text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the still actively discussed problems of deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) is related to the consideration of the Gottfried sum rule , namely

$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left[F_2^{lp}(x,Q^2)F_2^{ln}(x,Q^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(u_v(x,Q^2)d_v(x,Q^2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\overline{u}(x,Q^2)\overline{d}(x,Q^2)\right)\right]𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left(\overline{u}(x,Q^2)\overline{d}(x,Q^2)\right)𝑑x.`$
This sum rule is the first non-single (NS) moment of the difference of $`F_2`$ structure functions (SFs) of charged lepton-nucleon DIS which in general has the following definition:

$$M_n^{NS}(Q^2)=_0^1x^{n2}\left[F_2^{lp}(x,Q^2)F_2^{ln}(x,Q^2)\right]𝑑x$$
(2)
An extensive discussion of the current studies of this sum rule was given in the review of Ref. . However, for the sake of completeness, we will remind the existing experimental situation,which is stimulating the continuation of the research of various subjects, related to the Gottfried sum rule.

In fact if the sea is flavour symmetric, namely $`\overline{u}`$=$`\overline{d}`$, one should have

$$I_{GSR}=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(3)
However, the most detailed analysis of muon-nucleon DIS data of NMC collaboration gives the following result :

$$I_{GSR}^{exp}(Q^2=4\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.235\pm 0.026.$$
(4)
It clearly indicates the violation of theoretical expression of Eq.(3) and necessitates more detailed investigations of different effects, related to the Gottfried sum rule. In this Letter we reconsider the question of studying the contributions of $`\alpha _s^2`$, corrections to this sum rule previously raised in Ref. .

## 2 Available perturbative corrections

The status of the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ perturbative QCD corrections to $`I_{GSR}`$ was summarised in Ref. . Following this review, we will extend its presentation to the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ level.

It should be stressed that the renormalisation group equation for $`I_{GSR}`$ contains the anomalous dimension term:

$$\left[\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta (A_s)\frac{}{A_s}\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}(A_s)\right]C_{I_{GSR}}(A_s)=0$$
(5)
where $`A_s=\alpha _s/(4\pi )`$ and

$$\mu \frac{A_s}{\mu }=2\underset{i0}{}\beta _iA_s^{i+2}$$
(6)
The first two scheme-independent coefficients in Eq. (6) are well-known:

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_A{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f\right)=110.666667n_f`$ (7)
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}C_A^22C_Fn_f{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}C_An_f\right)=10212.6667n_f`$ (8)
where $`C_F=4/3`$, $`C_A=3`$ and $`n_f`$ is the number of active flavours.

The corresponding anomalous dimension function has the canonical expansion

$$\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}=\underset{i0}{}\gamma _i^{n=1}A_s^{i+1}.$$
(9)
However, like in the case of the first moments of SFs of $`\nu N`$ DIS, the first coefficient of the NS anomalous dimension function of the first moment $`\gamma _0^{n=1}`$ is identically equal to zero. The difference is starting to manifest itself from the two-loop level, where in order to get the corresponding result in case of anomalous dimension for $`I_{GSR}`$ it is necessary to make analytical continuation and to use the so-called (+) prescription (see e.g. Ref. ). In the case of $`\gamma _1^{n=1}`$ this was done in Ref.  and Ref.  and result in the following analytical expression

$$\gamma _1^{n=1}=4(C_F^2C_FC_A/2)[13+8\zeta (3)2\pi ^2]=+2.55755$$
(10)
where the numerical value of $`\zeta (3)`$=1.2020569 was taken into account. The perturbative corrections to $`I_{GSR}`$ can be obtained from the solution of the renormalisation group equation of Eq. (5):

$$I_{GSR}(A_s)=AD(A_s)\times C(A_s)$$
(11)
where the anomalous dimension term is defined as

$$AD(A_s)=exp\left[_\delta ^{A_s(Q^2)}\frac{\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}(x)}{\beta (x)}𝑑x\right].$$
(12)
Since the first coefficient of $`\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}`$ is identically zero ( namely $`\gamma _0^{n=1}`$=0), there is no singularity in $`AD(A_s)`$ and we can put in Eq. (12) the lower bound of integration $`\delta =0`$. In this case we obtain the following expression for the expansion of $`AD(A_s)`$ up to $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$-corrections:

$$AD(A_s(Q^2))=1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\gamma _1^{n=1}}{\beta _0}A_s(Q^2)+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\gamma _1^{n=1})^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\gamma _1^{n=1}\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}+\frac{\gamma _2^{n=1}}{\beta _0}\right)A_s^2(Q^2).$$
(13)
The only unknown terms here is the third coefficient $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ of the anomalous dimension function $`\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}(A_s)`$, which in general is scheme-dependent.

In the cases of $`n_f=3`$ and $`n_f=4`$ the numerical versions of Eq. (13) read

$`AD(\alpha _s)_{n_f=3}`$ $`=`$ $`1+0.0355\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left(0.0392+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^{n=1}}{64\beta _0}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2`$ (14)
$`AD(\alpha _s)_{n_f=4}`$ $`=`$ $`1+0.0384\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left(0.0415+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^{n=1}}{64\beta _0}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2`$ (15)
where the scheme-dependent expression for $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ is still unknown. Its value will be fixed in the next section using the results of calculations in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme.

Few words should be added here on the perturbative theory expansion of $`C(A_s)`$. From the general grounds it should have the following form:

$$C(A_s)=\frac{1}{3}\left[1+C_1^{n=1}A_s(Q^2)+C_2^{n=1}A_s^2(Q^2)\right].$$
(16)
As was found in Ref.  its first coefficient is zero, namely $`C_1^{n=1}=0`$. However, as will be shown in the next section the non-zero perturbative theory contribution is appearing at the two-loop level.

