text:
# Once more about the 52 four-dimensional parallelotopes

## 1 Introduction

A parallelotope is a convex polytope which fills the space facet to facet by its translation copies without intersecting by inner points. Such a filling by parallelotopes is a tiling. The centers of the tiles form a lattice. A parallelotope of dimension $`n`$ is called primitive if exactly $`n+1`$ adjacent parallelotopes meet in each vertex of its lattice tiling. Voronoi defines an L-type of a parallelotope, which is (in modern terms) the isomorphism class of the face lattice of the parallelotope. A special kind of a parallelotope is the Voronoi polytope of a lattice. The Voronoi polytope at a lattice point $`v`$ is the set of points which are at least as close to $`v`$ as to any other lattice point. Voronoi conjectured that every parallelotope of a class of parallelotopes of the same L-type is affinely equivalent to a Voronoi polytope (of course, of the same L-type), and he proved this conjecture for primitive parallelotopes.

In four-dimensional space, Voronoi \[Vo08\] determined all the 3 types of primitive parallelotopes. Using projection along a zone of parallel edges, Delaunay \[De29\] find 51 types of four-dimensional parallelotopes. The missed 52th type was discovered by Shtogrin \[St73\].

Engel verified by computer the result of Delaunay corrected by Shtogrin. In Table 1 of \[En92\] he gives an informative and useful list of parallelotopes of the 52 types, each of maximal symmetry. Besides, in Fig.1 he gives a partial order between the 52 parallelotopes. This order consists of two disjoint components. These two partial orders correspond to partial orders between zonotopes: the first one amongst zonotopes, which are themselves parallelotopes, and the second one amongst zonotopes, the Minkowski sum of which with the 24-cell gives a parallelotope. Conway in the chapter ”Afterthoughts: Feeling the form of a Four-dimensional lattice” of \[Con97\] proposes conorms in order to characterize shapes (i.e. types) of parallelotopes. (In fact, Conway enumerates shapes of four-dimensional Voronoi polytopes.) The 17 types of parallelotopes which are zonotopes are parameterized by 16 subgraphs of the complete graph $`K_5`$ and by the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$. The remaining 35 types of parallelotopes are characterized by shapes of positions minimal conorms in $`4\times 4`$ matrices of all conorms. Vallentin \[Va03\] repeated the above Conway’s computations. He compute in details the 35 nonequivalent conorms.

In \[Ry98\] Ryshkov asserts that a four-dimensional parallelotope is either the Minkowski sum of segments, or the Minkowski sum of the 24-cell with a set of segments. The segments of the set are parallel to the edges of the 24-cell. But no proof of these assertions was published.

A zonotope is the Minkowski sum of segments. McMullen \[McM75\] proved that an $`n`$-dimensional zonotope is a parallelotope if and only if the directing vectors of its segments form an $`n`$-dimensional unimodular system. It is well known (see, for example, \[DG99\]) that there are two maximal four-dimensional unimodular systems. These are the graphic system of 10 vectors representing the regular matroid of the complete graph $`K_5`$ and the cographic system of 9 vectors representing the cographic matroid of the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$. Each subsystem of the maximal cographic unimodular system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ is graphic and represents a subgraph of $`K_5`$. Hence, each four-dimensional zonotopal parallelotope is generated either by one of 16 graphic unimodular subsystems of $`K_5`$ or by the cographic system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$. Note that the graph $`K_4`$ in the table on page 87 of \[Con97\] generates a three-dimensional unimodular system. But the rank 4 subgraph $`C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`K_5`$ is missed in the Conway’s table. (An explanation

of the notation $`C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is given below in Section 3.) Note that in \[Va03\], zonotopes are described by their facet vectors. The facet vectors of zonotope $`Z(M)`$, related to a matroid $`M`$, form a representation of the dual matroid $`M^{}`$. Hence, in contrast to us, Vallentin considers cographic matroids of corresponding graphs.

Remaining 35 parallelotopes are Minkowski sums of zonotopes related to unimodular systems with the regular 24-cell $`\{3,4,3\}`$, and the 24-cell itself. Note that zonotopes with the same unimodular system can give distinct sums with the 24-cell.

In this paper we give a list of the 52 types of four-dimensional parallelotopes, where for each type we explicitly give the corresponding unimodular system. The case of four-dimensional parallelotopes is a very instructive example of constructions of a large class of $`n`$-dimensional parallelotopes.

