text:
# The Intrinsic Ellipticity of Spiral Disks

## 1. Disk Ellipticity Survey

Binney (1978) showed triaxial halos could affect disks by inducing warping and twists. In particular, the axis ratio of halos lead to disks which are intrinsically elliptical (Franx & de Zeeuw 1992; Jog 2000). Hence the ellipticity of disks may plausibly be used to estimate the axis ratios of dark matter halos. However, the inability to disentangle the ellipticity from the phase angle of this distortion makes such measurements difficult (e.g. Zaritsky & Rix 1995; Schoenmakers 1999). Andersen et al. (2001) presented a method which removed this degeneracy and yielded unique solutions for the disk ellipticity of nearly face-on galaxies by comparing kinematic and photometric inclination and position angles. This method assumes differences between these angles are solely the effect of ellipticity and not some other distortion.

Here we present results of a larger study to define the distribution of disk ellipticities and to establish if ellipticity is related to other physical quantities, e.g., Tully-Fisher (TF) scatter. A sample of 39 galaxies were selected from the Principal Galaxy Catalog (Paturel et al. 1997) which have (1) t-types between 1.5–8.5, (2) axis ratios close to unity, (3) apparent disk sizes commensurate with the field of view of the integral field unit, DensePak, on the WIYN 3.5m telescope (Barden, Sawyer & Honeycutt 1998), and (4) low galactic absorption. We also required galaxies in the sample to be unbarred, isolated and have constant photometric position angles at three scale lengths.

$`R`$ and $`I`$-band images were acquired at the WIYN 3.5m, KPNO 2.1m, McDonald Observatory 2.7m telescopes. We used these images to measure axis ratios and position angles in a way designed to be unaffected by warps or spiral structure (see Andersen et al. 2001). H$`\alpha `$ velocity fields were obtained using DensePak, feeding the WIYN Bench Spectrograph used with the 316 lines/mm echelle grating to cover 6500Å$`<\lambda \lambda <6900`$Å, with an instrumental FWHM of 0.51 Å (22.5 km/s). Multiple DensePak pointings allowed us to map H$`\alpha `$ velocity fields beyond 2.5 disk scale lengths. We modeled observed velocity fields to derive kinematic inclinations and position angles — parameters critical to estimating disk ellipticity.

### 1.1. Velocity-Field Modeling

Most galaxies in our sample do not show signs of rotation curve asymmetries, warps, solid body rotation, or spiral structure. Therefore, we adopted a single, inclined, differentially rotating, circular disk (“monolithic”) model to fit the DensePak H$`\alpha `$ velocity fields instead of tilted ring models (e.g., Begeman 1989). There were two major advantages to our approach: (1) A monolithic velocity-field model uses all data to constrain the fit; and (2) a monolithic velocity-field model is better able to model low-inclination disks because tilted ring fits tend to diverge unless the fit is weighted by $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ ($`\theta `$ is an angle measured from a galaxy’s major axis in the galaxy plane) and data with $`|\theta |>\theta _{max}=45^{}`$ is removed (Begeman 1989). However, the greatest differences between two velocity-field models with slightly different inclinations occur at $`\theta >45^{}`$, precisely where tilted-ring fits often do not consider the data (left panel of Figure 1). Since differences between velocity fields of different inclination decrease with inclination, it is imperative to use data at all azimuthal angles to accurately fit velocity-field models at low inclinations, i.e. $`i<30^{}`$ (right panel of Figure 1). A hyperbolic tangent rotation curve was sufficient to fit the shape of rotation curves in our sample with a minimum of free parameters. Our model had the following free variables: inclination, position angle, center, central velocity, observed rotation velocity, and hyperbolic tangent scale-length. The results of the model fits indicate our approximation that orbits are circular appears to be acceptable; for $`ϵ_D<0.2`$ the model inclination and position angles derived from circular versus elliptical orbits would be quite similar. We determined kinematic parameters for 36 of 39 galaxies using our fitting procedure. Of the three galaxies for which we could not fit velocity-field models, two were at very low inclinations, while the third had insufficient data.

### 1.2. Results

We derive ellipticities for the 28 of 39 galaxies for which accurate measures of the photometric and kinematic indices exist. We find a mean disk ellipticity of $`\overline{ϵ_D}=0.076`$ If we assume the halo potential is non-rotating and has a constant elliptical distortion, we can estimate a halo ellipticity of $`\overline{ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }}=0.054`$ which is consistent with previous estimates of halo ellipticity (Rix & Zaritsky 1995; Schoenmakers 1999). Our unique solutions for disk ellipticity also allow us to determine the distribution of ellipticities for our sample, which we find is well-fit by a log-normal distribution with a mean and standard deviation on $`\mathrm{ln}(ϵ_D)`$ equal to -2.82$`\pm 0.73`$ ($`ϵ_D=0.060_{0.031}^{+0.064}`$, left panel of Figure 2).

## 2. Face–On Tully–Fisher Relation

To demonstrate the precision and reliability of our kinematic inclinations, we construct a TF relation for 24 galaxies which have reliable photometry and span a range of inclinations from 15–35 (a mean of 26). After applying color corrections, we find our data match Courteau’s (1997) TF relation quite well (central panel of Figure 2). Courteau’s sample galaxies have comparable scale lengths, colors, and surface brightnesses and distances as ours, but inclinations greater than 40 (with a mean of 64). Two notable advantages of using face–on galaxies in TF relation are: Internal absorption corrections are minimal and the effect of quantities such as lopsidedness and ellipticity (indices most easily measured in face-on systems) upon TF scatter can be assessed.

The TF scatter for our sample is quite small (only 0.44 mag) – quite similar to the dispersion of Courteau’s sample (0.46 mag). The distribution of residuals to the TF relation are Gaussian except for four galaxies which appear to be outliers. There is a correlation between these outliers and kinematic asymmetry: Of the 5 galaxies in this sample which exhibit strong kinematic asymmetries in their rotation curves, three are outliers. If we exclude the galaxies with strong kinematic asymmetries from our analysis, the observed TF scatter is 0.36 mag.

Franx & de Zeeuw (1992) suggested that disk ellipticity may be a source of TF scatter. If we assume a simple, non-rotating model for the halo potential, we can describe the expected contributions of disk ellipticity to TF scatter in simple terms. While other astrophysical sources are expected to contribute a large fraction of the TF error budget, we do find a statistically significant correlation between disk ellipticity and TF scatter (right panel of Figure 2). Constraining the contribution of ellipticity to TF scatter places limits on other astrophysical sources of TF scatter, including variations in disk mass-to-light ratios. This work was supported by NSF grant AST-9970780.

## References

Andersen, D.R., Bershady. M.A. Sparke, L.S., Gallagher, J.S., Wilcots, E.M. 2001, ApJ Letters, 551, 41

Barden, S. C., Sawyer, D. G., & Honeycutt, R. K. 1998, SPIE, 3355, 892

Begeman, K. 1989, A&A, 223, 47

Binney, J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 501

Courteau, S. 1997, AJ, 114, 2402

Franx, M. & De Zeeuw, T. 1992, ApJ Letters, 392, L47

Jog, C.J. 2000, ApJ, 542, 216

Paturel, G., et al. 1997, A&A Supplement Series, 124, 109

Rix, H. W. & Zaritsky, D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 82

Schoenmakers, R. H. M. 1999, Ph.D. Thesis from Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands


format: text

text:
# Self-consistent Overhauser model for the pair distribution function of an electron gas in dimensionalities 𝐷=3 and 𝐷=2

## I Introduction

Many of the electron-electron interaction effects in simple metals and semiconductors can be understood by reference to the homogeneous electron-gas model. A central role is played by the electron-pair distribution function $`g(r)`$, which describes how short-range exchange and correlations enter to determine the probability of finding two electrons at a relative distance $`r`$. The mean potential energy of the electron gas can be calculated from $`g(r)`$ and hence, through an integration over its dependence on the coupling strength, the total energy as well. Thus, an accurate knowledge of this function is crucial for applications of density functional theory  (DFT) in various schemes that have been proposed to transcend the local density approximation (LDA) in the construction of exchange and correlation energy functionals.

