text:
# Multiband tight-binding model of local magnetism in Ga1-xMnxAs

## Abstract

We present the spin and orbitally resolved local density of states (LDOS) for a single Mn impurity and for two nearby Mn impurities in GaAs. The GaAs host is described by a $`sp^3`$ tight-binding Hamiltonian, and the Mn impurity is described by a local $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization and on-site potential. Local spin-polarized resonances within the valence bands significantly enhance the LDOS near the band edge. For two nearby parallel Mn moments the acceptor states hybridize and split in energy. Thus scanning tunneling spectroscopy can directly measure the Mn-Mn interaction as a function of distance.

The successful growth of ferromagnetic diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMSs) based on III-V compounds Munekata et al. (1989); Ohno et al. (1992); Medvedkin (2000); Reed et al. (2001); Sonoda et al. (2002) has attracted much attention due to the nearby metal-insulator transition and also for their potential application to nano-scale nonvolatile storage devices and to quantum computation Wolf2001 ; Awschalom et al. (2002a). In order to turn a nonmagnetic semiconductor into a magnet, a sizable amount ($`1\%`$) of magnetic dopants are introduced. Experimental studies Ohno et al. (1992); Matsukura et al. (1998); Szczytko et al. (1999); Beschoten et al. (1999); Ohno et al. (2000); Nagai et al. (2001) have shown strong correlations between the ferromagnetism and the hole carriers that are also contributed by the Mn doping in the III-V DMSs. The emerging picture of this ferromagnetism is that the Mn magnetic moments are localized, and the ferromagnetic coupling is mediated through the delocalized hole carriers Dietl et al. (2000); Awschalom et al. (2002a). A deeper understanding of this ferromagnetic coupling has been hampered by insufficient knowledge of the valence band structure. The assumption that the holes reside in the unperturbed valence bands of the host semiconductors Ohno et al. (1992); Dietl et al. (1997); Matsukura et al. (1998) has recently been questioned by both theoretical and experimental studies Akai (1998); Beschoten et al. (1999); Nagai et al. (2001); Okabayashi et al. (2001). Effective mass theories provide good spectral resolution at the band edge, but cannot describe distortions on distances of one or two lattice constants for they are only accurate for momenta close to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. Density functional calculations Sanvito2001 ; Schilfgaarde2001 , however, describe local properties well, but state of the art supercell calculations have not had sufficient spectral resolution to resolve the shallow bound states in the gap and the sharp resonances in the valence bands.

In this Letter we study the local density of states (LDOS) of very dilute concentrations of Mn in GaAs as a prototype III-V DMS, and show that the valence bands are strongly altered by the Mn dopants, and in return influence the interaction between the Mn magnetic moments. In order to obtain both sufficient spectral resolution and proper dispersion relations throughout the full Brillouin zone, a multiband tight-binding approach incorporating spin-orbit interaction is employed. Our results show that the hybridization between the Mn $`3d`$-orbitals and the GaAs valence bands leads to spin-polarized resonances within the valence bands and to delocalized ferromagnetic interaction. The LDOS near the valence band edge is significantly enhanced by these resonances. Each Mn dopant can enhance the LDOS by as much as a factor of $`2`$ up to the second-nearest neighbors (See Fig. 1), corresponding to a $`7\%`$ increase of the average LDOS for $`1\%`$ Mn concentration. The strong LDOS enhancement is consistent with recent angle-resolved photoemission measurements Okabayashi et al. (2001), and qualitatively explains the increases of the absorption coefficients in the intraband Nagai et al. (2001) as well as the interband absorption spectroscopies Szczytko et al. (1999); Beschoten et al. (1999). In particular, the experimental result that the band-edge absorption coefficient increases in finite magnetic fields more for one polarization of light is consistent with our result that the resonances are both orbitally- and spin-polarized.

Whereas the spin-polarized band-edge resonances will alter the Mn-Mn interaction, the acceptor states provide a direct means of measuring that interaction. The acceptor level of Mn splits when two Mn magnetic moments are in a parallel configuration Flatté and Reynolds (2000). The range of interaction between the Mn dopants can be probed by the size of the splitting as a function of the separation. We find that the splittings are as large as tens of meV even when two Mn dopants are separated by a few lattice constants. This magnetic interaction is anisotropic with respect to the axis connecting the two Mn dopants due to spin-orbit interaction, in qualitative agreement with the continuum model Zaránd and Jankó (2002). Both the local enhancement of the valence band edge and the splitting of the acceptor level could be probed by scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) Feenstra et al. (2002).

As pointed out by Vogl and Baranowski (1985), the fivefold degenerate Mn $`3d`$-orbitals split in a cubic lattice to an $`E`$-symmetric ($`d_{x^2y^2}`$-like) doublet, which is only weakly coupled to the tetrahedral host, and a $`T_2`$-symmetric ($`d_{xy}`$-like) triplet, which can effectively couple to the neighboring dangling $`sp^3`$-hybrids. The antibonding states of the $`T_2`$-symmetric states and the $`sp^3`$-hybrids form the acceptor states within the gap. These antibonding states are delocalized in space since they overlap strongly with the host valence bands. In our calculations the hybridization of the majority Mn $`d`$-orbitals is treated as an effective extended spin-dependent potential $`U_1`$ acting on the four nearest-neighbor sites of Mn, because only $`s`$ and $`p`$ orbitals are explicitly used in our tight-binding Hamiltonian. The operator form of our Mn potential is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`U_0{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{},s}{}}c_\mathrm{}s^{}(𝐑_0)c_\mathrm{}s(𝐑_0)+U_1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{\mathrm{}}^{}(𝐑_j)c_{\mathrm{}}(𝐑_j),`$
where $`U_0`$ is the on-site orbital energy difference, $`c_\mathrm{}s^{}(𝐑)`$ ($`c_\mathrm{}s(𝐑)`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator of a spin-$`s`$ electron in the $`\mathrm{}`$ orbital at site $`𝐑`$. The Mn dopant is located at $`𝐑_0`$, and the four nearest-neighbor sites are labeled by $`𝐑_1`$-$`𝐑_4`$. We neglect the difference of the potential matrix elements between the $`s`$ and $`p`$ orbitals, because the $`s`$-orbitals make a negligible contribution to the LDOS near the valence band edge. The quantization axis for the spin is aligned with the Mn core spin. The minority Mn d-orbitals are assumed to be much higher in energy, and the hybridization energy of them with the spin-down states is neglected. We find that the effective potential $`U_1`$ is of critical importance in inducing the acceptor level at the experimentally observed energy. The significance of the hybridization to the acceptor level energy has also been noted recently by Dietl et al. (2002). As for the delocalized nature of the acceptor state, our results show that only about $`10\%`$ of the spectral weight of the acceptor state is concentrated at the Mn site, $`20\%`$ is distributed over the four nearest-neighbor sites, and the remaining $`70\%`$ is extended to farther sites. Furthermore, the large spin-orbit interaction of GaAs splits the gap states into three different energy levels, and introduces anisotropy to the spatial structure.

We use the Koster-Slater technique Koster and Slater (1954) to calculate the Green’s function whose imaginary part gives the LDOS. This method has been proven to give the correct chemical trend of impurity levels in semiconductors Hjalmarson et al. (1980), and we have previously applied it to successfully predict STM spectra near impurities in superconductors Tang and Flatté (2002). Starting with the tight-binding Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0(𝐤)`$ of homogeneous GaAs, one first calculates the retarded Green’s function, $`\widehat{G}_0(𝐤,\omega )=[\omega \widehat{H}_0(𝐤)+i\delta ]^1`$. To obtain a good description of the valence band structure, we use the $`sp^3`$ model including spin-orbit interaction Chadi (1977). Then, by Fourier transforming $`\widehat{G}_0(𝐤,\omega )`$, we construct the homogeneous Green’s function in coordinate space, $`\widehat{G}_0(𝐑_i,𝐑_j,\omega )`$, where $`𝐑_i`$ and $`𝐑_j`$ label the zincblende lattice sites. This step consumes the majority of computation time. It takes about one day for one link ($`𝐑_i𝐑_j`$) with a spectral range of $`2`$ eV on a personal computer. The number of links used in this study is about 500. A constant linewidth of $`\delta =10`$ meV produces a good spectral resolution within a reasonable computation time. The final Green’s function is obtained by solving the Dyson’s equation,

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0(\omega )+\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{𝟏}}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0(\omega )\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\right]^1\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_0(\omega ),`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}(\omega )`$ is the full matrix representation using all atomic orbitals at all lattice sites. The LDOS at each site $`𝐑_i`$ is given by

$`A(𝐑_i,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{tr}_\alpha \widehat{G}(𝐑_i,𝐑_i,\omega )\right],`$ (3)
where the $`\mathrm{tr}_\alpha `$ is taken with respect to the orbitals of the $`\alpha `$ atom, depending on which type of atom is actually located at the site $`𝐑_i`$.

To determine the values of $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$, we first consider the possibility that the potential is nonzero only at the Mn site ($`U_1=0`$), and the size of the on-site potential is assumed to be the same for all orbitals. When the Mn atom replaces a Ga atom, the strength of this on-site potential is estimated to be $`U_01`$ eV based on the energy difference of the ionization energies of Ga ($`4s^24p`$) and of Mn ($`3d^54s4p`$), which are about $`6`$ and $`5`$ eV respectively. Not only is this on-site potential too weak to bind any acceptor level in the gap, it is not possible (even with an unrealistically large on-site potential, $`U_010`$ eV) to bind a hole more than $`60`$ meV above the valence band edge. The Mn dopant introduces an acceptor level at $`113`$ meV above the valence band edge, therefore, the effective potential must be extended at least to the four nearest-neighbor As sites. If we fix $`U_0=1`$ eV, and tune $`U_1`$ to give the correct acceptor level energy, the required nearest-neighbor potential is about $`3.59`$ eV. This nearest-neighbor potential is too large to be accounted for by the tail of the screened Coulomb potential. The screened Coulomb potential at the nearest-neighbor sites of a singly charged Mn center is only about $`0.5`$ eV, or even smaller if the system is doped with carriers, as in our case. Therefore, the large effective potential at the nearest-neighbor sites must result from the hybridization of the Mn $`3d`$-orbitals and the host $`sp^3`$-hybrids. The exchange interaction effectively pushes the valence-band states with the same spin polarization as the Mn core spin into the gap. The states with the opposite spin polarization essentially remain unperturbed.

