text:
# The Multi-Band Magnification Bias for Gravitational Lenses

## 1 Introduction

If a massive galaxy lies along the line of sight to a background quasar, the galaxy may act as a gravitational lens, magnifying and forming multiple images of the quasar. Beginning with the pioneering work of Turner, Ostriker, & Gott (1984), many authors have computed the number of lenses that should appear in well-defined samples of quasars, with particular attention given to the dependence of this statistic on the vacuum energy density (Turner, 1990; Kochanek, 1996; Helbig et al., 1999; Sarbu, Rusin, & Ma, 2001; Li & Ostriker, 2002).

These calculations must take into account not only the probability that a massive galaxy will be aligned closely enough with a background quasar (the lensing cross-section), but also the enhancement of the quasar flux due to lensing (the magnification bias). This is because quasar samples are usually defined by observed flux in some wavelength band, and gravitational lensing boosts the observed flux, thereby sampling a fainter portion of the quasar luminosity function. For example, if intrinsically faint quasars are sufficiently more numerous than bright quasars, then a quasar with a given observed flux is more likely to be lensed than the cross-section alone would imply.

More recently attention has turned toward the information about galaxy mass profiles that can be gleaned from lens statistics. These statistics include lensing rates (see, e.g., Keeton & Madau, 2001; Wyithe, Turner, & Spergel, 2001; Li & Ostriker, 2002), the ratio of four-image to two-image lenses (see, e.g., Rusin & Tegmark, 2001; Finch et al., 2002), the image separation distribution (see, e.g., Kochanek & White, 2001) and the brightness distribution of central images (see, e.g., Rusin & Ma, 2001; Keeton, 2001, 2002; Evans & Hunter, 2002; Oguri, 2002). All of these applications of lens statistics require a good understanding of magnification bias.

Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991) noted that quasar samples selected by both radio and optical flux measurements are subject to what they called a “double magnification bias.” If the radio and optical fluxes from a given quasar are nearly independent, then quasars bright in both bands are especially likely to be lensed111 Note that the important property of the two bands is independence, not a large separation in wavelength (as has since been stated in the literature; Bade et al. (1997)), although of course these two properties are related.. By assuming that gravitational lensing produces only one possible value of magnification, and using power-law luminosity functions for the optical and radio bands, Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991) showed that the resulting two-band magnification bias is the product of the bias factors computed separately for each band.

It is timely to revisit the issue of multi-band magnification bias with a more general approach. With the advent of large-area sky surveys at many wavelengths, it has become possible to define samples of thousands of quasars by their observed fluxes in X-ray, optical, infrared, and radio bands. Quasars appear in large numbers in, for example, the RASS (ROSAT All-Sky Survey: Truemper, 1982; Voges et al., 1999) and eventually ChaMP (Chandra Multi-wavelength Project: Wilkes et al., 2001; Silverman et al., 2002) at X-ray wavelengths; NVSS (NRAO-VLA Sky Survey: Condon et al., 1998) and FIRST (Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty centimeters: Becker, White, & Helfand, 1995; White et al., 1997) at radio wavelengths; 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey: Kleinmann et al., 1994) at near-infrared wavelengths; and SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey: York et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 2002) at optical wavelengths. Cross-correlation of these catalogs (see, e.g., McMahon et al., 2001; Ivezic et al., 2002) will become an increasingly important source of information about quasars in general, and gravitational lens statistics in particular.

A few lenses have already been discovered using multi-band selection criteria, at lensing rates that are larger than the 0.2–1% typical of single-band lens surveys. Bade et al. (1997) discovered the gravitational lens RX J0911.4+0551 by matching RASS sources with optical sources from Schmidt plates. Of the $`40`$ radio-quiet X-ray–luminous high-redshift quasars known, two are lensed (Wu, Bade, & Beckmann, 1999). A search for very red quasars through the matching of FIRST and 2MASS has identified two gravitational lenses out of thirteen sources (Gregg et al., 2002; Lacy et al., 2002). None of these projects were designed explicitly to discover gravitational lenses, although this is a realistic possibility for the future.

In this paper we investigate the magnification bias for quasar samples defined by measurements in multiple wavelength bands. After presenting the basic formalism for $`N`$ bands (§2), we specialize to the case of two bands and consider some illustrative examples. We consider the cases in which the two fluxes are uncorrelated (§2.1), perfectly correlated (§2.2), and correlated with non-zero scatter (§2.3). We then use a realistic model of the optical luminosity function for quasars to demonstrate a few interesting properties of the multi-band magnification bias (§3); in particular, the bias does not necessarily increase with flux in each band, and there is a profound difference between the case of a linear correlation and a non-linear correlation with flux in another band. Finally, in §4 we summarize our results, and discuss possible applications of this formalism to real quasar samples.

## 2 Magnification Bias and the Multiple Imaging Rate

We begin by reviewing the case of single-band magnification bias (Turner, 1980; Turner, Ostriker, & Gott, 1984). In a sample of quasars at redshift $`z`$ with (apparent222By “apparent,” we mean that $`L_1`$ is the luminosity inferred from the observed flux and the luminosity distance, without taking into account the possible magnification due to lensing.) luminosity $`L_1`$, the fraction of multiple-image lensed quasars is

$$F(L_1,z)\frac{B_1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}}{B_1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})},$$
(1)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}`$ is the cross-section for multiple imaging, and $`B_1(L_1)`$ is the magnification bias. For $`\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}1`$ and $`B_1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}1`$, this reduces to the usual expression $`F(L_1,z)=B_1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}`$. The magnification bias is evaluated as

$$B_1(L_1,z)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mu }{\mu }\frac{dP}{d\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1/\mu ,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)`$ is the quasar luminosity function, $`\mu `$ is the sum of the unsigned magnifications of the multiple images, and $`\frac{dP}{d\mu }`$ is the probability distribution for $`\mu `$, taken for a singular isothermal sphere throughout the paper ($`dP=8\mu ^3d\mu `$ for $`\mu 2`$). This expression can be understood as a likelihood ratio. The denominator is the likelihood that the quasar is drawn from the sample of unlensed quasars with luminosity $`L_1`$ (within $`dL_1`$). The numerator is the likelihood that the quasar is drawn from the fainter sample of quasars with luminosity $`L_1/\mu `$ (within $`dL_1/\mu `$), summed over all possible values of $`\mu `$.

Understood this way, the generalization to $`N`$ bands is straightforward. We require knowledge of the multivariate luminosity function, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{N}(L_1,L_2,L_3,\mathrm{},L_\mathrm{N},z)`$. For a point source, the magnification is the same for all bands, because gravitational lensing is achromatic333Gravitational lensing magnification is sensitive to source size. Therefore if the emission regions for the two bands differ greatly in their spatial extent, then there is the possibility of wavelength-dependent magnification. For example, the small optical emission region of a quasar may be microlensed by stars in the lensing galaxy, whereas the more extended emission regions at infrared or radio wavelengths is not generally microlensed (see Wyithe & Turner (2002) for a recent discussion of microlensing and magnification bias). We ignore the possibility of microlensing in this paper, but note that since the mean magnification of microlensed sources equals the magnification of un-microlensed sources, the results presented will be qualitatively correct, even for correlations involving bands that are subject to microlensing.. The multi-band magnification bias is therefore

$$B_{1\mathrm{}N}(L_1,L_2,L_3,\mathrm{},L_N,z)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu \frac{1}{\mu ^N}\frac{dP}{d\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1\mathrm{}N}(L_1/\mu ,L_2/\mu ,L_3/\mu ,\mathrm{},L_N/\mu ,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{1\mathrm{}N}(L_1,L_2,L_3,\mathrm{},L_N,z)}.$$
(3)
The dependence of $`B`$ on the apparent luminosities of the quasars depends on the correlations, if any, between the intrinsic luminosities of the quasars in those bands. To illustrate the interesting properties that can result, in the following sections we concentrate on the simplest non-trivial case, the two-band magnification bias. All of the results are easily generalized to $`N`$ bands.

### 2.1 Two-Band Magnification Bias: No Correlation

Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991) considered quasars observed at both optical and radio wavelengths, and assumed a power-law luminosity function for each band. They showed that if the fluxes in these bands are statistically independent, and if there is only one possible value of the lensing magnification, then the two-band magnification bias is equal to the product of the biases that would be computed separately for the optical and radio bands. This result is not true in general. As we show below, even if the two bands are independent, the result does not hold because real gravitational lenses produce a distribution of magnifications.

First, we reproduce the result of Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991) using our formalism. For $`N=2`$, Eq. (3) is

$$B_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mu }{\mu ^2}\frac{dP}{d\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(L_1/\mu ,L_2/\mu ,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)}.$$
(4)
If the bands are independent, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(L_2,z)`$. The lens model used by Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991) can be described by $`\frac{dP}{d\mu }=\delta (\mu \mu _0)`$, in which case

$$B_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)=\frac{1}{\mu _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(L_1/\mu _0,L_2/\mu _0,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)}=\frac{1}{\mu _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1/\mu _0,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(L_2/\mu _0,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(L_2,z)}=B_1(L_1,z)B_2(L_2,z).$$
(5)
This results fails for the more realistic case in which there is a range of possible magnifications, because $`\frac{dP}{d\mu }`$ appears once in the numerator of the multi-band magnification bias, but appears separately in each numerator in the product of the single-band biases. For example, following Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal (1991), suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,}L_1^{\alpha _1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(L_2,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,}L_2^{\alpha _2}`$. If we adopt the magnification distribution appropriate for an isothermal sphere ($`\frac{dP}{d\mu }=\frac{8}{\mu ^3}`$ for all $`\mu 2`$), then

$$B_{12}(L_1,L_2,z)=_2^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mu }{\mu ^2}\frac{8}{\mu ^3}\frac{1}{\mu ^{\alpha _1}\mu ^{\alpha _2}}=\frac{8}{4+\alpha _1+\alpha _2}2^{(4+\alpha _1+\alpha _2)},$$
(6)
for $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2>4`$. Analogous calculations of the single-band bias factors give

$$B_1(L_1,z)B_2(L_2,z)=\frac{16}{(3+\alpha _1)(3+\alpha _2)}2^{(4+\alpha _1+\alpha _2)},$$
(7)
which can be either larger or smaller than Eq. (6).

### 2.2 Two-Band Magnification Bias: Perfect Correlation

If the two bands are perfectly correlated, with $`L_2=f(L_1)`$, one might expect that no new information is provided by the observation in the second band, and therefore that the two-band bias is equal to the single-band bias for either band. This is not quite true. Gravitational magnification multiplies both fluxes by the same factor. If the unmagnified fluxes are linearly correlated, then the magnified fluxes also obey the correlation. However, if the correlation is non-linear, then the magnified fluxes do not obey the correlation, and the source must be gravitationally lensed. In the the appendix, we derive this result formally, by calculating the magnification bias for general correlations (see the next section) in the limit of zero scatter.

