text:
# Non–universality of elastic exponents in random bond–bending networks

## Abstract

We numerically investigate the rigidity percolation transition in two–dimensional flexible, random rod networks with freely rotating cross-links. Near the transition, networks are dominated by bending modes and the elastic modulii vanish with an exponent exponent $`f=3.0\pm 0.2`$, in contrast with central force percolation which shares the same geometric exponents. This indicates that universality for geometric quantities does not imply universality for elastic ones. The implications of this result for actin-fiber networks is discussed.

In contrast with ordered crystals, disordered materials typically exhibit a complex connection between their collective mechanical properties and the underlying interactions between their constituent elements Rubenstein:03 . In this Rapid Communication, we study this connection between effective elastic theories of a flexible rod network in two dimensions and the fundamental elastic properties of individual rods, along with statistical measures of the network connectivity. We focus on cross-link densities to explore the break-down of collective rigidity of the network. This vanishing of the static shear modulus in related systems review ; site ; pebble ; random\_rigidity ; 2D\_BB ; 3D\_BB  has been termed the rigidity percolation transition in analogy to the better understood scalar, or conductivity, percolation transition conductivity . Previously Head:03  we investigated the internal deformation field of a 2d flexible rod network away from the critical point of rigidity percolation, and found a cross-over from affine to nonaffine deformation upon changing the mean density between cross links in the network and/or the inherent flexibility of individual rods, which wasl also independently corroborated by another group Wilhem:03 .

The rigidity percolation transition has been previously studied numerically in a number of model, disordered systems with variations in both the nature of the links (bonds) and the disorder of the network. While the rigidity transition is first order on the Bethe lattice Duxbury:95  and in random networks of infinitely rigid rods Obukhov:95 , in all other random network models it is continuous and characterized by a diverging length scale over which the material acquires a finite, static shear modulus. From the outset, it is important to distinguish between two different classes of physical observables when discussing the long length scale physics at the transition:(i) geometric quantities which describe the fractal structure of the percolating rigid cluster at the transition; and (ii) elastic properties of the material near the percolation point. In the first category are the exponents $`\nu `$ and $`\beta `$, which describe the divergence of the correlation length as one approaches the transition and the probability that a link will be part of the percolating cluster, respectively. In the second category is $`f`$, which describes the power law dependence of the system’s elastic moduli upon the approach to the percolation transition from the rigid phase (see Eq. 3).

In lattice models, the control parameter, as for scalar percolation, is the probability of the presence of a link in the diluted lattice. It appears that the nature of disorder is a relevant variable, since for purely central forces between network nodes, site and bond disorder exhibit quantitatively different scaling regimes near the critical point review ; site . In addition, a third universality class has been postulated in the so-called “bond–bending” model, where bending lattice edges and rotation at vertices cost energy 2D\_BB ; 3D\_BB ; astrom . This suggests that the introduction of a bending modulus in the model is a relevant perturbation at the transition.

Pertinent to the current work are the simulations of Latva-Kokko et al. pebble ; random\_rigidity . These investigations, departing from previous work, turned to off–lattice simulations. They constructed two-dimensional random rod networks and applied a topological approach to investigate the rigidity percolation point in random rod networks with Hookean central forces and a bending modulus. The introduction of a bending modulus is vital at this stage since the random spring network that is not prestressed has zero–frequency deformation modes at any finite density of links, and is thus always nonrigid G\_Zero . Latva-Kokko et al. considered two variants of their model of flexible rods distinguished by the constraint forces imposed at a cross link: one with cross links that fix the angle between intersecting rods by applying local constraint torques, and freely rotating bonds at cross links in the other. In both cases they found that the geometric exponents are consistent with those of the rigidity percolation transition in a diluted lattice with central forces. This result suggests that the introduction of bending forces are not relevant perturbations at the critical point in the following restricted sense: the exponents associated with length scale and geometry of the spanning, rigid cluster appear to be universal. We use this result later. Their approach, however did not allow them to investigate the scaling exponent for the elastic quantities of their model.

This Rapid Communication presents a study of the elastic properties of the rod network identical to the model system studied by Latva-Kokko et al.. We, however, concentrate on the mechanical aspects of the network near the transition. It is important to note that this work relates to models of semi-flexible polymer networks with freely rotating bonds wlc . This detail of the model distinguishes it from its other close antecedent, the bond-bending model of S. Feng et al.. That lattice–based model has been particularly well described by both numerical simulation and real-space renormalization group techniques Feng:85 . Our model differs in that the two filaments that cross at each node contribute independently to that node’s bending energy; there is no energy cost for relative rotation between rods. Previous lattice calculations suggest that the scaling of the elastic constants near the transition depend on such details of the network; with this in mind, we seek herein to explore the rigidity collapse of sparse actin networks.

The principal result of this communication is that the mechanical properties of the flexible rod network at the rigidity percolation transition are distinct from previously investigated models of either lattice–based bond-bending networks or central force networks. This is true despite the fact that the scaling of the size of the percolating cluster and its fractal geometry (as determined by Latva-Kokko et al. pebble ) are identical to that of central force networks. This point highlights the physical independence of geometric/topological exponents and the elastic exponents of the network. We propose that whilst some degree of universality in the elastic properties of disordered systems may exist, such universality classes are smaller and more numerous than for geometric properties; that is, models with the same geometric exponents $`\nu `$ and $`\beta `$ may have distinct elastic exponents $`f`$. Our model system below provides a concrete example of this claim. We suspect that the underlying cause of this non–universality is that while the rigidity transition itself depends on large scale topological properties of the network that are insensitive to the local details of stress transmission, the moduli of the rigid network near the transition are sensitively determined by only a vanishingly small set of paths for stress propagation. The moduli thus depend on local details of how stress is transmitted through the small set network nodes along the weak points of this path. Different force laws at e.g. cross links can therefore have profound effects on the way in which the moduli vanish at the transition.

We numerically evaluated the elastic moduli of random networks of rods at $`T=0`$, with an energy $`\delta `$ per unit length $`\delta s`$ given by

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta s}=\frac{\mu }{2}\left(\frac{\delta l}{\delta s}\right)^2+\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(\frac{\delta \theta }{\delta s}\right)^2$$
(1)
The first term on the right hand side describes an elastic restoring force for changes in relative length of the rods, $`\delta l/\delta s`$, with a spring modulus $`\mu `$. Bending by an angle $`\delta \theta `$ incurs an energy cost given by the second term, where the bending modulus $`\kappa `$ is the same as in the wormlike chain model wlc . Cross linked rods are coupled by imposing the same coordinates at intersections.

The simulation method is described in detail elsewhere inprep  (where we also discuss behavior away from the transition), but in brief: rods of length $`L`$ are deposited with random orientation and position into a two–dimensional shear cell of dimensions $`W\times W`$. Each intersection is identified as a cross link, the mean distance between which (as measured along a rod) is denoted $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ , so that the mean number of crosslinks per rod is $`L/l_\mathrm{c}1`$. Deposition continues until the required cross linking density $`L/l_\mathrm{c}`$ has been reached. The system Hamiltonian is constructed from (1), and the mechanical equilibrium configuration found by the preconditioned conjugate gradient method under the constraint of an applied shear or uniaxial strain. An example is given in Fig. 1.

There are four lengths in the problem: the system size and rod length $`W`$, $`L`$ respectively; the mean distance between cross links $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ and a length characterizing the flexibility of the rods, $`l_\mathrm{b}=\sqrt{\kappa /\mu }`$. We take $`L/l_\mathrm{c}`$ as our dimensionless measure of density rather than $`q=NL^2`$ with $`N`$ the number of rods per unit area, as in pebble ; random\_rigidity ; G\_Zero . It is straightforward to convert between the two measures using the expression derived in the Appendix. Rigidity percolation occurs at $`(L/l_\mathrm{c})_{\mathrm{trans}}5.933`$ pebble . For $`L/l_\mathrm{c}`$ slightly above this critical point, where $`\epsilon =(L/l_\mathrm{c})/(L/l_\mathrm{c})_{\mathrm{trans}}10^+`$, we write the shear modulus $`G`$ as

$$G=\frac{\kappa }{L^3}f(\epsilon ,\frac{l_\mathrm{b}}{L},\frac{W}{L})$$
(2)
with a similar expression for the Young’s Modulus, $`Y`$. For $`\epsilon >0`$, and sufficiently large system sizes $`W`$, both $`G`$ and $`Y`$ depend only on $`\epsilon `$ and $`l_\mathrm{b}/L`$. Fig. 2 shows $`G`$ and $`Y`$ versus $`\epsilon `$ for systems where this large–$`W`$ limit has been reached. Both moduli vanish continuously as $`\epsilon 0^+`$, confirming both the nature and location of the transition as claimed in pebble , to within our data resolution further-conf .

Fig. 3 shows that $`GL^3/\kappa `$ is independent of $`l_\mathrm{b}/L`$ for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$, i.e. $`G`$ is independent of $`\mu `$ near the transition. This suggests that the transition is dominated by bending modes, and we can infer that $`G`$ would vanish if there were only central force terms in agreement with G\_Zero . We can confirm the dominance of bending modes at the transition by measuring the proportion of stretching energy for increasing $`W`$. As shown in inset of this figure, this fraction is always small, $`<`$4%, and may vanish as $`W\mathrm{}`$, as suggested by the figure and in agreement with both G\_Zero  and our observation that $`G\kappa `$.

