text:
# An Introduction to Lattice Chiral Fermions

## 1 Review

### 1.1 What are Dirac/Weyl fermions ?

One can think about (Euclidean) Field Theory as of an attempt to define integrals over function spaces PandS . The functions are of different types and are called fields. The integrands consist of a common exponential factor multiplied by various monomials in the fields. The exponential factor is written as $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$ where the action $`S`$ is a functional of the fields. Further restrictions on $`S`$ are: (1) locality (2) symmetries. Locality means that $`S`$ can be written as an integral over the base space (space-time) which is the common domain of all fields and the integrand at a point depends at most exponentially weakly on fields at other, remote, space-time points. $`S`$ is required to be invariant under an all important group of symmetries that act on the fields. In a sense, $`S`$ is the simplest possible functional obeying the symmetries and generically represents an entire class of more complicated functionals, which are equivalently appropriate for describing the same physics.

Dirac/Weyl fields have two main characteristics: (1) They are Grassmann valued, which means they are anti-commuting objects and (2) there is a form of $`S`$, possibly obtained by adding more fields, where the Dirac/Weyl fields, $`\psi `$, enter only quadratically. The Grassmann nature of $`\psi `$ implies that the familiar concept of integration needs to be extended. The definition of integration over Grassmann valued fields is algebraic and for an $`S`$ where the $`\psi `$ fields enter quadratically, as in $`S=\overline{\psi }K\psi +\mathrm{}.`$, requires only the propagator, $`K^1`$, and the determinant, $`detK`$. Hence, only the linear properties of the operator $`K`$ come into play, and concepts like a “Grassmann integration measure” are, strictly speaking, meaningless, although they make sense for ordinary, commuting, field integration variables.

Let us focus on a space-time that is a a 4D Euclidean flat four torus, with coordinates $`x_\mu ,\mu =1,2,3,4`$. Introduce the quaternionic basis $`\sigma _\mu `$ represented by $`2\times 2`$ matrices:

$$\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ı\\ ı& 0\end{array}\right)\sigma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\sigma _4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ı& 0\\ 0& ı\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
The $`\psi `$ fields are split into two kinds, $`\overline{\psi }`$ and $`\psi `$, each being a two component function on the torus. In the absence of other fields the Weyl operators playing the role of the kernel $`K`$ are $`W=\sigma _\mu _\mu `$ and $`W^{}=\sigma _\mu ^{}_\mu `$. The Dirac operator is made by combining the Weyl operators:

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& W\\ W^{}& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _\mu \\ \sigma _\mu ^{}& 0\end{array}\right)_\mu \gamma _\mu _\mu =D^{}$$
(2)
The $`\sigma _\mu `$ obey

$$\sigma _\mu ^{}\sigma _\nu +\sigma _\nu ^{}\sigma _\mu =2\delta _{\mu \nu }\sigma _\mu \sigma _\nu ^{}+\sigma _\nu \sigma _\mu ^{}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }$$
(3)
which implies $`W^{}W=_\mu _\mu =^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. Thus, one can think about $`W`$ as a complex square root of the Laplacian. Similarly, one has $`D^{}D=DD^{}=D^2`$, with $`D^2`$ being $`^2`$ times a $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix.

When we deal with gauge theories there are other important fields Luis . These are the gauge fields, which define a Lie algebra valued one-form on the torus, denoted by $`AA_\mu dx_\mu `$. We shall take $`A_\mu (x)`$ to be an anti-hermitian, traceless, $`N\times N`$ matrix. The 1-form defines parallel transport of $`N`$-component complex fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x(1))=𝒫e^{_𝒞A𝑑x}\mathrm{\Phi }(x(0))$$
(4)
where $`x_\mu (t),t[0,1]`$ is a curve $`𝒞`$ connecting $`x(0)`$ to $`x(1)`$ and $`𝒫`$ denotes path ordering, the ordered product of $`N\times N`$ matrices being implicit in the exponential symbol. Covariant derivatives, $`D_\mu =_\mu A_\mu `$, have as main property the transformation rule:

$$g^{}(x)D_\mu (A)g(x)=D_\mu (A^g)A^gAg^{}dg$$
(5)
where the $`g(x)`$ are unitary $`N\times N`$ matrices with unit determinant. The replacement of $`_\mu `$ by $`D_\mu `$ is known as the principle of minimal substitution and defines $`A`$-dependent Weyl and Dirac operators. A major role is played by local gauge transformations, defined by $`\psi g\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }g^{}`$ and $`AA^g`$ where $`\psi `$ is viewed as a column and $`\overline{\psi }`$ as a row. The gauge transformations make up an infinite invariance group and only objects that are invariant under this group are of physical interest. In particular, $`S`$ itself must be gauge invariant and the $`\psi `$ dependent part of it is of the form $`S_\psi =_x\overline{\psi }W\psi `$ with $`W`$ possibly replaced by $`W^{}`$ or by $`D`$.

Formally, $`W^1`$ is gauge covariant and $`detW`$ is gauge invariant. Both the construction of $`W`$ and of $`D`$ meet with some problems: (1) $`W`$ may have exact “zero modes”, reflecting a nontrivial analytical index. The latter is an integer defined as $`dim\mathrm{Ker}W^{}(A)dim\mathrm{Ker}W(A)`$. It is possible for this integer to be non-zero because the form $`A`$ is required to be smooth only up to gauge transformations. The space of all $`A`$’s then splits into a denumerable collection of disconnected components, uniquely labelled by the index. The integration over $`A`$ is split into a sum over components with associated integrals restricted to each component. (2) $`detW`$ cannot always be defined in a gauge invariant way, but $`det(W^{}W)=|detW|^2`$ can. Thus, $`detW`$ is to be viewed as a certain square root of $`|detW|^2`$, but, instead of being a function over the spaces of $`A`$ it is a line bundle. As a line bundle it can be also viewed as a line bundle over the space of gauge orbits of $`A`$, where a single orbit is the collection of all elements $`A^g`$ for a fixed $`A`$ and all $`g`$. The latter bundle may be twisted, and defy attempts to find a smooth gauge invariant section. When this happens we have an anomaly.

### 1.2 Why is there a problem on the lattice ?

Lattice field theory Creutz  tries to construct the desired functional integral by first replacing space-time by a finite, uniform, toroidal square lattice and subsequently constructing a limit in which the lattice spacing, $`a`$, is taken to zero. Before the limit is taken functional integration is replaced by ordinary integration producing well defined quantities. One tries to preserve as much as possible of the desired symmetry, and, in particular, there is a symmetry group of lattice gauge transformations given by $`_xSU(N)`$, where $`x`$ denotes now a discrete lattice site.

The one-form $`A`$ is replaced by a collection of elementary parallel transporters, the link matrices $`U_\mu (x)`$, which are unitary and effect parallel transport from the site $`x`$ to the neighboring site to $`x`$ in the positive $`\mu `$ direction. Traversal in the opposite direction goes with $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$. The fields $`\overline{\psi }`$ and $`\psi `$ are now defined at lattice sites only. As a result, $`W,W^{}`$ become finite square matrices. Here are the main problems faced by this construction: (1) The space of link variables is connected in an obvious way and therefore the index of $`W`$ will vanish always. Indeed, $`W`$ is just a square matrix. (2) $`detW`$ is always gauge invariant, implying that anomalies are excluded. In particular, there no longer is any need to stop the construction at the intermediate step of a line bundle. These properties show that no matter how we proceed, the limit where the lattice spacing $`a`$ goes to zero will not have the required flexibility.