## 2 Parallelotopes of non-zero width

Venkov introduced in \[Ve59\] a notion of a polytope of non-zero width in direction of a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`X^k`$ as a polytope whose intersection with any affine $`k`$-space parallel to $`X^k`$ is either $`k`$-dimensional or empty. He studied parallelotopes of non-zero width. The most interesting are parallelotopes of non-zero width in direction of a line (or in direction of a vector spanning this line).

It is not difficult to see that if a parallelotope $`P`$ has a non-zero width in direction of a line $`l`$, then the line $`l`$ is parallel to some edges of $`P`$. A set of mutually parallel edges of $`P`$ is called an edge zone of $`P`$. Following to Delaunay \[De29\], Engel called an edge zone closed if each two-dimensional face of $`P`$ has either two or none of edges of this zone. Otherwise, the zone is called open.

For each edge zone $`E`$, there is a vector $`z(E)`$ with integer coordinates which is parallel to the edges of $`E`$. Voronoi called the vector $`z(E)`$ a characteristic of any edge of the edge zone $`E`$. So, any edge $`eE`$ has the form $`e=\rho _ez(E)`$. The positive number $`\rho _e`$ is called by Voronoi regulator of the edge $`e`$.

In \[Gr03\], the following proposition is proved.

###### Proposition 1

For a parallelotope $`P`$ and a vector $`z`$, the following assertions are equivalent:

(i) $`P`$ has a closed edge zone parallel to $`z`$;

(ii) $`P`$ has a non-zero width in direction of $`z`$;

(iii) $`P`$ is the Minkowski sum of a segment $`S(z)`$ of the line spanned by $`z`$ and a parallelotope $`P^{}`$ of zero width in direction $`z`$, i.e., $`P=P^{}+S(z)`$.

We say that a parallelotope $`P`$ is of zero width in direction $`z`$ if $`P`$ is not of non-zero width in this direction. The length of the segment $`S(z)`$ in item (iii) is equal to the length of the shortest edge of the closed zone parallel to $`z`$. It implies that this zone is open in the parallelotope $`P^{}`$. Note that $`S(z)=\lambda (zz)`$ for some real $`\lambda `$, where $`zz=\{x=\alpha z:1\alpha 1\}`$ is the Minkowski sum of $`z`$ and $`z`$.

If the parallelotope $`P^{}`$ in the sum $`P=P^{}+S(z)`$ is also of non-zero width in another direction $`z_1`$, then, by Proposition 1(iii), $`P^{}=P^{\prime \prime }+S(z_1)`$. Of course, the Minkowski sum is associative and distributive. Hence, if a parallelotope $`P`$ has a non-zero width in several directions $`zQ`$, then $`P=P_0+_{zQ}S(z)`$, where $`P_0`$ is a parallelotope, which has no direction of non-zero width. The sum $`Z(Q)=_{zQ}S(z)`$ is a zonotope. If the original parallelotope $`P`$ is a zonotope, then $`P_0`$ is a point and $`P=Z(Q)`$.

Recall that a set of vectors $`U`$ is a unimodular system if every vector $`uU`$ has an integer representation in any basic subset $`BU`$ (details see in \[DG99\]). We say that the set of vectors $`Q`$ spans $`U`$ if there are scalars $`\beta _z`$, $`zQ`$, such that $`U=\{\beta _zz:zQ\}`$. It is proved in \[Gr03\], that the set of vectors $`Q(P)`$ of all directions of non-zero width of a parallelotope $`P`$ spans a unimodular system $`U(P)`$. McMullen \[McM75\] proved that a zonotope $`Z(Q)=_{zQ}S(z)`$ is a parallelotope if and only if $`Q`$ spans a unimodular system.

We obtain the following result.

###### Theorem 1

Any parallelotope is:

(i) either a zonotope,

(ii) or a parallelotope of zero width in any direction,

(iii) or the Minkowski sum of a zonotope with a parallelotope of zero width in any direction.

The Proposition 1 shows that, sometimes, one can add a segment to a parallelotope $`P_0`$, in order to obtain another parallelotope. If the parallelotope $`P_0`$ has zero width in direction $`z`$, then obtained parallelotope $`P_0+S(z)`$ has another L-type than the original one. In \[Gr03\] necessary and sufficient conditions are given, when the sum of a parallelotope with a segment is a parallelotope. For to formulate these conditions, we introduce some new notions.