By fitting the data to the functional form

$$G=A\epsilon ^f(1+B\epsilon )$$
(3)
we find $`f=3.0\pm 0.2`$, consistent with Wilhem:03 , where the error estimate gives the spread of values when the fitting procedure is repeated over different data subsets. $`B`$ is always $`𝒪(1)`$, suggesting (3) is a ‘sensible’ choice. This is compared to known values in Table 1. The only possible equality is with central force bond percolation; however, since the modulus near the transition is dominated by bending forces, we do not believe that this near agreement is meaningful. The fit for $`G`$ can be made to agree with the Young’s modulus data by simply rescaling $`AA^{}`$ with $`f`$ and $`B`$ fixed, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`l_\mathrm{b}/L=0.006`$. $`A^{}/A=2.7\pm 0.2`$, so that the Poisson ratio $`\sigma Y/2G1=0.35\pm 0.1`$ at the transition, consistent with the claimed ‘universal’ value of $`\frac{1}{3}`$ poisson .

Independent confirmation of $`f`$ can be found by placing the system at the critical point $`\epsilon =0`$ and considering the variation of $`G`$ with $`W`$ review ; 2D\_BB ; 3D\_BB . Scaling arguments suggest that $`GW^{f/\nu }`$ for sufficiently large $`W`$, where $`\nu `$ is the exponent describing the divergence of the correlation length, which is known for these networks to be in the range of $`\nu =1.17\pm 0.02`$ pebble . We attempted to fit our data to the same functional form used in 3D\_BB , but the precision with which we can extract the exponent using this approach is not sufficient to distinguish our results from either central force or bond–bending models. The number of networks for each attempted $`W`$ ranged from 400 to 2000, comparable to lattice models which give much smaller errors. Our lack of precision is likely due to the random nature of our networks, in which the distance between crosslinks varies continuously down to zero so that the strength of coupling between connected nodes can vary greatly, introducing a significant additional noise source into the problem.

In summary, we have shown that the elastic moduli of flexible random networks with freely rotating crosslinks scale as $`\epsilon ^f`$ near to rigidity percolation. The modulus itself is dominated by bending modes near the transition and vanishes with an exponent $`f=3.0\pm 0.2`$. This exponent differs from previous reported exponents for models that include bond bending. Our introduction of bending forces, motivated as it was by modelling cross linked F-actin networks, differs in detail from previous work. Our results suggest that, in contrast to the geometric exponents previous reported for this system, the modulus exponent is more highly model dependent. To address the experimental implications of these results for physical actin networks, we note that the continuous transition with true scale invariant behavior exists at only zero temperature. However, zero temperature phase transitions can have experimental consequences at finite temperature QCP  as long as it is possible to experimentally access the critical region. We expect that in sparse actin networks the algebraic decay of the static shear modulus will be cut off only by the entropic elasticity of the network zero\_T , a small quantity for a stiff polymer network. The experimental observation of this predicted decay, a signature of the $`T=0`$ transition at finite temperature, may be possible, but such quantitative predictions await a more complete description of the critical regime.

Acknowledgements: AJL thanks A.D. Dinsmore for useful discussions and would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Vrije Universiteit. DAH was partly funded by a European Community Marie Curie Fellowship. This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. DMR98-70785 and PHY99-07949.

Appendix: Here we derive the relationship between $`L/l_\mathrm{c}`$ and the quantity $`q=NL^2`$, where $`N`$ is the number of rods per unit area, as used in pebble ; random\_rigidity ; G\_Zero ; Wilhem:03 . Suppose a rod of length $`L`$ lies along the $`x`$–axis of a $`W\times W`$ box, where $`WL`$ so that the box shape should not matter. The probability of a second rod, deposited with orientation $`\theta `$ to the $`x`$-axis and random position, intersecting the $`x`$–axis is $`(L/W)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Hence the probability of intersecting the first rod is $`(L/W)^2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, which, when uniformly averaged over all $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$, becomes $`p=2L^2/(\pi W^2)`$.

Since the rods are deposited at random, $`p`$ is independent of how many other crosslinks each rod has. The mean number of intersections per rod is therefore simply $`p`$ times the total number of rods in the system $`NW^2`$, i.e. $`pNW^2=2L^2N/\pi =2q/\pi `$ (assuming $`NW^21`$). The distribution $`P_n`$ of the number $`n`$ of cross links for any given rod is Poisson with a mean $`2q/\pi `$. If each intersection is imagined to ‘cut’ the rod into $`n+1`$ line segments, then the mean length of all such segments is just $`L/(n+1)=L/(2q/\pi +1)`$. However, $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ is defined between crosslinks, not between crosslinks and the ends of the rods (which are dangling and thus do not contribute to the stress). In fact, only $`n1`$ segments contribute to $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ . Thus to evaluate $`l_\mathrm{c}`$, we must average the quantity $`L/(n+1)`$ over all valid $`P_n`$ with a weighting $`n1`$, and normalize accordingly, i.e.

$$l_\mathrm{c}=\frac{_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{L}{n+1}(n1)P_n}{_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}(n1)P_n}$$
(4)
Using the shorthand $`\lambda =2q/\pi `$ and the standard properties of the Poisson distribution, we find:

$$\frac{L}{l_\mathrm{c}}=\frac{\lambda +\mathrm{e}^\lambda 1}{1+\mathrm{e}^\lambda +\frac{2}{\lambda }(\mathrm{e}^\lambda 1)},$$
(5)
which is a monotonic increasing function of $`\lambda `$. Note that $`L/l_\mathrm{c}2q/\pi `$ as $`q\mathrm{}`$, and also that $`L/l_\mathrm{c}3`$ as $`q0^+`$, as it should since (in this limit) the dominant contributions to $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ will come from rods with $`n=2`$ crosslinks, for which $`l_\mathrm{c}`$ is indeed $`L/3`$.


format: text

text:
# Required experimental accuracy to select between supersymmetrical models

## Background

Rather than analyzing single mSUGRA points in detail  or reconstructing SUSY breaking parameters from low scale observables , we propose a procedure aiming to look at various models of SUSY breaking simultaneously, scanning over wide ranges of their input parameters to try to find the minimal set of measurements that is required to separate the models. We wish to investigate whether it is possible to decide a priori that two high scale models can be distinguished on experimental grounds, and want to determine the necessary measurement accuracy to do so.

At the root of our procedure stands the observation that any sparticle spectrum study basically deals with two kinds of quantities. On the one hand we have a set of input parameters at the high scale, determined by some fundamental theory; on the other we have a set of observables at the electroweak scale. Both sets of quantities can be looked at as vectors in their respective parameter spaces. The first space, $``$, is one of free model parameters at the high scale. Each model $`m`$ under consideration will have its own input space $``$m. The number of its dimensions is determined by the number of free parameters in the model. To make our analysis technically feasible, this should be a small number, typically smaller than 6–8. Each point in $``$m then corresponds to one fixed choice of high-scale input parameter values for model $`m`$.

The second space, $``$, is the space of physical measurements at the electroweak scale. There is only one unique $``$, since all models describe the same electroweak scale physics. Its dimensionality equals the number of low-scale observables under consideration. Typical values are as large as 20–30 (taking in all sparticle masses). Each point in $``$ denotes one set of fixed values for the observables.

Each model also specifies a set of renormalization group equations (often this may be the standard MSSM RGEs), through which each point in $``$m can potentially be mapped onto a point in $``$ (see figure 1). Consequently, a scan over all $`N`$ parameters in $``$m will build up an $`N`$-dimensional hypersurface in $``$, which we will call the *footprint* of the high-scale model under consideration. One restriction is imposed at this step: only physical points which do not violate experimental bounds are considered part of the footprint.

Different models will have different footprints, some of which may be disjoint, while others may overlap. However, as long as the footprints’ hypersurfaces are of much lower dimensionality than $``$, as is generally the case, it will be quite unlikely that there will be any overlap between the prints. As soon as it is established that the two prints are disjoint, it is possible to conclude that the two models can in principle be distinguished experimentally, as long as a certain measurement accuracy can be achieved. To determine the required level of accuracy, a minimization algorithm can be used to find $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, the vector spanning the closest approach of the two footprints. The required relative accuracy for the various measurements (which lie along the axes of $``$) can now be determined by examining the respective components of $`\stackrel{}{v}`$.

## Example study

As a test case for our procedure we looked at the three Type I String motivated models we have used previously in . The input spaces here are four-dimensional subsets of the standard mSUGRA parameter space, and they all use the same set of parameters (namely two goldstino angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$). The models differ in the running of the RGEs that were used to obtain the footprints. One model assumes the standard gauge coupling unification at $`m_{GUT}=10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the second uses a fundamental scale of $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ with mirage unification, the third achieves early unification at $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ through the addition of extra slepton multiplets (see  for details). To obtain the sparticle spectra, we used a slightly modified version of Softsusy 1.7.1 .

The determination of $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ turned out to be problematic for standard minimization algorithms such as Minuit  because of the very irregular nature of the footprints’ boundaries which originates in the exclusion of unphysical points. A more promising approach which we are currently working on is the use of Genetic Algorithms , which are more robust against the occurrence of excluded points. The choice of observables to be plotted against the axes in $``$ turned out to be somewhat critical. We found it to be useful to plot mass ratios rather than the masses directly, to eliminate the dependence of the plots on the overall size of the SUSY mass splittings.