A precise definition of $`g(r)`$ is through the average number of electrons contained in a spherical shell of radius $`r`$ and thickness $`dr`$ centered on an electron at the origin, which is given by $`ng(r)\mathrm{\Omega }_Dr^{D1}dr`$ where $`D`$ is the space dimensionality, $`n`$ the electron density, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ the solid angle in $`D`$ dimensions (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=4\pi `$). In fact, $`g(r)`$ is the average of the distribution functions for parallel- and antiparallel-spin electron pairs, $`g(r)=[g_{}(r)+g_{}(r)]/2`$. While this spin-average reflects the charge-charge correlations in the electron gas, the spin-spin correlations are described by the difference distribution function $`g_d(r)=[g_{}(r)g_{}(r)]/2`$.

Early calculations of the pair distribution functions in the $`3D`$ electron gas were based on the use of a Bijl-Jastrow correlated wave function for the ground state and on exploiting the fluctuation-dissipation theorem for a self-consistent determination from the charge and spin response functions. These early results were validated with the advent of the Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) techniques, which have produced a wealth of accurate data on correlation and response functions over a wide range of coupling strength for both the $`3D`$  and the $`2D`$  case. The QMC data have in turn stimulated a number of further theoretical studies.

Here we are specifically concerned with the approach proposed by Overhauser  for the evaluation of the value $`g(0)`$ of the pair distribution function at contact. While $`g_{}(0)`$ vanishes on account of the Pauli principle, $`g_{}(0)`$ is determined by the two-body scattering events and in Overhauser’s model was obtained from the solution of an effective Schrödinger equation for the relative motion of two electrons with antiparallel spins. Earlier work had demonstrated an exact cusp condition  relating the logarithmic derivative of $`g_{}(r)`$ at contact to the Bohr radius, and had emphasized the importance of the electron-electron ladder diagrams in evaluating $`g_{}(0)`$. The approach of Overhauser has subsequently been used to evaluate $`g_{}(0)`$ in the $`2D`$ electron gas, and has been extended by Gori-Giorgi and Perdew  to evaluate $`g(r)`$ at finite $`r`$ in $`3D`$ through an accurate numerical solution of Overhauser’s two-body Schrödinger equation. Their results are in good agreement with QMC data in the short-range part of $`g(r)`$.

In the present work we further develop this approach to the evaluation of the pair distribution functions by (i) adopting a self-consistent Hartree scheme for the determination of the effective potential entering the two-body Schrödinger equation; and (ii) carrying out calculations for both a $`3D`$ and a $`2D`$ electron gas. The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the essential theoretical background and Section III reports and discusses our numerical results. In Section IV we indicate how this approach could be extended to evaluate pair correlations in an inhomogeneous electron gas and hence to obtain improved exchange-correlation energy functionals for applications of DFT. A brief summary concludes the paper in Section IV.

## II Essential theory

Following the work of Overhauser and of Gori-Giorgi and Perdew, we aim to solve the two-electron scattering problem in some effective interaction potential $`V(r)`$ (assumed to be independent of the spin state of the electron pair) in order to determine the wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤,𝐊}^{}(𝐫,𝐑)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤,𝐊}^{}(𝐫,𝐑)`$ for the parallel and antiparallel spin states. Here, $`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐑=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2)/2`$ are the relative coordinate and the center-of-mass coordinate of the pair, the conjugate momenta being $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐊`$. The spin-resolved pair distribution functions $`g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)`$ can then be obtained as

$$g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(r)=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤,𝐊}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫,𝐑)|^2_\theta _{p(k)}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}_\theta _{p(k)}`$ represents averages over the scattering angle and over the probability $`p(k)`$ of finding two electrons with relative momentum $`k`$ in the electron gas,

$$𝒪_\theta _{p(k)}=(1/\mathrm{\Omega }_D)_0^{k_F}𝑑kp(k)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_D𝒪.$$
(2)
The function $`p(k)`$ can be calculated from the momentum distribution $`n(k)`$ , using

$$p(k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_Dk^{D1}}{n^2(2\pi )^D}\frac{d^D𝐪}{(2\pi )^D}n(q)n(|𝐪+𝐤|).$$
(3)
The prefactor in front of the integral is obtained from the condition that $`p(k)`$ should integrate to unity.

The pair wave functions can be written in the form of angular-momentum expansions,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤,𝐊}^{}(𝐫,𝐑)=\sqrt{2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i𝐊𝐑)}{r^{(D1)/2}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1(\mathrm{o}dd)}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^{\mathrm{}}𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^{(D)}(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)$$
(4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝐤,𝐊}^{}(𝐫,𝐑)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i𝐊𝐑)}{r^{(D1)/2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,𝐤}^{(D)}(r)+\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^{\mathrm{}}𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^{(D)}(\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)\right]$$
(5)
where $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^{(3)}(\theta )=(2\mathrm{}+1)\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ in terms of the Legendre polynomial $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(\theta )=2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}\theta )`$. In Eq. (4) the sum over $`\mathrm{}`$ runs over odd integers, because the spinor associated with the $``$ state is symmetric and hence the coordinate part of the wave function has to be antisymmetric under exchange. The spinor associated with the $``$ state has instead no definite symmetry and hence the sum in Eq. (5) runs over all integer values of $`\mathrm{}`$. Upon performing the angular average in Eq. (1) one obtains

$$g_{}(r)=\frac{2}{r^{D1}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1(\mathrm{o}dd)}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{(D)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)|^2_{p(k)}$$
(6)
and

$$g_{}(r)=\frac{1}{r^{D1}}\left[|\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,𝐤}^{(D)}(r)|^2_{p(k)}+\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{(D)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)|^2_{p(k)}\right]$$
(7)
where $`_{\mathrm{}}^{(3)}=2\mathrm{}+1`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}=2`$. Finally, the Schrödinger equation for the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)`$ is

$$\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{2\mu r^2}\left[𝐋_D^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}(D1)(D3)\right]+V(r)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)$$
(8)
where $`\mu =m/2`$ is the reduced mass of the electron pair, $`𝐋_3^2=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$ with $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝐋_2^2=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}^2`$ with $`\mathrm{}=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ (the negative values of $`\mathrm{}`$ are accounted for by the choice $`_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}=2`$ in Eqs. (6) and (7)). In solving Eq. (8) we impose as a boundary condition that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)`$ tends asymptotically to the free solution (i.e. the one which is obtained by setting $`V(r)=0`$) except for a phase shift.

The form of Eq. (6) ensures that the relation $`g_{}(0)=0`$ is satisfied, since all functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{},𝐤}^{(D)}(r)`$ vanish at the origin for $`\mathrm{}0`$. The cusp condition on $`g_{}(r)`$ reads $`d\mathrm{ln}g_{}(r)/dr|_{r=0}=1/a_B`$ in $`D=3`$ and $`d\mathrm{ln}g_{}(r)/dr|_{r=0}=2/a_B`$ in $`D=2`$: following the argument given by Kimball, it will be satisfied if $`V(r)`$ tends to the bare Coulomb potential for $`r0`$. It is also easily seen that the Hartree-Fock results for $`g_{}(r)`$ and $`g_{}(r)`$ are recovered if $`V(r)`$ is set to zero in Eq. (8). Given a general scattering potential $`V(r)`$, there is no guarantee that the charge neutrality condition,

$$nd^D𝐫\left[g(r)1\right]=1,$$
(9)
is satisfied. We have numerical evidence that Eq. (9) is fulfilled for our choice of $`V(r)`$ (see subsection A). The accuracy with which this happens depends in practice on the numerical solution of Eq. (8) and thus on the number of angular momentum states that are included in Eqs. (4) and (5).

Before proceeding to present our choice for the potential $`V(r)`$ in Eq. (8), we report the expressions for the probability function $`p(k)`$ introduced in Eq. (3). Using the momentum distribution $`n(k)=\theta (k_Fk)`$ for the free Fermi gas, one obtains

$$p_0(k)=24\frac{k^2}{k_F^3}36\frac{k^3}{k_F^4}+12\frac{k^5}{k_F^6}$$
(10)
in $`D=3`$  and

$$p_0(k)=\frac{16k}{\pi k_F^2}\left[\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{k}{k_F}\right)\frac{k}{k_F}\sqrt{1\frac{k^2}{k_F^2}}\right]$$
(11)
in $`D=2`$. We have also evaluated $`p(k)`$ for interacting electrons using QMC data on the momentum distribution from the work of Ortiz and Ballone  in $`3D`$ and of Conti  in $`2D`$. However, this led to only small changes in the pair distribution functions reported in Sect. III with the help of Eqs. (10) and (11).