### 2.3 Two-Band Magnification Bias: Imperfect Correlation

More generally, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are correlated with some intrinsic scatter. On physical grounds we expect the magnitude of the scatter to scale with the luminosity \[i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2/L_2g(\mathrm{\Delta }L_1/L_1)`$\], which makes it convenient to use logarithmic variables $`l=\mathrm{log}L`$. Suppose that the correlation between $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ is a power-law, $`L_1=L_2^\gamma `$, or $`l_1=\gamma l_2`$. Because of the correlation, it is convenient to express the luminosity function in terms of the new variables $`u_1\frac{1}{\gamma }l_1+l_2`$ and $`u_2\gamma l_1+l_2`$, which describe the location parallel and perpendicular to the correlation, respectively (see Fig. 1). In these variables, the luminosity function (expressed in density per square logarithmic interval) is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}(u_1,u_2,z)=(\gamma +\frac{1}{\gamma })\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)`$. The luminosity function can also be written $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}(u_1,u_2,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)p(u_2|u_1,z)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)`$ is the luminosity function in the new variable $`u_1`$ and $`p(u_2|u_1,z)`$ is the conditional probability of $`u_2`$ given $`u_1`$. Because we expect the scatter to be symmetric in reflection about the correlation444As an example of why we expect the scatter to be symmetric in reflection about the correlation, consider a sample of quasars with flux measured in two optical wave bands, say $`r`$ and $`i`$. We would expect to find a variation of bias with $`i`$-band at fixed $`r`$-band that is qualitatively similar to the variation with $`r`$-band at fixed $`i`$-band. This symmetry in the magnification bias requires symmetry of the scatter in reflection about the correlation. We therefore choose to model the scatter as a symmetric function in logarithms of luminosity; that is, defined normal to the correlation (i.e. along the $`u_2`$ axis). , we assume $`p(u_2|u_1,z)`$ to be Gaussian with variance $`\sigma `$, hence

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}(u_1,u_2,z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{u_2^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right).$$
(8)
Defining $`M=\mathrm{log}\mu `$, the magnification bias is

$`B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dM}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(l_1M,l_2M,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑M{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{dM}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma +\frac{1}{\gamma })\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}[u_1(1+\frac{1}{\gamma })M,u_2+(\gamma 1)M,z]}{(\gamma +\frac{1}{\gamma })\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}(u_1,u_2,z)}}.`$
Inserting Eq. (8),

$$B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M^{}\frac{dP}{dM^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1[u_1M^{},z]}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\left[\left(u_2+\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{1+\gamma }M^{}\right)^2u_2^2\right]\right),$$
(10)
where we have defined $`M^{}=(1+\frac{1}{\gamma })M`$. This expression illustrates many important points. First, if the correlation is linear ($`\gamma =1`$) then $`B_{12}`$ is independent of $`u_2`$, and the contours of constant bias run normal to the correlation (i.e. along lines of constant $`l_2+l_1`$). Furthermore, if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`u_1`$, then we find that $`B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)`$ is an increasing function of both $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ (since $`u_2`$ increases monotonically with both $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$). This example will be further explored in Case 1 of §3. Eq. (10) also demonstrates the behavior arising from non-linear correlations ($`\gamma 1`$). Here the exponential plays an important role; it introduces an asymmetry in the bias across the correlation. If, for example, $`\gamma >1`$, then large biases can result from negative values of $`u_2`$ (i.e. below the correlation), because the exponent becomes positive. On the other hand, the exponent is negative for all $`u_2>0`$, and hence the bias above the correlation is small. This example will be further explored in Case 3 of §3.

In the following section, we evaluate Eq. 10 numerically, with more realistic assumptions, in order to illustrate these and other interesting and potentially observable properties of the multi-band magnification bias.

## 3 Magnification Bias for Illustrative Bi-Variate Luminosity Functions

We consider measurements made in two bands, and a power-law correlation between the two bands: $`L_2=L_1^\gamma `$. As in §2.3, the scatter (normal to the correlation) is assumed to be Gaussian in logarithms with half-width $`\sigma `$. We consider 4 examples of Eq. (8). The first two examples involve linear correlations ($`\gamma =1`$), and the second two examples involve non-linear correlations.

For the first of the two correlated bands, we use a luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1,z)`$ that is appropriate for optical wavelengths. A good representation of the observed optical quasar luminosity function at redshifts $`z3`$ is provided by the following double power-law form (Boyle, Shanks, & Peterson, 1988; Pei, 1995):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}(L,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}/L_{}(z)}{[L/L_{}(z)]^{\beta _\mathrm{l}}+[L/L_{}(z)]^{\beta _\mathrm{h}}}.$$
(11)
At the faint end, the logarithmic slope of this function is $`\beta _\mathrm{l}=1.58`$, while at the bright end the slope is $`\beta _\mathrm{h}=3.43`$ (Boyle et al. 2000). Moreover, all dependence on redshift (for $`z3`$) is in the break luminosity $`L_{}(z)`$. We therefore show the luminosity function in units of $`L_{}`$ throughout the remainder of this paper. Setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}(L_1)`$, we find from Eq. 8 that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}(L_1)`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,u_2)`$ through

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{o}(L_1)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑L_2\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{u_2^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right).$$
(12)
This equation defines the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1)`$ used in this section.

1. $`\gamma =1.0`$, $`\sigma =0.15`$: A linear correlation with constant scatter. This is the situation that might be expected between two different optical bands. The contours of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ (gray), and of $`B_{12}`$ (black), are shown in the top left panel of Fig. 2. As was derived in the previous section (and might be expected intuitively), the bias increases monotonically with both luminosities, and is constant along lines normal to the correlation.

The top right panel shows the corresponding single-band luminosity function (gray line), and magnification bias (dotted black line). These functions are the same for both bands because of the linear correlation. In addition we plot $`B_{12}(L_1,L_2)`$ for two paths through $`(L_1,L_2)`$-space: one at fixed $`L_1`$ (thick dashed line, plotted as a function of $`L_2`$) and the other below but parallel to the correlation (thin dashed line, plotted as a function of $`L_1`$).
2. $`\gamma =1.0`$, $`\sigma =0.150.02\mathrm{log}u_1`$: Same as the previous example, except in this case we allow the logarithmic scatter to depend on luminosity. The results are shown in the lower panels of Fig. 2, in the same format as the previous example.

The contours of magnification bias wrap around the contours of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$, increasing rapidly as one moves normal to the correlation (along the $`u_2`$ axis). This can be understood as follows. Magnification draws quasars from regions of lower intrinsic luminosity, where the probability density of quasars (as given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$) is larger. This is especially true when the observed luminosities fall at some distance from the correlation, because the scatter in the correlation is larger at lower luminosities.

The dependence of $`B_{12}`$ on $`L_2`$, for fixed $`L_1`$, is again shown by the thick dark dashed line. Interestingly, the dependence is not monotonic. For small values of $`L_2`$ the magnification bias is large. The bias decreases as $`L_2`$ rises through the expected intrinsic value, and then increases again. The bias along the path denoted by the thin dashed line demonstrates that the bias can become very large for sources below the correlation.
3. $`\gamma =1.5`$, $`\sigma =0.2`$: A non-linear correlation with a constant scatter. This situation approximates the correlation that has been observed between the X-ray ($`L_2`$) and optical ($`L_1`$) bands for quasars (Brinkmann et al., 2000). Results for this case are shown in the top two panels of Fig. 3, in the same format as the previous examples.

In this case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(L_2)`$ (thin gray line) is a flatter function than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(L_1)`$ (thick gray line), and therefore the single-band bias $`B_2`$ (thin dotted line) is smaller than $`B_1`$ (thick dotted line). Although $`B_{12}`$ is an increasing function of $`L_1`$, it is actually a decreasing function of $`L_2`$ (for fixed $`L_1`$). This runs counter to the naive expectation that the brighter the quasar is (regardless of band), the more likely it is to be lensed. The reason is that when $`L_2`$ is smaller than expected from the correlation, reducing both luminosities by the same factor $`\mu `$ (along a line of unit slope, in the top left panel) brings one to a region of much higher probability.
4. $`\gamma =1.0`$, $`\sigma =0.3`$: An anti-correlation with constant scatter. This is a somewhat artificial example, but we might imagine there are two ways for a quasar with a fixed energy source to radiate its energy, and one of these ways can be blocked by a variable amount. For example, the optical and far-infrared luminosities might be expected to exhibit some degree of anti-correlation due to dust obscuration.

The results are plotted in the lower panels of Fig. 3. The contours of magnification bias are parallel to the anti-correlation. For small luminosities the bias is smaller than unity. Quasars in this region are less likely to be lensed than the cross-section alone would imply, because lensed quasars would be drawn from a population with very small density. Conversely, for large luminosities, the bias becomes arbitrarily large.

## 4 Discussion

The multi-band magnification bias is an a posteriori statistic. It is used to estimate the probability that the apparent luminosities of a given quasar, as measured in several bands, are due to gravitational magnification, rather than being intrinsic to the quasar. When a sample of quasars is selected through the matching of sources in two different catalogs, both fluxes must be used to perform this calculation. One must also have some knowledge of the intrinsic correlation (if any) of the fluxes, and the distribution of magnifications produced by lensing.

One might expect that the multi-band bias is maximized when the bands are uncorrelated (an example of which is shown for the radio-optical correlation of SDSS early data release quasars in Fig. 4), since in that case there is no redundant information in the flux measurements. Upon further reflection, or using the mathematics developed in this paper, one realizes that this is not true—the relevant information is how discrepant the observed fluxes are from the correlation, and whether the discrepancy can be made smaller if the observed fluxes are all reduced by a constant factor.

Many of the illustrative examples presented in this paper approximate certain correlations that have been observed for real quasars. In particular, the multi-band magnification bias may result in very high lens fractions for certain quasar samples. First, we consider the case of a quasar sample selected by optical colors. The top left panel of Fig. 4 is a logarithmic plot of SDSS $`i`$-band vs. $`r`$-band fluxes for the SDSS early data release quasars (Schneider et al. 2002). The data show a linear correlation with scatter, the magnification bias for which is illustrated in the top panels of Fig. 2. The magnification bias must be computed using both optical measurements, unless the sample is 100% complete in one filter (i.e., unless after selecting quasars in $`i`$, the $`r`$-band magnitude was measured in every single case). As an example consider the sample of SDSS $`z>5.8`$ quasars (Fan et al. 2001). Since the $`z`$-band selection is at $`1100\AA `$ in the rest-frame, quasars with fixed absolute B magnitude ($`4400\AA `$) are more likely to be selected if they are bluer than average. Thus a sample of quasars selected in this manner will be bluer than average and lie blueward of the correlation on a plot of the intrinsic correlation between $`M_\mathrm{V}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{B}`$. The magnification bias for these sources may be significantly smaller than that computed using only extrapolations of the $`B`$-band luminosity function (Wyithe & Loeb, 2002; Commerford, Haiman, & Schaye, 2002).

Next, we consider examples of non-linear luminosity correlations. Brinkmann et al. (2000) measured the correlation between ROSAT X-ray and FIRST radio fluxes for matched quasar samples. They find that while radio-quiet quasars show a linear relationship between X-ray and radio luminosity, radio-loud quasars have an X-ray flux $`L_x`$ that varies with the radio luminosity $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ as $`L_xL_\mathrm{r}^{0.48\pm 0.05}`$ with an intrinsic scatter of $`0.2`$ dex. Furthermore, Brinkmann et al. (2000) showed that the X-ray luminosity correlates non-linearly with optical luminosity $`L_\mathrm{o}`$, following $`L_xL_\mathrm{o}^{1.42\pm 0.09}`$. The second of these correlations (in flux) is plotted in Fig. 4 for quasars in the SDSS Early Data Release (Schneider et al., 2002), but can be seen more clearly in Fig. 14 of Brinkmann et al. (2000). The multi-band magnification bias corresponding to the second correlation555Note that while we have presented results for a non-linear correlation with index $`\gamma >1`$, the result for $`\gamma <1`$ is simply obtained through reversal of the axes. is illustrated in the top panels of Fig. 3. The magnification bias can be extremely large for sources that are luminous at both optical and X-ray wavelengths. This may be the explanation for the apparently high probability of lensing in bright X-ray selected quasar catalogs (Bade et al., 1997). The location of the gravitational lens RX J0911.4+0551, which was selected from cross-correlation of optical and X-ray catalogs, is shown on this plot by the large dot666We used the integrated $`R`$ from Bade et al. (1997) and color transformations from Fukugita, Shimasaku & Ichikawa (1995).. The fluxes place the quasar below the correlation, in the region where we expect the magnification bias to be large (see the upper panels of Fig. 3). The lens HE 1104–1805 is also X-ray loud (Wisotzki et al. 1993; Reimers et al. 1995). While this lensed quasar was not discovered through cross-correlation between catalogs, it is interesting to note its location on this plot, shown by the open square in Fig. 4. The quasar is found to be very bright in both bands, and is again in the region of high magnification bias. It is suggestive that the two X-ray loud gravitational lenses both appear to lie in the region of high magnification bias, as expected.