Figure 1 shows the LDOS spectra at the Mn site and at neighboring sites. In this particular case we have chosen the Mn core spin to align with one of the (100) crystal axes (which is the bulk easy axis Tang et al. (2003)). As a result, the spectra at the four nearest-neighbor As sites are identical due to the residual symmetry operations of $`C_2`$ and $`S_4`$ about the crystal axes. The twelve second-nearest-neighbor Ga sites are divided into two classes with four and eight sites each. The acceptor states are almost fully spin-polarized (parallel to the Mn core spin) and split into three energy levels due to the spin-orbit interaction. For bulk n-doped Ga1-xMnxAs the Fermi level lies above the upper acceptor state, so the impurity is ionized and all three levels would be visible in a tunneling experiment. If the Fermi level lies below the upper acceptor state, such as in bulk p-doped Ga1-xMnxAs, then due to the electron-electron interaction only one localized state will be visible above the Fermi level and none below. Due to band-bending at the surface it is often possible to see both the ionized and neutral dopants in the same sample (as in Ref. Feenstra et al., 2002). As the Mn core spin rotates, the orbital character of the acceptor states changes, but the three energy levels remain the same within the $`sp^3`$ model. There is some experimental evidence for the existence of the two additional acceptor energy levels Lee and Anderson (1964). The significant enhancement of the spin-up LDOS continues into the valence band to $`1.5`$ eV below the band edge. The spin-polarized resonances emerge at an energy close to the split-off band top ($`350`$ meV below the band edge). On the other hand, the spin-down band is weakly perturbed and non-resonant. Figure 1 (c) and (d) also show that the large enhancement of the valence band LDOS extends to the second-nearest neighbors. From the spectral weight of the acceptor state, $`5\%`$ at each As site, we estimate the $`p`$-$`d`$ exchange interaction $`\beta N_0`$ to be $`\frac{2}{5}U_1\times 20\%0.3`$ eV, within a factor of $`3`$ of that obtained from transport measurements (see Chapter 1 in Ref. Awschalom et al., 2002a). The discrepancy may come from the enhanced LDOS near the Mn spin, which is not included in the transport modeling.

The spatial structure of the LDOS is further illustrated in Fig. 2. For the Mn potential used here, the upper acceptor state is peaked at the Mn site. The ratio between the peak heights at the Mn and at the nearest-neighbor As sites is related to the strength of $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$. Generally, increasing the potential strength at one site reduces the spectral weight at the same site. The degree of acceptor-state localization apparent in Fig. 2 is determined largely by the effective band masses of the GaAs host, which are dependent on the tight-binding parameters of Ref. Chadi, 1977. If the spin is aligned with the $`z`$ axis, the uppermost acceptor state is spatially extended in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, because the orbital character, shown in Fig. 3, is $`p_x+ip_y`$.

We also calculate the LDOS for two nearby Mn dopants by inverting the Dyson equation for a two-impurity potential. When the two Mn core spins are parallel, the acceptor states centered at the two Mn sites interfere, and further split into “bonding” and “antibonding” states. When the two Mn core spins are antiparallel, one of the $`U_1`$ terms acts on spin-down As-orbitals, and the potential for the spin-up (down) states at one Mn site is the same as for the spin-down (up) states at the other Mn site. Therefore, the acceptor states remain in three degenerate levels. The splitting of the acceptor level for two parallel Mn core spins can be used as a probe for the range of interaction between Mn dopants. Figure 4 shows the long-ranged nature of the interaction. It also shows the anisotropy of the interaction resulting from the spin-orbit interaction. Because the acceptor state has an orbital character more extended in the plane perpendicular to the Mn core spin, the splitting of the acceptor level is the largest when the Mn core spins are oriented perpendicular to the axis that joins them.

In summary we have presented calculations of the LDOS near Mn in GaAs. The $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization induces spin-polarized resonances that enhance the LDOS near the valence band edge. The spin-orbit interaction splits the acceptor level, and introduces anisotropy to the Mn-Mn interaction in addition to the crystal anisotropy. The range of the Mn-Mn interaction is shown to extend through several lattice constants. For quantitative comparisons with STS measurements, significant surface effects are expected for a Mn atom at the top layer because the Mn atom has one less As neighbor, and the hybridization changes. However, it has been reported that dopant atoms as deep as in the fifth layer are seen by STS Feenstra et al. (2002), and the spectra for these cases should closely resemble the bulk.

This work was supported under the ARO MURI DAAD19-01-1-0541.


format: text

text:
# Chapter 1 The Trigger System of the ARGO-YBJ detector

## Chapter 1 The Trigger System of the ARGO-YBJ detector

### Abstract

The ARGO-YBJ experiment has been designed to detect air shower events over a large size scale and with an energy threshold of a few hundreds GeV. The building blocks of the ARGO-YBJ detector are single-gap Resistive Plate Counters (RPCs). The trigger logic selects the events on the basis of their hit multiplicity. Inclusive triggers as well as dedicated triggers for specific physics channels or calibration purposes have been developed. This paper describes the architecture and the main features of the trigger system.

### 1. Introduction

The ARGO-YBJ experiment  is devoted to a wide range of fundamental issues in cosmic rays and astroparticle physics, including in particular $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy and $`\gamma `$-ray bursts physics at energies $``$ 100 GeV. The detector consists of an array of single layer RPCs that covers $`74\times 78m^2`$, surrounded by a partially instrumented guard ring. It is organized in modules of 12 chambers called CLUSTER. Each chamber is made of 80 strips and the entire detector comprises 130 CLUSTERs in the central carpet. The 960 strips in each CLUSTER are processed by the CLUSTER logic (fig. 1). For time measurement and trigger purposes, adjacent strips are logically OR-ed together in groups of 8 defining a logic unit called PAD of $`56\times 62cm^2`$ (15600 in total). The PAD signals are stretched to 150 ns to guarantee that the particles of the same shower are in coincidence. The CLUSTER logic outputs a 6-bit Low Multiplicity weighted bus (when $`1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$, $`6`$ PADs are fired) and a 4-bit High Multiplicity weighted bus (when $`7`$, $`16`$, $`32`$, $`64`$ PADs are fired). The CLUSTER logic is housed in a location nearby the CLUSTER, called Local Station (LS).

The PADs provide a detailed space-time picture of the shower front and they are the basic inputs to the trigger logic, which validates an event on the basis of specific fired PADs density criteria.

The ARGO-YBJ experiment has been designed to study a wide range of fundamental issues in cosmic ray physics and $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy. The energy experimental range is very large, bridging the GeV and TeV energy regions of the showers, and moreover the particle density distribution changes with the distance from the shower axis. Showers with very low energy, in the range of a few hundreds GeV, are expected to fire less than 100 PADs spread on the entire carpet (fig. 2). At very high energy, in the range of tenths of TeV and beyond, the showers present a specific spatial distribution, characterized by a core structure. The trigger logic should be able to select events exceeding a programmable threshold of PADs, fired by the same shower. At low threshold, such algorithm allows us to trigger showers with arbitrary hit density. Raising the thresholds, showers at higher energy can be triggered. A local density trigger can be obtained by applying the same logic to each detector partition made of four adjacent clusters (SUPERCLUSTER). This local density concept can be extended to an arbitrary CLUSTER pattern, requiring that a programmable number of clusters exceeds a specific threshold setting to produce a trigger. These three algorithms cover the intended physics range of interest for the ARGO-YBJ experiment, featuring a trigger scheme based on both event density and hit multiplicity.

### 2. The Trigger Architecture

The three different trigger logics are based on the Low Multiplicity (LM) and High Multiplicity (HM) busses driven by the LSs. In order to preserve the original data timing, all the hardware is implemented as synchronous pipelines with a common system clock at 33 MHz, generated and distributed by a specific low-jitter balanced clock tree.

The first trigger logic generates a signal when a programmed threshold of fired PADs is reached or exceeded on the entire detector (LM Trigger). The LM Trigger uses the LMbus from each LS and processes from the central carpet a total of $`130\times 6`$ bit inputs. In order to handle a data word that wide, the logic adopts a three-level concentration scheme. The Level-1 is based on the LOWM boards. This module synchronizes the LMbusses from 12 LSs to the system clock, stretches the bit width to 8 clock cycles ($``$ 243 ns) in order to garantee the coincidence across the 12 CLUSTERs in the worst case hit timing and outputs on a 7-bit binary encoded bus the total multiplicity, updated every clock cycle. The central carpet is split in two regions as shown in Fig. 3. Each region comprises 65 CLUSTERs processed by 6 LOWM boards. In the same fashion, two Level-2 boards called $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$LOW stretch the Level-1 7-bit outputs to 12 clock cycles ($``$ 360 ns) and output on a 10-bit binary encoded bus the total multiplicity for each half carpet. At the end, a single Level-3 board TLOW shapes the Level-2 10-bits outputs to about 400 ns and encodes the total 11-bit multiplicity for the entire carpet. This board generates the low multiplicity trigger when the hit total number exceedes the programmed threshold on the carpet. Each LOWM splits a 12 CLUSTER region in 3 SUPERCLUSTERs. A specific threshold can be assigned to each SUPERCLUSTER and the module generates a Fast Trigger if at least a SUPERCLUSTER hit number exceedes its correspondent threshold.

The third trigger logic produces an output when a programmable threshold of CLUSTERs with a specific multiplicity in the range coded by the HMbus is excedeed (HM Trigger). For instance, this logic allow us to trigger on events where at least N CLUSTERs present a hit multiplicity $`7`$. The HM Trigger is split in four sections, each handling in parallel a specific bit from each LS’s 4-bit HMbus: the HM 7, 16, 32, 64 Triggers. Each section processes from the central carpet a 130-bit input and it is implemented in two levels as shown in fig. 4. Each HIGHM board synchronizes the i-th bits of the HMbusses from 65 LSs to the system clock. Also, it stretches the bit width to 12 clock cycle ($``$ 360 ns) in order to count the CLUSTERs in coincidence across half carpet with the pertaining hit multiplicity. The two 7-bit binary encoded busses driven by the HIGHM boards are merged into the THIGH board that calculates the total number of CLUSTERs across the entire carpet. The LM Trigger, the Fast Trigger and the four HM Triggers are handled by a TRBOX board which can mask a specific trigger source and OR them together. If the Data Acquisition System does not assert a Veto signal, the trigger proposal becomes a trigger signal. Apart from the system initialization, the trigger system activity is fully self governing.

### 3. The trigger system boards

All the trigger boards are VME double height slaves with A32/D08(O), D16, D32, and D32:BLT data transfer capabilities. Differential data in P(ositive) ECL standard assures a superior performance in terms of sustainable data rates and a cable driving capability using cheap twisted-pair media. Through the VME bus the main trigger features and operating modes can be programmed and monitored.