### 1.3 The basic idea of the resolution

The basic idea of the resolution NNplb1  is to reintroduce a certain amount of indeterminacy by adding to the lattice version a new infinite dimensional space in which $`\psi `$ is an infinite vector, in addition to its other indices. Other fields do not see this space, and different components of $`\psi `$ are accordingly referred to as flavors. Among all fields, only the $`\psi `$ fields come in varying flavors. $`W`$ shall be replaced by a linear operator that acts nontrivially in the new flavor space in addition to its previous actions. The infinite dimensional structure is chosen as simple as possible to provide for, simultaneously, good mathematical control, the emergence of a non-zero index and the necessity of introducing an intermediary construction of $`detW`$ as a line bundle geom .

The structure of the lattice $`W`$ operator is that of a lattice Dirac type operator. This special lattice Dirac operator, $`D`$, has a mass, acting linearly in flavor space. With this mass term, the structure of our lattice $`D`$ is:

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aM^{}& aW\\ aW^{}& aM\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
Only $`M`$ acts nontrivially in flavor space. To obtain a single Weyl field relevant for the subspace corresponding to small eigenvalues of $`D^2`$, the operator $`M`$ is required to satisfy: (1) the index of $`M`$ is unity (2) the spectrum of $`MM^{}`$ is bounded from below by a positive number, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }a)^2`$ is of order unity and kept finite and fixed as $`a0`$. In practice it is simplest to set the lattice spacing $`a`$ to unity and take all other quantities to be dimensionless. Dimensional analysis can always be used to restore the powers of $`a`$. In the continuum, we always work in the units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$. Numerical integration routines never know what $`a`$ is in length units. The lower bound on $`MM^{}`$ is taken to be of order unity.

The index structure of $`M`$ ensures that, for eigenvalues of $`D^2`$ that are small relative to unity, the relevant space is dominated by vectors with vanishing upper components. These vectors are acted on by the $`W`$ sub-matrix of $`D`$. Moreover, the main contribution comes from the zero mode of $`M`$, so, both the infinite flavor space and the extra doubling implicit in using a Dirac operator, become irrelevant for the small eigenvalues of $`D^2`$ and their associated eigenspace.

The standard choice for $`M`$ stems from a paper by Callan and Harvey CH  which has been ported to the lattice by Kaplan K . The matrix $`M`$ is given by a first order differential (or difference) operator of the form $`_s+f(s)`$, where $`s`$ is on the real line and represents flavor space. $`f(s)`$ is chosen to be the sign function, but could equally well just have different constant absolute values for $`s`$ positive and for $`s`$ negative.

The construction of the lattice determinant line bundle will not be reviewed here and we shall skip ahead directly to the overlap Dirac operator.

### 1.4 The overlap Dirac operator

The continuum Dirac operator combines two independent Weyl operators. The Weyl components stay decoupled so long as there is no mass term, and admit independently acting symmetries. Thus, zero mass Dirac fields have more symmetry than massive ones. In particular, this implies that radiative corrections to small Dirac masses must stay proportional to the original mass, to ensure exact vanishing in the higher symmetry case. A major problem in particle physics is to understand why all masses are so much smaller than the energy at which all gauge interactions become of equal strength and one of the most important examples of a possible explanation is provided by the mechanism of chiral symmetry. Until about six years ago it was believed that one could not keep chiral symmetries on the lattice and therefore lattice work with small masses required careful tuning of parameters.

Once we have a way to deal with individual Weyl fermions, it must be possible to combine them pair-wise just as in the continuum and end up with a lattice Dirac operator that is exactly massless by symmetry. This operator is called the overlap Dirac operator and is arrived at by combining the two infinite flavor spaces of each Weyl fermion into a new single infinite space Novl1 . However, unlike the infinite space associated with each Weyl fermion, the combined space can be viewed as the limit of a finite space. This is so because the Dirac operator does not have an index – unlike the Weyl operator – nor does it have an ill defined determinant. Thus, there is no major problem if the lattice Dirac operator is approximated by a finite matrix. The two flavor spaces are combined simply by running the coordinate $`s`$ first over the values for one Weyl component and next over the values for the other Weyl component. Since one Weyl component comes as the hermitian conjugate of the other it is no surprise that the coordinate $`s`$ will be run in opposite direction when it is continued. Thus, one obtains an infinite circle, with a combined function $`f(s)`$ which is positive on half of the circle and negative on the other. The circle can be made finite and then one has only approximate chiral symmetry Napprox . One can analyze the limit when the circle goes to infinity and carry out the needed projection on the small eigenvalue eigenspaces to restrict one to only the components that would survive in the continuum limit. The net result is a formula for the lattice overlap Dirac operator, $`D_o`$ Novl1 .

To explain this formula one needs, as a first step, to introduce the original lattice Dirac operator due to Wilson, $`D_W`$. That matrix is the most sparse one possible with the right symmetry properties, excepting chiral symmetry. It is used as a kernel of the more elaborate construction needed to produce produce $`D_o`$. Any alternative to $`D_W`$ will produce, by the same construction, a new $`D_o`$, possibly enhancing some of its other properties. The original $`D_o`$ is still the most popular, because the numerical advantage of maximal sparseness of $`D_W`$ has proven hard to beat by benefits coming from other improvements. Thus, we restrict ourselves here only to $`D_W`$.

$`D_W=m+4{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}V_\mu `$
$`V_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mu }{2}}T_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _\mu }{2}}T_\mu ^{}`$
$`x|T_\mu |\mathrm{\Phi }^i=U_\mu (x)^{ij}x|\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$
$`U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)=1\gamma _\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _\mu \\ \sigma _\mu ^{}& 0\end{array}\right)\gamma _5=\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3\gamma _4`$ (7)
It is easy to see that $`V_\mu V_\mu ^{}=1`$, so $`D_W`$ is bounded. $`H_W=\gamma _5D_W`$ is hermitian and sparse. The parameter $`m`$ must be chosen in the interval $`(2,0)`$, and typically is around $`1`$. For gauge fields that are small, the link matrices are close to unity and a sizable interval around zero can be shown to contain no eigenvalues of $`H_W`$ Nbounds . This spectral gap can close for certain gauge configurations, but these can be excluded by a simple local condition on the link matrices. When that condition is obeyed, and otherwise independently on the gauge fields, all eigenvalues of $`H_W^2`$ are bigger than some positive number $`\mu ^2`$. This makes it possible to unambiguously define the sign function of $`H_W`$, $`ϵ(H_W)`$. As a matrix, $`ϵ`$ is no longer sparse, but, for $`\mu ^2>0`$, it still is true that entries associated with lattice sites separated by distances much larger than $`\frac{1}{\mu }`$ are exponentially small.

The exclusion of some configurations ruins the simple connectivity of the space of link variables just as needed to provide for a lattice definition of the integer $`n`$, which in the continuum labels the different connected components of gauge orbit space. The appropriate definition of $`n`$ on the lattice is top

$$n=\frac{1}{2}Trϵ(H_W)$$
(8)
It is obvious that it gives an integer since $`H_W`$ must have even dimensions as is evident from the structure of the $`\gamma `$-matrices. Moreover, it becomes very clear why configuration for which $`H_W`$ could have a zero eigenvalue needed to be excised. These configurations were first found to need to be excised when constructing the lattice version of the $`detW`$ line bundle.

The overlap Dirac operator is

$$D_o=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _5ϵ(H_W))$$
(9)
$`\gamma _5`$ and $`ϵ`$ make up a so caller “Kato pair” with elegant algebraic properties Kato .

### 1.5 What about the Ginsparg-Wilson relation ?

In practice, the inverse of $`D_o`$ is needed more than $`D_o`$ itself. Denoting $`\gamma _5ϵ(H_W)=V`$, where $`V`$ is unitary and obeys “$`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity”, $`\gamma _5V\gamma _5=V^{}`$, we easily prove that $`D_o^1=\frac{2}{1+V}`$ obeys

$$\{\gamma _5,D_o^11\}=0$$
(10)
Here, we introduced the anti-commutator $`\{a,b\}ab+ba`$. In the continuum, the same relation is obeyed by $`D^1`$ and reflects chiral symmetry. We see that a slightly altered propagator will be chirally symmetric. The above equation, modifying the continuum relation $`\{\gamma _5,D^1\}=0`$, was first written down by Ginsparg and Wilson (GW) in 1982 GW  in a slightly different form. By a quirk of history, their paper became famous only after the discovery of $`D_o`$. The main point of the GW paper is that shifting an explicitly chirally symmetric propagator by a matrix which is almost diagonal in lattice sites and unity in spinor space does not destroy physical chiral symmetry.

