text:
# Cluster cross sections for strong lensing: analytic and numerical lens models

## 1 Introduction

Many authors pointed out that the statistics of gravitationally lensed arcs in galaxy clusters may be a powerful tool for constraining cosmological models. They are rare events caused by a highly nonlinear effect in cluster cores, and are thus not only sensitive to the cosmologically highly variable number density of galaxy clusters, but also to their internal structure.

The expected number of giant arcs, usually defined as arcs with a length-to-width ratio exceeding ten and apparent $`B`$-magnitude less than $`22.5`$ \[Wu & Hammer 1993\], changes by orders of magnitude between low- and high-density universes according to the numerical models described in Bartelmann et al. (1998). They use the ray-tracing technique for studying gravitational lensing by galaxy cluster models taken from N-body simulations (see also Bartelmann & Weiss 1994; Bartelmann 1995; Bartelmann, Steinmetz & Weiss 1995; Meneghetti et al. 2000, 2001). This allows the most realistic description of the cluster lenses because all effects which could play an important role for the lensing phenomena are by construction taken into account. Cluster asymmetries, substructure, and the tidal field of the surrounding matter distribution are known to have substantial effects on arc statistics, and they are automatically included if the cluster simulations are suitably designed.

In order to extract useful cosmological constraints from arc statistics, it is essential to perform simulations on a fine grid in the cosmological parameter space. However, given the long computation times required for full numerical simulations of cluster lensing, it is currently not feasible to perform such simulations for sufficiently many combinations of the essential cosmological parameters, i.e. the matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore, conclusions can so far be drawn only for discrete points in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plane.

In a conceptually different approach, simple analytic, axially symmetric models have been used for describing the density profiles of cluster lenses (see e.g. Wu & Mao 1996; Cooray, Quashnock & Miller 1999; Molikawa et al. 1999; Kaufmann & Straumann 2000; Oguri, Taraya & Suto 2001; Oguri et al. 2002; Molikawa & Hattori 2001). This method of investigation has the advantage that the computation of the probability for arcs satisfying a specified property is fast and can easily be performed for a continuous and wide range of cosmological parameters, because the lensing properties of these models are perfectly known and fully described by analytic formulae. However, important effects like substructures or asymmetries in the matter distribution can at best be taken into account at an approximate level, and the correspondence between analytic and numerical models remains unclear. While the analytic studies by Cooray et al. (1999) and Kaufmann & Straumann (2000) find similar results as the numerical simulations regarding the sensitivity of arc statistics to the cosmic density parameter, their results are almost insensitive to the cosmological constant, in marked contrast to Bartelmann et al. (1998), who found order-of-magnitude changes in the arc cross sections between low-density models with and without a cosmological constant.

In this paper, we investigate whether the results of the analytic and numerical approaches can be reconciled using a more realistic analytic lens model. Previous analytic studies of arc statistics commonly used the singular isothermal sphere (hereafter SIS), which is computationally convenient, but has an unrealistic density profile and does not naturally reflect the theoretically expected and numerically demonstrated variations in halo concentration. Instead, we model cluster lenses as haloes with the density profile found by Navarro, Frenk & White (1997; hereafter NFW) in high-resolution simulations of haloes with a wide range of masses. The profile is flatter than isothermal near the core, and steeper outside, which leads to qualitatively and quantitatively different lensing properties. We take the change of halo concentration with halo mass and cosmology into account, we distort the lensing potential elliptically in order to mimic cluster asymmetries, and we adapt the ellipticity by fitting numerical cluster models. We then compare the efficiency for producing arcs with a minimal length-to-width ratio of the elliptical NFW lenses with fully numerically simulated cluster lenses, and with the singular isothermal spheres for reference.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we define the lensing cross section of both numerical and analytic models. In particular, in Sect. 2.1 we describe the ray-tracing simulations, and we show the lensing cross sections produced by a sample of five galaxy clusters simulated in three different cosmological models. In Sect. 2.2, we deal with the lensing cross sections of axially symmetric analytic models and discuss the differences between SIS and NFW models. In Sect. 2.3, we show how the lensing cross sections change by assuming elliptical instead of circular sources. In Sect. 2.4, we discuss lensing by elliptically distorted NFW models and compare their arc cross sections with those of axially symmetric NFW lenses. In Sect. 3 we compare the analytic and the numerical models. Our conclusions are presented in Sect. 4.

## 2 Cross sections for long and thin arcs

The efficiency of a given lens for producing arcs with specified properties can be quantified by means of suitably defined lensing cross sections. They are defined as the areas on the source plane where sources must be located in order to be imaged as arcs satisfying the required conditions on, e.g., size, shape, magnitude and the like. We focus in this paper on the cross sections of clusters for producing long and thin arcs, i.e. for arcs whose length-to-width ratio $`L/W`$ exceeds a given minimum value $`(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$. In the following subsections, we describe our method for computing strong lensing cross sections of numerically and analytically modelled galaxy clusters.

### 2.1 Numerical models

For comparison to the analytic models, we compute the strong lensing cross sections of five numerically simulated cluster-sized dark-matter haloes, kindly made available by the GIF collaboration \[Kauffmann et al. 1999\]. The same clusters have been used by Bartelmann et al. (1998). They were obtained from $`N`$-body simulations performed in the framework of three different cosmological models. These are an Einstein-de Sitter model (hereafter SCDM); a flat, low-density universe with a matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM); and an open, low-density model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (OCDM). The initial matter density in these models is perturbed about the mean according to a CDM power spectrum \[Bond & Efstathiou 1984\] with primordial spectral index $`n=1`$, normalised such that the local abundance of massive galaxy clusters is reproduced (e.g. Viana & Liddle 1996). The complete list of cosmological parameters in these simulations is given in Bartelmann et al. (1998). The virial masses of the clusters at redshift $`z=0`$ range between $`5\times 10^{14}M_{}/h`$ and $`2\times 10^{15}M_{}/h`$. The masses of individual particles are $`1.0\times 10^{10}h^1M_{}`$ and $`1.4\times 10^{10}h^1M_{}`$ for the high- and the low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ models, respectively.

The lensing properties of these clusters are studied using a ray-shooting technique which was described in detail elsewhere (Bartelmann et al. 1998; Meneghetti et al. 2000, 2001). Here, we only briefly discuss some parameters used in these computations, and refer the reader to the cited papers for a more complete description.

Since strong lensing only occurs near the very cluster centres, we select areas of $`1.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ comoving side length centred on the lens centres. For all reasonable combinations of lens and source redshifts, this region is large enough to encompass the critical curves of the cluster lens, close to which large arcs form. A bundle of $`2048\times 2048`$ rays is shot through a regular grid on the lens plane, covering the studied region, and their paths to the source plane are traced. We consider different snapshots of the cluster simulation at selected redshifts between $`z_\mathrm{l}=0`$ and $`z_\mathrm{l}=1`$. For each snapshot, three projections of each simulated cluster on orthogonal planes are used for performing the lensing simulations. The typical angular resolution at $`z0.3`$ is 0.18 arcsec, assuming the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

The sources are assumed to all lie on one plane at redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}=1`$. Although real galaxy sources are obviously distributed in redshift, putting them all at the same redshift is acceptable because first, observations show that most of the sources which experience strong lensing effects are generally at redshifts near unity and second, the critical surface density changes very little with source redshift, unless it is very close to the lens redshift. Moreover, we assume sources to be elliptical, with their axis ratios $`b/a`$ uniformly distributed in the range $`0.5`$$`1.0`$. An initial set of sources is placed on a regular grid covering the source plane, and additional sources are added on sub-grids whose resolution is iteratively increased towards the lens caustics. Thus, sources are placed on an adaptive hierarchy of grids in order to improve the numerical efficiency of the method and to increase the probability for finding long and thin arcs. For correcting the statistics of the numerically simulated arcs, we assign to each source and all of its images a statistical weight $`w`$ which is inversely proportional to the squared resolution of the sub-grid on which the corresponding source was placed. The finer the grid resolution, the lower is the statistical weight of its images; see also Eq. (1) below.

Using the ray-tracing technique, we reconstruct the images of the background sources and measure their length, width and curvature radius. Our technique for image detection and classification was described in detail by Bartelmann & Weiss (1994) and adopted by Bartelmann et al. (1998) and Meneghetti et al. (2000, 2001). It results in a catalogue of simulated images which is subsequently analysed statistically.

Each source is taken to represent a fraction of the source plane. The cells of the sub-grid with the highest resolution have area $`A`$, and the sources placed on its grid points are given a statistical weight of unity. The absolute lensing cross sections for a specified image property are then determined by counting the statistical weights of the sources whose images have the required property. Specifically, we search for sources with a length-to-width ratio exceeding a threshold $`(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$. If a source has multiple images with $`(L/W)(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$, we multiply its statistical weight by the number of such images. Therefore, the lensing cross section is

$$\sigma _{(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}}=A\underset{i}{}W_iw_in_i,$$
(1)
where $`W_i`$ is unity if the $`i`$-th source has images with $`(L/W)(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and zero otherwise, $`n_i`$ is the number of images of the $`i`$-th source satisfying the required condition, and $`w_i`$ is the statistical weight of the source.

