text:
# Damped Lyman 𝛼 systems and disk galaxies: number density, column density distribution and gas density

## 1 Introduction

The true nature of the galaxies responsible for high redshift damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems (DLAs, absorbers seen in quasar spectra with H I column densities $`N`$(H I) $`2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2) is largely unconstrained. At present, there are two main competing scenarios for their origin. One school of thought sees DLAs as the (large) progenitors of massive spiral disks (Wolfe et al. 1986; Lanzetta et al. 1991). The gas disks would have formed at $`z>5`$ through monolithic collapse, and this gas is converted to stars over a Hubble time. In support of this picture Prochaska & Wolfe (1998) argued that the kinematics of the metal absorption lines in DLAs are best explained if they are formed in thick, large, and rapidly rotating galactic disks, with circular velocities $`V_C\stackrel{>}{}200`$ km s-1. However, this large disk hypothesis runs counter to currently popular models of hierarchical structure formation in which present day galaxies are assembled from virialized sub-units over a protracted time interval ($`z15`$). Haehnelt et al. (1998) argued that hydrodynamic N-body simulations are able to reproduce the velocity structure of the absorption lines with infalling sub-galactic clumps in collapsing dark matter haloes with small virial velocities ($`V100`$ km s-1).

More generally, the kinematics and metallicites of DLAs have been interpreted as evidence that they arise in spiral galaxies (Fritze-V.Alvensleben et al. 2001; Hou, Boissier & Prantzos 2001), low surface brightness galaxies (Jimenez, Bowen & Matteucci 1999), dwarf galaxies (Matteucci, Molaro & Vladilo 1997), the progenitors of globular clusters (Burgarella, Kissler-Patig, & Buat 2001), the building blocks of current galaxies (Tissera et al. 2001), galaxies undergoing tidal stripping and mergers (Maller et al. 2001), and outflows from dwarf galaxies (Schaye 2001a).

Observationally, imaging studies of the fields of QSOs with damped systems have shown conclusively that the absorbers are a very ‘mixed bag’, which includes galaxies of different luminosities and surface brightnesses, down to objects with apparently no associated stellar populations which remain undetected even in very deep images (Steidel et al. 1994, 1995; Le Brun et al. 1997; Lanzetta et al. 1997; Fynbo et al. 1999; Pettini et al. 2000; Turnshek et al. 2001; Bowen, Tripp, & Jenkins 2001; Kulkarni et al. 2000, 2001; Colbert & Malkan 2002). While it seems clear that selection based on H I absorption cross-section picks out a variety of galaxies, it is of interest to establish if one particular class of objects dominates and, if so, whether the dominant population changes with cosmic epoch.

In this paper we assess the contribution of the progenitors of today’s disk galaxies to the DLA population at different redshifts by comparing the most up to date observational determinations of several properties of DLAs with models of the chemical and spectrophotometric evolution of disk galaxies, including low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies. Specifically, we have compiled recent data on the number density per unit redshift, the column density distribution and its integral, which gives the total mass of H I traced by DLA, for a large sample of DLAs. These data are presented in §2, while the models of disk galaxies are discussed in §3. In §4 we compare our predictions with the statistical properties of DLAs, as well as with available imaging observations of the galaxies identified as DLA absorbers. We further speculate on what the differences we find at high redshift between models and observations may be telling us about the earliest population of DLAs. We summarise and discuss our results in §6.

Throughout the paper we adopt the currently favoured cosmology $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

## 2 DLA observations

The data used in this paper are a compilation of several surveys at high (Storrie-Lombardi et al. 1996; Storrie-Lombardi & Wolfe 2000; Péroux et al. 2002) and low redshifts (Rao & Turnshek 2000; Churchill 2001). From these observations we extract information on three properties of DLAs which our models attempt to reproduce.

The first, and most straightforward, quantity is the number density per unit redshift $`dn/dz=n(z)`$, plotted in Figure 1.

The second quantity is the column density distribution, obtained from the expression:

$$f(N,z)dNdX=\frac{n}{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{i=1}^m\mathrm{\Delta }X_i}dNdX$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the number of DLAs with hydrogen column density between $`N`$ and $`N+\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ detected in the spectra of $`m`$ QSOs encompassing a total absorption distance $`_{i=1}^m\mathrm{\Delta }X_i`$. The absorption distance is related to redshift by the expression (Peebles 1993):

$$X(z)=_0^z\frac{c}{H_0}(1+z)^2\times E(z)𝑑z$$
(2)
where

$$E(z)=[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}$$
(3)
Even with our relatively large sample, the statistics of $`f(N,z)dNdX`$ are still limited, and necessitate dividing the data in only a few bins, both in $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ (see top panels of Figures 2 and 3). Also shown in these panels are the fits to the column density distributions derived by Péroux et al. (2002), assuming that $`f(N,z)dNdX`$ is well approximated by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function (similar to the galaxy luminosity function). These fits were based on a larger range of column densities than that shown here, extending to the lower values of $`N`$(H I) appropriate to Lyman Limit systems (i.e. $`N`$(H I)$`<2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2).

The integral of the column density distribution gives us the third quantity of interest, the total mass of neutral gas traced by QSO absorbers. It is customary to express this as a fraction of the closure density:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}(z)=\frac{\mu m_\mathrm{H}}{\rho _{crit}}_{N_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}Nf(N,z)𝑑N$$
(4)
where $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom, $`\mu `$ is the mean atomic weight per baryon ($`\mu =1.4`$ for solar abundances; Anders & Grevesse 1989) and $`\rho _{crit}`$ is the closure density ($`\rho _{crit}=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)=1.96\times 10^{29}h^2`$ gm cm-3, where $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1). Values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ are plotted in Figure 4.

It is important to bear in mind that all the DLA surveys considered here used QSOs selected from magnitude limited samples. It has long been a concern (e.g. Pei & Fall 1995) that in these surveys QSOs that lie behind dusty DLA systems will be under-represented, and that the statistics discussed above may therefore be incomplete and biased by an unknown amount. One way to determine the extent of such dust-induced bias is to consider the properties of DLAs in a complete, radio-selected, QSO sample, where dust is not an issue. The only such study conducted to date is the CORALS survey by Ellison et al. (2001). Although the CORALS statistics are still limited, it would appear that—at least as far as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ is concerned—dust bias is a relatively minor effect, since the CORALS value is consistent with the earlier estimates within the errors of measurement (see lower panel of Figure 4).

## 3 Models of Disk galaxies

### 3.1 Basic Properties of the Models

In Boissier & Prantzos (2000) a ‘bivariate’ family of spiral galaxies was described by considering disks with various rotational velocities, $`V_C`$, and spin parameters, $`\lambda `$. In the local universe, the volume density $`F_V`$ of galaxies with a given value of $`V_C`$ can be deduced from the Tully-Fisher relationship and the luminosity function (Gonzalez et al. 2000). In the following, we adopt the distribution corresponding to the parameters listed in the fifth row of Table 4 of Gonzalez et al., with $`V_C`$ between 80 and 360 km s-1. The spin parameter $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless measure of the angular momentum $`J`$ of the dark matter halo surrounding the disk, and is given by:

$$\lambda =J|E|^{1/2}G^1M^{5/2}$$
(5)
where $`E`$ and $`M`$ are respectively the energy and mass of the dark matter halo.

In the general framework of Cold Dark Matter theories, the final properties of the disk (its mass $`M_d`$, scale-length $`R_d`$, and central surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$) can be derived under simple assumptions on the relationship between the disk and the dark matter halo (see, for example, Mo, Mao, &White 1998). The scaling relations

$$\frac{M_d}{M_{d,MW}}=\left(\frac{V_C}{V_{C,MW}}\right)^3$$
(6)
$$\frac{R_d}{R_{d,MW}}=\frac{V_C}{V_{C,MW}}\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _{MW}}$$
(7)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,MW}}=\frac{V_C}{V_{C,MW}}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _{MW}}\right)^2$$
(8)
(where the suffix $`MW`$ refers to the Milky Way) are then used to relate these quantities to those of our Galaxy, assumed to be a typical spiral disk.

Our models used these scaling relations to compute the chemical evolution in zones at different distances from the centres of disks with various rotational velocities and spin parameters. The history of each galaxy (for a given set of values of $`V_C`$ and $`\lambda `$) was derived by a ‘backward’ approach from observations of samples of nearby galaxies and calibrated on the Milky Way (see Boissier & Prantzos 1999, 2000; and Boissier et al. 2001 for more details). The resulting histories are characterised by an early formation of massive galaxies, while star formation occurs on longer timescales in less massive galaxies, following the infall of pristine gas.

### 3.2 The Spin Parameter Distribution and Low Surface Brightness Galaxies

In our treatment we adopt the distribution of spin parameters derived from N-body simulations (Mo et al. 1998) and reproduced in Figure 5. Boissier & Prantzos (2000) considered values for the spin parameter between $`\lambda =0.01`$ and 0.09 and found that, within the framework of simple models of chemical and spectrophotometric evolution of spirals, values of $`\lambda >0.07`$ apply to low surface brightness galaxies, with blue central surface brightness greater than 22.5 mag arcsec-2, while galaxies with $`\lambda <0.07`$ are ‘normal’ spirals. As can be seen from Figure 5, the former account for 25% of the total number of galaxies in the distribution (integrating between $`0.07<\lambda <0.21`$), while the latter contribute 74% (integrating between $`0.01<\lambda <0.07`$). In this work we assumed that this population of LSB disks does indeed exist and we accordingly extended the models of Boissier et al. (2001) to larger values of $`\lambda `$ than those considered in that paper in order to take fully into account this LSB population. Furthermore, we renormalised the distribution in Figure 5 so that its integral over the range of values of $`\lambda `$ appropriate to normal, high surface brightness, disks ($`0.01<\lambda <0.07`$) is equal to 1. This is because the normalisation of the distribution of velocities $`F_V`$, derived from the observed galaxy luminosity function, does not include low surface brightness galaxies. While this treatment of LSB galaxies is simplistic, it does nevertheless allow us to test, in the framework of our model, their contribution to the DLA absorber population.

### 3.3 Model Predictions for the Number Density, Column Density Distribution, and Total Gas Mass of DLAs

Prantzos & Boissier (2000) and Hou et al. (2001) considered the chemical evolution of the family of models of disk galaxies described above. In the zones within the galaxies where the gas density is sufficiently high to give a column density of neutral gas $`N`$(H I) $`>`$ 2 $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2, the models match the chemical properties of DLAs, both in the overall degree of metal enrichment and in the more detailed abundance pattern of different chemical elements. However, in those treatments good agreement could only be achieved by imposing a ‘dust filter’, whereby DLAs with large column densities of metals (and therefore presumably dust) are excluded from the samples, for the reasons explained in §2. This dust filter was based on the analysis by Boissé et al. (1998) and takes the form

$$\mathrm{log}(N(\mathrm{HI})+[\mathrm{Zn}/\mathrm{H}])<21$$
(9)
where \[Zn/H\] is the abundance of Zn relative to solar (in the usual notation) and $`N(\mathrm{HI})`$ is the column density of hydrogen atoms (in units cm-2). The filter operates in such a way that zones within a model galaxy which do not satisfy eq. (9) were not taken into account, on the assumption that such DLAs have been overlooked in existing surveys.