It turns out that the explicitly chirally symmetric propagator, $`\frac{1V}{1+V}`$, can be used as the propagator associated with the monomials of the fields that multiply $`e^S`$, but in other places where the propagator appears (loops), one needs to use the more subtly chirally symmetric propagator, $`D_o^1=\frac{2}{1+V}`$. This dichotomy is well understood and leads to no inconsistencies Intext .

Any solution of the GW relation, if combined with $`\gamma _5`$ hermiticity, is of the form $`\frac{2}{1+V}`$, producing a propagator which anti-commutes with $`\gamma _5`$ of the form $`\frac{1V}{1+V}`$. $`V`$ is a unitary, $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian, matrix. Thus the overlap is, essentially, the general $`\gamma _5`$-hermitian solution to the GW relation. The overlap goes beyond the GW paper in providing a generic procedure to produce explicit acceptable matrices $`V`$ starting from explicit matrices of the same type as $`H_W`$.

When the GW relation was first presented, in 1982, the condition of $`\gamma _5`$-hermiticity was not mentioned. The solution was not written in terms of a unitary matrix $`V`$, and there was no explicit proposal for the dependence of the solution on the gauge fields. For these reasons, the paper fell into oblivion, until 1997, when $`D_o`$ was arrived at by a different route. With the benefit of hindsight we see now that it was a mistake not to pursue the GW approach further.

In 1982 neither the mathematical understanding of anomalies - specifically the need to find a natural $`U(1)`$ bundle replacing the chiral determinant - nor the paramount importance of the index of the the Weyl components were fully appreciated. Only after these developments became widely understood did it become possible to approach the problem of lattice chirality from a different angle and be more successful at solving it. The convergence with the original GW insight added a lot of credence to the solution and led to a large number of papers based on the GW relation.

Already in 1982 GW showed that if a solution to their relation were to be found, the slight violation of anti-commutativity with $`\gamma _5`$ that it entailed, indeed was harmless, and even allowed for the correct reproduction of the continuum triangle diagram, the key to calculating anomalies. Thus, there was enough evidence in 1982 that should have motivated people to search harder for a solution, but this did not happen. Rather, the prevailing opinion was that chirality could not be preserved on the lattice, and several “experts” made careers out of consolidating this view. In retrospect, something did go wrong in the field’s collective thought process, but parallel developments mentioned earlier eventually provided an alternative, a “second chance” to deal with the problem correctly. Luckily, despite much opposition, this second chance was not missed. After the discovery of $`D_o`$, fifteen years after the GW paper, a flood of new papers, developing the GW approach further, appeared. However, nothing truly new came out from this, because the overlap development already had produced all the new conceptual results. But, this renewed activity did provide enough of a social basis in the field to finally eradicate the misplaced “wisdom” of the intervening years.

### 1.6 Basic implementation

Numerically the problem is to evaluate $`ϵ(H_W)`$ on a vector, without storing it, basing oneself on the sparseness of $`H_W`$. This can be done because, possibly after deflation, the spectrum of $`H_W`$ has a gap around $`0`$, the point where the sign function is discontinuous. In addition, since $`H_W`$ is bounded we need to approximate the sign function well only in two disjoint segments, one on the positive real line and the other its mirror image on the negative side. A convenient form is the Higham representation, which introduces $`ϵ_n(x)`$ as an approximation to the sign function:

$$ϵ_n(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{tanh}[2n\mathrm{tanh}^1(x)]\hfill & \text{for }|x|<1\hfill \\ \mathrm{tanh}[2n\mathrm{tanh}^1(x^1)]\hfill & \text{for }|x|>1\hfill \\ x\hfill & \text{for }|x|=1\hfill \end{array}$$

Equivalently,

$$ϵ_n(x)=\frac{(1+x)^{2n}(1x)^{2n}}{(1+x)^{2n}(1x)^{2n}}=\frac{x}{n}\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{x^2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\pi }{2n}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi }{2n}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)}$$
(11)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}ϵ_n(x)=\mathrm{sign}(x)$$

$`ϵ_n(H_W)\psi `$ can be evaluated using a single Conjugate Gradient (CG) iteration with multiple shifts for all the pole terms labelled by $`s`$ above Implement . The cost in operations is that of a single CG together with an overhead that is linear in $`n`$ and eventually dominates. The cost in storage is of $`2n`$ large vectors. The pole representation can be further improved using exact formulae due to Zolotarev who, essentially, was able to solve the Remez problem analytically for this case. However, for so called quenched simulations, where one replaces $`detD_o`$ by unity in the functional integration, the best is to use a double pass doublepass  version introduced a few years ago but fully understood only recently twchiu . In the double pass version storage and number of operations become $`n`$-independent for large $`n`$, which, for double precision calculations means an $`n`$ larger than $`30`$ or so. Thus, the precise form of the pole approximation becomes irrelevant and storage requirements are modest. In “embarrassingly parallel” simulations this is the method of choice because it simultaneously attains maximal numerical accuracy and allows maximal exploitation of machine cycles.

When one goes beyond the $`detD_o=1`$ approximation, one needs to reconsider methods that employ order $`n`$ storage. A discussion of the relevant issues in this case would take us beyond the limits of this presentation; these issues will be covered by other speakers who are true experts.

## 2 Beyond Overlap/GW ?

The overlap merged with GW because both ideas exploited a single real extra coordinate. The starting point of the overlap construction however seems more general, since it would allow a mass matrix in infinite flavor space even if the latter were associated with two or more coordinates. Thus, one asks whether using two extra coordinates might lead to a structurally new construction ctm . While this might not be better in practice, it at least has the potential of producing something different, unattainable if one just sticks to the well understood GW track.

The function $`f(s)`$ from the overlap is replaced now by two functions $`f_1(s_1)`$ and $`f_2(s_2)`$ and the single differential operator $`_s+f(s)`$ by two such operators, $`d_\alpha =_\alpha +f_\alpha (s_\alpha )`$. Clearly, $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ commute. A mass matrix with the desired properties can be now constructed as follows:

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d_1& id_2^{}\\ id_2& d_1^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
The two dimensional plane spanned by $`s_\alpha `$ is split into four quadrants according to the pair of signs of $`f_\alpha `$ and, formally, the chiral determinant can be written as the trace of four Baxter Corner Transfer Matrices,

$$\mathrm{chiral}\mathrm{det}=Tr[K^𝐈K^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}}K^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}}K^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}}]$$
(13)
While this structure is intriguing, I have made no progress yet on understanding whether it provides a natural definition of a $`U(1)`$ bundle with the right properties. If it does, one could go over to the Dirac case, and an amusing geometrical picture seems to emerge. It is too early to tell whether this idea will lead anywhere or not.

## 3 Localization and Domain Wall Fermions

### 3.1 What are Domain Wall Fermions ?

Before the form of $`D_o`$ was derived we had a circular $`s`$ space with $`f(s)`$ changing sign at the opposite ends of a diameter. One of the semi-circles can be eliminated by taking $`|f(s)|`$ to infinity there, leaving us with a half circle that can be straightened into a segment with two approximate Weyl fields localized at its ends. This is known as the domain wall setup, the walls extending into the physical directions of space-time. Keeping the length of the segment finite but large one has approximate chiral symmetry and an operator $`D_{DW}`$ which acts on many Dirac fields, exactly one of them having a very small effective mass, and the rest having masses of order unity.