### 2.2 Axially symmetric models

For sufficiently simple, axially symmetric lens models, the strong lensing cross sections can be also computed in an analytic or semi-analytic way. We consider two such models, the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) for reference, and haloes with the NFW density profile \[Navarro et al. 1997\]. The SIS has been very widely used in many previous studies on arc statistics because of its computational simplicity. The NFW density profile fits the results of highly resolved numerical halo simulations and thus provides a much more realistic description of cluster density profiles than the SIS profile. We focus on the NFW profile here, but give some results for SIS lenses for later comparison.

The SIS density profile is given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\sigma _v^2}{(2\pi Gr^2)},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _v`$ is the velocity dispersion. The NFW density profile is

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{s}}{(r/r_\mathrm{s})(1+r/r_\mathrm{s})^2},$$
(3)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ are characteristic density and distance scales, respectively (see Navarro et al. 1997). These two parameters are not independent, but related to a single parameter, which can be taken as the cluster mass. It is important to note that $`\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ also depend on the cosmological model, hence the lensing properties of haloes with identical mass are different in different cosmological models, a crucial property which the simpler singular isothermal sphere models do not share. The NFW halo falls off more steeply than isothermal at radii beyond $`r_\mathrm{s}`$, but flattens towards the halo centre. These different features lead to markedly different lensing properties of the NFW compared to the SIS model, as will be shown below (see also the discussion in Perrotta et al. 2002).

For axially symmetric lens models, the lens equation is essentially one-dimensional. Define the optical axis as the line running from the observer through the lens centre, and introduce physical distances from the optical axis $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, respectively, on the lens and source planes. Fixing a length scale $`\xi _0`$ on the lens plane, we can define the dimensionless distance $`x\xi /\xi _0`$. The chosen length scale $`\xi _0`$ is projected onto the length scale $`\eta _0=\xi _0D_\mathrm{s}/D_\mathrm{l}`$ on the source plane, where $`D_\mathrm{l}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ are the angular-diameter distances to the lens and source planes, respectively. In analogy to the lens plane, a dimensionless distance from the optical axis $`y\eta /\eta _0`$ can now be defined on the source plane. The lens equation, relating the position of an image on the lens plane to that of its source on the source plane is then

$$y=x\alpha (x),$$
(4)
where $`\alpha (x)`$ is the reduced deflection angle at distance $`x`$ from the lens centre, caused by the lensing mass distribution. It is the gradient of the lensing potential $`\psi `$,

$$\alpha (x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\psi (x)}{\mathrm{d}x}.$$
(5)
See, e.g. Schneider, Ehlers & Falco (1992) and Narayan & Bartelmann (1997) for more details.

Local imaging properties are described by the Jacobian matrix of the lens mapping. It has two eigenvalues, $`\lambda _\mathrm{r}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{t}`$, which describe the image distortion in the radial and the tangential directions, respectively. For an axially symmetric lens, they are

$$\lambda _\mathrm{r}(x)=1\frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}x},\lambda _\mathrm{t}(x)=1\frac{\alpha }{x}.$$
(6)
Analytic expressions for the lensing potential $`\psi (x)`$ at any distance $`x`$ are easily obtained for the SIS and the NFW lens models. Therefore, the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix can straightforwardly be computed for both lens models considered here.

For a SIS lens, the lensing potential is

$$\psi (x)=|x|,$$
(7)
if $`\xi _0=4\pi (\sigma _v/c)^2D_\mathrm{l}D_{\mathrm{ls}}/D_\mathrm{s}`$ is chosen as a length scale, where $`D_{\mathrm{ls}}`$ is the angular diameter distance between lens and source. Hence, the deflection angle and the eigenvalues are

$$\alpha (x)=\frac{x}{|x|},\lambda _\mathrm{r}=1,\lambda _\mathrm{t}=1\frac{1}{|x|}.$$
(8)
For an NFW lens, we take $`\xi _0=r_\mathrm{s}`$ for simplicity and define $`\kappa _\mathrm{s}\rho _\mathrm{s}r_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}=[c^2/(4\pi G)][D_\mathrm{s}/(D_\mathrm{l}D_{\mathrm{ls}})]`$ is the critical surface mass density for strong lensing. We then have the lensing potential

$$\psi (x)=4\kappa _\mathrm{s}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{x}{2}2\mathrm{arctanh}^2\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}\right],$$
(9)
which implies the deflection angle

$$\alpha (x)=\frac{4\kappa _\mathrm{s}}{x}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{2}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\mathrm{arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}\right],$$
(10)
from which the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{t}}`$ can straightforwardly be derived. Several different aspects of lensing by haloes with NFW or generalised NFW profiles can be found in Bartelmann (1996), Wright & Brainerd (2000), Li & Ostriker (2002), Wyithe, Turner & Spergel (2001), Perrotta et al. (2002). It can easily be verified that the potential \[Eq. (9)\] satisfies the Poisson equation $`^2\psi =2\kappa `$, with $`\kappa `$ given in Bartelmann (1996).

It is an important feature of the NFW lensing potential \[Eq. (9)\] that its radial profile is considerably less curved near the centre than the SIS potential \[Eq. (7)\]. Since the local imaging properties are determined by the curvature of $`\psi `$, this immediately implies substantial changes to the lensing properties. At fixed halo mass, the critical curves of an NFW lens are closer to its centre than for a SIS lens because of its flatter density profile. There, the potential is less curved, thus the image magnification is larger and decreases more slowly away from the critical curves. Therefore, NFW lenses are less efficient in image splitting than SIS lenses, but comparably efficient in image magnification. What is more important here is that any additional shear added to a flat lensing potential (e.g. by asymmetries) much more strongly extends the critical curves than for a steeper potential. We will see the consequences below.

The inverse of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{t}}`$ of the Jacobian matrix gives the radial and the tangential magnifications at the radial distance $`x`$ from the lens centre. The points satisfying the conditions $`\lambda _{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{t}}=0`$ form the radial or tangential critical curves, respectively, where the corresponding magnifications tend to infinity. For SIS lenses, $`\lambda _\mathrm{r}`$ is always unity, hence the radial critical curve does not exist in this case, so the images are not radially magnified. The tangential critical curve is the circle $`|x|=1`$. For NFW lenses, the critical curves have to be found numerically. In the limit of small $`\kappa _\mathrm{s}`$, when the critical curves are close to the lens centre, we find to first order in $`x`$

$$\lambda _\mathrm{t}2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1+\kappa _\mathrm{s}}{2\kappa _\mathrm{s}}\right),\lambda _\mathrm{r}\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{t}}{2.718}.$$
(11)
By means of the lens equation, the critical curves are mapped to the corresponding caustic curves in the source plane. For the axially symmetric lenses we are considering, the tangential caustic degenerates to the point where the optical axis intercepts the source plane.

### 2.3 Elliptical sources

The length-to-width ratio of an image depends on the local lens properties and on the ellipticity of the sources. We derive and compare results for both circular and elliptical sources. Since the source galaxies are typically much smaller than the length scale on which the lens properties change substantially, we can assume that the length-to-width ratio of the images of a circular source is given by the ratio of the two eigenvalues $`q_\mathrm{l}\lambda _\mathrm{r}/\lambda _\mathrm{t}`$ at the image position.

An elegant model for introducing elliptical sources into analytic lensing calculations was recently proposed by Keeton (2001). Following his approach, the observed length-to-width ratio $`L/W`$ is a function of three variables, which are the intrinsic axis ratio $`q_\mathrm{s}=a/b`$ and the intrinsic position angle $`\theta `$ of the source, and the eigenvalue ratio $`q_\mathrm{l}`$ of the lens at the image position:

$$L/W=\left[\frac{T+(T^24Q)^{1/2}}{T(T^24Q)^{1/2}}\right]^{1/2},$$
(12)
where

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`q_\mathrm{l}^2+q_\mathrm{s}^2+(q_\mathrm{l}^21)(q_\mathrm{s}^21)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (13)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`q_\mathrm{l}^2q_\mathrm{s}^2.`$ (14)
The length-to-width ratio $`L/W`$ of each image can be related to the source position $`y`$ by means of the lens equation. For sources with fixed intrinsic shape and orientation lensed by axially symmetric lenses, $`L/W`$ monotonically decreases as the source is moved from $`y=0`$ (where the degenerate tangential caustic is located) away from the lens centre. Thus the lensing cross section for arcs with $`L/W(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ from sources with intrinsic axis ratio $`q_\mathrm{s}`$ and position angle $`\theta `$ can be written as

$$\sigma _{(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}}(q_\mathrm{s},\theta )=\pi y_{\mathrm{min}}^2,$$
(15)
where $`y_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the distance from the optical axis where $`L/W`$ falls below $`(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

In order to compute the final lensing cross section, we have to average these cross sections over all the possible values of $`q_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\theta `$. For doing so, we assume that $`\theta `$ and $`q_\mathrm{s}^1`$ are uniformly distributed in the ranges $`[0,\pi ]`$ and $`[0.5,1]`$, respectively. This agrees with the assumptions underlying the numerical simulations. Therefore, the final lensing cross section is given by

$$\sigma _{(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}}=\frac{4}{\pi }_1^2_0^{\pi /2}\sigma _{(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}}(q_\mathrm{s},\theta )d\theta \frac{\mathrm{d}q_\mathrm{s}}{q_\mathrm{s}^2}.$$
(16)
Both SIS and NFW lenses can produce multiple images for suitable source positions. For SIS lenses, multiple images occur only for sources lying inside the Einstein ring, which has the angular radius $`\theta _\mathrm{E}=(4\pi \sigma _v^2/c^2)(D_{\mathrm{ls}}/D_\mathrm{s})`$. If this is the case, the lens produces an arc and a counter-arc. As the source moves towards the Einstein ring, the tangential magnification of the counter-arc decreases and tends to zero. Then, the counter-arc disappears (see Narayan & Bartelmann 1997 for further detail). The main “arc” remains, but its tangential magnification goes to unity as the source moves away from the optical axis towards infinity.