Finally, the multi-band magnification bias may also provide an explanation for the large gravitational lens fraction (2 out of 13) found through the matching of FIRST and 2MASS sources (Gregg et al., 2002; Lacy et al., 2002). Fig. 4 shows the correlation for near infrared luminosities verses radio luminosities compiled from table 1 of Barkhouse & Hall (2001). The radio/near-IR correlation appears to be steeper than linear. If true we might expect very large biases for luminous near-IR sources. The top panel of Fig. 3 demonstrates magnification bias for a non-linear correlation, and shows that the bias of around 100 necessary to achieve a lens fraction of 2/13 is possible.

## 5 Summary

This paper has discussed the multi-band magnification bias for gravitational lensing with arbitrary luminosity functions in several bands. Previous discussion of the multi-band magnification bias (Borgeest, von Linde, & Refsdal, 1991) focused on the case where the fluxes in the two bands are independent. If a single value for the lens magnification is considered, they showed that this assumption leads to a multiple magnification bias that is equal to the product of the single-band biases. However, we have shown that this equality breaks down in the more realistic case when there is a distribution of possible magnifications.

We also discussed the multi-band magnification bias when the fluxes in the various bands are correlated. In the case of a perfect (i.e. zero scatter) linear correlation, the information from the second band does not change the magnification bias. However, if the correlation is non-linear, then sources with fluxes that obey the correlation cannot be lensed. On the other hand, sources with fluxes that do not obey the correlation must be lensed.

Of course, real correlations have intrinsic scatter. We have calculated the multi-band magnification bias for bi-variate luminosity functions with finite scatter about both linear and non-linear correlations. For a linear correlation (as expected for a quasar sample selected by optical colors) we find that the magnification bias is an increasing function of either flux. Calculations of lens statistics from incomplete color-selected quasar samples should therefore account for the multi-band magnification bias.

Non-linear correlations (and anti-correlations) with finite scatter were also explored. If the fluxes in two bands are correlated through a relation that is steeper than linear, then sources that lie below the correlation can be subject to a very large bias. The observed correlation between X-ray and optical flux (and possibly between infrared and radio flux) for quasars is steeper than linear. Suggestively, the two known X-ray loud gravitationally lensed quasars lie below the X-ray/optical correlation in the region of large magnification bias. Thus the multiple magnification bias may provide an explanation for the large lensing rates found in X-ray/optical and infrared/radio selected samples.

The authors wish to acknowledge discussions with Chris Kochanek that led us to work on this topic. We also thank Wai-Hong Tham and Lara Winn for enduring conversations. J.S.B.W. is supported by a Hubble Fellowship grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. J.N.W. is supported by an Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship, under NSF grant AST-0104347.

## Appendix A Two-Band Magnification Bias for Perfect Correlations

In this appendix we derive the results mentioned in § 2.2 for the two-band magnification bias in the case of perfect correlations by taking the limit of small $`\sigma `$ in Eq. (10). It is convenient to rewrite the exponential as follows

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M^{}\frac{dP}{dM^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1[u_1M^{},z]}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)}\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}M^{}\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}\left[\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}M^{}+2u_2\right]\right).$$
(A1)
First, consider the case of a linear correlation ($`\gamma =1`$). In this case we find the exponential function is unity for all $`\sigma >0`$, and Eq. (A1) reduces to

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M^{}\frac{dP}{dM^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1[u_1M^{},z]}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\frac{dP}{dM}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1[2(l_1M),z]}{\mathrm{\Psi }_1(2l_1,z)}.$$
(A2)
Note that in this case we must have $`l_1=l_2`$. We can relate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1,z)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(l_1,z)`$ in the limit of small $`\sigma `$:

$`\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(l_1,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑l_2\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(l_1,l_2)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑l_2\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}(u_1,u_2)}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑l_2\mathrm{\Psi }_1(u_1)\delta (u_2)`$ (A3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑l_2\mathrm{\Psi }_1(l_1+l_2)\delta (l_1+l_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(2l_1).`$
Thus, for a perfect linear correlation, we find that

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\frac{dP}{dM}\frac{lim_{\sigma 0}\mathrm{\Phi }_1[l_1M,z]}{lim_{\sigma 0}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(l_1,z)}=B_1(l_1,z),$$
(A4)
which is the single band magnification bias. Therefore, if two luminosities obey a perfect linear correlation, the magnification bias is simply equal to the single-band magnification bias computed from either luminosity.

Next consider the case of a non-linear correlation ($`\gamma 1`$). Specifically, we assume $`\gamma >1`$ and $`0<M_{\mathrm{min}}^{}<M^{}<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$`\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}}M^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}M^{}+2u_2\right]\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}u_2>{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{2}}`$ (A5)
$`=`$ $`1\text{if}u_2={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\text{if}u_2<{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{2}}.`$
Note that only sources with $`u_2=0`$ or $`u_2<\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}M_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ are allowed. As a result we find that $`lim_{\sigma 0}B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`u_2<\frac{\gamma (\gamma 1)}{\gamma +1}M_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$. Sources that lie on the correlation have $`u_2=0`$, and therefore $`lim_{\sigma 0}B_{12}(l_1,l_2,z)=0`$. Thus if the correlation is non-linear, sources that lie on the correlation cannot be lensed, while sources that lie off the correlation must be lensed.


format: text

text:
# Deep Transient Optical Fading in the WC9 Star WR 106

## 1 Introduction

Wolf–Rayet (WR) stars are massive, luminous stars which have blown away the hydrogen envelope, and are considered to be immediate precursors of some kinds of supernovae. WCL-type stars are a carbon-rich, late-type subclass of WR stars \[for the definition of the subclasses of WC-type stars, see e.g. Smith & Shara (1990); more comprehensive information of WR stars can be found in the catalogue by van der Hucht (2001). WC9-type stars are the coolest WCL-type stars which are characterized by strong CIII and CII lines, and the weak or absent OV feature (Torres & Conti, 1984). WC9-type stars have been receiving much astrophysical attention in that they are one of the most effectively dust-producing environments in stellar systems (for recent reviews, see Williams (1995, 1997)).

The dust-forming process in WCL-type (especially in WC9-type) stars is known to be either continuous or episodic. The best-known continuous dust producer is a binary WR 104 (WC9+B0.5V), renowned for its “dusty pinwheel nebula” (Tuthill et al., 1999, 2002). Recently discovered large-amplitude optical variability even suggests the presence of a continuous “dust jet” in the direction of the rotation axis (Kato et al., 2002). WR 112 (WC9+OB?) has been also suspected to have a similar dusty pinwheel (Marchenko et al., 2002).

Another class of manifestation of dust production in WCL stars is episodic optical fading (Veen et al., 1998) or episodic infrared brightening (Williams et al., 1990), which are considered to arise from temporary condensations of dust clouds.

In 2001 April, one of the authors (KH) serendipitously discovered a new variable star named Had V84 (vsnet-alert 5856),111 http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/alert5000/
msg00856.html.  which was subsequently identified with WR 106 = HDE 313643 (Fig. 1). WR 106 is known to show a strong infrared excess (Cohen & Vogel, 1978; Cohen, 1995; Kwok et al., 1997; Pitault et al., 1983), which indicates substantial dust formation. We also noticed that the object was listed as No. 15357 in FitzGerald (1973), who suspected 0.13 mag $`V`$-band variability based an analysis of past photoelectric archival data. The object was given a name for suspected variable star (NSV 10152), but the variability was not confirmed at that time.

## 2 Observation and Results

A total of 177 observations were made between 1994 February 17 and 2002 June 18, with twin patrol cameras equipped with a $`D`$ = 10 cm f/4.0 telephoto lens and unfiltered T-Max 400 emulsions, located at two sites in Toyohashi, Aichi (KH) and Saku, Nagano (KT). The passband of observations covers the range of 400–650 nm. Photographic photometry was performed using neighboring comparison stars, whose $`V`$-magnitudes were calibrated by T. Watanabe. The magnitudes were derived by a combination of image size and density. The overall uncertainty of the calibration and individual photometric estimates is 0.2–0.3 mag, which will not affect the following analysis. A scatter around the maximum light likely comes from statistical distribution of errors, although superposed intrinsic variations cannot be ruled out.

The resultant light curve is presented in Fig. 2. The star showed an overall range of variability of between 11.4 and fainter than 14.7 mag. Taking into measurement errors into consideration, the minimum full amplitude of the variation is 2.9 mag.

Fig. 3 shows an enlarged light curve of the 2000 fading episode. This figure clearly demonstrates that the overall fading episode was composed of at least two distinct fadings. The two most prominent fadings were separated by $``$55 d. In 2002 May, KH reported a marginal detection of another shallower ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ 0.6 mag).

An inspection of the available archived images at the USNOFS pixel server, 9 epochs during 1950-1996, has revealed no distinct fading of WR 106, suggesting that fadings are rather rare.

## 3 Discussion

WR 106 was studied for binarity by Williams & van der Hucht (2000). The lack of evidence for a companion and the apparent lack of photometric periodicity (Fig. 2) less favor the interpretation of a periodic enhancement of dust production in the WR-star wind during the passage of the companion star though an elliptical orbit, as has been proposed in WR 140 (Williams et al., 1990) and presumably WR 137 (Williams et al., 2001).

The present phenomenon seems to be better understood as an “eclipse-like”, line-of-sight dust formation as proposed by Veen et al. (1998). The depth of the present phenomenon, however, far surpasses those (up to 1.2 mag in visual wavelengths) of the previously known similar phenomena in other stars. Following the interpretation by Veen et al. (1998), the production rate of the optical depth or the dust production rate in the present episode should be at least a few times larger than in the previously recorded phenomena. Furthermore, the observed depth severely constrains the amount of the unobscured scattered light to be less than 7 %.

The present phenomenon is composed of at least two distinct fadings (Fig. 3). Veen et al. (1998) reported the presence of two-step fadings in some fadings. Veen et al. (1998) suggested several possibilities to explain the two-step fadings: (1) sudden enhancement of the dust production in response to an inflow of additional matter to the dust production area, (2) non-radial expansion of a neighboring cloud, or (3) formation of the second cloud in the shade of the first cloud. In the present case, the close occurrence of two rare fadings suggests that they are not a chance superposition of two independent phenomena, but are more physically related. The similar observed depths and durations of the two fadings do not seem to support a stepwise formation of the dust cloud, as represented by the possibilities (1) and (3). The present observation seems to more support that the initial dust formation somehow triggered a second dust formation in the proximity, or that the two independent dust formations occurred by the same triggering mechanism.

