 1b). The large disks are the intersections with the (H,K) plane of the crystal truncation rods (CTR),Robinson  the small grey disks represent the lattice of the $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction, and the dots represent the theoretical lattice formed by the regular arrangement of the kinks.

The Au(111) surface reconstruction has already been investigated in detail by GIXD with a high angular resolution by Sandy *et al.*.SMZ91  Note however that the reciprocal space represented in Fig. 6 of ref. SMZ91,  is in fact only valid around the specular reflection: since the rectangular lattice is incommensurate, one does not have exactly the same positions of the kink reflections around a (0 1) reflection (see figure 1b). Indeed, the representation of our figure 1b corresponds much better to the experimental scans of Sandy *et al.* (figure 8 of ref. SMZ91, ).

Figure 2 shows a map around the (H K L) = (0 1 0.12) region of the reciprocal space at constant L of the clean Au(111) surface. One can clearly see up to two orders of the $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction. The signature of the rectangular lattice produced by the kinks cannot be seen on this representation but it is clearly visible in the top HK scan of figure 3 (this scan is referenced as (i) in fig.1b) there are several faint peaks close to the (0 1) reflection and one may also guess some faint kinks in the first order reconstruction peaks, which actually correspond to the projections of the rectangular kink lattice reflections on the scanned axis.

In figure 4a, representing a K-scan at H=0 and L=0.12 (referenced as (ii) in fig.1b) for clean gold, one can identify several features: the Au crystal truncation rod at 2.88 Å-1 (K=1) momentum transfer, and the projection on the \[H=0\] direction of the first, second and third orders of the $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction. Due to the strong interatomic distance inhomogeneity, the contributions are rather broad, and it is difficult to quantitatively determine the modifications of the X-ray diffraction scans upon Fe deposition at very low coverage. The K-scans were therefore fitted by different lorentzian contributions. For clean gold, the K-scan was simulated by the superposition of 5 lorentzian peaks (figure 4a), one for the Au crystal truncation rod, three for the first, second and third order peaks of the $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction. The fifth peak was added to take into account the fourth and fifth order, and the background. The presence and positions of the different orders of the gold reconstruction peaks were unambiguously determined from the HK-scan of figure 3. The contribution due to the kinks was not considered in the K-scan fits because they give only faint projections.

## IV Fe deposition

It is well known that the kink positions of the herringbone reconstruction act as preferential nucleation sites for most $`3d`$ metals.Voigtlaender ; Stroscio ; Chambliss ; Meyer ; Fonin  In the case of Fe, this leads to the growth of monolayer-high clusters, located at the kinks, expanding laterally with increasing coverage. Stroscio

Upon Fe deposition, the main effect is the reduction of the intensity of the reconstruction peaks (figure 3). At about 0.5 ML, the second order peak has nearly vanished. The first order reconstruction peak can however be observed up to about 2 ML. This means that the reconstruction is progressively lifted, but the surface is still over close-packed since the first order peak remains. Interestingly, the features due to the rectangular kink lattice remain present. Intuitively one would argue that these features can only be present if there is a $`22\times \sqrt{3}`$ reconstruction. Since they do not disappear together with the reconstruction, one must assume that the Fe clusters nucleated at the kinks somehow help the Au substrate to keep the memory of the rectangular lattice. A possible mechanism would be the introduction of a periodic strain field in the gold substrate during the growth. A similar mechanism has indeed been proved recently in the case of N/Cu(100) Croset02  and was also suggested by Grazing Incidence Small Angle X-ray Scattering experiments performed on self-organized Co/Au(111) clusters.Fruchart03