## 3 Calculations and estimates of the $`\alpha _s^2`$ contributions

We will start from the calculations of perturbative contribution to the coefficient function $`C(A_s)`$ at the $`\alpha _s^2`$-level. It can be obtained after applying (+) prescription to the results of Ref. . Indeed, the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ correction to the coefficient function of $`I_{GSR}`$ is defined by taking the first moment from the sum

$$C_2^{n=1}=_0^1\left[C_2^{(2),()}(x,1)+C_2^{(2),(+)}(x,1)\right]𝑑x,$$
(17)
where the expressions for the functions $`C_2^{(2),()}(x,1)`$ and $`C_2^{(2),(+)}(x,1)`$ were calculated in Ref.  and confirmed with the help of another technique in Ref.. Integrating Eq. (17) numerically with arbitrary Casimir operators $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$, we obtain the following $`n_f`$-independent and scheme-independent result

$`C(A_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[10\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+(3.695C_F^21.847C_FC_A)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[10.821\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right].`$
Combining now Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) with Eq. (18) we find the following expressions for $`I_{GSR}`$:

$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.0355\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left(0.862+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^{n=1}}{64\beta _0}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right]`$ (19)
$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.0384\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)+\left(0.809+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2^{n=1}}{64\beta _0}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right]`$ (20)
where $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ is the NLO expression for $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant.

In order to get the feeling what might be the contribution of the terms proportional to $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ we will avoid extrapolation procedure of the values of $`\gamma _2^n`$ used in Ref., calculated analytically for even n=2,4,..,14 in the works of Ref. . Indeed, performing extrapolation from the even values of $`n`$ for the NLO terms $`\gamma _1^n`$ of the corresponding anomalous dimension function, we are obtaining the following estimate $`\gamma _1^{n=1}=28.23`$, which is 10 times larger that the real value given in Eq. (10). Therefore, the used in Ref. extrapolation procedure is considerably overestimating the value of the coefficient $`\gamma _1^{n=1}`$. The similar situation can occur in the case of using extrapolation procedure for fixing the value of $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$. Indeed, following the ideas of Ref. we get from extrapolation of the known even values for $`\gamma _2^n`$ the following estimates: $`\gamma _2^{n=1}361`$ for $`n_f=3`$ and $`\gamma _2^{n=1}283`$ for $`n_f=4`$, which to our point of view might be unrealistically large.

Keeping in mind that only direct calculation of $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ can give the real numerical value of this term, we nevertheless are proposing the following way of fixing uncalculated contribution to $`\gamma _{I_{GSR}}^{n=1}`$ function. We noticed the following numerical pattern of the behaviour of anomalous dimension function for $`n2`$: $`\gamma _1^n/\gamma _2^n0.12`$ for $`n_f`$=4 (see Ref. and Ref. especially). We have checked that for $`n_f`$=3 the similar relation is $`\gamma _1^n/\gamma _2^n0.09`$ for $`n2`$. Hoping that these relations are also valid in case of $`n1`$ , we estimate the values for $`\gamma _2^{n=1}=(1/0.12)\gamma _1^{n=1}21.3`$ in the case of $`n_f=4`$ and $`\gamma _2^{n=1}=(1/0.09)\gamma _1^{n=1}28.4`$ in the case of $`n_f=3`$. Substituting them into Eq.(19) and Eq.(20) we get:

$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.0355\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)0.811\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right]`$ (21)
$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.0384\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)0.822\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\right].`$ (22)
Taking now $`\alpha _s(Q^2)0.35`$ we arrive to the following numerical versions of Eq.(21) and Eq.(22):

$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.00390.0101\right]=0.3313`$ (23)
$`I_{GSR}(Q^2)_{n_f=4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+0.00420.0102\right]=0.3313`$ (24)
Therefore in presented expression for the the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ correction to the Gottfried sum rule is larger then the order $`\alpha _s`$-term.

Theoretical errors to the presented third terms in Eqs.(21)-(34) are coming from the errors of $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ terms in Eqs. (19), (20), which is impossible to estimate without their direct theoretical calculations. In any case these terms are damped by huge numbers $`(64\beta _0)`$ and it is unlikely that the direct calculations of $`\gamma _2^{n=1}`$ terms will change the results of Eqs.(23), (24) substantially. One can check this conclusion using the overestimated to our point of view results of application of the extrapolation procedure. Moreover, the main contributions to the $`\alpha _s^2`$-term in Eqs. (21)-(24) come from the calculated by us $`\alpha _s^2`$ term of the coefficient function of the Gottfried sum rule.

## 4 Comments on violation of the Gottfried sum rule

In the previous section we found that order $`\alpha _s^2`$ perturbative QCD corrections to the Gottfried sum rule are really small and can not describe violation of the theoretical prediction from its NMC experimental value. This, in turn, lead to the necessity of introduction of the effect of flavour asymmetry of antiquark distributions in the nucleon , namely

$$_0^1𝑑x\left[\overline{d}(x,4\mathrm{GeV}^2)\overline{u}(x,4\mathrm{GeV}^2)\right]_{NMC}=0.147\pm 0.039.$$
(25)
This phenomenological result is important for fixing the corresponding $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ratio in different sets of parton distribution functions, which are relevant to the LHC physics (for a review see e.g. Ref.  ). On the other side the consideration of available E866 data for the Drell-Yan production in proton-proton and proton-deuteron scattering has confirmed the effects of flavour asymmetry. Indeed the analysis of Ref.  gave the following number

$$_{0.015}^{0.35}𝑑x\left[\overline{d}(x,54\mathrm{GeV}^2)\overline{u}(x,54\mathrm{GeV}^2)\right]_{E866}=0.0803\pm 0.011.$$
(26)
It was also noted in Ref.  that it is unlikely to receive additional contribution to Eq. (26)from the region above $`x=0.35`$, since the sea is rather small in this region. However, the contribution to this whole integral from the unmeasured region $`x0.015`$ is missed. The attempt to fix it was made in Ref.  using the extrapolation to small $`x`$ region. As the result the authors of Ref.  suggested the manifestation of substantial contribution of twist-4 $`1/Q^2`$-effects in Eq. (1). Note, that final E866 result is

$$_0^1𝑑x\left[\overline{d}(x,54\mathrm{GeV}^2)\overline{u}(x,54\mathrm{GeV}^2)\right]_{E866}=0.118\pm 0.012.$$
(27)
is closer to NMC result, than obtained in Ref. extrapolated value, namely

$$_0^1𝑑x\left[\overline{d}(x,50\mathrm{GeV}^2)\overline{u}(x,50\mathrm{GeV}^2)\right]_{Ref.\text{[16]}}=0.09\pm 0.02.$$
(28)
Therefore, in order to understand the status of their conclusion on the possibility of existence of substantial contribution of the $`1/Q^2`$-corrections to the Gottfried sum rule it is necessary to be more careful in performing extrapolations to low $`x`$-region. It is highly desirable to estimate the effects of higher-twist contributions to the Gottfried sum rule using any concrete model. However, one should keep in mind that there are also some other explanations of the observed deviation from the canonical value $`1/3`$ for the Gottfried sum rule (see Ref.  and Ref.  for the review of other works on the subject).

