text:
# Constraints on the Quasiparticle Density of States in High-𝑇_𝑐 Superconductors

## Abstract

In this Letter we present new tunneling data on YBa2Cu3O7 thin films by low temperature scanning tunneling spectroscopy. Unusual peak-dip-hump features, previously reported in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ, are also found in YBa2Cu3O7. To analyse these common signatures we propose a new heuristic model in which, in addition to the $`d`$-wave symmetry, the gap function is energy dependent. A simple expression for the quasiparticle density of states is derived, giving an excellent agreement with the experiment. The dynamics of the quasiparticle states and the energy scales involved in the superconducting transition are discussed.

Getting to the heart of the quasiparticle density of states (DOS) in cuprate superconductors is an active goal of current theoretical and experimental research. Indeed, in the case of conventional materials, the quasiparticle DOS in the superconducting state contains the key information on the pairing. For this reason various methods, such as angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES), tunneling (TS) and Raman spectroscopies, as well as optical conductivity, are extensively used to elucidate the pairing mechanism in cuprates. Among these, scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS), with its high spatial and energy resolution, emerges as the technique of choice.

Using such a local probe at low temperature, reproducible vacuum tunneling spectra have been obtained on many cuprates , in particular Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (BSCCO) and YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO). However, one still cannot interpret the experimental curves precisely. The shape of the DOS in BSCCO has a non-trivial dependence on doping , temperature  and magnetic field . The state density is characterized by its large value at the Fermi level, unusual quasiparticle peaks and dip-hump structures at higher energies (see Fig.1). While the $`T_c`$ vs doping curve is bell-shaped, the gap width decreases linearly, as the doping increases from underdoped to overdoped regimes, with no significant change in the DOS shape. The temperature dependence is also unconventional: The gap does not vanish at the critical temperature and a pseudogap persists at $`T>T_c`$ . Finally, a low temperature pseudogap remains when the superconducting order is destroyed, within the vortex core , or due to disorder . All these features are difficult to explain with a BCS-type theory.

In this Letter we report our new low-temperature STS data on YBCO thin films. We observe strongly pronounced peak-dip-hump structures and a significant state density at zero bias. With previous data on BSCCO, our observations suggest a common mechanism for these features, linked to the superconducting state in cuprates. In order to clarify this effect, we propose a new quasiparticle DOS based on an energy-dependent gap function. A particular form for this function is inferred from the data and has, in addition to $`d`$-wave symmetry, a single minimum at a characteristic energy near the gap value. Using such a simple approach, all features (wide quasiparticle peaks, dips, humps and zero-bias) in the spectra of both YBCO and BSCCO may be properly fitted with remarkably few parameters. This procedure then allows one to follow the quasiparticle states dynamics in the phase transition, including the pseudogap. Moreover, the scaling of the dip position with the gap value at different dopings  is a natural consequence of the approach.

It is now clear that, in a first approximation, the case of BSCCO is consistent with a $`d`$-wave gap function (inset (a) in Fig.1). However the dips and humps, observed beyond the gap in the quasiparticle DOS (Fig.1), cannot be simply explained within this approximation. These features, existing at low temperatures, disappear at $`T_c`$ , and thus should be related to the superconducting state. Using STS, Renner et al.  report on normal tip-superconductor (SIN) junctions, and find the dip to scale with the gap width for different doping levels, conserving its characteristic energy near $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This behaviour was confirmed in recent reports  where both superconductor-vacuum-superconductor (SIS) and SIN junctions with BSCCO were studied, and for a large range of carrier concentration. In the latter work, the dips were found at both negative and positive biases and at the energy near $`\pm 3\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for symmetric SIS junctions and at $`\pm 2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for SIN ones. Similar behaviour was observed in ARPES measurements .

The quasiparticle DOS in YBCO was found to be different. Compared to BSCCO, a higher density of states at the Fermi level (30-60% zero-bias value), a significant parabolic background and double peaks, were observed . However, no clear evidence for dip signatures were reported. We indeed observe spectra of this type in some locations of our thin films  (inset in Fig.2). However in most of the sample surface a second type of spectrum is found (Fig.2). The doubled peaks are absent there and a single broad peak is followed by strongly pronounced dips at both occupied and empty states. Another feature is an occasional anomaly at roughly +5 meV, similar to the resonant state observed in BSCCO and attributed to a point defect . Comparing experimental curves, the shapes of our spectra in YBCO  and BSCCO are quite similar. These data clearly show that the large peaks, the dip-hump features and the important zero-bias background, are three signatures of the superconducting state in cuprates, and are not just a peculiarity of BSCCO . None of these features are explained within a BCS-type weak coupling approach, even with some particular symmetry of the gap function. We now describe a new quasiparticle DOS, fitting in detail the tunneling spectra, and its consequences.

Consider a dispersion law of the general form: $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{ϵ_𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2},`$ where $`ϵ_𝐤`$ is the normal state spectrum. In the case of a mean-field superconductor, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ is either constant (strict BCS) or $`𝐤`$ dependent (BCS-type). In the latter case, of particular interest is the $`d`$-wave form: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )`$, $`\phi `$ being the angle in the a-b momentum plane. Then, in polar coordinates, the superconducting tunneling DOS, $`N_s(E)`$, is written in terms of a spectral density $`n_s(E,\phi )`$:

$$N_s(E)=_0^{2\pi }n_s(E,\phi )𝑑\phi .$$
(1)
Neglecting the angular dependence of the Fermi surface, the detailed conservation of states $`n_n(ϵ)dϵ=n_s(E,\phi )dE`$ leads to the expression:

$$n_s(E,\phi )=n_n(E_F)\frac{E}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi )^2}},$$
(2)
where $`n_n(ϵ)n_n(E_F)=N_n(E_F)/2\pi `$ is assumed for the normal DOS. Accounting for the anisotropy of the Fermi surface leads to the small correction: $`n_n(E_F,\phi )`$ . Finally, including some pair-breaking is equivalent to replacing $`EEi\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and then taking the real part. As is well known, $`n_s(E,\phi )`$ is singular at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi )`$ and, when integrated over $`\phi `$, gives the famous $`d`$-wave DOS widely used in the interpretation of the tunneling data. Having no other singularities, expressions of this general type cannot describe the experiment.

We go a step further by now assuming that the gap function depends on the quasiparticle states, while the dispersion law remains unchanged. A simple choice is of the form: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }(E_k,\phi )`$, i.e. which ignores any explicit momentum dependence. The detailed conservation of the number of states follows analogously, giving a new expression for the superconducting spectral density:

$$n_s(E,\phi )=\frac{1}{2\pi }N_n(E_F)\frac{E\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )}{E}}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )^2}}.$$
(3)
Upon integration (1), the first term of the DOS is conventional, while the second term has a new and direct dependence on the gap function. This result should not be confused with strong-coupling, where the second term in (3) is absent. In fact, this formula has been known for some time and was derived by J.R. Schrieffer . It does not apply to conventional superconductors, in which retardation effects are crucial, and was therefore dropped.

We now focus on aspects of the spectra which determine the precise form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )`$. Recent experimental  and theoretical  works have focused on the dip-hump features in BSCCO. However, we stress that the tunneling spectra of both BSCCO and YBCO are also characterized by unusually large quasiparticle peaks (much larger than the energy resolution of STS at $`T=4.2`$ K) and an important zero-bias background, as in Figs.1 and 2. These aspects are even more striking if one plots the difference between the experimental data and the $`d`$-wave fit (inset (a) in Fig.1). The shape and magnitude of this difference curve lead to three straightforward conclusions. First, the difference curve is local: It is non-zero only within the energy range of a few $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Beyond these energies, there are clearly no important accidents in the curves. Second, a simple analysis of this curve shows that the number of states found above the $`d`$-wave fit is nearly equal to the number of states found below it, as the corresponding areas are compared. Thus, the effect is a strong but local modification of the mean-field quasiparticle DOS. Third, the general shape of the difference curve, in which a local maximum at one energy evolves into a local minimum at a higher energy, indicates that they both may arise from the derivative of a single peak at a characteristic energy situated somewhere between.

The above arguments, together with the fact that the peak-dip-hump appears at the critical temperature, at which the pair condensate is formed, indicate that the mechanism responsible for these features in the DOS should be reflected in the pair function: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )`$. Analytically, we choose a Lorentzian centered at $`\pm |E_0|`$ and with the characteristic width $`2\delta _0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(2\phi )\left[1\frac{A_0\delta _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(E\pm E_0)^2+\delta _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right],$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the maximum value of the non-perturbed $`d`$-wave gap function and $`A_0`$ is the normalized amplitude (see inset in Fig.3). The use of (4) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E,\phi )`$ in (3) gives a new quasiparticle DOS having non-trivial characteristics (Fig. 3). This DOS has the usual ’$`d`$-wave’ singularity, but at a new energy: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$, defined by $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }(E,0)`$. In addition, two further extrema arise: a maximum rising near $`E_0\delta _0`$ and one minimum situated near $`E_0+\delta _0`$, both being due to the derivative term.

At this stage the problem is already reduced to only five free parameters: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`E_0`$, $`\delta _0`$, $`A_0`$ and the pair-breaking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The fit to the experimental spectra with these parameters gives an excellent agreement. Surprisingly, the best fits do not situate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ at the quasiparticle peak but at some higher energy. Furthermore, the $`E_0`$ values are found to be nearly equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for both BSCCO and YBCO spectra (solid lines in Fig.1 and Fig.2a respectively). For simplicity our calculated curves are taken to be symmetric with respect to zero energy, whereas the experimental spectra are clearly not. However, one can improve the quality of the fit considering $`\delta _0`$ and $`A_0`$ to be different for the occupied and empty states in (4) (an example is given in Fig.2b).

In order to see how far the condition $`E_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ holds in general, we a priori set the resonance energy $`E_0`$ equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in all other fits. In this way, with only four free parameters, we succeeded to fit almost all of our data. Consulting other reports , we find that our quasiparticle DOS should be widely applicable. The fits are not as good for the double peaked spectrum in YBCO, as in the inset in Fig.2. The expression (3) allows double singularities as shown in Fig.3d. However, they appear slightly smoother than in the TS curves. The possible reasons may be that the Lorentzian form (4) is too simple to reflect the orthorombicity of this cuprate, and its smaller anisotropy. These arguments seem plausible if one compares the tunneling data obtained in YBCO using STS  (double peaks) and those from planar junctions  (simple peaks). The role of structural or surface disorder cannot be excluded either, since in this work we observed the spectra of both types in the same thin film of YBCO.