Here we extend the work of Prantzos & Boissier (2000) and Hou et al. (2001) by using the models to make predictions for other properties of DLAs (specifically those discussed in §2), with the aim of assessing what fraction of DLAs are the precursors of today’s disk galaxies. We adopt the same ‘backward’ approach as in the earlier work and, like those authors, consider the effect of a dust filter defined as in eq. (9). Our treatment is broadly similar to that first adopted by Lanzetta (1993), but with the following major improvements: (i) we use models which predict the evolution of present day galaxies back in time; (ii) we include in the models of a variety of galaxy morphologies, masses, sizes, and surface brighteness; and (iii) we are able to compare with the much larger data base of measurements of DLAs available now, ten years since the pioneering work of Lanzetta (1993).

The number density of DLAs per unit redshift can be expressed as (Peebles 1993)

$$n(z)=\frac{dN}{dz}=\left(\frac{dX}{dz}\times \frac{dN}{dX}\right)=\frac{c}{H_0}(1+z)^2\times E(z)\times G(z)$$
(10)
with $`E(z)`$ as defined in eq.(3).111 Note that the predicted value of $`\frac{dN}{dz}`$ therefore depends on the cosmological model assumed, whereas the observed value does not; the opposite is true for the column density distribution and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$. The quantity $`G(z)`$ is the product of the volume density of galaxies and their cross-sections, averaged over the whole population

$$G(z)=_\lambda _{V_C}d^2G_{(\lambda ,V)}$$
(11)
where $`d^2G_{(\lambda ,V)}`$ is the contribution to the total cross-section by galaxies with spin parameter $`\lambda `$ and rotational velocity $`V_C`$, given by

$$d^2G_{(\lambda ,V_C)}=F_V(V_C)dVF_\lambda (\lambda )d\lambda _S_{i=0}^{i=\pi /2}\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑S\frac{2}{\pi }𝑑i$$
(12)
Here $`_S𝑑S`$ represents the integral over the apparent surface of the galaxy, and $`_i𝑑i`$ is the integration over all inclination angles. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a switch which can take the values of 1 or 0. For example, it can be set to 1 independently of all other parameters in order to compute the geometrical cross section. The value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (1 or 0) can also be determined by the inclination and the local properties of galaxies (metallicity and gas density, both functions of the distance from the galactic center) to exclude zones in galaxies which do not meet the DLA selection criteria, because either of the conditions $`N`$(H I)$`>2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 or $`\mathrm{log}(N(\mathrm{HI})+[\mathrm{Zn}/\mathrm{H}])<21`$ (the dust filter in eq. 9) is not satisfied. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is set to 0 in these zones, and 1 elsewhere.

Figure 6 shows the function $`d^2G_{(\lambda ,V_C)}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$. From this figure it can be seen that, in our models, the major contribution to the cross-section for absorption (taken at this stage to be five times the scale length of the radial distribution of mass without considering separately the distributions of the stellar and gaseous components) is from galaxies with relatively high rotational velocities ($`V_C200`$ km s-1) and intermediate values of spin parameter ($`\lambda 0.07`$), at the border line between high and low surface brightness galaxies. This is straightforward to understand, since it is the product of $`V_C`$ and $`\lambda `$ which determines the linear dimensions of galaxies. From the figure it would also appear that the ranges of values of $`V_C`$ and $`\lambda `$ adopted are sufficiently broad to account for most of the cross-section. However, we may have underestimated the total cross-section if the faint end slope of the luminosity function is sufficiently steep that dwarf galaxies with $`V_C<80`$ km s-1 make a non-negligible contribution. Such galaxies are not included in the models considered here because we are chiefly concerned with disk galaxies.

We predict the column density distribution numerically by computing for each interval of column density \[$`N_H`$, $`N_H+\delta N_H`$\] the number of systems given by eqs. (11) and (12). The total neutral gas mass in DLAs is calculated from the expression

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_G=\frac{1}{\rho _{crit}}_{\lambda ,V}F_V(V_C)𝑑VF_\lambda (\lambda )𝑑\lambda _{S,i}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_G𝑑S\frac{2}{\pi }𝑑i,$$
(13)
which is similar to eqs. (11) and (12), but with the second integral now inluding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_G`$, the mass surface density along the line of sight. The result of eq. (13) can then be compared with the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$, as given by eq. (4). In both cases, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was set to 0 if $`N`$(H I) $`<2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 or if the condition imposed by eq. (9) was not met.

### 3.4 Neutral Atomic Gas

The models of chemical evolution which we use to describe disk galaxies compute the surface density of the total amount of interstellar matter, in all its forms. On the other hand, for the comparison with the observed properties of DLAs we are interested only in the neutral atomic gas component. We do not consider the fraction of gas in ionised form because it is likely to be unimportant for our purposes. In the Galactic disk, for example, ionised gas accounts for less than 1% of the total gas mass of $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$ (Osterbrock 1974). Similarly, we can ignore the mass fraction in solid form (dust grains), which for solar composition is less than 2% (Anders & Grevesse 1989) and would be even lower at the low metallicities typical of DLAs (e.g. Pettini et al. 1997).

The correction for molecular gas is also likely to be of minor importance for the following reasons. From straightforward geometrical considerations the cross-section for absorption is always dominated by the outer regions of the disks where, in local galaxies at least, the molecular fraction is low. In the Milky Way, for example, H2 makes a significant contribution to the total gas profile only at small radii (in a molecular ring at $`4`$ kpc), while the outer disk is totally dominated by atomic gas (e.g. Dame 1993). CO observations of nearby spiral galaxies show that the molecular gas density decreases more steeply with radius than the atomic gas, and becomes a minor component beyond a few kpc (e.g. Boissier et al. 2002). In LSB galaxies the molecular fraction is observed to be very small (e.g. Matthews & Gao 2001). In any case, it is now well established that in DLAs $`N`$(H2) $`N`$(H I) (Petitjean, Srianand & Ledoux 2002). Thus, in our models we take $`N`$(H I) = $`N`$(HTOT) (but correct the total gas density for the helium fraction). When we tried to compute the molecular fraction, using a recipe which links H2 to the star formation and calibrating on the Milky Way, we obtained results which are indistinguishable from those obtained assuming that all the gas is in atomic form.

## 4 The Contribution of Disk Galaxies to the Population of DLAs

We are now ready to compare the output of our models with the statistical properties of DLAs summarised in §2. The results are illustrated in Figures 1–4 and are discussed individually below.

### 4.1 Number Density

As can be seen from Figure 1, our models reproduce satisfactorily (bearing in mind the large uncertainties in the data) the observed number density of DLAs per unit redshift in the interval $`0<z<2`$. It is interesting to note that our simplistic treatment of LSB galaxies, which essentially extrapolates the properties of normal spirals to larger values of the spin parameter $`\lambda `$ (see §3.2), predicts approximately equal contributions to $`n`$($`z`$) from high and low surface brighteness galaxies over this redshift interval. As we shall see, the available imaging data summarised in §5.1 are consistent with this rough breakdown.

Figure 1 also shows that our models underpredict $`n`$($`z`$) at $`z\stackrel{>}{}2`$ by factors of several; while the data show a continuous increase with look-back time, the predicted number density flattens off and decreases beyond $`z=2`$. In reality, the observed increase in $`n`$($`z`$) with $`z`$ is consistent with the no-evolution scenario where the product of the comoving number density and cross-section of DLA absorbers remains constant in time—the measured $`n`$($`z`$) increases simply because the scale factor of the universe decreases with $`z`$. Thus, the flattening of $`n`$($`z`$) in the calculations reflects the delayed and protracted epoch of disk formation in the models. From this we conclude that either today’s disk galaxies were assembled earlier than predicted by our models, or a different class of objects is responsible for the majority of damped systems observed at $`z>2`$.

### 4.2 Column Density Distribution

The observed and predicted column density distributions are compared in Figures 2 and 3. At $`z=23`$ the agreement is fair, considering the large uncertainties in the data. The models tend to predict more high $`N`$(H I) DLAs than observed, but this could be due to small number statistics (although it is interesting that a similar discrepancy is found with N-body simulations—see Katz et al. 1996; Schaye 2001b; and Cen et al. 2002 for relevant discussions). At $`z<2`$ the agreement is also acceptable (Figure 3). Again we find a discrepancy at the high column density end of the distribution, but this time the models tend to underpredict the number of DLAs with log $`N`$(H I) $`\stackrel{>}{}21.3`$ \[$`N`$(H I) in cm-2\] compared with the observations by Rao & Turnshek (2000). It would clearly be highly desirable to improve the statistics at this end of the distribution with more extensive surveys for DLAs at all redshits.

Returning to Figure 2, it appears that the agreement between the models and the data becomes progressively worse as we move to $`z\stackrel{>}{}3`$; the steepening of $`f`$($`N`$) with increasing $`z`$ uncovered by Péroux et al. (2002) is not reproduced by the models. Taken at face value, this is another indication of a change in the population of galaxies responsible for DLAs; while the precursors of today’s disks can account for the column density distribution at low and intermediate redshifts, at $`z\stackrel{>}{}3`$ an additional population, with typically lower values of $`N`$(H I), seems to take over.

### 4.3 Mass Density

From Figure 4 it can be seen that our disk models underpredict $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ by about a factor of two at all redshifts, although at $`z\stackrel{<}{}2`$ the uncertainties in the determination of this quantity are so large that they do encompass our model predictions.

All of the above results were obtained with the dust filter described in §3.3 (eq. 9). The lower panel of Figure 4 shows the effect of removing such a filter and including in the statistics all DLAs, irrespectively of their metallicity and column density. We find that although $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ does increase, the effect is not large, amounting to an upwards correction by a factor of $`\stackrel{<}{}2`$ at $`z=23`$, in good agreement with the empirical finding by Ellison et al. (2001). In retrospect this is not surprising. The condition imposed by eq. (9), log($`N`$(H I))+\[Zn/H\]) $`<21`$, is not satisfied primarily in massive galaxies (statistically less favoured by the shape of the luminosity function) and in the inner regions of galaxies (statistically less favoured because they present a smaller cross-section than the outer regions). It is thus quite natural that the dust filter should not remove a major fraction of potential DLAs. Figure 4 shows the dust bias being most important at $`z<2`$. It remains to be seen, once the statistics of DLAs at these redshifts are improved, whether this is indeed the case. At present the uncertainties in the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ deduced by Rao & Turnshek (2000) are so large that either set of models (with and without dust obscuration) is consistent with the observations.

### 4.4 Comparison with the Earlier Analysis by Lanzetta

As mentioned above, our treatment is similar to that first originally implemented by Lanzetta (1993), although we have introduced several important refinements. It is thus of interest to compare our conclusions with his. In particular, Lanzetta was forced to conclude that the incidence of DLAs required gaseous disks with typical radii of $`30`$ kpc, greater than the typical dimensions of galaxies today, both in their stellar Holmberg radii and in their cross-sections at $`N`$(H I) $`=2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. Figure 7 shows the cross-sections of galaxies in our models as a function of rotational velocity and spin parameter, at two different redshifts. Considering these plots in conjunction with those in Figure 6, it can be realised that such large radii are in fact not unexpected in our models once the contribution by LSB galaxies to the DLA population is taken into account.