## 5 Conclusions

In summary: we found non-zero $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ perturbative QCD contributions to the
coefficient function of the Gottfried sum rule. We also estimated the effect due to non-zero value of the three-loop contribution to NS anomalous dimension function for $`n=1`$ moment, which as we think is rather small. More detailed result can be obtained after completing the analytical calculations of the three-loop corrections to the NS kernel of DGLAP equation. This work is now in progress (see e.g. Ref. ). In any case the value of the $`\alpha _s^2`$-correction is dominated by the calculated in this Letter contribution to the coefficient function, which is negative, but also small. Therefore, the existing NMC observation of the flavour asymmetry between $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ antiquarks is surviving. We hope that the possible future new HERA data might be useful for more detailed measurement of the Gottfried sum rule and for further studies of the effect of flavour asymmetry in the $`\overline{d}/\overline{u}`$ ratio.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to J. Blumlein and W. van Neerven for stimulating us to reconsider the effects of contributions of the order $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ corrections to the Gottfried sum rule. We would like to thank S.I. Alekhin for discussions. The work of ALK was done within scientific program of RFBR Grants N 02-01-00601, 03-02-17047 and 03-02-17177, The work of GP was supported by Galician research funds (PGIDT00 PX20615PR) and Spanish CICYT (FPA 2002-01161).


format: text

text:
# Spin magnetization of strongly correlated electron gas confined in a two-dimensional finite lattice

## I Introduction

The combined effect of carrier interactions and Pauli principle leads to itinerant ferromagnetism in metals whenever the kinetic energy gain by parallel alignment of electronic spins is exceeded by the exchange energy of the antisymmetric wave function (kim ). The simplest model is the Hund’s rule in atoms, where the energy is minimized when the fermionic wave function corresponds to the alignment of spins. Meanwhile the electron-spin correlations seems to be an important factor in the two-dimensional (2D) metal-insulator transition mit . Measurements of the in-plane magnetoconductivity of a dilute 2D electron system in silicon heterostructures have shown the evidence for a zero-temperature quantum phase transition at critical density, indicating the existence of a ferromagnetic instability (vitkalov ,shashkin ). On the other hand a new method that measures the minute thermodynamic spin magnetization of a dilute 2D electron system in a silicon inversion layer favors the paramagnetic phase over the spontaneous magnetization prus .

The interaction strength between electrons is traditionally described by the 2D Wigner-Seitz radius, $`r_s=1/(\pi n_sa_B^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius and $`n_s=n/L^2`$ sheet density of electrons. As a function of $`r_s`$ the ground state of the 2D electron gas can be, for instance, a Wigner crystal (in dilute limit, at $`r_s35`$ tanatar ), a ferromagnetic Fermi liquid with spontaneous magnetization or a paramagnetic Fermi liquid. An improved hypernetted-chain approximation was employed to study the 2D electron liquid at full Fermi degeneracy perrot ; bulutay . The results indicate the paramagnetic phase as the ground state of the system until the Wigner crystallization density, even the separation with polarized states become minute (the energy difference with the ferromagnetic phase diminishes to milliRydbergs). In contrast, the transition from paramagnetic fluid phase to Wigner crystallization was recently studied for a 2D electron gas by diffusion Monte Carlo simulations including the backflow corrections varsano  showing the stability range of a polarized phase in-between. The earlier work including the backflow correlations did not find the polarization transition kwon . More recently a weakly first-order transition to a spin-polarized state was found to occur shortly before the Wigner crystallization attaccalite .

Hubbard model is the simplest tool that can capture some of the salient properties of correlated systems. A delocalized Coulomb phase in 2D was observed in the calculations of by Waintal et al.waintal  which showed the transition from the Anderson insulator towards an extended phase. Mean-field approximation considered in an unrestricted Hartree-Fock ansatz (UHF) was compared with constrained path quantum Monte Carlo method for repulsive Hubbard model at half-fillingenjarlan  and found both Anderson and Mott insulator phases. In a 3D system numerical mean-field studies by Tusch and Logantusch  at the unrestricted Hartree-Fock level revealed the phase diagram at half-filling. The phase diagram in a 2D system is studied by Hirschhirsch  using a square lattice with nearest-neighbor hopping.

Nowadays there is also a growing interest in the spin polarization and Stoner instability of finite-size disordered systems baranger ,jacquod ,eisenberg ,brouwer , andreev . In quantum dots, the singlet-triplet transitions even for weak interactions cause switching between states and a kink in the conductance baranger . For interaction strength below the Stoner criterion a nonzero spin ground state was found for an ensemble of small metallic grains in the Hartree-Fock approximation brouwer . Close to the Stoner instability in a 2D metallic system there is an exponentially small probability for the appearance of local spin dropletsnarozhny . The tendency of disorder to exhibit the magnetism of ground state was already pointed out in some recent workseisenberg , benenti ,berkovits . Meanwhile the fluctuations of the interaction matrix for different disorder ranges seem to have an important role in the spin polarization transition for finite systems. At crossover between random matrix ensembles the correlations between different eigenvectors give rise to enhanced fluctuations of the interaction matrix elements (IME) in small metallic grains and semiconductor quantum dots adam . When their fluctuations dominate a 2D random interaction model predicts an increased probability of a minimal spin for the ground state lowering in the tails of the energy band jacquod  and for a two-orbital model they also help in stabilizing a ground state with minimal spin hirose .