We also note phenomenological similarity of the present fading with the “double fading” of R CrB observed in 1999–2000 (Fig. 4, the data are from VSNET.222http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/.). The fading mechanism proposed by Veen et al. (1998) being analogous to the fading mechanism of R CrB stars (for a review, see Clayton (1996)), the analogy may suggest a common underlying dust production mechanism between R CrB stars and WR 106. Similar double fadings are also known in some \[WC\] stars (CPD$``$568032 = He3$``$1333 = V837 Ara: Pollacco et al. (1977); V348 Sgr: Heck et al. (1985)), which are sometimes considered to be related to R CrB-type stars. It is widely believed that the dust formation in R CrB stars are associated with pulsation (Clayton, 1996). Although the large difference of the gravity and temperature between WR stars and R CrB stars may make it difficult to directly apply the R CrB-type dust formation to a WR star, a pulsation-type instability similar to that of R CrB stars in the outer WR wind may have caused a similar sequence of fadings in a WR star.

The authors are grateful to the observers who reported visual observations of R CrB to VSNET. This work is partly supported by a grant-in aid \[13640239 (TK), 14740131 (HY)\] from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. This research has made use of the Digitized Sky Survey producted by STScI, the ESO Skycat tool, and the VizieR catalogue access tool. This research has made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/).


text:
# Models for Enhanced Absorption in Inhomogeneous Superconductors

## I Introduction

Some high-Tc superconductors, such as Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu2O8+δ, absorb very strongly in the microwave regime even at temperatures $`T`$ far below $`T_c`$. At a fixed frequency as a function of $`T`$, the real conductivity typically has two features: a sharp peak near $`T_c`$, and a broad, frequency-dependent background extending to quite low $`T`$. The peak near Tc is usually ascribed to critical fluctuations arising from the superconducting transition.

The origin of the broad background is less clear. In conventional s-wave superconductors, there is no such background, because the material cannot absorb radiation at frequencies below the energy gap for pair excitations, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. But in high-Tc materials, which are thought to have a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ order parameter, the gap vanishes in certain nodal directions in $`k`$-space. Hence, gapless nodal quasiparticles can be excited at arbitrarily low $`T`$, and these can absorb at low frequencies. But the observed absorption appears to be stronger than expected from the quasiparticles alone in a two-fluid model.

Several authors have suggested quenched inhomogeneities as the origin of this extra absorption. Such inhomogeneities could arise from statistical fluctuations in the local densities of holes or impurities, or from the presence of superfluid-suppressing impurities such as Zn. Corson et al found that such fluctuations in Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu2O8+δdisplace about 30% of the spectral weight from the condensate to the conductivity at finite frequencies. In addition, several explicit models have been presented which produce such a displacement. For example, Van der Marel and Tsvetkov have calculated the fluctuation conductivity due to a periodic one-dimensional modulation of the phase stiffness. The present authors have calculated the fluctuation conductivity of a two-dimensional array of Josephson junctions with quenched randomness in the critical currents, using the Kubo formalism. They found an excess contribution to the conductivity below $`T_c`$ arising from this inhomogeneity, which arose from displacement of some of the superfluid contribution from zero to finite frequencies.

More recently, Orenstein considered a two-fluid model of superconductivity with quenched, anticorrelated inhomogeneity in both the normal and superfluid densities; he found that some of the spectral weight of the conductivity is displaced from zero to finite frequencies, and gave explicit expressions for this extra conductivity. Han has given a field-theoretic treatment of a randomly inhomogeneous two-dimensional d-wave superconductor, using a replica formalism to treat the assumed weak disorder. He obtained an extra Lorentzian peak in the real conductivity, centered at zero frequency, arising from this disorder, and a corresponding reduction in the superfluid density. All such models are made more plausible by imaging experiments which have directly observed spatial fluctuations in the local superconducting energy gap in underdoped cuprate superconductors.

In this paper, we study the low-frequency complex conductivity of several models for two-dimensional superconductors with quenched inhomogeneities. We use a straightforward approach to obtain the effective complex conductivity, based on standard treatments of randomly inhomogeneous media in the quasistatic regime. From this approach, we obtain sum rules for the complex conductivity. We also find, in a number of cases, explicit expressions for the extra conductivity $`\delta \sigma _e(\omega )`$ due to the quenched inhomogeneities. Where the models are comparable, our explicit form for $`\delta \sigma _e(\omega )`$ reduces to that of Han, even though obtained using a quite different approach.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we develop sum rules for the optical conductivity of a two-dimensional superconductor with quenched inhomogeneities, and apply them to several explicit models. In Section III, we present some approximate calculations for the effective conductivity of such superconductors. A concluding discussion is given in Section IV.

## II Conductivity Sum Rules

### A Kramers-Kronig Relations

We consider a two-dimensional superconductor, in which the local conductivity has normal and superfluid contributions which act in parallel, but, in contrast to the usual two-fluid model, these terms are spatially varying. The complex local conductivity $`\sigma (𝐱,\omega )`$ is taken as a scalar function of position $`𝐱`$ and frequency $`\omega `$ of the following form:

$$\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)=\sigma _n(\omega ,𝐱)+\frac{i\rho _s(𝐱)}{\omega }.$$
(1)
$`\sigma _n`$ might be a contribution from the nodal quasiparticles expected in a superconductor with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ order parameter symmetry, while $`\rho _s`$ represents the perfect-conductivity response of the superconductor. Our goal is to calculate the position-independent effective complex conductivity of this medium, which we denote

$$\sigma _e(\omega )\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )+i\sigma _{e,2}(\omega ).$$
(2)
We first obtain a sum rule for $`\sigma _{e,1}`$. We start from the Kramers-Kronig relations obeyed by any function, such as $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$, which describes a causal response:

$$\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega ^{}\sigma _{e,2}(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}𝑑\omega ^{}+\sigma _{\mathrm{}}$$
(3)
and

$$\sigma _{e,2}=\frac{\rho _{s,e}}{\omega }\frac{2\omega }{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}𝑑\omega ^{}.$$
(4)
Here P denotes the principal part, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ Lim$`{}_{\omega \mathrm{}}{}^{}\sigma _{e,1}^{}(\omega )`$. We have assumed that Lim$`{}_{\omega \mathrm{}}{}^{}\sigma _{n}^{}(\omega )`$ position-independent, and have used the fact that, at high frequencies, $`\sigma _{e,2}i\rho _{s,e}/\omega `$, where $`\rho _{s,e}`$ is the effective superfluid density. At sufficiently large $`\omega `$, the right hand side of eq. (4) takes the form

$$\sigma _{e,2}\frac{1}{\omega }\left(\rho _{s,e}+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{\mathrm{}}]𝑑\omega ^{}\right).$$
(5)
We first write down a perturbation result for $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$, which will be needed below. If the spatial fluctuations in $`\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)`$ are small in magnitude compared to it spatial average, $`\sigma _{av}`$, then to second order in the $`|\delta \sigma |/|\sigma _{av}||\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)\sigma _{av}(\omega )|/|\sigma _{av}(\omega )|`$,

$$\sigma _e\sigma _{av}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\delta \sigma )^2}{\sigma _{av}},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes a space average of the quantity in brackets.

### B Frequency-Independent Normal Conductivity

Suppose first that $`\sigma _n(\omega )`$ is real, nonzero, frequency-independent, and spatially uniform. Then $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _n`$, and, at high $`\omega `$, however large the fluctuations in $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$, the fluctuations in the local complex conductivity, $`\sigma _n+i\rho _s(𝐱)/\omega `$, are small compared to the space-averaged conductivity $`\sigma _{av}(\omega )=\sigma _n+i\rho _{s,av}/\omega `$; we can thus use eq. (6). Since only $`\rho _s`$ is fluctuating, and not $`\sigma _n`$, eq. (6) becomes

$$\sigma _e\sigma _n+\frac{i\rho _{s,av}}{\omega }+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{\omega ^2\sigma _n+i\omega \rho _{s,av}}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\delta \rho _s(𝐱)=\rho _s(𝐱)\rho _{av}`$. Thus, to leading order in $`1/\omega `$, $`\sigma _{e,2}\rho _{s,av}/\omega `$. Equating this expression to the right-hand side of eq. (5), we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _n\right]𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\rho _{s,av}\rho _{s,e}\right)$$
(8)
One consequence of eq. (8) is that, if $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$ is spatially varying, $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$, $`\rho _{s,av}>\rho _{s,e}`$, the right-hand side of eq. (8) is positive, and there will be an additional contribution to $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$, above $`\sigma _n`$.

The sum rule (8) requires only that the conductivity fluctuations are asymptotically small at large $`\omega `$, and not necessarily that $`\rho _s`$ have small fluctuations. If, however, the fluctuations in $`\rho _s`$ are, in fact, small, then $`\rho _{s,e}`$ can be calculated approximately using the analog of eq. (6), namely,

$$\rho _{s,e}\rho _{s,av}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{\rho _{s,av}}.$$
(9)
From this approximate result, eq. (8) becomes

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _n\right]𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\pi }{4}\rho _{s,av}\left(\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{\rho _{s,av}^2}\right).$$
(10)
For fixed mean-square fluctuations $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/\rho _{s,av}^2`$, this integral is proportional to the average superfluid density $`\rho _{s,av}`$. That is, the extra integrated fluctuation contribution to $`\sigma _{e,1}`$, above the mean contribution of the normal fluid, is proportional to $`\rho _{s,av}`$. A similar result has been reported in experiments carried out over a range of mean superfluid densities.

### C Frequency-Dependent, Spatially Fluctuating Normal Conductivity

Next, we consider a frequency-dependent $`\sigma _n(\omega ,𝐱)`$, assuming that Lim$`{}_{\omega \mathrm{}}{}^{}\sigma _{n}^{}(\omega ,𝐱)=0`$, but allowing for a spatially varying $`\sigma _n(\omega ,𝐱)`$. Then eq. (4) becomes

$$\sigma _{e,2}(\omega )=\frac{\rho _{s,e}}{\omega }\frac{2\omega }{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{1}{\omega }\left(\rho _{s,e}+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}\right),$$
(11)
where the last result is again valid at sufficiently large $`\omega `$. We now assume a Drude form for $`\sigma _n(\omega ,𝐱)`$, i. e.,

$$\sigma _n(\omega ,𝐱)=\frac{\rho _n(𝐱)\tau _n(𝐱)}{1i\omega \tau _n(𝐱)},$$
(12)
where $`\rho _n(𝐱)`$ is a suitable normal fluid density, and $`\tau _n(𝐱)`$ is a quasiparticle relaxation time. Then at sufficiently high $`\omega `$,

$$\sigma _2(\omega ,𝐱)\frac{i[\rho _s(𝐱)+\rho _n(𝐱)]}{\omega },$$
(13)
while $`\sigma _1(\omega ,𝐱)`$ falls off at least as fast as $`1/\omega ^2`$. Similarly, $`\sigma _{e,1}`$ also falls off at least as fast as $`1/\omega ^2`$ at large $`\omega `$. Hence, $`\sigma _ei\sigma _{e,2}`$ at high frequencies, where

$$\sigma _{e,2}(\omega )=\frac{(\rho _s+\rho _n)_e}{\omega }.$$
(14)
Here $`(\rho _s+\rho _n)_e`$ denotes the effective superfluid density of a hypothetical material whose spatially varying local superfluid density is $`\rho _s(𝐱)+\rho _n(𝐱)`$. Equating the coefficients of $`\omega ^1`$ on right hand sides of eqs. (11) and (14) yields

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[(\rho _s+\rho _n)_e\rho _{s,e}\right],$$
(15)
which gives the integrated spectral weight of $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$.