The chiral symmetry is only approximate because matrix elements of $`\frac{1}{D_{DW}^{}D_{DW}}`$ connecting entries associated with opposite ends of the segment, $`L`$ and $`R`$, do not vanish exactly. Using a spectral decomposition of $`D_{DW}^{}D_{DW}`$ we have:

$$L|\frac{1}{D_{DW}^{}D_{DW}}|R=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}\mathrm{\Psi }_n|R\mathrm{\Psi }_n|L^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n=1$$
(14)
Weyl states are localized at $`L`$ and $`R`$ and should not connect with each other. So long as the distance between $`R`$ and $`L`$ is infinite and $`H_W^2>\mu ^2`$ this is exactly proven to be the case. For a finite distance $`S`$, the correction goes as $`e^{\mu S}`$. Unfortunately, $`\mu `$ can be very small numerically and this would require impractically large values of $`S`$. Note that the worse situation occurs if one has simultaneously a realtively large wave-function contribution, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|R\mathrm{\Psi }_n|L|`$, and a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. Unfortunately, this worse case seems to come up in practice.

### 3.2 The main practical problem

As already mentioned, for the purpose of keeping track of $`detD_o`$, one may want to keep in the simulation the dependence on the coordinate $`s`$, or, what amounts to a logical equivalent, the $`n`$ fields corresponding to the pole terms in the sign function truncation. This is the main reason to invest resources in domain wall simulations. In my opinion, if one works in the approximation where $`detD_o=1`$ it does not pay to deal with domain wall fermions because it is difficult to safely assess the magnitude of chirality violating effects in different observables.

The main problem faced by practical domain wall simulations is that in the range of interest for strong interaction (QCD) phenomenology $`H_W`$, the kernel of the overlap, has eigenstates with very small eigenvalues in absolute value. It turns out that these states are strongly localized in space-time. However, because of approximate translational invariance in $`s`$ they hybridize into delocalized bands into the extra dimension. As such, they provide channels by which the Weyl modes at the two locations $`L`$ and $`R`$, where the combined $`f(s)`$ vanishes, communicate with each other, spoiling the chiral symmetry. To boot, these states have small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. The one way known to eliminate this phenomenon is to take the separation between the Weyl modes to infinity. This leads to the overlap where the problem becomes only of a numerical nature and is manageable by appropriately deflating $`H_W`$ to avoid the states for which the reconstruction of the sign function by iterative means is too expensive.

### 3.3 The new idea

The new idea is to exploit the well known fact that one dimensional random systems typically always localize. The standard approach uses a homogeneous $`s`$ coordinate; translations in $`s`$ would be a symmetry, except for the points at the boundary. Suppose we randomized to some degree the operators $`H_W`$ strung along the $`s`$-direction, randomly breaking $`s`$-translations also locally. This would evade hybridization, making localized states in the $`s`$ direction. Now the hope is that the right amount of disorder would affect only the states made out of the eigenstates of $`H_W`$ that are localized in the space-time direction because there states have small eigenvalues making the basis for the hybridized states decay slowly in the $`s`$ direction.

The problem boils down to invent the right kind, and discover the right amount, of randomness that would achieve the above. A simple idea is to randomize somewhat the parameter $`m`$ in $`H_W`$ as a function of $`s`$. A numerical test of this idea, with a small amount of randomness, has been carried out together with F. Berruto, T. W. Chiu and R. Narayanan. It turned out that the amount of randomness we used was too small to have any sizable effect. The test did show however that if the randomness is very small nothing is lost, so we have something we can smoothly modify away from. However the computational resources needed for a more thorough experiment are beyond our means, so the matter is left unresolved.

## 4 Final words

Much progress has been attained on the problem of lattice chirality, both conceptually and in practical implementations. The old wisdom that symmetry is king in field theory has been again proven. However, there is room for further progress and new ideas can still lead to large payoffs; keep your eyes open !

## 5 Acknowledgments

Many thanks are due to the organizers of the “Third International Workshop on QCD and Numerical Analysis” for an exciting conference. My research is supported in part by the DOE under grant number DE-FG02-01ER41165.


format: text

text:
# Supersymmetry and Identical Bands

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry has been successfully transferred from particle physics to nuclear physics by Franco Iachello and coworkersIa1 ; Ia2 ; Frank ; Ia3 ; Balen ; BiIa1 ; U6 ; Jol1 ; WaCa1 ; Ve ; VanIs1 . Various attempts to obtain an extended classification, in which several neighboring nuclei including even, odd and odd–odd ones are described by the same Hamiltonian, have led to convincing results e.g.JolMe2 . However, in nuclear structure theory primary attention has been paid to the investigation of models with Hamiltonians which exhibit dynamical supersymmetries. In a recent paperJol99  it has been shown, however, that the concepts of identical bandsByrski ; Nazarewicz ; Baktash  and pseudo-spin Arima ; Hecht  allows one to discuss (partial) supersymmetry also for cases in which the even partner nucleus has no dynamical symmetry. This has also been discussed in the consistent Q formalismconsQ1 ; consQ2 . The concept of “Identical Bands” (IB) was suggested by a Strasbourgh-Liverpool collaboration led by Byrski Byrski , who found an agreement to better than 0.3% in the gamma energies of two superdeformed (sd) bands in 151Tb and152Dy. The role of pseudo-spin in identical bands was subsequently clarified by Nazarewicz et al. Nazarewicz . An explanation based on the U(6/12) supersymmetry was given in the frame of the Interacting Boson Model by Gelberg et al. Gelberg B  and in the frame of supersymmetric quantum mechanics by Amado, Bijker et al. Amado . Although the importance of the discovery of the IB was widely recognized the data on the Dy-Tb pair are still incomplete due to experimental difficulties. The group at Argonne has recently settled the spins of the identical superdeformed band in 152Dy ANL  but the spins in 151Tb are still unknown. Also the 3/2, 7/2… signature partner band in 151Tb is still missing. This shows that one has to rely on the spectroscopy of “Identical Bands” at normal deformation, where spins and parities are all known. In this case the moments of inertia of the even and odd nucleus system tend to differ by 10% or more as compared to 0.3% in the SD case. A survey is given by Baktash et al.Baktash . We show in Fig. 1 a convincing example of the identical bands in 174Hf and 173Hf Jol99 .

In the following I will review the Koeln-Dubna workJol96 ; Jol99 ; Jol01 ; Klug  which focused on the supersymmetry connected with identical bands. In order to avoid equations or technical discussions a simple schematic model for supersymmetry will be discussed. This is done on the basis of the U(6/12) supersymmetry Ia1 ; U6 which has a very transparent microscopic foundation. In U(6/12) respectively in U(15/30)Ia1 ; U6  there are three (five) contributing shells in the odd nucleus and which have the spins 1/2, 3/2 and 5/2 (or 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2 and 9/2)

## II Pseudo-spin

In discussing the U(6/12) SUSY and the schematic model pseudo-spin plays an important role. Thus I make a few comments on pseudo-spin symmetry. This approximate symmetry is long known Arima ; Hecht . Recently it was shown, that pseudo-spin symmetry is actually based on a relativistic symmetryGinoPS . We remind briefly the pseudo-spin scheme: In Fig. 2 the s.p. neutron states around 208Pb are shown. In the pseudo-spin scheme the 3p1/2, 2f5/2 and 3p3/2 levels are relabeled with the pseudo-spin quantum numbers 2 $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ 1/2 , 2 $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ 5/2 , 2 $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ 3/2 . Whereas the angular momenta of the particle are l = 1 or l = 3 respectively, the pseudo angular momenta are $`\stackrel{~}{l}=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{l}=2`$ . For simplicity it is assumed in the following that the pseudo-spin of the last odd particle is fully decoupled in energy. In this case to each state with spin $`I_e`$ of the even nucleus there belongs a multiplet of states in the odd partner nucleus with the same excitation energy and with spins :

$$I_{odd}^+=I_e+1/2\&I_{odd}^{}=|I_e1/2|$$

respectively. In particular there is a doublet of states for $`I_e0`$ and a singlet for $`I_e=0`$. An example of nearly decoupled pseudo-spin multiplets is found in very nice data by Jolie and Graw195Pt . They measured a set of states which is presumably complete below 1 MeV. After this they were able to assign the observed levels to pseudo-spin multiplets. Indeed - as shown in Fig. 3 - each level in 195Pt ( below 0.8 MeV) comes either as a doublet or as a singlet if $`I_e`$ = 1/2. This is to -my knowledge -

the only case in which pseudo-spin multiplets in the odd nucleus are seen so clearly. So more data are needed. It is a beautiful prediction from the dynamical U(6/12) supersymmetry and from the pseudo-spin concept.