For NFW lenses, multiple images occur only for sources with $`y<y_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{r}}`$, where $`y_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{r}}`$ is the radius of the radial caustic. As shown by Bartelmann (1996), the NFW density profile always has a radial critical curve (and thus a radial caustic) for any combination of $`\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}`$. Sources inside the radial caustic therefore always produce a radial image, an arc, and a counter-arc. We neglect the radial image because it is radially oriented. As for SIS lenses, the arc and the counter-arc have different length-to-width ratios $`L/W`$. In fact, the counter-arc is radially magnified as the source moves towards the radial caustic, and its length-to-width ratio decreases more rapidly than that of the main tangential arc. Therefore, two separate cross sections must be computed for both SIS and NFW lens models, one for the arc and one for the counter-arc, and the total lensing cross section is the sum of these two contributions.

To give an example, Fig. 1 shows the lensing cross section for arcs with length-to-width ratio $`L/W>7.5`$ produced from sources at redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}=1`$ by a lens with mass $`10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ at redshifts between zero and unity. Results are given for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The solid lines correspond to NFW lenses, the dashed lines to SIS lenses. Thick and thin lines indicate the results for elliptical and circular sources, respectively. We use here the length-to-width ratio threshold of $`7.5`$ instead of $`10`$ in order to improve the statistics of numerically simulated arcs, and to reduce corresponding fluctuations in the cross sections.

As expected, the lensing cross section of the NFW model is smaller than for SIS lenses because of its flatter density profile. In particular, NFW lenses lose their strong-lensing efficiency when the lens approaches the observer or the sources. Conversely, due to its unrealistically steep and scale-free density profile, the SIS remains an efficient strong lens even when it is located very close to the observer or to the source.

The relative increase of the cross section for the intrinsically elliptical sources is virtually independent of the lens redshift, but it does depend on the lens model. In fact, the relative change in the lensing cross sections for NFW lenses is approximately twice as high as for SIS lenses, quite independent of the lens redshift. This is again due to the shallower lensing potential of NFW compared to SIS lenses.

### 2.4 Elliptical models

The construction of lens models with elliptical or pseudo-elliptical isodensity contours is generally quite complicated (see e.g. Kassiola & Kovner 1993; Kormann, Schneider & Bartelmann 1994; Golse & Kneib 2002). Starting from an elliptical lensing potential is computationally much more tractable, but has the disadvantage that the mass distribution corresponding to the elliptical potential can become dumbbell-shaped even for moderate ellipticities, which is unwanted for galaxy lenses. Galaxy clusters, however, are less relaxed and exhibit substructure, so for them dumbbell-shaped mass distributions are uncritical. For this reason, we prefer constructing elliptical cluster lens models starting directly from the effective lensing potential. Moreover, since the NFW density profile gives a much more realistic reproduction of the simulated clusters than the SIS, we chose to generalise only the NFW lens model to the elliptical case.

The lensing potential of an axially symmetric NFW lens was given in Eq. (9) above. We introduce the ellipticity $`e1b/a`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the major and minor axes of the ellipse, by substituting

$$x𝒳=\sqrt{\frac{x_1^2}{(1e)}+x_2^2(1e)},$$
(17)
where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are the two Cartesian components of $`x`$, $`x^2=x_1^2+x_2^2`$. This ensures that the mass inside circles of fixed radius remains constant as the ellipticity changes.

The Cartesian components of the deflection angle are then

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{(1e)𝒳}}\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳),`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{x_2(1e)}{𝒳}}\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳),`$ (18)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳)`$ is the unperturbed (i.e. axially-symmetric) deflection angle at the distance $`𝒳`$ from the lens centre.

Using these formulae, deflection-angle fields for different values of the ellipticity $`e`$ are readily computed. Some examples for deflection-angle maps are displayed in Fig. 2. Obviously, the shape of the contours becomes more and more elliptical as $`e`$ is increased. We analyse the lensing properties of these deflection-angle fields using the ray-tracing technique and, finally, compute the lensing cross sections, adopting the same techniques as applied to the numerical models.

Increasing the ellipticity of the lensing potential strengthens the shear field of the lens, and consequently the tangential caustic expands and changes. Examples for the change of the caustics with ellipticity $`e`$ are shown in Fig. 3, which refers to a halo with mass $`M=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ at redshift $`z=0.3`$, and the underlying cosmology is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. As discussed above, the radial and tangential caustics are a circle and a point, respectively, for the axially symmetric models. Increasing $`e`$, the caustics stretch, develop cusps, and enclose a growing area. Thus the lensing cross sections are expected to grow rapidly. This is confirmed by Fig. 4, which shows cross sections for arcs with $`L/W7.5`$. These results were obtained through ray-tracing simulations in which deflection angle maps for two haloes of mass $`M=7.5\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$ and $`M=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ were used. Again, we adopt the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model universe and put the lens at redshift $`z=0.3`$. Increasing the ellipticity of the lensing potential from $`e=0`$ to $`e=0.5`$, the cross section increases approximately by a factor of $`30`$, almost independently of the lens mass considered.

## 3 Comparison of Analytic and Numerical models

We can now compare the strong lensing cross sections of the numerical and analytic models introduced in the preceding sections. For that purpose, we focus on the lensing cross sections for the formation of arcs with length-to-width ratios $`L/W`$ larger than $`7.5`$ and $`10`$. As described before, we compare them to the lensing properties of five numerical models of galaxy cluster haloes, picking simulation snapshots at twelve different redshifts between zero and unity. For clarity, we present here the results obtained for the most massive halo only. The behaviour of the cross sections for the other numerical models is in good qualitative and quantitative agreement with that obtained for this cluster.

The results are illustrated in Fig. 5, where the dotted lines refer to the fully numerically simulated cluster, while solid and dashed lines represent the cross sections of NFW and SIS lenses, respectively, having the same virial mass as the numerical cluster model. Finally, the shaded regions in the same plots show the cross sections obtained by elliptically distorting the NFW lensing potential with ellipticities $`e`$ in the range between $`e=0.2`$ and $`e=0.4`$ (lower and upper limits, respectively). Results are shown for $`L/W=7.5`$ (upper panels) and $`L/W=10`$ (lower panels), and they were obtained for the SCDM (left panels), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (central panels), and OCDM models (bottom panel).

First, we checked the calibration of the analytic relative to the numerical cross sections. For doing so, we performed ray-tracing simulations using the axially symmetric deflection angle maps for the NFW lens model, and used them for determining the strong-lensing cross sections. The results are shown as filled dots in the panels of Fig. 5. The very good agreement with the analytic estimates obtained as explained in Sect. 2.2 demonstrates the reliability of our numerical technique.

The general trends in the lensing cross sections shown in Fig. 5 can be understood as follows. The strong-lensing efficiency of a mass distribution depends on several factors. First, for the light coming from the sources to be focused on the observer, the lens must be located at a suitable distance from both the observer and the sources. Second, the larger the (virial) mass of the lens is, the stronger are the lensing effects it produces close to its centre. Finally, the more concentrated the lens is, the thinner are the long arcs expected to be.

Since the lens mass grows with decreasing redshift because new material is accreted by the halo and deepens its potential well, the lensing cross sections are expected to grow as well. On the other hand, when the lens is too close to the observer, the cross section is geometrically suppressed, unless the lens surface density profile is sufficiently steep and scale-free, as for the SIS lenses. In fact, in this case the focusing by the lens is strong enough to allow observers to see strongly distorted images of background sources also in very near lenses, i.e. at relatively small redshifts (see also Fig. 1).

Moreover, the results are expected to depend on cosmology. In fact, in the OCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models, galaxy clusters become efficient lenses at higher redshift than in the SCDM scenario, because they form earlier and are centrally more concentrated. This is confirmed by our numerical results. In the Einstein-de Sitter case both $`\sigma _{7.5}`$ and $`\sigma _{10}`$ are completely negligible for redshifts $`z0.4`$$`0.5`$ and peak at $`z0.2`$, while for low-density models the cross sections are largest in the redshift range $`0.3z0.5`$. A more complete discussion on the dependence of lensing cross sections on cosmology can be found in Bartelmann et al. (1998).