The physical origin of the effect is thus a new coupling at the energy $`E\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ perturbing the quasiparticle spectrum in the superconducting state. In the non-superconducting state the interaction is either non-existant or inefficient and consequently $`A_0=0`$, and possibly $`\delta _0=0`$. The gap in the DOS is then $`2\mathrm{\Delta }2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (Fig.3a or Fig.3b). One may attribute this non-superconducting state to the pseudogap seen at low temperature . Indeed, from the latter papers, where the pseudogap and superconducting gap were measured at the same temperature (4.2 K), one finds the pseudogap to be slightly larger than the superconducting gap (inset (b) in Fig.1). The values we find for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ are indeed larger than the peak-to-peak gap value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ extracted from the spectra. They are consistent with the low temperature pseudogap energy scale. The existence of two ’gap’ scales ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ in our approach) is also suggested in , where Andreev reflection experiments showed the gap of 28 meV, whereas the $`d`$-wave fit of the c-axis tunneling data gave 19 meV for the gap in the same system.

In the superconducting state the interaction term becomes non-zero ($`A_0>0`$) and two signatures appear in the DOS: An additional peak rises near $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _0`$ and a dip near $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\delta _0`$. This dynamics comes from the derivative term in (3). Qualitatively the phenomenon corresponds to shifting states from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\delta _0`$, to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _0`$ inside the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (Fig.3, from (a) to (c) and from (b) to (d)). The main quasiparticle peak in the DOS results from the superposition of two peaks: one at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$ and another at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _0`$, and explains why the quasiparticle peaks appear so large when they are not well separated (Fig.1 and Fig.2). In this Letter we do not discuss the state dynamics in the phase transition to the pseudogap state at $`T=T_c`$. This involves the explicit temperature dependence of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ and $`\delta _0(T)`$, which are still controversial.

As is well known, in strong-coupling approaches to conventional superconductivity, the gap is energy dependent expressing the electron-phonon interaction. This perturbs the quasiparticle DOS at characteristic energies $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ph}\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and is a second order effect. On the contrary, our gap function is modified significantly near $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, leading to new singularities in the DOS to lowest order. In this sense they are an integral part of the superconductivity, the relevant parameters being the amplitude $`A_0`$ and the width $`2\delta _0`$ of the minimum in the gap function. The hump has no particular meaning in our model, being a consequence of the superposition of the dip with the slow decrease of the usual DOS tail.

In conclusion, we showed that the unusual peak-dip-hump features exist in both YBCO and BSCCO, being common peculiarities of the quasiparticle DOS in high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Experiments show that these signatures appear at $`TT_c`$ and are intimately related to the superconducting phase. We suggest that the large peaks and dips observed in the superconducting state arise together from the same interaction, strongly perturbing the usual mean-field DOS. This unknown interaction is accounted for by introducing the energy-dependent gap function, having a minimum at $`E_0`$. The numerical analysis of the data showed that $`E_0`$ corresponds to the maximum value of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for all tunneling spectra in both BSCCO and YBCO. The natural consequence of this is the dip-hump scaling with the gap peak-to-peak value reported in . Finally, the model suggests that the superconducting state differs from the ’normal’ one by the non vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E`$. These results put strong constraints on a possible theory of the superconductivity.

We are grateful to J. Siejka and Y. Lemaître for providing us the YBCO samples.


format: text

text:
# CPHT S758.0100 When Is It Possible to Use Perturbation Technique in Field Theory ?

## 1 Introduction

Given an interaction Lagrangian characterized by a dimensionless coupling constant $`g`$, one can usually guess whether perturbation theory can be used by comparing $`g^2/4\pi `$ with unity. If it is much less than unity, there is a good chance that the perturbation technique could be used. Effective Chiral Lagrangian gives on the other hand a power series expansion in momenta and hence the above rule cannot be applied. It is important to set up a set of rules to test whether perturbation theory could be used.

Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT)  is a well-defined perturbative procedure for the Effective Chiral Lagrangian allowing one to calculate systematically low energy phenomenon involving soft pions. It is now widely used to analyze low energy pion physics even in the presence of resonance as long as the energy region of interest is sufficiently far from the resonance. In this scheme, the unitarity relation is satisfied perturbatively order by order.

The standard procedure of testing ChPT calculation of the pion form factor , which claims to support the perturbative scheme, is shown here to be unsatisfactory. This is so because the calculable terms are extremely small, less than 1.5% of the uncalculable terms at an energy of 0.5 GeV or lower whereas the experimental errors are of the order 10-15%. This obvious fact escapes the attention of many due to the complexity of the calculations.

We show how this situation can be dealt with without asking for a new measurement of the pion form factor with a precision much better than 1.5%. This can be done using dispersion relation which establishes in a model independent way a relation between the real and imaginary part of the amplitude.

From these results, we set up a procedure to test whether it is possible to use the perturbation technique for a given lagrangian.

## 2 Dispersion Relation, Sum Rules and Unitarity

Because the vector pion form factor $`V(s)`$ is an analytic function with a cut from $`4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, the $`n^{th}`$ times subtracted dispersion relation for $`V(s)`$ reads:

$$V(s)=a_0+a_1s+\mathrm{}a_{n1}s^{n1}+\frac{s^n}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImV(z)dz}{z^n(zsiϵ)}$$
(1)
where $`n0`$ and, for our purpose, the series around the origin is considered. Because of the real analytic property of $`V(s)`$, it is real below $`4m_\pi ^2`$. By taking the real part of this equation, $`ReV(s)`$ is related to the principal part of the dispersion integral involving the $`ImV(s)`$ apart from the subtraction constants $`a_n`$.

The polynomial on the R.H.S. of Eq. (1) will be referred in the following as the subtraction constants and the last term on the R.H.S. as the dispersion integral (DI). The evaluation of DI as a funtion of $`s`$ will be done later. Notice that $`a_n=V^n(0)/n!`$ is the coefficient of the Taylor series expansion for $`V(s)`$, where $`V^n(0)`$ is the nth derivative of $`V(s)`$ evaluated at the origin. The condition for Eq. (1) to be valid was that, on the real positive s axis, the limit $`s^nV(s)0`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$. The coefficient $`a_{n+m}`$ of the Taylor’s series is given by:

$$a_{n+m}=\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImV(z)dz}{z^{(n+m+1)}}$$
(2)
where $`m0`$. The meaning of this equation is clear: under the above stated assumption, not only the coefficient $`a_n`$ can be calculated but all other coefficients $`a_{n+m}`$ can also be calculated. The larger the value of $`m`$, the more sensitive is the value of $`a_{n+m}`$ to the low energy values of $`ImV(s)`$. In theoretical work such as in ChPT approach, to be discussed later, the number of subtraction is such that to make the DI converges.

The elastic unitarity relation for the pion form factor is $`ImV(s)=V(s)e^{i\delta (s)}sin\delta (s)`$ where $`\delta (s)`$ is the elastic P-wave pion pion phase shifts. Below the inelastic threshold of $`16m_\pi ^2`$ where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass, $`V(s)`$ must have the phase of $`\delta (s)`$ . It is an experimental fact that below $`1.3GeV`$ the inelastic effect is very small, hence, to a good approximation, the phase of $`V(s)`$ is $`\delta `$ below this energy scale.

$$ImV(z)=V(z)\mathrm{sin}\delta (z)$$
(3)
and

$$ReV(z)=V(z)\mathrm{cos}\delta (z)$$
(4)
where $`\delta `$ is the strong elastic P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts. Because the real and imaginary parts are related by dispersion relation, it is important to know accurately $`ImV(z)`$ over a large energy region. Below 1.3 GeV, $`ImV(z)`$ can be determined accurately because the modulus of the vector form factor  and the corresponding P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts are well measured  except at very low energy.

It is possible to estimate the high energy contribution of the dispersion integral by fitting the asymptotic behavior of the form factor by the expression, $`V(s)=(0.25/s)ln(s/s_\rho )`$ where $`s_\rho `$ is the $`\rho `$ mass squared.

Using Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), $`ImV(z)`$ and $`ReV(s)`$ are determined directly from experimental data and are shown, respectively, in Fig.1 and Fig.2.

## 3 Analysis of the Experimental Data and Test of Dispersion Relation

In the following, for definiteness, one assumes $`s^1V(s)0`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$ on the cut, i.e. $`V(s)`$ does not grow as fast as a linear function of $`s`$. This assumption is a very mild one because theoretical models assume that the form factor vanishes at infinite energy as $`s^1`$. In this case, one can write a once subtracted dispersion relation for $`V(s)`$, i.e. one sets $`a_0=1`$ and $`n=1`$ in Eq. (1).

From this assumption on the asymptotic behavior of the form factor, the derivatives of the form factor at $`s=0`$ are given by Eq. (2) with n=1 and m=0. In particular one has:

$$<r_V^2>=\frac{6}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImV(z)dz}{z^2}$$
(5)
where the standard definition $`V(s)=1+\frac{1}{6}<r_V^2>s+cs^2+ds^3+\mathrm{}`$ is used. Eq.(5) is a sum rule relating the pion rms radius to the magnitude of the time like pion form factor and the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift measurements. Using these data, the derivatives of the form factor are evaluated at the origin:

$$<r_V^2>=0.45\pm 0.015fm^2;c=3.90\pm 0.20GeV^4;d=9.70\pm 0.70GeV^6$$
(6)
where the upper limit of the integration is taken to be $`1.7GeV^2`$. By fitting $`ImV(s)`$ by the above mentioned asymptotic expression, the contribution beyond this upper limit is completely negligible.

The only experimental data on the derivatives of the form factor at zero momentum transfer is the rms radius of the pion, $`r_V^2=0.439\pm .008fm^2`$ . This value is very much in agreement with that determined from the sum rules. In fact the sum rule for the rms radius gets overwhelmingly contribution from the $`\rho `$ resonance as can be seen from Fig.1. The success of the calculation of the r.m.s. radius is a first indication that causality is respected and also that the extrapolation procedures to low energy for the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts and for the modulus of the form factor are legitimate.