In , we have shown that the separation of the three models is possible in the dilaton dominated case (see figure 2), where one of the input parameters is held at a fixed value: $`\theta =90^{}`$. To distinguish the models, a combined theoretical and experimental accuracy  of about 2–3% is required for the determination of both $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{avg}}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}/m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$, which could be achievable in a combined linear collider / LHC analysis.

With our new automatized approach, we were able to extend this result to show separation for $`60^{}\theta 90^{}`$, and are currently working on extending it towards the full dimensionality scan over all four free input parameters.

Possible future directions for this work could include a study of other high scale models, which do not necessarily have to be string models. Large improvements can probably be made in the design of the minimization algorithm and the choice of investigated observables.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During the past few years there have been several new results in neutrino physics \[1–6\]. The atmospheric neutrino problem established that there is neutrino mass and that oscillations occur between $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$. This is supported by K2K . The solar neutrino problem started quite some time back and experiments favored the large mixing angle MSW solution . The KamLAND experiment has now confirmed that the large mixing angle MSW solution is the solution of the solar neutrino problem . These experiments determine the two mass-squared differences and two mixing angles of the neutrino mass matrix. There is only an upper bound on the third mixing angle coming from the reactor experiments . The neutrinoless double beta decay tells us that the neutrinos are Majorana particles and also provide us with the absolute mass . Recently the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided us with a value for the total mass of the neutrinos and claims that there are three generations of neutrinos . We shall restrict ourselves to only three generations of neutrinos.

A fit of all the data for atmospheric neutrinos and the K2K gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2(1.84.0)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}>0.87.$$
(1)
This oscillation is established to be between a $`\nu _\mu `$ and a $`\nu _\tau `$ and the possibility of a sterile neutrino is ruled out. A global fit to the results from the atmospheric, solar and the reactor neutrinos gives us two solutions for the solar neutrinos . The allowed $`3\sigma `$ region for the two solutions are

| LMA-I solution: | $`5.1\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol1}^2<9.7\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ |
| --- | --- |
| LMA-II solution: | $`1.2\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol2}^2<1.9\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ |

with mixing angle

$$0.29<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}<0.86.$$

For increasing $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ the LMA solutions shrink and eventually disappear, which requires $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}<0.04`$ . Again, a sterile neutrino solution is completely ruled for the solar neutrinos.

An analysis of the Heidelberg-Moscow data yields a half-life for the neutrinoless double beta decay experiment of

$$T_{1/2}^{0\nu }=(0.718.3)\times 10^{25}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$

with a best value of $`1.5\times 10^{25}`$ y. The signal for the neutrinoless double beta decay amounts to an effective Majorana neutrino mass of the electron neutrino in the range of

$$m=(0.110.56)\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$
(2)
with a best value of $`0.39`$ eV (with nuclear matrix element of reference ). A weaker bound for the neutrino mass of

$$m=(0.050.86)\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$
(3)
is deduced, when a $`\pm 50\%`$ uncertainty in this nuclear matrix element is allowed (for details see ). We shall not discuss the bounds on the neutrinoless double beta decay from another analysis  that uses a 15-years old nuclear matrix element. In that calculation of the nuclear matrix elements they did not include a realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction, which has been included by all other calculations of the nuclear matrix elements over the last 15 years. This matrix element has been ruled out by the WMAP result completely .

On the basis of the most recent result from WMAP it is claimed that there are three generations of neutrinos and that the LSND result is ruled out . A limit on the total neutrino masses of

$$m_s=m_\nu <0.69\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.,$$
(4)
is given by the analysis of ref. . It has been shown, however, that this limit may not be very realistic. Another analysis shows that this limit on the total mass should be

$$m_s=m_\nu <1.0\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$
(5)
The latter analysis also shows, however, that four generations of neutrinos are still allowed and in the case of four generations the limit on the total mass is increased to $`1.38`$ eV. If there is a fourth neutrino with very small mass, then the limit on the total mass of the three neutrinos is further weakened and there is essentially no constraint on the neutrino masses. In our analysis we comment on these possible values.

## 2 Constraints on models of neutrino masses

There are several consequences of the neutrinoless double beta decay. Following the announcement of the positive evidence for the process, lots of activity started (see e.g. ). We concentrate on a few aspects only. We first discuss the different scenarios of neutrino masses. We parametrize the neutrino mass eigenvalues as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=|m_2|^2|m_1|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=m_3^2|m_2|^2`$. For the mixing angle in the atmospheric neutrinos we assume maximal mixing, so that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}=1/\sqrt{2}`$. For solar neutrinos we allow the entire allowed range and write $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=c`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=s`$, with $`0.54<s/c<0.93`$ or $`0.48<s<0.68`$ and a best value of $`s=0.55`$. Taking the limit on the third mixing angle, we assume, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=u<0.2`$. In our analysis we do not include CP violating phases and hence the mixing matrix may be parametrized as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c& s& u\\ (s+cu)/\sqrt{2}& (csu)/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ (scu)/\sqrt{2}& (c+su)/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
As noted in earlier references , inclusion of CP violation does not affect most of the conclusions regarding the bounds on the neutrino mass. The neutrinoless double beta decay bound then implies

$$m_1c^2+m_2s^2+m_3u^2=m,$$
(8)
and the WMAP implies

$$|m_1|+|m_2|+|m_3|<m_s.$$
(9)
In some models it is possible to have neutrinoless double beta decay mediated not be exchange of a massive Majorana neutrino, but of some exotic particles . In that case it would make no sense to compare limits from WMAP or corresponding experiment with neutrinoless double beta decay.

In general, it may be possible to classify the neutrino masses in four classes:

Hierarchical:

This is the most natural choice for neutrino masses, where all three neutrino masses are different and hierarchical ($`m_1<m_2<m_3`$) similar to the mass hierarchy of the charged fermions. This implies $`m_3=m_{atm}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$, $`m_2=m_{sol}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2}`$ and $`m_1<m_{sol}`$. The WMAP bound then becomes, $`|m_3|<m_s`$, since the other two masses are too small. If we use the highest value of $`m_1`$ to be $`m_{sol}`$ and use the WMAP constraint along with CHOOZ and solar neutrino results, then the contribution to the effective mass appearing in the neutrinoless double beta decay becomes

$$m<m_{sol}+m_3u^2<m_{sol}+m_su^2<0.027\mathrm{eV}$$

for $`m_s=0.69`$. Thus the WMAP constraint sets a stronger limit compared to the neutrinoless double beta decay. But it still allows the hierarchical solution with solar and atmospheric neutrino solutions, whereas the neutrinoless double beta decay result rules out this solution. This is true also for a higher value of the WMAP constraint of $`m_s=1.0`$, where $`m<0.04`$ eV. However, when the atmospheric neutrino constraint is considered $`m_3=m_{atm}`$, the WMAP condition is trivially satisfied. In this case the contribution to the neutrinoless double beta decay is further reduced and becomes too small to explain the present bounds $`m<m_{sol}+m_{atm}u^2<0.016`$ eV. We considered the maximum value for $`m_1m_{sol}`$ and the largest values of all the parameters. There is no lower limit on the contribution to $`m`$ in this case. In brief, neutrinoless double beta decay does not allow the hierarchical neutrino mass matrix. The WMAP limit cannot yield such a strong statement.

Degenerate:

This is the most interesting solution at present, which is allowed by all the experiments. Here one assumes $`m_1m_2m_3m_0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the overall mass and the mass squared differences are as required by the solar and atmospheric neutrinos. The WMAP bound then implies $`m_0<m_s/3`$. The neutrinoless double beta decay constraint now implies $`mm_0<m_s/3`$ and hence part of the allowed region is ruled out by the WMAP result. For $`m_s=0.69`$ eV, this implies $`m<0.23`$ eV and the best fit value for the neutrinoless double beta decay is not within the range. On the other hand, for the other more realistic limits of $`m_s=1.0`$ eV and $`1.38`$ eV, we get $`m<0.33`$ eV and $`0.46`$ eV respectively, which does not conflict with the best fit value of the neutrinoless double beta decay. For the degenerate solution the lowest contribution to the neutrinoless double beta decay would correspond to $`m_0=m_{atm}`$ and comes out to be $`m>m_{atm}(c^2s^2u^2)>0.001`$ eV.

Inverted Hierarchical:

In this case one considers that two of the neutrinos are degenerate and heavier than the third one, $`m_1m_2>m_3`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ is very small and can explain the solar neutrino problem, while $`m_1m_{atm}`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ can explain the atmospheric neutrino problem. The WMAP bound now implies that $`m_1=(m_1+m_2)/2<m_s/2=0.345`$ eV for $`m_s=0.69`$. In this case the effective mass for the neutrinoless double beta decay becomes

$$m=m_1c^2+m_2s^2<m_1<m_s/2<0.345\mathrm{eV}.$$

for $`m_s=0.69`$. For $`m_s=1.0`$ the bound is $`0.5`$ eV. The WMAP result does not allow part of the allowed region of the neutrinoless double beta decay, which is anyway not allowed by the atmospheric and solar neutrinos. The atmospheric neutrino solution requires $`m_1m_{atm}`$, so the contribution to the neutrinoless double beta decay becomes $`m<m_1m_{atm}<0.06`$ eV. This value is still marginally allowed, when allowing for a $`\pm 50\%`$ uncertainty in the matrix element of . The lowest allowed value now corresponds to $`m>m_1(c^2s^2)=0.003`$ eV.