The positions, widths and intensities of the CTR and the first order reconstruction peaks are easily determined through the fit procedure of the K-scans. Importantly, the rocking scans show that the positions, even for higher reconstruction orders, do not change at all with increasing coverage. Up to 2 ML the K-scans are dominated by the first and second contributions that do not vary in position. Conversely, the three other contributions show intensity and position changes (figure 4). Since the second and next orders of the reconstruction peaks quickly disappear in the type (i) HK-scans (figure 3), we can confidently attribute the increase of the three additional contributions to the Fe clusters. There are only minor changes below 1 ML, indicating that the Fe atoms grow in near registry with the underlying gold atoms. From the fits, one can locate more precisely the different contributions. In figure 5a, the corresponding real space distances of the different contributions are plotted as a function of the Fe coverage. The widths of the different contributions are plotted as ”error bars”. This graph confirms that the CTR and the first order reconstruction peaks remain nearly unchanged in lattice parameter, one corresponding to the bulk parameter (2.88 Å), the other to the average nearest-neighbor distances between gold atoms at the surface (2.78 Å). The third contribution ($`\mathrm{}`$) shows a slight and sudden increase of the lattice parameter at about 0.4 ML, from about 2.62 Å to $``$2.72 Å before staying more or less constant with increasing thickness. Between 0.4 ML and 3 ML there is a fcc contribution ($``$) with a slightly decreasing parameter and a very large width in K.

Above 3 ML, the fcc peak ($``$) splits progressively into two large contributions ($``$,$``$), which correspond to a phase transition towards the stable bulk Fe bcc(110) phase. The epitaxial relationship corresponds to an intermediate orientation between the Kurdjumov-Sachs (KS) and the Nishiyama-Wassermann (NW) orientations (figure 6a). Since the global symmetry corresponds to the KS symmetry, we will refer to this particular orientation as KS. Diffracted intensity maps around (0 1 0.12) and (0 1 1.7) at constant L show indeed typical patterns, although fuzzy, for such an orientation (figure 6b) (see ref. Boukari99,  and refs. therein). Simulations of the peak positions in the reciprocal space reproduce the experimental data rather well (see discusion). This structure induces a projected contribution in the K-scan at about (0.05 1.17 0.12).

## V Discussion

From the results above, one immediatly notices that the crystalline structure of the Fe clusters evolves as a function of coverage. The individual contributions in the diffraction scans deserve to be discussed separately.

The first contribution (($`\mathrm{}`$) in figure 5b) exhibits a linear intensity increase with the Fe thickness and then becomes constant after $``$1 ML. Its average lattice parameter varies from $``$2.62 Å to 2.72 Å and then remains almost constant. This behavior results from the competition between the Fe-Fe and Au-Fe interactions. The Fe-Fe interactions tend to favor small Fe-Fe interatomic distances. Moreover, in the case of clusters, the edge atoms emphasize this effectstep . Conversely, the Au-Fe interactions tend to impose an iron registry growth. In the 0–0.4 ML thickness range, the nucleation takes place on the kinks, where the interatomic distances are the smallest (2.60 to 2.65 ÅBGO02 ). While growing laterally upon increasing the coverage, they spread over the hcp or fcc regions where the gold atoms are separated by 2.80 to 2.85 Å, what leads to an increased mismatch. The 1D-coalescence ($``$ 0.4 ML) of adjacent islands along $`<\overline{1}\overline{1}2>`$ directions produces a sudden loss of edge atoms. This latter effect, associated with the large mismatch between Fe and Au at this coverage, enhances the weight of Fe-Au interactions leading to the observed transition.

A second Fe phase (($``$) in figure 5b) with a slightly smaller lattice parameter starts growing at about 0.5 ML up to 3 ML. The intensity increase is proportional to the additional Fe thickness showing that all incoming Fe atoms adopt this crystallographic configuration. This is concomitant to the onset of the growth of a second Fe layer, with a slightly relaxed parameter on top of the first epitaxial Fe layer: indeed, the onset of the second layer growth starts between 0.5 and 0.8 ML as noticed by STM experiments Stroscio . In this thickness range (0.5-3 ML) the Fe film must be understood as a relaxed Fe fcc layer on an interfacial pseudomorphic layer.