### A Hartree potential and self-consistency

Overhauser’s proposal for calculating $`g(0)`$ in the $`3D`$ case was to approximate $`V(r)`$ by the electrical potential of a model consisting of an electron at the origin and a neutralizing sphere of uniformly distributed charge with radius $`r_sa_B=(4\pi n/3)^{1/3}`$. Gauss’s law ensures that $`V(r)`$ vanishes outside the sphere, and an approximate solution of the scattering problem could be obtained by an iterative procedure. In the work of Gori-Giorgi and Perdew the same model for $`V(r)`$ was adopted to evaluate $`g(r)`$, but a full solution of the Schrödinger equation (8) was achieved. In the $`2D`$ case with $`e^2/r`$ interaction, on the other hand, the potential outside a uniformly charged disk of radius $`r_sa_B=(\pi n)^{1/2}`$ with an electron at its center does not vanish, since the electrical force field extends outside the plane in which the electrons are moving. A more refined model is therefore necessary.

Here we approximate $`V(r)`$ in Eq. (8) by the Hartree potential due to the whole distribution of electrical charge and evaluate it with the help of Poisson’s equation. More precisely, in the $`3D`$ case $`V(r)`$ is taken to satisfy the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_rV(r)=4\pi e^2[\delta (r)+n(g(r)1)],$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ is the radial Laplace operator. The appropriate Poisson equation for the Hartree potential $`V_\mathrm{H}(r,z)`$ in the $`2D`$ case, with $`r`$ the radial distance in the electron plane and $`z`$ the vertical distance from the plane, is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_r+\frac{d^2}{dz^2})V_\mathrm{H}(r,z)=4\pi e^2[\delta (r)+n(g(r)1)]\delta (z)$$
(13)
and what is needed is $`V(r)=V_\mathrm{H}(r,0)`$. Evidently, by solving Eq. (8) in conjunction with Eq. (12) or Eq. (13) we obtain a self-consistent determination of the effective potential and of the radial distribution function.

The solution of Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) is easily obtained by introducing Fourier transforms. We define the structure factor $`S(k)`$ through the relation

$$S(k)=1+nd^D𝐫[g(r)1]\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫).$$
(14)
It is then easily seen that the Fourier transform of $`V(r)`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{V}(k)`$, say) is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(k)=v(k)S(k)$$
(15)
where $`v(k)=4\pi e^2/k^2`$ in $`D=3`$ and $`v(k)=2\pi e^2/k`$ in $`D=2`$. To prove Eq. (15) in the $`2D`$ case, we notice that the Fourier transform of $`V_\mathrm{H}(r,z)`$ from Eq. (13) is

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}(k,k_z)=\frac{4\pi e^2}{k^2+k_z^2}S(k)$$
(16)
so that

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}(k,z)\frac{dk_z}{2\pi }e^{ik_zz}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}(k,k_z)=\frac{2\pi e^2}{k}e^{k|z|}S(k),$$
(17)
and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(k)=\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}(k,z=0)=2\pi e^2S(k)/k`$.

Let us examine the asymptotic behaviours of the effective potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(k)`$ given in Eq. (15). At large momenta the structure factor $`S(k)`$ tends to unity, so that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(k)v(k)`$ and $`V(r)`$ tends to the bare Coulomb potential in the limit $`r0`$. As already remarked, this property ensures that the cusp condition on $`g(r)`$ is satisfied. In the limit $`k0`$, on the other hand, charge neutrality ensures the validity of the plasmon sum rule, which may be written in the form

$$\underset{k0}{lim}S(k)=\epsilon _k/\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}$$
(18)
where $`\epsilon _k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}`$ is the leading term in the plasmon dispersion relation, given by $`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}=(4\pi ne^2/m)^{1/2}`$ in $`3D`$ and by $`\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}=(2\pi ne^2k/m)^{1/2}`$ in $`2D`$. Therefore,

$$\underset{k0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{V}(k)=\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{pl}}/2n$$
(19)
in both dimensionalities. That is, the Fourier transform of our choice for the effective scattering potential tends in the long-wavelength limit to a constant in $`D=3`$ and to zero with a $`k^{1/2}`$ law in $`D=2`$.

### B s-wave scattering length

We complete this discussion by showing how the s-wave scattering length $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}(r_s)`$ can be evaluated from the numerical solution of the electron-electron scattering problem. The s-wave phase shift $`\delta _0(k)`$ is introduced through the large-distance behavior of the two-particle scattering state with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ at fixed momentum $`k`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,𝐤}^{(D)}(r)\mathrm{cos}[kr(D1)\frac{\pi }{4}+\delta _0(k)].$$
(20)
From $`\delta _0(k)`$ the scattering length is obtained by the requirement that the wave function outside the range of the potential should vanish at $`r=a_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. In $`D=3`$ this yields from Eq. (20) the well-known relation

$$a_{\mathrm{sc}}(r_s)=\underset{k0}{lim}\frac{\delta _0(k)}{k}.$$
(21)
A simple analytical expression for $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}(r_s)`$ in the $`3D`$ electron gas is available from the work of Overhauser ,

$$a_{\mathrm{sc}}(r_s)=r_sa_B\frac{r_s/10}{1+3r_s/8}.$$
(22)
The introduction of the concepts of effective range and scattering length is much more delicate in $`D=2`$. In the work of Verhaar et al the H-H atomic scattering problem was analyzed in detail. The most appropriate form of the outer wave function in $`2D`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,𝐤}^{(2)}(r)\mathrm{exp}[i\delta _0(k)]\mathrm{cos}[\delta _0(k)]\{\mathrm{J}_0(kr)\mathrm{tan}[\delta _0(k)]\mathrm{N}_0(kr)\},$$
(23)
in terms of the Bessel functions $`\mathrm{J}_0(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{N}_0(x)`$. The relation between scattering length and phase shift thus is $`\mathrm{tan}[\delta _0(k)]=\mathrm{J}_0(ka_{\mathrm{sc}})/\mathrm{N}_0(ka_{\mathrm{sc}})`$, taking at low energy a form which is the same as for the scattering of two hard spheres of radius $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}`$,

$$\mathrm{cot}[\delta _0(k)]=(2/\pi )\left[\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(ka_{\mathrm{sc}}/2)\right]+\mathrm{o}(k^2)$$
(24)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler’s constant, $`\gamma =0.577215665\mathrm{}`$ . In Sect. III we determine the scattering length for the $`2D`$ electron gas by fitting the expression in Eq. (24) to the phase shift obtained from the asymptotic behavior of the two-electron wave function as a function of $`k`$ at low energy. An analytical expression for $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ in the strong-coupling limit has been given by Polini et al.

## III Numerical results

We report in Figures 1 to 5 our numerical results for the pair distribution functions and for the self-consistent scattering potential. Starting with the $`3D`$ system, Figure 1 shows the spin-averaged $`g(r)`$ at $`r_s=10`$, in comparison with the QMC data reported by Ortiz et al.. The results obtained by Gori-Giorgi and Perdew within the same theoretical scheme, but with Overhauser’s choice for the effective potential $`V(r)`$, are also shown in Figure 1. It is seen from the Figure that both choices of $`V(r)`$ yield excellent agreement with the QMC data for the short-range part of the electron-electron correlations, up to $`r/(r_sa_B)1`$. However, the self-consistent calculation based on the use of the Hartree potential becomes definitely superior at large distance, where (at this intermediate value of the coupling strength) it continues to be in excellent agreement with the data. The Hartree potential at self-consistency is shown in Figure 2, for both the $`3D`$ and the $`2D`$ case. We may also remark that the cusp condition is satisfied by our numerical results in both cases.

With further increase in the coupling strength the pair distribution function from the QMC work starts developing a first-neighbor peak, and this behavior is not reproduced quantitatively by the theory. This is illustrated in Figure 3 for the electron gas in $`D=2`$. As is well known, the reduction in dimensionality enhances the role of the electron-electron correlations: this is also clear from comparing the scattering potentials in the two panels in Figure 2. While in $`2D`$ the self-consistent theory remains quite accurate at moderate coupling strength as is shown by the comparison with the QMC data of Tanatar and Ceperley at $`r_s=1`$ in the left-hand panel in Figure 3, quantitative differences from the QMC data are seen to arise at $`r_s=5`$ (right-hand panel in Figure 3).