### 4. Conclusion

In the realization of these modules we started from the beginning using VHDL and synthesis tools. The use of the FPGAs give to us enough flexibility giving an easy way to upgrade existing boards with new features when necessary.

### 5. References

1. Surdo A. et al. 2003, in this proceedings.


text:
# The Minimal degeneration singularities in the affine Grassmannians

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1.

In the early 1980s H. Kraft and C. Procesi  classified the minimal degeneration singularities in the nilpotent cones of classical Lie algebras stratified by the adjoint orbits. We say that a pair of strata $`𝒪,𝒪^{}`$ in a variety stratified by orbits of an algebraic group is a *minimal degeneration* if $`𝒪\overline{𝒪}^{}`$, and if $`𝒪\overline{𝒪}^{\prime \prime }\overline{𝒪}^{}`$, then either $`𝒪=𝒪^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`𝒪^{\prime \prime }=𝒪^{}`$. The normal singularities of this sort turn out to be smoothly equivalent to either Kleinian singularities of type A and D, or the closures of minimal orbits. A similar problem for some flag varieties was more recently investigated by M. Brion and P. Polo .

### 1.2.

In this paper we study the minimal degeneration singularities for the $`G[[z]]`$-orbits in the affine Grassmannians. More precisely, let $`G`$ be a simple finite dimensional algebraic group over an algebraically closed field $`𝐤`$ of characteristic $`0`$, and let $`𝒢_G`$ be the affine Grassmannian of $`G`$. Using a Levi subgroup technique we obtain the following.

###### Theorem A.

If $`G`$ is of simply-laced type, then all singularities of the minimal degeneration singularities of $`G[[z]]`$-orbits in $`𝒢_G`$ are either Kleinian singularities of type $`A`$ or minimal singularities (closures of the minimal nilpotent orbits) of types corresponding to Dynkin subdiagrams of the Dynkin diagram of $`G`$.

### 1.3.

For the non-simply-laced groups the situation is more complicated. In addition to Kleinian and minimal singularities, we obtain singularities which we call *quasi-minimal*. These singularities are studied by the methods of intersection cohomology , and equivariant multiplicities, .

### 1.4.

Our studies yield a completely new proof of the following result.

###### Corollary B.

The smooth locus of the closure of a $`G[[z]]`$-orbit in $`𝒢_G`$ is precisely the $`G[[z]]`$-orbit itself.

This result is due to S. Evens and I. Mirković, it follows immediately from \[5, Theorem 0.1(b)\] which describes the characteristic cycle of the intersection cohomology sheaf on the closure of a $`G[[z]]`$-orbit.

### 1.5.

The paper is organized as follows. After introducing our notation and conventions in the Section 2, we prove a “Levi Lemma” dealing with the action of the loop group of a Levi subgroup of $`G`$ on $`𝒢_G`$ in the Section 3.

In Section 4 we cite a crucial result of J. Stembrige  describing the minimal degeneration of coweights indexing the $`G(O)`$-orbits.

We then apply the Levi Lemma to describe some minimal degeneration singularities and prove Theorem A in the Section 5.

Calculations of intersection cohomology dimensions in the Section 6 give us some information on the rational smoothness of our singularities.

In Section 7 we study the singularities appearing in the rank $`2`$ cases by methods of .

Finally, we deduce Corollary B in the section 8.

### Acknowledgment

We are grateful to A. Braverman, M. Finkelberg, S. Kumar, I. Mirković, and J. Starr for very useful discussions. The research of A. M. and M. V. was supported by the NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowships. The research of V. O. was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0098830.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Notation

#### 2.1.1.

Let $`G`$ be a simple finite dimensional algebraic group defined over an algebraically closed field $`𝐤`$ of characteristic $`0`$.

Let us fix a Borel subgroup and a maximal torus $`TBG`$. We will introduce the following notation and conventions:

1. $`PG`$ is a paprabolic subgroup containing $`B`$.
2. $`L_P=P/N_P`$ is the Levi quotient of $`P`$ by its nilpotent radical $`N_P`$.
3. $`M=[L_P,L_P]`$ is the commutant of $`L_P`$. $`M`$ is a connected semisimple group. We will consider $`M`$ as a subgroup of $`G`$.
4. $`I`$ is the set of vertices of the Dynkin diagram associated to $`G`$. The simple roots of the corresponding root system are denoted by $`\alpha _i`$ for $`iI`$, and the simple coroots by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i`$ for $`iI`$.
5. $`\mathrm{Q}_G`$ is the coroot lattice of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{Q}_G^0`$ is the nonnegative cone in $`\mathrm{Q}_G`$.
6. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ is the coweight lattice of $`G`$. The fundamental coweights are denoted by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i`$ for $`iI`$. The partial order on the set of coweights: $`\mu \lambda `$ if and only if $`\mu \lambda \mathrm{Q}_G^0`$.

#### 2.1.2.

From now on we will assume that the parabolic $`P`$ is associated to a connected Dynkin subdiagram of the Dynkin diagram of $`G`$. Then $`M`$ is a simple group of type described by this Dynkin subdiagram. We will denote the set of vertices of the subdiagram by $`I_M`$. We need some more notation:

1. $`\mathrm{Q}_MQ_G`$ is the coroot lattice of $`M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ is the coweight lattice of $`M`$.
2. Let $`\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$. Then

$$\lambda =\underset{iI}{}\lambda _i\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i\text{ and }\mu =\underset{iI}{}\mu _i\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i.$$

We denote:

(2.1.2.1)
$$\lambda _M=\underset{iI_M}{}\lambda _i\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i\text{ and }\mu =\underset{iI_M}{}\mu _i\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i.$$

### 2.2. Affine Grassmanians

#### 2.2.1.

Let $`O=𝐤[[z]]`$ be the ring of formal power series and $`K=𝐤((z))`$ be its field of fractions. The affine Grassmannian $`𝒢_G`$ is the ind-scheme whose $`𝐤`$-points are given by $`G(K)/G(O)`$.

We will recall here some facts about affine Grassmannians mostly borrowed from  where we refer the reader for many more details.

#### 2.2.2.

The coweight $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ may be considered as an element of $`𝒢_G`$ via the identification $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G=\mathrm{Hom}(𝐤^{},T)=T(K)/T(O)`$. It is well known that the $`G(O)`$-orbits on $`𝒢_G`$ are indexed by dominant coweights. The notation:

$$𝒢_\lambda =G(O)\lambda \text{ for }\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+.$$

It is well known that $`𝒢_\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ if and only if $`\lambda \mu `$, and that $`dim𝒢_\lambda =2\rho ,\lambda `$, where $`2\rho `$ is the sum of positive roots.

#### 2.2.3.

Let us consider the group ind-scheme $`G(𝐤[z^1])`$, and let $`L^{<0}G`$ be the kernel of the map $`G(𝐤[z^1])G`$ defined by $`z^10`$. The following Lemma is well known.

###### Lemma.

Consider $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$. The orbit $`L^{<0}G\lambda `$ is a transverse slice to $`𝒢_\lambda `$ at the point $`\lambda `$. In other words:

1. $`L^{<0}G\lambda `$ is locally closed in $`𝒢_G`$.
2. The action map $`G(O)\times (L^{<0}G\lambda )𝒢_G`$ is an open embedding.
3. For any $`\lambda \mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$

$$dim(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu =dim𝒢_\mu dim𝒢_\lambda .$$

###### Proof.

(i) is clear. (ii) According to \[20, Lemme 2.1\] the multiplication morphism $`G(O)\times L^{<0}GG(K)`$ is an open embedding. Then the action morphism $`G(O)\times (L^{<0}G\lambda )𝒢_G`$ is an open embedding and therefore is étale. This also proves (iii). ∎

###### Lemma.

Let $`\lambda \mu `$ be two dominant coweights. The scheme $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is reduced, irreducible and normal.

###### Proof.

Since $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is a transverse slice to $`𝒢_\lambda `$, and $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is a normal variety , the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is also normal and irreducible. ∎

#### 2.2.4.

We will need one more lemma on the $`𝐤^{}`$-action. The group $`𝐤^{}`$ acts on $`𝒢_G`$ by “loop rotations”

$$zsz\text{ for }s𝐤^{}.$$

The following Lemma is lifted from .

###### Lemma.

We have:

1. $`L^{<0}G\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is $`𝐤^{}`$-invariant.
2. $`LL^{<0}G\lambda `$ if and only if $`lim_s\mathrm{}L=\lambda `$.

### 2.3. Kleinian and minimal singularities

#### 2.3.1.

We will think of a Kleinian singularity of type $`A_p`$ as an invariant theory quotient

$$𝐤^2/(/(p+1))$$

of the affine space $`𝐤^2`$ by the cyclic group of order $`p+1`$, cf. \[21, III.6.1\].

#### 2.3.2.

Let $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}G`$ be the Lie algebra of our group $`G`$. Let $`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ be the maximal root. It is well known that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the short dominant coroot. Let $`v_{\mathrm{max}}𝔤_{\mathrm{max}}`$ be a highest weight vector. The conjugacy class $`𝒪_{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{Ad}Gv_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the *minimal* nilpotent orbit, and its closure

$$\overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}(𝔤)=𝒪_{\mathrm{min}}\{0\}$$

is called the *minimal singularity* of type $`𝔤`$. We will also index the minimal singularities by the Dynkin diagrams corresponding to $`𝔤`$ and by small letters corresponding to capital letters indicating the type of $`𝔤`$. For example the minimal singularity of $`sl_3`$ may be referred to as either $`\overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}(sl_3)`$ or $`\overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}(\text{})`$ or minimal singularity of type $`a_2`$. For many more details we refer the reader to .

#### 2.3.3. Minimal singularities and affine Grassmannians

Let $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ be the short dominant coroot. We are grateful to I. Mirković for explaining to us the following

###### Lemma.

There exists an isomorphism of algebraic varieties.

$$(L^{<0}G0)\overline{𝒢}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}}\overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}(𝔤).$$

###### Proof.

By the construction of \[2, Page 182\] the variety

$$\overline{𝒢}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}}\{0\}𝒪_{\mathrm{min}}P(𝒪_{\mathrm{min}})$$

is the disjoint union of $`3`$ $`G`$-orbits, where $`P(𝒪_{\mathrm{min}})P(𝔤)`$ the the projectivization of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Now the variety $`(L^{<0}G0)\overline{𝒢}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ is $`G`$-invariant, and therefore a union of $`G`$-orbits. Since $`P(𝒪_{\mathrm{min}})`$ is $`𝐤^{}`$-invariant, closed, and separated from $`0`$, by Lemma Lemma we have

$$(L^{<0}G0)\overline{𝒢}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{max}}}\{0\}𝒪_{\mathrm{min}}=\overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}.$$

## 3. The Levi Lemma

### 3.1.

Let us consider two dominant coweights $`\lambda \mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ such that their difference $`\mu \lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is in the coroot lattice of $`M`$ generated by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i`$ for $`iI_M`$ and therefore

(3.1.0.1)
$$\mu \lambda =\mu _M\lambda _M\mathrm{Q}_M,$$

where $`\lambda _M,\mu _M`$ are defined in (2.1.2.1)

#### 3.1.1.

Since we consider $`M`$ to be a subgroup of $`G`$, the group $`M(K)`$ acts on the affine Grassmannian $`𝒢_G`$.