In this paper, we concentrate on comparing the cross sections of the analytic and numerical models. As Fig. 5 shows, the numerical models generally have much larger cross sections than the analytic models. In particular, the cross sections for axially symmetric NFW lenses are almost two orders of magnitude smaller, quite independent of the cosmological models considered. For SIS lenses, the discrepancy with the numerical models is only partially compensated by the unrealistically steep central density profile, but the estimated values of $`\sigma _{7.5}`$ and $`\sigma _{10}`$ remain too low. Introducing the elliptical distortion into the NFW lens model allows the cross section to increase by roughly an order of magnitude compared to the axially symmetric NFW model, but even then the analytic cross sections fail to reproduce the numerical cross sections unless unrealistically high values of $`e`$ are adopted.

Fig. 5 also demonstrates that apart from the cross-section amplitude, the analytic models miss another important feature of the numerical results, which show steep increases and decreases reflecting merger events. While a merging sublump approaches a cluster, the cross section tends to increase because of the increasing tidal field, and as the cluster relaxes following the merger event, the cross section decreases again. It becomes quite clear from Fig. 5 that such events play an important role in understanding realistic cluster cross sections, and they cannot reasonably be captured in analytic models unless their prime advantage of being computationally fast is sacrificed.

### 3.1 Ellipticity estimates

It is important to check which ellipticities are typical for the lensing potential of the numerical clusters. To this end, we compare the deflection-angle maps constructed for the numerical haloes with those obtained for elliptical NFW lenses with identical virial mass. We estimate the best-fit ellipticity $`e`$ by minimising the mean-square deviation

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{\alpha _i\widehat{\alpha }_i}{\widehat{\alpha }_i}\right)^2,$$
(19)
where $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }_i`$ are the deflection angles of the light ray passing through the $`i`$-th grid point on the numerical and the elliptical lens model, respectively. The summation is done over all grid points contained in the central region of roughly $`200h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ comoving side length. This way, we measure the ellipticity of the lensing potential in the central region close to the critical curves which is the most relevant for our purposes. For this test, we use the simulation snapshots at $`z=0.27`$, which is approximately the redshift where the numerical haloes reach their maximum lensing efficiency. The complete sample of five numerical clusters and three independent projections per cluster was used for this analysis.

The results are reported in Tab. 1. Median ellipticities of $`e0.3`$ are found, with only a weak dependence on cosmology. Indeed, only little evolution of the ellipticity is found going from low to high-density cosmological models. The median ellipticities in the OCDM and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models are slightly smaller than in the SCDM case, as expected, given that clusters form earlier in these models and have more time to relax. Anyway, as the semi-interquartile ranges (SIQR) show, the ellipticity distributions are quite broad, in particular for SCDM. The same analysis has also been repeated using other simulation snapshots, corresponding to redshifts in the range $`0.2z0.7`$. The results are quite similar to the previous ones and therefore not given in the table. The typical median of $`e`$ is around $`0.3`$, and exceeds $`0.4`$ in only a few cases. In conclusion, the ellipticities measured in the lensing potential of the numerical clusters are insufficient for reconciling the cross sections of elliptically distorted NFW models with the fully numerical results.

### 3.2 Substructure estimates

The remaning difference between numerical and analytical cross sections must be attributed to some factors which are missing from the analytical models. The most important of those is certainly the presence of substructure in the lensing mass distribution.

Deviations of the projected mass distribution of a numerically simulated cluster from the predictions of circular or elliptical models can be quantified by means of a multipole expansion of its surface density field. For performing this analysis, we first define a reference frame whose origin coincides with the surface density peak of the cluster. Then, starting from the particle positions in the $`N`$-body simulations, we compute the surface density at discrete radii $`r_n`$ and position angles $`\varphi _k`$, with $`r_n`$ and $`\varphi _k`$ taken from the intervals $`[0,1.5]h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`[0,2\pi ]`$, respectively. For any given $`r_n`$, each discrete sample of data $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r_n,\varphi _k)`$ can be expanded into a Fourier series in the position angle,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r_n,\varphi _k)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_l(r_n)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}l\varphi _k},$$
(20)
where the coefficients $`S_l(r_n)`$ are given by

$$S_l(r_n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(r_n,\varphi _k)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}l\varphi _k},$$
(21)
and can be computed using fast-Fourier techniques. We define the power spectrum $`P_n(l)`$ of the multipole expansion $`l`$ as $`P_n(l)=|S_l(r_n)|^2`$.

Axially symmetric and elliptical models have very simple multipole expansions. For a circular mass distribution, only the monopole, $`l=0`$, contributes to the sum in Eq. (20). An elliptical mass distribution has one more contribution from the quadrupole, $`l=2`$. The dipole term, $`l=1`$, is zero for both these models. Of course, the surface density fields of numerically simulated clusters are much more complex than those of our analytic models. Their multipole expansions contain a dipole and also multipoles of higher order than two, which correspond to substructures spanning opening angles of order $`\pi /l`$ when seen from the cluster centre.

Therefore, in order to quantify the amount of substructure and the degree of asymmetry in the mass distributions of our numerically simulated lenses at any distance $`r_n`$ from the cluster centre, we can use the power spectra $`P_n(l)`$. In particular, we define an integrated power $`P_{\mathrm{int}}(r_n)`$, which is the sum of the power spectral densities of the dipole and of all multipoles of higher order than two, i.e. we subtract the monopole and quadrupole contributions from the total integrated power,

$$P_{\mathrm{int}}(r_n)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n(l)P_n(0)P_n(2).$$
(22)
This quantity measures the deviation from an elliptical distribution of the surface mass density at a given distance $`r_n`$ from the cluster centre. In order to suppress the dependency on the radial coordinate, we also compute the area-weighted averaged value of $`P_{\mathrm{int}}`$ inside radius $`r`$ as

$$\overline{P}_{\mathrm{int}}(r)=\frac{2}{r^2}\underset{r_nr}{}P_{\mathrm{int}}(r_n)r_n\mathrm{\Delta }r_n.$$
(23)
In Fig. 6, we show how the integrated power $`\overline{P}_{\mathrm{int}}(r)`$ changes as a function of the cluster redshift for those lenses whose cross sections were plotted in Fig. 5. Again, we show the results for all three cosmological models. For making the integrated power at different radii comparable, we normalize them to the power of the corresponding monopole. Moreover, we average the results obtained for the three projections of the same cluster. The heavy dotted and dashed lines show the results for radii $`r_1=1.25h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, comparable to the cluster virial radius, and $`r_0=155h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$. For comparison, the heavy solid curves indicate the area-weighted power inside circles of radius $`r_1`$ as a function of redshift. The small values reached by the heavy dashed curves indicate that in the very central region of the cluster the mass distribution is dominated by the monopole and the quadrupole terms, i.e. in the innermost regions of the clusters, the surface mass density has elliptical iso-contours. Moreover, these curves are flat, which means that the surface density contours remain elliptical at all redshifts between zero and unity. On the other hand, as shown by the heavy dotted and solid lines, at distances comparable to the virial radius or smaller the contribution to the power from the dipole and the multipoles of higher order than two is large and can even exceed $`15\%`$ of the monopole contribution.

A quick comparison of these curves to the lensing cross sections in Fig. 5 shows that the redshifts where the contributions of the dipole and the higher-order multipoles are largest correspond quite well to those where the numerical cross sections deviate most strongly from those of the elliptical models.

This is most obvious between redshifts 0.2 and 0.4, where also the geometrical lensing efficiency is largest. At lower and higher redshifts, the lensing cross sections drop for two major reasons; first, the lenses are too close to the observer or to the sources; second, the cluster virial mass decreases with increasing redshift. For better comparing the dependences on redshift of the integrated power and the lensing cross sections, we rescale $`\overline{P}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ with the effective lensing distance, $`D=D_\mathrm{l}D_{\mathrm{ds}}/D_\mathrm{s}`$ and with the virial cluster mass. The thin lines in Fig. 6 show $`\overline{P}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ after rescaling. The damping effect almost completely removes the peaks in the integrated power at redshifts higher than $`z0.50.6`$, as well as those at redshifts lower than $`z0.2`$, and make the curves much more similar to the curves displaying the lensing cross sections as a function of redshift in Fig.5.

This correlation between the higher-order multipoles of the mass distributions and the cross sections proves that substructures and aymmetries are the dominant reason for the discrepancy between numerical and analytical lensing cross sections. We verified that the peaks in the integrated power $`\overline{P}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ occur when clumps of matter enter within the virial radius of the respective clusters. Then, the lensing cross section grows for two reasons; first, because the cluster mass increases, and second, because of the increased shear produced by the substructures falling towards the cluster centres.