Our goal in this work is to study the influence of disorder and interactions on the polarization of the ground state for a 2D finite lattice. We treat the interaction effects at the unrestricted Hartree-Fock level (UHF), neglecting the off-diagonal contribution of the Coulomb matrix. This approximation permits us to write an effective one-body Hamiltonian, suitable for calculating the conductances in the Landauer-Büttiker formalism buttiker . We solve numerically the self-consistent set of equations for 2D systems with Hubbard interaction grater than the Coulomb interaction strength ($`U_HU`$). For different disorder ranges we study the fluctuations of the interaction matrix elements and point out their role in the disorder induced spin polarization.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we outline the theoretical framework of unrestricted Hartree-Fock approximation and develop an effective Hamiltonian for the problem at hand. In Sec. III we present our results for the fluctuations in the interaction matrix elements in various disorder regimes. Section IV discusses the possibility of disorder enhanced spin polarization within our model. We close by listing our main conclusions in Sec. V.

## II The unrestricted Hartree-Fock formalism

We study a disordered rectangular lattice with $`n`$ fermions on $`L^2=L_xL_y`$ sites with vanishing boundary conditions imposed. If $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{i\sigma }`$ are the creation and annihilation operators of an electron at site $`i`$ with spin $`\sigma `$, the Hamiltonian will be defined as follows:

$`H=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>,\sigma }{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}\omega _in_{i,\sigma }+U_{Hub}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i`$ (1)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{i,\sigma }n_{j,\sigma ^{}}}{|ij|}}`$
where $`n_{i,\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ is the occupation number operator, $`\omega _i`$ is the random Anderson disorder ($`\omega _i[W/2,W/2]`$), $`U_{Hub}`$ and $`U`$ are the strength of the Hubbard and long-range Coulomb interaction, and $`t`$ is the energy unit of the hopping integral (it will be considered equal to unity). For $`\omega _i`$ set to zero, the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) is the extended Hubbard model, used for studying the correlated systemsmahan . The Hubbard term was first introduced in hubbard  and the argument in favor of it is that only electrons with opposite spins can occupy the same state (Pauli exclusion principle).

We write the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (1) in a basis formed by two sets of orthonormalized single-particle states $`\varphi _\alpha ^{}(i)`$, $`\varphi _\alpha ^{}(i)`$ with $`\alpha [1,L^2]`$ (unrestricted Hartree-Fock orbitals). Creation and annihilation operators in the new basis $`c_{\alpha \sigma }^+`$ and $`c_{\alpha \sigma }`$ are given by the transformation $`c_{\alpha ,\sigma }^{}=_i\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)c_{i,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{\alpha ,\sigma }=_i\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)c_{i,\sigma }`$. Employing the variational principle, we look for the self-consistent set of eigenvectors $`\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)`$ that minimize the ground state energy $`E_G`$ for a given number of electrons $`n`$ and a definite component of spin along an arbitrary $`z`$ axis, $`S_z`$. The ground state will be a Slater determinant $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ that correspond to the $`n_\sigma `$ electrons in the states $`\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)`$ for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n_\sigma `$ and $`\sigma =,`$ ($`n_{}`$+$`n_{}`$=$`n`$):

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_G=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n_{}}{}}c_{\alpha ,}^{}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n_{}}{}}c_{\alpha ,}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(2)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the vacuum gutzwiller . The eigenvectors $`\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)`$ and the corresponding Lagrange multipliers $`ϵ_\alpha ^\sigma `$ that give the lowest energy solution for the ground state energy $`E_G=\mathrm{\Psi }_G|H|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ will be calculated by the variational principle. After a straightforward calculation one obtains the following spin-separable Hamiltonian $`H^{eff}=_\sigma H_\sigma `$ for $`\sigma =,`$:

$`H_\sigma =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<i,j>}{}}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\omega _i+V_D(i)+V_{Hub}^\sigma (i)]n_{i,\sigma }`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}V_{Ex}^\sigma (i,j)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }`$
with $`\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)`$ and $`ϵ_\alpha ^\sigma `$ eigenvectors and eigenvalues of Eq. (3): $`H_\sigma |\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma =ϵ_\alpha ^\sigma |\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma `$. The time reversal symmetry of $`H`$ ensures the possibility of choosing a real system of eigenvectors.

The matrix elements $`V_D(i)`$, $`V_{Ex}^\sigma (i,j)`$ and $`V_{Hub}^\sigma (i)`$ (direct, exchange and Hubbard interactions, respectively) are related to the single particle eigenvectors by the following formulae (we stress that in the following $`\overline{\sigma }`$ means the opposite spin of $`\sigma `$):

$$V_D(i)=2U\underset{ji}{}\frac{_\sigma _{\alpha =1}^{n_\sigma }|\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (j)|^2}{|ij|}$$
(4)
$$V_{Ex}^\sigma (i,j)=2U\frac{_{\alpha =1}^{n_\sigma }\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (j)\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)}{|ij|}$$
(5)
$$V_{Hub}^\sigma (i)=U_{Hub}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n_{\overline{\sigma }}}{}}|\varphi _\alpha ^{\overline{\sigma }}(i)|^2$$
(6)
The ground state energy is given by:

$`E_G=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma }{}}ϵ_\alpha ^\sigma +U{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma ^{}}{}}V_{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma ^{}}^{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma ^{}}U{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma }{}}V_{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma }^{\beta \sigma ,\alpha \sigma }`$ (7)
$`+U_{Hub}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \overline{\sigma }}{}}C_{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \overline{\sigma }}^{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \overline{\sigma }}`$
where the second and the third terms are the contributions of direct and exchange interaction, respectively, to the ground state energy, and the last term is the Hubbard interaction. The summations in Eq. (7) are over the occupied states $`|\alpha \sigma `$ from Eq. (2). The Coulomb and Hubbard interaction matrix elements are given as

$$V_{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma ^{}}^{\gamma \sigma ,\delta \sigma ^{}}=\underset{ij}{}\frac{\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)\varphi _\gamma ^\sigma (i)\varphi _\beta ^\sigma ^{}(j)\varphi _\delta ^\sigma ^{}(j)}{|ij|},$$
(8)
$$C_{\alpha \sigma ,\beta \sigma ^{}}^{\gamma \sigma ,\delta \sigma ^{}}=\underset{i}{}\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma (i)\varphi _\gamma ^\sigma (i)\varphi _\beta ^\sigma ^{}(i)\varphi _\delta ^\sigma ^{}(i).$$
(9)
Omitting the off-diagonal matrix elements ($`(\alpha ,\beta )(\gamma ,\delta )`$) in Eq. (7) yields the Hartree-Fock approximation. The reason for doing this will be discussed subsequently.