Partially Degenerate:

This scenario is ruled out by neutrinoless double beta decay, but still allowed by atmospheric and solar neutrinos and also WMAP. There are two degenerate neutrinos whose mass difference squared $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ solve the solar neutrino problem and the third neutrino is heavier $`m_1m_2<m_3`$. A solution to the atmospheric neutrinos requires $`m_3=m_{atm}`$. The main difference between the hierarchical and this scenario is that, in this case $`m_1m_2>m_{sol}`$. To distinguish this solution from the degenerate scenario, we consider $`m_1<m_{atm}=0.4`$ eV. The WMAP constraint now implies $`m_3<m_s=0.69`$ eV. In this case we can have $`m_1m_2`$ to be close to but less than $`m_3<m_s`$. So, the effective mass for the neutrinoless double beta decay becomes

$$m=m_1c^2+m_2s^2+m_su^2<m_1<m_s=0.69\mathrm{eV}.$$

For $`m_s=1.0`$ this bound is also high as shown in the figure. If we now include the atmospheric neutrino result, the WMAP constraint is satisfied. The neutrinoless double beta decay contribution now becomes $`m=m_1c^2+m_2s^2<m_1<m_{atm}`$. The highest value of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ correspond to $`m_1m_{atm}`$, which is included in the degenerate solution. So, if we restrict the partially degenerate solution to $`m_1<m_{atm}`$, then the contribution to the neutrinoless double beta decay becomes $`m<0.04`$ eV and hence the neutrinoless double beta decay does not allow this solution, even when we relax the uncertainty in the nuclear matrix elements.

All the four scenarios we mentioned are solutions of the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems. All these solutions are also allowed by the WMAP result, except in the degenerate case when a small part of the solution is not allowed. On the other hand, the neutrinoless double beta decay does not allow the hierarchical and the partially degenerate solutions. The inverted hierarchical solution is only marginally allowed by the neutrinoless double beta decay when an extra $`\pm 50\%`$ uncertainty in the nuclear matrix element is permitted. Only the degenerate solution is allowed by the entire neutrinoless double beta decay range, but a small part of the allowed region is ruled out by the WMAP result. This is shown in figure 1. In the figure we considered the more recent analysis of the WMAP result  and used the bound $`m_s<1.0`$ eV.

## 3 Constraints on lepton number violation

The neutrinoless double beta decay process could be triggered also by exchange of other particles, than massive neutrinos . In this sense a deduced effective mass is - though the most natural explanation - strictly only an upper limit. The measured half-life (or its lower bound) can thus be used to deduce limits for other beyond standard model physics and other lepton number violating interactions.

The WMAP constraint depends on which value we consider. If we consider the value quoted in the original paper, then it implies a slightly improved bound on some of the lepton number violating processes. However, if the weaker bounds are considered, then it does not improve any of the constraints compared to the present bounds on the neutrinoless double beta decay. In the rest of the analysis we shall consider the value $`m_\nu <1.0`$ eV, so that combining with the neutrinoless double beta decay we get a limit on the effective mass of $`m<0.33`$ eV.

If there are heavy right-handed neutrinos, which have small mixing with the left-handed neutrinos, then they can enter the neutrinoless double beta decay processes and contribute to the effective mass. The present bound on the lifetime of the neutrinoless double beta decay would then give a constraint

$$M_N>6\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(10)
From the same analysis the bound on the the right-handed $`W`$ boson comes out to be

$$m_{W_R}1.2\left(\frac{M_N}{1\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(11)
With some reasonable theoretical input, this may be translated to an absolute lower bound of $`m_{W_R}>1.2`$ TeV . Including WMAP constraints this bound will be improved to $`m_{W_R}>1.5`$ TeV.

Using the lifetime of neutrinoless double beta decay, the probability for the discovery of the inverse beta decay process $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}`$ at NLC could be constrained. The present value  can be achieved at a future linear collider NLC when it reaches a center of mass energy of 2 TeV . There is hardly any change in the analysis when the WMAP result is considered.

If there are Higgs scalar bilinears, which couple to the usual quarks and leptons, they can also allow for neutrinoless double beta decay. However, in this case it is possible that the contribution of these scalars to the neutrino mass is negligible . Then these scalars could allow the neutrinoless double beta decay as claimed, but the neutrino mass will be much smaller and hence there will not be any constraint from the WMAP result. In other words, in these scenarios it is possible to satisfy even the stronger WMAP bounds simultaneously making it consistent with the neutrinoless double beta decay.

Although the dileptons were first considered  in connection with the left-right symmetric model, no significant bound is possible on this scalar. For the leptoquarks the bound is better. If the $`X`$type leptoquarks ($`SU(2)_L`$ singlets) mix with the $`Y`$type leptoquarks ($`SU(2)_L`$ doublets), then they can give an effective operator $`u\overline{\nu }\overline{d}\overline{l}`$ that generates a diagram contributing to the neutrinoless double beta decay involving the leptoquarks . A mixing between these two leptoquarks could take place only after the electroweak symmetry breaking, if both these leptoquarks couple to the usual standard model Higgs doublet $`\varphi `$. In that case a coupling $`\varphi XY`$ will induce a mixing of $`X`$ with $`Y`$ when $`\varphi `$ acquires a $`vev`$. It was noticed  that in the leptoquark mediated case, there is a huge enhancement factor of $`\frac{<q>}{m_\nu }10^8(1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/m_\nu )`$, where $`m_\nu `$ is the effective neutrino mass entering the neutrinoless double beta decay contribution, and $`<q>`$ is the Fermi momentum of a nucleon inside a nucleus, which is about $`200300`$ MeV. For a leptoquark with mass of the order of 100 GeV, the effective coupling constant (including the mixing contribution) comes out to be about $`10^9`$. The WMAP result does not modify this bound.

There are other exotic scalar bilinears, which can also mediate the neutrinoless double beta decay . From the present allowed range of the neutrinoless double beta decay it is thus possible to put severe constraints on these scalars. If we assume a common mass for these scalars of about 100 GeV and that the self interaction of these scalars is of the order of 1, a strong bound on the effective coupling of the scalars to ordinary fermions becomes $`f<10^7`$. In other words, if the couplings are assumed to be of the order of 1, there is a lower bound on the masses of these scalars to be of the order of $`10^4`$ GeV. In general, a constraint on the ratio of the masses to their coupling to first generation fermions for all the exotic scalar bilinears could be given , which is comparable to the bounds from other processes like $`K^{}\overline{K^{}}`$ oscillations, $`B^{}\overline{B^{}}`$ mixing, $`D^{}\overline{D^{}}`$ mixing, proton decay or $`n\overline{n}`$ oscillations. Again, these bounds are not modified by the WMAP result. Only in some cases, when the exotic particles also give a large neutrino mass, the present bound is improved very marginally by the WMAP result. Considering the uncertainty in the matrix elements for these processes, these bounds are not worth mentioning.

The indirect bounds discussed also constrain some of the possibilities of composite particles. For example, if a neutrino is a composite particle, the most severe constraint comes from the neutrinoless double beta decay ,

$$|f|3.9\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{1\mathrm{TeV}}\left(\frac{M_N}{1\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is the compositeness scale, $`M_N`$ is the mass of the heavy excited neutrino and $`f`$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. This bound is also not affected by the WMAP result.

It is also possible to constrain several parameters of supersymmetric theories. Recently one analysis claimed that the WMAP result improves the existing bounds on these parameters by about one order of magnitude , but we find this claim unreasonable. If we consider the bound from the neutrino mass from the neutrinoless double beta decay, then there is hardly any change in this bound after including the WMAP result. For the bounds available in the literature for the supersymmetric theories coming from the neutrinoless double beta decay see for example, ref. . Given the uncertainty in the calculations of these models, this change in the number is negligible. We do not present here these unchanged numbers.

The bounds on the sneutrino-antisneutrino oscillation is also unchanged compared to the earlier bounds . There are also bounds on the scale of extra dimensions in models in which mini black holes generate neutrino mass . That limit is modified very marginally. The allowed textures of the neutrino masses are also constrained by the neutrinoless double beta decay, which are not affected by the WMAP results .

## 4 Summary

We studied the consequences of the neutrinoless double beta decay and the WMAP results. Models of neutrino masses are severely constrained by the neutrinoless double beta decay, while the WMAP result may only eliminate a small part of the region allowed by the neutrinoless double beta decay. WMAP constraints become the strongest in the case of hierarchical solution, but it is not ruled out. On the other hand, the hierarchical solution is ruled out by the neutrinoless double beta decay. The degenerate solution is most favored by the neutrinoless double beta decay and only a small part of the allowed region is constrained by the WMAP result. WMAP bounds become weaker for the inverted hierarchical and partially degenerate solutions, whereas neutrinoless double beta decay can only marginally allow the inverted hierarchical solution when an extra $`\pm 50\%`$ uncertainty in the nuclear matrix element is allowed. The constraints on the lepton number violating processes are severely constrained by the neutrinoless double beta decay, while only a few of these constraints are negligibly modified by the WMAP result.