### 4.5 Comparison with Imaging Data at Low and Intermediate Redshifts

In the last few years there have been many attempts to identify the galaxies responsible for producing damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems by deep imaging. We have collected in Table 1 all available data from the literature pertaining to DLAs at $`z_{\mathrm{abs}}<1`$ (where the results are most straightforward to interpret), restricting ourselves to cases where only one galaxy was found close to the QSO sight-line. Column (3) gives the projected QSO-galaxy separations in our $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ cosmology. Column (4) and (5) list the absolute magnitudes of the putative absorbers in this cosmology, in either the rest frame $`B`$ or $`K`$ band; in deriving these values from the observed magnitudes we applied $`K`$-corrections appropriate to the SED of an Sbc galaxy (Bruzual & Charlot 1993). The galaxy luminosities are given in units of $`L^{}`$ in column (6), adopting $`M_\mathrm{K}^{}5\mathrm{log}h=23.44`$ (Cole et al. 2001) and $`M_\mathrm{B}^{}5\mathrm{log}h=19.46`$ (Norberg et al. 2002). Column (7) gives an indication of the galaxy morphology as reported in the original sources referenced in the last column of the Table; cases where the identity of the absorber has been confirmed with follow-up spectroscopy are indicated in column (8).

The data collected in Table 1 form a small and far from homogeneous sample. Furthermore, in most cases there is no spectroscopic confirmation that the closest galaxy to the QSO sight-line is indeed the DLA absorber. Nevertheless, these observations are all we have at our disposal at present, and it is still worthwhile to consider qualitatively how they compare with the predictions of our models. Considering first the galaxy morphologies, the sample includes six apparently ‘normal’ spirals and five LSBs. This breakdown is broadly in line with our expectations from Figure 1 at $`z<1`$.222It should be noted here that the definition of LSB in our models is based on whether the spin parameter $`\lambda `$ is larger than 0.07 . Owing to the larger star formation rate in the past in the models, some galaxies with $`\lambda >0.07`$ at $`z1`$ actually have values of central surface brightness somewhat greater than 22.5 mag arcsec-2. However, this is not expected to affect significantly the finding that spirals and LSB galaxies make comparable contributions to the DLA cross-section because the morphology classifications listed in Table 1 are only approximate estimates. A further three galaxies do not appear to be spiral disks but have been classified by the original observers as irregular/dwarf/compact. The fraction may be higher because our sample in Table 1 does not include non-detections; nevertheless, preliminary indications are that this additional population of galaxies—which we have not considered here—is unlikely to make a major contribution to the DLA statistics. Only a uniform survey to well defined detection limits can address this question quantitatively.

Figure 8 compares the observed and predicted distributions of projected impact parameters $`D`$; the latter were calculated for random orientations of the galaxies on the plane of the sky. Within the limitations imposed by the small size of the sample, the observations apparently favour smaller values of $`D`$ than predicted. In some cases, misidentifications of the closest galaxy to the QSO sight-line as the absorber may be the reason for this apparent discrepancy. The models predict an extended tail at large impact parameters which cannot yet be discerned with the limited data available; it will be of interest to test this prediction with future surveys.

Figure 9 compares the observed and predicted distributions of $`M_B`$. To improve the limited statistics, we have used the values of $`L/L^{}`$ in column (6) of Table 1 (which in all but three cases were based on either $`B`$-band or $`K`$-band magnitudes, but did agree in the three cases where magnitudes in both bands are available) to calculate $`M_B`$ from the relation $`M_\mathrm{B}^{}5\mathrm{log}h=19.46`$ (Norberg et al. 2002). Evidently, our models of disk galaxies can reproduce reasonably well the magnitudes of the brighter galaxies associated with DLAs, but do not extend to the low luminosities of the faintest absorbers in the sample. Again, the relatively high frequency of faint LBGs in the present sample of DLA galaxies needs to be investigated further with more extensive imaging surveys before firm conclusions can be drawn.

## 5 The Population of DLAs at High Redshifts

As discussed in §4 and shown in Figures 1–4, our models for disk galaxies provide a progressively poorer match to observations of DLAs beyond $`z23`$. Taken at face value, this may indicate that the precursors of present day spiral galaxies—evolved back in time according to our models which do not include merging—are insufficient to account for the observed numbers of DLAs and that an additional population of absorbers is required. We investigate this point further in Figure 10. In the top panel we show, on a log scale and as a function of redshift, the ratio of the observed number of DLAs (per unit redshift) to the number which can be attributed to the progenitors of today’s disks according to our models. Thus this plot shows the ratios between the data points and the line labelled ‘TOTAL’ in Figure 1. While at $`z2`$ disks can account for the number density of DLAs within the uncertainties in both the data and the model predictions, at redshift $`z4.5`$ DLAs are nearly ten times more numerous than predicted. This excess evidently decreases rapidly with time, approximately by a factor of two per unit redshift in the interval $`2<z<4.5`$ (dashed line).

The bottom panel of Figure 10 shows the contribution of our model disk galaxies to the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ (the ratios between the data points and the line labelled ‘TOTAL’ in the top panel of Figure 4). Also shown in this panel is the progressive transfer of baryons from the overall gas reservoir—from which disks are formed in our models—into galaxies, as disks form and grow with time. Evidently, disks can account for approximately half of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ at all epochs (as already shown in Figure 4). In other words, it appears that the additional population of absorbers which dominate the number counts of DLAs at the highest redshifts do not make a significant contribution to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$ compared with the baryons which are in disks. This is reflected by the steepening of the column density distribution with increasing redshift found by Péroux et al. (2002) and shown in Figure 2.

A possible interpretation of these results is that the ‘excess’ population of DLAs at high redshift are small structures, of relatively low column density, which progressively merge with each other and with more massive galaxies to form the progenitors of today’s disk galaxies by $`z2`$. This scenario, which at the moment can only be regarded as speculative, would explain at the same time the observed decrease of $`n`$($`z`$) and flattening of the column density distribution (resulting in relatively more numerous systems of high column density) with the progress of time from $`z=4.5`$ to 2. Observationally, this scenario is consistent with: (a) the initial results of imaging searches for the galaxies responsible for DLAs at $`z4`$ which suggest that they are fainter than $`1/4L^{}`$ (Prochaska et al. 2002); and (b) the low metallicity—typically 1/100 of solar, only marginally higher than that of the intergalactic medium traced by the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest—of DLAs at these high redshifts (Prochaska & Wolfe 2002).

## 6 Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have used the models developed by Boissier & Prantzos (2000), which describe the chemical and spectrophotometric evolution of disk galaxies of different surface brightnesses, to assess whether the progenitors of present day spirals can account for the population of DLA absorbers, as is often assumed. To this end, we have compared the model predictions with several, recently determined, statistical properties of DLAs, in particular their number density per unit redshift, their column density distribution, and its integral which gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$, the total mass of neutral gas traced by DLAs. In addition we have brought together available imaging data on these absorbers at $`z<1`$ from the literature, to compare with the morphologies, sizes and luminosities of the model galaxies. Our main results can be summarised as follows.

1. The models are reasonably successful at reproducing many of the properties of DLAs at redshifts $`z\stackrel{<}{}2`$, within the uncertainties in the measurements. Specifically, the number density of absorbers per unit redshift and about half of the neutral gas mass they trace can be reproduced with evolving disk galaxies in our models. Dwarf galaxies, which have not been considered here, may account for some of the DLA absorbers, but this population is not the dominant one.

2. Normal spirals and low surface brightness galaxies make comparable contributions in our models to both the numbers of DLAs and their neutral gas mass. Turning this statement around, it is only with the inclusion of LSBs that it is possible to reproduce the statistics of DLAs in our models. While LSBs may not be as numerous as high surface brightness galaxies, their large dimensions and high gas content combine to make a significant contribution to the overall cross section for H I absorption. The scant imaging data available at $`z<1`$ is broadly in agreement with this conclusion, although the observed distribution of impact parameters $`D`$ seems to be narrower, and more peaked towards lower values of $`D`$, than our models predict. The distributions of luminosities agree at the bright end, but the data also include a few cases of very faint DLA-producing galaxies which are not predicted by the models. More uniform and extensive imaging surveys are required to reach firm conclusions on both of these points. Furthermore, the properties of LSBs, which have been included in our models according to a rather simple recipe, need to be investigated further for a proper comparison with DLAs.

3. We have investigated the effects of a possible dust-induced bias in current DLA samples, which may lead to an underestimate of the relative number of sightlines through galactic regions where the column densities of gas and metals are both high. We have found this potential problem to have a relatively minor effect, particularly on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DLA}}`$, in agreement with the initial results from the CORALS survey by Ellison et al. (2001).

4. As we move from $`z2`$ to higher redshifts, models based on extrapolating back in time the properties of today’s disk galaxies are progressively less successful in reproducing the statistics of DLAs. The data can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of an additional population of DLAs, of generally lower column density, which dominate the number density of absorbers over the progenitors of today’s disks beyond $`z3`$. Possibly these are sub-units destined to merge with each other and eventually with more massive galaxies by $`z2`$. This interpretation is supported by the failure up to now to detect the galaxies producing DLAs at $`z4`$ in deep images reaching down to $`\stackrel{<}{}1/4L^{}`$. The history of assembly of today’s galactic disks may well be reflected in the redshift evolution of the number density of DLAs.

Samuel Boissier would like to acknowledge the support of a Framework 5 Marie Curie fellowship through contract number HPMF-CT-2000-00521.


format: text

text:
# I-concurrence and tangle for isotropic states

## I Introduction

Entanglement among quantum systems is a distinctive feature of quantum mechanics Einstein1935 ; Bell1964 ; Wootters2001  and an indispensable ingredient in various kinds of quantum information processing protocols Lo1998 ; Mnielsen2000 , e.g., quantum teleportation. It is desirable to have a general theory of entanglement, but though important results have been obtained, a general theory has proven elusive because of the complex nature of entanglement for all but the very simplest joint quantum systems. Several measures of entanglement have been suggested and investigated: the entanglement of formation Bennett1996 ; Cbennett1996 , the entanglement of distillation Bennett1996 ; Cbennett1996 , the relative entropy Vedral1996 ; Vedral2002 , the robustness of entanglement Vidal1999 , and others. In this paper we explore a measure of entanglement called the I-concurrence, which was introduced by Hill and Wootters Hill1997 ; Wootters1998  for pairs of qubits and generalized to arbitrary bipartite systems by Rungta et al. Rungta2001 . Before turning to the I-concurrence, we summarize here relevant results from entanglement theory which will facilitate the discussion of I-concurrence.

Work on entanglement has served to identify certain a priori axioms for a good measure of entanglement Vidal2000 . Entanglement characterizes intrinsically quantum-mechanical correlations between quantum systems. If $`E(\rho )`$ denotes an amount of entanglement in the joint state $`\rho `$ of several quantum systems, a fundamental requirement for $`E`$ to be a good measure of entanglement is the following:

* $`E(\rho )`$ does not increase, on average, under local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Such a measure is called an entanglement monotone Vidal2000 .

An entanglement monotone must remain the same under the action of reversible LOCC. Hence, it is invariant under local unitary transformations since these can be locally reversed. Moreover, any state $`\rho `$ can be converted into any separable state using LOCC; therefore, an entanglement monotone takes a common minimum value for all separable states, which can always be adjusted to zero Vidal2000 . Thus we can impose an additional, nonnegativity requirement for a good entanglement measure:

* $`E(\rho )0`$ and goes to zero if and only if $`\rho `$ is a separable state.