The other aspect of the theory that needs testing concerns the quality of its predictions in regard to the spin-resolved pair distribution functions. This point is examined in Figure 4 for the $`3D`$ system at $`r_s=5`$ and $`10`$, using the QMC data of Ortiz et al. as analyzed by Gori-Giorgi et al.. The discrepancies between theory and simulation are reasonably small at these values of the coupling strength. It is evident from the Figure that these discrepancies largely cancel out in taking the spin avarage, but will be magnified when one calculates the difference distribution function $`g_d(r)`$. Similar theoretical results are shown in Figure 5 for the $`2D`$ system.

Finally, in Figures 6 and 7 we report our results for the s-wave scattering length as a function of coupling strength $`r_s`$. For the $`3D`$ system the simple analytical formula obtained by Overhauser and reported in Eq. (22) is seen in the left panel in Figure 6 to give a very good account of our results. Results for the $`2D`$ electron gas at moderate coupling strength are shown in the right-hand panel in Figure 6, while Figure 7 shows how they have been obtained by fitting the expression (24) to our numerical results for the phase shift in s-wave as a function of momentum at low momenta. It may be remarked that the magnitude of $`\delta _0(k)`$ in the present electron-electron scattering in $`2D`$ is smaller than that in the H-H scattering problem studied by Verhaar et al by a factor of about $`2`$. This yields, however, huge differences in the magnitude of the scattering length. Our results in the right-hand panel in Figure 6 should thus be regarded as being very sensitive to the details of the theory and hence as having limited quantitative value.

## IV Extension to inhomogeneous systems

In this section we briefly indicate how the approach that we have presented in Sect. II could be extended to deal with the pair distribution function in an inhomogeneous electron system, subject to an external scalar potential $`V_{\mathrm{ext}}(𝐫)`$.

The electron-electron correlations are described in such a system by an inhomogeneous pair distribution function, $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ say. The exchange and correlation energy functional is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{x}c}=\frac{1}{2}d^D𝐫d^D𝐫^{}n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})[\overline{g}(𝐫,𝐫^{})1]v(|𝐫𝐫^{}|),$$
(25)
where $`n(𝐫)`$ is the inhomogeneous electron density and $`\overline{g}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is obtained from $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ by an integration over the coupling strength at fixed $`n(𝐫)`$ (see for instance the book by Dreizler and Gross ). The calculation of $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ by means of a two-electron scattering problem remains in this case a genuine two-body problem. It requires for each spin state solution of the equation

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐫_1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐫_2})+V_{\mathrm{e}xt}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+V(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_{ϵ_{12}}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=ϵ_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ϵ_{12}}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2),$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐫`$ is the Laplace operator, $`V_{\mathrm{e}xt}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=V_{\mathrm{e}xt}(𝐫_1)+V_{\mathrm{e}xt}(𝐫_2)`$, and $`V(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ is the effective electron-electron potential. The Hartree approximation on the effective potential, leading to

$$V(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=v(|𝐫_1𝐫_2|)+d^D𝐫^{}[n(𝐫^{})g(𝐫_1,𝐫^{})n_b(𝐫^{})]v(|𝐫^{}𝐫_2|)$$
(27)
provides an approximate self-consistent closure of the problem transcending the usual LDA or other approaches that appeal to the exchange-correlation hole of the homogeneous electron gas. In the previous equation (27), $`n_b(𝐫^{})`$ is the density of the background.

Finally, a relation between $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ and the two-electron scattering states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ϵ_{12}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is needed. This relation can in general be written in the following form:

$$g_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\underset{ϵ_{12},\mathrm{occup}.}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ_{12}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{ϵ_{12}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})|^2,$$
(28)
where the sum runs over all the occupied levels $`ϵ_{12}`$. The appropriate degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ_{12}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ for the eigenvalue $`ϵ_{12}`$ is zero in the case $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ϵ_{12}}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is symmetric under the exchange $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$.

For building the exchange and correlation energy functional in Eq. (25), one needs to calculate the pair distribution function at each given coupling strength $`\lambda `$ by repeating the procedure outlined above with $`v(|𝐫_1𝐫_2|)=\lambda /|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$. The density profile $`n(𝐫)`$ is needed at full coupling strength and requires to be obtained by a parallel DFT procedure. The pair distribution function at full strength is, in itself, a very interesting quantity.

As an example of application of such scheme, we would like to mention the problem of a finite number of electrons confined in a quantum dot. In this case the eigenvalues $`ϵ_{12}`$ are discrete and the summation procedure reported in Eq. (28) corresponds to filling the lowest energy states with all the available electrons.

Another problem of interest is represented by a system of electrons confined in a quantum well, in cases where the electron dynamics is important also in the growth direction so that the confinement cannot be handled by a simple reduction to $`2D`$. Compared to the previous example, the summation procedure is in this case more involved. The difficulty comes from the fact that the motion in the transverse direction is free, and this implies that for each subband in the growth direction there is a dispersion in the transverse direction associated with the in-plane momentum. Examples of such physical systems, which are in a sense intermediate between $`3D`$ and $`2D`$, have been discussed for instance by Ullrich and Vignale  and by Luin et al. .

More generally, the possibility of testing theories of the exchange-correlation hole and of the exchange-correlation energy density in strongly inhomogenous electronic systems is opening up through novel applications of variational QMC methods .

## V Summary

In this work we have proposed an extension of Overhauser’s model for the electron-electron correlations in the $`3D`$ electron gas on the basis of a self-consistent Hartree approximation for the electron-electron scattering potential. We have confirmed that the model is quite accurately describing the short-range part of the exchange-correlation hole, as already demonstrated by Gori-Giorgi and Perdew , and shown that it can be usefully extended to cover the full range of interelectronic separation over an appreciable range of values of the coupling strength. As already noted in Sect. III, the accuracy of the present Hartree approximation is limited to the range of values of $`r_s`$ below the development of a first-neighbor peak in the pair distribution function. We have also shown that the original proposal of Overhauser yields a very accurate analytical formula for the electron-electron scattering length, and indicated how this approach could be extended to deal with the exchange-correlation hole in an inhomogeneous electron gas, leading perhaps to more accurate descriptions of the exchange-correlation energy functional.

We have examined the usefulness of this approach in describing the exchange-correlation hole in the $`2D`$ electron gas and the spin-resolved pair distribution functions in the $`3D`$ electron gas. As may be expected, the Hartree approximation is quantitatively useful in $`2D`$ over a more limited range of coupling strength and has more limited accuracy in regard to the splitting of the exchange-correlation hole into its parallel- and antiparallel-spin components. With regard to these spin-resolved pair functions, however, we feel that it is quite remarkable that a Hartree approximation should already work as well as it does in our calculations. We may hope that major changes will not be needed to explicitly include many-body exchange corrections in the electron-electron scattering potential.

We have also given some attention to the determination of the electron-electron scattering length in the $`2D`$ electron gas. As is generally true for $`2D`$ systems, the logarithmic dependence of the s-wave phase shift on $`ka_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ at very low energy makes this problem a very delicate one. We have shown that the proposal made by Verhaar et al in the context of an atom-atom scattering process is just as useful in regard to electron-electron scattering.

We are currently examining how the Hartree scattering potential may be supplemented by explicit inclusion of corrections accounting for many-body exchange and correlations, with the main aims of (i) improving the quantitative account of the spin-resolved components of the exchange-correlation hole, and (ii) studying how a first-neighbor shell emerges with increasing coupling strength.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by MIUR through the PRIN2001 program.


text:
# Nonabelian braid statistics versus projective permutation statistics

\[

## Abstract

Recent papers by Finkelstein, Galiautdinov, and coworkers \[J. Math. Phys. 42, 1489, 3299 (2001)\] discuss a suggestion by Wilczek that nonabelian projective representations of the permutation group can be used as a new type of particle statistics, valid in any dimension. Wilczek’s suggestion was based in part on an analysis by Nayak and Wilczek (NW) of the nonabelian representation of the braid group in a quantum Hall system. We point out that projective permutation statistics is not possible in a local quantum field theory as it violates locality, and show that the NW braid group representation is not equivalent to a projective representation of the permutation group. The structure of the finite image of the braid group in a $`2^{n/21}`$-dimensional representation is obtained.