## III Supersymmetry with identical bands : A schematic model.

I will now discuss a schematic model for supersymmetry (SUSY) with identical bands in the frame of U(6/12). The odd particle is in shells with spins 1/2, 3/2 and 5/2 only. The pseudo angular momenta $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ of the odd particle have integer values and can be considered as bosonic excitations. They have the values $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ = 0 and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ = 2 corresponding to the spins L = 0 and L = 2 of the s and d bosons. Thus it is “natural” following T. Otsuka Otsuka  to describe the particles with pseudo angular momenta $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ = 0 and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ =2 by ( pseudo angular momentum ) quasi bosons with the spins $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ =0 : $`s^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$=2 : $`d^f`$. Thus there are three kinds of bosons : neutron bosons $`b^n`$ , proton bosons $`b^p`$, and quasi bosons $`b^f`$

The schematic model assumes :

* Equal energies $`\epsilon _d^n=\epsilon _d^p=\epsilon _d^f`$ of the three kinds of bosons : $`b^n`$ , $`b^p`$, $`b^f`$
* Equal interactions $`V_{ik}`$ among the three kinds of bosons $`b^n`$ , $`b^p`$, $`b^f`$ .
* Fully decoupled pseudo-spin.

These assumptions imply identical bands in the following three bosonic systems : $`K_0`$, $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ defined in Fig. 3 and which have the same total boson numbers $`N_B`$ : but with different numbers of bosons of the three kinds : $`b^n`$ , $`b^p`$, $`b^f`$.

In particular one finds :

* to every state in $`K_0`$ there corresponds a state in $`K_1`$ with the same energy. $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are members of an F spin multiplet. They have good F-spin.
* to every state in $`K_1`$ there corresponds a state in $`K_2`$ with the same energy and vice versa
* to every state in $`K_2`$ there corresponds a pseudo-spin multiplet in $`K_3`$ with the same energy

In summary in the schematic model to each pseudo-spin multiplet of the odd system there belongs a unique state of the corresponding even system with the same energy. This is a somewhat surprising result. It means that there are as many states in the even “nucleus” $`K_1`$ as there are pseudo-spin multiplets in the “odd nucleus” $`K_3`$. One might think that the odd nucleus has many more states. One must remember, however, that also the “mixed symmetry” states in the “even nucleus” have to be considered.

## IV Comparison of schematic model to data

Below the following predictions A)… D) of the schematic model are compared to data:

* A) to each level below about 0.8 MeV in 194Pt there is a multiplet in 195Pt with similar energy. We note that not only the yrast band but e.g. also the gamma band has a SUSY partner. (see Fig. 4 195Pt ) We note that the energies of the centroids of the doublets differ somewhat from the energy of the corresponding level in 194Pt. Also there is some splitting in the doublets. Thus the schematic model is broken somewhat
* B) There are low lying multiplets in 195Pt which do not correspond to low lying states in194Pt, however. In the schematic model they might correspond to high lying mixed symmetry states BrGe . An example is the (199 keV and 224 keV) doublet, which has a core state with Iπ = 1+.

* C) in the rare earth region there are identical bands with a vanishing projection $`\stackrel{~}{L_3}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ of the pseudo angular momentum on the symmetry axis. The $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ band qualifies as super symmetrical partner band of the K = 0 ground band of the even partner nucleus. These were the bands considered in Jol99 ; Jol01 ; Klug  . Examples are identical bands in171,172Yb (Fig. 5) , 173,174Hf ( Fig. 1 ) and in 181,2Pt Jol01 . These are convincing SUSY partner bands.
* D ) the bands in 171,172Yb , in 173,174Hf and in 181,1822Pt which have a non vanishing pseudo angular projection $`\stackrel{~}{L_3}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$ have a pseudo-spin partner band which is separated in energy by a few hundred keV or more. Thus pseudo-spin is not decoupled for these bands. And the schematic model breaks down for these bands .

We note that A) and C) show that there are identical bands and spectra. B) indicates that there are levels in these nuclei which have no partners with the same energies. Thus the schematic SUSY survives only for a part of the levels as a partial symmetryAlhassid ; Leviatan1 . We note, however, that these extra states are reproduced in the dynamical U(6/12) SUSY as this uses a different ( more correct) interaction. Part of the reason for the failure is certainly that pseudo-spin is not fully decoupled i.e. the excitation energies in the pseudo-spin doublets are not equal. In 207Pb one finds : $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (2f5/2 - 3p3/2) = 329keV. However the pseudo-spin splitting is still much smaller than the spin orbit splitting : $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (2f5/2 - 3p3/2) $``$ 0.36 * $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (3p1/2 -3 p3/2)). An interesting point concerns the apparent validity of pseudo-spin in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ bands in 171,172Yb , 173,174Hf and 181,182Pt (see C) and the fact that pseudo-spin is not decoupled for the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$ .The reason may be that the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ state has no pseudo-spin partner, as is shown e.g. in Fig. 2 for the 3 p 1/2 state, whereas for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$ there are two pseudo-spin partner levels e.g. the 2f5/2 and 3p3/2 levels , which can interact. The small decoupling in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ bands is also interesting and deserves a closer study.

## V Supersymmetry of identical bands in 171,172Yb supported by lifetime data

There are 5 requirements for an K = 0 and an odd rotational band in neighbor nuclei to be super partners of an unbroken partial supersymmetry:

1) identity of the moments of inertia,

2a) decoupling of the pseudo-spin.(close doublets in the odd nucleus),

2b) alternatively a special value a=1 of the decoupling parameter in the rotational energy formula of the $`K=1/2`$ band,

3) an even pseudo angular momentum of the particle,

4) identity of the quadrupole transition moments, and

5) $`K=1/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$=0 in the odd band.

Some people like to remember these 5 conditions and these special values of special parameters. Others like to say there is a SUSY, that implies all.

At this point it might be appropriate to avoid a possible misunderstanding, namely that the $`K=1/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$=0 bands e.g, in 171Yb could be obtained by a weak coupling of the spin of the core state I of 172Yb to the pseudo-spin.

$$J=\text{I}\stackrel{~}{s}$$

This is not true at all. Rather one couples the spins I of several core states strongly to the pseudo angular momentum $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ of the particle and after this the pseudo-spin is weakly coupled.

$$J=\mathrm{\Sigma }(I,\stackrel{~}{l})[(I\stackrel{~}{l})\stackrel{~}{s}]$$

Thus neither $`I`$ nor $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ are not even approximately good quantum numbers. And although the 171,172Yb pair looks like a weak coupling situation, it is actually a quite complicated coupling scheme: strong for $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ and weak for $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ Jol01 .

Thus it is important to test the SUSY in more detail by establishing the identity of the quadrupole transitions. The pair 171,172Yb is the only case in which one do Coulomb Excitation on both

for both SUSY partners. The energies are shown in Fig. 5 agree with the SUSY. For these reasons Klug, Dewald et al. measured precision lifetimes by the recoil distance method following Coulomb excitation experiments using an Euroball Cluster detector at the FN-Tandem accelerator in Koeln Klug . From these data and previous data on branching and mixing ratios from Canberra, the ratios of the transition quadrupole moments for corresponding E2 transitions in 171Yb and 172Yb were obtained , which are given in the Table 1.