Dispersion relation for the pion form factor is now shown to be well verified by the data over a wide energy region. Using $`ImV(z)`$ as given by Eq. (3) together with the once subtracted dispersion relation, one can calculate the real part of the form factor $`ReV(s)`$ in the time-like region and also $`V(s)`$ in the space like region. Because the space-like behavior of the form factor is not sensitive to the calculation schemes, it will not be considered here. The result of this calculation is given in Fig.2. As it can be seen, dispersion relation results are well satisfied by the data.

## 4 Inadequacy of ChPT

The i-loop ChPT result can be put into the following form, similar to Eq. (1):

$$V^{pert(i)}(s)=1+a_1s+a_2s^2+\mathrm{}+a_is^i+D^{pert(i)}(s)$$
(7)
where $`i+1`$ subtraction constants are needed to make the last integral on the RHS of this equation converges and

$$DI^{pert(i)}(s)=\frac{s^{1+i}}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ImV^{pert(i)}(z)dz}{z^{1+i}(zsiϵ)}$$
(8)
with $`ImV^{pert(i)}(z)`$ calculated by the $`ith`$ loop perturbation scheme.

Similarly to these equations, the corresponding experimental vector form factor $`V^{exp(i)}(s)`$ and $`DI^{exp(i)}(s)`$ can be constructed using the same subtraction constants as in Eq. (7) but with the imaginary part replaced by $`ImV^{exp(i)}(s)`$, calculated using Eq. (3).

The one-loop ChPT calculation requires 2 subtraction constants. The first one is given by the Ward Identity, the second one is proportional to the r.m.s. radius of the pion.

In Fig. 1, the imaginary part of the one-loop ChPT calculation for the vector pion form factor is compared with the result of the imaginary part obtained from the experimental data. It is seen that they differ very much from each other. One expects therefore that the corresponding real parts calculated by dispersion relation should be quite different from each other.

In Fig.2 the full real part of the one loop amplitude is compared with that obtained from experiment. At very low energy one cannot distinguish the perturbative result from the experimental one due to the dominance of the subtraction constants. At an energy around $`0.56GeV`$ there is a definite difference between the perturbative result and the experimental data. This difference becomes much clearer in Fig. 3 where only the real part of the perturbative DI, $`ReDI^{pert(1)}(s)`$, is compared with the corresponding experimental quantity, $`ReDI^{exp(1)}(s)`$. It is seen that even at 0.5 GeV the discrepancy is clear. Supporters of ChPT would argue that ChPT would not be expected to work at this energy. One would have to go to a lower energy where the data became very inaccurate.

This argument is false as can be seen by comparing the ratio $`ReDI^{pert(1)}/ReDI^{exp(1)}`$. It is seen in Fig. 4 that  *everywhere* below 0.6 GeV this ratio differs from unity by a factor of 6-7 due to the presence of non perturbative effects.

Similarly to the one-loop calculation, the two-loop results are plotted in Fig. (1) - Fig. (4) . Although the two-loop result is better than the one-loop calculation, because more parameters are introduced, calculating higher loop effects will not explain the data because in ChPT both the form factor and scattering amplitude which enter in the imaginary part calculation are dominated by a polynomial behavior.

It is seen that perturbation theory is inadequate for the vector pion form factor even at very low momentum transfer. This fact is due to the very large value of the pion r.m.s. radius or a very low value of the $`\rho `$ mass (see below).

## 5 Consequences of Unitarized Models

Two unitarized models which are relevant are as follows. The first model is obtained by introducing a zero in the calculated form factor to get an agreement with the experimental r.m.s. radius . The pion form factor is now multiplied by $`1+\alpha s/s_\rho `$ where $`s_\rho `$ is the $`\rho `$ mass squared .

The experimental data can be fitted with a $`\rho `$ mass equal to $`0.773GeV`$ and $`\alpha =0.14`$. These results are in excellent agreement with the data .

The second model, which is more complete at the expense of introducing more parameters, is based on the two-loop ChPT calculation with unitarity taken into account. It has the singularity associated with the two loop graphs. Using the same inverse amplitude method as was done with the one-loop amplitude, but generalizing this method to two-loop calculation, Hannah has recently obtained a remarkable fit to the pion form factor in the time-like and space-like regions. His result is equivalent to the (0,2) Padé approximant method as applied to the two-loop ChPT calculation . Both models contain ghosts which can be shown to be unimportant .

As can be seen from Figs. 1, 2 and 3 the imaginary and real parts of these two models are very much in agreement with the data. A small deviation of $`ImV(s)`$ above $`0.9GeV`$ is due to a small deviation of the phases of $`V(s)`$ in these two models from the data of the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts.

## 6 Criteria for the Validity of Perturbation Theory

Let us examine in details the one-loop ChPT calculation of the vector pion form factor $`V(s)`$ :

$$V^{pert.}(s)=1+\frac{s}{s_R}+\frac{1}{96\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}((s4m_\pi ^2)H_{\pi \pi }(s)+\frac{2s}{3})$$
(9)
where $`f_\pi =0.93GeV`$ and the r.m.s. radius of the vector form factor is related to $`s_R`$ by the definition $`V^{^{}}(0)=\frac{1}{6}r_V^2=1/s_R`$. The function $`H_{\pi \pi }(s)`$ is given by:

$$H_{\pi \pi }(s)=(22\sqrt{\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{s}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s4m_\pi ^2}}{2m_\pi })+i\pi \sqrt{\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{s}}$$
(10)
for$`s>4m_\pi ^2`$; for other values of s, $`H_{\pi \pi }(s)`$ can be obtained by analytic continuation.

The unitarised version of Eq. (9), obtained by the inverse amplitude, the Padé approximant or the N/D methods, is given by :

$$V(s)=\frac{1}{1s/s_R\frac{1}{96\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\{(s4m_\pi ^2)H_{\pi \pi }(s)+2s/3\}}$$
(11)
It is obvious that Eq. (11) has the Breit-Wigner resonance character while that from Eq. (9) does not, although their amplitude and first derivative are identical at $`s=0`$. Furthermore, if the parameter $`s_R`$ was fixed by the the r.m.s. radius, the $`\rho `$ mass squared, $`s_\rho `$, would come out to be slightly low compared measured $`\rho `$ mass. Neglecting this last problem which is unimportant here, the Taylor’s series expansion around $`s=0`$ reveals that Eq. (11) gives rise to a coefficient of the $`s^2`$ term as $`(1/s_R)^24.0GeV^4`$ which is much larger than that coming from the third term of Eq. (9), $`1/(960\pi ^2m_\pi ^2f_\pi ^2)0.63GeV^4`$. This is the signal of the failure of the perturbation method.

In other words, ChPT should work if the r.m.s. radius is much smaller than its experimental value or $`s_R\sqrt{960}\pi f_\pi m_\pi =1.3GeV^2`$. This last condition means that the physical $`\rho `$ mass is far too small for the perturbation theory to be valid.

We can generalize our criteria for the validity of the perturbation method to the nth loop result. For this purpose we have to add one more step in our calculation in order to make it free from criticisms: Eq. (11) could in principle contain unwanted poles due to the unitarisation procedure. This can be eliminated by subtracting out the ghost pole which can be conveniently done by writing down a dispersion relation for $`V(s)`$ with the same subtraction constants as used in the perturbative series Eq. (9), but with the imaginary part given by Eq. (11) .

Provided that the ghost removing procedure did not change very much the unitarised amplitude, one could then compare the perturbative calculation with the modified unitarized result. If their difference was negligible, one could be sure that the perturbative scheme could then be used.

## 7 Further Remarks and Conclusion

Because the calculable quantities of the vector pion form factor in the ChPT scheme are too small (well within experimental errors) compared with the uncalculable ones, unless some unitarisation is made, it may be better to give up this perturbative scheme. One would then gain in the transparency of the physics.

Although we have not made here a detailed study of the processes $`\pi ,\eta \gamma e^+e^{}`$ the loop contributions can be shown to be completely negligible compared with the subtracted terms and are therefore not relevant.

In conclusion, higher loop perturbative calculations do not solve the unitarity problem. The perturbative scheme has to be supplemented by the well-known unitarisation schemes such as the inverse amplitude, N/D and Padé approximant methods .

Figure Captions

Fig.1 : The imaginary part of the vector pion form factor $`ImV`$, given by Eq. (3), as a function of energy in the $`GeV`$ unit. The solid curve is the the experimental results with experimental errors; the long-dashed curve is the two-loop ChPT calculation, the medium long-dashed curve is the one-loop ChPT calculation, the short-dashed curve is from the modified unitarized one-loop ChPT calculation fitted to the $`\rho `$ mass and the experimental r.m.s. radius, and the dotted curve is the unitarized two-loop calculation of Hannah .

Fig. 2 : The real parts of the pion form factor $`ReV`$, given by Eq. (4) as a function of energy. The curves are as in Fig. 1. The real part of the form factor calculated by the once subtracted dispersion relation using the experimental imaginary part is also given by the solid line.

Fig. 3 : The real parts of the dispersion integral ReDI as a function of energy. The curves are as in Fig. 1.

Fig. 4 :The ratio of the one-loop ChPT to the corresponding experimental quantity, $`ReDI^{pert(1)}/ReDI^{exp(1)}`$, defined by Eq. (8), as a function of energy, is given by the solid line; the corresponding ratio for the two-loop result is given by the dashed line. The ratio of the unitarized models to the experimental results is unity (not shown). The experimental errors are estimated to be less than 10%.


text:
# On impact parameter dependence of low-𝑥 structure functions

## Introduction

The behaviour and dependence of the structure functions on the Bjorken $`x`$ is among the most actively discussed subjects in the unpolarized and polarized deep-inelastic scattering. The particular role here belongs to the small $`x`$ region where asymptotical properties of the strong interactions can be studied. The characteristic property of the low-$`x`$ region is an essential contribution of nonperturbative effects  and one of the possible ways to treat this region is the construction and application of models. Of course, the shortcomings of any model approach to the study of this nonperturbative region is evident. However, one could hope to gain from these models an information which cannot be obtained by perturbative methods (cf. ). Among possible extensions in these studies are the considerations of the geometrical features of the structure functions, i.e. the dependence of the structure functions on the transverse coordinates or the impact parameter. This subject is not new. The importance of the parton distributions in the transverse plane was stressed in  and, e.g. a brief model discussion was recently given in . This work is a revised and extended version of the latter one. As it has been demonstrated  the $`b`$-dependent parton distribution can be related to the Fourier transform of the off-forward matrix elements of parton correlation functions in the limiting case of zero skewedness. Impact parameter dependence would allow one to gain an information on the spatial distribution of the partons inside the parent hadron and the spin properties of the nonperturbative intrinsic hadron structure. The geometrical properties of structure functions play an important role under analysis of the lepton–nuclei deep–inelastic scattering and in the hard production in the heavy–ion collisions.