## 4 Summary and discussion

In this paper, we have introduced an analytic lens model for describing strong lensing by galaxy clusters. It improves upon previously used models in four ways. First, the commonly adopted singular isothermal density profile is replaced by the NFW profile, which is much more adequate for cluster-sized haloes. Second, this model allows the effect of cosmology on the lens concentration to be included. Third, we elliptically perturb the model for approximating the substantial effect of cluster asymmetries on their strong-lensing cross sections. Fourth, we take into account that sources are intrinsically elliptical rather than circular. We adapt the ellipticity of this lens model to fit numerically simulated clusters and compare the strong-lensing cross sections of the analytic model to those of fully numerically simulated clusters. Results for singular isothermal sphere lenses are given for comparison. Our results can be summarised as follows:

* The cross section of the axially symmetric NFW lens model for arcs with length-to-width ratio larger than $`7.5`$ and $`10`$ are almost two orders of magnitude smaller than those of simulated clusters.
* The axially symmetric singular isothermal lens model is more efficient for strong lensing because its density profile is steeper in the core, but its large-arc cross sections are still smaller than the numerical ones by typically an order of magnitude, except at low redshift where both the numerical models and the NFW model fail in producing any lensing effect.
* The comparatively flat lensing potential of haloes with the NFW density profile makes NFW lenses poor image splitters, but efficient magnifiers. In addition, the flat potential renders the lensing properties very sensitive to changes in the tidal field, because small deformations of the potential can lead to large shifts of the critical curves.
* The cross sections of our new elliptical model increase steeply and monotonically as a function of ellipticity. An ellipticity of $`0.3`$ typically increases the cross sections by an order of magnitude. However, for the model to reproduce the arc cross sections of the numerical clusters, unrealistically high ellipticities $`e0.5`$ are required.
* Comparing the deflection angle maps to those of elliptical NFW lens models with variable $`e`$, we estimated the ellipticity of the lensing potential in the central region of the numerically modelled haloes and found typical ellipticities of $`e0.3`$, substantially below values required to solve the discrepancy between analytic and numerical lens models.
* The change of the fully numerical cluster cross sections with time exhibits pronounced signatures of merger events. As merging sublumps approach the cluster centre, their tidal field markedly increases the strong-lensing cross section. We have verified this by means of a multipole expansion of the cluster surface density field, which shows that larger deviations of the lensing cross section of the numerical clusters from the prediction of the analytic models arise when the contribution to the surface density power spectra from the dipole and from higher-order multipoles of high order. Our comparison of elliptical analytic lens models with fully numerical models shows that an adequate description of such events is necessary for an accurate calculation of arc cross sections.

We conclude that even our improved analytic model is unable to reproduce the strong lensing properties of realistic cluster models, which we assume the fully numerically simulated haloes to be. We have seen that the axially symmetric NFW lens model underpredicts the number of arcs with length-to-width ratio exceeding a given threshold by approximately two orders of magnitude compared to the fully numerical results.

At present, the NFW density profile can be considered the most realistic model profile for cluster haloes (see, however, Moore et al. 1999; Jing & Suto 2000). Moreover, it allows to take the effect of varying halo concentration on the strong lensing efficiency into account, which is a substantial advantage compared to the commonly used SIS density profile. Finally, the profile permits analytical calculations of the relevant lensing properties. Therefore, the NFW density profile appears ideally suited for constructing analytic models for strong lensing by clusters, in particular if elliptical distortions are included, as we have done in our extension of the model.

However, the differences remaining between the fully numerical and analytic approaches indicate that analytic modelling is still insufficient for properly and accurately describing strong lensing by galaxy clusters. We showed that the most important missing factors are the presence of substructures within the clusters, and the tidal field of the surrounding matter distribution. In fact, significant substructure is abundant in and around numerically simulated haloes. They enhance the shear field around the clusters, increasing the length of the critical curves and consequently increase the probability of forming long arcs.

Of course, the elliptically distorted NFW lens model is adequate for good qualitative calculations of arc probability, as Fig. 5 shows. However, in order to derive precise constraints on cosmology or cluster structure and evolution, more realistic cluster lens models are required, for which numerical simulations seem to be the only reliable choice.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by Italian MIUR (Grant 2001, prot. 2001028932, “Clusters and groups of galaxies: the interplay of dark and baryonic matter”), CNR and ASI. MM thanks the EARA for financial support and the Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik for the hospitality during the visits when part of this work was done. We are grateful to Bepi Tormen for clarifying discussions and to the anonymous referee for useful comments.


format: text

text:
# Low-field magnetoresistance in GaAs 2D holes

## I Introduction

Two-dimensional (2D) hole systems confined to GaAs quantum wells or GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures often exhibit a strong positive magnetoresistance (MR) at small perpendicular magnetic fields $`|B|0.1`$ T . An example is shown in Fig. 1.

The origin of this MR is of renewed interest in light of the puzzling metallic behavior recently observed in a number of 2D systems including GaAs 2D holes . It has been argued that the positive MR can be explained by a simple two-band model , where the two bands arise from the spin-orbit induced spin-splitting of the valence bands . Another report  relates the MR to weak antilocalization which is expected to occur at low magnetic fields in a system with spin-orbit coupling. There is yet a third possibility: positive MR has also been observed in 2D carrier systems with a one-dimensional periodic , or nearly periodic , potential modulation. This suggests that the unintentional corrugations which are often present at GaAs/AlGaAs surfaces and interfaces may also contribute to the observed MR.

In this paper we report extensive data on 2D holes in GaAs quantum wells and GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, grown on (311)A and (100) GaAs substrates, as well as a 2D electron system grown on a (311)A GaAs substrate. The (311)A 2D hole data, which are the main focus of this paper, span a density ($`p`$) range of $`2.5\times 10^{10}p4.0\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. The results collectively reveal the following trends. At high densities and in the presence of a large electric field perpendicular to the plane of the (311)A 2D hole system, we observe a pronounced positive MR when the current is driven along the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction. A much weaker MR is observed for current along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$. As the perpendicular electric field is reduced, the MR diminishes but does not vanish. On the other hand, as the 2D density is lowered the positive MR progressively becomes smaller and vanishes at the lowest measured density. The behavior of the MR for current along $`[01\overline{1}]`$ cannot be explained by any one of the previously mentioned three mechanisms. The combination of all three, however, is likely to account for the MR. We also measure the temperature dependence of the resistivity at $`B=0`$ and discuss its relation to the observed MR.

The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the experimental setup and the samples used in our study. Section III concentrates on the high-density data, and demonstrates how each of the above-mentioned mechanisms for positive MR is expressed in the data. Section IV shows the evolution of the MR as the density is reduced. In Section V we make a comparison between the MR and the $`B=0`$ temperature dependence of the resistivity where metallic behavior is observed. Section VI summarizes our results and conclusions.

## II Experimental details

We studied the MR in square quantum wells (QWs) as well as in single heterojunction samples, grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) on both (311)A and (100) insulating GaAs substrates. We report here data for samples from six different wafers; a summary of the important sample parameters is given in Table I.

The samples are modulation-doped with either Si or Be. Use of Be as a $`p`$-type (acceptor) dopant for growth on GaAs (100) substrates is standard, although the quality of the 2D hole system may be somewhat compromised because of the fast Be diffusion in GaAs, and a memory effect in the MBE chamber.

Alternatively, one can grow the heterostructure on GaAs (311)A substrates and use Si which, under normal growth conditions, is incorporated as an acceptor on this surface. Such samples are known to show exceptionally high quality as measured, e.g., by their low-temperature mobility . They comprise the majority of the samples used in our work as well as that of others who have studied the metallic behavior in GaAs 2D hole systems . The GaAs/AlGaAs (311)A interface, however, has quasi-periodic corrugations along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction , and the corrugations lead to an in-plane mobility anisotropy : mobility is typically larger along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction by a factor of 2 or 3 compared to the mobility along $`[01\overline{1}]`$. This mobility anisotropy is likely related to an anisotropic interface roughness scattering  and as we will show here, plays an important role in the low-field MR.

For comparison, we also studied a modulation-doped (311)A GaAs/AlGaAs heterojunction sample containing 2D electrons. This sample was grown under MBE growth conditions similar to those used for the 2D hole systems: the substrate temperature during the growth of the GaAs/AlGaAs interface and AlGaAs spacer was kept the same as in 2D hole samples, and was reduced only when the dopant (Si) atoms were introduced so that they were incorporated as donors . The interface morphology of the 2D electron system in this sample should therefore closely resemble that of the 2D hole samples.

The samples were patterned with $`L`$-shaped Hall bars allowing simultaneous measurements of longitudinal ($`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}`$) and transverse ($`\rho _{xy}`$) magnetoresistances along two different current directions. On the (311)A samples, the arms of the Hall bar were aligned along \[$`01\overline{1}`$\] and \[$`\overline{2}33`$\], which are respectively the low- and high-mobility ($`\mu `$) directions. For purposes of discussion in this paper, we will refer to the resistivity of the low-$`\mu `$ direction as $`\rho _{xx}`$ and the resistivity of the high-$`\mu `$ direction as $`\rho _{yy}`$. On the (100) samples the arms of the Hall bar were aligned along  and \[$`01\overline{1}`$\]. Measurements were done in dilution and 3He refrigerators with base temperatures ($`T`$) of 30 and 300 mK respectively. We measured the resistivity with a conventional low-frequency lock-in technique using currents of 1-10 nA. Samples A, B, and F had metallic front and back gates so that we could independently control both the 2D hole density and the electric field applied perpendicular to the QW ($`E_{}`$) . $`E_{}`$ is defined as positive when the electric field is pointing from the substrate towards the front gate.