\]

Moore and Read  showed that a physical realization of nonabelian statistics (as a nonabelian representation of the braid group) was a possibility in a quantum Hall effect system. The Moore-Read state now seems likely to be the ground state in the $`\nu =5/2`$ quantum Hall effect (for a review, see ). The nonabelian statistics was analyzed further , and in particular Nayak and Wilczek (NW)  showed that exchange of the quasiparticles by braiding can be represented using a subgroup of the rotation group SO($`n`$), acting in the spinor (projective) representation, using Clifford algebra methods. Wilczek  then proposed a connection with the projective representations of the permutation group, and suggested that such “projective permutation statistics” are a possibility in any space dimension. This was explored extensively in Refs. , where it was termed “Clifford statistics”. In view of the interest in nonabelian statistics also in connection with quantum computation , it seems worthwhile to correct the confusion that has arisen.

To begin, consider $`n`$ indistinguishable point objects in a two-dimensional plane. For generic positions, they can be projected onto a generic line in such a way that they do not coincide, and can then be labelled $`1`$, …, $`n`$ in sequence from left to right. The permutation (or symmetric) group acting on the objects is generated by the set of $`s_j`$, $`j=1`$, …, $`n1`$, that exchange objects $`j`$, $`j+1`$. The generators obey relations

$`s_j^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (1)
$`(s_js_k)^3`$ $`=`$ $`1(|jk|=1),`$ (2)
$`s_js_k`$ $`=`$ $`s_ks_j(|jk|>1)`$ (3)
(where $`1`$ denotes the identity element of the group), and this set of generators and relations defines the symmetric group on $`n`$ objects $`S_n`$. It has $`n!`$ elements.

Similarly, the braid group $`B_n`$ is generated by nearest-neighbor transpositions $`t_j`$, but now they do not square to the identity. The braid group can be defined by the relations (see e.g. )

$`t_jt_kt_j`$ $`=`$ $`t_kt_jt_k(|jk|=1),`$ (4)
$`t_jt_k`$ $`=`$ $`t_kt_j(|jk|>1).`$ (5)
The braid group is an infinite discrete group.

The projective representations of the symmetric group $`S_n`$ can be viewed as ordinary linear representations of a covering group, that is a nontrivial central extension of $`S_n`$ by U($`1`$) (or by a subgroup thereof). The central extensions of $`S_n`$ by U($`1`$) are classified up to isomorphism by the cohomology group $`H^2(S_n,\mathrm{U}(1))`$ which for $`n4`$ is $`𝐙_2`$ . Hence for $`n4`$ (we consider only this range from here on) there are nontrivial extensions of $`S_n`$ by $`𝐙_2`$, which have $`2n!`$ elements, and we denote one of these by $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$. $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ can be defined by $`n`$ generators $`\sigma _j`$ ($`j=1`$, …, $`n1`$), $`z`$ and relations

$`z^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (6)
$`z\sigma _j`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _jz,`$ (7)
$`\sigma _j^2`$ $`=`$ $`z,`$ (8)
$`\sigma _j\sigma _k\sigma _j`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _k\sigma _j\sigma _k(|jk|=1),`$ (9)
$`\sigma _j\sigma _k`$ $`=`$ $`z\sigma _k\sigma _j(|jk|>1).`$ (10)
Thus $`z`$ is a central element that commutes with all elements, and can be set to either $`+1`$ or $`1`$ in any irreducible representation (note that we do not distinguish between the abstract generators $`z`$, $`s_j`$, $`t_j`$, $`\sigma _j`$, etc, and their matrix representatives in a particular representation). The relations are the same as for the symmetric group, modulo factors of $`z`$. Representations in which $`z=1`$ descend to linear representations of the quotient group, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n/\{1,z\}S_n`$, while representations in which $`z=1`$ are projective representations of $`S_n`$. (The only other nontrivial double cover $`\widehat{S}_n`$, not isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ except for $`n=6`$ , is obtained by using instead generators $`\sigma _j^{}`$ which obey similar relations but with $`1`$ in place of $`z`$ in eq. (8) . In a representation in which $`z=1`$, this results from setting $`\sigma _j^{}=i\sigma _j`$ for all $`j`$. These were the relations used in Ref. .)

The proposal for projective permutation statistics  was that, as quantum mechanics welcomes the use of projective representations of symmetries, identical particles might be described by projective representations of the permutation group. Since the permutations do not refer to the topology of space (unlike the braiding operations), this proposal, if correct, could be used in any dimension (the ordering of the particles along the line is then arbitrary). Then the operation of exchange of nearest neighbors would be represented by an element $`T_j`$ acting on Hilbert space, and in the projective permutation statistics proposal, each $`T_j`$ must be either $`\sigma _j`$ or $`\sigma _j`$, since these are the elements that project to transpositions $`s_j`$ in the quotient group $`S_n`$. In particular, there is a representation of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ of dimension $`2^{[(n1)/2]}`$ (where $`[x]`$ denotes the largest integer $`x`$). This coincides with the dimension of the representation of the braid group identified  in the Moore-Read quantum Hall state, and Wilczek  claimed that this representation of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ is equivalent to the representation of the braid group obtained in Ref. , up to some phase factors that we will discuss in a moment. Note that the complex Clifford algebra on $`m`$ generators $`\gamma _j`$, with relations $`\gamma _j^2=1`$, $`\gamma _j\gamma _k=\gamma _k\gamma _j`$ ($`jk`$), has dimension $`2^m`$. For $`m`$ even, the Clifford algebra is isomorphic to the algebra of matrices on a vector space of dimension $`2^{m/2}`$. This applies here with $`m=2[(n1)/2]`$.

The difficulty with the general proposal is that statistics of particles in quantum field theory or many-body theory must obey locality. That is, the underlying physics is presumed to be given by a local Hamiltonian containing local interactions between local fields (for example, the electrons in the quantum Hall system). The locality assumption plays a crucial role in the general rigorous analysis of particle statistics; see e.g. Refs. . In particular, it appears that projective representations of the permutation group are explicitly ruled out (see e.g. Thm. 2.2.3c in Ch. IV of Ref.  for the case of relativistic theories in space dimension $`3`$ under some technical assumptions that are relaxed by the end of Sec. IV.3.3, and Sec. IV.5 of Ref.  for some discussion of space dimension $`2`$ where the braid group enters). The central step of the analysis is to move particles around continuously in spacetime, and the results depend only on the homotopy class of the path taken in configuration space. In particular, exchanges of disjoint well-separated pairs of particles must commute as the two orderings of the exchanges are homotopically equivalent, so in particular $`T_jT_k=T_kT_j`$ for $`|jk|>1`$, or in other words the group-theoretic commutator $`T_jT_kT_j^1T_k^1=1`$. In the projective representations of the symmetric group, the commutator is instead $`1`$ (whatever the choice of the lift, $`T_j=\sigma _j`$ or $`\sigma _j`$, of each $`s_j`$), and so projective statistics violates locality. On the other hand, locality is not violated by braid statistics, where $`T_j=t_j`$ in some representation of $`B_n`$, and it is known that nonabelian braid statistics can be realized in a local theory in $`2+1`$ dimensions , for example in pure Chern-Simons gauge theory.

Independent of the physical requirement of locality, the difference between the commutators of generators in $`B_n`$ (5) and in $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ (10) implies that a projective representation of $`S_n`$ (in which $`z=1`$) cannot also be a representation of the braid group $`B_n`$, in contradiction to Wilczek’s claim . Put another way, the image of the braid group in U($`2^{[(n1)/2]}`$) given by the representation matrices (the existence of which will be checked later) and that of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ are not isomorphic as groups (given the way that both project to the symmetric group). (Later we will see that these two groups, though both finite, are actually of different orders.)