Henceforth, we restrict our discussion to bipartite quantum systems. In three or more Hilbert-space dimensions, more than one measure is required to characterize the entanglement of bipartite states Vidal1999 ; Vidal2000 ; Vidal1999b : to specify completely a joint pure state of a $`d\times d`$ system, up to local actions, requires $`d1`$ independent Schmidt coefficients. Vidal Vidal2000  showed how to construct an infinite family of entanglement monotones for bipartite systems. This family of entanglement measures, denoted by $`\nu (\rho )`$, is characterized by the following conditions.

* For a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$, the measure is a function of the marginal density operator $`\rho _A=\mathrm{tr}_B(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$, i.e., $`\nu (\mathrm{\Psi })=f(\rho _A)`$, where the function $`f`$ has the following properties: (a) invariance under unitary transformations, i.e., $`f(U\rho _AU^{})=f(\rho _A)`$, which implies that $`f(\rho _A)`$ is a function of the eigenvalues of $`\rho _A`$, and (b) concavity, i.e., $`f(\lambda _1\rho _1+\lambda _2\rho _2)\lambda _1f(\rho _1)+\lambda _2f(\rho _2)`$, where $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _20`$ and $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=1`$.
* For a mixed state $`\rho `$, the measure is defined to be the convex-roof extension of the pure-state measure, i.e., the minimum average value of the measure over all ensemble decompositions of $`\rho `$:

$$\nu (\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{p_j\nu (\mathrm{\Psi }_j)\right|\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|=\rho \}.$$
(1)

Vidal Vidal2000  showed that if a measure belongs to the above family, it satisfies property $`1`$ and thus is an entanglement monotone. The I-concurrence, as we show in Sec. II, belongs to this family. Vidal also showed that when restricted to pure states, any entanglement monotone satisfies condition (i).

A privileged example of an entanglement monotone comes from choosing the unitarily invariant concave function of condition (i) to be the von Neumann entropy, $`f(\rho _A)=S(\rho _A)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _A\mathrm{log}_2\rho _A)`$. This entanglement measure plays a special role because of the asymptotic reversibility of the processes of entanglement dilution and concentration for pure states, with von Neumann entropy entering as the currency for these reversible transformations Popescu1997 : $`nS(\rho _A)`$ Bell states can be converted by LOCC to $`n`$ copies of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the limit as $`n`$ goes to infinity and vice versa Bennett1996 . The corresponding entanglement monotone for pure states, $`E_f(\mathrm{\Psi })=S(\rho _A)`$, when extended to mixed states by the convex roof, is called the entanglement of formation Bennett1996 ; Cbennett1996 :

$$E_f(\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{p_jE_f(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)\right|\rho =\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|\}.$$
(2)
Unlike the situation for pure states, however, it is not known whether the entanglement of formation gives the asymptotic cost in Bell states for creating many copies of a mixed state $`\rho `$ using LOCC. This identification depends on whether $`E_f(\rho )`$ is additive Wootters2001 ; Wootters1998 . Though $`E_f(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is additive on pure states, this only implies that $`E_f(\rho )`$ is subadditive on mixed states. If $`E_f(\rho )`$ is strictly subadditive, then some other entanglement monotone, given by the von Neumann entropy for pure states, but less than $`E_f(\rho )`$ for mixed states, quantifies the asymptotic cost of creating many copies of a mixed state Wootters2001 ; Hayden2001 .

The special role of von Neumann entropy has been reconciled with the existence of many other entanglement monotones by Vidal Vidal2000  and Nielsen Nielsen2000 . Vidal considered a class of entanglement monotones that are additive on pure states and showed that they have different asymptotic properties than the entanglement of formation. Nielsen formulated a precise property of asymptotic continuity that is satisfied by the von Neumann entropy and showed that this property is the key to relating entanglement monotones to the asymptotic reversibility of entanglement dilution and concentration that holds for pure states. Indeed, Nielsen showed that any entanglement monotone that is additive on pure states and that satisfies his asymptotic continuity property is given, for pure states, by the von Neumann entropy of the marginal density operator. This result of Nielsen’s leaves open the question of the entanglement cost for mixed states.

Entanglement monotones other than the entanglement of formation, though they are not related to asymptotic transformations, are nonetheless important for characterizing LOCC transformations between finite numbers of copies of states. Indeed, they have been used to quantify the probability and fidelity of exact and approximate LOCC transformations between pure states Vidal1999b ; Nielsen1999 ; Jonathan1999a ; Vidal2000b . In this paper we investigate the properties of entanglement monotones related to a particular entanglement measure called the I-concurrence.

Hill and Wootters Hill1997  introduced the concurrence as a measure of entanglement for pairs of qubits. The concurrence for a pure state of two qubits is defined with the help of the qubit spin-flip operator, and it is extended to mixed states as the convex roof. Wootters Wootters2001 ; Wootters1998  went on to derive an explicit formula for concurrence of an arbitrary joint state $`\rho `$ of two qubits in terms of the eigenvalues of $`\sqrt{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sqrt{\rho }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is obtained by spin flipping $`\rho `$, and showed how to calculate the corresponding entanglement of formation from the concurrence.

Rungta et al. Rungta2001  generalized the notion of concurrence to pairs of quantum systems of arbitrary dimension. This generalized concurrence for a joint pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a $`d_A\times d_B`$ system is simply related to the purity of the marginal density operators:

$$C(\mathrm{\Psi })=\sqrt{2[1\mathrm{tr}(\rho _A^2)]}=\sqrt{2[1\mathrm{tr}(\rho _B^2)]}.$$
(3)
The generalized concurrence is known as the I-concurrence because it is defined in terms of the universal-inverter superoperator Rungta2001 , which was shown to be a natural generalization to higher dimensions of the spin flip for qubits. For the purposes of this paper, we need not introduce the universal inverter, simply taking Eq. (3) as the definition of the I-concurrence for pure states. The I-concurrence is extended to mixed states $`\rho `$ by the convex roof:

$$C(\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{p_jC(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)\right|\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|=\rho \}.$$
(4)
For pairs of qubits, Coffman, Kundu, and Wooters Coffman2000  called $`C^2(\rho )`$ the tangle of the state $`\rho `$. In this paper we prefer to refer to $`C^2(\rho )`$ simply as the squared I-concurrence and to reserve the term tangle for the quantity obtained by extending $`\tau (\mathrm{\Psi })C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ to mixed states by the convex roof:

$$\tau (\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{p_jC^2(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)\right|\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|=\rho \},$$
(5)
Osborne Osborne2002  has calculated the tangle of rank-2 density operators in $`2\times d`$ systems. As noted by Osborne, the definition of tangle in Eq. (5) does no violence to the original usage of Coffman, Kundu, and Wootters, because $`\tau (\rho )=C^2(\rho )`$ for bipartite qubit states, the reason being that all pure states in the optimal ensemble decomposition have the same concurrence. Osborne found the tangle as defined in Eq. (5) to be a more natural quantity in his analysis of rank-2 density operators, just as we find it to be more natural for isotropic states in our analysis below.

The motivation for this paper is to show that, like the entanglement of formation, the I-concurrence and tangle are entanglement monotones (Sec. II) and then to provide explicit formulae for the I-concurrence and tangle of isotropic states (Sec. III). For our analysis of isotropic states, we use the formalism developed by Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000  to calculate the entanglement of formation for isotropic states. We find that the tangle for isotropic states is closely related to the corresponding entanglement of formation (Sec. IV).

## II Properties of I-concurrence and tangle

Henceforth, we will omit the “I” when referring to the I-concurrence. Consider the Schmidt decomposition of an arbitrary joint pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a $`d_A\times d_B`$ system:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{j}{}\sqrt{\mu _j}|a_j|b_j=\underset{j}{}\sqrt{\mu _j}U_A|e_jU_B|e_j,$$
(6)
The squared Schmidt coefficients, $`\mu _j`$, are the eigenvalues of the marginal density operators, $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$, of the two systems, and the vectors $`|a_j`$ and $`|b_j`$ make up the orthonormal bases that diagonalize the marginal density operators. These bases are connected to a fiducial orthonormal basis $`\{|e_j\}`$ by unitary transformations $`U_A`$ and $`U_B`$. The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is specified by its Schmidt vector $`𝝁(\sqrt{\mu _1},\mathrm{},\sqrt{\mu _d})`$ and the unitary operators $`U_A`$ and $`U_B`$.

The tangle, or squared concurrence, of the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \[see Eq. (3)\] is given in terms of the Schmidt coefficients by

$$\tau (\mathrm{\Psi })=C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })=2\left(1\underset{j}{}\mu _j^2\right)=4\underset{j<k}{}\mu _j\mu _kC^2(𝝁).$$
(7)
$`C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is conserved under by local unitary transformations because it is a function only of the Schmidt coefficients \[property (i)a\]. It varies smoothly from $`0`$, for pure product states, to $`2(d1)/d`$, where $`d\mathrm{min}(d_A,d_B)`$, for maximally entangled pure states.

That $`C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a concave function of $`\rho _A`$ ($`\rho _B`$) \[property (i)b\] follows from the fact that $`f(x)=x^2`$, $`0x1`$, is a concave function, since for any concave function $`f`$, the mapping $`\rho \mathrm{tr}(f(\rho ))`$ is concave Wehrl1978 ). To see this, let $`\rho =\lambda _1\rho _1+\lambda _2\rho _2`$, with $`\lambda _1,\lambda _20`$ and $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=1`$, and let $`\rho =_jp_j|\varphi _j\varphi _j|`$, $`\rho _1=_kq_k|\xi _k\xi _k|`$, and $`\rho _2=_lr_l|\eta _l\eta _l|`$ be eigendecompositions. Then we have

$`\mathrm{tr}(f(\rho ))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f(\varphi _j|\rho |\varphi _j)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f(\lambda _1\varphi _j|\rho _1|\varphi _j+\lambda _2\varphi _j|\rho _2|\varphi _j)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\lambda _1f(\varphi _j|\rho _1|\varphi _j)+\lambda _2f(\varphi _j|\rho _2|\varphi _j)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\varphi _j|\xi _k|^2q_k\right)+\lambda _2{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}f\left({\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|\varphi _j|\eta _l|^2r_l\right)`$
$``$ $`\lambda _1{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}|\varphi _j|\xi _k|^2f(q_k)+\lambda _2{\displaystyle \underset{j,l}{}}|\varphi _k|\eta _l|^2f(r_l)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _1{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f(q_k)+\lambda _2{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}f(r_l)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _1\mathrm{tr}(f(\rho _1))+\lambda _2\mathrm{tr}(f(\rho _2)),`$
where the two inequalities follow from the concavity of $`f`$. Since adding a constant and multiplying by a positive constant doesn’t change concavity, $`C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a concave function of $`\rho _A`$. Since $`C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ satisfies property (i), its extension (5) by the convex roof to give the tangle $`\tau (\rho )`$ of mixed states is an entanglement monotone.

The square root being an increasing concave function, it preserves concavity. Thus the concurrence $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is also a concave function of $`\rho _A`$, and its extension (4) to give the concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ of mixed states is an entanglement monotone. Notice that since $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is zero if and only if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a pure product state, $`\tau (\rho )`$ and $`C(\rho )`$ are zero if and only if $`\rho `$ is separable.