Venkov \[Ve54\] proved that a polytope $`P`$ is a parallelotope if and only if $`P`$ itself and all its facets are centrally symmetric and the projection of $`P`$ along any $`(n2)`$-dimensional face is either parallelogram, or a centrally symmetric hexagon. The four or six facets, which are projected into edges of a parallelogram or of a hexagon form a 2-belt or a 3-belt, respectively.

A facet $`F`$ of a parallelotope $`P`$ is defined by a facet vector $`p`$, such that the facet $`F`$ lies in the affine hyperplane $`\{x𝐑^n:p^Tx=\frac{1}{2}p^Tt\}`$. Here $`t`$ is the lattice vector connecting the center of $`P=P(0)`$ with the center of the parallelotope $`P(t)`$ adjacent to $`P`$ by the facet $`F`$. Let $`I`$ be the set of indices of all pairs of opposite facets of $`P`$. Then we have:

$$P(0)=\{x𝐑^n:\frac{1}{2}p_i^Tt_ip_i^Tx\frac{1}{2}p_i^Tt_i,\text{ }iI\}.$$
(1)
If $`P=P(0)`$ is a Voronoi polytope, then the facet vectors $`p_i`$ are parallel to the lattice vectors $`t_i`$, and we can set $`p_i=t_i`$. We use the same names 2- and 3-belts for the two and three facet vectors, defining facets of a 2- and a 3-belt, respectively.

It is proved in \[Gr03\] the following:

###### Proposition 2

For a parallelotope $`P`$ and a vector $`z`$, the following assertion are equivalent:

(i) the Minkowski sum $`P+S(z)`$ is a parallelotope;

(ii) vector $`z`$ is orthogonal to at least one facet vector of each 3-belt of $`P`$.

## 3 The Voronoi polytope of the lattice $`D_n`$

We apply Proposition 2 to the Voronoi polytope $`P_V(D_n)`$ of the root lattice $`D_n`$. The facet vectors of the Voronoi polytope $`P_V(D_n)`$ are $`n(n1)`$ roots of the root system $`D_n`$. We take the roots in the usual form $`e_i\pm e_j`$, $`1i<jn`$. Here $`\{e_i:iN\}`$, $`N=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, is an orthonormal basis of $`𝐑^n`$. According to (1), we have:

$$P_V(D_n)=\{x𝐑^n:1x_i\pm x_j1,\text{ }1i<jn\}.$$

The vertices of $`P_V(D_n)`$ are of the following two forms (cf. \[CS91\]):

$$\pm v_i=\pm e_i,iN,\text{ and }v(S)=\frac{1}{2}(e(S)e(\overline{S})),SN,$$

where $`\overline{S}=NS`$ and $`e(T)=_{iT}e_i`$ for any $`TN`$. The $`2^n`$ vertices of the set $`\{v(S):SN\}`$ are vertices of a unit cube with its center in origin. The $`2n`$ vertices $`\pm v_i`$, $`iN`$, form $`2n`$ pyramids having the $`2n`$ facets of the unit cube as bases. Hence, the vertex $`v_i`$ is adjacent to a vertex $`v(S)`$ only if $`Si`$. Similarly, the vertex $`v_i=e_i`$ is adjacent to a vertex $`v(S)`$ only if $`iS`$. The edge $`v(S)v_i=\frac{1}{2}e(T)e(\overline{T})`$, $`T=S\{i\}`$, connects these vertices. The vertex $`v(S)`$ is adjacent to a vertex $`v(S^{})`$ only if $`v(S)v(S^{})=\pm e_i`$ for some $`iN`$.

So, edges of $`P_V(D_n)`$ are of the following form

$$\text{ either }e(S)e(\overline{S}),SN,\text{ or }e_i,iN.$$
(2)
Up to sign, there are $`2^{n1}+n`$ directions of edges, i.e., edge zones.

Each facet of $`P_V(D_n)`$ is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional bipyramid with an $`(n2)`$-dimensional cube as its base. Hence, each 2-face of $`P_V(D_n)`$ is a triangle. This implies that all edge zones of $`P_V(D_n)`$ are open.

###### Proposition 3

The following assertions are equivalent:

(i) $`P_V(D_n)+S(z)`$ is a parallelotope;

(ii) $`z`$ is parallel to an edge of $`P_V(D_n)`$.