Above 3-4 ML, the strain in the Fe layer starts to relax through a progressive transformation into the bcc Fe phase with the KS bcc(110)//fcc(111) epitaxial relationship. Indeed, this epitaxy does not yield any Bragg position along our K-scans (figure 4) and the contribution observed at K$``$1.17 is only due to the tail of the bcc Bragg peaks located outside the K-scan. This interpretation fairly well explains the decrease, and finally splitting into two distinct bcc ($``$,$``$) contributions of the fcc ($``$) signal in figure 5b. The ($``$) contribution corresponds to the projection of the KS structures, seen on the figure 6b, on the $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ direction. The ($``$) feature results from the crossing of the two KS structures on the $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ axis. At large coverage the Fe film consists of a bcc layer on top of an interfacial pseudomorphic 1 ML thick fcc layer. It is interesting to note that the fcc to bcc transition occurs once the fcc lattice parameter has reached the value adopted by the bulk $`\gamma `$-Fe phase. The somewhat blurred diffraction patterns in figure 6b are due to both rotational disorder in the $`\theta `$ angle (as defined in 6a) and to a parametric spreading in the bcc $`<\overline{1}10>`$ direction, from about 2.50 Å to 2.65 Å. For the highly strained domains, the orientation is rather NW ($`\theta 0`$), with nearly no orientational disorder, whereas for the less strained domains, $`\theta `$ corresponds roughly to half of the ideal angle expected for the KS orientation, with an angular distribution of about 1. This can be seen in figure 6 where the reflection for different orientations and parameters are superimposed to the experimental maps.

## VI Conclusion

The structure and growth of Fe deposits on reconstructed Au(111) have been investigated by GIXD. Up to one monolayer, Fe grows in close registry with the reconstructed Au(111) substrate. However, due to the great inhomogeneity of the gold interatomic distances at the surface, slight changes in the in-plane atomic distances already occur during the lateral expansion of the monolayer-high Fe clusters upon growth. We qualify the structure as ”local pseudomorphism”. At the coalescence of the clusters along $`<\overline{1}\overline{1}2>`$, there is a slight expansion of the average lattice parameter of the Fe clusters. The second Fe layer grows, with a slightly reduced parameter. Above 3 ML the film transits progressively and breaks into partly relaxed bcc(110) domains, in an orientation intermediate between the Kurdjumov-Sachs and Nishiyama-Wassermann epitaxial relationships. These structural results are consistent with the XMCD observations Ohresser01  where strong changes in the magnetic properties were evidenced. In particular, the magnetic spin moment showed a sharp increase at the unidimensional coalescence around 0.4 ML (going from $``$1.4$`\mu _B`$ to $``$2.4$`\mu _B`$). This change can now be correlated to the increase of the lattice parameter. Indeed, it is well known that for fcc Fe magnetism and structure are linked with, in particular, a tendency to high magnetic spin values for larger atomic volume. Moreover to fit the evolution of the magnetic anisotropy energy with the coverage a Néel model was used in reference Ohresser01,  assuming a pseudomorphic growth of the first Fe layer. This assumption is now further experimentally confirmed by the present GIXD results.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are pleased to acknowledge the ID03 beamline staff of the ESRF for excellent experimental conditions and support during these experiments. We would also like to thank O. Fruchart for fruitfull discussion and A. Tagliaferri for his technical help.


text:
# Reidemeister torsion, twisted Alexander polynomial and fibered knots

## 1. Introduction

As is well-known, the Alexander polynomial of a fibered knot is monic (see , , ). That is, the coefficient of the highest degree term of the normalized Alexander polynomial is a unit $`1`$. By the symmetry (or duality) of the Alexander polynomial, its lowest degree term is also one. This criterion is sufficient for alternating knots  and prime knots up to 10 crossings  for instance. However, in general, the converse is not true. In fact, there are infinitely many non-fibered knots having monic Alexander polynomials. If we remember here Milnor’s result , we have to remark that these claims on the Alexander polynomial can be restated by the Reidemeister torsion.

The purpose of this paper is to give a necessary condition that a knot in $`S^3`$ is fibered by virtue of the Reidemeister torsion associated to a certain linear representation. More precisely, we show that the Reidemeister torsion of a fibered knot defined for a certain tensor representation is expressed as a rational function of monic polynomials. This Reidemeister torsion is nothing but Wada’s twisted Alexander polynomial (see  for details), so that our result can be regarded as a natural generalization of the property on the classical Alexander polynomial mentioned above.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the definition of Reidemeister torsion over a field $`𝔽`$. Further we describe how to compute it in the case of knot exteriors. The point of our method here is that the notion of monic makes sense for the Reidemeister torsion associated to a tensor representation of a unimodular representation over $`𝔽`$ and the abelianization homomorphism. In Section 3, we state and prove the main theorem of this paper. The final section is devoted to compute some examples.