## I Interpretation of $`b`$–dependent structure functions at small $`x`$

We suppose that the deep–inelastic scattering is determined by the aligned-jet mechanism  and consider the $`b`$–dependence of the structure functions along the lines used in . The aligned-jet mechanism is an essentially nonperturbative and allows one to relate structure functions with the discontinuities of the amplitudes of quark–hadron elastic scattering. These relations are the following

$$q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}[F_1(s,t)+F_3(s,t)]|_{t=0},\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}[F_3(s,t)F_1(s,t)]|_{t=0},\delta q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}F_2(s,t)|_{t=0}.$$
(1)
The functions $`F_i`$ are helicity amplitudes for the elastic quark-hadron scattering in the standard notations for the nucleon–nucleon scattering. We consider high energy limit or the region of small $`x`$.

The structure functions obtained according to the above formulas should be multiplied by the factor $`1/Q^2`$ – probability that such aligned–jet configuration occurs .

The amplitudes $`F_i(s,t)`$ are the corresponding Fourier-Bessel transforms of the functions $`F_i(s,b)`$.

The relations Eqs. (1) will be used as a starting point under definition of the structure functions which depend on impact parameter. According to these relations it is natural to give the following operational definition:

$$q(x,b)\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}[F_1(x,b)+F_3(x,b)],\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}[F_3(x,b)F_1(x,b)],\delta q(x,b)\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}F_2(x,b),$$
(2)
and $`q(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)`$ and $`\delta q(x)`$ are the integrals over $`b`$ of the corresponding $`b`$-dependent distributions, i.e.

$$q(x)=\frac{Q^2}{\pi ^2x}_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑bq(x,b),\mathrm{\Delta }q(x)=\frac{Q^2}{\pi ^2x}_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑b\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b),\delta q(x)=\frac{Q^2}{\pi ^2x}_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑b\delta q(x,b).$$
(3)
The functions $`q(x,b)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ and $`\delta q(x,b)`$ depend also on the variable $`Q^2`$ and have simple interpretations, e.g. the function $`q(x,b,Q^2)`$ represent probability to find in the hadron a quark $`q`$ with fraction of its longitudinal momenta $`x`$ at the transverse distance

$`b\pm \mathrm{\Delta }b,\mathrm{\Delta }b1/Q`$

from the hadron geometrical center. Interpretation of the spin distributions directly follows from their definitions: they are the differences of the probabilities to find quarks in the two spin states with longitudinal or transverse directions of the quark and hadron spins.

It should be noted that the unitarity plays crucial role in the direct probabilistic interpretation of the function $`q(x,b)`$. Indeed due to unitarity $`0q(x,b)1`$. The integral $`q(x)`$ is a quark number density which is not limited by unity and can have arbitrary non–negative value. Thus, the given definition of the $`b`$–dependent structure functions is self-consistent. Of course, spin distributions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ and $`\delta q(x,b)`$ are not positively defined.

## II Unitarity and $`b`$–dependence of structure functions

The unitarity can be fulfilled through the $`U`$–matrix representation for the helicity amplitudes of elastic quark–hadron scattering. In the impact parameter representation the expressions for the helicity amplitudes are the following

$$F_{1,3}(x,b)=U_{1,3}(x,b)/[1iU_{1,3}(x,b)],F_2(x,b)=U_2(x,b)/[1iU_1(x,b)]^2$$
(4)
Unitarity requires Im$`U_{1,3}(x,b)0`$. The $`U`$–matrix form of unitary representation contrary to the eikonal one does not generate itself essential singularity in the complex $`x`$ plane at $`x0`$ and implementation of unitarity can be performed easily.

The model which provides explicit form of helicity functions $`U_i(x,b)`$ has been described elsewhere . A hadron consists of the constituent quarks aligned in the longitudinal direction and embedded into the nonperturbative vacuum (condensate). The constituent quark appears as a quasiparticle, i.e. as current valence quark surrounded by the cloud of quark-antiquark pairs of different flavors. We refer to effective QCD approach and use the NJL model  as a basis. The Lagrangian in addition to the four–fermion interaction $`_4`$ of the original NJL model includes the six–fermion $`U(1)_A`$–breaking term $`_6K(\overline{u}u)(\overline{d}d)(\overline{s}s)`$ . Transition to partonic picture is described by the introduction of a momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$ GeV, which corresponds to the scale of chiral symmetry spontaneous breaking .

This picture for a hadron structure implies that overlapping and interaction of peripheral condensates in hadron collision occurs at the first stage. In the overlapping region the condensates interact and as a result virtual massive quark pairs appear. Being released a part of hadron energy carried by the peripheral condensates goes to generation of massive quarks. In another words nonlinear field couplings transform kinetic energy into internal energy of dressed quarks. Of course, number of such quarks fluctuates. The average number of quarks in the cosidered case is proportional to convolution of the condensate distributions $`D_c^{Q,H}`$ of the colliding constituent quark and hadron:

$$N(s,b)N(s)D_c^QD_c^H,$$
(5)
where the function $`N(s)`$ is determined by a transformation thermodynamics of kinetic energy of interacting condenstates to the internal energy of massive quarks. To estimate the $`N(s)`$ it is feasible to assume that it is proportional to the maximal possible energy dependence

$$N(s)\kappa (1x_Q)\sqrt{s}/m_Q,$$
(6)
where $`x_Q`$ is the average fraction of energy carried by the constituent quarks, $`m_Q`$ is the mass scale of constituent quarks. In the model each of the constituent valence quarks located in the central part of the hadron is supposed to scatter in a quasi-independent way by the produced virtual quark pairs at given impact parameter and by the other valence quarks. When smeared over longitudinal momenta the scattering amplitude of constituent valence quark $`Q`$ may be represented in the form

$$f_Q(s,b)=[N(s,b)+N1]V_Q(b),$$
(7)
where $`N=N_H+1`$ is the total number of quarks in the system of the colliding constituent quark and hadron and $`V_Q(b)`$ is the smeared amplitude of single quark-quark scattering. In this approach the elastic scattering amplitude satisfies the unitarity since it is constructed as a solution of the following equation

$$F=U+iUDF$$
(8)
which is presented here in operator form. The function $`U(s,b)`$ (generalized reaction matrix) — the basic dynamical quantity of this approach — is then chosen as a product of the averaged quark amplitudes

$$U(s,b)=\underset{Q=1}{\overset{N}{}}f_Q(s,b)$$
(9)
in accordance with assumed quasi-independent nature of valence quark scattering. The strong interaction radius of the constituent quark $`Q`$ is determined by its Compton wavelength and the $`b`$–dependence of the function $`f_Q`$ related to the quark formfactor $`F_Q(q)`$ has a simple form $`f_Q\mathrm{exp}(m_Qb/\xi )`$. The helicity flip transition, i.e. $`Q_+Q_{}`$ occurs when the valence quark knocks out a quark with the opposite helicity and the same flavor .

The explicit expressions for the helicity functions $`U_i(x,b)`$ at small $`x`$ have been obtained from the functions $`U_i(s,b)`$  by the substitute $`sQ^2/x`$ and at small values of $`x`$ they are the following:

$$U_{1,3}(x,b)=U_0(x,b)[1+\beta _{1,3}(Q^2)m_Q\sqrt{x}/Q],U_2(x,b)=g_f^2(Q^2)\frac{m_Q^2x}{Q^2}\mathrm{exp}[2(\alpha 1)m_Qb/\xi ]U_0(x,b),$$
(10)
where

$$U_0(x,b)=i\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)=i\left[\frac{a(Q^2)Q}{m_Q\sqrt{x}}\right]^N\mathrm{exp}[Mb/\xi ].$$
(11)
$`a`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`g_f`$ and $`\xi `$ are the model parameters, some of them in this particular case of quark-hadron scattering depend on the virtuality $`Q^2`$. The meaning of these parameters is not crucial here; note only that $`m_Q`$ is the average mass of constituent quarks in the quark-hadron system of $`N=N_H+1`$ quarks and $`M`$ is their total mass, i.e. $`M=_{i=1}^Nm_i`$. We consider here for simplicity pure imaginary case. We need to keep the subleading terms in the expressions for $`U_1(x,b)`$ and $`U_3(x,b)`$ since the $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ is determined by their difference. For $`U_2(x,b)`$ one can keep only leading term.

Then using Eqs. (4) we obtain at small $`x`$:

$$q(x,b)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)}{1+\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)},\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)=\frac{\beta _{}(Q^2)m_Q\sqrt{x}}{Q}\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)}{[1+\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)]^2},$$
(12)
$$\delta q(x,b)=\frac{g_f^2(Q^2)m_Q^2x}{Q^2}\mathrm{exp}[2(\alpha 1)m_Qb/\xi ]\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)}{[1+\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)]^2},$$
(13)
where $`\beta _{}(Q^2)=\beta _3(Q^2)\beta _1(Q^2)`$. From the above expressions it follows that $`q(x,b)`$ has a central $`b`$–dependence, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ and $`\delta q(x,b)`$ have peripheral profiles. Their qualitative dependence on the impact parameter $`b`$ is depicted in Fig. 1. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ has a maximum located at

$`b_{max}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\xi N}{M}}\mathrm{ln}[{\displaystyle \frac{a(Q^2)Q}{m_Q\sqrt{x}}}].`$

From Eqs.(12,13) it follows that factorization of $`x`$ and $`b`$ dependencies is not allowed by unitarity and this provides constraints for the model parameterizations of structure functions which depend on $`x`$ and $`b`$ variables. Indeed, it is clear from Eqs.(12,13) that factorized form of the input “amplitude” $`\stackrel{~}{U}_0(x,b)`$ cannot survive after unitarization due to the presence of the denominators. It is to be noted here that from the relation of impact parameter distributions with the off-forward parton distributions  it follows that the same conclusion on the absence of factorization is also valid for the off-forward parton distributions with zero skewedness.