The basic parameters of our theoretical framework are the electron number $`n`$, the long-range Coulomb interaction $`U`$, the Hubbard interaction strength $`U_{Hub}`$, and the disorder amplitude $`W`$. Equations (3-7) constitute a set of self-consistent equations to yield the eigenstates $`\varphi _\alpha ^\sigma ,ϵ_\alpha ^\sigma `$ and the energy $`E_G`$ for a given set of spin occupation numbers ($`n_{},n_{}`$) with $`n_{}+n_{}=n`$. At every step of the numerical calculation, the matrix elements \[described by Eqs. (4-6)\] of $`H^{eff}`$ will be calculated for the spin occupation numbers that give the minimum energy in the previous step. The first Slater determinant of Eq. (3) will be formed by noninteracting eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian \[Eq. (1)\] with $`U=U_{Hub}=0`$. Varying the spin occupation numbers so that $`M_z[0,1]`$ we calculate $`E_G(M_z)`$ whose minimum value gives the spin magnetization $`M_z`$ of the system. The stability of the self-consistent solutions is very sensitive at larger Coulomb interaction strengths, forcing us to keep a relatively small values of the interaction parameter $`U`$. Because of the spin rotational symmetry of the Hamiltonian, one limits the numerical calculations only to positive spin magnetization ($`n_{}n_{}`$).

Increasing the amplitude of disorder the spectrum of noninteracting Hamiltonian $`H_0=t_{<i,j>,\sigma }c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+_{i,\sigma }\omega _in_{i,\sigma }`$ evolves from weakly to strongly localized regime while the eigenvalue statistics exhibits a crossover between Wigner and Poisson distributions zharekeshev . As a consequence the distribution function of neighboring level spacing undergoes a continuous crossover from Wigner surmise $`P_W(s)=\pi s/2\mathrm{exp}(\pi s^2/4)`$ with the variance $`\delta (s)=\sqrt{4/\pi 1}0.52`$ toward Poisson $`P_P(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s)`$ with $`\delta (s)=1`$. ($`s`$ is the dimensionless level spacing measured in the unit of the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }=S`$). This scenario is also available when the Hubbard interaction is taken into account. For nonzero spin magnetization, the whole spectrum of $`H^{eff}`$ consists of two distinct sequences of the two spectra of the $`H_{}`$ and $`H_{}`$. The spectrum of $`H_{}`$ depends on the site occupation number $`n_{}(i)`$ \[c.f. Eq. (6)\] that will become zero at large $`U_H`$ (when $`M_z=1`$ and $`n_{}=n`$), conserving the eigenstates degree of localization as in the noninteracting case. Meanwhile, the spectrum of $`H_{}`$ depends on the site occupation number $`n_{}(i)`$ (whose average over disorder configurations will become equal to $`n/L^2`$) and moves up at a rate of $`V_{Hub}^{}_{disorder}=U_{Hub}n/L^2`$. The spectrum of $`H_{}`$ becomes delocalized as a counterpart of $`V_{Hub}^{}(i)`$ against the disorder potentials $`\omega (i)`$. In Fig. 1 we show the differences in the two sequences of spectrum, $`H_{}`$ states being more delocalized compared to $`H_{}`$ states at the same $`W`$. The variance $`\delta (s)0.7`$ in Fig. 1(a) for $`W=10`$ as for the noninteracting spectrum in the inset of Fig. 2(c). In Fig. 2(c) the variance $`\delta (s)0.8`$ for a system size $`L^2=89`$ with disorder amplitude $`W=20`$. One notes that for a finite system the discreteness of the energy spectrum does not allow for a real Poisson distribution and the level repulsion characteristic to Wigner surmise is present even at the critical point of Anderson transition fyodorov . The effect of the Coulomb interaction ($`U0,U_{Hub}=0`$) over the spectrum properties concerns the localization effect of long range interaction for $`\xi L`$ berkovits , the edge localization of the occupied Hartree levels vali  suggested also in levit  and increasing gap near $`ϵ_F`$ levit . In the large lattice size limit the Coulomb interaction induces a delocalization process by the meaning of Poisson-Wigner transition of level spacing distributions song .

## III Interaction Matrix Fluctuations

The Coulomb interaction matrix elements (CME) $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\gamma ,\delta }`$ from Eq. (8) and the Hubbard matrix elements (HME) $`C_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\gamma ,\delta }`$ from Eq. (9) are calculated for disorder functions in different localization regimes. To this purpose, we use the eigenvectors $`\varphi _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1\mathrm{}L^2`$) generated by the noninteracting Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ for different degrees of disorder characterized by $`W`$. For a 2D lattice with $`L^2=L_xL_y=89`$ we have identified three disordered regimes: (i) extended, when $`\delta (s)0.52\pm 0.01`$ for $`W[1,4]`$ (Fig. 2(c)); (ii) strongly localized regime with $`\xi <L`$ and Poisson like repulsion eigenvalues ($`\delta (s)>0.8`$ and $`W>15`$); (iii) weak localization as intermediate for $`W[4,15]`$ when the localization length $`\xi `$ crosses the system length $`L`$. The identification of these three regimes of localization is made for the purpose of analyzing numerical results presented in this work and to help in discussing the features of the interaction matrix elements values. When transport properties are involved, extended and weakly localized regimes have a common meaning, usually addressed as a metallic regime with $`\xi >L`$ and $`g0.5`$ (where $`g`$ is dimensionless conductance). In the following we discuss the main properties of the interaction matrix elements in various disordered regimes.