We should note here that there is a similar work by Cha . The notion of Alexander polynomials twisted by a representation and its applications have appeared in several papers (see ).

## 2. Reidemeister torsion

In this section, we review the definition of Reidemeister torsion over a field $`𝔽`$ (see  and  for details).

Let $`V`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional vector space over $`𝔽`$, and $`𝐛=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ and $`𝐜=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ two bases for $`V`$. If we put $`c_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_{ij}b_j`$, we have a nonsingular matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ with coefficients in $`𝔽`$. Further let $`[𝐛/𝐜]`$ denote the determinant of $`A`$.

Now let us consider an acyclic chain complex of finite dimensional vector spaces over $`𝔽`$:

$$C_{}:0C_m\stackrel{_m}{}C_{m1}\stackrel{_{m1}}{}\mathrm{}C_1\stackrel{_1}{}C_00.$$

We assume that a preferred basis $`𝐜_q`$ for $`C_q(C_{})`$ is given for any $`q`$. Choose any basis $`𝐛_q`$ of $`B_q(C_{})`$ and take its lift in $`C_{q+1}(C_{})`$, which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝐛}_q`$.

Since the natural inclusion map

$$B_q(C_{})Z_q(C_{})$$

is an isomorphism, the basis $`𝐛_q`$ can serve as a basis for $`Z_q(C_{})`$. Similarly the sequence

$$0Z_q(C_{})C_q(C_{})B_{q1}(C_{})0$$

is exact and the vectors $`(𝐛_q,\stackrel{~}{𝐛}_{q1})`$ is a basis for $`C_q(C_{})`$. It is easily shown that $`[𝐛_q,\stackrel{~}{𝐛}_{q1}/𝐜_q]`$ is independent of the choices of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐛}_{q1}`$. Hence we may simply denote it by $`[𝐛_q,𝐛_{q1}/𝐜_q]`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

The torsion of the chain complex $`C_{}`$ is defined by the alternating product

$$\underset{q=0}{\overset{m}{}}[𝐛_q,𝐛_{q1}/𝐜_q]^{(1)^{q+1}}$$

and we denote it by $`\tau (C_{})`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

The torsion $`\tau (C_{})`$ depends only on the bases $`𝐜_0,\mathrm{},𝐜_m`$.

Now let us apply the above torsion to the following geometric situations. Let $`X`$ be a finite cell complex and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ the universal covering of $`X`$ with the right action of $`\pi _1X`$ as deck transformations. Then the chain complex $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X},)`$ has a structure of right free $`[\pi _1X]`$-modules. Let

$$\rho :\pi _1XGL(n,𝔽)$$

be a linear representation. We may regard $`V`$ as a $`\pi _1X`$-module by using $`\rho `$ and denote it by $`V_\rho `$. Define the chain complex $`C_{}(X,V_\rho )`$ by $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X},)_{[\pi _1X]}V_\rho `$ and choose a preferred basis

$$\{\sigma _1e_1,\sigma _1e_2,\mathrm{},\sigma _1e_n,\mathrm{},\sigma _{k_q}e_1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{k_q}e_n\}$$

of $`C_q(X,V_\rho )`$, where $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ is a basis of $`V`$ and $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{k_q}`$ are $`q`$-cells giving the preferred basis of $`C_q(\stackrel{~}{X},)`$.

Now we consider the following situation. That is, $`C_{}(X,V_\rho )`$ is acyclic, in other words, all homology groups $`H_{}(X,V_\rho )`$ vanish. In this case, we call $`\rho `$ an acyclic representation.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`\rho :\pi _1XGL(n,𝔽)`$ be an acyclic representation. Then Reidemeister torsion of $`X`$ with $`V_\rho `$-coefficients is defined by the torsion of the chain complex $`C_{}(X,V_\rho )`$. We denote it by $`\tau _\rho (X)`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

It is known that $`\tau _\rho (X)`$ is well-defined as a PL-invariant, for an acyclic representation $`\rho :\pi _1XGL(n,𝔽)`$, up to a factor $`\pm d`$ where $`d\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{det}\rho )𝔽^{}`$. As a reference, see  Section 8. We can easily make a refinement of the above argument for our situation.