###### Lemma.

There exists a natural ind-scheme isomorphism

$$M(K)\lambda 𝒢_M$$

given by the map $`m\lambda m\lambda _M`$ for $`mM(K)`$. Moreover, this isomorphism restricts to the isomorphisms of varieties

$$𝒢_G(L^{<0}M\lambda )\overline{M(O)\mu }(L^{<0}M\lambda _M)\overline{M(O)\mu _M}𝒢_M.$$

###### Proof.

Indeed, $`M(K)\lambda =M(K)/M(K)_\lambda `$ where $`M(K)_\lambda `$ is the stabilizer of $`\lambda `$ in $`M(K)`$. Now

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M(K)_\lambda & =M(K)z^\lambda G(O)z^\lambda \hfill \\ & =z^\lambda (z^\lambda M(K)z^\lambda G(O))z^\lambda \hfill \\ & =z^\lambda (M(K)G(O))z^\lambda \hfill \\ & =z^{\lambda _M}M(O)z^{\lambda _M}.\hfill \end{array}$$

#### 3.1.2.

We will need another

###### Lemma.

Consider $`\lambda \mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ with $`\mu \lambda \mathrm{Q}_M`$. Then

$$L^{<0}M\lambda \overline{M(O)\mu }=L^{<0}G\lambda \overline{G(O)\mu }𝒢_G.$$

###### Proof.

Denote

$$Y_M=L^{<0}M\lambda \overline{M(O)\mu }\text{ and }Y_G=L^{<0}G\lambda \overline{G(O)\mu }.$$

According to the lemma Lemma both $`Y_M`$ and $`Y_G`$ are $`𝐤^{}`$-invariant and therefore their closures $`\overline{Y}_M`$ and $`\overline{Y}_G`$ are also $`𝐤^{}`$-invariant. Now due to the equation (3.1.0.1) and the Lemma Lemma $`dimY_M=dimY_G`$. Thus $`\overline{Y}_M=\overline{Y}_G`$.

By construction, $`Y_MY_G`$. Now $`\mathrm{}Y_M=\overline{Y}_MY_M`$ is closed since $`Y_M`$ is locally closed.

Now, consider a point $`pY_GY_M\mathrm{}Y_M`$. According to the Lemma Lemma, $`𝐤^{}`$-action retracts $`p`$ to $`\lambda `$ but this is impossible since $`p`$ is in a closed and $`𝐤^{}`$-invariant set $`\mathrm{}Y_M`$ which does not contain $`\lambda `$. This contradiction shows that $`Y_GY_M\mathrm{}Y_M=\mathrm{}`$.

Thus we have a bijective map of normal varieties $`Y_MY_G`$ and thus an isomorphism. ∎

###### Corollary.

\[Levi Lemma\] There exists an isomorphism of algebraic varieties

$$𝒢_ML^{<0}M\lambda _M\overline{M(O)\mu _M}=L^{<0}G\lambda \overline{G(O)\mu }𝒢_G.$$

###### Proof.

Follows from Lemma Lemma and Lemma Lemma. ∎

## 4. Minimal degenerations of coweights

### 4.1.

We will say that a pair $`\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ of dominant coweights is a minimal degeneration if

1. $`\lambda <\mu `$,
2. if $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ is such that $`\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }\mu `$ then either $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }=\lambda `$ or $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }=\mu `$.

The pair $`\lambda ,\mu `$ which is a minimal degeneration will be denoted as $`\mu \lambda `$.

### 4.2.

All minimal degenerations $`\mu \lambda `$ are classified by J. Stembridge. We will say that the support $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ of $`\mu \lambda `$ is the Dynkin subdiagram involving all simple coroots appearing in the decomposition of $`\mu \lambda `$. It is obvious that for a minimal degeneration $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ is connected. Here is the Stembridge’s list, see \[22, Theorem 2.8\]:

###### Theorem.

 The pair $`\mu \lambda `$ is a minimal degeneration if and only if one of the following holds

1. $`\mu \lambda `$ is a simple coroot $`\alpha _i`$, $`iI`$.
2. $`\mu \lambda `$ is the short dominant coroot of $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ on $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$.
3. $`\mu \lambda `$ is the short dominant coroot of $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$; $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ is of type $`C_n`$ and $`\lambda `$ on $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ is

$$\text{}.$$
4. $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ is of type $`G_2`$, and $`\lambda =(\text{})`$, $`\mu =(\text{})`$ on $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$.
5. $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ is of type $`G_2`$, and $`\lambda =(\text{})`$, $`\mu =(\text{})`$ on $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$.

## 5. Minimal degenerations of $`G(O)`$orbits and Levi subgroups

### 5.1. The $`PGL_2`$ case

#### 5.1.1.

In the $`PGL_2`$ case the pair $`\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ is a minimal degeneration if and only if $`\mu =(p+2)\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }`$ and $`\lambda =p\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }`$, where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }`$ is the fundamental coweight and $`p0`$. In this case the Main Theorem of  implies the following

###### Lemma.

Let $`G=PGL_2`$, $`\lambda =p\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }`$ and $`\mu =(p+2)\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }`$. Then the singularity of the Schubert variety $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ along $`𝒢_\lambda `$ is a Kleinian singularity of type $`A_{p+1}`$. More precisely,

$$(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu 𝐤^2/(/(p+2)).$$

###### Proof.

It is shown in  that $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is isomorphic to a transverse slice to the subregular orbit in the nilpotent cone $`𝒩sl_{p+2}`$. The statement follows by a celebrated result of Brieskorn and Slodowy . For $`p=0`$ the lemma follows already from . ∎

### 5.2. The proof of Theorem A

###### Theorem.

Let $`\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ be two dominant coweights, let $`\lambda =_{iI}\lambda _i\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i`$, and let $`\mu \lambda `$ be a minimal degeneration. Then

1. If $`\mu \lambda =\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i`$ is a simple coroot for $`iI`$, then

$$(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu 𝐤^2/(/(\lambda _i+2)).$$

In other words, we have a Kleinian singularity of type $`A_{\lambda _i+1}`$.
2. If $`\mu \lambda `$ is the short dominant coroot of of the root system of type $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ on $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$, then

$$(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu \overline{𝒪}_{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )),$$

i.e., we have the minimal singularity of type $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

In the case (5.2.1) the Theorem follows from the Levi Lemma (Corollary Corollary) and Lemma Lemma. In the case (5.2.2) the Theorem follows from the Levi Lemma (Corollary Corollary) and Lemma Lemma. In the simply-laced case Theorem A follows. If $`G`$ is of type $`A`$ the theorem follows already from . ∎

## 6. Intersection cohomology calculations

### 6.1. Notation

#### 6.1.1. Definition

We will say that a variety $`X`$ is rationally smooth at the point $`x`$ if the stalk of the intersection cohomology complex is $`1`$-dimensional in degree $`(dimX)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}_x(X)=𝐤[dimX]`$. We will say that $`X`$ is rationally smooth if it is rationally smooth at every point, i.e $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}(X)`$ is the constant sheaf shifted by $`dimX`$.

#### 6.1.2.

By Lemma Lemma, if $`\mu \lambda `$ is a minimal degeneration, the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is smooth (and rationally smooth) at every point but $`\lambda `$. Let us denote:

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=\underset{i}{}dim\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}_\lambda ^{idim(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu }(\overline{𝒢}_\mu )q^i,$$

where $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}^i(\overline{𝒢}_\mu )`$ is the $`i`$-th cohomology sheaf of the intersection cohomology complex of $`𝒢_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}_\lambda ^i(\overline{𝒢}_\mu )`$ is the stalk of $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐇}^i(\overline{𝒢}_\mu )`$ at the point $`\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$. We will also consider the Euler characteristic

$$\chi _\lambda (\mu )=m_\lambda (\mu ,1).$$

Clearly, $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is rationally smooth if and only if $`m_\lambda (\mu )=\chi _\lambda (\mu )=1`$.

#### 6.1.3.

Consider $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ as the dominant weights for the Langlands dual group $`G^{}`$ and let $`m_\lambda (\mu )`$ denote the multiplicity of the weight $`\lambda `$ in the simple $`G^{}`$module with the highest weight $`\mu `$. According to  one has

(6.1.3.1)
$$\chi _\lambda (\mu )=m_\lambda (\mu ).$$

### 6.2. Rational smoothness of minimal degenerations

#### 6.2.1.

Let us study the rational smoothness of the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ in the four cases of the Theorem Theorem using the formula (6.1.3.1).

###### Proposition.

Let $`\mu \lambda `$ be a minimal degeneration and

1. let $`\mu \lambda `$ be as in 4.2.1. Then

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=1$$

and the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is rationally smooth.
2. let $`\mu \lambda `$ be as in 4.2.2 with $`\lambda =0`$. Then

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{i=1}^nq^{e_i1},\hfill & \mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )\text{ of type }ADE,\hfill \\ _{i=0}^{n2}q^{2i},\hfill & \mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )\text{ of type }B_n,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )\text{ of type }C_n,\hfill \\ 1+q^4,\hfill & \mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )\text{ of type }F_4,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )\text{ of type }G_2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`e_i`$ $`1in`$ are the exponents for types ADE. The Euler characteristic $`\chi _\lambda (\mu )=n`$, $`n1`$, $`1`$, $`n`$, $`6`$, $`7`$, $`8`$ ,$`2`$, $`1`$ for $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$ of type $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$, $`D_n`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$, $`F_4`$, $`G_2`$ respectively. Thus the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is rationally smooth in the cases $`C_n`$ and $`G_2`$.
3. let $`\mu \lambda `$ be as in 4.2.3. Then

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}q^i$$

and $`\chi _\lambda (\mu )=n`$, and the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is not rationally smooth.
4. let $`G`$ be of type $`G_2`$ and $`\lambda =(\text{})`$, and $`\mu =(\text{})`$. Then

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=1+q$$

and $`\chi _\lambda (\mu )=2`$ and the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is not rationally smooth.
5. let $`G`$ be of type $`G_2`$ and $`\lambda =(\text{})`$, $`\mu =(\text{})`$. Then $`m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=\chi _\lambda (\mu )=1`$ and the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is rationally smooth.