## III Magnetoresistance at high density

The positive MR we observe in these GaAs 2D hole samples has several remarkable properties. The most striking is that it can be quite large. In Fig. 1, the longitudinal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ rises by 33% from $`B=0`$ to $`|B|=0.1`$ T. $`\rho _{xx}`$ also often shows a cusp, which is sharp to our measurement resolution, at $`B=0`$. Furthermore, we have observed the positive MR in samples that display a mobility anisotropy, and then often only, and always much more strongly, in the low-mobility direction (Figs. 2 and 3).

We will focus initially on data from 2D hole systems in square QWs grown on (311)A samples, and then present and compare data from the other systems.

Our data reveal that the magnitude of the MR is influenced by the symmetry of the potential that confines the 2D holes. Figures 2 and 3

show MR data for samples A and B, from two different wafers, as the asymmetry of the QW potential is changed. The mobilities of these samples are typically in excess of 500,000 cm2/Vs, and the high quality is evident from the strong Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations. When the QW is made asymmetric by the application of a perpendicular electric field $`E_{}`$, the $`B=0`$ spin-splitting grows. The method of tuning $`E_{}`$ is described in detail in Ref. . Beating, due to the presence of two spin-subbands with significantly different populations, is evident in the traces at larger $`|E_{}|`$ . Examples of Fourier transforms of $`\rho _{xx}`$ vs. $`B^1`$ are shown in Fig. 2b: the single peak at low $`|E_{}|`$ splits into two peaks at larger $`|E_{}|`$, giving a quantitative measure of the spin-splitting. The magnitude of the MR feature is correlated with the spin-splitting. Here we show data only for $`E_{}<0`$, which corresponds to an electric field pointing towards the substrate. Data with $`E_{}>0`$ show the same behavior : both the spin-subband densities and the magnitude of the MR are symmetric around $`E_{}=0`$.

As demonstrated in Fig. 4, the magnitude of the MR is affected by changes in the 2D hole density as well. A reduction in the density, with $`E_{}`$ held constant, causes a reduction in the magnitude of the MR. There is very little change in its shape (Fig. 4); and it retains its cusp at $`B=0`$ until it is almost indistinguishable from the noise.

The behavior of the MR over a wider density and $`E_{}`$ range is discussed in Section IV.

The MR is also observed in Be-doped samples grown on GaAs (100) substrates. An example is shown in Fig. 5.

Here, positive MR is observed in both $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}`$, but it is again much smaller in $`\rho _{yy}`$. In the (100) samples, the MR feature depends on $`E_{}`$ and density in the same way it does in the (311)A samples. The strong similarities between the positive MR observed in (100) and (311)A samples suggest that the feature has a similar origin in both systems.

Here we discuss three possible origins for the low-$`B`$ positive MR. Weak anti-localization , a two-band model , and a one-dimensional periodic potential modulation  have all been invoked to explain positive MR in the past. Our comprehensive set of data shows that some combination of these is necessary to describe the MR in GaAs 2D holes.

A much weaker MR with a similar shape has been seen in 2D holes on (100) substrates and attributed to weak anti-localization . The cusp at $`B=0`$ in our data is suggestive of weak anti-localization, but the magnitude of the resitivity change is many orders of magnitude too large to be caused by weak anti-localization. Weak localization and anti-localization typically contribute a correction of order $`0.01e^2/h`$ to the conductivity of a 2D system. The conductivities of our samples are orders of magnitude larger than $`e^2/h`$, so such a correction is far smaller than the total change in the conductance we observe.

In GaAs 2D holes on (100) substrates, Murzin et al.  and Yaish et al.  have observed a similar MR feature and described it using a simple two-band model. This two-band model initially looks promising in our system as well. We have already seen that the magnitude of the positive MR increases when the spin-subband population difference is increased. Another factor that qualitatively supports the two-band hypothesis is that the MR is completely absent in a 2D electron system in a triangular well grown on a (311)A substrate; 2D electrons in GaAs have a very small spin-orbit coupling so they occupy essentially a single spin-degenerate subband. Figure 6a shows data from a 2D electron system on (311)A, and Fig. 6b shows data from a similar (311)A 2D hole system for comparison.

We have fit the two-band model as used by Yaish et al.  to our data. Examples are shown in Fig. 1, the top panel of Fig. 4, and in Fig. 5. We multiply the Shubnikov-de Haas frequencies deduced from the Fourier transforms of $`\rho _{xx}`$ vs. $`B^1`$ by $`h/e^2`$ to get the two subband densities (when there is one measured frequency, we use the same density for both subbands), from which we calculate the Hall coefficients $`R_{l,h}=1/p_{l,h}e`$ for the light ($`l`$) and heavy ($`h`$) holes . These Hall coefficients are used as inputs for the two-band model. From the fits we extract $`S_l`$, $`S_h`$, and $`Q`$, which can be expressed using elements of the conductivity tensor: $`S_l=\sigma _{ll}^1+\sigma _{lh}^1`$, $`S_h=\sigma _{hh}^1+\sigma _{hl}^1`$, and $`Q=\lambda \sigma _{lh}^1=\lambda ^1\sigma _{hl}^1`$. The $`\sigma _{ii}`$ take into account intraband scattering and the $`\sigma _{ij}`$ account for interband scattering.

We find that, overall, the model produces a less satisfactory fit to our data than to that of Yaish et al.. The values it produces for $`S_l`$ and $`S_h`$ are typically within a factor of two of each other, which are reasonable for two spin-subbands. However, the best fit to our data is always for $`Q=0`$, which corresponds to no intersubband scattering, and the model always produces a wider MR feature than the data. We have constrained $`Q`$ such that $`Q0`$, since the conductivity due to intersubband scattering rate cannot be negative. Intersubband scattering can only increase the width of the feature, so the fact that our data shows sharper MR than the two-band model with no intersubband scattering implies that this simple model is not adequately explaining the MR. Furthermore, the two-band model cannot match the cusp seen in the data at $`B=0`$.

Positive MR has also been observed repeatedly when a one-dimensional periodic potential is applied to a 2D system (see  and references therein.). The qualitative characteristics of our data are similar to those of these systems. In our case, we have not imposed an intentional periodic potential, but the resistance anisotropy of our system is suggestive of some sort of anisotropic disorder. Transport data in (311)A samples indeed suggest that interface-roughness scattering limits the mobility along the $`[01\overline{1}]`$ direction , and scanning-tunneling-microscopy (STM) images show one-dimensional corrugations along the $`[\overline{2}33]`$ direction . These images show two sets of corrugations: one nearly regular with a 32 Å period and a 2 Å amplitude, and one quasi-periodic with a $`1000`$ Å period and up to $`15`$ Å amplitude. For samples grown on (100) substrates, it is initially a surprise that there is a mobility anisotropy at all, since the  and $`[01\overline{1}]`$ directions are expected to be crystallographically equivalent. However, any slight miscut of the substrate from the ideal (100) direction could break the symmetry, and indeed STM images have shown a one-dimensional quasi-periodic potential, with a period of a few hundred Å, to exist in samples grown on epi-ready GaAs (100) wafers as well . Also, AFM studies of high-quality (100) samples have shown an anisotropic surface roughness that correlates with anisotropy in transport in the 2D layer . We have not independently verified that in our (100) samples the low-mobility direction is indeed perpendicular to the corrugations, but it is a reasonable assumption given the resemblance to the (311)A data.

The similarity between our data and the data of Akabori et al. from a corrugated 2D electron system in InGaAs is remarkable . Most obviously, in both systems the current direction perpendicular to the corrugations has a lower mobility. Also, in both systems, the positive MR is strong for current perpendicular to the corrugations. Furthermore, the amplitude of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations is larger for current perpendicular to the corrugations than for current parallel (see our Figs. 2 and 5, and Fig. 3a of Akabori et al.). Finally, the fact that the MR grows when $`|E_{}|`$ is made larger is consistent with the hypothesis that the periodic modulation of the interface plays a role. When $`E_{}=0`$, the carrier wavefunction is centered in the QW, so it has little overlap with the barriers at the edges of the QW. When $`|E_{}|`$ is increased, the wavefunction is pushed towards one of the barriers, so any interface corrugations present will have a larger effect.

We now provide a quantitative assessment of this hypothesis. Akabori et al. apply the semiclassical model of Beton et al. , which relates the period and amplitude of the potential corrugation to the $`B`$ at which the positive MR saturates. Adopting such a model and assuming corrugation periods of 32 Å and 1000 Å in our (311)A samples , we calculate corrugation amplitudes of 0.002 and 0.07 meV respectively. These values are much smaller than the typical Fermi energy $`E_F`$ of 2 meV for 2D holes at a density of $`3.3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. This model therefore gives an inconsistent picture, since potential modulations more than an order of magnitude smaller than $`E_F`$ would not be expected to produce such a large MR. A quantum mechanical model , on the other hand, yields potential amplitudes of 0.6 and 0.1 meV respectively. These values are reasonable, and can possibly lead to the observed MR.