No escape from these conclusions can be found in a remark by Wilczek  that in the quantum Hall example, the projective statistics is combined with anyonic phase factors, $`e^{2\pi i/8}`$ in a $`T_j`$. If this is taken to mean that the physical exchanges $`T_j`$ act in a tensor product of the $`2^{[(n1)/2]}`$ dimensional representation of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$ as above, with an abelian representation of the braid group $`t_j=e^{i\theta }`$ for some real $`\theta `$, so $`T_j=\sigma _jt_j`$, then it is clear that this does not affect the noncommutation of disjoint exchanges, $`T_jT_kT_j^1T_k^1=1`$. (A special case is $`e^{i\theta }=i`$, discussed earlier.) These generators clearly obey the relations (reintroducing $`z`$ for convenience)

$`z^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (11)
$`z\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _jz,`$ (12)
$`\tau _j\tau _k\tau _j`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _k\tau _j\tau _k(|jk|=1),`$ (13)
$`\tau _j\tau _k`$ $`=`$ $`z\tau _k\tau _j(|jk|>1).`$ (14)
The existence of representations $`T_j=\tau _j`$ of these relations implies their consistency, and hence the existence of a nontrivial central extension $`\stackrel{~}{B}_n`$ of the braid group, defined abstractly by the generators $`z`$, $`\tau _j`$ and the above relations. Any of the four groups mentioned earlier, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_n`$, $`B_n`$, $`S_n`$, or $`\widehat{S}_n`$ can be obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{B}_n`$ by imposing additional relations $`\tau _j^2=z`$, $`z=1`$, both of these, or $`\tau _j^2=1`$, respectively. Similarly, if $`t_j^{(1)}`$ and $`t_j^{(2)}`$, $`j=1`$, …, $`n1`$, are two representations of the braid group $`B_n`$, then $`t_j=t_j^{(1)}t_j^{(2)}`$ gives another one. In particular, $`t_j^{(2)}=e^{i\theta }`$ (for all $`j`$) is a one-dimensional representation, and so a continuum of distinct representations of the same dimension can be found for each choice of $`t_j^{(1)}`$’s. In quantum Hall effect systems, such abelian tensor factors are common, as there is a contribution to $`T_j`$ from the charge degrees of freedom, which produces a $`\theta `$ that depends on the filling factor.

If one considers representations modulo phase factors, then this distinction between the commutators (5), (10) cannot be made. This is the notion of isomorphism of groups modulo scalars, in contrast to the usual isomorphism we have been invoking so far. Isomorphism modulo scalars amounts to isomorphism of the images of the group(s) in the projective linear group PGL($`N`$) $`\mathrm{GL}(N)/\mathrm{GL}(1)`$, or since we are considering unitary representations, PU($`N`$) $``$ U($`N`$)/U($`1`$). However, isomorphism modulo scalars is generally too weak a property to use in quantum physics. That is because we must keep track of interference between processes that correspond to distinct group operations, and the phases involved may be relative phases that affect such interference. That is, we are interested in more than just the representation of a group. For example, $`S_n`$ has two one-dimensional representations, one in which $`s_j=+1`$, one in which $`s_j=1`$, corresponding to Bose and Fermi statistics, respectively. Modulo scalars, these are isomorphic, but linearly (and physically) they are not.

We now examine the construction of NW  to find the structure of their braid group representation of dimension $`2^{[(n1)/2]}=2^{n/21}`$ (we consider only $`n`$ even from here on; there are similar results for $`n`$ odd). Essentially the same construction, based on the Temperley-Lieb (TL) algebra specialized to the Ising model, was obtained much earlier by Jones . See also Ref. . NW deduce most of its properties from the properties of conformal blocks of spin fields in the Ising model, as in Ref. . The central idea is that each object corresponds to an orthogonal direction in real $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`𝐑^n`$, and the elementary transpositions $`T_j`$ correspond to a rotation $`\upsilon _j`$ by $`\pi /2`$ in the plane spanned by objects $`j`$, $`j+1`$, acting in one of the two inequivalent spinor representations of dimension $`2^{n/21}`$ of the covering group Spin($`n`$) of SO($`n`$), up to a $`j`$-independent phase factor as just discussed: $`T_j=e^{i\theta }\upsilon _j`$. Clearly these operations have the effect of permuting the $`n`$ axes (if we ignore the direction along each axis), and thus do project to the action of the permutation group as desired. Each rotation can be defined as $`\upsilon _j=\mathrm{exp}[i(\pi /2)e_{j,j+1}]`$, where $`e_{j,k}`$ ($`j<k`$) is the element of the Lie algebra so($`n`$) that generates a rotation in the $`jk`$ plane, acting here in the chosen spinor representation. Since the generators $`e_{j,k}`$ for disjoint pairs $`j_1k_1`$, $`j_2k_2`$ commute, and this remains true in any representation including the spinors (there are no nontrivial central extensions of any semisimple Lie algebra!), the $`\upsilon _j`$’s commute, $`\upsilon _j\upsilon _k\upsilon _j^1\upsilon _k^1=1`$ for $`|jk|>1`$. Hence there is no difficulty with locality of the proposal of Ref. , and so far it is consistent with the claim that the $`\upsilon _j`$’s form a linear representation of the braid group, with $`t_j=\upsilon _j`$. It remains to check the other relation (4).

To understand the structure of the representation of the braid group of dimension $`2^{n/21}`$ given by $`t_j=\upsilon _j`$, it is useful first to consider the geometry of the group of rotations by $`\pi /2`$ about the axes in $`𝐑^n`$ in more detail. This amounts to studying the group generated by elements $`u_j=\mathrm{exp}[i(\pi /2)e_{j,j+1}]`$, where this time $`e_{j,k}`$ act in the defining $`n`$-dimensional representation of SO($`n`$). The operation $`u_1`$, for example, sends the point with coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ to $`(x_2,x_1,x_3,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. The group generated by the $`u_j`$’s can be seen to be the set of all permutations of $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$, together with sign changes, but with the condition that an even permutation is combined with an even number of sign changes, and an odd permutation with an odd number of sign changes. If the latter condition is dropped, we obtain the group of all permutations and sign changes, which is generated by all reflections in the diagonals $`x_j=x_k`$ ($`1j<kn`$) and in the coordinate planes $`x_j=0`$, $`j=1`$, …$`n`$. This is therefore a Coxeter group, denoted $`_n`$  \[it is the Weyl group of so($`2n+1`$) and sp($`2n`$)\]. It can be described by generators and relations, but we will not need these here. There is a subgroup of index $`2`$, which we denote $`_n^+`$, consisting of the elements that are proper rotations, and it is exactly the group generated by the $`u_j`$’s. $`_n`$ is a semidirect product of $`S_n`$ with the group of sign changes $`(𝐙_2)^n`$, and has order $`2^nn!`$. Its rotation subgroup $`_n^+`$ has order $`2^{n1}n!`$, and is an extension of $`S_n`$ by $`(𝐙_2)^{n1}`$, but not a semidirect product (that is, there is no $`S_n`$ subgroup of $`_n^+`$ that projects onto $`S_n`$ under the quotient map $`_n^+_n^+/(𝐙_2)^{n1}S_n`$). Finally, the cover Spin($`n`$) of SO($`n`$), and the inclusion of $`_n^+`$ in SO($`n`$), induce a double cover $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ (there is a similar double cover $`\stackrel{~}{}_n`$ of $`_n`$). $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$, which has order $`2^nn!`$, is almost the group we need. It is generated by the lifts of the $`u_j`$’s, and the irreducible representations of dimension $`2^{n/21}`$ of Spin($`n`$) induce representations of the same dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$, which can also be viewed as projective representations of $`_n^+`$. To find the order of the image of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ in the irreducible spinor representations, we note that, for $`n6`$, the only normal subgroups of Spin($`n`$) are contained in its center, which is $`𝐙_4`$ ($`n/2`$ odd), $`𝐙_2\times 𝐙_2`$ ($`n/2`$ even), so the kernel of the map $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ U($`2^{n/21}`$) must also be contained in the center of Spin($`n`$). Hence the order of the image of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ is the same as the order of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$, within a factor of $`2`$ or $`4`$. For $`n=4`$, Spin($`4`$) $``$ SU($`2`$)$`\times `$SU($`2`$), and the irreducible spinor representations do not faithfully represent the Lie algebra so($`4`$), so the factor could be larger.