The following relation between the structure functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b)`$ and $`\delta q(x,b)`$ can also be inferred from the above model-based formulas

$$\delta q(x,b)=c(Q^2)\frac{\sqrt{x}}{Q}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma b)\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,b).$$
(14)
Thus, the function $`\delta q(x,b)`$ which describes transverse spin distribution is suppressed by the factors $`\sqrt{x}`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma b)`$, i.e. it has a more central profile. This suppression also reduces double-spin transverse asymmetries in the central region in the Drell-Yan production compared to the corresponding longitudinal asymmetries.

The strange quark structure functions have also a more central $`b`$–dependence than in the case of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. The radius of the corresponding quark matter distribution follows from Eq. (13) and is the following

$$R_q(x)\frac{1}{M}\mathrm{ln}Q^2/x$$
(15)
while the ratio of the strange quark distributions to the light quark distributions radii is given by the corresponding constituent quark masses, i.e. for the nucleon this ratio would be

$$R_s(x)/R_q(x)(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{4m_Q})^1,$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_Sm_Q`$.

Time reversal invariance of strong interactions allows one to write down relations similar to Eqs.(1) for the fragmentation functions also and obtain expressions for the fragmentation functions $`D_q^h(z,b)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(z,b)`$, $`\delta D_q^h(z,b)`$ which have just the same dependence on the impact parameter $`b`$ as the corresponding structure functions. The fragmentation function $`D_q^h(z,b,Q^2)`$ is the probability for fragmentation of quark $`q`$ at transverse distance $`b\pm \mathrm{\Delta }b`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }b1/Q`$) into a hadron $`h`$ which carry the fraction $`z`$ of the quark momentum. In this case $`b`$ is a transverse distance between quark $`q`$ and the center of the hadron $`h`$. It is positively defined and due to unitarity obey to the inequality $`0D_q^h(z,b)1`$. The physical interpretations of spin–dependent fragmentation functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_q^h(x,b)`$ and $`\delta D_q^h(x,b)`$ is similar to that of corresponding spin structure function.

## Discussions and Conclusion

It is interesting to note that the spin structure functions have a peripheral dependence on the impact parameter contrary to central profile of the unpolarized structure function. It could be related to the orbital angular momentum of quarks inside the constituent quark. The important point what the origin of this orbital angular momenta is. It was proposed  to use an analogy with an anisotropic extension of the theory of superconductivity which seems to match well with the picture for a constituent quark. The studies  of that theory show that the presence of anisotropy leads to axial symmetry of pairing correlations around the anisotropy direction $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{l}}`$ and to the particle currents induced by the pairing correlations. In another words it means that a particle of the condensed fluid is surrounded by a cloud of correlated particles which rotate around it with the axis of rotation $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{l}}`$. Calculation of the orbital momentum shows that it is proportional to the density of the correlated particles. Thus, it is clear that there is a direct analogy between this picture and that describing the constituent quark. An axis of anisotropy $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{l}}`$ can be associated with the polarization vector of current valence quark located at the origin of the constituent quark. The orbital angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ lies along $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{l}}`$.

Spin of constituent quark, e.g. $`U`$-quark, in the model used is given by the sum:

$$J_U=1/2=S_{u_v}+S_{\{\overline{q}q\}}+L_{\{\overline{q}q\}}=1/2+S_{\{\overline{q}q\}}+L_{\{\overline{q}q\}}.$$
(17)
In principle, $`S_{\{\overline{q}q\}}`$ and $`L_{\{\overline{q}q\}}`$ can include contribution of gluon angular momentum, however, since we consider effective Lagrangian approach where gluon degrees of freedom are overintegrated, we do not concern problems of the separation and mixing of the quark angular momentum and gluon effects in QCD (cf. ). In the NJL–model  the six-quark fermion operator simulates the effect of gluon operator $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }G_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon field tensor in QCD. It is worth to note here that in general large gluon orbital angular momentum is expected to be almost canceled by gluon spin contribution .

The value of the orbital momentum contribution into the spin of constituent quark can be estimated according to the relation between contributions of current quarks into a proton spin and corresponding contributions of current quarks into a spin of the constituent quarks and that of the constituent quarks into proton spin :

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma })_p=(\mathrm{\Delta }U+\mathrm{\Delta }D)(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma })_U,$$
(18)
where $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma })_U=S_{u_v}+S_{\{\overline{q}q\}}`$. The value of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma })_p`$ was measured in the deep–inelastic scattering. Thus, on the grounds of the experimental data for polarized DIS we arrive to conclusion that the significant part of the spin of constituent quark in the model should be associated with the orbital angular momentum of the current quarks inside the constituent one .

Then the peripherality of the spin structure functions can be correlated with the large contribution of the orbital angular momentum, i.e. with the quarks coherent rotation. Indeed, there is a compensation between the total spin of the quark-antiquark cloud and its orbital angular momenta, i.e. $`L_{\{\overline{q}q\}}=S_{\{\overline{q}q\}}`$ and therefore this correlation follows if the above compensation has a local nature and valid for a fixed impact parameter.

The important role of orbital angular momentum was known long before EMC discovery  and reappeared after as one of the transparent explanations of the polarized deep-inelastic scattering data . Lattice QCD calculations in the quenched approximation also indicate significant quark orbital angular momentum contribution to spin of a nucleon . It is interesting to find out possible experimental signatures of the peripheral geometrical profiles of the spin structure functions and the significant role of the orbital angular momentum. One of such indications could be an observation of the different spatial distributions of charge and magnetization at Jefferson Lab . It would also be important to have a precise data for the strange formfactor.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under Grant No. 99-02-17995.


text:
# First observation of Aharonov-Bohm cages in 2-D normal metal networks

\[

## Abstract

We report on magnetoresistance transport measurements performed on a bipartite tiling of rhombus in the GaAs/GaAlAs system. We observe for the first time large amplitude $`h/e`$ oscillations in this network as compared to the one measured in square lattices of similar size. These oscillations are the signature of a recently predicted localization phenomenon induced by Aharonov-Bohm interferences in this peculiar network.

\]

A magnetic field applied to a two-dimensional regular network induces a competition between the spatial period of the lattice and the magnetic period. During the last decades, this phenomenon of frustration induced by a magnetic field has been the object of intensive investigations. From a theoretical point of view, this subtle interplay leads to a complex energy spectrum which can be analysed using a simple tight-binding model for non-interacting electrons. For the square lattice case, the spectrum is described by the famous Hofstadter butterfly . A great number of geometries have been studied like, for instance, honeycomb  and triangular lattices  but also fractal structures . As phase coherence of the wave function is an essential ingredient, the first experiments have been performed in a network made of superconducting wires. In this case, there is a direct mapping between the solution of the linear Ginzburg-Landau equation and the tight-binding problem, leading to a direct link between the critical temperature and the energy spectrum .

In the case of normal networks, the disorder plays an important role. For instance the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, which modulates the interference pattern between two paths encircling a flux, is averaged to zero when dealing with an array of loops. This is due to the stochastic nature of the phase of the wave function in each individual cell, which depends on the microscopic configuration of the disorder. Thus, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/e`$ period signal decreases as $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ when $`N`$ loops are connected in series . The only phase coherent effect which persists is the Altshuler-Aharonov-Spivak (AAS) oscillation  whose period is $`h/2e`$. In this case, interference concerns pairs of time reversal trajectories with a well defined phase which is modulated by the magnetic field. Then, all loops add coherently. In real samples, due to the non-zero width of the wires, there is a mixing of the different trajectories with various frequencies and phases, and only few oscillations are visible.

Recently, a new localization phenomenon induced by a magnetic field in a 2D lattice has been reported . The authors consider a bipartite hexagonal structure containing three sites per unit cell, one sixfold coordinated and two threefold coordinated. In this so-called $`𝒯_3`$ lattice, the propagation of the electron wave function is bounded in a small number of cells, called an AB cage, for a particular magnetic flux ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$, see the AFM picture of our sample in the inset of fig. 1). The tight-binding model shows that, for this magnetic flux, the energy spectrum collapses into three infinitely degenerate levels, predicting a divergence of the resistance. The overall spectrum is periodic with a period $`h/e`$.

This theoretical result is obtained for a pure network made of sites coupled by hopping. One may ask wether this effect will persist in a network made of 1D metal wires. This point, as well as the effect of the disorder, have been recently investigated theoretically . The cage effect is expected to be more robust against disorder averaging than the standard AB oscillations. This strong localization effect should hence be observable in transport measurements by periodic modulation of the resistance, with a period $`h/e`$.

The first experiments on the $`𝒯_3`$ lattice have been performed on a superconducting material . The bottom of the computed energy spectrum has been reproduced through the variation of the critical temperature versus the magnetic flux. As far as the localization is concerned, it has been evidenced by a strong depression of the critical current and a broadening of the superconducting transition at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$. Up to now, no measurement has been reported on normal metal transport properties.

In this letter, we present the first evidence of AB cages in a normal network tailored in a high mobility two dimensional electron gas (2DEG). Low temperature magnetoresistance measurements of $`𝒯_3`$ lattices show clear $`h/e`$ oscillations in arrays of 2500 cells. From the temperature dependence of these oscillations we are able to extract a large characteristic length compared to that measured on a single cell. Experiments performed on square lattices of similar size do not show such a behavior, further supporting the existence of the cage effect. More strikingly, at high magnetic field, $`h/2e`$ oscillations appear whose amplitudes can be much higher than the fundamental period. The temperature dependence is similar to that of the $`h/e`$ signal. These observations dismiss a simple interpretation in terms of harmonics generation. The origin of this phenomenon is still unclear and needs more investigations.