###### Proof.

First of all we apply the Levi Lemma (Corollary Corollary) to reduce the statements to the Levi subgroup associated to $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu \lambda )`$. Then the formulas are obtained by the application of the results of  such as the formula (6.1.3.1), and the direct calculations. ∎

### 6.3. The quasi-minimal singularities

#### 6.3.1. Type $`ac_n`$

Let us look again at the case 6.2.3. The singular variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ has dimension $`2n`$, the same as the minimal singularity of type $`a_n`$, and moreover, it follows from the Lemma that the polynomials $`m_\lambda (\mu ,q)`$ coincide in our case and the case of the minimal singularity of type $`a_n`$:

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=m_\lambda ^{a_n}(\mu ,q)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}q^i.$$

We will call this singularity arising from the affine Grassmannian of type $`C_n`$ the *quasi-minimal* singularity of type $`ac_n`$. Notice that according to Lemma Lemma the singularity $`ac_1`$ is the Kleinian singularity of type $`A_2`$.

#### 6.3.2. Type $`ag_2`$

Let us look again at the case 6.2.4. The singular variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is $`4`$-dimensional as is the minimal singularity of type $`a_2`$ and moreover, it follows from the Lemma that the polynomials $`m_\lambda (\mu ,q)`$ coincide in our case and the case of the minimal singularity of type $`a_2`$:

$$m_\lambda (\mu ,q)=m_\lambda ^{a_2}(\mu ,q)=1+q.$$

We will call the singularity arising from the affine Grassmannian the *quasi-minimal* singularity of type $`ag_2`$.

#### 6.3.3. Type $`cg_2`$

Let us look again at the case 6.2.5. The singular variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is $`4`$-dimensional as is the minimal singularity of type $`c_2`$ and moreover it follows from the Lemma that both our variety and the minimal singularity of type $`c_2`$ are rationally smooth (but not smooth, see Section 7). We will call the singularity arising from the affine Grassmannian the *quasi-minimal* singularity of type $`cg_2`$.

## 7. Equivariant multiplicities in rank 2

### 7.1.

In this section we will study the rank $`2`$ situation in more detail. Namely, for a minimal degeneration $`\mu \lambda `$ the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is invariant under the action of torus $`T\times 𝐤^{}`$ and the point $`\lambda `$ is fixed by this action. Here $`T`$ is the maximal torus of $`G`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ acts by loop rotations. Thus the equivariant multiplicity $`e_\lambda (\mu )`$ of the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ at the point $`\lambda `$ (i.e. the localization of the fundamental class in the $`(T\times 𝐤^{})`$equivariant Chow group at the only fixed point $`\lambda `$) is defined, see e.g. . Recall that $`e_\lambda (\mu )`$ is a rational function on the Lie algebra of the torus $`T\times 𝐤^{}`$. In this section we calculate $`e_\lambda (\mu )`$ in all rank 2 cases when the codimension of degeneration is $`>2`$.

Our calculation is performed as follows. Let $`𝔉l`$ denote the affine flag variety of $`G`$ and let $`\pi :𝔉l𝒢`$ be the canonical projection. The map $`\pi `$ is smooth with all of its fibers isomorphic to the finite dimensional flag variety $`G/B`$. Let $`𝒢_\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ be a minimal degeneration. Then the singularity $`\pi ^1(𝒢_\lambda )\pi ^1(\overline{𝒢}_\mu )`$ is smoothly equivalent to the singularity $`𝒢_\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$. Recall that the Schubert varieties in $`𝔉l`$ are labeled by the elements of the (extended) affine Weyl group $`W_{aff}`$. Let $`yW_{aff}`$ (respectively $`wW_a`$) label the open Schubert variety $`X_y`$ in $`𝒢_\lambda `$ (respectively $`𝒢_\mu `$). A formula for calculation of the equivariant multiplicity $`e_yX(w)`$ is given in  and one deduces easily from this a formula for equivariant multiplicity $`e_\lambda (\mu )`$ of the transversal slice, see \[3, page 27\] We perform our calculations using this formula and a computer.

### 7.2. Kumar’s Criterion

In  S. Kumar gave a general criterion for smoothness of Schubert varieties of a general Kac-Moody group in terms of equivariant multiplicities. In particular, Kumar’s criterion implies that if the variety $`𝒢_\lambda \overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is smooth at $`\lambda `$ then

$$e_\lambda (\mu )=\underset{\alpha S}{}\alpha ^1,$$

where $`S`$ is a certain finite subset of the set of roots. We will see that Kumar’s criterion and our calculations imply that in all cases considered in this section the varieties $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ are not smooth.

### 7.3. Notation

In our calculations below we denote the simple roots by $`\alpha _i,i=0,1,2`$; the simple reflection corresponding to $`\alpha _i`$ is denoted by $`s_i`$; $`s_0`$ always denotes the affine simple reflection.

### 7.4. Type $`A_2`$

#### 7.4.1.

The affine Weyl goup $`W_{aff}(A_2)`$ of type $`A_2`$ is described as follows

$$W_{aff}(A_2)=\{s_0,s_1,s_2|(s_1s_2)^3=1,(s_0s_1)^3=1,(s_0s_2)^3=1\}.$$

There is only one minimal degeneration:

#### 7.4.2. Minimal singularity of type $`a_2`$

This is a singularity of codimension $`4`$. We have

$$w=s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1,y=s_1s_2s_1.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

$$e_\lambda \left(\mu \right)=\frac{2\left(3\alpha _0^2+6\alpha _0\alpha _1+2\alpha _1^2+6\alpha _0\alpha _2+5\alpha _1\alpha _2+2\alpha _2^2\right)}{\alpha _0\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1\right)\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\right)}$$

### 7.5. Type $`C_2`$

#### 7.5.1.

The affine Weyl group $`W_{aff}(C_2)`$ of type $`C_2`$ is described as follows

$$W_{aff}(C_2)=\{s_0,s_1,s_2|(s_1s_2)^4=1,(s_0s_2)^4=1,(s_0s_1)^2=1\}.$$

There are two minimal degenerations:

#### 7.5.2. Minimal singularity of type $`c_2`$

$`\text{}\text{}`$ This is s singularity of codimension $`4`$. In this case

$$w=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_2s_1s_2,y=s_2s_1s_2s_1.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

$$e_\lambda (\mu )=\frac{8}{\alpha _0(\alpha _0+2\alpha _2)(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2)(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+4\alpha _2)}$$

#### 7.5.3. Quasi-minimal $`ac_2`$

$`\text{}\text{}`$ This is s singularity of codimension $`4`$. In this case

$$w=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_2s_0s_1s_2s_0s_2,y=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_2s_0.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

$$e_\lambda \left(\mu \right)=\frac{2\left(11\alpha _0^2+21\alpha _0\alpha _1+9\alpha _1^2+43\alpha _0\alpha _2+39\alpha _1\alpha _2+36\alpha _2^2\right)}{\alpha _0\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+2\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+3\alpha _2\right)\left(2\alpha _0+3\alpha _1+4\alpha _2\right)\left(2\alpha _0+3\alpha _1+6\alpha _2\right)}$$

### 7.6. Type $`G_2`$

#### 7.6.1.

The affine Weyl group $`W_{aff}(G_2)`$ of type $`G_2`$ is described as follows

$$W_{aff}(G_2)=\{s_0,s_1,s_2|(s_1s_2)^6=1,(s_0s_1)^3=1,(s_0s_2)^2=1\}.$$

There are three minimal degenerations:

#### 7.6.2. Minimal singularity of type $`g_2`$

$`\text{}\text{}`$. This is a singularity of codimension 6. We have

$$w=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1,y=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

$$e_\lambda \left(\mu \right)=\frac{18}{\alpha _0\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1\right)\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+3\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+3\alpha _1+3\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+3\alpha _1+6\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+4\alpha _1+6\alpha _2\right)}$$

#### 7.6.3. Quasi-minimal of type $`ag_2`$

$`\text{}\text{}`$. This is a singularity of codimension 4. We have

$$w=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_0s_1s_2s_1s_0s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1,$$

and

$$y=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

$$e_\lambda \left(\mu \right)=\frac{2\left(27\alpha _0^2+106\alpha _0\alpha _1+103\alpha _1^2+159\alpha _0\alpha _2+309\alpha _1\alpha _2+216\alpha _2^2\right)}{\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1\right)\left(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+3\alpha _2\right)\left(\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+4\alpha _2\right)\left(3\alpha _0+7\alpha _1+9\alpha _2\right)\left(3\alpha _0+7\alpha _1+12\alpha _2\right)}$$

#### 7.6.4. Quasi-minimal singularity of type $`cg_2`$

$`\text{}\text{}`$. This is a singularity of codimension 4. We have

$$w=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2,y=s_2s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1s_0s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1.$$

The equivariant multiplicity:

(7.6.4.1)
$$e_\lambda (\mu )=\frac{27}{(\alpha _0+\alpha _1)(\alpha _0+\alpha _1+3\alpha _2)(2\alpha _0+5\alpha _1+6\alpha _2)(2\alpha _0+5\alpha _1+9\alpha _2)}$$

### 7.7. Quasi-minimal singularities revisited

Recall that the singularities $`a_2`$, $`ac_2`$, $`ag_2`$, $`c_2`$, $`cg_2`$ have codimension 4. Moreover one observes that the intersection cohomology of singularities of type $`a_2,ac_2,ag_2`$ (and, similarly, of $`c_2`$ and $`cg_2`$) are the same. We conjecture that all these singularities are pairwise smoothly non-equivalent. One verifies that the equivariant multiplicities $`e_\lambda (\mu )`$ are pairwise distinct (up to linear changes of coordinates with rational coefficients). This implies that at least the singularities above are different as singularities with torus action.

Similarly, the singularities of types $`a_n`$ and $`ac_n`$ have the same codimensions and intersection cohomology but we conjecture that these singularities are not smoothly equivalent.

## 8. Smooth Locus

### 8.1.

Finally we use our results to prove the Evens-Mirković Theorem (Corollary B). Let us denote by $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu ^{\mathrm{smooth}}`$ the smooth locus of the Schubert variety $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$.

###### Corollary.

For any dominant coweight $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G^+`$ we have

$$\overline{𝒢}_\mu ^{\mathrm{smooth}}=𝒢_\mu .$$

###### Proof.

It is enough to check that $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is singular along every irreducible component of the boundary $`\overline{𝒢}_\mu 𝒢_\mu `$. These irreducible components are precisely Schubert varieties $`\overline{𝒢}_\lambda `$ for all minimal degenerations $`\mu \lambda `$.