For $`_n^+`$, it is easy to show that setting $`t_j=u_j`$ does satisfy relation (4) defining the braid group $`B_n`$. To study the other groups explicitly, we resort to Clifford algebra methods. The reducible spinor representation of so($`n`$), of dimension $`2^{n/2}`$, can be naturally constructed as a representation of the even part of a complex Clifford algebra on $`n`$ generators by setting $`e_{j,k}=i\gamma _j\gamma _k/2`$. The representation splits into two irreducibles of dimension $`2^{n/21}`$ (this is also the structure of the Temperley-Lieb algebra in the Ising model , and of a full Clifford algebra on only $`n1`$ generators, which Jones constructs ). Spin($`n`$) and its center (and hence $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$, by a similar argument to that in the previous paragraph) act faithfully in the $`2^{n/2}`$-dimensional representation. We find $`\upsilon _j=(1+\gamma _j\gamma _{j+1})/\sqrt{2}`$ . It is then easy to verify that setting $`t_j=\upsilon _j`$, relation (4) is satisfied. The center of Spin($`n`$) is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$. It includes the elements $`U=\upsilon _1^2\upsilon _3^2\mathrm{}\upsilon _{n1}^2=\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _n`$ and $`\upsilon _j^4=1`$. For $`n/2`$ odd, $`U^2=1`$, and $`U`$ generates the center $`𝐙_4`$ of Spin($`n`$). The two irreducible components are distinguished by the values $`U=i`$, $`i`$. In these cases, $`𝐙_4`$ and hence the whole of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ are represented faithfully in the $`2^{n/21}`$-dimensional representations, and hence the image of $`B_n`$ has order $`2^nn!`$. For $`n/2`$ even, $`U^2=1`$, and the center of Spin($`n`$) is $`\{1,U,U,1\}`$. $`U=1`$ in one irreducible component, $`U=1`$ in the other, and the reverse for $`U`$. Hence for $`n8`$ the image of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ (and of $`B_n`$) is $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+/𝐙_2`$ for some $`𝐙_2`$ in either component, and has order $`2^{n1}n!`$. For $`n=4`$, one finds  that $`\upsilon _3=\upsilon _1^1`$, $`\upsilon _1`$ in the two components, and the image of $`\stackrel{~}{}_4^+`$ and $`B_4`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{}_3^+`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ for $`n`$ odd is defined the same way as for $`n`$ even) of order $`2^33!=48`$. Finally, for all even $`n4`$, the center of the even part of the Clifford algebra is generated by $`U`$, and the center of $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ is the same as that of Spin($`n`$).

Our conclusion for the order of the finite group generated by the images $`\upsilon _j`$ of the $`t_j`$’s in these irreducible representations agrees with the analysis by Jones, who showed that the image of $`B_n`$ in PU($`2^{n/21}`$) has order $`2^{n2}n!`$ for $`n6`$, and $`24`$ for $`n=4`$ (see Thm. 5.2 in Ref. ). This is consistent with our results since passing to the projective group involves division by the center (the center of $`\stackrel{~}{}_3^+`$ is $`𝐙_2`$).

For comparison, the symmetric group $`S_n`$ can be viewed as the Coxeter group $`𝒜_{n1}`$  \[the Weyl group of su($`n`$)\]. As such it is generated by reflections (representing the $`s_j`$’s) in the hyperplanes $`x_j=x_{j+1}`$ in $`𝐑^n`$, and this represents it as a subgroup of O($`n`$). As all the generators leave the points on the line $`x_1=x_2=\mathrm{}x_n`$ fixed, the reflections can be restricted to the orthogonal hypersurface $`_jx_j=0`$, and so generate a subgroup of O($`n1`$). O($`n1`$) has an irreducible projective spinor representation \[or linear representation of its double cover Pin($`n1`$)\] of dimension $`2^{n/21}`$, in which the lift of a reflection in any hyperplane is represented by a linear combination of generators of a Clifford algebra on $`n1`$ generators. The lifts $`\sigma _j^{}`$, $`z\sigma _j^{}`$ to Pin($`n1`$) of $`s_j`$ ($`j=1`$, …, $`n1`$) then generate $`\widehat{S}_n`$. In terms of the Clifford algebra (for convenience we will continue to use the Clifford algebra associated with $`𝐑^n`$), the explicit expressions are $`\sigma _j^{}=(\gamma _j\gamma _{j+1})/\sqrt{2}`$ (these elements generate a full Clifford algebra on $`n1`$ generators), and the anticommutation of $`\sigma _j^{}`$, $`\sigma _k^{}`$ for $`|jk|>1`$ follows . This is not the construction proposed in Ref.  for the braiding operations. If an abelian factor $`e^{i\theta }`$ is tensored into each $`\sigma _j^{}`$, then the image of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_n`$ in U($`2^{n/21}`$) is again a finite group if $`\theta /2\pi `$ is rational. Even if this finite group happens to have the same order as $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$, it has a different structure, as we have already shown.

We should mention that the statistics described by representations of the group $`\stackrel{~}{}_n^+`$ discussed here cannot describe particles in more than two space dimensions, because the exchanges $`T_j`$ do not obey (even up to a phase) the well-known conditions $`T_j^2=1`$ that are required  in higher dimensions.

There are also other examples of quantum Hall systems with nonabelian braid statistics, with no obvious relation to Clifford algebras. In the sequence of quantum Hall states, labelled by $`k=1`$, $`2`$, …, constructed in Ref. , the braiding of the quasiparticles is the same as that of Wilson lines in SU(2) Chern-Simons gauge theory of level $`k`$, up to tensoring by an abelian representation. It is known that the image of the braid group in U($`N`$) (for certain $`N`$) in these cases is finite for $`k=1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$ (abelian for $`k=1`$), and dense in SU($`N`$) for all other $`k`$ . Therefore in general, study of the statistics involves the braid group, and not a finite group.

To conclude, we have pointed out that the image of the braid group in any $`2^{[(n1)/2]}`$-dimensional representation is not isomorphic to the nontrivial double cover of the symmetric group, even if an abelian representation of the braid group is tensored with the latter. Projective permutation statistics is not consistent with locality, but the physical examples in quantum Hall states are described by the braid group and are consistent with locality. In the case of the quasiparticles in the Moore-Read state, the statistics is nonetheless related to Clifford algebras.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to Zhenghan Wang and Jürg Fröhlich for helpful communications. This work was supported by the NSF under grant no. DMR-98-18259.


text:
# An AGN Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram

## 1. Introduction

The question I’d like to address is whether there is a physical reason behind the resemblance of the cosmic star-formation history diagram, the ‘Madau-plot’, and the evolving QSO space density diagram (e.g., Shaver et al. 1996). Given that the shapes of these plots – in particular the $`z2.5`$ peaks – are similar, could it be that star-formation and nuclear activity in galaxies are more intimately related than we have believed so far? Rosa Gonzalez Delgado and George Rieke (these Proceedings) have already presented evidence that such is the case for Seyfert galaxies – I will add QSOs and discuss the AGN–starburst symbiosis within the framework of an Hertzsprung-Russell diagram analogon. A more complete account of the issue and a more thorough presentation of the rationale can be found in Barthel (2001).

## 2. Star-formation and FIR SEDs

Star-formation is mainly studied in the restframe ultraviolet-blue part of the spectrum, where clear signatures from young star populations can be found. However, such signatures will remain hidden when the star-formation occurs in a dusty region. In that case only thermal reradiation of the the hard ultraviolet photons by the dust can reveal the obscured star-formation. Data taken with IRAS and more recently ISO have beautifully demonstrated the importance of this mechanism: it has for instance revealed the class of ULIRGs (e.g., Sanders & Mirabel 1996) and the starburst activity located in between the Antennae galaxies NGC 4038 and NGC 4039 (Vigroux et al. 1996).

While normal galaxies display cold dust (heated up to $``$20K by the interstellar radiation field primarily due to the old population), starburst galaxies display warmer dust ($``$50K) related to the visible or unvisible young star population. The luminosity of the latter dust correlates with the (mostly) diffuse radio synchrotron emission, through the radio-FIR correlation (e.g., Condon 1992). This radio-FIR correlation is well known, but in my view not yet appreciated to its fullest extent – recall that only radio waves and hard X-rays can penetrate the inferred walls of extinction! From their far-infrared SEDs, normal and starburst galaxies are characterized with steeply rising 25$`\mu `$m to 60$`\mu `$m slopes between 1.5 and 3.

Seyfert galaxies have a third dust component: hot dust peaking at $``$25$`\mu `$m (De Grijp et al. 1985, Rodríguez Espinosa et al. 1996). This radiation is most likely emitted by the circumnuclear torus dust, being directly exposed to the hard AGN continuum (Rowan-Robinson 1995). I note in passing that this hot dust component is present at comparable magnitude in Seyfert galaxies of Type 1 and Type 2 (Pérez García et al. 1998), thereby proving the presence of hot, circumnuclear dust in Type 1 AGN. This third dust component produces a flattening of the $`\alpha _{25\mu }^{60\mu }`$ slope, to values in the range 1.0 to 1.5.