Acknowledgement One of us (US) thanks the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik for hospitality.


text:
# 𝐸/𝐵 Separation in CMB Interferometry

## 1 Introduction

Measuring polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has become one of the main goals of CMB experiments (Staggs et al., 1999; Timbie et al., 2002). A CMB polarization field can be decomposed into an electric-type $`E`$ mode and a magnetic-type $`B`$ mode (Zaldarriaga & Seljak, 1997; Kamionkowski et al., 1997). Recently, the DASI instrument, a ground-based interferometric array with degree-scale resolution, has detected the CMB $`E`$-polarization and $`TE`$ cross-correlation, while setting an upper limit on the $`B`$-polarization (Kovac et al., 2002). Most recently, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has measured the $`TE`$ power spectrum (Kogut et al., 2003), which is consistent with theoretical predictions based on the measured CMB anisotropy and indicates a significant large-scale $`E`$-polarization.

The CMB polarization contains a wealth of information about the early universe. On small scales the $`E`$-polarization can serve as an independent test of the physics taking place on the last scattering surface (Bond & Efstathiou, 1984), while on large scales providing a sensitive test of the re-ionization history of the universe (Ng & Ng, 1996; Zaldarriaga, 1997). It can cross-check the measured anisotropy power spectrum and improve the accuracy in determining the cosmological parameters (Zaldarriaga et al., 1997). In particular, the $`B`$ mode is a unique probe of the presence of large-scale gravitational waves, a prediction of inflationary models (Zaldarriaga & Seljak, 1997; Kamionkowski et al., 1997). A detection of the $`B`$ mode would be essential for reconstructing the inflaton potential (Lidsey et al., 1997). On smaller scales, measuring secondary $`B`$ modes generated from gravitational lensing could provide information about the clustering of cosmic matter (Zaldarriaga & Seljak, 1998). Therefore, the separation of the observed polarization into $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes is a prerequisite for extracting useful information from data.

It is clear that there would be no $`E`$ and $`B`$ mixing if we have a full-sky map with infinite resolution. However, for a finite sky patch observed in a single-dish experiment, a substantial leakage between $`E`$ and $`B`$ was found on large angular scales when using a quadratic estimator method for measuring the $`E`$ and $`B`$ power spectra (Tegmark & de Oliveira Costa, 2001). This leakage is caused by ambiguous modes that receive contributions to their power from both $`E`$ and $`B`$ (Lewis et al., 2002; Bunn et al., 2003). Furthermore, the effect of aliasing of small-scale power due to the map pixelization is another source of leakage, which could be a serious problem because the CMB polarization power spectrum is expected to be extremely blue. As a result, to achieve the same level of contamination by aliased power, one has to oversample the polarization map 2 to 3 times more than the temperature map (Bunn et al., 2003). In this paper, we revisit the effects of finite size and pixelization to $`E`$ and $`B`$ mixing but in interferometry experiments.

## 2 CMB Interferometry

An interferometric array is intrinsically a high-resolution polarimetric instrument well suited for observing small-scale polarized intensity fluctuations, while being flexible in coverage of a wide range of angular scales with the resolution and sensitivity determined by the aperture of each element of the array and the baselines formed by the array elements. Being ground-based, it is controllable and it can track the sky for an extensive period of time, as practiced successfully by the DASI team in measuring the CMB $`E`$-polarization (Kovac et al., 2002). Observational strategies of CMB interferometry experiments such as DASI, CBI, VSA, and AMiBA can be found in Park et al. (2003) and references therein.

If the dual-polarization feeds of an interferometer measure the right and left circular polarizations, the output will be the four correlations: $`RR^{}`$, $`RL^{}`$, $`LR^{}`$, and $`LL^{}`$. They can be related to Stokes parameters $`(T,Q,U,V)`$ by their associated visibility functions: $`RR^{}=V^T+V^V`$, $`LL^{}=V^TV^V`$, $`RL^{}=V^Q+iV^UV^+`$, and $`LR^{}=V^QiV^UV^{}`$. Henceforth, we assume $`V=0`$ because CMB is expected to have no circular polarization. In typical interferometric measurements, the observation wavelength $`\lambda `$ is much smaller than the diameter of a dish $`D`$. So, the sky can be treated as flat, being spanned by a two-dimensional vector $`𝐱`$. Hence, the visibility is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the Stokes parameter multiplied by the primary beam,

$$V_𝐲^X(𝐮)=b_\nu 𝑑𝐱A(𝐱𝐲)X(𝐱)e^{2\pi i𝐮𝐱},$$
(1)
where $`𝐮`$ is the two-dimensional projection vector (in unit of wavelength) of the baseline between two dishes in the $`𝐱`$-plane, $`𝐲`$ is a pointing position on the sky, $`b_\nu `$ is a conversion factor from temperature to intensity dependent on the observation frequency $`\nu `$, and $`X`$ denotes $`T`$, $`Q`$, or $`U`$ field given by

$`T(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐮\stackrel{~}{T}(𝐮)e^{2\pi i𝐮𝐱}},`$ (2)
$`Q(𝐱)\pm iU(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐮\left[\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐮)\pm i\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐮)\right]e^{\pm i2\varphi _𝐮}e^{2\pi i𝐮𝐱}},`$ (3)
where $`\varphi _𝐮`$ is the phase in the Fourier space given by the direction angle of $`𝐮`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(𝐮)\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}(𝐰)=S_{YY}(u)\delta (𝐮𝐰)`$ ($`Y=T,E,B`$), and $`\stackrel{~}{T}(𝐮)\stackrel{~}{E}^{}(𝐰)=S_{TE}(u)\delta (𝐮𝐰)`$. The power spectrum $`S(u)`$ defined in the $`𝐮`$-plane can be related to the angular power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ defined on the sphere by $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/2\pi 2\pi u^2S(u)`$ with $`\mathrm{}2\pi u`$.

## 3 $`E`$ and $`B`$ Band Powers in Single-pointing and Mosaicking

### 3.1 Power spectrum estimation

To estimate CMB polarization band powers, we use a quadratic estimator based on the maximum likelihood analysis, defined as (Bond et al., 1998; Park et al., 2003)

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b=\frac{1}{2}\underset{b^{}}{}(𝐅^1)_{bb^{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\mathrm{𝐕𝐕}^T𝐂)𝐂^1\frac{𝐒}{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b^{}}𝐂^1\right],$$
(4)
where $`𝐕`$ is the visibility data vector composed of measured $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ quantities, $`𝐂`$ is the sum of signal and noise covariance matrices ($`𝐂=𝐒+𝐍`$, see below for the definition of a covariance matrix), and $`𝐅`$ is the Fisher information matrix defined as

$$F_{bb^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝐂^1\frac{𝐒}{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b}𝐂^1\frac{𝐒}{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b^{}}\right).$$
(5)
By using the Newton-Raphson method, after several iterations we can find a set of band powers that most likely fits the data and thus maximizes the likelihood function. To quantify the sensitivity of each band power to the CMB power spectrum, we use the band power window functions defined as (Kuo et al., 2002)

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_b\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}=\underset{b^{}}{}(𝐅^1)_{bb^{}}_b^{}\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where $`_b^{}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(𝐂^1𝐒/\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b^{}𝐂^1𝐒/𝒞_{\mathrm{}})`$. The window function $`\stackrel{~}{W}_b\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}`$ for the $`b`$-th band should have a property of the form $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b=_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{W}_b\mathrm{}/\mathrm{})𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b`$ is the measured band power from the quadratic estimator, and $`_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{W}_b\mathrm{}/\mathrm{})=1`$. Those band powers intrinsically bear anti-correlations among themselves due to the partial sky coverage and the complex noise property of the experiment. By performing a linear transformation with a transformation matrix as given by the Hermitian square root of the Fisher matrix $`𝐅^{1/2}`$, we can get a set of decorrelated band powers and the corresponding window functions (Bond et al., 1998; Tegmark & de Oliveira Costa, 2001),

$`𝒞_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b^{}}{}}(𝐅^{1/2})_{bb^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_b^{}/{\displaystyle \underset{b^{}}{}}(𝐅^{1/2})_{bb^{}},`$ (7)
$`W_b\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b^{}}{}}(𝐅^{1/2})_{bb^{}}_b^{}\mathrm{}/{\displaystyle \underset{b^{}}{}}(𝐅^{1/2})_{bb^{}}.`$ (8)
The size of the error bar for each decorrelated band power is obtained from

$$\sigma (𝒞_b)=1/\underset{b^{}}{}(𝐅^{1/2})_{bb^{}}.$$
(9)
Following Tegmark & de Oliveira Costa (2001), we define $`2\times 2`$ leakage matrix $`𝐋_b`$ for each band, with components given by

$$L_b^{PP^{}}\underset{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}W_b\mathrm{}^{}^{PP^{}}/\mathrm{}^{},$$
(10)
where $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ denote $`E`$ or $`B`$ modes, and $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ($`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$) is the minimum (maximum) $`\mathrm{}`$-sensitivity limit of the experiment considered. Here $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EB}/\mathrm{}`$ is a part of $`E`$ mode band power window function ($`W_b\mathrm{}^E/\mathrm{}`$) that is sensitive to the power leaked from $`B`$ to $`E`$, $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EE}/\mathrm{}`$ from $`E`$ to itself, and likewise for other combinations. If there is no leakage $`L_b^{EE}=L_b^{BB}=1`$ and $`L_b^{EB}=L_b^{BE}=0`$, i.e., $`𝐋_b=𝐈`$. As a quantitative measure of leakage between $`E`$ and $`B`$, we use the ratios of unwanted to wanted contributions, i.e., $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}`$ and $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}`$ (Tegmark & de Oliveira Costa, 2001). In the next subsections we discuss the separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in each strategy.