Thus we have to check that the minimal degenerations of $`G(O)`$-orbits are singular for all cases in the Stembridge’s list, see Theorem Theorem.

In the cases 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 it follows from the Theorem Theorem.

In the cases 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is not rationally smooth by Proposition Proposition, and therefore not smooth.

In the case 4.2.5 the variety $`(L^{<0}G\lambda )\overline{𝒢}_\mu `$ is singular by the Kumar’s criterion, see formula (7.6.4.1). ∎


text:
# THE CRITICAL ROTATION OF STRANGE STARS AND RAPIDLY ROTATING PULSARS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

At high density, normal hadron matter has been predicted a deconfined transition, where quark-gluon plasma is formed. This could have important consequences for compact stars, with central densities several times the nuclear saturation density. Ever since strange quark matter(SQM), a conglomerate of up, down and strange quarks, has been suggested as a possible absolutely stable or metastable phase of nuclear matter(Witten, 1984), it has been speculated that strange stars might exist in the universe(Alcock et al., 1986; Haensel et al., 1986; Colpi and Miller, 1992).

The studies that quark interactions within lowest order perturbative QCD were considered in the MIT bag model also predicted that sufficiently heavy strangelets might be absolutely stable(Fahari and Jaffe, 1984). If the SQM hypothesis is correct then some (perhaps all) pulsars may be strange stars(Alcock et al., 1986; Haensel et al., 1986; Colpi and Miller, 1992). Thus it would have obvious implications for our understanding of pulsars if strange stars could exist. It is an important subject that probing possible observational evidences of the existence of strange stars by astrophysical investigations.

Since self-bound of SQM due to strong interaction is very important, the mass-radius relation of the assumed strange stars has been uncovered to be different from that of neutron stars. However, for the canonical mass of $`1.4M_{}`$, gravity dominates the strong interaction which leads to strange stars and neutrons being similar in size(Alcock et al., 1986). Therefore, the attempt to distinguish strange stars from neutron stars for given observed masses and radii of pulsars seems to have encountered with great difficulties. Strange stars could indicate the distinguishable signal from neutron stars by their cooling properties, but the difference in the cooling behavior of strange stars and neutron stars will disappears if the direct Urca process is operating in the core of an neutron star, which is done either by the proton fraction rising above $`10\%`$ (Lattimer et al., 1994) or by hyperons being present in the core of a neutron star(Page et al., 2000). This would make it difficult to identify a strange star from cooling data.

Ever since Andersson realized that the r-modes are unstable at all rates of rotation in perfect fluid stars(Andersson, 1998), a series of papers have investigated the many implications for gravitational radiation detection and the evolution of pulsar(Friedman and Morsink, 1998; Lindblom et al., 1998; Owen et al., 1998; Kojima, 1998; Madsen, 1998; Andersson et al., 1999a, b; Ho, 2000; Rezania and Maartens, 2000; Madsen, 2000; Andersson et al., 2001). In recent years, several crucial issues regarding the astrophysical relevance of the r-mode instability have been investigated. Key results concern the interaction between oscillations in core fluid and the crust(Bildsten & Ushomirsky, 2000; Andersson et al., 2000; Lindblom et al., 2000), the role of the magnetic field(Spruit, 1999; Rezzolla et al., 2000; Mendell, 2001) superfluidity(Lindblom & Mendell, 2000; Andersson and Comer, 2001) and the effect of exotic particles that are thought to exist in the deep neutron star core(Jones, 2001; Lindblom et al., 2001).

Meanwhile, Madsen (1998) has pointed out that the r-mode instability may provide the means to distinguish strange stars from neutron stars. The main reason for this is that the viscosity coefficients are rather different in these two cases. While the shear viscosity of a strange star is comparable to that of a neutron star, the bulk viscosity would be many orders of magnitude stronger than its neutron star counterpart. This has interesting effects on the r-mode instability. Based on the characteristic r-mode instability window of strange stars, which is related to the gravitational wave emission and the viscosity, a few mechanisms have been discussed to explain the clustering of spin-frequencies of LMXBs(Madsen, 2000; Andersson et al., 2001).

However, the bulk viscosity coefficient in Madsen’s studies takes the one for the case of non-interacting quark gas in MIT bag(Madsen, 1992). In fact, if the interaction among quarks is considered, the bulk viscosity increases, which is calculated by Zheng et al. (2002). As we will show in the following, the r-mode instability window for strange stars will be significantly modified, when the improved bulk viscosity is adopted.

As demonstrated blow, we find the r-mode instability window is evidently narrowed due to the inclusion of medium effect(interactions among constituent particles). The medium effect makes the lowest critical spin frequency rise to 558Hz from about 300-400Hz(for the case of free quark gas). The limiting period of 1.78msec corresponding 558Hz is closer to the two most rapidly spinning pulsars known (with the periods of 1.56msec and 1.61msec) than the periods of 2.5msec and 3msec given by Madsen.

In addition, if it could be established that rapidly spinning pulsar are strange stars, the pulsar data would put certain constraints on the model parameter, namely the current mass of strange quark mass $`m_s`$. As we can see in Madsen’s article(Madsen, 2000), in the normal and especially in the 2-flavor color superconducting phase (2SC) case, the theoretical results is not consistent with the pulsar data when $`m_s=100`$MeV. However, when we taking the medium effects into account, the constraints to $`m_s`$ from pulsar data appears to be deeply relaxed, and we will show that $`m_s`$ can be taken as 100MeV in this article.

This paper is organized as the following. In section 2, we recall the bulk viscosity of interacting quark matter and compute the damping time scale on r-modes. In section 3, we give the improved critical curve(spin frequency) in spin frequency($`\nu `$)-temperature($`T`$) plane. In section 4, we give a summary.

## 2 BULK VISCOSITY AND DISSIPATION ON r-MODES

Ever since Wang & Lu (1984) pointed out that strange quark matter is characterized by a huge bulk viscosity relative to nuclear matter, some investigations have tried to calculate the relevant viscosity coefficient of SQM(Sawyer, 1989; Madsen, 1992; Goyal et al., 1994). In a MIT bag model, it is thought that the exact solution had been obtained by Madsen(Madsen, 1992). However, he ignored the coupling among quarks in the bag, which had been considered in the study of the equation of state of SQM(Schertler et al., 1997). Soon before, we found the coupling’s effect on the bulk viscosity leads to an increase of the viscosity over an order of magnitude although the medium modifications of the equation of state of strange quark matter was proven to be small(Zheng et al., 2002). To very good approximation, the relevant bulk viscosity coefficient still takes the form formulated by Madsen (1992):

$$\zeta =\frac{\alpha T^2}{\omega ^2+\beta T^4}$$
(1)
but here $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ were given by (Zheng et al., 2002), which are extremely differing from Madsen’s and strongly depending on the coupling constant of strong interactions among quarks. We expressed them as

$$\alpha =9.39\times 10^{22}\mu _d^5\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{F}d}^2}{C_d}\frac{k_{\mathrm{F}s}^2}{C_s}\right)^2(\mathrm{gcm}^1\mathrm{s}^1),$$
(2)
$$\beta =7.11\times 14^4\left[\frac{\mu _d^5}{2}\left(\frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{F}d}C_d}\frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{F}s}C_s}\right)\right]^2(\mathrm{s}^2),$$
(3)
where $`k_{Fi}=(\mu _i^2m_i^2)^{1/2},C_i=\mu _im_i^{}\frac{m_i^{}}{\mu _i}`$ and $`m_i^{}`$ was given in the references(Klimov, 1982; Weldon, 1993; Pisarski, 1989; Blaizot and Ollitrault, 1993; Vija and Thoma, 1995).

The bulk viscosity is expected to be the dominated internal fluid mechanism in hot compact stars. The timescales for the bulk viscosity damping of r-modes need to be estimated. Since the coupling of the r-modes to bulk viscosity vanishes in the lowest-order expression, the derived timescales must be based on the fully self-consistent second-order calculation of this coupling. The earlier estimates can’t gain this end(Lindblom et al., 1998; Andersson et al., 1999a; Kokkotas and Stergioulas, 1999). But it has been completed by Lindblom et al. (1999). We substitute our viscosity for the given Low-T limit($`T<10^9K`$) into the formula(6.2)given by Lindblom et al. (1999), and find the only difference comparing to the early calculation is the change of the viscosity coefficient. Thus, we can immediately obtain the timescale by a simple comparison instead of the repeat of the complicated calculations

$$\tau _B=\overline{\tau }_B\mathrm{s}(\pi G\overline{\rho }/\mathrm{\Omega }^2)T_9^2,$$
(4)
with

$$\overline{\tau }_B=2.83\times 10^3\alpha ^1\overline{\rho }m_{s100}^4.$$
(5)
where $`T_9`$ and $`m_{100}`$ denote temperature in units of $`10^9`$ K and the current mass of strange quark in units of 100 MeV , and $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the mean density of the star.

Evidently, $`\overline{\tau }_B`$ is determined with the chemical potential $`\mu _d`$, which can be obtained by solving the equations related to chemical equilibrium, electric charge neutrality and conservation of baryon number for given $`\overline{\rho }`$, namely

$$\mu _s=\mu _d,\mu _u=\mu \mu _e$$
(6)
$$\frac{2}{3}n_u\frac{1}{3}(n_d+n_s)n_e=0$$
(7)
$$n=\frac{1}{3}(n_u+n_d+n_s)$$
(8)
$$\overline{\rho }=(\frac{E}{A})n$$
(9)
Here, $`n`$ denotes the baryon number density, and $`n_i=\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}k_{Fi}^2`$ is the particle number density. $`\frac{E}{A}`$ is the energy per baryon and we approximately take it as the mass of a neutron in our calculation.

The coupling $`g`$ will extremely influences the solutions of the above equations. Following Schertler et al. (1997), $`g`$ is taken as a free parameter ranging from 0 to 5 and the equations(6) (7) (8) are solved numerically. Figure 1 shows $`\overline{\tau }_B`$ as a function of $`\overline{\rho }`$ for different $`g`$ and $`m_s=200`$MeV. The time scales depend on $`g`$ remarkably while they are nearly independent of $`\overline{\rho }`$. The time scale for $`g=5`$ arrives at tens of times shorter than the case of $`g=0`$. For a strange star with mass $`M=1.4M_{}`$ and radius $`R=10`$km, we find $`\overline{\tau }_B`$ ranges from 4.24$`\times 10^2`$s$`(g=0)`$ to 1.53$`\times 10^3`$s$`(g=5)`$. This is of great interest because this will significantly increases the critical rotation angular velocity for the onset of r-mode instability.