To calculate this weight, we first introduce $`\sigma _{n,av}\sigma _n`$, and note that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{n,1,av}(\omega ^{})𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{\pi \rho _{n,av}}{2},$$
(16)
even if $`\tau _n(𝐱)`$ is position-dependent. Hence,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{n,1,av}(\omega ^{})\right]𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left[(\rho _s+\rho _n)_e\rho _{s,e}\rho _{n,av}\right].$$
(17)
Thus $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})`$ again has some extra spectral weight beyond that of $`\sigma _{n,av}(\omega )`$.

We first estimate expression (17) in the small-fluctuation regime where $`|\delta \rho _s|\rho _{s,av}`$, assuming that $`\rho _n`$ is non-fluctuating. Following steps analogous to those leading up to eq. (10), we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{n,1,av}(\omega ^{})\right]𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\pi }{4}(\delta \rho _s)^2\left(\frac{1}{\rho _{s,av}}\frac{1}{\rho _{s,av}+\rho _n}\right).$$
(18)
In the limit $`\rho _n\rho _{s,av}`$, this expression reduces to the right-hand side of eq. (10). In this regime, the extra spectral weight is again proportional to $`\rho _{s,av}`$. A frequency-independent $`\sigma _n`$ is a special case of this limiting behavior. In the opposite limit ($`\rho _{s,av}\rho _n`$), the behavior is

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sigma _{e,1,av}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{n,1}(\omega ^{})\right]𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{\pi }{4}\rho _n\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{\rho _{s,av}^2}.$$
(19)
Thus, in this limit, for fixed mean-square fluctuations in $`\rho _s`$, the extra spectral weight is not proportional to $`\rho _{s,av}`$.

If both $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _n`$ are spatially varying, eq. (17) can still be easily treated when spatial fluctuations in $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _n`$ are small. Then, to second order in these fluctuations,

$$(\rho _s+\rho _n)_e\rho _{s,av}+\rho _{n,av}\frac{1}{2}\frac{[\delta (\rho _s+\rho _n)]^2}{\rho _{s,av}+\rho _{n,av}},$$
(20)
while $`\rho _{s,e}`$ is given approximately by eq. (9). Substituting eqs. (20) and (9) into eq. (17) gives

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}[\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ^{})\sigma _{n,1,av}(\omega ^{})]𝑑\omega ^{}=\frac{\pi }{4}\left[\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{\rho _{s,av}}\frac{[\delta (\rho _s+\rho _n)]^2}{\rho _{s,av}+\rho _{n,av}}\right].$$
(21)
To interpret eq. (21), we assume that $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _n`$ are correlated according to $`\rho _n=\lambda \rho _s`$. Thus $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\lambda =1`$ represent perfect correlation and perfect anticorrelation. The predictions of eq. (21) are particularly striking in the latter case, as postulated in some models of inhomogeneity. In this case the sum $`\rho _s+\rho _n`$ is not fluctuating. Then the second term on the right-hand side of eq. (21) vanishes, and the extra spectral weight due to the inhomogeneity is again proportional to $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/\rho _{s,av}`$. In the opposite case $`\lambda =1`$, the right-hand side of eq. (21) may be negative, i. e. the total spectral weight is smaller than that given by $`\sigma _{n,1,av}`$.

### D Tensor Conductivity

The preceding arguments apply equally well to a tensor conductivity, as expected if the superconducting layer contains charge stripes or other types of static charge density waves. In this case, the local conductivity should be a $`2\times 2`$ tensor of the form $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }(\omega ,𝐱)=R^1(𝐱)\sigma ^d(\omega )R(𝐱)`$, where $`\sigma ^d(\omega )`$ is a diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrix with diagonal components $`\sigma _A(\omega )`$, $`\sigma _B(\omega )`$, and $`R(𝐱)`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ rotation matrix describing the local orientation of the stripes. If this phase has a domain structure, the stripes would have either of two orientations relative to the layer crystalline axes, with equal probability. In a macroscopically isotropic layer, this domain structure leads to an scalar effective conductivity $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$. If, for example, the conductivity along the jth principal axis is $`\sigma _j(\omega )=\sigma _{n,j}(\omega )+i\rho _{s,j}/\omega `$, then the superfluid inhomogeneity produces an extra spectral weight at finite $`\omega `$ given by eq. (17).

## III Model Calculations

### A Weak Inhomogeneity

We now supplement these sum rules with some explicit expressions for $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$, beginning with weak inhomogeneity, $`|\delta \sigma |\sigma _{av}`$. In this case, $`\sigma _e`$ is given by eq. (6). If only $`\rho _s`$ is spatially fluctuating, this equation reduces to eq. (7) and

$$\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )\sigma _n+\frac{1}{2}(\delta \rho _s)^2\frac{\sigma _n}{\rho _{s,av}^2+\omega ^2\sigma _n^2}.$$
(22)
Thus, the extra absorption is a Lorentzian centered at $`\omega =0`$, of half-width $`\rho _s/\sigma _n`$, and strength $`(\delta \rho _s)^2`$. A result equivalent to eq. (22) has also been obtained by Han using a replica formalism. Indeed, even the parameters of the two results are identical, provided we interpret $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/2`$ in our model as equal to the quantity $`g\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\pi `$ in the model of Ref. .

Next, we consider the case where both $`\rho _s`$ and $`\sigma _n`$ have weak spatial variations. We assume that $`\sigma _n`$ is given by eq. (12), that $`\rho _n`$ is spatially varying, but not $`\tau _n`$, and that $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _s`$ are correlated according to the rule $`\delta \rho _n=\lambda \delta \rho _s`$. Then $`\sigma _e`$ is given approximately by eq. (6), with

$$\sigma _{av}=\frac{\rho _{n,av}\tau _n}{1i\omega \tau _n}+\frac{i\rho _{s,av}}{\omega }$$
(23)
and

$$(\delta \sigma )^2=(\delta \rho _s)^2\left(\frac{i}{\omega }+\frac{\lambda \tau _n}{1i\omega \tau _n}\right)^2.$$
(24)
Some representative plots of $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$ resulting from eqs. (6), (23) and (24) are shown in Fig. 1 for $`\lambda =1`$ (perfect correlation) $`\lambda =1`$ (perfect anticorrelation), and $`\lambda =0`$ (no fluctuations in $`\delta \rho _n`$). The case $`\lambda =1`$ appears most plausible physically, since it implies that the sum $`\rho _n+\rho _s`$ is non-fluctuating. It also produces the largest increase in $`\sigma _{e,1}`$ at any given $`\omega `$.

For $`\omega \tau _n1`$, eqs. (6), (23), and (24) lead to the analytical result

$$\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )\sigma _{n,av}+\frac{(\delta \rho _s)^2}{2}\frac{\sigma _{n,av}2\lambda \tau _n\rho _{s,av}}{\rho _{s,av}^2+\omega ^2\sigma _{n,av}^2}.$$
(25)
Here $`\sigma _{n,av}\rho _{n,av}\tau _n`$ and we have neglected corrections of order $`(\omega \tau _n)^2`$ in the numerator. Eq. (25) is again identical with Han’s result, obtained using a replica formalism, if we make the identification $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/2g\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\pi `$.

### B Temperature-Dependent Superfluid Density; Effective-Medium Approximation

Next, we calculate $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ using a simple model for the conductivity of a CuO2 layer proposed in Ref. et al, but generalized to include inhomogeneities. We assume that $`\sigma (\omega ,𝐱)`$ is given by eq. (1), but for simplicity that it can have only two values, $`\sigma _A`$ and $`\sigma _B`$, with probabilities $`p`$ and $`1p`$. The corresponding conductivities are $`\sigma _j(\omega )`$ (j = A, B), where

$$\sigma _j(\omega )=\sigma _n(\omega )+i\frac{\rho _{s,j}}{\omega }$$
(26)
Following Ref. , we take $`\sigma _n(\omega )=\rho _n\tau _n/(1i\omega \tau _n)`$. We assume $`\rho _n=\alpha T`$, for $`T<T_c`$, as expected for nodal quasiparticles in a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductor, and $`\rho _n(T>T_c)=\alpha T_c`$. We also take $`\tau _n^1=\beta T`$. This linear $`T`$-dependence may be expected if $`1/\tau _n`$ is determined primarily by quasiparticle-quasiparticle scattering in two dimensions, rather than impurity scattering, which might give a $`T`$-independent $`1/\tau _n`$. For the superfluid density, we write $`\rho _{s,A}=\gamma \rho _{s,0}`$, $`\rho _{s,B}=\gamma ^1\rho _{s,0}`$, where $`\rho _{s,0}(T)=\rho _{s,0}(0)\sqrt{12\alpha T/\rho _{s,0}(0)}`$. This form ensures that $`\rho _{s,0}`$ decreases linearly with $`T`$ at low $`T`$, as observed experimentally, and that it vanishes at a critical temperature $`T_c`$ as $`\sqrt{T_cT}`$. We use the experimental values of the parameters $`T_c`$, $`\sigma _0\rho _n\tau _n`$, $`\rho _{s,0}(0)`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (as quoted in Ref.) for our numerical estimates. Finally, we have arbitrarily assumed that the inhomogeneity parameter $`\gamma =3`$.

We compute $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ using the Bruggeman effective-medium approximation (EMA):

$$p\frac{\sigma _A(\omega )\sigma _e(\omega )}{\sigma _A(\omega )+\sigma _e(\omega )}+(1p)\frac{\sigma _B(\omega )\sigma _e(\omega )}{\sigma _B(\omega )+\sigma _e(\omega )}=0.$$
(27)
The physically relevant solution is obtained by requiring that $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ be continuous in $`\omega `$ and that $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )>0`$. We also arbitrarily assume that $`p=1/2`$. Our form for $`\rho _{s,A}`$ and $`\rho _{s,B}`$ guarantees that the EMA solution $`\rho _{s,e}(p=1/2)=\sqrt{\rho _{s,A}\rho _{s,B}}=\rho _{s,0}`$.

Fig. 2 shows the resulting $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ,T)`$ for several frequencies ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 THz, the range measured in Ref. . Also shown are $`_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\sigma _{e,1}(\omega ,T)𝑑\omega `$ for $`\omega _{min}/(2\pi )=0.2`$THz and $`\omega _{max}/(2\pi )=0.8`$THz. Finally, we plot $`\sigma _{n,1}(\omega ,T)`$ for these frequencies, as well as $`_{\omega _{min}}^{\omega _{max}}\sigma _{n,1}𝑑\omega `$. Clearly, $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$ is substantially increased beyond the quasiparticle contribution, because of spatial fluctuations in $`\rho _s`$.

### C Percolation Effects

We next consider $`\sigma _{1,e}(\omega )`$ near a percolative superconductor to normal (S-N) transition. Such a transition might occur, for example, in a single CuO2 layer doped by a non-superconducting element such as Zn, as has already been discussed by several authors. We assume $`\sigma (𝐱)`$ to be given by eq. (1), with a position-independent Drude $`\sigma _n`$ given by eq. (12), and a $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$ which has one of two values, $`\rho _s`$ or zero, with probabilities $`p`$ and $`1p`$. We calculate $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ using the EMA, eq. (27). The EMA predicts an S-N transition at $`p=0.5=p_c`$. For all $`p`$ on either side of $`p_c`$, $`\sigma _{e,1}(p,\omega )`$ has a peak at $`\omega =0`$, whose height diverges and whose half-width decreases to zero, as $`pp_c`$. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 3, where we plot $`\sigma _{e,1}(p,\omega )`$ for several $`p>p_c`$, as calculated in the EMA. The other parameters are indicated in the Figure caption. The behavior of $`\sigma _{e,1}`$ is qualitatively similar to that shown in Fig. 2, but there is additional critical behavior near the S-N transition, which is absent from the weakly disordered system.