The comparisons between the data of Akabori et al. and ours suggest that the interface corrugations in our system are playing a role in the positive MR, but once again, looking at the complete set of data shows that the corrugations alone cannot be the origin of the positive MR in our samples. As mentioned above, data from the 2D electrons on (311)A substrates show no positive MR (Fig. 6a). The growth of the QW in these samples is identical to the growth of the QW in (311)A 2D hole systems, so we expect the interfaces to be the same as well. The only difference in the samples is that, after the QW has already been grown, the substrate temperature is reduced while the Si dopant atoms are being deposited, causing Si to become a donor instead of an acceptor. An important difference between 2D electrons and 2D holes in GaAs is that spin-orbit interaction is strong for the 2D holes, but weak for the 2D electrons. Therefore, it appears that the existence of both interface corrugations and two spin-subbands is necessary for the expression of the positive MR we have observed. We note that in the system of Akabori et al., 2D electrons in InGaAs, there is also a strong spin-orbit interaction.

In short, the data we have shown collectively reveal that a combination of factors is responsible for the low-$`B`$ positive MR we observe. It appears to be due to the presence of both two occupied subbands and a one-dimensional quasi-periodic potential modulation. Furthermore, neither of these mechanisms is likely to explain the sharp cusp we observed at $`B=0`$. It is possible that weak anti-localization may also be playing a role in the very-low-$`B`$ regime, causing this cusp.

## IV Magnetoresistance at low density

In this section we show how the low-$`B`$ MR of 2D holes evolves as the density is reduced. Figure 7 shows $`\rho _{xx}`$ traces from sample F for three different $`E_{}`$ at each of three densities.

Raw data are plotted, without any shifts. The curves at larger $`|E_{}|`$ have lower mobility because as $`|E_{}|`$ is increased, the wavefunction is pushed to one side of the QW, where in this current direction it is more strongly affected by the interface corrugations. As mentioned above, this could be a factor in the increasing strength of the positive MR as well.

At the highest density $`p=1.2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, a positive MR is clearly visible only for the largest $`|E_{}|`$, $`E_{}=9.8`$ kV/cm. At lower $`|E_{}|`$, it is not visible: at low $`B`$ there is only a weak negative MR. At the intermediate $`p`$ of $`7.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, the MR feature is still visible at the highest $`|E_{}|`$, but is noticeably smaller. When $`p=2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, there is no positive MR even at the largest $`|E_{}|`$ of -10 kV/cm. In this range, there is only a negative MR, which in a similar system has been attributed to weak localization . Figure 7 data show that for asymmetric QWs, the positive MR feature can be seen to quite low densities, well below the density at which two frequencies can no longer be resolved in the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations.

## V Temperature dependence of the $`B=0`$ resistivity

It is interesting to explore the relation between the MR and the temperature dependence of the $`B=0`$ resistivity which has been controversial recently . In Fig. 8, we show the metallic $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ at $`B=0`$ and the MR feature for comparison. Both the MR and the $`B=0`$ $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ are plotted as a fractional change $`\rho _{xx}/\rho _0`$ (where $`\rho _0`$ is $`\rho _{xx}`$ at $`B=0`$ and $`T=30`$ mK) so that the relative magnitudes can be easily compared.

It has been proposed that the $`B=0`$ $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ can be explained in the two-band model . It is only at high $`p`$, where the rise in $`\rho `$ as $`T`$ is increased is smaller than the MR, that our data are consistent with this hypothesis. For $`p=3.3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, $`\rho _{xx}`$ shows a 6% rise as $`T`$ increases from 30 mK to 800 mK, while the positive MR from $`B=0`$ to 0.1 T is 33%. As $`p`$ is reduced however, the two features show opposite trends, and the data do not support the two-band hypothesis. For smaller $`p`$, the change in $`\rho _{xx}`$ with increasing $`T`$ becomes larger while the MR becomes smaller. For $`p=1.2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, $`\rho _{xx}/\rho _0`$ at $`T=0.8`$ K is 3 times larger than the positive MR. At $`p=7.0\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2, the MR is only 2%, and $`\rho _{xx}/\rho _0`$ at $`T=0.8`$ K has risen to nearly 40 %. At the lowest density, no positive MR is observed, yet there is still strong metallic behavior in the $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ at $`B=0`$. There is evidence that the existence of two spin-subbands does play a role in the $`B=0`$ metallic behavior  throughout the density range in which it is observed, but a comparison of the low-$`B`$ MR feature with the $`B=0`$ $`T`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ suggests that a simple two-band model with intersubband scattering is not sufficient to explain the relationship, as the metallic behavior is strongest at densities where the MR is very weak or altogether absent.

## VI Summary

In summary, we observe a positive MR in high-density 2D hole systems in GaAs quantum wells. The MR appears to be related to both the spin-splitting in the system and to quasi-periodic corrugations perpendicular to the current direction at the interfaces between the quantum wells and the barriers. The data also show a cusp at $`B=0`$ that is suggestive of weak anti-localization. At a fixed perpendicular electric field, the MR is reduced in size when the 2D hole density is reduced. Finally, the magnitude of the MR is not correlated with the magnitude of the rise in sample resistivity with increasing $`T`$ at $`B=0`$. This implies that the metallic behavior is not driven solely by the factors that lead to the MR.

We would like to thank J. P. Eisenstein and B. L. Altshuler for fruitful discussions. This project was supported by the NSF, the ARO, and the DOE.


text:
# Interpretation of the Wigner Energy as due to RPA Correlations

## Abstract

In a schematic model with equidistant fourfold degenerate single-nucleon levels, a conventional isovector pairing force and a symmetry force, the RPA correlation energy rises almost linearly with the isospin $`T`$, thus producing a Wigner term in accordance with the empirical proportionality of the symmetry energy to $`T(T+1)`$.

Nearly symmetric nuclei have an extra binding, the so-called Wigner energy, that is not described by the quadratic symmetry term in the semi-empirical mass formula . This is explained in various ways in the literature. Counting the even bonds among supermultiplet degenerate nucleon orbitals, Wigner estimates that the isospin-dependent part of the interaction energy in the ground state of a doubly even nucleus is proportional to $`T(T+4)`$, where $`T`$ is the isospin . Talmi proves that for seniority-conserving forces such as the pairing force acting in a single $`j`$-shell, this part of the interaction energy is proportional to $`T(T+1)`$ , and Bohr and Mottelson point out that this isospin-dependence arises in general from an interaction proportional to the scalar product of the isospins of the interacting nucleons . A symmetry energy proportional to $`T(T+1)`$ also fits the empirical masses well . Myers and Swiatecki attribute the extra binding of nearly symmetric nuclei to the interaction of neutrons and protons in overlapping orbitals . Shell model calculations with realistic forces are succesful in reproducing the measured binding energies , whereas with Skyrme forces, no Wigner term appears in Hartre-Fock-Bogolyubov calculations and only a small one in Hartree-Fock calculations . However, by invoking a particular isoscalar pairing force that breaks geometric symmetries, Satula and Wyss obtain a significant Wigner energy in approximately number-projected Bogolyubov calculations . In finite-temperature Bogulyubov calculations with a Yamaguchi force, Röpke et al. get at low temperature in the local density approximation a contribution from neutron-proton pairing to the binding energies in the $`A=40`$ isobaric chain with a maximum at $`NZ=1`$ and a quite irregular dependence on the asymmetry .

The RPA is the leading order correction to the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov approximation. I have therefore calculated the RPA correlation energy from the schematic Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0G𝑷^{}𝑷+\frac{\kappa }{2}𝑻^2,H_0=\underset{k\sigma \tau }{}ϵ_ka_{k\sigma \tau }^{}a_{k\sigma \tau }^{}.$$

In this expression, the index $`k\sigma \tau `$ labels orthonormal nucleon orbitals, and $`a_{k\sigma \tau }`$ are the corresponding annihilation operators. $`k\sigma `$ takes the values $`k`$ and $`\overline{k}`$ so that the orbital $`\overline{k}`$ is obtained from the orbital $`k`$ by time-reversal, and $`\tau `$ is ‘n’ for a neutron orbital or ‘p’ for a proton orbital. $`𝑷`$ is the pair annihilation isovector, and $`𝑻`$ denotes the total isospin. The former has the coordinates

$$P_x=(P_\text{n}+P_\text{p})/\sqrt{2},P_y=i(P_\text{n}+P_\text{p})/\sqrt{2},P_z=P_{\text{np}},$$

$$P_\tau =\underset{k}{}a_{\overline{k}\tau }a_{\overline{k}k\tau },P_{\text{np}}=\underset{k}{}(a_{\overline{k}\text{p}}a_{\overline{k}k\text{n}}+a_{\overline{k}\text{n}}a_{\overline{k}k\text{p}})/\sqrt{2}.$$

The single-nucleon energy $`ϵ_k`$ takes $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ equidistant values separated by $`\eta `$, and $`G`$ and $`\kappa `$ are coupling constants.