## 3 CRITICAL SPIN FREQUENCY FOR THE ONSET OF THE r-MODE INSTABILITY

The r-mode unstable (or stable) regime of the relativistic stars, neutron stars as well as strange stars, depends on the competition between the gravitational radiation and various dissipation mechanisms. To plot the instability window of r-mode or gain the critical rotation frequency for a given stellar model as a function of temperature, we need to acquire the characteristic timescales, damping and growing timescales of r-mode instability. Due to the emission of gravitational waves, the r-mode grows on a timescale

$$\tau _\mathrm{G}=\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{G}(\pi G\overline{\rho }/\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^3$$
(10)
where $`\overline{\tau }_\mathrm{G}`$ is $`3.26(1.57)`$s for $`n=1(0)`$ polytropic EOS, which was respectively studied by Lindblom et al. (1999) and Kokkotas and Stergioulas (1999). For the viscous damping timescales, we shall also consider the shear viscosity besides bulk viscosity discussed in the last section. In strange stars, the time scale for the shear viscous damping is given

$$\tau _S=\overline{\tau }_S(\alpha _S/0.1)^{5/3}T_9^{5/3}$$
(11)
Here, $`\overline{\tau }_S`$ is $`5.37(2.40)\times 10^8`$s corresponding to $`n=1(0)`$, $`\alpha _S`$ is the strong coupling and we take $`\alpha _S=0.1`$ in following calculation(Madsen, 2000).

We can now evaluate the critical spin frequency as a function of temperature from the equation

$$\frac{1}{\tau _G}+\frac{1}{\tau _S}+\frac{1}{\tau _B}=0$$
(12)
Figure 2 shows the regions of r-mode (in)stability in spin frequency-temperature($`\nu T`$)plane for a strange star with mass $`M=1.4M_{}`$ and radius $`R=10`$km. The shading between the two curves displays the effect of the medium modification of quark masses on critical rotation frequencies. The medium effect narrows the r-mode instability window. The dotted curve corresponds to $`g=0`$, reduced to the Madsen’s result(Madsen, 2000), and $`g=5`$ is assumed in the upper contour(the solid curve). The upper contour has a lowest limiting frequency denoted by $`C`$ as 558Hz(the corresponding period is 1.78msec), which is more close to the two most rapidly spinning pulsars known, with frequencies of 642Hz and 622Hz( the periods are 1.56 and 1.61msec), than the period of 2.5msec. This implies a strange star would slow down by gravitational wave emission when it reaches the instability window and spin around in 1.78msec instead of the 2.5$``$3msec expected by Madsen. Figure 3 shows the results for 2SC stars. Similar to figure 1, the medium effect also increases the critical rotation frequency of 2SC stars, but it should be stressed that the medium effect leaves the most rapidly stars away from the instability window.

Figure 4 depicts the instability windows where the current mass of strange quark takes 100 MeV. If the rapidly rotation pulsars could be regarded as strange stars, the medium effect would relax the stringent constraint on the choice of QCD parameters in contrast to the non-interacting medium case, for example, the 2SC stars for smaller current mass $`m_s`$ can safely exist due to the medium effect(see the upper dashed curve in figure 4).

## 4 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

We apply the bulk viscous coefficient including medium effect to reevaluate and discuss the viscous damping time. The time greatly depends on the strong coupling $`g`$. We find the time scale $`\overline{\tau }_B`$, rather than non-interacting perfect fluid where $`\overline{\tau }_B`$ is constant(The fact is that $`\overline{\tau }_B`$ versus $`\overline{\rho }`$ slowly increases for non-vanishing $`m_s`$ as shown in figure 1), weakly decreases with increasing mass density of stars for the given larger $`g`$. Therefore, the medium effect due to strong interactions among quarks adds the viscous dissipation of instability modes. For a star with $`M=1.4M_{}`$ and radius $`R=10`$km, we numerically calculate the critical spin frequency as a function of temperature. The medium effect lead to a significant lift of the critical frequencies. We find that the largest critical period is reduced to 1.78msec from 2.5msec, appearing to be more close to the two most rapidly spinning pulsars known.

We also study the 2SC stars and give our improved scenario. The current mass of strange quark in the model have a broader range taking the medium effects into account.

Finally, it should be mentioned that we here only consider weak coupling of strong interactions among quarks in MIT bag. The long range unperturbation interactions are contained in the usual bag constant. Although the MIT bag constant is able to contribute to EOS of SQM, the long range effects on dynamical quantities, such as viscous coefficient etc., seem to be ignored due to the hiding of the microscopic processes into the bag constant. If the processes can be taken into account, we may conjecture that the limiting spin of strange stars would shift further upward. This is our future work.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the partial support by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 10175026 and Natural Science Foundation of CCNU.


text:
# Equilibrium phase behavior of polydisperse hard spheres

## Abstract

We calculate the phase behavior of hard spheres with size polydispersity, using accurate free energy expressions for the fluid and solid phases. Cloud and shadow curves, which determine the onset of phase coexistence, are found exactly by the moment free energy method, but we also compute the complete phase diagram, taking full account of fractionation effects. In contrast to earlier, simplified treatments we find no point of equal concentration between fluid and solid or re-entrant melting at higher densities. Rather, the fluid cloud curve continues to the largest polydispersity that we study (14%); from the equilibrium phase behavior a terminal polydispersity can thus only be defined for the solid, where we find it to be around 7%. At sufficiently large polydispersity, fractionation into several solid phases can occur, consistent with previous approximate calculations; we find in addition that coexistence of several solids with a fluid phase is also possible.

transition; crystals; mixtures; colloids; state

During the past few decades, a great deal of effort has been devoted to studies of the phase behavior of spherical particles, and in particular of the freezing transition, where the particles arrange themselves into a crystal with long-range translational order. The simplest system for studying this transition is one where the particles act as hard spheres, exhibiting no interaction except for an infinite repulsion on overlap. This scenario can be realized experimentally, using e.g., colloidal latex particles sterically stabilized by a polymer coating PusVan86 . Hard spheres constitute a purely entropic system; the internal energy $`U`$ vanishes, and $`F=TS`$. Phase transitions are thus entropically driven; nevertheless, monodisperse (i.e., identically sized) hard spheres exhibit a freezing transition, where a fluid with a volume fraction of $`\varphi 50`$% coexists with a crystalline solid with $`\varphi 55`$Pusey91 .

For colloidal hard spheres, there is inevitably a spread in the particle diameters $`\sigma `$, which are effectively continuously distributed within some interval. The width of the diameter distribution can be characterized by a polydispersity parameter $`\delta `$, defined as the standard deviation of the size distribution divided by its mean.

The effect of polydispersity on the phase behavior of hard spheres has been investigated by experiments PusVan86 ; Pusey91 , computer simulations DicPar85 ; BolKof96 ; BolKof96b ; PhaRusZhuCha98 , density functional theories BarHan86 ; McrHay88 , and simplified analytical theories Pusey87 ; PhaRusZhuCha98 ; Bartlett97 ; Bartlett98 ; Sear98 ; BarWar99 ; XuBau03 ; Ref. PhaRusZhuCha98  has a more detailed bibliography of earlier work. These studies have revealed that, compared to the monodisperse case, polydispersity causes several qualitatively new phenomena. First, it is intuitively clear Pusey87  that significant diameter polydispersity should destabilize the crystal phase, because it is difficult to accommodate a range of diameters in a lattice structure. Experiments indeed show that crystallization is suppressed above a terminal polydispersity of $`\delta _t12\%`$ PusVan86 ; Pusey91 . Theoretical work suggested that this arises from a progressive narrowing of the fluid-solid coexistence region with increasing $`\delta `$, with the phase boundaries meeting at $`\delta _t`$ McrHay88 ; Bartlett97  in a point of equal concentration BarWar99 . Bartlett and Warren BarWar99  also found re-entrant melting on the high-density side of this point: for $`\delta `$ just below $`\delta _t`$, they predicted that compressing a crystal could transform it back into a fluid, as sketched in the inset of Fig. 1 below. However, none of these theoretical studies fully accounted for fractionation Sollich02 , i.e., the fact that coexisting phases generally have different diameter distributions; in fluid-solid coexistence, one typically finds that the solid contains a higher proportion of the larger particles. Beyond the resulting difference in mean diameter, fractionation implies that coexisting phases can also have different polydispersities $`\delta `$. Indeed, numerical simulations that allow for fractionation show that a solid with a narrow size distribution can coexist with an essentially arbitrarily polydisperse fluid BolKof96b ; KofBol99 , suggesting that the concept of a terminal polydispersity is useful only for the solid but not for the fluid. Fractionation has also been predicted to lead to solid-solid coexistence Bartlett98 ; Sear98 , where a broad diameter distribution is split into a number of narrower solid fractions. This occurs because the loss of entropy of mixing is outweighed by the better packing, and therefore higher entropy, of crystals with narrow size distribution; accordingly, as the overall polydispersity of the system grows, the number of coexisting solids is predicted to increase.

Previous work as described above leaves open a number of questions. The drastic and differing approximations for size fractionation used in the studies of re-entrant melting and solid-solid coexistence BarWar99 ; Bartlett98 ; Sear98  leave the relative importance of these two phenomena unclear. In BarWar99  fractionation was allowed, but coexisting phases were implicitly constrained to have the same $`\delta `$; calculations that account fully for fractionation remain restricted to highly simplified van der Waals free energies XuBau03 . Numerical simulations have been carried out at constant chemical potential distribution BolKof96 ; KofBol99 ; in contrast to the experimental situation, the overall particle size distribution can then change dramatically across the phase diagram, limiting the applicability of the results.

Our goal in this letter is to calculate the equilibrium phase behavior of polydisperse hard spheres on the basis of accurate free energy expressions, taking full account of fractionation and going beyond previous work on fluid-solid and solid-solid coexistence. The experimentally observed behavior of hard sphere colloids will of course also depend on non-equilibrium effects, e.g., the presence of a kinetic glass transition PusVan87 , anomalously large nucleation barriers AueFre01  or the growth kinetics of polydisperse crystals EvaHol01 . Nevertheless, the equilibrium phase behavior needs to be understood as a baseline from which non-equilibrium effects can be properly attributed. Also, more of the equilibrium behavior may be observable under microgravity conditions, where the glass transition is shifted to higher densities or even absent ZhuLiRogMeyOttRusCha97 .

Our calculations will show that the fluid cloud curve, which locates the onset of phase coexistence coming from low density, continues to large polydispersities $`\delta `$: the point of equal concentration found in BarWar99  disappears together with the predicted re-entrant melting. Instead of returning to a single-phase fluid at high volume fractions, the system splits into two or more fractionated solids, consistent with the simplified calculations of Bartlett98 ; coexistence of several solids with a fluid phase appears as a new feature.