From the properties of an entanglement monotone or directly from the convex-roof construction, it is clear that the concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ is a convex function of bipartite density operators. Since the square is an increasing convex function, it preserves convexity, thus making the squared concurrence, $`C^2(\rho )`$, a convex function of bipartite density operators. As a convex function that agrees with the convex roof $`\tau (\rho )`$ on pure states, the squared concurrence is guaranteed to satisfy $`C^2(\rho )\tau (\rho )`$. We are unable to say whether $`C^2(\rho )`$ is itself an entanglement monotone, although it seems unlikely that it satisfies the property of not increasing under local measurements.

## III Tangle and concurrence of isotropic states

### III.1 Isotropic states

In this section we derive the tangle and concurrence of isotropic states. At the end of the section, we compare our results with the those for the entanglement of formation of isotropic states obtained by Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000 . The tangle of isotropic states shares important features with the entanglement of formation, but the concurrence is significantly different.

Isotropic states are a class of mixed states for $`d\times d`$ systems (two qudits); they are convex mixtures of the maximally mixed state, $`I_{d^2}=II/d^2`$, with a maximally entangled state,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|e_j|e_j.$$
(9)
Such mixtures can be expressed as

$$\rho _F=\frac{1F}{d^21}\left(I|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\right)+F|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|,$$
(10)
where $`F=\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\rho _F|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$, satisfying $`0F1`$, is the fidelity of $`\rho _F`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$. These states were shown to be separable for $`F1/d`$ Rungta2001b ; Horodecki1999 .

The isotropic states are special in the sense that they are invariant under the action of the twirling superoperator $`𝒯`$ Horodecki1999 :

$$𝒯(\rho _F)=𝑑UUU^{}\rho _FU^{}U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\rho _F.$$
(11)
Indeed, the twirling superoperator reduces any two-qudit state $`\rho `$ to an isotropic state

$$𝒯(\rho )=\rho _{F(\rho )},$$
(12)
where $`F(\rho )=\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ is the fidelity of $`\rho `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$. Twirling the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of Eq. (6) yields an isotropic state

$$𝒯(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)=\rho _{F(𝝁,V)}^{},$$
(13)
where the fidelity is given by

$`F(𝝁,V)`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _k}e_j|U_A|e_ke_j|U_B|e_k\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _k}(U_A)_{jk}(U_B)_{jk}\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _k}(U_A^TU_B)_{kk}\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _k}V_{kk}\right|^2,`$
$`V=U_BU_A^T`$ being a unitary matrix. It is easy to see that

$$F(𝝁,V)F(𝝁,I),$$
(15)
since $`|V_{kk}|1`$; equality holds if and only if $`V=I\mathrm{exp}(i\delta )`$.

### III.2 Reduction to a single extremization

We turn now to finding the tangle and concurrence of isotropic states, using the technique developed for entanglement of formation by Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000 . We proceed with the analysis in terms of the tangle. The reader should note that nothing would change in the analysis if we replaced pure-state tangle $`C^2(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ with pure-state concurrence $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })`$, thus analyzing $`C(\rho )`$ instead of $`\tau (\rho )`$, till we get to Sec. III.4. At that point, we explicitly note the differences between the results for tangle and concurrence.

The tangle of an arbitrary bipartite state $`\rho `$ satisfies the following inequality,

$`\tau (\rho )`$ $``$ $`\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jC^2(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)\right|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|=\rho \}`$ (16)
$``$ $`\underset{\{p_j,𝝁_j,V_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jC^2(𝝁_j)\right|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jF(𝝁_j,V_j)=F(\rho )\}.`$ (17)
The inequality in Eq. (17) follows because an optimal decomposition of $`\rho `$, i.e., one which achieves the minimum in Eq. (16), automatically generates a set $`\{p_j,𝝁_j,V_j\}`$ that satisfies the constraint in Eq. (17). In contrast, a set $`\{p_j,𝝁_j,V_j\}`$ that achieves the minimum in Eq. (17) generally does not generate an ensemble decomposition of $`\rho `$. Additional simplification is achieved by splitting the minimization in Eq. (17) into two parts, i.e.,

$$\tau (\rho )\underset{\{p_j,V_j,F_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\underset{j}{}p_jC_{V_j}^2(F_j)\right|\underset{j}{}p_jF_j=F(\rho )\}\tau \left(F(\rho )\right),$$
(18)
with

$$C_V^2(F)\underset{𝝁}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{C^2(𝝁)\right|F(𝝁,V)\frac{1}{d}\left|\underset{k}{}V_{kk}\sqrt{\mu _k}\right|^2=F\}.$$
(19)
The function $`\tau (F)`$ defined in Eq. (18) is a function of the single parameter $`F=F(\rho )`$.

We can reduce the minimization problem further by noting that if $`𝝂`$ is the vector of Schmidt coefficients that provides the minimum for $`C_V^2(F)`$, then $`F^{}F(𝝂,I)F(𝝂,V)=F`$ \[Eq. (15)\] and

$$C^2(F^{})C_I^2(F^{})C^2(𝝂)=C_V^2(F).$$
(20)
We find an explicit expression for $`C^2(F)`$ below and show that it is monotonically increasing, from which it follows that

$$C_V^2(F)C^2(F^{})C^2(F).$$
(21)
Applying Eq. (21) to Eqs. (18) and (19) yields

$`\tau (F)=\underset{\{p_j,F_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jC^2(F_j)\right|{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jF_j=F\},`$ (22)
$`C^2(F)=\underset{𝝁}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{C^2(𝝁)\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{\mu _k}\right)^2=F\}.`$ (23)
Notice that the inequality $`C^2(F^{})C^2(F)`$ in Eq. (22) requires us to assume that $`F1/d`$, since the minimum that defines $`C^2(F)`$ does not exist for $`F<1/d`$. This is not a problem for the analysis of isotropic states, since isotropic states with $`F1/d`$ are separable, having $`\tau (\rho _F)=0`$ and $`C(\rho _F)=0`$. The function $`\tau (F)`$ is by definition a convex function of $`F`$. Indeed, $`\tau (F)`$ can be defined as the largest convex function that is bounded above by $`C^2(F)`$; it is given either by $`C^2(F)`$ or by straight-line segments that connect points on the graph of $`C^2(F)`$ and lie beneath $`C^2(F)`$.

We have shown that the tangle for any bipartite pure state is bounded below by $`\tau (\rho )\tau \left(F(\rho )\right)`$. Now we use the twirling superoperator to show that isotropic states achieve this lower bound. To do so, consider an isotropic state $`\rho _F`$. Let $`\{p_j,F_j,𝝁_j\}`$ be a set that achieves the minimum in Eqs. (22) and (23) with this value of $`F`$, and let $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}`$ be states constructed from the Schmidt vectors $`\{𝝁_j\}`$ with $`V_j=I`$. The state formed from this ensemble,

$$\rho =\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|,$$
(24)
has a tangle that satisfies $`\tau (\rho )_jp_jC^2(\mathrm{\Psi }_j)=\tau (F)`$. Twirling $`\rho `$ gives

$$𝒯(\rho )=\underset{j}{}p_j𝒯(|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|)=\underset{j}{}p_j\rho _{F_j}^{}=\rho _F^{},$$
(25)
where we have made use of Eq. (13) to write $`𝒯(|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|)=\rho _{F_j}^{}`$. Since the local operations involved in twirling cannot increase the tangle, we have $`\tau (\rho )\tau (\rho _F)`$, from which follows the upper bound $`\tau (\rho _F)\tau (F)`$.

Combined with the lower bound $`\tau (\rho _F)\tau (F)`$, this shows that the tangle of an isotropic state $`\rho _F`$ is given by the function $`\tau (F)`$. We have thus reduced the problem of finding the tangle of an isotropic state to a single minimization, that of finding the function $`C^2(F)`$, from which $`\tau (\rho _F)=\tau (F)`$ can be constructed as described above. If we follow through the steps of this subsection for the concurrence, instead of the tangle, we find that the concurrence of an isotropic state, $`C(\rho _F)`$, is the largest convex function that is bounded above by $`C(F)`$.

### III.3 The extremization

Following the method of Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000 , we calculate $`C^2(F)`$ using the method of Lagrange multipliers; i.e., we minimize $`C^2(𝝁)`$ \[Eq. (7)\] subject to the constraints

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mu _j`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\sqrt{\mu _j}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Fd},`$ (27)
with $`Fd1`$. In doing the extremization, we allow for the possibility that the minimum might not have all nonzero Schmidt coefficients by explicitly considering all the cases where the number of nonzero Schmidt coefficients varies from 1 to $`d`$. The condition for an extremum is

$$(\sqrt{\mu }_j)^3+\lambda _1\sqrt{\mu }_j+\lambda _2=0,$$
(28)
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are Lagrange multipliers. The three solutions of this cubic equation for $`\sqrt{\mu _j}`$ sum to zero, so there are at most two real, positive solutions. Letting $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ denote these two positive solutions, with $`\gamma >\delta `$, the possible Schmidt vectors $`𝝁`$ have coefficients

$`\mu _j`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^2,\hfill & j=1,\mathrm{},n\text{,}\hfill \\ \delta ^2,\hfill & j=n+1,\mathrm{},n+m\text{,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & j=n+m+1,\mathrm{},d\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
where $`n+md`$ and $`n1`$. The corresponding extrema of $`C^2(𝝁)`$ are

$$C_{nm}^2(F)=2\left(1n\gamma ^4m\delta ^4\right),$$
(30)
with the constraints

$`n\gamma ^2+m\delta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`n\gamma +m\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Fd}.`$ (31)
Solving Eqs. (III.3), we obtain

$`\gamma _{nm}^\pm (F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n\sqrt{Fd}\pm \sqrt{nm(n+mFd)}}{n(n+m)}},`$ (32)
$`\delta _{nm}^\pm (F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Fd}n\gamma _{nm}^\pm }{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{m\sqrt{Fd}\sqrt{nm(n+mFd)}}{m(n+m)}}.`$ (33)
The relation $`\delta _{nm}^\pm (F)=\gamma _{mn}^{}(F)`$ means that as we vary $`n`$ and $`m`$ over all possible values, we need only consider the upper sign; henceforth we drop the signs, using always the upper sign. For the expressions (32) and (33) to give real values, the quantity inside the square root must be nonnegative, which implies that $`Fdn+m`$; moreover, in order that $`\delta _{nm}`$ be nonnegative, we must have $`Fdn`$. It is easy to see that $`\delta _{nm}(F)\sqrt{Fd}/(n+m)\gamma _{nm}(F)`$, confirming that the choice of the upper sign corresponds to our assumption that $`\gamma >\delta `$. Notice also that $`n=0`$ is ill defined, as expected, thus requiring $`n1`$.