### 3.2 Single-pointing

In the single-pointing strategy, a single field on the sky is tracked for a long period of time. This is appropriate for an interferometer that has uniform $`𝐮`$-coverage and sufficiently small primary $`𝐮`$-beam size so as to cover a wide range of angular scales and resolve the structures in the CMB power spectrum. One can reduce sample variances by increasing the number of independent fields. This strategy has been adopted by the DASI and the CBI for deep observation of the CMB (Halverson et al., 2002; Mason et al., 2003; Kovac et al., 2002).

Let us consider a simple 2-element interferometer and choose the single pointing position $`𝐲=0`$ without loss of generality, then $`RL^{}`$ and $`LR^{}`$ are given by

$$V^\pm (𝐮)=b_\nu 𝑑𝐰\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮𝐰)\left[\stackrel{~}{E}(𝐰)\pm i\stackrel{~}{B}(𝐰)\right]e^{\pm i2\varphi _𝐰},$$
(11)
where $`A(𝐱)=𝑑𝐮\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮)e^{2\pi i𝐮𝐱}`$ is assumed to be a symmetrical flat-illuminated feed horn, $`\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮)=(8a^2/\pi ^2)(\mathrm{arccos}bb\sqrt{1b^2})`$, where $`a=\lambda /D`$ and $`b=u\lambda /D`$. The ensemble averages are a set of simultaneous integral equations for $`E`$ and $`B`$ power spectra (visibility covariance matrices):

$$V^+(𝐮)V^\pm (𝐮)=b_\nu ^2𝑑𝐰|\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮𝐰)|^2[S_{EE}(w)\pm S_{BB}(w)]\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{e^{i4\varphi _𝐰}}\right).$$
(12)
For a single-dish experiment, it gives ensemble averages $`V^+V^\pm `$ simply given by equation (12) with $`𝐮=0`$. Because of the symmetrical $`\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮)`$, $`V^+V^{}=0`$. As such, the separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ is undetermined although $`V^+V^+`$ measures the total polarization power. One should be cautious about the integration in $`V^+V^\pm `$ for small $`𝐰`$ (or low $`\mathrm{}`$) where the flat-sky approximation is no longer reliable (Ng, 2001). However, full-sky two-point polarization correlation functions have been constructed (Kamionkowski et al., 1997; Ng & Liu, 1999), showing that the two-point correlation functions at zero lag, which are equivalent to $`V^+V^\pm `$, have similar properties. On the other hand, $`V^+(𝐮)V^{}(𝐮)`$ is non-vanishing in general for an interferometer, since a narrow range of $`\varphi _𝐰`$ can be sampled up to an uncertainty of the size of the dish. The information contained in it, which is orthogonal to $`V^+(𝐮)V^+(𝐮)`$, allows one to separate $`E`$ and $`B`$ powers in power spectrum estimation.

Figure 1 shows schematic diagrams showing different nature of Fourier mode samplings in the $`𝐮`$-space by the primary beam patterns for the single dish and the interferometer. Big circles represent the sensitivity ranges set by the primary beams in the single-pointing strategy while the small circles denote the narrow synthesized beams that sample the Fourier modes at particular locations in the mosaicking strategy. In the single-pointing strategy, a single dish intrinsically has a difficulty in sampling the phase due to the beam centered at the origin, which makes $`E/B`$ separation impossible. On the other hand, the interferometer is more efficient in phase sampling because its beam is off-centered (big circles in Fig. 1). Thus the interferometer has better performance in separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes.

We can also understand this by considering an ideal case in which $`u\lambda D`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮𝐰)\delta (𝐮𝐰)`$ and hence equation (12) becomes $`V^+(𝐮)V^\pm (𝐮)[S_{EE}(u)\pm S_{BB}(u)]\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{e^{i4\varphi _𝐮}}\right)`$ from which $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can be completely separated. To study the dish finite-size effect, we have performed a simulation of 60 independent single-pointing CMB observations using a 2-element interferometer operating at 95 GHz, with dishes of $`D=20`$ cm separated by 60 cm. In generating CMB fields, we simply assume a sine-shape power spectrum with a bump at $`\mathrm{}1300`$ and with $`B`$ mode having the same amplitude of $`E`$ mode, and adopt an instrumental noise level of 3 $`\mu `$K per visibility. We have measured the decorrelated band powers from the maximum likelihood analysis using equations (4) and (7). The decorrelated band powers and the corresponding window functions defined in equation (8) are shown in Figure 2. The $`W_b\mathrm{}^E/\mathrm{}`$ (2nd row panels) expresses contribution to the $`b`$-th $`E`$ mode band power from $`E`$ mode itself (left; $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EE}/\mathrm{}`$) and from $`B`$ mode powers (right panel; $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EB}/\mathrm{}`$), and likewise for $`W_b\mathrm{}^B/\mathrm{}`$ (3rd row panels). Since the $`𝐮`$-beam with $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mathrm{FWHM}}=50.7`$ is sufficiently narrow and at a rather long baseline of $`u=253.3`$ from the origin, $`\varphi _𝐰`$ can be sampled with a small error $`\delta \varphi _𝐰/2\pi 0.03`$. The band power window function shows that the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes have been cleanly separated with a leakage ratio of only $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}=L^{BE}/L^{BB}0.02`$ as is expected.

We have also investigated the extraction of the lensing induced $`B`$ mode from CMB polarization observations made by for example the forthcoming AMiBA experiment111http://amiba.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/ (Lo et al., 2000), which is an interferometric array of 7 elements that are hexagonally close-packed dishes of $`D=60`$ cm operating at 95 GHz with two 10 GHz channels and a system temperature of $`70`$ K. We have used the CMBFAST code (Seljak & Zaldarriaga, 1996) to generate the scalar-induced $`E`$ power spectrum and the lensing induced $`B`$ power spectrum in a flat reionized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with model parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.73`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.045`$, $`h=0.70`$, $`n_s=1.0`$, and $`\tau _{re}=0.17`$. In a single-pointing observation made by the 7-element AMiBA for an integration time of one year, if $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes can be cleanly separated, the signal-to-noise ratio (excluding sample variance) for the $`E`$ polarization will be about 25, while that for the lensing induced $`B`$ polarization will be about 2. Figure 3 shows the measured decorrelated band powers and the corresponding window functions. We have found rather high leakages from $`B`$ to $`E`$ which are given by $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}0.30`$ ($`0.11`$) for the first (second) band. However, the lensing induced $`B`$ power spectrum is quite small such that the leakages do not make significant contamination to the measurement of the $`E`$ mode. On the contrary, although the leakages from $`E`$ to $`B`$ are only $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}0.05`$ ($`0.04`$) for the first (second) band, the effective leakage power from $`E`$ to $`B`$ is at about 1 $`\mu `$K level, much higher than the genuine lensing induced $`B`$ power spectrum. In order to measure the lensing induced $`B`$ mode, one has to reduce $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}`$ to less than 0.01. This can be done by reducing the size of the dish (but then it will decrease the sensitivity) or using the method of mosaicking as described below.

### 3.3 Mosaicking

In the single-pointing strategy, the resolution in the $`𝐮`$-space is limited by the area of the surveyed sky which is equal to the size of the primary beam. By mosaicking several contiguous pointings, we can increase the resolution in the $`𝐮`$-space. This strategy is essential for close-packed interferometers such as the AMiBA and the CBI with $`𝐮`$-beam size larger than the structure of the CMB power spectrum (Park et al., 2003).

For a pair of pointing positions $`𝐲_m`$ and $`𝐲_n`$, equation (12) change into the visibility covariance matrices

$$V_{𝐲_m}^+(𝐮)V_{𝐲_n}^\pm (𝐮)=b_\nu ^2𝑑𝐰|\stackrel{~}{A}(𝐮𝐰)|^2e^{2\pi i(𝐮𝐰)(𝐲_m𝐲_n)}[S_{EE}(w)\pm S_{BB}(w)]\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{e^{i4\varphi _𝐰}}\right)$$
(13)
and the single-dish covariance matrices $`V_{𝐲_m}^+V_{𝐲_n}^\pm `$ as given by equation (13) with $`𝐮=0`$. Here we see additional phases as a function of $`𝐲_m𝐲_n`$ which can increase the resolution in $`𝐮`$-space by mosaicking neighboring pointings, as illustrated in Figure 4. Note that the interferometric primary beam actually samples the $`𝐮`$-space peaked at $`u_x206`$ which is the length of the baseline, and that we have chosen particular numbers and separations of pointings to produce similar effective beams. As shown in Figure 1, the phases sampled are more reliable in mosaicking strategy due to the narrow synthesized beam in the $`𝐮`$-space (small circles).