We have used MBE grown AlGaAs-GaAs heterojunctions as starting material to fabricate the samples. When cooled down to liquid Helium temperature the as-grown 2DEG has an electron density $`n=310^{11}cm^2`$ and a mobility $`\mu =10^6cm^2V^1s^1`$. These values yield a Fermi wavelength $`\lambda _f=65nm`$ and an elastic mean free path $`l_e=6.4\mu m`$. With these parameters, the phase coherence length is usually of the order of $`L_\mathrm{\Phi }=20\mu m`$ below T=0.1K . A JEOL 5DIIU electron beam writer was used to define the sample patterns. By lift-off, we first deposited an aluminum mask which was subsequently transfered into the 2DEG by Argon ion etching. The inset of figure 1 shows a detailed view of the $`𝒯_3`$ tiling. Between the voltage probes, the array spans a $`80\mu m\times 25\mu m`$ surface. Since the area of a unit rhombus cell is $`0.8\mu m^2`$ we probe about 2500 cells, one flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ per unit cell corresponding to a magnetic field of $`50G`$.

The nominal width of the wire defining the network is $`0.4\mu m`$, but the effective electrical width is considerably smaller due to the lateral depletion resulting from the etching process. Indeed, by varying the energy of the ions and/or the etching time, we can prepare samples presenting a slight side depletion of about $`0.1\mu m`$ to a completely depleted wire. This is an important point since in the Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) regime, the current is carried by edge states: opposite sample edges carrying the flow in opposite directions . In a ring geometry only the inner states encircle a flux and the AB signal vanishes for wide enough samples . As in high mobility materials the appearance of the QHE regime starts at rather small magnetic fields (less than 1000Gauss), the real width of the samples must be small enough if one wants to observe oscillations for a comfortable range of magnetic field. In order to investigate the effect of lateral depletion, we have then fabricated sets of wires of different widths. When the conductance at $`T=4K`$ is no longer proportional to the mask width, we conclude that only few conducting channels are present. Thus we adjust the etching parameters to fulfill this criterion for a mask wire width of $`0.4\mu m`$. Indeed, with somewhat shallow etching, well defined Shubnikov-de-Haas (SdH) oscillations are observed at low temperature on our arrays indicating the presence of edge states. Increasing the etching time and/or energy washes out these oscillations.We have investigated about ten samples prepared with the above described deep etching process. The square resistance of the arrays was always below $`10k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ leading to a resistance per connecting linesmaller than $`12k\mathrm{\Omega }`$, charging effects are thus not relevant. This is confirmed by linear I-V characteristics. All samples made this way have shown $`h/e`$ signal.

The samples are placed on the cold finger of a dilution refrigerator and cooled down to 30mK. A perpendicular magnetic field of up to 7T can be applied. Measurements are recorded using an ac resistance bridge working at 33Hz or lockin amplifiers with a current injection of 10nA.

A typical magnetoresistance plot for a $`𝒯_3`$ lattice is shown in figure 1. Rapid oscillations are superimposed on large scale fluctuations of the overall signal. We substract a polynomial fit of the data to the experimental points in order to extract the small period oscillations. This resulting signal, shown in fig. 2a, is then Fourier transformed (fig. 2b). A clear peak appears on the spectrum at a frequency corresponding to 55G, the width of which is $`5`$G. This width arises due to the flux difference between the most inner and the most outer trajectories in a rhombus. From this measured value we can estimate the effective wire width to be $`20`$nm. The typical amplitude of the oscillations is $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=100\mathrm{\Omega }`$ leading to a value of $`0.02e^2/h`$ in terms of conductance. This has to be compared to the one obtained from a single rhombus. We measured a $`0.05e^2/h`$ typical amplitude for a single unit tile fabricated on the same dice. The expected amplitude reduction due to the above discussed averaging process ($`1/\sqrt{2500}`$) would then yield an amplitude of $`0.001e^2/h`$. This is far less than the one we measure, giving a first indication of the presence of cages for the $`𝒯_3`$ lattice.

To validate the peculiarity of this topology, for each etching run we have also patterned on the same dice $`80\mu m\times 25\mu m`$ square lattices with similar wire width and unit cell area. The typical square resistance of these arrays is in the same range than that of the $`𝒯_3`$ network. Following the same data analysis, we obtain typically in this case the features shown in fig. 3. One can hardly distinguish a peak in the Fourier transform signal. The $`h/e`$ signal, if any, is embedded in the $`1/f`$ universal fluctuations contribution, its amplitude being at least one order of magnitude smaller than the $`𝒯_3`$ one for all the investigated samples.

In fig. 4 we have plotted on a log-log scale the temperature dependence of the $`h/e`$ peak of the Fourier transform for both the $`𝒯_3`$ lattice ($``$) and the single rhombus ($`\mathrm{}`$). For a single loop the amplitude of the AB signal is expected to follow a $`T^{1/2}`$ law, because of temperature averaging, as long as the size of the loop is smaller than $`L_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. When the temperature is such that $`L>L_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the AB signal falls off exponentially . Then, we expect this critical temperature to be lower for the $`𝒯_3`$ network compared to that of a single tile, since for the former the characteristic size is the perimeter of a cage, namely $`12\mu m`$, to be compare to the 4$`\mu m`$ perimeter of a rhombus (see inset of figure 1). The experimental results depicted in fig. 4 show that this cut-off temperature is around 1K for the rhombus whereas it is below 100mK for the $`𝒯_3`$ . This is another important evidence of the role of the AB cages in the transport properties of this peculiar network.

Finally, in the high magnetic field regime we observe a striking frequency doubling in the spectra. If this signal were a simple harmonic, one would expect the $`h/2e`$ peak to be much smaller than the $`h/e`$ peak since it corresponds to a trajectory twice as long . But the amplitude of this peak is of the same order or even larger than that of the fundamental. This is shown in figure 5 where the relative amplitude variation of the magneto-resistance is plotted as well as its Fourier transform from 1.5 to 2.17 T. Moreover, if this signal were a simple harmonic, the characteristic temperature should be smaller. This is in contradiction with the measured temperature dependence of the $`h/2e`$ peak amplitude ($`\times `$ in fig. 4) which shows a similar decay as that observed for the fundamental period. It is worth noting that we never observed such a behavior in the square lattices. Up to now, we have no hint on the nature of this frequency doubling. Let us also stress that this signal appears for strong magnetic fields where the magneto-resistance presents important variations. Of course, one may think of AAS oscillations when dealing with an $`h/2e`$ signal. As mentioned in the introduction, due to the aspect ratio of the sample, the AAS signal should vanish for high magnetic fields. Thus, an explanation in term of AAS would imply that a high magnetic field induces the squeezing of the wires. But in this case, one expects to observe a similar effect for the square lattice, unless the geometry of the $`𝒯_3`$ network again favors the appearance of the $`h/2e`$ oscillations. The study of different types of networks and the addition of a gate to control the depletion is under progress to clarify this phenomenon.

In conclusion, we have measured for the first time large Aharonov-Bohm type oscillations in an array of rhombus. The amplitude detected and its temperature dependence are in favor of a recently suggested cage effect. The comparison with a square lattice unambigously indicates that this behavior is related to the topology of this peculiar network. We also observe unexpected high amplitude $`h/2e`$ oscillations which are still not understood. Nevertheless, this $`𝒯_3`$ type of network, opens the way to new experimental systems where the great number of unit cells probed wash rules out the problem of reproducibility usually encountered when dealing with a unique small object. With the AlGaAs-GaAs system we used, we are very close to the model of a network of wires with a small number of channels used in numerical calculation. We can then easily investigate samples with controlled topological defects or disorder and compare their behavior with theory.

We are endepted to B. Etienne and A. Cavanna for supplying high quality 2DEG. We kindly acknoledge fruitful discussions with H. Bouchiat, B. Douçot, G. Montambaux, R. Mosseri, J. Vidal and A. Ramdane for critical reading of the manuscript. We benefit from the technical skills of L. Couraud, X. Lafosse, A. Cavanna and C. David for the AFM picture. This work is supported by the Région Ile-de-France through a SESAME contract.


text:
# Anisotropic Galaxy–Galaxy Lensing

## 1 Introduction

The observed flatness of the rotation curves of spiral galaxies provides convincing evidence that galaxies reside within massive dark matter halos (see, e.g., Fich & Tremaine 1991 and references therein); however, there is as yet no strong constraint on either the average radial extent or the typical shapes of these apparently pervasive structures. Since it is generally difficult to find dynamical tracers of the halo potential at very large radius, direct observational constraints on the maximum extent of dark matter halos are relatively scarce. Zaritsky & White (1994) and Zaritsky et al. (1997) have, however, investigated the dynamics of genuine satellites of bright field spirals and find that their halos extend to radii beyond $`100h^1`$ kpc.

If the dark matter halos of bright field galaxies have radial extents that are, indeed, as large as suggested by the above investigations and the characteristic depths of the potential wells of the halos correspond to velocity dispersions of order 150 km/s, then weak but detectable gravitational lensing by the dark halos should occur. That is, systematically throughout the universe, the halos of foreground field galaxies should act as gravitational lenses for background field galaxies, resulting in a slight preference for the images of distant galaxies to be oriented tangentially with respect to the locations on the sky of galaxies which are physically closer to the observer. This effect is known as galaxy-galaxy lensing and its existence has recently been confirmed by a number of independent investigations (e.g., Brainerd, Blandford & Smail 1996, hereafter BBS; Dell’Antonio & Tyson 1996; Griffiths et al. 1996; Hudson et al. 1998; Ebbels 1998; Natarajan et al. 1998; Fischer et al. 2000). None of these studies has provided a strong constraint on the maximum physical extent of the halos of field galaxies, but all have yielded reasonably consistent measurements of the halo velocity dispersion, on the order of 150 km/s for an $`L^{}`$ galaxy.

Galaxy–galaxy lensing has the potential to be a powerful probe of the gravitational potential of dark halos at very large radii. It has an advantage over dynamical methods in that it can be applied to all galaxies (in particular those without genuine companions) over large physical scales, but has the disadvantage that the signal is so small that it can only be detected in a statistical sense from a large ensemble of lenses and sources. That is, while the signal is too weak to be detected from a single lens galaxy and, hence, cannot be used to place constraints on the potential of any one individual dark matter halo, it can be used to probe the mean potential of the halo population as a whole.