Here let us consider a knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$ and its exterior $`E`$. For the knot group $`\pi K=\pi _1E`$, we choose and fix a Wirtinger presentation

$$P(\pi K)=x_1,\mathrm{},x_u|r_1,\mathrm{},r_{u1}.$$

Then we can construct a 2-dimensional cell complex $`X`$ from $`P(\pi K)`$ such that $`E`$ collapses to $`X`$. The abelianization homomorphism

$$\alpha :\pi KH_1(E,)=t$$

is given by

$$\alpha (x_1)=\mathrm{}=\alpha (x_u)=t.$$

Furthermore, we always suppose that the image of a representation $`\rho :\pi KGL(n,𝔽)`$ is included in $`SL(n,𝔽)`$.

These maps naturally induce the ring homomorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ from $`[\pi K]`$ to $`M(n,𝔽)`$ and $`[t^{\pm 1}]`$ respectively, where $`M(n,𝔽)`$ denotes the matrix algebra of degree $`n`$ over $`𝔽`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ defines a ring homomorphism

$$[\pi K]M(n,𝔽[t^{\pm 1}]).$$

Let $`F_u`$ denote the free group with generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_u`$ and denote by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:[F_u]M(n,𝔽[t^{\pm 1}])$$

the composite of the surjection $`[F_u][\pi K]`$ induced by the presentation and the map $`[\pi K]M(n,𝔽[t^{\pm 1}])`$ given by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$.

Let us consider the $`(u1)\times u`$ matrix $`M`$ whose $`(i,j)`$ component is the $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{r_i}{x_j}\right)M(n,𝔽[t^{\pm 1}]),$$

where $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}`$ denotes the free differential calculus. This matrix $`M`$ is called the Alexander matrix of the presentation $`P(\pi K)`$ associated to the representation $`\rho `$.

For $`1ju`$, let us denote by $`M_j`$ the $`(u1)\times (u1)`$ matrix obtained from $`M`$ by removing the $`j`$th column. We regard $`M_j`$ as a $`(u1)n\times (u1)n`$ matrix with coefficients in $`𝔽[t^{\pm 1}]`$.

Now let us recall that the tensor representation

$$\rho \alpha :\pi KGL(n,𝔽(t))$$

is defined by $`(\rho \alpha )(x)=\rho (x)\alpha (x)`$ for $`x\pi K`$. Here $`𝔽(t)`$ denotes the rational function field over $`𝔽`$ and let $`V`$ be the $`n`$-dimensional vector space over $`𝔽(t)`$. Hereafter, we denote the Reidemeister torsion $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }(E)`$ by $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$.

###### Theorem 2.5.

All homology groups $`H_{}(E,V_{\rho \alpha })`$ vanish $`(`$namely, $`\rho \alpha `$ is an acyclic representation$`)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{det}M_j0`$ for some $`j`$. In this case, we have

$$\tau _{\rho \alpha }K=\frac{\mathrm{det}M_j}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_j1)},$$

for any $`j(1ju)`$. Moreover, $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }`$ is well-defined up to a factor $`\pm t^{nk}(k)`$ if $`n`$ is odd and up to only $`t^{nk}`$ if $`n`$ is even.

###### Proof.

The first two assertion are nothing but  Proposition 3.1. The independence on $`j`$ follows from  Lemma 1.2.

Next, if we consider well-definedness up to $`\pm t^{nk}(k)`$, we have only to recall Remark 2.4. The image of

$$\mathrm{det}(\rho \alpha ):\pi KGL(n,𝔽(t))𝔽(t)^{}$$

is just $`\{t^{nk}|k\}`$, because $`\mathrm{Im}\rho `$ is included in $`SL(n,𝔽)`$. Therefore the claim immediately follows. Here if we take an even dimensional unimodular representation, $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }`$ is well-defined up to $`t^{nk}`$ (see also  for details). ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

This theorem asserts that the twisted Alexander polynomial  of a knot is the Reidemeister torsion of its knot exterior (see  for details). This is a generalization of Milnor’s theorem in . Recently this framework extended to more general situations by Kirk-Livingston in .