Figure 5 shows an example of the $`E`$ and $`B`$ polarization band power estimates expected in a 61-pointing hexagonal mosaic mock observation with pointing separation $`\delta \theta _{\mathrm{mo}}=6.^{}25`$ by the single dish with $`D=125`$ cm ($`\nu =95`$ GHz). We have used the same sine-shape power spectrum in generating CMB polarization fields and made 60 independent mosaics to reduce the sample variance. In order to study the sample-variance limited regime, we have adopted extremely low instrument noise, $`10^3`$ $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$ per pointing, to suppress the complications set in from noise. The total survey size per mosaic is about $`1^{}`$, thus the band width is chosen to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}500`$. The decorrelated band power window functions are also shown in the bottom panels of Figure 5. The mixing between $`E`$ and $`B`$ is significant at the first and last bands denoted respectively by the solid and dot-dashed curves. Furthermore, both band power window functions at the first band, $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EE}`$ and $`W_b\mathrm{}^{EB}`$, are rising up steeply in the direction of $`\mathrm{}0`$, which reflects that the single-dish instrument cannot determine the phases $`\varphi _𝐰`$ near the origin in the $`𝐮`$-space.

Similarly, the polarization band powers and the corresponding band power window functions expected in a 19-pointing hexagonal mosaic mock observation by the 2-element interferometer with $`D=60`$ cm and 5 cm separation ($`\nu =95`$ GHz) are shown in Figure 6. In this case $`\delta \theta _{\mathrm{mo}}=10\mathrm{}`$ is chosen in order to make the same survey size of $`1^{}`$, and the instrument noise is again assumed to be $`10^3`$ $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$ per visibility. Unlike the case of single dish in Figure 5, there is no steep rise-up of the window functions near $`\mathrm{}0`$. The $`E`$ and $`B`$ mixing at the first band is still large but smaller than that of the single-dish experiment, since it is just as difficult to determine $`\varphi _𝐰`$ at the first band. However, this band is already at the tail of the $`\mathrm{}`$-range sensitivity of the interferometer. On the contrary, a clean $`E/B`$ separation can be done at high $`\mathrm{}`$ region where a better sampling of $`\varphi _𝐰`$ is possible. Note that the interferometer has a much better performance at the last band than the single dish mainly due to a higher sensitivity at that band.

Examples of mosaicking given above are too ideal to look into the practical issues. Cases for realistic instrument noises and CMB power spectra should be investigated. Figures 7 and 8 show results in the case of realistic instrument noise. We have assumed a noise level of 3 $`\mu `$K per pointing or visibility while the sine-shape power spectrum is still used. Compared to the single dish, the interferometer gives $`E`$ and $`B`$ band power measurements with very large uncertainties. The interferometer considered here has about three times fewer pixels (19-pt) than the single dish does (61-pt) while the same noise level per pixel is assumed in both cases. Therefore, the overall noise level is quite higher in the interferometry. In spite of this higher noise level, the interferometer has better performance in separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes. For $`E`$-estimates in the single-dish experiment (interferometry), the ratios of unwanted to wanted modes at the first and the last bands are $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}=0.50`$ ($`0.26`$) and $`0.28`$ ($`0.04`$), respectively.

Figures 9 and 10 also show similar results in the case of realistic instrument noise but with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM power spectrum with zero $`B`$ mode power. The noise level is assumed to be 3 $`\mu `$K per pixel. We use the CMBFAST power spectrum (Seljak & Zaldarriaga, 1996) of a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model with model parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.73`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.045`$, $`h=0.70`$, and $`n_s=1.0`$. Reionization has not been considered. The distinctive feature in the band power estimates is that at the first band a significant power leakage from $`E`$ to $`B`$ modes is seen, especially in the single-dish experiment (Fig. 9; $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}=0.57`$ and $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}=0.44`$). On the other hand, such leakage is relatively smaller in the interferometry ($`L^{EB}/L^{EE}=0.31`$ and $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}=0.25`$). In other words, in a situation of asymmetric shapes of power spectra between $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case), one mode can be significantly contaminated by the other mode, especially in the single-dish experiment.

Figure 11 summarizes the level of $`E/B`$ mixing in terms of the ratios $`L^{EB}/L^{EE}`$ and $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}`$ for the single dish and the interferometer. Here Figures 11$`a`$ and 11$`b`$ correspond respectively to the cases of the sine-shape power spectrum with negligible noise (Figs. 5 and 6) and realistic noise (Figs. 7 and 8), while Figure 11$`c`$ corresponds to that of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM power spectrum and realistic noise (Figs. 9 and 10). The leakage drops with $`\mathrm{}`$ for the interferometer. However, for the single dish the leakage increases at higher $`\mathrm{}`$ due to $`E/B`$ mixing caused by sparse sampling of data points. This $`E/B`$ mixing can be removed by the dense data sampling during mosaicking or map-making process. On the other hand, the interferometer, even with sparse data sampling scheme, does not experience large $`E/B`$ mixing. In Figures 11$`a`$ and 11$`b`$, the leakage pattern from $`B`$ to $`E`$ is essentially equal to that from $`E`$ to $`B`$ because the $`E`$ and $`B`$ power spectra assumed are symmetric. However, there exists an effect of asymmetry between the $`E`$ and $`B`$ mode power spectra in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case (Fig. 11$`c`$), where $`L^{BE}/L^{BB}`$ has a minus sign at the second band for the single-dish experiment. It should be also noted that at the last band both experiments have larger leakage ratios for the case of negligible noise (Fig. 11$`a`$) than those for the case of realistic noise (Fig. 11$`b`$). This is because the window functions for negligible noise have very small sidelobes, while those for realistic noise have larger sidelobes fluctuating at the zero point and self-canceling, especially at the last band.

## 4 Conclusion

We have pointed out that the separation of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in CMB measurements depends on how well the phase information of the CMB polarization in the Fourier space is obtained. This has been shown by performing maximum-likelihood estimations of the band powers from mock single-dish data in comparison with that from an interferometer. Being able to sample a narrow range of the phase by an individual pointing, the interferometer can separate $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes in a single-pointing measurement. This makes interferometry particularly attractive in the detection of extremely weak $`B`$ polarization signals such as the lensing induced $`B`$ mode and the gravity-wave induced $`B`$ mode. In mosaicking observation, the interferometer is generally more efficient than the single dish in separating $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes. In the sample-variance limited cases, we have found that the interferometer needs about three times fewer pixels than the single dish to achieve the same or even better measurement of the band powers. The main reason is that it has the most sensitivity at the peak of the power spectrum. Apart from a serious leakage between $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes at low $`\mathrm{}`$ region due to poor determination of the phase, $`E`$ and $`B`$ can be separated within the resolution limit with a mixing of less than 10 percents. This small mixing arises because the sidelobes of the effective beam in mosaicking lead to aliased power, or equivalently increase the uncertainty of sampling the phase. As is known, this effect can be alleviated by making a dense mosaicked map (Bunn et al., 2003). With regard to a similar problem in the field of weak gravitational lensing that one wants to separate the $`E`$-mode cosmic shear from other $`B`$-mode signals due to intrinsic galaxy alignment or systematic errors as discussed in Padmanabhan et al. (2002) and references therein, we may consider a phase modulated annulus filter analogous to an interferometric beam to make a pixelized map from lensing data. The work along this line is under progress.

We acknowledge valuable discussion with Keiichi Umetsu. CGP was supported by the BK21 program of the Korean Government and the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (grant 1999-2-113-001-5), and acknowledges the support by the CosPA Center at the National Taiwan University during his visit. KWN was supported by the Taiwan NSC Grant NSC92-2112-M-001-029. Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the CMBFAST package.


text:
# Vortex Dynamics in a Coarsening Two Dimensional XY Model

## I Introduction

It is important to understand the role of defects in phase ordering  problems. We investigate here the growth kinetics of the non-conserved $`O(2)`$ symmetric time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) model in two dimensions after a quench from a disordered high temperature state to zero temperature. The dominant structures in the ordering kinetics of this system are vortices with charges $`\pm 1`$. Vortices with higher order charges are unstable. Various aspects of the defect structure have been explored in some detail before . We focus here on a numerical determination of the velocity distribution of the vortices as a function of time $`t`$ after the quench. Theory predicts  that the distribution function scales with the average vortex speed which is inversely proportional to a length scale $`L(t)`$, which grows with time $`t`$ after the quenches. One also finds a large speed algebraic tail in good agreement with predictions of an exponent of $`3`$. In terms of the velocity distribution this corresponds to an exponent of $`4`$. The number of vortices is also counted and its evolution in time is found to be consistent with previous work .

The disordering agents in the phase ordering of the $`n=d=2`$ non-conserved TDGL model ($`2d`$ XY model) are well known, where $`d`$ is the spatial dimension and $`n`$ is the number of the components of the order parameter. One has unit one charged vortices and, at nonzero temperature, spin waves. If we focus on quenches to zero temperature we have only the vortices to consider. Thus a typical vortex configuration is shown in Fig. 1. As the time evolves one has vortex anti-vortex annihilation until finally there are no surviving vortices and the system is fully ordered (we only consider the zero temperature case with no thermal fluctuations, where the system does eventually order). For general $`n=d`$ Bray and Rutenberg  have shown that the growth law for such systems is given by $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$. The exception is for $`n=d=2`$ where their method is mute. The growth law for this case was treated by Pargellis et al. , and checked numerically by Yurke et al. . There is a logarithmic correction to the scaling law: $`L(t)(t/\mathrm{log}(t))^{1/2}`$.