To describe states with a given number $`A_\text{v}=_{k\sigma \tau }a_{k\sigma \tau }^{}a_{k\sigma \tau }^{}`$ of valence nucleons and a given isospin, I employ the Routhian

$$R=H\lambda A_\text{v}\mu T_z.$$

It is just for convenience that $`T_z`$ is chosen here as the isospin-coordinate to be constrained. Since $`H`$ is isobarically invariant, one could equivalently constrain the projection of $`𝑻`$ on any axis in isospace. Following Marshalek  I base the RPA on the Hartree-Bogolyubov (not Fock) self-consistent state derived from $`R`$. This is the Bogolyubov vacuum that minimizes $`E_0\lambda A_\text{v}\mu T_z,`$ where

$$E_0=H_0\frac{|𝚫|^2}{G}+\frac{\kappa }{2}𝑻^2,𝚫=G𝑷.$$

At the minimum one has $`T_x=T_y=0`$. For large values of $`\mu `$ a product of neutron and proton BCS states is expected. Since this state is invariant under the transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi (A_\text{v}/2+T_z))`$, I enforce this symmetry, which entails $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z=0`$. I furthermore assume that both gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{n}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_x+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{p}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_x+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y)/\sqrt{2}`$ are positive, as may always be achieved by a transformation of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i(\xi A_\text{v}+\chi T_z))`$. When $`\lambda `$ is placed midway between the lowest and the highest $`ϵ_k`$, one then gets $`A_\text{v}=2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{n}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\text{p}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for any value of $`\mu `$ due to the equidistant single-nucleon spectrum. To speed up the calculation, I keep $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ rather than $`G`$ fixed with the variation of $`\mu `$. Then $`G`$ varies in the case considered by less than .6 %.

With quasinucleon annihilation operators $`\alpha _i^{}=_{k\sigma \tau }(u_{i,k\sigma \tau }^{}a_{k\sigma \tau }^{}+v_{i,k\sigma \tau }^{}a_{k\sigma \tau }^{})`$ defined by

$$[\alpha _i^{},R_\text{m}]=E_i^{}\alpha _i^{},E_i^{}>0,\{\alpha _i^{},\alpha _j^{}\}=\delta _{ij}^{},$$

$$R_\text{m}=H_0+\mathrm{\Delta }(P_\text{n}^{}+P_\text{n}^{}+P_\text{p}^{}+P_\text{p}^{})+\kappa T_zT_z\lambda A_\text{v}\mu T_z,$$

the RPA Routhian $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is obtained by truncating to second order the boson expansion of $`R`$ that results from making in the expressions for $`H_0`$, $`𝑷`$, $`𝑻`$ and $`A_\text{v}`$ the substitutions

$$\alpha _j^{}\alpha _i^{}=b_{ij}^{}+\mathrm{},\alpha _i^{}\alpha _j^{}=\underset{l}{}b_{il}^{}b_{jl}^{},$$

where the boson annihilation operators $`b_{ij}^{}=b_{ji}^{}`$ satisfy $`[b_{ij}^{},b_{lm}^{}]=0`$ and $`[b_{ij}^{},b_{lm}^{}]=\delta _{il}\delta _{jm}\delta _{im}\delta _{jl}`$. The normal mode annihilation operators $`B_\nu ^{}=_{i<j}(\varphi _{\nu ,ij}^{}b_{ij}^{}+\psi _{\nu ,ij}^{}b_{ij}^{})`$ are then given by

$$[B_\nu ^{},\stackrel{~}{R}]=\omega _\nu ^{}B_\nu ^{},\omega _\nu ^{}>0,[B_\nu ^{},B_\rho ^{}]=\delta _{\nu \rho }^{},$$

and the ground state energy is  $`E=E_0+E_2`$ with

$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k\tau \tau ^{}}{}}\left(G|\alpha _{\overline{k}\tau ^{}}\alpha _{\overline{k}k\tau }𝑷|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}|\alpha _{\overline{k}\tau ^{}}\alpha _{\overline{k}k\tau }𝑻|^2\right)`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\omega _\nu {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}[b_{ij}^{},[\stackrel{~}{R},b_{ij}^{}]]\right).`$
It may be noticed that when the terms with four quasinucleon annihilation operators or four quasinucleon creation operators are removed from the expression for the Hamiltonian $`H`$ so that the Bogulyubov vacuum becomes an eigenstate of $`H`$ (when the operators $`A_\text{v}`$ and $`T_z`$ are replaced by their eigenvalues in the relation $`H=R+\lambda A_\text{v}+\mu T_z`$), then only the first term in the expression for $`E_2`$ survives, and $`E_0+E_2`$ becomes an exact expression for the ground state energy. Therefore this expression derived from the boson expansion is expected to provide a reliable approximation even though most of the normal modes are not much different from two-quasinucleon excitations.

The implications of the symmetries of this model for the normal modes are discussed by Ginoccio and Wesener . Two Goldstone modes result from the commutation relations $`[A_\text{v},R]=[T_z,R]=0`$. Furthermore, since $`[T_+,R]=\mu T_+`$ one normal mode has the frequency $`\mu `$. Its annihilation operator is the linear boson part of $`T_+/\sqrt{2T_z}`$, and it becomes a Goldstone mode in the limit $`\mu 0`$. The degree of freedom of this mode is the direction of the isospin. In particular the isospin quantum numbers $`M_T=T=T_z`$ may be assigned to the ground state of the Routhian $`R`$. The Goldstone modes contribute with the frequency zero to the expression for the second order energy $`E_2`$.

The parameters of the calculation are chosen so as to simulate the $`A=48`$ isobaric chain: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=24`$, $`\eta =2.1`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.7`$ MeV, $`\kappa =1.2`$ MeV. The result is shown in Figure 1.

$`E_0E_{0,T=0}`$ depends essentially quadratically on $`T`$. It is in fact given in a very good approximation by the expression $`E_0E_{0,T=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\kappa )T^2`$ obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. The almost exactly quadratic $`T`$-dependence of $`E_0E_{0,T=0}`$ is seen also indirectly from the linearity of $`\mu =dE_0/dT+2(\mathrm{\Delta }/G)^2dG/dT`$, where the second term is negligible. $`E_2E_{2,T=0}`$ shows a different behaviour. It rises for $`T0`$ linearly with $`T`$ and is in fact in this limit equal to $`\mu /2`$. The linearity thus stems from the single term in the expression for $`E_2`$ which represents the zero-point energy of the normal mode with the frequency $`\mu `$, or, in other words, from the quantal fluctuation of the isospin.

The rest of the second order energy $`E_2`$ is faily independent of $`T`$. This suggests that the other normal modes are to a large extent independent of the iso-rotational degree of freedom, or, stated otherwise, that the iso-rotation is highly collective. The deformation underlying this collectivity is in the pair field . Thus with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z=0`$ the isovector $`𝚫`$ is perpendicular to the iso-rotational axis. So it breaks the iso-rotational invariance with repect to this axis, and a collective iso-rotation can arise. On the other hand the contribution to $`E_2`$ from the non-collective modes varies from $`T=0`$ to $`T=4`$ by almost 2 MeV, so the RPA correlation energy should be taken into account in a detailed comparison of the results of Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculations with the empirical masses.

With $`E_0E_{0,T=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\kappa )T^2`$ and $`E_2E_{2,T=0}=\frac{1}{2}\mu =\frac{1}{2}dE_0/dT=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\kappa )T`$ we have altogether $`EE_{T=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\kappa )T(T+1)`$, that is, we get the $`T`$-dependence of the symmetry energy found in the data. The Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov energy expectation value includes only the first sum in the expression for $`E_2`$ . This sum is cancelled to a large extent by parts of the second term in the second sum. For the contributions from the symmetry potential energy $`\frac{\kappa }{2}𝑻^2`$ this cancellation is in fact exact. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ the first sum in the expression for $`E_2`$ is as a function of $`T`$ analytic and even at $`T=0`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ it equals, however, $`\frac{\kappa }{2}T`$. Thus it produces in the absense of pairing a Wigner term, albeit with only $`\kappa /(\eta +\kappa )35`$ % of the full value. Although the forces there are different, this may explain the experience with Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov and Hartree-Fock calculations mentioned in the introduction.

A Wigner term corresponding to the term $`\frac{\kappa }{2}T`$ in the present model is actually the only one that may be derived from arguments like those in References , which are based on the form of the residual two-nucleon interaction. It is remarkable that with a deformation one gets also a term $`\frac{\eta }{2}T`$ corresponding to the ‘kinetic’ part $`\frac{\eta }{2}T^2`$ of the symmetry energy.

The symmetry potential energy $`\frac{\kappa }{2}𝑻^2`$ of the present model differs from an interaction potential energy $`\kappa _{i<j}𝒕_i𝒕_j`$, where the index $`i`$ or $`j`$ labels the individual nucleons, by the term $`\frac{3}{8}\kappa A_\text{v}`$, which depends only on the number $`A_\text{v}`$ of valence nucleons. This interaction favours isoscalar nucleon pairs. It is included in the Hamiltonian in order to get a realistic symmetry energy coefficient. It is in fact well known and discussed in detail by for example Bohr and Mottelson  that the kinetic term accounts for only a part of the empirical symmetry energy coefficient. Bohr and Mottelson consider a contribution to the single-nucleon potential energy corresponding to a two-nucleon potential of the form $`\kappa 𝒕_1𝒕_2`$. Thus the form of the symmetry potential energy of the present model is adopted from their discussion. This symmetry force is inessential, however, for the formation of the Wigner energy, which results, as it was seen, from the collectivity of the iso-rotation due to the isobaric non-invariance of the isovector pair field.

I am indebted to Stefan Frauendorf for drawing my attention to the issue of the Wigner energy and for discussions of the matter.