More exact results near $`p_c`$ can be obtained with the help of a standard scaling hypothesis. For the present model, it takes the form

$$\frac{\sigma _e}{\sigma _>}=|\mathrm{\Delta }p|^tF_\pm \left(\frac{\sigma _</\sigma _>}{|\mathrm{\Delta }p|^{s+t}}\right).$$
(28)
Here $`\sigma _<`$ and $`\sigma _>`$ denote the complex conductivities in the S and N regions of the layer; $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=pp_c`$, $`s`$ and $`t`$ are standard percolation critical exponents, which depend on dimensionality, and possibly on other structural details of the layer; and $`F_\pm (x)`$ are characteristic scaling functions which apply above and below $`p_c`$. The expected behavior is $`F_+(x)1`$ for $`x1`$, and $`F_{}(x)x`$ for $`x1`$, while $`F_\pm (x)x^{t/(s+t)}`$ for $`x1`$. From these forms of the scaling functions, we can infer that $`\sigma _{e,1}`$ has a peak at $`\omega =0`$ whose half-width on both sides of the percolation threshold is

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |\frac{\rho _s}{\sigma _n}|\mathrm{\Delta }p|^{s+t},$$
(29)
which vanishes at the percolation threshold, where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }p|0`$. The height of this zero-frequency peak diverges according to the law $`\sigma _{e,1}(p,\omega =0)|\mathrm{\Delta }p|^s`$ on either side of the percolation threshold. For two-dimensional bond percolation, $`s=t1.30`$, while in the EMA in any dimension, $`s=t=1`$. Thus, we expect that $`\sigma _{e,1}(p,\omega )`$ is characterized near $`p_c`$ by a line of diverging height, and half-width which goes to zero near $`p_c`$. Precisely this type of behavior is seen in the EMA curves of Fig. 3.

### D Tensor Conductivity

The results shown in Fig. 3 correspond to an in-plane scalar superfluid density $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$ with a random spatial variation. If instead $`\rho _s(𝐱)`$ were a $`2\times 2`$ tensor with principal axes varying randomly with position (as might occur for random quenched domains of stripes), a similarly enhanced $`\sigma _{e,1}`$ would be expected. If the two principal components of the conductivity tensor are given by eq. (26), and the stripes can point with equal probability along either crystallographic direction, then $`\sigma _e(\omega )`$ is given in the EMA by eq. (27) with $`p=0.5`$. The resulting $`\sigma _{e,1}(\omega )`$ would behave exactly like that shown in Fig. 2.

## IV Discussion

It is useful to compare our results to those of previous workers, considering first the work of Han. For weak fluctuations in $`\rho _s`$, and a frequency-independent non-fluctuating $`\sigma _n`$, our results are identical to his, provided we identify our parameter $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/2`$ with his quantity $`g\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\pi `$. However, our formal derivation is more elementary than that of Ref. . Because of this simplicity, we can easily consider a wide range of quenched inhomogeneities. Since the two approaches yield identical results for comparable types of inhomogeneities, we infer that our calculations (which are based on standard methods of treating random inhomogeneities in classical field equations such as those of electrostatics) can also be done using field-theoretic techniques. This field-theoretic approach may therefore be useful in treating other classical problems in heterogeneous media.

We briefly discuss relation between the present model and that of Ref. . In that earlier paper, the CuO2 layer was treated as an array of small “grains” coupled together by overdamped resistively shunted Josephson junctions with Langevin thermal noise; $`\sigma _e(\omega ,T)`$ was then computed using the classical Kubo formalism. It consists of two parts: a sharp peak near the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition at $`T_c`$, due to breaking of vortex-antivortex pairs, and a broader contribution, for $`T<T_c`$, which exists only if the critical currents have quenched randomness. This second contribution corresponds to that considered here for spatially varying $`\rho _s`$. For $`T`$ well below $`T_c`$, there are few vortices in the Josephson array; hence, the Josephson links in the model of Ref.  behave like inductors, and the array acts like an inhomogeneous $`LR`$ network. This network is simply a discretized version of the two-fluid model considered here: the resistances $`R`$ represent the normal quasiparticle channel, and the inductances $`L`$ corresponds to the superfluid.

To summarize, we have shown that, in a superconducting layer with a spatially varying $`\rho _s`$, there is extra absorption beyond that from low-lying quasiparticles alone. Such quasiparticles are expected in a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductor. For several models of weak inhomogeneity, we have shown that the extra spectral weight at finite frequencies is proportional to the quantity $`(\delta \rho _s)^2/\rho _s`$, as reported for $`T<T_c`$ in underdoped samples of BiSr2Ca2Cu2O8+x. Furthermore, in this regime, the extra weight generally appears as a Lorentzian centered at zero frequency, with half-width proportional to $`\rho _s/\sigma _n`$. Similar behavior is predicted for tensor inhomogeneities, as is expected in stripe geometries. We also predict that, near an inhomogeneous superconductor-normal transition, the height of the inhomogeneity peak in $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ diverges while its half-width goes to zero. Thus, superfluid inhomogeneity may be the principal source of the extra absorption beyond the two-fluid model which is reported in the high-Tc cuprates.

## V Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by NSF Grant DMR01-04987, and by the U. S./Israel Binational Science Foundation. We are most grateful for useful conversations with Prof. David Bergman.


text:
# DAMTP-2002-90 Representations of the exceptional and other Lie algebras with integral eigenvalues of the Casimir operator

## 1 Introduction

After noting some conventions in Sec. 1.1, we describe quite carefully the context of this paper, in Sec. 1.2. This enables us to indicate briefly in Sec. 1.3 the scope of this paper, and highlight the new results it obtains.

### 1.1 Notation and conventions

We are concerned with simple complex Lie algebras $`𝔤`$ and with their irreducible representations. Irreducibility is understood over the field of complex numbers. We note that we use the informal abbreviation irrep for irreducible representation.

We focus in particular on the family of

$$=\{𝔞_1,𝔞_2,𝔤_2,𝔡_4,𝔣_4,𝔢_6,𝔢_7,𝔢_8\}$$
(1)
of simple Lie algebras. They feature in the extension of the last line of the Freudenthal magic square  that is given in . These algebras are well-known to form a family in some profound sense whose ramifications probably have not yet been fully exhausted.

Our work depends heavily on access to a large body of data for the Lie algebras $`𝔤`$, especially lists for the exceptional Lie algebras of irreducible representations $`R`$ classified by highest weights which give the corresponding dimension and eigenvalue $`c^{(2)}(R)`$ of the quadratic Casimir operator $`𝒞^{(2)}(R)`$. We have created a C++ program to provide this and related information given the Cartan matrix as the only input. We note also that valuable general sources of data regarding Lie algebras are available, e.g.  and .

We use a normalisation in which $`c^{(2)}(𝔤)=1`$ for the adjoint representation and therefore $`c^{(2)}(R)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R+2\delta `$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$ denotes the highest weight of $`R`$, $`\delta `$ is the half-sum of positive roots of $`𝔤`$ and $`,`$ denotes the Cartan–Killing form on the space of weights.

We refer to irreps here often by their dimension because our studies are concerned with dimension formulas for families of representations of Lie algebras $`𝔤`$. When we need to refer to irreps by their highest weight or Dynkin coordinate specification, we adopt the conventions that follow from the Cartan matrices of $`𝔤`$ used by . We also often omit commas between the coordinates, here always integers less than ten.

The diagram automorphisms of the algebras $`𝔤`$ are $`_2`$ for $`𝔞_2`$ and $`𝔢_6`$, $`S_3`$ for $`𝔡_4`$, and the trivial group for all the others. As the adjoint irrep $`ad`$ is always mapped to itself under diagram automorphisms, the constituents of the complete decomposition of its tensor powers $`ad^j`$ are either self-conjugate or pairs of complex conjugate irreps for $`𝔞_2`$ and $`𝔢_6`$. For $`𝔡_4`$, the constituents are either irreps that are stable under triality or triples and sextuples of irreps that are related by triality.

### 1.2 Background material

The first property of the family $``$ to be noted concerns the structure of $`adad`$. We write this as

$$adad=(adad)_A(adad)_S.$$
(2)
For the antisymmetric piece we have a universal result, i.e. one that is valid for each simple compact $`𝔤`$

$$(adad)_A=adX_2,$$
(3)
where $`X_2`$ denotes a representation of $`𝔤`$ of dimension

$$dimX_2=\frac{1}{2}D(D3),$$
(4)
where $`D=dim𝔤`$. For $`𝔞_2`$, $`X_2`$ is the representation $`20=10+\overline{10}=(3,0)(0,3)`$, a pair of conjugate irreps. For the exceptional Lie algebras, see Table 1.

A universal and important property of the family of irreps $`X_2`$ is the result

$$c^{(2)}(X_2)=2.$$
(5)
It is of special relevance to the work described here, because families $`X_j`$ with

$$c^{(2)}(X_j)=j,$$
(6)
for $`j4`$ are known to appear in the $`j`$-th antisymmetric tensor power of $`ad`$, and we extend this knowledge beyond $`j=4`$ here.

The result corresponding to (3) for the symmetric piece of $`adad`$ is not universal, but for each $`𝔤`$ we have a result of the form

$$(adad)_S=R_1R_2R_3,$$
(7)
defining three families of irreps as given in Table 1.

These families enjoy a variety of nice properties: for each family we have single formulas for the dimension of, and for the $`𝒞^{(2)}`$ eigenvalue, of its members as a function of $`D=dim𝔤`$. We do not need these details here. As far as we can determine, the first full explicit analysis of $`adad`$ appears in .

The analysis just discussed for $`adad`$ gives rise to a natural conjecture — the Deligne conjecture  — that the $`j`$-th tensor powers of $`ad`$ for the exceptionals possess uniform decompositions into irreps. That this does indeed happen, defining further families of irreps, has been comprehensively confirmed by algebraic computation in , using , for $`j=3,4`$ and established independently of computational procedures in .

We do not review this in full, but note, for $`j=3`$, only the result

$$ad^3=(adadad)_A=adR_2R_3X_2X_3,$$
(8)
valid for all $`𝔤`$. The important fact here is that (8) defines only one new family beyond those already understood from the study of $`adad`$ which we denote by $`X_3`$ (Table 2). The irreps involved here possess two notable properties, natural analogues of (4) and (5). Their dimension is given by a polynomial in $`D`$,

$$d_3(D)=\frac{1}{3!}D(D1)(D8),$$
(9)
and equation (6) holds. The factor $`D8`$ in (9) reflects that fact that $`𝔞_2`$ has no irrep with $`c^{(2)}=3`$ and hence no member in the $`X_3`$ family. For $`𝔞_1`$, the the structure of (8) also collapses, and there is no representation with $`c^{(2)}=3`$ in $`ad^3`$ either. However, for $`D=3`$, the dimension formula (9) gives the answer $`5`$, and $`𝔞_1`$ does indeed have a representation of dimension $`5`$ with $`c^{(2)}=3`$ which is, however, not contained in $`ad^3`$. No systematic understanding has been obtained of why negative values of the dimension formula are often seen to happen and seem to make some sort of sense. More examples follow in our work for $`j=5,\mathrm{},9`$. Finally, we remark that the three irreps that occur for $`𝔡_4`$ (Table 2), are related by diagram automorphisms.

Next we note that analysis of $`ad^4`$ brings into the discussion only one further family of representations beyond those that were mastered within the discussion (not reviewed here, but see ) of $`ad^3`$. We denote this family as $`X_4`$ (Table 2).