Not all AGN, however, have $`\alpha _{25\mu }^{60\mu }`$ indices in that range. On one hand there is the Blazar class which radiates nonthermal FIR, and can have indices as flat as 0.5. On the other hand there are AGN with an unusually luminous star-formation activity. The extra-strength 60$`\mu `$m component related to this activity steepens the $`\alpha _{25\mu }^{60\mu }`$ index to values in excess of 1.5 – the compact radio-loud quasar 3C 48 is a prime example (Canalizo & Stockton 2000a).

How general is this enhanced star-formation activity among the QSO population (radio-loud and radio-quiet)?

## 3. Star-forming QSOs and Seyfert galaxies

Like 3C 48 mentioned above a few more quasars are known to have strong ongoing star-formation. In an infrared color-color diagram (for instance displaying $`\alpha _{25\mu }^{60\mu }`$ versus $`\alpha _{60\mu }^{100\mu }`$) these objects are found close to the area occupied by ULIRGs (e.g., Canalizo 2000, Barthel 2001), and so the question emerges as to whether temporal evolution between the classes can occur.

In our study of the AGN-starburst symbiosis my colleagues and I have obtained and analysed deep radio (VLA), optical/nearIR (ESO; La Palma, including Carlsberg Meridian Circle astrometry), as well as improved IRAS data for a sample of 16 Seyfert galaxies having $`z<0.02`$, and 27 radio-quiet PG (Palomar-Green) QSOs having $`0.02<z<0.4`$. These complementary samples of active galaxies span a wide, continuous luminosity range of 3.5 orders of magnitude. These luminosities are expressed as L(12 $`\mu `$m), and hence predominantly reflect the AGN strength (e.g., Spinoglio & Malkan 1989). The radio-imaging, reaching noise levels of $`30\mu `$Jy, as well as the optical astrometry yield AGN positions to a 3$`\sigma `$ accuracy of $`0.4`$ arcsec. This allows comparison of the AGN versus the star-formation driven radio emission. The radio data of these – I stress – radio-quiet active galaxies are being combined with far-infrared photometry, yielding $`u`$-parameters log $`S_{60\mu }/S_{6\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}`$ (see e.g., Condon & Broderick 1988), which permit assessment of the relative roles of nuclear activity and star-formation. Normal star-forming spirals, obeying the radio-FIR correlation, have $`u`$ values in the range 2.4–3.0. Most Seyfert galaxies have infrared detections (at 25 and 60 $`\mu `$m), in contrast to about half of the PG QSOs. Also the ratios of the 60 $`\mu `$m and blue flux densities were compiled.

Plotting the infrared color as function of the (AGN) luminosity, we see from Fig. 1 that the more luminous QSOs (open symbols) are warmer than the Seyfert galaxies (filled symbols), and we infer that the AGN luminosity must to some extent be driving the objects’ dust temperatures.

Analysis of the $`u`$-parameters in combination with the radio images subsequently indicates that excess nuclear radio emission, and/or fading diffuse radio emission also leads to warmer dust. This is the case for both the Seyfert and the QSO class, and implies that an extra-strength active nucleus in a galaxy with fading starburst activity also raises the dust temperature. Fig. 2 shows the same distribution as Fig. 1, but with filled symbols now representing the weak-starburst/extra-strength AGN ($`u<2.3`$) and the open symbols representing the objects obeying the radio-FIR correlation ($`u2.3`$). We note a decrease in the $`u`$-parameter, in the upward direction in Fig. 2: for all (AGN) luminosities the dust becomes warmer with fading star-formation. The 60 $`\mu `$m over B-band flux density ratios are in good agreement: a strong decrease is seen, in the upward direction of Fig. 2, implying fading of the cool star-formation related dust component for a given (AGN) B-band luminosity.

## 4. An Hertzsprung-Russell diagram equivalent?

The objects in Figures 1 and 2 make up a – be it wide – diagonal strip running from bottom left to top right. This strip in turn can be separated in a lower part where star-formation is relatively important, and an upper part where star-formation is relatively unimportant. Classical ULIRGS such as Arp 220 and Mkn 231 are characterized with rather cool dust (see the beginning of Section 3) and fall under this lower strip. When rotated by $`90^{}`$, the figures display luminosity versus temperature, and can thus be considered as the active galaxy equivalent of the classical Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. If the question as for an evolutionary connection between the strongly and the weakly star-forming AGN is a valid one, then also the connection between the AGN and the ULIRGs should be taken seriously (cf. Sanders et al. 1988). Age dating (e.g., Canalizo & Stockton 2000b, Canalizo 2000) may permit to draw the evolutionary tracks. JCMT observations of the molecular gas in QSO hosts are currently being analyzed by our group to test the evolutionary scenario. I conclude that a substantial fraction of AGN displays strong star-formation activity, and note that such is probably not restricted to radio-quiet AGN (e.g., Aretxaga et al. 2001).

## 5. Implications

If an appreciable, more or less constant fraction of strongly star-forming galaxies develops and reveals an AGN after and/or during the process of intense circumnuclear star-formation, the similarity of the QSO space density and the star-formation history diagram may not be coincidental. Given that the latest versions of the latter (e.g., Calzetti 2001) suggest a non-declining star-formation rate for redshifts $`z=2`$ to 5, and given the submm indications for even more distant starburst activity (e.g., Dunlop 2001), the hunt for extreme redshift QSOs remains at order.

## 6. Conclusions

The 60 $`\mu `$m luminosity, when normalized with the 25 $`\mu `$m (or the 12 $`\mu `$m), the blue optical or the radio luminosity, permits assessment of the absolute and relative strength of star-formation and nuclear activity in active galaxies and quasars. The FIR temperature can be combined with measures of the bolometric luminosity to yield an intriguing AGN Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which among other things suggests that star-formation plays an important role in many AGN. Such photometric ratios can be obtained in a straightforwardly manner for the faint distant objects to be measured in large quantities with upcoming space-infrared missions, such as SIRTF, ASTRO-F and Herschel.

### Acknowledgments.

Travel support from the Leiden Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds and the EU Network ”Probing the Origin of the Extragalatic Background” is gratefully acknowledged. I furthermore acknowledge a long collaborative effort with Bob Argyle, Jeroen Gerritsen, Magiel Janson, Johan Knapen, David Sanders and Dick Sramek.

## References

Aretxaga I., Terlevich E., Terlevich R.J., Cotter G., Diaz A.I., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 636

Barthel P., 2001, in Proceedings of FIRSED2000, eds. Van Bemmel, Barthel and Wilkes: New Astronomy Reviews Vol. 45, 591 (Elsevier)

Calzetti D., 2001, in Proceedings of FIRSED2000, eds. Van Bemmel, Barthel and Wilkes: New Astronomy Reviews Vol. 45, 601 (Elsevier)

Canalizo G., 2000, PhD Thesis (University of Hawaii)

Canalizo G., Stockton A., 2000a, ApJ, 528, 201

Canalizo G., Stockton A., 2000b, AJ, 120, 1750

Condon J.J., 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575

Condon J.J., Broderick J.J., 1988, AJ, 96, 30

De Grijp M.H.K., Miley G.K., Lub J., De Jong T., 1985, Nature 314, 240

Dunlop, J.S., 2001, in Proceedings of FIRSED2000, eds. Van Bemmel, Barthel and Wilkes: New Astronomy Reviews Vol. 45, 609 (Elsevier)

Pérez García A.M., Rodríguez Espinosa J.M., Santolaya Rey A.E., 1998, ApJ, 500, 685

Rodríguez Espinosa J.M., Pérez García A.M., Lemke D., Meisenheimer K., 1996, A&A, 315, L129

Rowan-Robinson M., 1995, MNRAS, 272, 737

Sanders D.B., Mirabel I.F., 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

Sanders D.B., Soifer B.T., Elias J.H., Neugebauer G., Matthews K., 1988, ApJ, 328, L35

Shaver P.A., Wall J.V., Kellermann K.I., Jackson C.A., Hawkins M.R.S., 1996, Nature 384, 439

Spinoglio L. & Malkan M.A., 1989, ApJ, 342, 83

Vigroux L., Mirabel F., Altiéri B., et al. 1996, A&A, 315, L93