The function $`C^2(F)`$ we seek is the minimum of $`C_{nm}^2(F)`$ over all choices of $`n`$ and $`m`$. We can perform the minimization explicitly by regarding $`n`$ and $`m`$ as continuous variables (here our treatment departs from that of Terhal and Vollbrecht). The task is to minimize $`C_{nm}^2(F)`$ on the parallelogram defined by $`1nFd`$ and $`Fdn+md`$. Notice that the parallelogram collapses to a line when $`Fd=1`$, i.e., at the separability boundary. As already noted, within the parallelogram we have $`\gamma _{nm}(F)\delta _{nm}(F)0`$; $`\gamma _{nm}(F)=\delta _{nm}(F)`$ if and only if $`n+m=Fd`$, and $`\delta _{nm}(F)=0`$ if and only if $`n=Fd`$. We first calculate the derivatives of $`\gamma _{nm}(F)`$ and $`\delta _{nm}(F)`$ with respect to $`n`$ and $`m`$ by differentiating the constraints (III.3):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma \delta \gamma ^2}{\gamma \delta }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\gamma \delta }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma \delta \delta ^2}{\gamma \delta }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\gamma \delta }}.`$ (34)
These can be used in Eq. (30) to calculate the partial derivatives of $`C_{nm}^2(F)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma ^2[\gamma ^22\delta (\gamma +\delta )],`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^2[\delta ^22\gamma (\gamma +\delta )]6\delta ^40.`$ (36)
It is useful to introduce coördinates $`umn`$ and $`vm+n`$, which correspond to motion parallel to and perpendicular to the $`m+n=\mathrm{constant}`$ boundaries of the parallelogram. The derivative of $`C^2`$ with respect to $`u`$ is

$$\frac{C^2}{u}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma +\delta )(\gamma \delta )^30.$$
(37)
The inequalities in Eqs. (36) and (37) follow immediately from the fact that $`\gamma \delta 0`$ within the parallelogram. It should be clear that $`C_{nm}^2/m`$ is strictly negative within the parallelogram and $`C_{nm}^2/u`$ is strictly negative except on the boundary $`m+n=Fd`$, where it is zero. These results mean that the minimum of $`C_{nm}^2(F)`$ occurs at the vertex $`n=1`$, $`m=d1`$, thus giving

$$C^2(F)=C_{1,d1}^2(F)=2\left(1\gamma _{1,d1}^4(d1)\delta _{1,d1}^4\right).$$
(38)
Here

$`\gamma _{1,d1}(F)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{F/d}\left(1+w\sqrt{d1}\right),`$ (39)
$`\delta _{1,d1}(F)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{F/d}\left(1w/\sqrt{d1}\right),`$ (40)
with $`w\sqrt{(1F)/F}`$. Henceforth we omit the subscripts that specify the case $`n=1`$ and $`m=d1`$, this being the only case of interest.

We need to confirm that $`C^2(F)`$ is monotonically increasing. Differentiating the constraints (III.3) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{F}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{F}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\gamma \delta }},`$ (41)
$`(d1){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{F}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{F}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma \delta }},`$ (42)
from which we calculate

$$\frac{C^2}{F}=4\sqrt{\frac{d}{F}}\gamma \delta (\gamma +\delta )0,$$
(43)
equality holding if and only if $`\delta =0`$, which requires $`Fd=1`$, i.e., the separability boundary. We conclude that $`C^2(F)`$ \[and $`C(F)`$\] are monotonically increasing for $`1/dF1`$, as promised. It will be useful below to write $`C^2/F`$ explicitly in terms of $`F`$ and $`d`$:

$$\frac{C^2}{F}=8\frac{F}{d}\left(1+w\sqrt{d1}\right)\left(1\frac{w}{\sqrt{d1}}\right)\left[1+w\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{d1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d1}}\right)\right].$$
(44)
### III.4 Results

#### III.4.1 Two qubits

The case of two qubits ($`d=2`$) is special, so we discuss it separately. For two qubits, there is one extremum, $`C^2(F)=C_{11}^2(F)=(2F1)^2`$, $`1/2F1`$. Since $`C^2(F)`$ is a convex function of $`F`$, it follows that the tangle of an isotropic state $`\rho _F`$ is given by

$$\tau (\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & 0F1/2\text{,}\hfill \\ (12F)^2,\hfill & 1/2F1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
and that the pure states in an optimal ensemble decomposition for the tangle all have the same tangle. The same conclusions hold for the concurrence, $`C(\rho _F)=C(F)=12F`$, $`1/2F1`$, which agrees with the general expression derived by Wootters Wootters1998 .

#### III.4.2 Two qutrits

We consider the case of two qutrits ($`d=3`$) separately as an illustration of what happens in the general qudit case. Of the three extrema, $`C_{11}^2(F)`$, $`C_{21}^2(F)`$, and $`C_{12}^2(F)`$, we already know that the minimum is given by $`C_{12}^2(F)`$, i.e., $`C^2(F)=C_{12}^2(F)`$, $`1/3F1`$. This fact can also be seen from Fig. 1, where we have plotted the three extrema.

To calculate $`\tau (\rho _F)`$, it is necessary to analyze the behavior of $`C^2(F)`$. In Fig. 2, we plot the first and second derivatives of $`C^2(F)`$. The first derivative confirms that $`C^2(F)`$ is monotonically increasing. The second derivative changes sign from positive to negative; $`C^2(F)`$ changes from convex to concave where the second derivative vanishes. The tangle $`\tau (\rho _F)`$ is the largest convex function bounded above by $`C^2(F)`$, which is constructed in the following way. Find the (unique) line tangent to $`C^2(F)`$ that passes through the point $`(F=1,C^2=4/3)`$; for $`F`$ smaller than the tangent point, the tangle is given by $`C^2(F)`$, but for $`F`$ larger than the tangent point, the tangle is given by the line. The tangent point is found by solving the equation $`C^2/F=[4/3C^2(F)]/(1F)`$, which gives $`F=8/9`$. The slope of the line is $`(C^2/F)|_{F=8/9}=3`$, and the tangle at the tangent point is $`C^2(8/9)=1`$. Thus the tangle for $`d=3`$ is

$$\tau (\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & F1/3\text{,}\hfill \\ C^2(F),\hfill & 1/3F8/9\text{,}\hfill \\ 3(F1)+4/3,\hfill & 8/9F1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
This function is plotted in Fig. 3.

The behavior of $`C^2(F)`$ means that the pure states in an optimal ensemble decomposition for the tangle all have the same tangle for $`F8/9`$, but have two values of tangle, $`1`$ and $`4/3`$ (maximal entanglement), for $`F>8/9`$.

Of the three extrema for the concurrence, $`C_{11}(F)`$, $`C_{21}(F)`$, and $`C_{12}(F)`$, the minimum is given by $`C_{12}(F)=C(F)`$, a fact confirmed by the plots in Fig. 4. In contrast to the situation with the tangle, however, the second derivative of $`C(F)=C_{12}(F)`$ is always negative (see Fig. 5), which means that $`C(F)`$ is concave. Therefore the qutrit concurrence is the straight line passing through the points $`(F=1/3,C=0)`$ and $`(F=1,C=\sqrt{4/3})`$, i.e.,

$$C(\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & F1/3\text{,}\hfill \\ \sqrt{3}(F1/3),\hfill & 1/3F1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
The concavity of $`C(F)`$ means that the pure states in an optimal ensemble decomposition for the concurrence are either product states or maximally entangled states.

#### III.4.3 Two qudits

For arbitrary $`d`$, we have already established that $`C^2(F)=C_{1,d1}^2(F)`$. It turns out that for arbitrary $`d3`$, $`C^2(F)`$ has the same behavior as for $`d=3`$; i.e., it changes from convex to concave as $`F`$ increases. We get at this behavior by calculating the second derivative of $`C^2`$ from Eq. (44):

$$\frac{^2C^2}{F^2}=\frac{1}{2wF^2}\frac{}{w}\left(\frac{C^2}{F}\right)=\frac{6}{w}\frac{d2}{d\sqrt{d1}}\left(1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{d^28d+8}{(d2)\sqrt{d1}}w2w^2\frac{1}{3}w^4\right).$$
(48)
Notice that for $`d=2`$ this expression simplifies to $`^2C^2/F^2=8`$, as it should. For $`d3`$, the polynomial in large parentheses in Eq. (48) clearly has one root for positive $`w`$; it is easy to verify that this one root occurs in the range of interest, i.e., between $`F=1/d`$ ($`w=\sqrt{d1}`$) and $`F=1`$ ($`w=0`$), showing that $`C^2(F)`$ changes from convex to concave as $`F`$ increases.

We find the tangle $`\tau (\rho _F)`$ just as for $`d=3`$, i.e., by finding the line tangent to $`C^2(F)`$ that passes through the point $`(F=1,C^2=2(d1)/d)`$. Solving the equation $`C^2/F=[2(d1)/dC^2(F)]/(1F)`$ gives a tangent point at $`F=4(d1)/d^2`$, where the tangle and slope are $`C^2=2(2d3)/d(d1)`$ and $`C^2/F=2d/(d1)`$. Thus the tangle is given by

$$\tau (\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & F1/d\text{,}\hfill \\ C^2(F),\hfill & 1/dF4(d1)/d^2\text{,}\hfill \\ 2d(F1)/(d1)+2(d1)/d,\hfill & 4(d1)/d^2F1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
The tangle is plotted for a few representative values of $`d`$ in Fig. 3. The pure states in an optimal ensemble decomposition for the tangle all have the same tangle for $`F4(d1)/d^2`$, but have two values of tangle, $`2(2d3)/d(d1)`$ and $`2(d1)/d`$ (maximal entanglement), for $`F>4(d1)/d^2`$. As $`d\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau (\rho _F)2F`$ becomes a linear function.

The concurrence also has the same behavior generally as for $`d=3`$. A calculation of $`^2C/F^2`$ using Eqs. (44) and (48) shows that $`C(F)`$ is a concave function on the range of interest. Thus the concurrence of isotropic states is a linear function between zero concurrence at the separability boundary and maximal entanglement at $`F=1`$:

$$C(\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & F1/d\text{,}\hfill \\ \sqrt{2d/(d1)}(F1/d),\hfill & 1/dF1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
The pure states in an optimal ensemble decomposition for the concurrence are either product states or maximally entangled states. As $`d\mathrm{}`$, $`C(\rho _F)\sqrt{2}F`$.

## IV Conclusion

It is informative to conclude the paper by comparing our results for the tangle of isotropic states with the results of Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000  for the entanglement of formation.

If one follows through the procedure of Terhal and Vollbrecht Terhal2000  for finding the entanglement of formation, one finds that the function $`C^2(F)`$ is replaced by the function

$$E(F)H_2(\gamma ^2)+(1\gamma ^2)\mathrm{log}(d1),$$
(51)
where $`\gamma =\gamma _{1,d1}`$ and $`H_2(x)=x\mathrm{log}x(1x)\mathrm{log}(1x)`$ is the binary entropy function. The entanglement of formation, $`E(\rho _F)`$, is given by the largest convex function that is bounded above by $`E(F)`$. Terhal and Vollbrecht conjecture that $`E(F)`$ has the properties that we find here for $`C^2(F)`$, i.e., that $`E(F)`$ has a single inflection point in the range $`1/dF1`$, changing from convex to concave as $`F`$ increases. Given this conjecture, the entanglement of formation is found by finding the straight line tangent to $`E(F)`$ that passes through the point $`(F=1,E=\mathrm{log}d)`$. Remarkably the tangent point for $`E(F)`$ is the same as for $`C^2(F)`$, which gives the entanglement of formation as

$$E_f(\rho _F)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & 1/dF\text{,}\hfill \\ E(F),\hfill & 1/dF4(d1)/d^2\text{,}\hfill \\ d\mathrm{log}(d1)(F1)/(d2)+\mathrm{log}d,\hfill & 4(d1)/d^2F1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
Asymptotically, as $`d\mathrm{}`$, the entanglement of formation becomes $`E_f(\rho _F)F\mathrm{log}d`$. The similarity of the tangle and entanglement of formation must reflect a deep connection between the two, at least for isotropic states, but we have not been able to find a simple reason for this similarity.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by Office of Naval Research Contract No. N00014-00-1-0578.


text:
# Temperature dependent deviations from ideal quantization of plateau conductances in GaAs quantum point contacts

## 1 Introduction

More than a decade after the first observation of quantized conductance, the quantum point contact (QPC) remains a central research topic in mesoscopic physics. QPCs are often employed as basic components in mesoscopic experiments, and more recently they are playing a central role in studies of spin-related physics such as spin filtering , quantum entanglement , the Kondo effect , and single-photon generation . These applications necessitate a detailed understanding of the QPC, and this is the motivation for our work.