The two irreps, $`(100200)`$ and $`(020010)`$, that are listed for $`𝔢_6`$ are related by diagram automorphisms as are $`(0022)`$, $`(2002)`$ and $`(2020)`$, for $`𝔡_4`$. The dimension formula

$$d_4(D)=\frac{1}{4!}D(D1)(D3)(D14),$$
(10)
already indicates that $`𝔞_1`$ and $`𝔤_2`$ have no member in the $`X_4`$ family. Indeed, there do not exist any irreps of $`𝔞_1`$ and $`𝔤_2`$ with $`c^{(2)}=4`$. For $`𝔞_2`$ we have again the phenomenon that (10) gives a negative result, here $`70`$. Indeed, $`𝔞_2`$ has got exactly one pair of conjugate irreps with $`c^{(2)}=4`$ which have dimension $`35+35`$. For all irreps listed in Table 2, (6) is satisfied.

The dimension formulas given here in (4),(9) and (10) are equivalent to results given in  and , where other parametrisations of family properties are used: see Sec. 1.4 below. The $`c^{(2)}`$ eigenvalues can also be found in these sources.

### 1.3 Summary of new results

We now turn to to the problem of extending uniformity properties for $`𝔤`$ into the case of $`ad^5,\mathrm{},ad^9`$. A systematic extension would seem to entail massive computational effort, but confirmation that the nice picture known for $`j4`$ does not stop at $`j=4`$ can be provided.

Looking at $`ad^j`$ for $`j=2,3,4`$ motivates easy but compelling conjectures. It is natural to expect that there exist, for higher $`j`$ values, identifiable families $`X_j`$ of representations of $`𝔤`$ occurring in the decomposition of $`ad^j`$, that they satisfy (6) and that nice dimension formulas exist.

The purpose of this paper then is to attain such knowledge by confrontation of the cases of $`j=5,\mathrm{},9`$. In fact we are able to provide an identification of the members of families $`X_5,\mathrm{},X_9`$ of representations of $`𝔤`$ that satisfy (6) and establish the dimension formulas

$`d_5(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{5!}D(D3)(D6)(D^221D+8),`$ (11)
$`d_6(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{6!}D(D1)(D10)(D^334D^2+181D144),`$ (12)
$`d_7(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{7!}D(D2)(D3)(D8)(D^350D^2+529D120),`$ (13)
$`d_8(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{8!}D(D1)(D3)(D6)(D^474D^3+1571D^29994D+4200),`$ (14)
$`d_9(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{9!}D(D1)(D3)(D4)(D14)(D26)(D^360D^2+491D120).`$ (15)
We display information in Tables 3 and 6 that describe in full the assignments of representations for the members of the families $`X_5,\mathrm{},X_9`$ for all Lie algebras $`𝔤`$. There are various features of these results that need, and will receive, consideration.

1. The occurrence of the quadratic, cubic and quartic polynomials in (11)–(15) which do not have rational factors.
2. The status of the table entries for $`d_j`$ for each $`𝔤`$ when $`j`$ exceeds the first $`j`$-value $`j_0`$ for which $`d_j`$ is not positive. For $`𝔞_2`$, $`𝔤_2`$, $`𝔡_4`$, $`𝔣_4`$ we have111These numbers are related to the highest integer $`j`$ for which $`ad^j`$ contains a Casimir eigenspace of eigenvalue $`j`$ . $`j_0=3,4,7,10`$.
3. The appearance of direct sums of several irreducible representations that are not related by diagram automorphisms. This feature is new compared with the results of .
4. The occurrence of negative values of the dimension formulas (11)–(15).
5. The fact that the dimension formulas (11)–(15) give integer results for any integral $`D`$.
6. The question of whether these patterns extend beyond the members of the family $``$.

The ensuing material is organised as follows. For comparison with the work of others in Sec. 1.4, we mention parametrisations alternative to $`D=dim𝔤`$. In Sec. 2, we explain our construction of the dimension formulas (11)-(15). Sec. 3 then poses the obvious question: are the results discussed here for $`𝔤`$ universal? The results for $`j=2`$ are well-known to be universal in that they apply, not only to $`𝔤`$, but to all simple $`𝔤`$. To what extent if any does a similar statement hold for higher $`j`$? We are unable to give a systematic algebraic analysis of the situation, but can easily gain some insight into it, by giving an empirical analysis of the cases of the simple Lie algebras $`𝔟_2,𝔟_3,𝔠_3,𝔞_3,\mathrm{},𝔞_5`$. Further insight, partially motivated by the appearance of $`D6`$ factors in $`d_5(D)`$ and $`d_8(D)`$, comes from study in Sec. 4 of the cases of $`𝔞_1𝔞_1`$, and the corresponding three-fold and four-fold direct sum. Sec. 5 contains a conclusion and a list of the most obvious open questions.

### 1.4 Alternative parametrisations

In general in our work, we prefer to give formulas for the dimensions of and the quadratic Casimir eigenvalues of members of a family of irreps of the Lie algebras in $``$ as a function of the single parameter $`D=dim𝔤`$, but other parameters are used in the literature. To aid comparison of our discussion with related work in other sources, we have drawn up Table 4.

The parameter $`\alpha `$ is used in  and , while $`m`$ is used in  and . The connection between the different parameters can be obtained from

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(3m+7)(5m+8)}{m+4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`3(m+2)=h^{},`$ (16)
where $`h^{}`$ is the dual Coxeter number, (p. 37 of ). Also $`\alpha `$ is related to the eigenvalue of the Casimir operator of the members of the $`R_3`$ family

$$c^{(2)}(R_3)=2(1+\alpha ).$$
(17)
For the exceptional algebras in the last line of the Freudenthal magic square, the $`m`$ values in Table 4 have this interpretation: the division algebra used in their Freudenthal construction has dimension $`m`$.

## 2 The dimension formulas

In the study of $`ad^j`$ up to $`j=4`$  it was sufficient to identify the irreducible component of the highest weight in the antisymmetric power $`ad^j`$ and then to determine the direct sum $`X_j`$ of all irreps that can be obtained from the former by the application of diagram automorphisms. The dimension formulas (9) and (10) then agree with the interpolation polynomial for which $`d_j(dim𝔤)=dimX_j`$ for all algebras $`𝔤`$ for which the corresponding $`X_j`$ satisfies (6). In our notation, it is already a non-trivial fact that a polynomial in $`D=dim𝔤`$ is sufficient to parametrise the relevant dimensions for all algebras $`𝔤`$.

At $`j=5`$, however, the same strategy does not result in any simple dimension formula at all. The solution is to modify the strategy and to choose $`X_j`$ to be the entire Casimir eigenspace of $`ad^j`$, i.e. the maximal $`X_j`$ that satisfies (6), or if there is no non-trivial subspace with this property when the algebra $`𝔤`$ has dropped out of the full picture, to choose a suitable direct sum of (other) irreps of $`𝔤`$ that satisfy (6). We have arrived at this result purely empirically, searching for simple and in particular polynomial dimension formulas, and we have found the following rule222We thank J. Landsberg for bringing the article  to our attention in which the Casimir $`j`$ eigenspace of $`ad^j`$ is characterized by an algebraic condition equivalent to the rule we state here. which characterizes the direct summands of $`X_j`$.

The rule specifies how to select $`j`$ distinct roots of $`𝔤`$ whose sum is the highest weight of an irrep that is contained in $`ad^j`$. Whenever an algebra $`𝔤`$ has not yet dropped out of the full picture (as explained above), the rule finds all irreps that both occur in $`ad^j`$ and have $`c^{(2)}=j`$. If the algebra has dropped out, the rule finds some other irreps in $`ad^j`$.

We explain the procedure for $`𝔣_4`$ whose roots are given in Table 5. Consider the root lattice of $`𝔣_4`$, drawn as a directed graph in Figure 1. The vertices correspond to the roots $`x_k`$ and are numbered as in the table. There is a directed arrow from $`x_k`$ to $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$, denoted by a pair $`(x_k,x_{\mathrm{}})`$, if and only if $`x_{\mathrm{}}=x_k+\alpha `$ for some simple root $`\alpha `$.

Let $`X=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ denote the set of all roots. For $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ consider subsets $`SX`$ of cardinality $`|S|=j`$. A subset $`S`$ is called *admissible* if for each $`xS`$ and each arrow $`(x,y)`$ in the graph, we have also $`yS`$.

Observe that in the $`𝔣_4`$ example, the highest root $`x_{24}`$ is contained in any non-empty admissible subset. Similarly, the second highest root $`x_{23}`$ is contained in any admissible set of cardinality at least $`2`$, and so on.

Observation: Given an admissible subset $`S`$, $`|S|=j`$, the weight

$$w:=\underset{xS}{}x$$
(18)
is the highest weight of an irrep of $`𝔤`$ which is contained in $`ad^j`$. Any irrep of $`c^{(2)}=j`$ that occurs in $`ad^j`$ can be found from this rule.

Given the root lattices of the algebras $`𝔤`$, we can use this rule in order to obtain a list of all irreps that are both contained in $`ad^j`$ and also have $`c^{(2)}=j`$. This information forms the basis for the higher dimension formulas.

A point for $`𝔡_4`$ regarding admissible sets is worth noting. For $`𝔡_4`$, $`d_4(28)=33675`$ involving a triple of irreps with $`c^{(2)}=4`$ which occur in $`ad^4`$. But $`𝔡_4`$ also has $`1925=(0300)`$ with $`c^{(2)}=4`$ which is not part of $`ad^4`$. If we examine the admissible sets for $`𝔡_4`$ at $`j=4`$, one finds sets for the $`3675`$ dimensional irreps, but not for $`1925`$.

We obtain the dimension formula (11),

$$d_5(D)=\frac{1}{5!}D(D3)(D6)(D^221D+8),$$
(19)
as the interpolation polynomial using the data for six algebras of the family $``$ from Table 3.

If we hoped that the right side of (19) would be the product of factors linear in $`D`$, like the formula for $`d_j(D)`$ for lower $`j`$ then we have been disappointed. However the expectation was based on viewing these formulas, as in , in relation to the Weyl formula for the dimensions of irreps of Lie algebras, and that view is valid as long as the families $`X_j`$ involve only irreps (up to diagram automorphisms), i.e. for $`j4`$. But it is not valid for $`j=5`$ and the assignments for $`X_5`$ already made, and so the basis for the hope has gone.

In case it might be thought that the use of the parameter $`m`$ of Table 4 might improve the status of (19), we note that (16) implies

$$D^221D+8=\frac{6(15m^2+67m+68)(10m^2+27m+28)}{(m+4)^2},$$
(20)
in which each one of the quadratic expressions in view has discriminant $`409`$ and does not have rational factors.

The dimension formula (19) gives negative values for $`𝔞_2`$ and $`𝔤_2`$ (Table 3), in each case referring to the unique irrep of the Lie algebra in question with $`c^{(2)}=5`$.

Although it would not be correct to assign $`924`$ of $`𝔤_2`$ to $`X_5`$, since it does not occur in the decomposition for $`𝔤_2`$ of $`ad^5`$, the situation is similar to the one found for $`𝔞_2`$ at the previous stage: we found there not a proper member of the $`X_4`$ family for $`𝔞_2`$, but one with the correct value of $`c^{(2)}`$ and the negative of the correct dimension. Such things are prevalent also in the work of  and , but not explained.

As one goes to higher $`j`$ in an effort to push the search for families and for dimension formulas for them higher, one expects more and more algebras to drop out of the full picture much in the way that $`𝔞_2`$ did beyond $`j=2`$ and $`𝔤_2`$ did beyond $`j=3`$. This will happen just because $`dimad^j`$ eventually becomes too small to contain any irrep of $`c^{(2)}=j`$. We also expect that for Lie algebras that have dropped out of the full picture, i.e. out of correctly assigning members to families, use of dimension formulas will continue to yield in modulus representations carrying the correct Casimir eigenvalue for the family in question.