There has also been theoretical work on the dynamics of these vortices. Mazenko showed that if the order parameter can be assumed to be a gaussian field  when constrained to be near a vortex core then the vortex velocity probability distribution, for $`n=d`$ , has the simple form:

$`P(\stackrel{}{v})d^nv={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n/2)}{(\pi s^2)^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+v^2/s^2\right)^{(n+2)/2}}}d^nv,`$ (1)
where the scaling speed $`s`$ varies as $`L^1`$ for long times. If we only care about the magnitude of the velocity and integrate out the directions, then in the case of $`n=d=2`$ we have the speed probability distribution

$$P(v)dv=\frac{2}{s^2}\frac{v}{\left(1+v^2/s^2\right)^2}dv,$$
(2)
or equivalently

$$P(\stackrel{~}{v})d\stackrel{~}{v}=\frac{2a\stackrel{~}{v}}{(1+a\stackrel{~}{v}^2)^2}d\stackrel{~}{v},$$
(3)
with $`a=(\pi /2)^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}=v/\overline{v}`$, where the average speed $`\overline{v}=\pi s/2`$. So, after being scaled with the average speed, the vortex speeds have the same probability distribution at different times. A key feature of the predictions for $`P(v)`$ is that there is a large velocity algebraic tail $`v^3`$. This tail was also found using scaling arguments by Bray. In this paper we check these predictions numerically for the case $`n=d=2`$. We find that velocity probability distribution function does obey scaling of the form predicted by Eq. (2). But the average speed falls off as $`t^{1/2}`$ without the logarithmic correction and there is a large speed tail consistent with an exponent of $`3`$.

We have also monitored the vortex density $`n_v`$ as a function of time and find, in agreement with previous work,

$`n_vL_v^2(t)`$ (4)
where $`L_v(t)(t/\mathrm{log}(t))^{1/2}`$. The vortex number density should be proportional to the system’s energy above its ground energy $`E_0`$ ($`=ϵ^2/4`$) per unit area, where $`ϵ`$ is the control parameter of the system (see Eq. (4) below). Our simulation verifies this result.

## II System Description

The system we study is described by the Langevin equation

$$\frac{\psi _i}{t}=ϵ\psi _i+^2\psi _i\left(\stackrel{}{\psi }\right)^2\psi _i,$$
(5)
where $`i=1,2`$ are the indices for the two components of the order parameter $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$. The noise term is zero because the system is quenched to zero temperature. By choosing proper units for the time and space and rescaling the order parameter, $`ϵ`$ can take on any positive value. The equation is put on a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions and driven by the finite difference scheme, i.e. replacing $`_t\psi _i(𝐫,t)`$ by $`\left[\psi _i^{m+1}(kl)\psi _i^m(kl)\right]/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ with $`m`$ being the time step number, and $`^2\psi _i(𝐫,t)`$ by

$$^2\psi _i(kl)=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^2}\left[\frac{2}{3}\underset{NN}{}+\frac{1}{6}\underset{NNN}{}\frac{10}{3}\right]\psi _i(kl)$$
(6)
where $`NN`$ and $`NNN`$ mean the nearest neighbors and next-nearest neighbors respectively and the lattice point is $`𝐫/\mathrm{\Delta }r=(k,l)`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the time step and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the lattice spacing. Both are dimensionless.

We have studied two systems in some detail. In both we choose $`ϵ=0.1`$ and use $`1024\times 1024`$ lattice sites. In system one, or the bigger system, we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.02`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\pi /4`$. In system two, or the smaller system, we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\pi /8`$. In both we measured the vortices number and the system energy. We measured the vortex speed distribution only in the bigger system.

We prepare the system initially in a completely disordered state. The average magnitude $`\overline{M}`$ of the vector order parameter $`\stackrel{}{\psi }`$ at time $`t`$ is calculated and the vortices’ core regions are identified with those sites on which the order parameter magnitudes $`|\stackrel{}{\psi }|<\overline{M}/4`$. Usually each core has about 10 sites in it. Here the coefficient $`1/4`$ is appropriately chosen so that no vortices are missed and no irrelevant points are picked. A circular integration around each vortex produces $`2\pi `$ or $`2\pi `$, which corresponds to two types of vortices of topological charges $`+1`$ and $`1`$ respectively. In fact there are situations where we obtain charge $`0`$. This is due to the non-zero area of the integration circle. When a pair of $`+1`$ and $`1`$ vortices annihilate and the distance between them becomes smaller than the size of the integration circle, the circular integration will reflect the sum of the two charges, which is $`0`$. However, the lifetime of these $`0`$ charges are much smaller than the lifetime of the $`\pm 1`$ vortices. So they do not affect our statistics. We find in our simulations that the numbers of positive and negative vortices are equal.

The position of a vortex is given by the center of its core region. Suppose the order parameter’s magnitude at the core region is described by $`M(x_i,y_i)`$ with $`(x_i,y_i)`$ belonging to the core region. Then by fitting $`M(x_i,y_i)`$ to the function $`M(x,y)=A+B[(xx_0)^2+(yy_0)^2]`$ we can find the center $`(x_0,y_0)`$.

The positions of each vortex at different times are recorded, and the speed is calculated using $`v=\mathrm{\Delta }d/\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ is the distance that the vortex travels in time $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. We have, simultaneously, recorded the number of vortices as a function of time and checked the scaling result given by Eq. (4).

## III Numerical Results

Every $`\delta t=10`$ we compute the speed of each vortex with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =5`$, i.e. $`v=|𝐫(t+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )𝐫(t)|/\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ with $`t`$ increasing by step length $`\delta t`$ and $`𝐫`$ being the position of the vortex. We found the average speed of the vortices $`\overline{v}(t)`$ is proportional to $`t^x`$ with $`x=0.51\pm 0.01`$ for the bigger system ($`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\pi /4`$) as shown in Fig. 2. Unlike the case for $`L_v(t)`$ extracted from $`n_v`$ and $`(EE_0)`$, we do not observe logarithmic correction for $`\overline{v}(t)`$. We can not rule out such corrections appearing on a longer time scale but they do not enter on the same time scale as for $`L_v(t)`$.

We compared the speed distribution at different times. They have approximately the same shape after being rescaled by the average speed. At early times this is clear. At late times there are fewer data points and the similarity between the two distributions at different times is not so apparent. Even at early times the number of data points are not enough to give a good fit to the distribution’s long tail. So we rescale the speed data with the best fit to the average speed $`\overline{v}(t)t^{0.51}`$ and put the data for all times into one histogram as shown in Fig. 3. By this means we obtain better statistics. We find that the distribution can be well fit to the function

$$P(\stackrel{~}{v})=\frac{2a\stackrel{~}{v}}{(1+a\stackrel{~}{v}^2)^2},$$
(7)
for $`a`$ between 2 and 2.5. The best fit is for $`a=2.12`$. However if we require that the average speed is given by the measured speed then we must have $`a=(\pi /2)^2=2.47`$. The best fit and the most consistent fit are both shown in Fig. 3. The distribution has a long tail which is approximately $`(v/\overline{v})^y`$ with $`y=3`$. If we just try to fit the long tail, then the best fit is given by $`a=2.47`$. These results are in excellent quantitative agreement with the theoretical prediction in Ref. .

In these results we have scaled the velocity with $`t^z`$ by taking $`z=x`$ just as the theory predicts. However the value of scaling exponent $`z`$ of the speed distribution is not very robust in our simulations. If we change the exponent $`z`$ and use $`t^z`$ to rescale the speed distribution at different times, and they also have approximately the same shape. So the uncertainty of $`z`$ is quite large. After being rescaled by $`t^z`$ and put into one histogram, the speed distribution for small and intermediate values of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ are somewhat dependent on the value of $`z`$. However, the power-law tail is quite robust. We alter the value of $`z`$ between $`0.4`$ and $`0.6`$, and find that the tail exponent changes by less than 0.1.

In both the larger and smaller systems the vortex number densities have the same time dependence. We obtain $`n_v\left[t/\mathrm{log}(t/t_0)\right]^1`$, where $`n_v`$ is the number density of vortices (positive or negative) and $`t_0`$ is a constant. In Fig. 4, we show the data for $`n_vt/S`$. $`S`$ is the area of the system. In Fig. 5, we show the data for the energy per unit area $`(EE_0)/S`$ times $`t`$. We conclude that the energy density is proportional to the number density of the vortices.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied the growth kinetics of the non-conserved TDGL model in the case of $`n=d=2`$. We measured the speed probability distribution for the $`\pm 1`$ vortices. At any given time with relatively few vortices, the statistics are poor. However the accumulated data for all times when scaled gives a scaling function with good statistics. Although the scaling exponent $`z`$ is 0.5 with significant uncertainty, the large speed tail does takes the form of $`(v/\overline{v})^y`$ with the exponent $`y=3`$. This is consistent with the theoretical prediction. The form of the distribution $`P(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ is quantitatively consistent with the theoretical prediction.

Why does the theory do so well? It was shown by Mazenko and Wickham , that one can construct a nontrivial self-consistent gaussian theory for the order parameter if it is constrained to be evaluated near a vortex core. Such constraints occur naturally, for example, in averages over the vortex density. This suggests that the theory developed in Ref.  may be on a firmer footing than first thought.

According to the theory, the average speed should be proportional to the inverse of the correlation length $`L(t)`$. We did not observe any logarithmic correction in the average speed, although it appears in the correlation length when $`n=d=2`$. However a logarithmic behavior may still exist. The time we used in our simulations may not be long enough to see the effect.

We also measured the number density of the vortices and the energy density of the two systems. Their time dependences both have a logarithmic correction, which is consistent with previous work.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Contract No. DMR-0099324.