In this paper we present experimental observations of a novel temperature effect in GaAs QPCs: a linear temperature dependence of the measured mid-plateau conductance. As in previous work  our new experiments rely on a shallow-etch technique in the fabrication of the QPC, which yields particularly strong lateral confinement. This enables studies of the temperature dependence of the quantized QPC conductance up to 10 K.

## 2 Sample fabrication

The QPCs were fabricated on 2-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) defined in modulation doped GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructures. Typical 2DEG mobilities and densities were 70-100 m2/Vs and 2$`\times `$1015 m-2, respectively. The narrow QPC constrictions were defined by shallow wet etching as described in Ref. . The phenomena discussed here were observed in three different experimental set-ups and on several samples. We present data from one particular sample, shown in Fig. 1a. The electron density in the shallow etched QPC-constriction (approximately 200 nm wide and 200 nm long) is controlled by a 10 $`\mu `$m wide Ti/Au topgate electrode, with an applied voltage denoted $`V_{\mathrm{QPC}}`$, covering that region. The samples have an energy spacing of the two first transverse subbands of 5-10 meV. The samples are situated on a 20 $`\mu `$m wide and 100 $`\mu `$m long mesa, with several ohmic contacts.

## 3 Measurements

The sample was mounted in a pumped 3He cryostat, enabling measurements in the temperature range from 0.3 to 10 K. The differential conductance, $`dI/dV_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ was measured in a 2-point voltage controlled setup, using a standard lock-in technique at 117 Hz. Here $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is the source-drain voltage bias and $`I`$ the corresponding current.

In Fig. 2 we show raw data plots of the gate-characteristics, i.e. the measured conductance, $`G_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, versus gate voltage, $`V_{\mathrm{QPC}}V_{\mathrm{po}}`$, taken at different temperatures. The pinch-off voltage, $`V_{\mathrm{po}}`$, is defined as $`G_{\mathrm{meas}}(V_{\mathrm{po}})=e^2/h`$. For the raw data, the conductance plateaus do not coincide with the expected integer quantization. This is, in part, due to an inevitable series resistance.

We want to study the plateau conductance, which we define by the conductance value at the point of minimal slope of the gate characteristics. To extract these values, we plot the transconductance, $`dG_{\mathrm{meas}}/dV_{\mathrm{QPC}}`$, versus conductance, $`G_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, as shown in Fig. 3. We note that on this plot the sharp minima, identifying the plateau conductance on the four plateaus, exhibit a remarkable increase with temperature. This temperature dependence is the central issue of our work.

## 4 Data analysis

In the data analysis we use the plateau conductance values to extract information about the series resistance. However, the observed temperature dependence of the plateau conductances complicates this analysis. In general, the measured resistance, $`R_{\mathrm{meas}}=1/G_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, can be written as a combination of the resistance of the QPC, $`1/G_{\mathrm{QPC}}`$, and the series resistance, $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{meas}}=\frac{1}{G_{\mathrm{QPC}}}+R_{\mathrm{ser}}.$$
(1)
A crucial point is to relate the plateau conductance $`G_{\mathrm{QPC}}(N)`$ of the $`N`$’th plateau to the conductance quantum, $`2e^2/h`$. As seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the plateaus are well defined, which can justify the most simple assumption,

$$G_{\mathrm{QPC}}(N)=\frac{2e^2}{h}N.$$
(2)
In this case, which is analyzed in Sec. 4.1, the observed temperature dependence of the plateau conductances is attributed solely to the series resistance.

The temperature dependence could also be interpreted in terms of a temperature dependent coefficient, $`\alpha (T)`$, in front of the conductance quantum

$$G_{\mathrm{QPC}}(N,T)=\alpha (T)\frac{2e^2}{h}N.$$
(3)
This assumption is analyzed in Sec. 4.2.

### 4.1 Temperature and gate voltage dependent $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$ and constant coefficient $`\alpha `$

We begin with the most simple assumption, namely Eq. (2) stating that the QPC conductance $`G_{\mathrm{QPC}}(N)`$ is given by $`N`$ times the conductance quantum. This assumption is justified by the high quality of the observed conductance plateaus. In terms of Eq. (3) this corresponds to fixing the coefficient $`\alpha (T)=1`$, so the only free parameter in Eq. (1) is the series resistance $`R_{ser}`$.

For each mid-plateau conductance extracted from Fig. 3, it is now possible to calculate a value of $`R_{ser}`$. For a given plateau at a given temperature we assign to $`R_{ser}`$ the value of $`V_{\mathrm{QPC}}`$ displaced by $`V_{\mathrm{po}}`$ as in Fig. 2. Thus we obtain a temperature and gate voltage dependent series resistance $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}(T,V_{\mathrm{QPC}})`$ shown in Fig. 4. The series resistance is seen to depend strongly on temperature and gate voltage.

We keep in mind that the measured conductance include approximately 100$`\times `$20 $`\mu `$m of 2DEG, in addition to the QPC constriction. So the question naturally arises if the series resistance in Fig. 4 could be a bulk 2DEG resistance. For temperatures smaller than the maximum temperature of 10 K used here, the resistance of the unpatterned 2DEG is basically constant. The strong temperature dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$ seen in Fig. 4 (a change of more than a factor of $`2`$ at the last plateau), makes it very implausible that the series resistance is solely due to the resistance of the 2DEG.

The same conclusion can be drawn from the gate voltage dependence. The gate controlling the electron density in the QPC also covers approximately 10$`\times `$20 $`\mu `$m of the 2DEG. Therefore the series resistance of the 2DEG will change with gate voltage by a fraction of the ungated square resistance, $``$ 50 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. But the resistance of the 2DEG will be monotonically decreasing with increasing gate voltage. This is contradiction with the data points in Fig. 4 for the lowest temperatures.

We conclude that series resistance extracted from the measured conductance plateaus, shows a remarkable dependence on temperature and gate voltage. It cannot be attributed to the resistance of the bulk 2DEG, in which the quantum point contact is situated. We will discuss other interpretations of the extracted series resistance in Sec. 5.

### 4.2 Temperature dependent resistance $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$ and coefficient $`\alpha `$

We now allow $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (3) to depend on temperature, and assume $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$ to be independent of gate voltage but varying with temperature. We plot the resistance value of the $`N`$’th conductance plateau $`R(N)`$, as function of $`1/N`$ in Fig. 5. With Eq. (1) and (3) this allows us to extract $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}(T)`$ and $`\alpha (T)`$, shown in Figs. 6a and 6b, respectively. The series resistance basically remains constant as function of temperature. However, $`\alpha `$ increases linearly as temperature is raised from $`0.3`$ to $`10`$ K.

A temperature dependent plateau conductance of quantum wires has earlier been reported, e.g., in Ref. , and interpreted in the context of Luttinger liquid physics combined with disorder in the wires. Here a similar interpretation is not possible. The Luttinger liquid theory applies for extended 1D systems, whereas our system only has a length of $``$ 200 nm, which is a few Fermi wavelengths and similar to the width. Additionally, the effect of such electron-electron correlations should be a suppression of the conductance below the quantized value. Here we observe a conductance plateau that at one temperature is clearly below the quantized value and at another clearly above. This effect is larger than the error bar on the calibration of the resistance measurement setup. We note that a temperature dependent plateau conductance has also been reported for a different quantum wire system . Here the conductance was only reduced below the quantized value ($`\alpha <1`$), a result that could be interpreted in terms of scattering across a 2D-1D interface .

We conclude that the temperature dependence of the height of the conductance plateaus, can be described by a temperature dependent overall rescaling of the conductance, and a temperature and gate voltage independent series resistance.

## 5 Discussion

We have presented measurements of quantized conductance in a shallow-etched GaAs QPC in the temperature range from 0.3 K to 10 K. The four well-defined conductance steps show on close inspection a temperature dependent deviation from the expected quantization value. The deviation cannot be accounted for by describing our system as a simple series connection of a 2DEG and an ideal quantum point contact. We have observed this effect in several different devices, with both 2-point and 4-point measurement schemes.

We can assign correct values to the measured conductance plateaus by allowing an overall conductance rescaling factor $`\alpha `$ to vary (a few percent) with temperature. The small length of our device and the fact that we can measure $`\alpha `$ greater than unity depending on temperature, rules out Luttinger liquid corrections as the cause of our findings. We can alternative describe the deviations from the quantized conductance values by an effective series resistance $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$, which depends strongly on gate voltage and temperature. We underline that the parameter dependence of $`R_{\mathrm{ser}}`$ is incompatible with that of a pure bulk 2DEG resistance.

The above discussion has rejected intrinsic 1D or 2D effects as the origin of the observed deviations from conductance quantization. This suggests that non-ballistic effects in the 1D-2D contact region are the cause instead. The high quality of the conductance pleateaus makes it implausible that reflection takes place in the QPC itself. Reflections in the contact region can of course only decrease the plateau conductance below its quantized value. The non-trivial temperature and gate voltage dependence of the resulting effective series resistance (Fig. 4), which results from this interpretation, points to an intricate effective potential landscape in the contact region, which deserves further experimental and theoretical investigation. We remark that the nature of the 1D-2D contact region is very different from that of the quantum wires in Refs. , so in our case is not possible to take over straightforwardly the interpretations presented in Refs. .

## Acknowledgements

We thank C.B. Sørensen for growing the semiconductor structures, and P.E. Lindelof for hosting the experiments. This work was partly supported by the Danish Technical Research Council (grant no. 9701490) and by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (grants no. 9502937, 9600548 and 9601677). The III-V materials used in this investigation were made at the III-V NANOLAB, operated jointly by the Microelectronics Centre, Technical University of Denmark, and the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

## References


text:
# Metallic and Insulating behaviour in p-SiGe at 𝜈 = 3/2

## I Introduction

The appearance, in p-SiGe, of insulating behaviour between filling factors $`\nu `$ = 1 and 2 has been known for several years fang92 ; dorozhkin95 ; dunford96 ; coleridge97a ; lin98 . Although not always present it has been observed by several groups in samples from more than one source. Similar behaviour has also been seen recently sakr01  near filling factors 5/2 and 4.