Because of the ability of the singular isothermal sphere model to reproduce the observed flatness of the rotation curves of the disks of spiral galaxies, it is often assumed a priori that dark halos are roughly spherical. However, there now exist a number of direct observations which suggest that dark halos may be substantially flattened. The evidence is diverse, consisting of studies of the kinematics of polar ring galaxies, the geometry of X-ray isophotes, the flaring of HI gas in spirals, and the evolution of gaseous warps, as well as the kinematics of Population II stars in our own Galaxy. In particular, studies of disk systems that probe distances of order 15 kpc from the galactic planes suggest that the shapes of the dark halos are significantly flattened and can be characterized by $`c/a=0.5\pm 0.2`$ (see, e.g., the comprehensive review by Sackett 1999 and references therein). Here $`c/a`$ is the ratio of the shortest to longest axis in a principal moment analysis of the mass density of the halo. More recently, Kochanek et al. (2000) have performed a detailed analysis of the shapes of the Einstein rings of three different lensed quasar host galaxies and conclude that the ellipticities of the projected mass distributions of the lens galaxies that give rise to these images are quite large indeed (axis ratios on the order of 0.6 to 0.7).

All of the published attempts to use observations of galaxy–galaxy lensing to constrain the characteristic physical parameters of dark matter halos have assumed the halos to be spherically symmetric. The lensing signal has been detected via a circular average of the signal about the lens center and is then interpreted via halo models which are spherically symmetric. However, if the halos are flattened at the level suggested by the above investigations, their projected surface mass densities will deviate from circular symmetry and, as result, the gravitational lensing pattern will not be circularly–symmetric about the lens center. Instead, the signal will be mildly anisotropic, with the shear being strongest along direction vectors that coincide with the major axis of the mass distribution and weakest along direction vectors that coincide with the minor axis of the mass distribution.

There are as yet no direct observational constraints on the mean flattening of the population of dark matter galaxy halos as a whole. This is due to the fact that the above studies which suggest substantial halo flattening rely on a handful of specific galaxies for which the particular analysis technique (e.g., dynamics, hydrodynamics, or strong lensing) may be applied. None of these techniques can be applied in general to the entire population of galaxies, but systematic galaxy–galaxy lensing can be applied to all galaxies for which high-quality imaging data is available. Despite the fact that it is only the mean 2-D shape that may be directly recovered with weak lensing (not the full 3-D shape of the halos), a strong constraint on any net flattening of galaxy halos in 2-D will be useful from the standpoint of understanding the details of galaxy formation (i.e., the interaction of baryons with the dark matter and the transfer of angular momentum to the halo as a result) and constraining the nature of the dark matter itself. In particular, dissipationless cold dark matter models routinely lead to the formation of galaxy halos with projected ellipticities of order 0.3 (e.g., Dubinski & Carlberg 1991; Warren et al. 1992), while models of strongly self-interacting cold dark matter give rise to halos that are nearly spherical within the virial radius, resulting in a small projected ellipticity (e.g., Moore et al. 2000).

Here we investigate weak lensing due to halos with elliptical mass distributions and we compare the shear experienced by sources closest to the major axes of the lenses to that experienced by sources closest to the minor axes. In §2 we describe the surface mass density profile that we have adopted, we evaluate the shear as function of location on the sky for lenses with mass ellipticities in the range $`0.1ϵ0.7`$, and we compute the level of anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal for sources located within $`\pm 45^{}`$ and $`\pm 20^{}`$ of the axial direction vectors of the lenses. In §3 we discuss the prospects for detecting flattened dark halos via an anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal, including a consideration of some of the potential sources of noise that will be encountered in a realistic data set. A brief summary of our results is presented in §4.

## 2 Anisotropic Weak Shear Due to an Elliptical Lens

We adopt a surface mass density for our lenses of the form

$$\kappa (\rho )=\frac{\kappa _0}{\left(1+\rho ^2/x_c^2\right)^{1/2}}$$
(1)
(e.g., Schneider & Weiss 1991, hereafter SW91), which for circularly–symmetric lenses corresponds to an isothermal sphere with a core radius of $`x_c`$. Here $`\kappa (\rho )`$ is the surface mass density of the lens in units of the critical surface mass density ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$), $`\kappa _0`$ is the central surface mass density, $`\rho `$ is a generalized elliptical radius ($`\rho ^2=x_1^2+f^2x_2^2`$, where $`f=a/b`$), and the ellipticity of the mass is $`ϵ=1b/a`$. That is, equation (1) is an expression for the convergence of the lens and all redshift information in the problem is contained within $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_s}{D_dD_{ds}}.$$
(2)
Here $`D_s`$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer and the source, $`D_d`$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer and the lens (the “deflector”), and $`D_{ds}`$ is the angular diameter distance between the lens and the source.

SW91 have shown that the deflection angle, $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$, due to this mass distribution can be computed analytically and they have derived recursion relations for its computation (equations (A13) through (A19) in their paper). We have used these recursion relations to compute the deflection angles due to our elliptical masses where the ellipticities are in the range of $`0.1ϵ0.7`$. Also, since the presence of a core radius does not have a significant effect on the weak lensing regime in which systematic galaxy–galaxy lensing occurs, we restrict our analysis below to the case of lenses with negligible core radii ($`x_c=0.005`$ arcsec).

For each lens ellipticity, we have computed the shear due to the lens, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }(\stackrel{}{\theta })=(\gamma _1(\stackrel{}{\theta }),\gamma _2(\stackrel{}{\theta }))`$, on regular grids that were centered on the lens centers. This was done via a straightforward differencing technique in which a regular grid of light rays was traced through each of the lenses and the net deflection of each light ray was computed from the recursion relations for $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ contained in SW91. If $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ is the location of a given light ray on the grid prior to lensing, and $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ is the location of the light ray after having been deflected, then the components of the shear at the location $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ are simply:

$$\gamma _1(\stackrel{}{\theta })=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{x}_1}}{\theta _{\mathrm{x}_1}}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{x}_2}}{\theta _{\mathrm{x}_2}}\right),$$
(3)
$$\gamma _2(\stackrel{}{\theta })=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{x}_1}}{\theta _{\mathrm{x}_2}}+\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{x}_2}}{\theta _{\mathrm{x}_1}}\right).$$
(4)
For the calculations shown below, the spacing of the light rays on the regular grid was taken to be 0.05 arcsec.

Unlike the circular lens, for which the shear is circularly–symmetric as a function of radial distance from the lens center, the shear due to an elliptical lens is a function of both the distance from the lens center and the location of the source relative to the major and minor axes of the mass distribution of the lens (as projected on the sky). This effect is illustrated in Fig. 1, in which we plot the ratio $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ as a function of angular scale, $`\theta `$. Here $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ is the mean shear experienced by sources closest to the major axis direction vectors of the lens and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$ is the mean shear experienced by sources closest to the minor axis direction vectors. In the case of circularly symmetric lenses this quantity will, of course, be unity on all scales. In Fig. 1 we have computed $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$ for sources located within a polar angle of $`\pm N`$ degrees relative to the axial direction vectors of the lens, for the cases of $`N=45^{}`$ (lefthand panel), and $`N=20^{}`$ (righthand panel). That is, in the righthand panel of Fig. 1 we consider only sources whose locations on the sky are relatively close to the direction vectors defined by the major and minor axes of the mass distribution while in the lefthand panel we compute the mean shear encountered by all sources. Since all distance information is contained within $`\kappa _0`$, the ratios shown in Fig. 1 are explicitly independent of the lens and source redshifts, as well as the cosmology. As expected, the degree of anisotropy in the shear pattern increases with increasing lens ellipticity, and the closer the sources are to the axial direction vectors the larger is the level of the anisotropy.

## 3 Prospects for Detection

Provided the ellipticity of the light from a given candidate lens galaxy is reasonably well–aligned with any flattening of its dark matter halo, it is conceivable that one could investigate anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal by first aligning the symmetry axes of the lens galaxy images, then stacking the aligned images together in order to create one primary lens center about which the distortion of all the background galaxies could be measured (see, e.g., Natarajan & Refregier 2000). This will be a reasonable procedure as long as the candidate lenses are in a fairly relaxed state (i.e., one would want to exclude candidate lenses which have undergone a recent collision, for example). The detectability of the anisotropy will, of course, depend not only on the mean halo ellipticity, but also on the size of the data set (i.e., to reduce the “noise” due the intrinsic shapes of the background galaxies), the quality of the imaging data (i.e., the accuracy with which image shapes can be determined), and the success with which genuine foreground galaxies can be separated from genuine background galaxies (i.e., the ability to discriminate lenses from sources).

The mean shear due to a (spherical) singular isothermal lens within a circular aperture of angular radius $`\theta `$ is:

$$\overline{\gamma }(\theta )=\frac{4\pi }{\theta }\left(\frac{\sigma _v}{c}\right)^2\left(\frac{D_{ds}}{D_s}\right).$$
(5)
So, for a fiducial lens with $`\sigma _v=155`$ km/s, located at a redshift of $`z_d=0.5`$ and a fiducial source located at a redshift of $`z_s=1.0`$, the mean shear will be $`\overline{\gamma }(\theta )0.30/\theta ^{\prime \prime }`$. (This result depends only weakly on the cosmology through the ratio of $`D_{ds}/D_s`$.) At scale of $`\theta =25^{\prime \prime }`$ this is a small expected shear (of order 1%), but it is certainly measurable even with a modest–sized data set that has good imaging quality. The most statistically significant detection of galaxy–galaxy lensing to be obtained via a direct average of the observed shapes of distant galaxies is that reported by Fischer et al. (2000) from several nights of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) commissioning data. They have detected a net shear in the images of $`1.5\times 10^6`$ “faint” galaxies ($`r`$ magnitudes in the range 18 to 22) due to $`2.8\times 10^4`$ “bright” galaxies ($`r`$ magnitudes in the range 16 to 18) over an area of nearly 225 sq. degrees and find a net shear of $`\gamma 0.005`$ on an angular scale $`30^{\prime \prime }`$. On this angular scale, their detection is of order 6-$`\sigma `$.