Proof. (i)$``$(ii). By Proposition 2, we have to show that the set of vectors $`z`$, each of which is orthogonal to at least one vector $`p`$ of each 3-belt of $`P_V(D_n)`$ coincides with the set of edges of $`P_V(D_n)`$.

The 3-belts of $`P_V(D_n)`$ are of the following two types:

$$(a)\text{ }e_ie_j,e_je_k,e_ie_k;\text{ }(b)\text{ }e_i+e_j,e_j+e_k,e_ie_k.$$

We find all vectors $`z=_{i=1}^nz_ie_i`$ such that $`z^Tp=0`$ for at least one facet vector $`p`$ of each belt. The vector $`z`$ cannot have 3 mutually non-equal coordinates. In fact, if there are three such coordinates $`z_i`$, $`z_j`$, $`z_k`$, then $`z`$ is not orthogonal to any facet vector of the belt $`(e_ie_j,e_je_k,e_ie_k)`$ of type (a). Therefore, the vector $`z`$ should be of the form $`z=z^{}(S):=z_1e(S)+z_2e(\overline{S})`$, $`SN`$. Since at least one pair of each triple of indices $`\{i,j,k\}`$ lies either in $`S`$, or in $`\overline{S}`$, the vector $`z^{}(S)`$ is orthogonal to at least one vector of each belt of type (a).

For the vector $`z^{}(S)`$ to be orthogonal to at least one vector of each belt of type (b), it should be either $`z_1=z_2`$, or $`z_1=0`$ and $`|\overline{S}|=1`$, or $`z_2=0`$ and $`|S|=1`$, or $`z_1+z_2=0`$. The last condition is necessary for the vector $`z^{}(S)`$ with $`z_1z_2`$ to be orthogonal to at least one vector of the belt type (b), such that either $`iS`$, $`k\overline{S}`$, or $`kS`$, $`i\overline{S}`$.

So, we obtain that, up to a multiple, the vector $`z`$ has the form

$$\text{ either }z=z(S)=e(S)e(\overline{S}),SN,\text{ or }z=e_i,iN.$$

Comparing these vectors with edges (2) of $`P_V(D_n)`$, we obtain that all vectors are directed along edges of $`P_V(D_n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Four-dimensional unimodular systems and zonotopal parallelotopes

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional simplex. It has $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)`$ edges. The $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)`$ vectors which are parallel to edges of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ and have the same length as corresponding edges, form a maximal unimodular system $`A_n`$. It represents the graphic matroid of the complete graph $`K_{n+1}`$ which is the one-dimensional skeleton of the simplex $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. Recall that a set of vectors corresponding to edges of a graph $`G`$ represents a graphic (cyclic) matroid of the graph $`G`$ if the sum of vectors (taken in suitable direction) along any cycle of $`G`$ is zero vector. Changing in this definition cycle by cocycle (cut), we obtain a representation of the cographic matroid of $`G`$. (See any book on Matroid Theory, for example, \[Aig79\].)

We identify the vectors of $`A_n`$ with the corresponding edges of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ and $`K_{n+1}`$. Take the $`n`$ vectors incident to a vertex $`v\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ as a basis of $`A_n`$ and denote them $`e_i`$, $`1in`$. Suppose that these vectors are directed from the vertex $`v`$. Then the other $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$ vectors of $`A_n`$ are $`e_ie_j`$, $`1i<jn`$.

The Minkowski sum of all vectors of $`A_n`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional zonotope which is called permutohedron. It is a primitive parallelotope. Voronoi called its L-type as the principal type.

Unimodular $`n`$-dimensional subsystems of $`A_n`$ are related to subgraphs of rank $`n`$ of $`K_{n+1}`$. Recall that rank of a graph is the number of its vertices minus the number of its components.

If a graph $`G`$ is planar, then there exists its dual planar graph $`G^+`$ edges of which are in one-to-one correspondence with edges of $`G`$. The graphic matroid of $`G`$ is isomorphic to the cographic matroid of $`G^+`$. Both these matroids are represented by a common unimodular system.