As we are looking for a dimension formula $`d_j(D)`$ which is a polynomial of degree $`j`$ in $`D`$, we need $`j+1`$ Lie algebras to fix its coefficients and then another Lie algebra in order to confirm that the dimension formula contains non-trivial information.

Table 6 shows the values $`d_j(D)`$ of the dimension formulas (12)–(15), $`j=6,\mathrm{},9`$ and the assignment of representations $`X_j`$. For $`𝔞_1`$, $`d_6=7`$ and the seven dimensional irrep of $`𝔞_1`$ has $`c^{(2)}=6`$, but $`d_7=d_8=d_9=0`$ as expected.

For $`j=6,7`$, we have obtained the dimension formulas (11) and (12) as the interpolation polynomial for the eight values $`d_j(D)`$ where $`D=dim𝔤`$ for the eight Lie algebras $`𝔤`$. Whenever $`ad^j`$ contains irreps of $`c^{(2)}=j`$, then we choose $`X_j`$ to be their direct sum and $`d_j(dim𝔤)=dimX_j`$. Whenever $`ad^j`$ does not contain any irreps of $`c^{(2)}=j`$, so that $`𝔤`$ has dropped out of the full picture, then $`d_j(dim𝔤)`$ is the sum or difference of the dimensions of all irreps of $`𝔤`$ with $`c^{(2)}=j`$. In this case, the signs of the summands are chosen by trial and error so that we obtain a ‘simple’ dimension formula, i.e. one which has as many linear factors as possible, which has only ‘small’ coefficients and for which $`d_j(D)`$ is an integer for any integral $`D`$. By experimentation with these interpolations, we always find a unique choice of signs which dramatically, absolutely dramatically, simplifies the interpolation polynomial.

For $`j=7`$, it is of course a trivial fact that we can use the data of $`8`$ algebras in order to uniquely fix a polynomial $`d_j(D)`$ of degree $`7`$. The simplicity of the resulting formula (13) is, however, a highly non-trivial property.

Comparing the dimension formulas (10)–(13), the following general pattern emerges: We have $`d_j(0)=0`$, and the leading term is $`\frac{1}{j!}D^j`$. For $`j=8`$, we now assume these two conditions and can therefore determine a polynomial of degree eight from only seven additional data points. We employ all algebras $`𝔤`$ except for $`𝔡_4`$ and obtain (14).

For $`𝔡_4`$, we discover the following exception from the rules stated so far. The dimension formula (14) yields $`d_8(28)=554400`$. There exist indeed representations of $`𝔡_4`$ with $`c^{(2)}=8`$, namely $`(0106)(0160)(6100)`$ of dimension $`315015`$ and $`(1213)(1231)(3211)`$ of dimension $`3169785`$, and indeed $`d_8(28)`$ is the negative sum of their dimensions. However, $`𝔡_4`$ has got further representations with $`c^{(2)}=8`$ that do not play any role in the dimension formula $`d_8(D)`$, namely $`(0044)(4004)(4040)`$ with dimension $`335035`$.

For $`j=9`$, we again assume the two conditions and determine a polynomial of degree 9 from eight data points, making use of all eight algebras $`𝔤`$.

## 3 Dimension formulas for simple $`𝔤`$ not in $``$

The formulas (4), (9), (10), (11)–(15) have been derived and discussed in the context of the extended family $``$ of simple Lie algebras $`𝔤`$ that include the exceptionals.

It is known however that (4) is universal: a well-defined representation $`X_2`$ of each simple $`𝔤`$ has its dimension given by (4) and the eigenvalue $`c^{(2)}(X_2)=2`$ of its quadratic Casimir operator. It is natural to ask if the other dimension formulas (9), (10), (11)–(15) are likewise universal, and, if not, what, if anything, they can tell us for $`𝔤`$.

No systematic algebraic approach is available, but a large body of data can readily be assembled, e.g. using our programs, MAPLE, and references such as . Some indication of the limitations, if any, of the applicability of (9)–(15) to $`𝔤`$ can certainly be gained by reference to the cases of $`𝔟_2(𝔠_2)`$, $`𝔟_3`$, $`𝔠_3`$, $`𝔞_3,\mathrm{},𝔞_5`$.

The entries of Table 7 for each $`𝔤`$ and each $`X_j`$ show representations of $`𝔤`$ — often direct sums of irreps — all with the $`c^{(2)}(X_j)=j`$. The dimension formulas $`d_j(D)`$, $`D=dim𝔤`$, yield sums or differences of the dimensions of the irreducible components of $`X_j`$. Note that the feature that $`d_j(D)`$ gives a difference of the dimensions of irreps was for $`𝔤_2`$ first encountered at $`j=7`$.

If we extend Table 7 to $`𝔟_4`$ and $`𝔠_4`$, we encounter at $`j=5`$ the same exception from the rules that we have already seen for $`𝔡_4`$ at $`j=8`$, namely that the algebra has already dropped out of the full picture (as explained above), and there exist many irreps with $`c^{(2)}=j`$ only some of which are relevant for the dimension formula.

It is a striking observation that the simple Lie algebras of Table 7 all fit into the general pattern. In particular, the fact that $`𝔟_2`$ does not have any irrep of $`c^{(2)}=6`$ can be seen as an ‘explanation’ of the linear factor $`D10`$ in (12). It is then a natural question to ask which are the Lie algebras of dimension $`1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$, $`6`$ and $`26`$ that cause the other integer roots of the dimension formulas (11)–(15).

## 4 Some further studies

### 4.1 The factor $`(D6)`$ in $`d_5(D)`$ and $`d_8(D)`$

To account for the presence of the factors $`(D6)`$, consider the case of $`𝔤=𝔞_1𝔞_1`$, employing the Cartan matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
and a Cartan-Killing form with no relative scaling of the two $`𝔞_1`$ summands, so that the algebra has an $`S_2`$ group of diagram automorphisms.

Let $`(j,k)`$ denote the irrep of dimension $`(j+1)(k+1)`$, so that $`ad=(2,0)(0,2)`$. We list in Table 8 irreps of $`𝔞_1𝔞_1`$ with integer eigenvalues $`n`$ of the quadratic Casimir operator, with $`d_n(6)`$ alongside for comparisons of the type made systematically made in previous cases.

The entries for $`c^{(2)}=5`$ and $`c^{(2)}=8`$ explain the $`(D6)`$ factors in $`d_5(D)`$ and $`d_8(D)`$, and all the other entries follow precisely a now familiar pattern. Only one entry needs any comment:

$$d_6(6)=11=2527,$$
(22)
where $`25=dim(4,4)`$, $`7=dim(6,0)=dim(0,6)`$

We note also that all the irreps that feature here are either self-conjugate or else occur as conjugate pairs, as the $`S_2`$ invariance of $`ad`$ requires.

### 4.2 $`𝔞_1𝔞_1𝔞_1`$

In this case we use as Cartan matrix twice the unit matrix, again with no relative scales, so that the algebra has a group $`S_3`$ of diagram automorphisms. Table 9 displays data about all the irreps with integral values of the Casimir operator. The notation $`(j,k,l)`$ denotes the irrep with dimension $`(j+1)(k+1)(l+1)`$, so that $`ad=(2,0,0)(0,2,0)(0,0,2)`$. To keep the displays as brief as is reasonable, the notation $`r(a,b,c)`$ denotes the direct sum of all $`r`$ distinct permutations of $`(a,b,c)`$. In view of the automorphism group $`S_3`$, we may have $`r=3`$ and $`r=6`$. Again we can check that all the data conforms to the expected pattern.

### 4.3 $`𝔞_1𝔞_1𝔞_1𝔞_1`$

This example was treated to see one further automorphism group at work. But few surprises were expected or found. Everything is in full accord with expectation. We do not display the data that would make a table like Tables 8 and 9, but note only the situation for $`d_9(12)`$. The set of irreps, in notation similar to that used in previous subsections, that have $`c^{(2)}=9`$ is

$$12(6,4,0,0),4(4,4,4,0),4(7,1,1,1),4(6,2,2,2),$$
(23)
with dimensions $`1235,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}125,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}64,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}189`$, and we have

$$d_9(12)=836=12354(189+125).$$
(24)
We note that the resolution (24) does not employ the irreps $`4(7,1,1,1)`$, but such an omission is also familiar in previous cases. There is some curious numerology in the $`n=9`$ case: $`64=(189125)`$, and similar things are seen for lower $`n`$ cases.

But we leave the analysis here, without including much further data with features that are of a qualitatively similar nature to what has been presented. The fact however is that everything follows a coherent if far from understood pattern.

## 5 Conclusion

We have extended the dimension formulas of  for a particular family up to the ninth power of the adjoint representation. The formulas (11)–(15) describe a further striking uniformity of the Lie algebras of the exceptional series and our results of Sec. 3 and 4 indicate even a uniformity beyond that. The formulas were obtained by inspection of a large amount of data from tables and from computer calculations and finally by a considerable amount of trial and error until we had found the appropriate rules that give rise to ‘simple’ formulas. The fact that ‘easy’ formulas such as (11)–(15) with coefficients smaller than a few thousand give rise to integers of up to sixteen digits which precisely correspond to dimensions of representations of the exceptional Lie algebras, deserves to be seen as of real significance.

We conclude by listing some particular observations and first ideas that come to mind.

* The formulas (11)–(15) for $`d_j(D)`$ are polynomials in $`D=dim𝔤`$. From , we might have expected only rational functions in $`\alpha `$, $`m`$ or $`D`$. In particular, $`dimY_j`$ in the notation of  ($`Y_j`$ is the highest weight component of the $`j`$-th totally symmetric tensor power of $`ad`$) is not a polynomial in $`D`$.
* With the rational functions of , one can search for those values of the parameter $`\alpha `$ for which the result is an integer and thus obtain a list of all algebras that conform to the family pattern. In our case, however, the formulas for $`d_j(D)`$ give integer results for any integral $`D`$.
* Whenever the dimension formula ceases to give a strictly positive answer and $`ad^j`$ does not contain any representation of the desired $`c^{(2)}`$, we can successfully describe the phenomenology of the situation, but do not have a satisfactory explanation of why it occurs.
* The leading coefficient of the formula for $`d_j(D)`$ is $`1/j!`$. This looks like a growth rate of the dimension $`d_j(D)`$ of the family member $`X_j`$ if the dimension $`D`$ of the underlying Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ tends to infinity.
* Our data confirm that the dimension formulas extend to other simple Lie algebras not in the family $``$ and beyond that also to some non-simple Lie algebras. A particularly strong indication for this is the fact that the algebras $`𝔟_2`$ and $`𝔞_1𝔞_1`$ ‘explain’ some of the integer roots of the polynomials (11), (12) and (14).

It is an interesting question of whether one can identify for each linear factor $`(Dm)`$ of the dimension formulas $`d_j(D)`$ a Lie algebra of dimension $`m`$ for which there exists no irrep with $`c^{(2)}=j`$. For large $`j`$, however, there is hardly any simple Lie algebra other than $`𝔞_1`$. It is is therefore crucial to go beyond simple Lie algebras and to include more examples in order to prove or disprove the conjecture. In this context, it is a striking observation that $`d_9(D)`$ of (15) has so many linear factors.

## Acknowledgments

The research of A.J.M. is partly supported by PPARC. H.P. is grateful to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, for a Research Fellowship. We would like to thank Bruce Westbury for stimulating discussions, for a preliminary version of the manuscript  and for copies of other manuscripts of his research work.