One notes that the values of the transition quadrupole moment $`Q_t`$ for 171Yb and 172Yb are in equal within an error of a few percentKlug . This is one of the most accurate experimental comparisons of transition quadrupole moments for supersymmetry partner bands. This striking agreement supports strongly the proposed supersymmetry for 171Yb and 172Yb. Indeed all 5 of the requirements for a supersymmetry are fulfilled for the171Yb and 172Yb pair. On the contrary in the 171Tm and 172Yb pair only three conditions are fulfilled, whereas the conditions 3) and 5): an even pseudo angular momentum of the particle are violated. And indeed there is no supersymmetry in this case.

Summing up convincing examples of (partial) SUSY for energies and B(E2) values in identical bands are shown. An intuitive understanding of the U(6/12) SUSY in the frame of the pseudo-spin concept and the schematic model have been given. Limitations of supersymmetry and pseudo-spin symmetry restricting the SUSY to a partial SUSY have been discussed.

###### Acknowledgements.

My particular thanks go to Franco Iachello, for his constant inspiration to Koeln work since many years. Thanks go also to A. Dewald, A. Gelberg , J. Jolie, R. V. Jolos and T. Otsuka for joint works published and in progress on supersymmetry which were used in this talk. Thanks for many discussions to R. F. Casten, F. Iachello, P. van Isacker and N. Pietralla. This work was partially supported by the DFG under the contract Br 799/10-2.


text:
# Hall effect in cobalt-doped TiO2-δ

## Abstract

We report Hall effect measurements on thin films of cobalt-doped TiO2-δ. Films with low carrier concentrations (1018 \- 1019) yield a linear behavior in the Hall data while those having higher carrier concentrations (1021 \- 1022) display anomalous behavior near zero field. In the entire range of carrier concentration, n-type conduction is observed. The appearance of the anomalous behavior is accompanied by a possible structural change from rutile TiO2 to TinO2n-1 Magnéli phase(s).

In the field of spintronics, one of the major foci is the attempt to inject spin-polarized current into existing semiconductor technology, ultimately at room temperature (RT). A possible method is the use of magnetic semiconductors, unfortunately the Curie temperatures (Tc) of these materials are significantly lower than RT, resulting in little practical relevance. Another possibility is to take existing semiconductor materials and dope them with magnetic impurities, called diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS). The idea is to retain the parent compound’s semiconducting properties while adding ferromagnetism to the system. Ga1-xMnxAs, the most extensively studied DMS, exhibits Tcs as high as 160K,Chiba  which, while higher than most, is still too low for practical purposes.

Recently, oxide DMS systems have shown ferromagnetism above RT. One promising oxide is Ti1-xMxO2 (M = magnetic dopant).Matsumoto  However, evidence shows that in the anatase Co:TiO2-δ system, clustering of cobalt atoms occurs above a certain doping level ( 2-3%), and it is believed that the observed high temperature ferromagnetism in such samples is manifested in these clusters.Chambers ; Shinde ; Kim  Under specific growth and annealing conditions, samples without any obvious clusters have also been shown to exhibit ferromagnetism with a Tc close to 700K. However, whether the ferromagnetism in this system is carrier-induced or extrinsic still remains an unresolved issue. In this context, studies of the Hall effect, Optical Magnetic Circular Dichroism (O-MCD), and electric field effect measurements have been suggested to be the clarifying experimental windows. In this work, we report our observations on the Hall effect in the Co:TiO2-δ system. While our work was in progress, two groups reported on electronic transport properties in oxide DMS systems. Toyosaki *et al.* Toyosaki  reported an anomalous Hall effect in rutile Co:TiO2-δ, and Wang *et al.* Wang  found similar effects in rutile Fe:TiO2-δ. These results are suggested to imply that the observed ferromagnetism influences the electronic transport in this material.

We grew thin films of anatase and rutile Ti1-xCoxO2-δ (x=0, 0.02) via pulsed laser deposition. The low cobalt concentration was chosen such that cobalt clusters would be less likely to occur. We used stoichiometric ceramic targets and deposited films through a Hall bar shadow mask onto LaAlO3 substrates (for anatase films) and R-Al2O3 (1$`\overline{1}`$02) substrates (for rutile films). The substrate heater temperature was 700 oC and the laser energy density was 1.8 $`\frac{J}{cm^2}`$ at 3 Hz. Magnetization measurements were made using a Quantum Design SQUID magnetometer and transport measurements were made using a Quantum Design Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS).

Initially, we studied anatase Co:TiO2-δ films. In order to obtain the anatase structure, we grew films on LaAlO3 in an oxygen environment of 10-4 to 10-8 Torr. At higher pressures (PO2$``$10-6Torr), the films grew in (001) anatase form and showed RT ferromagnetic behavior.Shinde  However, in Hall measurements, we did not observe an anomalous Hall effect (AHE). At lower pressures, the anatase structure was compromised and gave x-ray diffraction (XRD) scans different from the (001) anatase films. From the peak positions, it appeared to us that the film was rutile TiO2. Hall measurements on this film exhibited a small, non-linear behavior near zero field (not shown). These results prompted further investigation into highly oxygen deficient rutile films.

We used two approaches to increase oxygen vacancies in rutile Co:TiO2-δ, as the conduction electrons originate from these vacancies. Sample 1 was grown in vacuum with a base pressure of 2x10-8 Torr. Sample 2 was deposited using a 5% Hydrogen-Argon mixture at 1 mTorr of pressure. X-ray diffraction (XRD), in Fig. 1, shows that sample 1 grew in the rutile (101) structure.Wang ; XRD  Sample 2 showed similar XRD patterns.

Both films display a relatively high conductivity ($`\rho _{300K}`$ = 2.53m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm and 13.4m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm for sample 1 and sample 2, respectively), shown in Fig. 2. As the temperature decreases, the resistivity of sample 2 increases in an activated manner whereas sample 1 shows an elbow near 140K. Similar behavior was observed by Toyosaki *et al.* Toyosaki  and Wang *et al.* Wang  for their films in which an AHE was observed. The resistivity of sample 1 is not an expected result due to the elbow, whereas sample 2 displays a temperature dependence similar to bulk TiO2-δ. The temperature behavior of sample 1, however, matches more closely with the Magnéli phase of this material (TinO2n-1). Ueda  This different phase of Ti-O orders in the rutile structure of TiO2-δ, so XRD scans may not be able to differentiate between the Magnéli phases and the rutile TiO2 phase. We also grew an undoped film in the same manner as sample 1. This resistivity of this sample has a temperature dependence similar to sample 1. Therefore, the temperature behavior of the resistivity of our TiO2-δ films is influenced by the oxygen deficiency rather than the magnetic dopant (cobalt).

The Hall effect arises from the Lorentz force deflecting charges moving in a perpendicularly oriented magnetic field. This establishes an electric field transverse to the current. Typically this effect is linear in field. However, in magnetic materials, the magnetic moment associated with the atoms gives rise to an additive term in the Hall equation, Hurd ; Chien

$$\rho _{xy}=\frac{E_y}{J_x}=R_0B+R_A\mu _0M_S,$$
(1)
where $`\rho _{xy}`$ is the Hall resistivity, Ey is the electric field perpendicular to the current and magnetic field, Jx is the current density, R0 is the ordinary Hall coefficient, RA is the anomalous Hall coefficient, $`\mu _0`$ is the permeability of free space, and MS is the field-dependent spontaneous magnetization of the material. This anomalous Hall term is conventionally attributed to asymmetric scattering processes involving a spin-orbit interaction between the conduction electrons and the magnetic moments in the material. At low magnetic fields, the behavior of $`\rho _{xy}`$ is dominated by the field dependence of MS. Once the material’s magnetization is saturated, the $`\rho _{xy}`$ field dependence is linear and due to the ordinary Hall effect. In many materials, RA shows a strong temperature dependence, which usually correlates with the electrical resistivity.