A. The disorder average of the CME with equal indexes $`V_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{\alpha ,\alpha }`$ depends on the eigenvectors correlations $`|\varphi _\alpha ^2(i)||\varphi _\alpha ^2(j)|`$ with $`ij`$. It has large values in the extended and weak localization regimes where the correlations of the same eigenvectors are proportional to $`1/g`$ for large distances blanter  and decreasing to zero when the states became strongly localized on singular lattice points $`\varphi _\alpha (i)=\delta _{i,i_\alpha }`$ (Fig. 2(a)). We note that these matrix elements together with the Hubbard term $`C_{\alpha ,\alpha }^{\alpha ,\alpha }`$ give the whole interaction energy of the two electrons (with opposite spin) in the state $`\alpha `$ (c.f. Eq. (7)). In contrast, the direct matrix elements $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ with $`\alpha \beta `$ are decreasing when the disorder is increased, keeping constant values for strong disorder (Fig. 2(a)). In this case, assuming that the two states $`\varphi _\alpha `$,$`\varphi _\beta `$ are strongly localized in the two random points $`i_\alpha `$,$`i_\beta `$ we obtain $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\alpha ,\beta }_{config}=_{i_\alpha j_\beta }\frac{1}{|i_\alpha j_\beta |}_{r.p.}`$, where the last average is made over all possible random pairs of points $`(i_\alpha ,i_\beta )`$. For a 2D system with $`L^2=88`$ and vanishing boundary conditions $`_{i_\alpha j_\beta }\frac{1}{|i_\alpha j_\beta |}_{r.p.}=0.319`$ and for $`L^2=1414`$ it is equal to $`0.194`$ and these values are close to the averages reached by $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\alpha ,\beta }_{config}`$ in Fig. 2(b).

B. The exchange matrix elements $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\beta ,\alpha }`$ and the off-diagonal matrix elements $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\gamma ,\delta }`$ (with $`(\alpha ,\beta )(\gamma ,\delta )`$) in Fig. 2(b) have maximum values in the weak localization regime for $`W5.5\pm 0.5`$ when $`\xi >L`$. This is the region where the eigenvector correlations are large. For uncorrelated states in the strongly localized regime, the off-diagonal matrix elements are decreasing to zero faster than the exchange matrix elements. This is also possible for weakly localized regime when the exchange elements are calculated between the uncorrelated states whose eigenvalues are well separated. In the inset of Fig. 2(b) the exchange matrix elements $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\beta ,\alpha }`$ are lower when eigenvalue differences $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ are increased. The negative values in Fig. 2(b) for $`V_{\alpha ,\beta }^{\beta ,\alpha }`$ when $`1\xi L`$ are a property of the finiteness of the system and the orthogonality of the eigenvectors $`\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta `$.

C. The Hubbard matrix elements are given by the inverse participation ratio of a state $`\varphi _\alpha `$, $`C_{\alpha ,\alpha }=_i\varphi _\alpha ^4(i)`$ that evolves from $`1/L^2`$ for extended states to $`1`$ for strongly localized ones (Fig. 2(c)). The off-diagonal terms $`C_{\alpha ,\beta }=_i\varphi _\alpha ^2(i)\varphi _\beta ^2(i)`$ decay to zero for strongly localized states and have maximum values in the weakly localized regime where the correlations of two different eigenfunctions are proportional to $`1/g`$ blanter . This suggests that the spin polarization transition when $`U_H0`$ is larger in the strongly disordered regime. As a characteristic of a finite system, the saturation of the inverse participation ratio ($`C_{\alpha ,\alpha }=1`$) corroborated with the linear increase of the mean level spacing makes impossible a spin polarization transition for very large disorder. It does not take place in the thermodynamic limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$ and lattice parameter $`a=const.`$) when the neighboring level separation $`S0`$.

The fluctuations of the interaction matrix elements for different disorder ranges are presented in Fig. 3. For small disorder, the probability density distributions of the IME are large and they typically have a Gaussian shape. The exchange (and off-diagonal) matrix element fluctuations become sharper when their mean values become zero and the inverse participation ratio has larger fluctuations when disorder is increased, with a shape evolution similar to increasing the Coulomb interaction strength (compare with Fig. 5 in Levit and Orgadlevit ). We notice the asymmetric long tail fluctuations of direct, exchange and Hubbard matrix elements (Fig. 3 for $`W=10`$), the last two permitting an increased probability of the spin polarization transition even when the Stoner criterion does not allow it.

## IV Disorder enhanced spin polarization

The formula of $`E_G`$ given in Eq. (7) for the ground state energy written as an unrestricted Slater determinant \[Eq. (2)\] means that we omit the off-diagonal matrix elements from expansion of $`E_G`$. In Fig. 2(b) the largest values of the off-diagonal elements in the weak localization regime ($`V^{off}0.008\pm 0.01`$) are much lower than the mean level spacing ($`\delta (S)0.2\pm 0.1`$ in Fig. 2(c)) providing us a good approximation in neglecting them when the Coulomb interaction strength $`U5`$. The Stoner criterion for itinerant magnetism is related to the exchange energy gain by an antisymmetric spin polarized two-body wave function that compensates the reduction of the kinetic energy. With our ansatz, in the regime of extended metallic waves it is expected that the large exchange matrix elements (especially the elements $`V_{\alpha \alpha +1}^{\alpha +1\alpha }`$) can favor a singlet-triplet transition when $`UV^{ex}S`$. For a 2D system with $`L^2=89`$, $`S0.2`$ and $`V^{ex}0.05`$ (in the weak localization regime for $`W=6`$) the interaction strength $`U`$ must be at least $`4`$. Besides, the enhanced interaction due to the increased return probability exhibits a finite temperature partial spin polarization andreev . By increasing the disorder, the exchange matrix elements have positive long tail fluctuations at values larger than the disorder averages (Fig. 3(a)) compensating the level repulsion of neighboring levels (and favoring also a less probable singlet-triplet transition). This will not be possible for strongly localized states when any overlap integral is equal to $`0`$. In Fig. 4 we can see this scenario for a small value of the Coulomb interaction $`U=0.4`$. Difficulties in solving the self-consistent equations \[Eqs. (3-7)\] for larger values of the interaction strength $`U`$ prevent us from obtaining reasonable polarization transition when $`U_H=0`$. The small values of $`M_z`$ in this case represent the rare events in the disorder configuration space when the fluctuations of $`V^{ex}`$ are larger than level repulsion.