In general, the total free energy (density) of a polydisperse system consists of an ideal and an excess part ($`f_{\mathrm{ex}}`$). In units where $`k_\mathrm{B}T=1`$,

$$f=𝑑\sigma \rho (\sigma )[\mathrm{ln}\rho (\sigma )1]+f_{\mathrm{ex}}$$
(1)
Here $`\rho (\sigma )`$ is the density distribution, i.e., $`\rho (\sigma )d\sigma `$ is the number density of particles with diameters between $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma +d\sigma `$. Equilibrium requires equality of the chemical potentials $`\mu (\sigma )=\delta f/\delta \rho (\sigma )`$ and of the pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }=f+𝑑\sigma \mu (\sigma )\rho (\sigma )`$ among all coexisting phases $`a=1\mathrm{}P`$. Particle conservation adds the condition that, if phase $`a`$ occupies a fraction $`v^{(a)}`$ of the system volume, then $`_av^{(a)}\rho ^{(a)}(\sigma )=\rho ^{(0)}(\sigma )`$, where $`\rho ^{(0)}(\sigma )`$ is the overall or “parent” density distribution.

For the fluid, the most accurate free energy approximation available at present is the BMCSL generalization Boublik70 ; ManCarStaLel71  of the monodisperse Carnahan-Starling equation of state. This is truncatable in the sense that the excess free energy only depends on the four moments $`\rho _i=𝑑\sigma \sigma ^i\rho (\sigma )`$ ($`i=0\mathrm{}3`$) of the density distribution SalSte82 ; $`\rho _0`$ is the total number density, $`(\pi /6)\rho _3=\varphi `$ the volume fraction, and $`\rho _1/\rho _0=\overline{\sigma }`$ and $`\rho _2/\rho _0=\overline{\sigma ^2}`$ give the mean and mean-square diameter. For the crystalline solid, Bartlett Bartlett97 ; Bartlett99  assumed that the same truncatable structure holds; an approximate excess free energy (depending only on the same $`\rho _i`$) can then be derived from simulation results KraFre91  for bidisperse hard spheres. Implicit in the use of data from KraFre91  is the assumption that the crystal has a substitutionally disordered f.c.c. structure.

We adopt the BMCSL and Bartlett free energies for our calculation; the appropriate branch for a given $`\rho (\sigma )`$ is selected by taking the minimum of the fluid and solid free energies. Since the excess free energies depend only on the $`\rho _i`$, the excess chemical potentials $`\mu _{\mathrm{ex}}(\sigma )`$ take the form

$$\mu _{\mathrm{ex}}(\sigma )=\delta f_{\mathrm{ex}}/\delta \rho (\sigma )=\mu _0+\mu _1\sigma +\mu _2\sigma ^2+\mu _3\sigma ^3$$
(2)
For the solid, Bartlett Bartlett99  derived $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mu _3`$ from the small and large $`\sigma `$ limits of the Widom insertion principle Widom63 . However, because of the approximate character of the excess free energy, $`\mu _{\mathrm{ex}}(\sigma )`$ then does not obey the thermodynamic consistency requirement $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{ex}}(\sigma )/\delta \rho (\sigma ^{})=\delta \mu _{\mathrm{ex}}(\sigma ^{})/\delta \rho (\sigma )`$. To avoid this, we assign all excess chemical potentials by explicitly carrying out the differentiation in (2).

Our computational approach is based on the moment free energy method SolCat98 ; Warren98 ; SolWarCat01 , which maps the full free energy (1), with its dependence on all details of $`\rho (\sigma )`$ through the ideal part, onto a moment free energy depending only on the moments $`\rho _i`$. For truncatable free energies this locates exactly the cloud points, i.e., the onset of phase separation coming from either a single-phase fluid or solid, as well as the properties of the coexisting “shadow” phases that appear there. Inside the coexistence region, one in principle needs to solve a set of highly coupled nonlinear equations Sollich02  and the moment free energy method gives only approximate results. However, by retaining extra moments with adaptively chosen weight functions ClaCueSeaSolSpe00 ; SolWarCat01 ; SpeSol03a , increasingly accurate solutions can be obtained by iteration. Using these as initial points, we are then able to find full solutions of the exact phase equilibrium equations. Care is taken to check that solutions are globally stable, i.e., that no phase split of lower free energy exists SolWarCat01 . We are able to calculate coexistence of up to $`P=5`$ phases, which so far has been possible only for much simpler free energies depending on a single density moment (see e.g., SolWarCat01 ).

Below we present results for a symmetric triangular parent density distribution, i.e., $`\rho ^{(0)}(\sigma )`$ increasing linearly from zero for $`\sigma [1w,1]`$ and decreasing linearly for $`\sigma [1,1+w]`$, with $`w=\sqrt{6}\delta `$. The mean diameter of 1 fixes our length unit. Other distributions could be considered, but for the moderate values of $`\delta `$ of interest here one expects them to give qualitatively similar results, based on the intuition that for narrow size distributions $`\delta `$ is the key parameter controlling the phase behavior Pusey87 .

Fig. 1 shows our results for the cloud and shadow curves. The fluid cloud curve continues throughout the whole range of polydispersities that we can investigate: even at $`\delta =14\%`$, a hard sphere fluid will eventually split off a solid on compression. Fractionation is key here; as indicated in Fig. 1, the coexisting shadow solid always has a smaller polydispersity, with $`\delta `$ never rising above $`6\%`$. This fractionation effect prevents the convergence of the solid and fluid phase boundaries, along with the resulting re-entrant melting BarWar99  (Fig. 1-inset). These findings are in qualitative accord with numerical simulations for the simpler case of fixed chemical potentials BolKof96b ; KofBol99 . In particular, the terminal polydispersity $`\delta _t`$ cannot be defined as the point beyond which a fluid at equilibrium will no longer phase separate; $`\delta _t`$ only makes sense as the maximum polydispersity at which a single solid phase can exist. As in BolKof96b  we also find that the coexisting fluid always has a lower volume fraction than the solid, along with (not shown) a lower mean diameter.

Coming from the single-phase solid, decreasing density at low polydispersities leads to conventional fluid-solid phase separation. At higher $`\delta `$, however, the solid cloud curve acquires a second branch at higher densities. This is broadly analogous to the re-entrant phase boundary found in BarWar99 , but with the crucial difference that the system phase separates into two solids rather than a solid and a fluid. The two branches meet at a triple point. Here the solid cloud phase coexists with two shadow phases, one fluid and one solid, as marked by the squares in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1 the triple point, at $`\delta _t7\%`$, also gives the terminal polydispersity beyond which solids with triangular diameter distribution are unstable against phase separation. As explained, other distributions should give similar values of $`\delta _t`$.

In Fig. 2 we show the full phase diagram for our triangular parent distribution. In each region the nature of the phase(s) coexisting at equilibrium is indicated. The cloud curves of Fig. 1 reappear as the boundaries between single-phase regions and areas of fluid-solid or solid-solid coexistence. Starting from the latter and increasing density or $`\delta `$, fractionation into multiple solids occurs. The overall shape of the phase boundaries in this region is in good qualitative agreement with the approximate calculations of Bartlett98 . However, the coexisting solids do not necessarily split the diameter range evenly among themselves as assumed in Bartlett98 ; see the sample plot in Fig. 3 of the normalized diameter distributions $`n(\sigma )=\rho (\sigma )/\rho _0`$ of four coexisting solids. In fact, plotting $`\delta `$ vs $`\varphi `$ for all coexisting solids across the phase diagram, we find points that cluster very closely around the high-density branch of the solid cloud curve in Fig. 1. Coexisting solids with lower volume fraction $`\varphi `$ thus tend to have higher polydispersity $`\delta `$, as in the example in Fig. 3; this conclusion is intuitively appealing since higher compression should disfavor a polydisperse crystalline packing.

Note that in Fig. 2, at larger $`\delta `$ than we can tackle numerically, coexistence of $`P>4`$ solids would be expected since each individual solid can only tolerate a finite amount of polydispersity. However, from Fig. 2 such phase splits would occur at increasing densities and eventually be limited by the physical maximum volume fraction $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}74\%`$. Also, at higher $`\delta `$ more complicated single-phase crystal structures, with different lattice sites occupied preferentially by (say) smaller and larger spheres, could appear and compete with the substitutionally disordered solids we consider.

Finally, a new feature of the phase diagram in Fig. 2 is the coexistence of a fluid with multiple solids. The triple point on the solid cloud curves already indicated the existence of a three-phase F-S-S region; as in the case of solid-solid phase splits, more solid phases then appear with increasing $`\delta `$. Fig. 4 shows again that the fractionation behavior is non-trivial: while the coexisting fluid is enriched in the smaller particles as expected, it also contains “left over” large spheres that did not fit comfortably into the solid phases and thus ends up having a larger polydispersity (10.4%) than the parent (8%).

In conclusion, we have calculated the phase behavior of polydisperse hard spheres, using accurate free energies for the fluid and solid phases and solving exactly the resulting equilibrium conditions. Fluid-solid coexistence has been identified for fluids with polydispersities up to $`\delta =14\%`$. This shows clearly that the experimentally observed suppression of crystallization above $`\delta =12\%`$ is a non-equilibrium effect, probably caused by increased nucleation barriers at large $`\delta `$ AueFre01 . For the solid, a terminal polydispersity remains well-defined as the maximal value beyond which instability to phase separation sets in; for triangular diameter distributions this turns out to be $`\delta _t7\%`$. Instead of the re-entrant melting predicted in an approximate treatment of fractionation effects BarWar99 , we find that sufficiently polydisperse solids split into two fractionated solids on compression. At higher volume fractions and polydispersities, multiple solids can coexist; coexistence of a fluid with several solids appears as a new feature. Fractionation effects are nontrivial, with solids splitting the diameter range unevenly among them and coexisting fluids sometimes having larger polydispersities than the parent.

Overall, our calculated phase diagram unites, clarifies and extends the previous separate predictions of polydispersity effects on fluid-solid coexistence and solid-solid fractionation. Numerical simulations may offer the best avenue for testing our predictions but will need to be carried out at fixed parent size distribution WilSol02  to detect the complex fractionation phenomena we find. For the future it would be exciting to unify our predictions with those for fluid-fluid demixing, but this will be very challenging since the latter only occurs at polydispersities $`\delta `$ of order $`100\%`$ Warren99 ; Cuesta99 , far outside the range studied here.

It is a pleasure to thank Paul Bartlett for providing his code for the solid free energy. Financial support through EPSRC grant GR/R52121/01 is acknowledged.