The field dependence of $`\rho _{xy}`$ for sample 1 is shown in Fig. 3, measured at 300K and 200K. The data were obtained by a simple subtraction in order to eliminate any magnetic field effects which are an even function of field, i.e. magnetoresistance (MR) ($`\rho _{xy}`$=$`\frac{1}{2}`$\[$`\rho _{xy}`$(H+)-$`\rho _{xy}`$(H-)\]). The inset shows the data before MR subtraction. These data show a sharp increase in $`\rho _{xy}`$ at low fields and a linear behavior at higher fields, as expected for ferromagnetic materials. The magnetic hysteresis loop for sample 1, measured with the field perpendicular to the film plane, is shown in Fig. 4(a). For comparison, the Hall data is expanded and replotted in Fig. 4(b). The field at which the magnetization saturates ($``$0.1 T) coincides well with the low field behavior of the Hall data. Therefore, the rapid increase in $`\rho _{xy}`$ at low field can be interpreted as an AHE. It is important to note that the negative slope of the high field Hall data indicates n-type carriers. This is in contrast with earlier reports, Toyosaki ; Wang  but is expected for TiO2-δ. The negative slope at high fields gives an effective carrier concentration of 3.3$`\pm `$0.2x1022/cm3 at 300K and 3.56$`\pm `$0.02x1022/cm3 at 200K. The Hall data for sample 2 is shown in Fig. 5. The inset shows the data after MR subtraction. A small but noticeable effect can be seen around zero field. However, if we subtract the ordinary Hall component from the data (determined from high fields), a clear effect can be seen near the origin (Fig. 6). As in sample 1, sample 2 displays n-type behavior. The effective carrier concentration is 8.0$`\pm `$0.1x1021/cm3 at 300K and 1.837$`\pm `$0.005x1021/cm3 at 200K.

The rather large carrier concentration observed in these highly reduced samples raises some questions. It is known that oxygen vacancies contribute shallow donor states in TiO2-δ. A pure rutile film of TiO2-δ, grown by the same method as sample 1, gave a carrier concentration of 3.09$`\pm `$0.02x1022/cm3 at RT, consistent with the cobalt-doped samples. This observed carrier density would then suggest the presence of approximately one oxygen vacancy for every unit cell ($`\delta `$$``$0.5). This large carrier density, along with the resistivity behavior, suggests that Magnéli phases are present in films made using our growth conditions.

Our Hall measurements give clear evidence for an AHE in the heavily oxygen reduced samples. Is this effect intrinsic to the material, or is it a result of cobalt nanoclusters? First, the low field data changes behavior at nearly the same point that the magnetization of the sample saturates. The magnetic saturation in our films occurs at a field that is significantly lower than that for cobalt metal films (H$`1.52T`$). Second, since the resistivities of each sample remain nearly the same for the two temperatures measured, we expect the AHE to remain relatively constant (in magnitude) for each sample, as is suggested by our measurements. While it is tempting to argue that the encouraging observation of the AHE in the cobalt doped TiO2-δ system *clearly* testifies to its carrier-induced or intrinsic ferromagnetic character, other material-related possibilities cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Specifically, the question of cobalt clustering still lingers in view of the absence of a clear theoretical negation of the occurrence of the AHE for such cases. The structural and chemical microstructures formed in samples prepared under highly reduced conditions could be quite complex, especially in view of the known occurrence of Magnéli phases in the oxygen-reduced Ti-O system. Indeed, our preliminary Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) observations on highly reduced samples show the presence of some $``$10nm clusters at the interface. Kim *et al.* Kim  have also observed cobalt nanoclusters in their anatase Co:TiO2-δ films when the samples are grown in a low pressure oxygen environment ( 10-7 Torr). We propose to perform detailed studies on our samples to examine the relative proportion of dissolved and clustered cobalt to determine how the AHE could be interpreted in these terms.

In summation, we have investigated electronic transport measurements in the Ti0.98Co0.02O2-δ DMS system. All films displayed n-type behavior and an increase in carrier concentration with an increase in oxygen vacancies, which are expected behaviors in the parent compound TiO2-δ. We have found that, among several films grown at different oxygen pressures and on different substrates, only the rutile films exhibited an AHE when grown at low enough oxygen pressures. In spite of the observation of an AHE, it may be premature to conclude that ferromagnetism in Co:TiO2-δ is intrinsic.

Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank V. N. Kulkarni and H. Zheng for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by NSF under MRSEC Grant No. DMR-00-80008, and DARPA Spin-S ($`\mathrm{}`$N000140210962) programs.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The present report covers a few of the open questions which are related to the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac Correlations (BEC and FDC) of hadrons in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. The topic which are dealt here include the dependence of the hadron emitter dimension on the $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ and on the mass of the hadron; the interpretation of the 2-dimensional BEC analysis results obtained in annihilations as compared to those found in heavy ion collisions and finally the status of the so called Generalised BEC. The issue whether one may relate some features of the BEC at high energies with those present in Bose condensates is also briefly discussed.

## 2 Dependence of the dimension $`r`$ on the $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$

As is well known the Bose-Einstein interferometry method rest on the fact that the density of identical boson pairs is enhanced when they are emitted near in momentum and phase space. Assuming the emitter to be a sphere of a Gaussian distribution, the correlation of pairs of identical bosons can be parametrised by $`C_2(Q)=1+\lambda _2e^{r^2Q^2}`$ where $`Q^2=(p_1p_2)^2`$ and $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the four momenta of the two bosons. An early compilation of the $`r_{\pi \pi }`$ values measured in heavy nuclei (AA) reactions is seen in Fig. 1 to be rather well described by $`r=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm, the known nucleus radius dependence on the atomic number A. This behaviour is taken to be the result of the increase of pion sources as A gets larger. As for the $`r_{\pi \pi }`$ values obtained from the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation analyses, they are seen in Fig. 1 to be essentially independent of $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ as it is generally accepted that the small deviations from a constant value are due to the non-uniformity of the chosen experimental procedures. Since e.g. the average hadron multiplicity increases with energy this flat $`r`$ distribution poses a theoretical challenge.

In an effort to understand the origin of this flat $`r`$ distribution we adopt here, for the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations, the hadron jets as the pion sources and further assume that only pion pairs emerging from the same jet may be correlated. Now the effect of multi-hadron sources on particles’ correlation strength has been studied by several authors  in the frame work of the factorial cumulants moments $`K_q`$ where $`q=2`$ in the case of pion-pair correlations. Specifically, it has been shown that the cumulant is diluted by a factor $`D_q`$, so that $`K_q^D=D_qK_q^{D=1}`$ where $`D_q`$ is defined as $`D_q=N_q^{same}/(N_q^{same}+N_q^{different})`$. Here $`N_q^{same}`$ and $`N_q^{different}`$ denote respectively the number of $`q`$ pions combinations coming from the same and from different hadron jets. Now for $`q=2`$ there exists the relation $`C_2(Q)=1+\lambda _2e^{Q^2r^2}=1+K_2`$ which can further be extended to include the dilution factor $`D(=D_2)`$ so that

$$C_2^D(Q)=1+K_2^D=1+DK_2^{D=1}=1+\lambda _DDe^{Q^2r_{D=1}^2}=1+\lambda _De^{Q^2r_D^2}.$$