There is, as yet, no generally accepted explanation for this phenomenon. Two possibilities are that the insulating phase (IP) might be attributed to a premature and re-entrant Hall insulating state lin98  or that it results from a combination of the unusual ordering of the Landau levels and a long-range modulation of the potential dorozhkin95 . An alternative suggestion coleridge97a  is that the IP appears when the large, exchange enhanced, Zeeman splitting causes adjacent Landau levels to cross and could be associated with an unusual spin texture or domain structure. Results are presented here to support this view. It is shown (a) that the behaviour of the Hall resistivity in the IP is not consistent with a Hall insulating state and (b) that although no exotic spin texture states are expected giuliani85  at $`\nu =2`$ this is not necessarily the case for non-integer filling factors, particularly when disorder and screening are taken into account.

## II Experiment

Figure 1 shows details of the temperature dependence of the Shubnikov-de Haas (SdH) oscillations in a p-SiGe sample coleridge97b  with a density of $`1.7\times 10^{15}`$m-2 and mobility of 1.65 m2(Vs)-1. The IP which appears at $`\nu `$ = 3/2 is characterised by fixed points with $`\rho _{xx}h/e^2`$ (see also figure 2a). They indicate a metal-insulator transition with scaling behaviour ref7  similar to that observed for transitions into the high field ($`\nu >1`$) Hall insulating state. Separate, well defined, fixed points associated with Integer Quantum Hall Effect (IQHE) transitions can also be observed. These are shifted somewhat from the expected magnetic fields but the critical values (in units of $`e^2/h`$) of $`\sigma _{xx}^c`$ = 0.65 and $`\sigma _{xy}^c`$ = 2.7 for the 3 $``$ 2 transition and $`\sigma _{xx}^c`$ = 0.59, $`\sigma _{xy}^c`$ = 1.6 for the 2 $`1`$ transition, are close to the expected values of (0.5,2.5) and (0.5,1.5) respectively. Near B = 3 tesla the increase of $`\rho _{xx}`$ with temperature is metallic-like, mirroring the behaviour around 4 tesla. This is interpreted as the precursor to another IP which is suppressed by the onset of the $`\nu `$ = 2 IQHE plateau before becoming fully developed. (In a lower density sample this peak becomes fully insulating sakr01 ).

A feature of the data is the behaviour of $`\rho _{xy}`$ through the IP. This is not an easy measurement, because any sample inhomogeneity produces spurious $`\rho _{xx}`$ terms which can be an order of magnitude larger than the genuine signal, but when these are removed by averaging data with normal and reversed magnetic fields, it can be seen that the Hall resistance tends to vanish as the insulating behaviour strengthens. This is a general feature of the IP: figure 2b shows measurements in a slightly lower density sample and similar trends can also be identified in other data in the literature dunford96 ; lin98 .

A vanishing Hall resistance is incompatible with the $`\nu `$= 3/2 IP being a re-entrant Hall insulating state. The Hall insulator ref9  appears when the Fermi energy lies in the last Landau level: in the IQHE regime it is characterised by a Hall conductance that vanishes as $`\sigma _{xx}^2`$ so the Hall resistivity remains approximately quantised at $`h/e^2`$, in the fractional QHE regime it increases approximately as $`B/n_se`$ (where ns is the density) with FQHE plateaus appearing over limited field ranges. The vanishing of $`\rho _{xy}`$ therefore indicates the insulating phase is neither an IQHE nor a FQHE Hall insulator.

Coulomb interaction and exchange effects are large in these p-SiGe samples. For example, for that shown in figure 1, at $`\nu `$=2, the exchange energy \[$`(\pi /2)^{1/2}(e^2/\kappa l_m)`$ where $`l_m`$ is the magnetic length\] is 10meV, approximately five times larger than the cyclotron energy ($`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$) of 1.9 meV. The (bare) spin splitting in p- SiGe is relatively large, of order $`\mathrm{}\omega _c/2`$, and is suficiently enhanced by exchange that the $`0`$ and $`1`$ Landau levels cross and the system becomes ferromagnetically polarised at $`\nu `$=2 (see figure 3). Activation measurements in other p-SiGe samples coleridge97a  confirm this is so. At integer filling factors, when the Fermi energy lies in localised states between Landau levels, screening is unimportant, but for non-integer filling factors, when the density of extended states at the Fermi energy is large, it can significantly reduce the exchange enhancement of the spin splitting. A model calculation is presented that explores this situation.

## III Model calculation

The calculation uses the formalism given by Yarlagadda yarlagadda91  with the screening of the bare coulomb potential ($`V_q`$) given by

$$ϵ(q)=1+V_q(D_0^{}+D_1^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{interLL})$$
(1)
where $`D_N^\sigma `$ is the density of states at the Fermi level of the $`N\sigma `$ Landau level and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{interLL}`$ is an inter-Landau level term. For any significant density of states at the Fermi energy this last term is relatively small and will be ignored. The separation of the $`1`$ and $`0`$ Landau levels is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}=\mathrm{}\omega _cg\mu _BB+\underset{q}{}E_{ex}(q)$$
(2)
where

$$E_{ex}(q)=\frac{V_q}{ϵ(q)}(J_{00}^2n_0^{}J_{11}^2n_1^{}J_{10}^2n_0^{})$$
(3)
with $`J_{NM}(ql_m)`$ the coupling between the N and M Landau levels and $`n_0^{}`$ etc partial filling factors. One can also calculate the total (Hartree Fock) energy of the system (EHF) as the integral over occupied states of $`E_{KE}\frac{1}{2}E_{ex}`$ where $`E_{KE}`$ is the kinetic energy.

Realistic parameters for the sample shown in figure 1 were used: an effective mass of 0.2$`m_e`$, a bare Zeeman splitting of 0.65 $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ and a (Gaussian) Landau level broadening given, according to the self consistent Born approximation, by $`(e\mathrm{}^2\omega _c/2\pi m^{}\mu _q)^{1/2}`$ where the (measured) quantum mobility $`\mu _q`$ is 1.7m2(Vs)-1.

Figure 4 shows the separation between the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ Landau levels as a function of $`n_0^{}`$, determined (a) from eqns. 2 and 3 and (b) from the constraint that $`n_0^{}+n_0^{}+n_1^{}=\nu `$. It is assumed the lowest, $`0^{}`$, level always remains full. Valid solutions occur at the intersection of these two curves. At $`\nu `$=2, the calculation without screening (see figure 4a) shows an unstable, degenerate solution and two stable solutions corresponding to either a ferromagnetic or paramagnetic ordering of the Landau levels (the former with the lowest energy). This essentially reproduces the result of Giuliani and Quinn giuliani85  who also showed that for non-degenerate Landau levels one of these stable solutions will pre-empt any spin-density-like state.

When screening is included the ferromagnetic configuration becomes even more strongly favoured but the other solutions are significantly altered, in particular the paramagnetic solution now involves degenerate Landau levels and there is an increase in the total energy. When the filling factor moves away from two more significant differences appear (see figure 4b). The density of states at the Fermi energy is always non-zero, screening becomes important and the exchange enhancement of the spin splitting is reduced. Under these conditions only one, degenerate, solution remains and the ferromagnetically polarised state can no longer exist.

Figure 5 shows the Landau level separation as a function of filling factor. The ferromagnetically polarised state appears only at integer filling factors, when the screening is small. Elsewhere, the levels stay close together and are degenerate with a predominantly paramagnetic alignment. The transition into the ferromagnetically polarised state is sharp near $`\nu `$=2 but much smoother near $`\nu `$= 1 and 3.

## IV Discussion

The model calculation can explain the existence of both a high field metal/insulator transition and separate, well defined, IQHE transitions. Near integer filling factors, the exchange interaction ensures the Landau levels are well separated and the IQHE transitions can then occur in the tail of an isolated Landau level. Away from integer filling factors, screening means the Landau levels overlap which correlates with the appearance of the insulating (or metallic) behaviour. Separate metal/insulator and IQHE transitions occur because the Landau levels realign as the filling factor changes. In some circumstances, for example in lower mobility samples or at higher temperatures, this realignment may not occur and the high field IP and IQHE transitions will then merge and no longer be distinguishable.

Away from integer filling factors the only allowed solution corresponds to degenerate Landau levels (at least for a homogeneous system). Although the Hartree-Fock energy in figure 4b appears relatively flat as a function of the relative populations of the two levels, a detailed examination shows there could be a small lowering of the energy if the system were to break up into domains. While the exact nature of such a state (or some other kind of spin texture) is uncertain such a mechanism would appear to be a candidate for the cause of the insulating behaviour.

In high mobility, GaAs based, 2DEG samples, coulomb interaction effects manifest themselves as fractional quantum Hall effect features. Because of the difference in effective masses (0.2$`m_e`$ compared with 0.067$`m_e`$) and the ratio of the transport to quantum lifetimes (approximately one in p-SiGe compared with 20 or so in n-GaAs 2DEGs) the Landau level broadening in the p-SiGe sample investigated here is very similiar to that of a GaAs based 2DEG with a mobility of over 200 m2(Vs)-1. The exchange energy depends only on magnetic field so the absence of fractional quantum Hall features is a little puzzling. The essential difference is that in n-GaAs heterostructures higher Landau levels are well removed in energy, typically by several times the interaction energy, whereas in p-SiGe there are two degenerate Landau levels at the Fermi energy. This is consistent with the insulating phase (and associated high field metal-insulator transition) being a direct consequence of strong exchange interactions in degenerate Landau levels suppressing more usual FQHE behaviour.

The model calculation does not include a number of factors such as: the finite thickness of the hole gas, correlation effects, the existence of a mobility edge and the contribution of inter-Landau level screening but the result, that screening causes the Landau levels to stick together, is robust. A negative feed-back mechanism (relating the exchange splitting of the Landau levels to the screening) ensures that the separation of the levels is small and relatively independent of exact values of the parameters, provided only that the unscreened exchange energy is large compared with the bare separation and that screening significantly reduces this exchange energy.

In electron systems Landau level crossings occur and can be tuned with parallel magnetic fields ref10 . They are identified by ‘spikes’ in the Shubnikov-de Haas data with, in some cases, hysteresis. This is interpreted in terms of domain formation in these quantum Hall Ising ferromagnets. The question of spin textures in such systems has recently been studied theoretically by Brey and Tejedor brey01 . They find that a spin-orbit interaction, which directly couples the $`0`$ and $`1`$ states, provides a means of producing a gap in the energy spectrum of the charged excitations that cross domain walls. It is therefore interesting to note that in p-SiGe, where strain separates the two degenerate heavy-hole states at the Brillouin zone centre, there is a large spin-orbit coupling with the holes having almost pure $`M_J`$ = 3/2 character. However, it should be also noted these systems are not necessarily directly equivalent to that discussed here which often involve relatively weakly coupled 2DEGs, either in a rather wide single quantum well or in two wells separated by a barrier.

## V Conclusion

Fixed points defining both IQHE transitions and a high field insulating phase can be separately identified in Shubnikov-de Haas measurements in a p-SiGe sample. Further, it is found that the Hall resistivity in the IP tends towards zero as the temperature is lowered, which implies the IP is not a re-entrant Hall insulator.

A model calculation is presented which explains these two types of behaviour in terms of the large exchange interaction which is screened when the Fermi energy lies within a Landau level but not when it lies in localised states between Landau levels. Insulating behaviour (or more generally a metal- insulator transition) co-incides with the overlap of degenerate Landau levels overlap at the Fermi energy. It is suggested therefore that the insulating behaviour could well be a direct consequence some form of domain structure or other kind of spin texture induced by a strong exchange interaction in degenerate Landau levels.