###### Remark 2.7.

Assume that $`\rho `$ is a homomorphism to $`SL(n,R)`$ over a unique factorization domain $`R`$ and the knot group $`\pi K`$ has a presentation which is strongly Tietze equivalent to a Wirtinger presentation of the knot. Then Wada shows in  that the twisted Alexander polynomial of the knot associated to $`\rho `$ is well-defined up to a factor $`\pm t^{nk}(k)`$ if $`n`$ is odd and up to only $`t^{nk}`$ if $`n`$ is even.

###### Remark 2.8.

If there is an element $`\gamma `$ of the commutator subgroup of $`\pi K`$ such that $`1`$ is not an eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma )`$, then $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }`$ becomes a “polynomial” (see ). Namely $`\mathrm{det}M_j`$ is divided by $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_j1)`$.

## 3. Main theorem

In this section, we give a necessary condition that a knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$ is fibered. A polynomial $`a_mt^m+\mathrm{}+a_1t+a_0𝔽[t]`$ is called monic if the coefficient $`a_m`$ is one. We then see from Theorem 2.5 that the notion of monic polynomial makes sense for the Reidemeister torsion.

###### Theorem 3.1.

For a fibered knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$ and a unimodular representation $`\rho :\pi KSL(2n,𝔽)`$, the Reidemeister torsion $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ is expressed as a rational function of monic polynomials.

###### Proof.

By using the fiber bundle structure, we can take the following presentation of $`\pi K`$:

$$P(\pi K)=x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2g},h|r_i=hx_ih^1\phi _{}(x_i)^1,1i2g,$$

where $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2g}`$ is a generating system of the fundamental group of the fiber surface of genus $`g`$, $`h`$ is a generator for $`S^1`$-direction corresponding to the meridian of $`K`$ and $`\phi _{}`$ denotes the automorphism of the surface group induced by the monodromy map $`\phi `$. Here the abelianization homomorphism $`\alpha :\pi K=t`$ is given by

$$\alpha (x_1)=\mathrm{}=\alpha (x_{2g})=1\mathrm{and}\alpha (h)=t.$$

This presentation of $`\pi K`$ allows us to define another 2-dimensional cell complex $`Y`$ instead of a cell complex $`X`$ constructed from a Wirtinger presentation of $`\pi K`$. Namely it has only one vertex, $`2g+1`$ edges, and $`2g`$ 2-cells attached by the relations of $`P(\pi K)`$. It is easy to see that there exists a homotopy equivalence $`f:EY`$. From the result of Waldhausen , the Whitehead group $`Wh(\pi K)`$ is trivial for a knot group in general. Thus the Whitehead torsion of $`f`$ is also trivial element in $`Wh(\pi K)`$. It then implies that the homotopy equivalence map $`f`$ induces a simple homotopy equivalence from $`E`$ to $`Y`$. Since the Reidemeister torsion is a simple homotopy invariant, we can compute the Reidemeister torsion of $`E`$ as the one of $`Y`$ as follows. That is, we may use the previous presentation $`P(\pi K)`$ to compute $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ by means of Theorem 2.5.

Let us consider the “big” $`2g\times 2g`$ matrix $`M`$ whose $`(i,j)`$ component is the $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{r_i}{x_j}\right)M(n,𝔽[t^{\pm 1}]).$$

We then see that the diagonal component of $`M`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{x_i}}\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(h{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}(x_i)}{x_i}}\right)`$
$`=t\rho (h)\stackrel{~}{\rho }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{}(x_i)}{x_i}}\right)`$
and the coefficient of the highest degree term of $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(r_i/x_i)`$ is just $`\mathrm{det}\rho (h)=1`$. Further other components $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r_i/x_j)(ij)`$ do not contain $`t`$, so that the coefficient of the highest degree term of $`\mathrm{det}M`$ is also one.