The dependence of $`Q`$ in this expression is then removed by integrating the quantity $`C_2(Q)1`$ over $`Q`$ from zero to infinity to finally obtain

$$r_D=\frac{1}{D}\frac{\lambda _D}{\lambda _{D=1}}r_{D=1}.$$

To apply this formula to the $`e^+e^{}hadrons`$ reaction there is the need to evaluate the dilution factor $`D`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$. As is well known the determination of the number of hadron jets in a particle reaction does depend on the chosen jet identification method . Here for simplicity we will assume that the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation proceeds via three hadron jets, two coming from the quark and anti-quark pair and the third from a radiated gluon222Even at the Z0 the fraction of events with more than three hadron jets is very small if one uses e.g. $`y_{cut}>0.01`$ in the Durham jet identification scheme .. The total $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ is then divided in the following way. The first quark jet gets on the average the energy $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}/2`$ and thus the second quark jet has the energy of $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}/2E_{gluon}`$. The final number of outgoing charged pions assigned to each of the three jets is determined from the known total average charged hadron multiplicity dependence on $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ and the known average charged multiplicity of quarks and gluon jets parametrised as a function of their jet energy . From this pion division the dilution factor $`D_2`$ is estimated and the resulting $`r`$ dependence on $`\sqrt{s_{ee}}`$ is shown in Fig. 1 by the continuous line which is normalised at 40 GeV while setting $`\lambda _D=\lambda _{D=1}`$. As seen, the $`r`$ behaviour extracted from this simplified model, which rises by only $``$3.5$`\%`$ from 10 to 90 GeV CM energy, already describes nicely experimental situation.

## 3  The $`r`$ dependence on the hadron mass

The very high statistics of the Z0 hadronic decay events accumulated by the LEP experiments and the extension of the BEC analysis to baryon pairs via the FDC method opened the way to study the emitter dimension $`r_{\pi \pi }`$ as a function of the hadron mass, from pions to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ baryons. The results of these analyses are shown in Fig. 2 together with two recent, L3 and OPAL, measured $`r_{\pi ^0\pi ^0}`$ values which are seen to be inconsistent and therefore are presently disregarded. The emitter dimension $`r(m)`$ is seen to decrease with the hadron mass, from $``$0.75 fm at $`m_\pi `$ to $``$0.15 fm at $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It has further been shown  that this behaviour can be derived from the Heisenberg uncertainty relations which yield

$$r(m)=c\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}}/\sqrt{m}.$$
(1)
Choosing $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=10^{24}`$ second, as a representative time scale of the the strong interaction sector, $`r(m)`$ is shown in Fig. 2 by the continuous line. An almost identical expectation for $`r(m)`$ is also forthcoming from the Local Parton Hadron Duality and a general QCD potential . On the other hand, the decrease of $`r`$ with the hadron mass poses a challenge to a large variety of hadronisation models, including the Lund one, which expect $`r`$ to increase with the hadron mass. In particular at present, there is no satisfactory explanation for the very small $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ value.

In heavy ion collisions part of the emitter survives after the emission of the identical bosons used in the BEC analysis. This is not the case in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation where he emitter collapses with the emission of its hadrons used for the BEC analysis. Consequently one may try and estimate an approximate minimum energy density of the emitter of the two hadrons by the relation $`E_{density}=2m_h/V=6m_h/(4\pi r^3)`$ which is shown in Fig. 2. Whereas the energy density for the pion and kaon emitters still lies within a reasonable range, the energy densities of the protons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s emitters are lying in the vicinity of 100 GeV/fm3, way above the values anticipated from the current models for hadron production.

## 4 The 2-dimensional BEC analyses

In recent years the correlations of pions emerging from heavy ion collisions and from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations have been analysed in terms of the 2-dimensional BEC analysis. This analysis is carried out in the Longitudinal Centre of Mass System, the description of which can be found e.g. in Ref. . In this system the direction of the event thrust is referred to as the longitudinal direction and the two other directions are referred to as the outgoing and side axes. To these directions one associates three four momentum differences $`Q_z`$, $`Q_{out}`$ and $`Q_{side}`$ which in a 2-dimensional analysis are reduced to $`Q_z`$ and the transverse momentum difference $`Q_T=\sqrt{Q_{out}^2+Q_{side}^2}`$. In this method the emitter is not anymore restricted to a spherical configuration but can also assume the shape of an ellipsoid. Furthermore, one has an additional variable, the so called transverse mass $`m_T`$, defined as $`m_T=0.5\times (\sqrt{m^2+p_{T1}^2}+\sqrt{m^2+p_{T2}^2})`$ where the $`p_{Ti}`$ are the transverse momenta of the two hadrons. From a fit to the data one is able to determine the longitudinal $`r_L`$ and the transverse $`r_T`$ dimensions. The dependence of $`r_L`$ on $`m_T`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations, as measured by DELPHI at the Z0 mass, and for S+Pb collisions at 200 GeV/A as measured by the NA44 collaboration. First to note is that $`r_L(m_T)`$ coming from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations is very similar to $`r(m)`$ shown in Fig. 2 which was obtained from the 1-dimensional BEC analyses of the Z0 hadronic decay. Moreover it has indeed been shown  that, as in the case of $`r(m)`$, also $`r_L(m_T)`$ can be deduce from the Heisenberg uncertainty relations to yield

$$r_L(m_T)c\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}}/\sqrt{m_T}$$
(2)
which is the Eq. (1) expression where $`m`$ and $`r(m)`$ are substituted respectively by $`m_T`$ and $`r_L(m_T)`$. The dependence of $`r_L`$ on 1/$`\sqrt{m_T}`$ is repeated also in the heavy ion collisions with the difference that the proportionality factor is equal to 2.0 as compared to 0.354 found for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. To note is that the ratio 2.0/0.354 is not far from the ratio of the average radius of the S and Pb nuclei to the radius of $``$0.85 fm obtained from the 1-dimensional BEC of the hadronic Z0 decays.

At this point the obvious question arises as to what extend one is permitted to extract from the 2-dimensional BEC analyses information on the underlying dynamics of heavy ion collisions when $`r_L(m_T)`$ behaves essentially the same as the in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations which are void of nuclear matter.

## 5 Generalised Bose-Einstein Correlations (GBEC)

In analogue to the generalised Pauli principle, which extends that principle from two identical nucleons to the proton-neutron system, one may consider an inclusions of the isospin invariance to extend the BEC to a generalised BEC (GBEC). Such an extension has been proposed by several authors  with the aim to establish BEC relations between e.g. the $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm `$ and $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ systems. One relation of this kind, which was proposed by , states that

$$\underset{X}{}\sqrt{P[i_o(\pi ^\pm \pi ^\pm )X]}=\underset{X}{}\sqrt{P[i_o(\pi ^\pm \pi ^0)_{even\mathrm{}}X]}$$

Here $`P`$ stands for probability, $`i_0`$ stands for an I=0 initial state, like $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}b\overline{b}hadrons`$, and $`X`$ stands for the rest of the final state associated with the specified two pion system. The GBEC validity at high energy physics is still an open question due to the missing of an experimental verification.

## 6 Conclusions

The $`r(m)`$ behaviour should be investigated also in other than $`e^+e^{}`$ particles reactions and hopefully the GBEC applicability to hadron production will soon be tested experimentally. In trying to gain an insight into the $`r(m)`$ behaviour and the energy density of the hadron emitter it may be instructive to turn to other phenomena related to the Bose-Einstein statistics. One of them are the Bose condensates where it was shown  that at equal very low temperature their inter-atomic separations are proportional to 1/$`\sqrt{m_{atom}}`$ and not to their dimension. Moreover, in as much that the Heisenberg relations are applicable to condensates, as most of their atoms are in the energy ground state, the inter-atomic separation formula can be transformed to Eq. (1) so that a comparison with the BEC dimension is not unreasonable. This comparison coupled to the behaviour of $`r(m)`$ and the high emitter energy densities may point to the need to re-examine the interpretation given to the BEC derived dimension $`r`$.