The disorder induced spin polarization was previously obtained benenti  for the periodic boundary conditions with $`U=U_H`$ and for a truncated many-body Hilbert space. This is possible for nonzero Hubbard interaction strength $`U_H`$ when the evolution of $`S_z`$ is increased by disorder (different curves in Fig. 4). The full polarization regime ($`M_z=1`$) for a large value of $`W`$ seems to be stable for the constant filling factor $`n/L^2`$ when the system size is increased. As it was stressed before, for linearly increasing level spacing at larger disorder values, the spin alignment will be turned off when $`U_HC_{\alpha ,\alpha }=U_H<S_{\alpha ,\alpha +1}W/L^2`$ (see inset of Fig. 4). In Fig. 5 we calculate the evolution of $`M_z`$ varying the 2D electron density ($`n/L^2`$) for $`W=10`$. When the electron number is increased the system shows a smooth decrease in $`M_z`$. At the same time, the transmittances calculated with Landauer formula for electrons at Fermi level show the features of ’insulator-metal’ transition (in the inset of Fig. 5(a) the transmittances are enhanced by a factor of about $`4`$). As a function of system properties ($`W`$ and $`U_H`$) the spin magnetization can decrease from full or partially spin alignments. Our data show a possible transition toward a fully polarized state when the electron number $`n`$ is decreased, suggestive of and similar to experimental results of Vitkalov et al. vitkalov  and Shashkin et al.shashkin . This takes place only for the values of interaction/disorder parameters that allow for a total spin alignment at low electron density (see Fig. 5(b)).

## V Conclusion

In this work we have studied the interplay between the disorder and interaction effects with regard to the spin magnetization of correlated electrons on a finite 2D lattice. Our numerical calculations suggest that spin polarization occurs for a finite 2D system with a model of disorder both for extended and localized regimes. The main results we derive are listed below.
(i). The level repulsion of neighboring states in the extended (and weak localization) regime is balanced by the large values of exchange energy or by their long tail asymmetric fluctuations when the system is gradually localized and the eigenfunctions become (extremely) sparse. When the exchange elements decrease towards zero (increasing $`W`$) the spin polarization is not allowed unless strong Hubbard repulsion is turned on $`U_H0`$.
(ii). The disorder induced spin polarization is calculated for a finite 2D strongly correlated system and the data are self scaled in the limit of $`n/L^2=constant`$. In the framework of unrestricted HF orbitals this is due to the increased separation of up and down sequences of the spectrum. When the full polarization is assigned, the short range Hubbard interaction will have no localization effect over the occupied orbitals while the opposite spin orbitals become increasingly delocalized. For a finite system the disorder induced spin polarization will be cut off when the linearly increasing level spacing exceeds the saturation value of inverse participation ratio.
(iii). When the number of electrons $`n`$ decreases the 2D system can show a transition to a fully spin-polarized state. This, however, takes place only when the disorder ($`W`$) and interaction ($`U_H`$) strengths are properly tuned to allow for a ferromagnetic spin alignment in the system at low densities.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by CNCSIS and CERES. M. N. acknowledges support from NATO-TUBITAK. B. T. is supported by TUBITAK, NATO-SfP, MSB-KOBRA001, and TUBA.


text:
# Eigenvalues of Frobenius acting on the ℓ-adic cohomology of complete intersections of low degree

## 1. Introduction

If $`X^n`$ is a projective variety defined over the finite field $`k=𝔽_q`$ by equations of degrees $`d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_r`$, then the fundamental theorem of Ax and Katz  asserts that the number of rational points of $`X`$ fulfills

(1.1)
$$|X(𝔽_q)||^n(𝔽_q)|\text{mod}q^\kappa .$$

If $`X`$ is smooth, this is equivalent to saying that the eigenvalues of the Frobenius action on $`H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ for all $`i`$ are of the shape

(1.2)
$$q^\kappa \mathrm{algebraic}\mathrm{integer}.$$

Here $`\overline{X}=X\times _{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽_q}`$ and $`\overline{𝔽_q}`$ is the algebraic closure of $`𝔽_q`$, and $`\kappa `$ is the integral part of $`\frac{nd_1\mathrm{}d_r}{d_1}`$. Let us briefly recall why.

Let $`U=^nX`$, and let $`\zeta (U,t)`$ be the zeta function of $`U`$ defined by its logarithmic derivative

(1.3)
$$\frac{\zeta ^{}(U,t)}{\zeta (U,t)}=\underset{s1}{}|U(𝔽_{q^s})|t^{s1}.$$

By the theorem of Dwork , we know that $`\zeta (U,t)`$ is a rational function

(1.4)
$$\zeta (X,t)(t),$$

while Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula  gives a cohomological formula

(1.5)
$$\zeta (U,t)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{U})}{}}\mathrm{det}(1F_it)^{(1)^{i+1}},$$

where $`F_i`$ is the arithmetic Frobenius acting on the compactly supported $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology $`H_c^i(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})=H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}}).`$ For $`X`$ smooth, the Weil conjectures  assert that the eigenvalues in any complex embedding $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the arithmetic Frobenius acting on $`H^i(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ have absolute values $`q^{\frac{i}{2}}`$. If we moreover assume that $`X`$ is a complete intersection, then we know that only $`H_c^{nr}(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ is not equal to $`H^{nr}(\overline{^n},_{\mathrm{}})`$ () and we don’t need the Weil conjectures. The conclusion is that there is no possible cancellation between the numerator and the denominator of (1.5). Thus (1.1) for all finite field extensions $`𝔽_{q^s}𝔽_q`$ is equivalent to (1.2).