It is interesting to ask how large a data set would be required to obtain a significant detection of an anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal in the manner we have computed here. For a given surface density of lenses and sources, the signal to noise in a measurement of $`\gamma `$ scales as the square root of the area of sky covered by the imaging data (see, e.g., BBS and Natarajan & Refregier 2000). If we compute the mean shear experienced by sources within $`\pm 45^{}`$ of the major axis vectors of flattened halos, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$, and compare that to the shear experienced by sources within $`\pm 45^{}`$ of the minor axis vectors, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$, the signal to noise for each of these two quantities will be of order $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ times the signal to noise for a measurement of the mean shear experienced by all sources, as computed from a circular average about the lens centers. That is, the area over which $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ or $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$ is computed is only half of the area over which the circularly–averaged shear is computed.

As a rough attempt to calculate the detectability of an anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy signal, we will restrict ourselves to halos that have a mean flattening that is consistent with current observational constraints: $`ϵ=0.3`$ (see, e.g., Sackett 1999 or Wright & Brainerd 2000). In order to detect anisotropic galaxy–galaxy lensing at a 4-$`\sigma `$ level from all sources within $`\pm 45^{}`$ of the axial direction vectors of a halo with $`ϵ=0.3`$, we need a signal to noise in the value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ that is of order $`(0.76/0.06)12.7`$ (see, e.g., Fig. 1, lefthand panel). By straightforward error propagation, we would then need a signal to noise in the (separate) measurements of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$ on the order of 18. Assuming an identical surface density of galaxies and identical noise properties as the Fischer et al. data set, this would require an area of sky of order $`\left[18\times (\sqrt{2}/6)\right]^218`$ times that used by Fischer et al. (2000). That is, the amount of data required would be equivalent to about 40% of the final SDSS data set ($`10^4`$ square degrees). A somewhat larger survey area (of order 26 times that of the Fischer et al. data set) would be required to detect an anisotropy in $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$ versus $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ if one were to restrict the analysis to only those sources within $`\pm 20^{}`$ of the axial direction vectors of the lenses (e.g., Fig. 1, righthand panel).

One can, of course, improve the signal to noise by using a smaller area and a data set with a completeness limit that is much greater than the relatively shallow limit of the SDSS. For example, BBS claimed a 4-$`\sigma `$ detection of galaxy–galaxy lensing on scales $`\theta <35^{\prime \prime }`$ using a single, small field ($`72`$ sq. arcmin.) in which their “bright” galaxies had $`r`$ magnitudes in the range of 20 to 23 and their “faint” galaxies had $`r`$ magnitudes in the range 23 to 24 (i.e., roughly 2 magnitudes fainter than the SDSS data). Applying the same signal to noise calculation above to a survey with similar depth and noise properties as the BBS data, an assumption of $`ϵ0.3`$ then leads to an estimate of an area of order $`\left[18\times (\sqrt{2}/4)\right]^2=40.5`$ times that of the BBS data set (i.e., only about 0.8 square degrees) being necessary in order to obtain a significant detection of an anisotropy in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal using sources within $`\pm 45^{}`$ of the axial direction vectors of the lenses. A survey of area 1.8 square degrees would be necessary to obtain a 4-$`\sigma `$ detection of anisotropy in the signal using sources within $`\pm 20^{}`$ of the axial direction vectors of the lenses. Such relatively small areas can now be obtained easily with wide-field CCD mosaic cameras and, therefore, such an investigation is well within the reach of current technology.

There are, however, some points to note when considering the above estimation of the detectability of anisotropic galaxy–galaxy lensing. The first, and most obvious, is that both Fischer et al. (2000) and BBS separated candidate lenses from candidate sources on the basis of apparent magnitude alone. That is, since galaxies have a broad distribution in redshift, lens–source separation performed solely on the basis of apparent magnitude will be inefficient and some of the candidate lenses are, therefore, located at greater distances from the observer than are some of the candidate sources. This will, necessarily, manifest as a source of “noise” in the analysis and will degrade the lensing signal. If lens–source separation on the basis of photometric or spectroscopic redshifts were to be performed, for example, the size of the data set that would be required to detect anisotropic galaxy–galaxy lensing would be reduced significantly from our calculation above.

Another point to note is that our estimation of the detectability of the signal is based upon an assumption of single deflections. That is, in computing the theoretical values of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ we have not accounted for the fact that distant galaxies may be weakly lensed at comparable levels by two or more foreground galaxies. The number of multiple deflections that need to be considered depends upon the selection function used to discriminate between candidate lenses and sources, but in the case of the magnitude–selected samples of BBS it was estimated that 1/3 of the faint galaxy sample would have been lensed at a comparable level by 2 foreground galaxies, and that another 1/3 of the faint galaxy sample would have been lensed at a comparable level by 3 or more foreground galaxies. Therefore, a somewhat more reliable estimate of the detectability of anisotropic galaxy–galaxy lensing will depend upon a more detailed analysis of the problem than we have presented here. In particular, simulations of galaxy–galaxy lensing which match observational constraints as closely as possible (i.e., the faint galaxy number counts, the redshift distribution of galaxies as a function of magnitude, the luminosity function of galaxies, the range of reasonable halo shapes, and the noise properties of the data) will ultimately be required. We are in the process of completing such an analysis and will present the results soon (Wright & Brainerd 2000).

Lastly, the proposed “stacking” of the foreground galaxy images will, necessarily, be noisy at some level and this will contribute to a degradation of the anisotropic lensing signal. In particular, the effects of seeing, pixellation, and sky noise will all contribute an error to the observed position angle of the image of a foreground galaxy. In addition, galaxy–galaxy lensing of the selected foreground population due to nearby galaxies along the line of sight will contribute a small but non-zero error. That is, even in the limit of “perfect” imaging data, galaxy–galaxy lensing of the foreground population itself will cause the observed position angle of the image of a foreground galaxy to differ slightly from the true position angle of the galaxy. However, this effect is expected to be small compared to the error in the position angle that is induced by the imaging process. For example, the Monte Carlo simulations performed by BBS show that for 80% of galaxies, the position angle of the lensed image differs from that of the unlensed image by less than $`5^{}`$.

In order to estimate the degree to which noise in the determination of the position angles of the foreground galaxies results in a degradation of the anisotropic lensing signal, we repeat the calculations in §2 but with the difference that we induce an error in the observed orientation of the axial direction vectors by randomly rotating them away from their “true” location. That is, the shear experienced by the source galaxies is correctly computed as being due to flattened lenses with position angles of $`0^{}`$. Then, the orientation of the axial direction vectors is randomly rotated by an amount $`\varphi `$ and the mean shears, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}`$, are computed using sources within $`\pm N^{}`$ of these rotated direction vectors (i.e., the “observed” direction vectors). For simplicity of calculation, the values of $`\varphi `$ were drawn from Gaussian distributions with zero mean and standard deviations of $`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ ranged from $`5^{}`$ to $`45^{}`$. Computing the anisotropy in the lensing signal relative to the rotated axes will necessarily result in a value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}/\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}`$ that is closer to unity than are the values plotted in Fig. 1. That is, the anisotropic lensing signal will be “degraded” by some amount, which will clearly be dependent upon the typical error in the position angles of the lens galaxies, $`\varphi `$.

By symmetry, the ratio of the mean shears is independent of angular scale (e.g., Fig. 1) for any randomly chosen value of $`\varphi `$ and we therefore do not plot the angular dependence of the anisotropic lensing signal as measured relative to the rotated axes. For each value of lens ellipticity, $`ϵ`$, and standard deviation in the position angle, $`\sigma `$, we compute the ratio,

$$\zeta =\left[1\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}}{\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}}\right]_{\mathrm{obs}}\left[1\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{minor}}}{\gamma _{\mathrm{major}}}\right]_{\mathrm{true}}^1$$
(6)
where the numerator is the mean value of the anisotropic lensing signal that was obtained from 5000 independent rotations of the axial direction vectors and the denominator is obtained from the values plotted in Fig. 1. That is, here we compare the relative deviations of the lensing signals from values of unity (the null case in which all halos are round in projection). The results are shown in Fig. 2, where the lefthand panel shows the degradation in the lensing signal for sources within $`\pm 45^{}`$ of the rotated axial direction vectors and the righthand panel shows the same, but for sources within $`\pm 20^{}`$ of the rotated axial direction vectors. The different point types refer to lenses of different ellipticities and correspond to the point types used in Fig. 1. It is clear from Fig. 2 that the anisotropic lensing signal is degraded due to the noise associated with stacking the images of the foreground lenses, but provided the typical 1-$`\sigma `$ error in the position angle of the lenses is less than $`15^{}`$, more than 90% of the true signal is recovered in the mean. The more accurate the alignment of the foreground galaxies, the more signal that will, necessarily, be recovered. Therefore, even with somewhat noisy data, anisotropies in the galaxy–galaxy lensing signal should still be detectable.

## 4 Summary

We have investigated anisotropies in galaxy–galaxy lensing by comparing the mean shear experienced by sources nearby to the major axis of an elliptical lens to that experienced by sources nearby to the minor axis. We have shown that for realistic halo flattening ($`ϵ0.3`$), the level of anisotropy in the lensing signal is small but should be detectable in large ground-based imaging surveys. Our calculation of the size of the data set required for detection of this effect includes the actual observational error estimates in the detection of circularly-averaged galaxy-galaxy lensing from two previous investigations of galaxy–galaxy lensing: Fischer et al. (2000) and BBS. In addition, we have shown that although the level of the detected anisotropy is degraded due to noise in the process of aligning the symmetry axes of the foreground lens galaxies prior to stacking their images, the effect should be small provided the true position angles of the lens galaxies are known to within a typical 1-$`\sigma `$ error of order $`15^{}`$.

Galaxy–galaxy lensing is the only technique which at present has the potential to constrain the projected shapes of the dark matter galaxy halos on average throughout the universe. While it cannot provide a strong constraint on the shape of any one particular halo, the method is applicable to the entire galaxy population and should yield a strong constraint on the mean projected shape of halos. Given that there are currently very few observational constraints on the shapes of dark matter halos, the wealth of information on both the details of galaxy formation and the nature of the dark matter that such constraints will provide, and the apparent detectability of the lensing signal for moderately flattened halos, observational investigations of anisotropic galaxy–galaxy lensing with high-quality imaging data certainly appear to be justified at this time.

## Acknowledgments

Support under NSF contract AST-9616968 and a generous allocation of resources at Boston University’s Scientific Computing and Visualization Center are gratefully acknowledged.