On the other hand, the denominator is given by

$`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(h1)`$ $`=\mathrm{det}(t\rho (h)I)`$
$`=(\mathrm{det}\rho (h))t^{2n}(\mathrm{tr}\rho (h))t^{2n1}+\mathrm{}+1`$
$`=t^{2n}+\mathrm{}+1,`$
where $`I`$ denotes the identity matrix. Moreover $`\rho `$ is an even dimensional representation, so we see that $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ is well-defined up to a factor $`t^{2nk}(k)`$. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

If we can show directly that the presentation $`P(\pi K)`$ in Theorem 3.1 is strongly Tietze equivalent to a Wirtinger presentation of $`K`$, then Theorem 3.1 follows without using the result of Waldhausen (see Remark 2.7).

###### Remark 3.3.

If $`𝔽`$ is $``$ or a finite field $`𝔽_p`$, then the Reidemeister torsion $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ for any knot $`K`$ and any representation $`\rho :\pi KSL(2,𝔽)`$ is symmetric. Namely, $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ is invariant under the transformation $`tt^1`$ up to a factor $`t^k(k)`$. Such a duality theorem appears originally in . See also ,  and  as for related works.

## 4. Examples

###### Example 4.1.

Let $`K`$ be the figure eight knot $`4_1`$. This is one of the well-known genus one fibered knots in $`S^3`$. The fundamental group of the exterior has a presentation

$$\pi K=x,y|zxz^1y^1,$$

where $`z=x^1yxy^1x^1`$. Let $`\rho :\pi KSL(2,)`$ be a noncommutative representation defined by

$$\rho (x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\rho (y)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \omega & 1\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\omega `$ is a complex number satisfying $`\omega ^2+\omega +1=0`$. As pointed out by Wada in , it is convenient to use relations instead of relators for the computation of the Alexander matrix. Thereby applying free differential calculus to the relation $`r:zx=yz`$, we obtain

$$\frac{r}{x}=x^1+x^1y+yx^1yx^1y+yx^1yxy^1x^1.$$

Thus we have the matrix

$$M_2=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{r}{x}\right)\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\omega +1)t+\omega +2t^1& t+\omega 2+t^1\\ (\omega 1)t\omega +1& (\omega +1)t+3t^1\end{array}\right).$$

Then the numerator of $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{det}M_2`$ $`=t^2(t^46t^3+\omega ^4t^2+\omega ^2t^2+11t^26t+1)`$
$`=t^2(t1)^2(t^24t+1).`$
On the other hand, the denominator of $`\tau _{\rho \alpha }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(y1)`$ $`=\mathrm{det}(t\rho (y)I)`$
$`=\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}t1& 0\\ \omega t& t1\end{array}\right)`$
$`=(t1)^2.`$
Therefore the Reidemeister torsion of the figure eight knot $`K`$ is

$$\tau _{\rho \alpha }K=t^24t+1$$

and this is in fact a monic polynomial.

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`KT`$ be the Kinoshita-Terasaka knot . It is well-known that $`KT`$ is one of the classical examples of knots with the trivial Alexander polynomial. The knot group $`\pi KT`$ has a presentation with four generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_4`$ and three relations :

$`r_1`$ $`:x_1x_2x_1^1=x_4x_2x_4x_2^1x_4^1,`$
$`r_2`$ $`:x_4x_2x_4^1=x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1x_3x_1^1x_3^1x_2,`$
$`r_3`$ $`:x_1x_3x_1^1=x_4x_3x_4x_3^1x_4^1.`$
Applying free differential calculus, we have

$$\frac{r_1}{x_1}=1x_1x_2x_1^1,\frac{r_1}{x_2}=x_1x_4+x_4x_2x_4x_2^1,\frac{r_1}{x_3}=0,$$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_2}{x_1}}=`$ $`x_2^1x_3x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2+x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1x_3x_1^1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_2}{x_2}}=`$ $`x_4+x_2^1x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1+x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1`$
$`x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1x_3x_1^1x_3^1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_2}{x_3}}=`$ $`x_2^1+x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1`$
$`+x_2^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_2x_1x_2^1x_3x_1^1x_3^1,`$
$$\frac{r_3}{x_1}=1x_1x_3x_1^1,\frac{r_3}{x_2}=0,\frac{r_3}{x_3}=x_1x_4+x_4x_3x_4x_3^1.$$

Let $`\rho :\pi KTSL(2,𝔽_5)`$ be a noncommutative representation over the finite field $`𝔽_5`$ defined as follows:

$$\rho (x_1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right),\rho (x_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 4\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),\rho (x_3)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\rho (x_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4& 4\\ 3& 2\end{array}\right).$$