On the other hand, if we replace $`k`$ by a field of characteristic 0, keeping the same degree assumption, then we know that the Hodge type of $`X`$, that is the largest integer $`\mu `$ such that the Hodge filtration in de Rham cohomology satisfies

(1.6)
$$F^\mu H_{c,DR}^i(U)=H_{c,DR}^i(U)$$

is $`\kappa `$ (see  in the smooth case,  for hypersurfaces,  for complete intersections and  for the general case). The purpose of this note is to show

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X^n`$ be a complete intersection defined over the finite field $`k=𝔽_q`$ by equations of degrees $`d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_r`$. Then the eigenvalues of the arithmetic Frobenius acting on $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology $`H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ are of the shape $`q^\kappa \mathrm{algebraic}\mathrm{integer}`$ for all $`i`$, where $`\kappa `$ is the integral part of $`\frac{nd_2\mathrm{}d_r}{d_1}`$.

The proof reduces the assertion to Deligne’s integrality statement  which is true for all projective varieties, without supplementary assumptions. However, the reduction depends havily on the complete intersection assumption.

Acknowledgements. I thank Spencer Bloch, Pierre Deligne, Nick Katz, Madhav Nori and Daqing Wan for discussions on this topic. In particular, Spencer Bloch warned that the Gysin theorem 2.1 needed in the proof has to be justified, and Pierre Deligne provided a proof of it. In our induction, we originally reduced the theorem to , Corollaire 5.5.3, (ii). Nick Katz observed that without changing the induction, it is enough to reduce to , Corollaire 5.5.3, which is an easier statement.

## 2. The proof of Theorem 1.1

If $`X`$ is a complete intersection of dimension $`nr`$, Artin’s vanishing theorem , Théorème 3.1 implies

(2.1)
$$H^i(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})/H^i(\overline{^n},_{\mathrm{}})=H_c^{i+1}(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})=0\text{for}i<\mathrm{dim}X=nr.$$

By the Lefschetz trace formula (1.5), we see, as already observed by D. Wan (see introduction of ), that the theorem of Ax-Katz (1.1) together with the divisibility assertion for $`F_i`$ for all $`i`$ but one, implies the divisibility assertion for the last $`F_i`$. Thus we just have to show divisibility for $`i>nr`$, or equivalently divisibility of the $`F_i`$ acting on $`H_c^i(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})=H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`i>nr+1`$. Let $`A^{n1}`$ be a linear hyperplane in general position. One has an exact sequence of

(2.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}H_A^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})\hfill \\ \hfill H^i(\overline{^nA},\overline{XXA},_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

which is compatible with the Frobenius action. For $`i>nr+1`$, Artin’s vanishing theorem  again implies $`H^i(\overline{^nA},\overline{XXA},_{\mathrm{}})=0.`$ Thus we are reduced to proving the assertion for the Frobenius action on $`H_A^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`i>nr+1`$. One has

###### Theorem 2.1 (P. Deligne).

The Gysin homomorphism

$$H^{i2}(\overline{A},\overline{XA},_{\mathrm{}})(1)\stackrel{Gysin}{}H_A^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})$$

is an isomorphism of Frobenius modules for $`A`$ in a non-trivial open subset of the dual projective space $`(^n)^{}`$. More generally, if $``$ is a $`\mathrm{}`$-adic sheaf on $`^n`$, then for $`A`$ in a non-trivial open subset of the dual projective space $`(^n)^{}`$, the Gysin homomorphism

$$H^{i2}(A,i^{})(1)H_A^i(^n,),$$

where $`i:A^n`$ is the closed embedding, is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

(P. Deligne) We consider the universal family

(2.3)
$$\iota :𝒜=\{(x,A)^n\times _k(^n)^{},xA\}^n\times _k(^n)^{}$$

together with the projections

(2.4)
$$\mathrm{pr}_2:^n\times _k(^n)^{}(^n)^{},\mathrm{pr}_1:^n\times _k(^n)^{}(^n).$$

Since $``$ comes from $`^n`$, and $`𝒜^n\times _k(^n)^{}`$ is a smooth hypersurface such that $`𝒜^n`$ is smooth, the classical Gysin homomorphism is an isomorphism

(2.5)
$$\iota ^{}\mathrm{pr}_1^{}[2](1)\stackrel{}{}\iota ^!\mathrm{pr}_1^{}.$$

By , Corollaire 2.9 applied to $`\mathrm{pr}_2`$, there is a non-empty open subset $`V(^n)^{}`$ such that for all $`AV`$ one has the base changes

(2.6)
$$i_A^{}(\iota ^{}\mathrm{pr}_1^{}[2](1))=i^{}[2](1),i_A^{}(\iota ^!\mathrm{pr}_1^{})=i^!,$$

where $`i_A:𝒜q^1A=A\times \{A\}^n\times \{A\}`$. Thus (2.5) and (2.6) imply that for such a $`A`$, $`i^{}[2](1)\stackrel{}{}i^!`$. This concludes the proof. ∎

Thus for $`i>nr+1`$, (2.2) becomes

(2.7)
$$H^{i2}(\overline{A},\overline{XA},_{\mathrm{}})(1)H^i(\overline{^n},\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})$$

as a surjection of Frobenius modules. On the other hand, $`XA`$ is a complete intersection of the same degrees $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$ and we have

(2.8)
$$\kappa (AX)\kappa 1.$$

Arguing by induction on $`\kappa `$, we are reduced to showing Theorem 1.1 for $`\kappa =0`$ and all $`i`$ (here notice in (2.7) the cohomological degree drops by 2 in the Gysin map, thus we have to take into account the middle cohomology as well). Thus we have the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 for $`\kappa 0`$. Then Theorem 1.1 simply says that the eigenvalues of $`F_i`$ are algebraic integrers, which is Deligne’s integrality theorem , Corollaire 5.5.3.