Then we obtain

$$M_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}3t+1& t& t& t^2+2t& 0& 0\\ 2t& t+1& 4t^2+t& 4t& 0& 0\\ 1& 4t+3& t+2+t^1& t+t^1& 3t+3+4t^1& 3t+4t^1\\ 4t& 2t+1& t+1+4t^1& 3t+4& 2t+4+t^1& 4t+1\\ 1& 4t& 0& 0& 3t^2+t& 2t^2+2t\\ t& 4t+1& 0& 0& 4t^2+t& 3t^2+4t\end{array}\right).$$

Therefore the Reidemeister torsion of $`KT`$ is given by

$`\tau _{\rho \alpha }KT`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}M_4}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_41)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{t^2(4t^8+t^7+t^6+4t^5+3t^4+4t^3+t^2+t+4)}{t^2+4t+1}}`$
$`=4t^6+2t^4+t^3+2t^2+4.`$
This is well-defined up to a factor $`t^{2k}(k)`$, so that we may conclude the Kinoshita-Terasaka knot $`KT`$ is not fibered.

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`K`$ be the knot illustrated in Figure 1. The normalized Alexander polynomial of $`K`$ is equal to the monic polynomial $`t^4t^3+t^2t+1`$. The knot group $`\pi K`$ has a presentation with seven generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_7`$ and six relations:

$`r_1`$ $`:x_2x_1=x_3x_2x_1x_2x_1^1x_2^1,`$
$`r_2`$ $`:x_6x_5x_6^1=x_4x_3x_1^1x_3x_1^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_1x_3^1x_1x_3^1x_4^1,`$
$`r_3`$ $`:x_6x_7x_6^1=x_4x_3x_1^1x_3x_1^1x_3x_1x_3^1x_1x_3^1x_4^1,`$
$`r_4`$ $`:x_5x_6x_5^1=x_7x_2x_7^1,`$
$`r_5`$ $`:x_2x_6x_2^1=x_3x_2x_1x_2x_1^1x_2^1x_3^1x_7x_3x_2x_1x_2^1x_1^1x_2^1x_3^1,`$
$`r_6`$ $`:x_5x_4x_5^1x_7=x_7x_3x_2x_1x_2x_1^1x_2^1x_3^1.`$
Let $`\rho :\pi KSL(2,𝔽_5)`$ be a noncommutative representation over $`𝔽_5`$ defined as follows:

$$\rho (x_1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\rho (x_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right),\rho (x_3)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 4& 1\end{array}\right),\rho (x_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 4& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$\rho (x_5)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 4\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\rho (x_6)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 1\\ 1& 4\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\rho (x_7)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

By the same method as in previous examples, we have the following Reidemeister torsion of $`K`$:

$`\tau _{\rho \alpha }K`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}M_7}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_71)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{t^{12}(3t^4+4t^3+t^2+4t+3)}{t^2+3t+1}}`$
$`=3t^2+3.`$
Hence this knot $`K`$ is not fibered.

We use Kodama’s program “KNOT” and Wada’s one to compute these examples. The former is to obtain $`N`$-data (see ) from a knot projection, which are necessary to input into Wada’s program. The latter one is to compute unimodular representations over finite fields of knot groups from $`N`$-data. Here we should remark that Kodama’s one works on Linux while Wada’s one works on Macintosh.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Dr. Mitsuhiko Takasawa and Dr. Masaaki Suzuki for their useful advices on the computer. The authors would like to express their thanks to Professor Andrei Pajitnov for his careful reading the earlier version of this paper.

Hiroshi Goda: goda@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Department of Mathematics

Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology

2-24-16 Naka-cho, Koganei

Tokyo 184-8588, Japan

Teruaki Kitano: kitano@is.titech.ac.jp

Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences

Tokyo Institute of Technology

2-12-1 Oh-okayama, Meguro-ku

Tokyo 152-8552, Japan

Takayuki Morifuji: morifuji@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Department of Mathematics

Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology

2-24-16 Naka-cho, Koganei

Tokyo 184-8588, Japan