A deletion of an element from the cographic matroid of a graph $`G`$ provides the contraction of the corresponding edge of $`G`$. It means that the end vertices of the contracted edge are identified and the obtained loop is deleted. For the graph $`K_{3,3}`$, the contraction of an edge gives a planar graph on 5 vertices. This graph is the subgraph of $`K_5`$ obtained by deletion from $`K_5`$ of two non-adjacent edges. It is denoted by $`K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$. The dual $`(K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏})^+`$ is isomorphic to $`K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Here and below instead of the sum $`\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`k`$ ones of \[Con97\] (denoting $`k`$ non-adjacent edges), we write $`k\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$. We use here and below the following Conway’s notations: $`C_{ijk\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the graph consisting of more than two chains each containing $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$ edges and all chains connect the same two vertices. But note that $`C_k`$ is a cycle with $`k`$ edges, i.e. $`C_k=C_{ij}`$ with $`i+j=k`$. $`G+k\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$ denotes a graph $`G`$ with $`k`$ pendant edges. For the matroid of the graph $`G+k\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$ it is not important, whether the $`k`$ edges are connected to $`G`$ or not, or the $`k`$ edges form a tree or they are disconnected. It is important, that the subgraph induced by these $`k`$ edges contains no cycle.

In dimension 4, there are two maximal unimodular systems:

1) $`A_4`$, representing the graphic matroid of the complete graph $`K_5`$, and

2) the unimodular system, representing the cographic matroid $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ of the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$.

There are 16 subgraphs of rank 4 in $`K_5`$. They are drawn on p.87 of \[Con97\]. But the graph $`K_4`$ on this picture has rank 3. It should be changed by the subgraph $`C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ missed in \[Con97\]. A correct picture of these graphs is given on p.55 of \[Va03\], but the graph $`C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is denoted there as $`K_4`$.

Since proper cographic submatroids of $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ are isomorphic to graphic ones, in dimension 4, there is only one cographic unimodular system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$, which is not isomorphic to graphic one. Hence, besides the mentioned above 16 graphic four-dimensional unimodular systems, there is the 17th cographic four-dimensional unimodular system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$. This implies, there are exactly 17 four-dimensional zonotopal parallelotopes. Amongst them only permutohedron is primitive.

Note that all edge zones of a zonotope are closed. All edges of an edge zone have the same length. A deletion of a vector from the unimodular system of a zonotope relates to contraction of the corresponding edge zone.

The correspondence of zonotopal parallelotopes from \[De29\] with subgraphs of $`K_5`$ is given in Table 1. In this table, $`N_D`$ denotes the number given to a parallelotope in \[De29\] (we call it Delaunay number), and $`m`$ is the number of segments in the Minkowski sum of the corresponding zonotope. According to \[Con97\], $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ denote the subgraphs of $`K_5`$, which are connected chains of two and three edges, respectively.

Table 1. Four-dimensional zonotopal parallelotopes $`Z(G)`$

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & \\ N_D\hfill & 1\hfill & 4\hfill & 19\hfill & 5\hfill & 6\hfill & 7\hfill & 8\hfill & 9\hfill & 10\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ m\hfill & 10\hfill & 9\hfill & 9\hfill & 8\hfill & 8\hfill & 7\hfill & 7\hfill & 7\hfill & 7\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & & \\ G\hfill & K_5\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & K_{3,3}^{}\hfill & K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & K_4+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & C_{2221}\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟑}\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & \\ N_D\hfill & 11\hfill & 12\hfill & 13\hfill & 16\hfill & 14\hfill & 15\hfill & 17\hfill & 18\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ m\hfill & 6\hfill & 6\hfill & 6\hfill & 6\hfill & 5\hfill & 5\hfill & 5\hfill & 4\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ G\hfill & C_{222}\hfill & C_{321}\hfill & C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & C_3+C_3\hfill & C_4+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & C_5\hfill & C_3+2\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \end{array}$$

## 5 Unextendible unimodular subsystems of $`D_4`$

The four-dimensional Voronoi polytope $`P_V(D_4)`$ is the self-dual regular four-dimensional polytope called the 24-cell. Coxeter \[Cox48\] denotes it as $`\{3,4,3\}`$. The edges of $`P_V(D_4)`$ are given in (2) where $`N=\{1,2,3,4\}`$. In this case, up to sign, we have 12 vectors, and these 12 vectors up to the multiple $`\sqrt{2}`$ are 12 vectors of the root system $`D_4`$. For convenience, we use below for edges of $`P_V(D_4)`$ the usual form of the root system $`D_4=\{e_i\pm e_j:1i<j4\}`$. Besides, we denote the vector $`e_i\pm e_j`$ by the symbol $`ij^\pm `$, where the signs agree.

Note that $`D_4`$ consists of the following three 4-sets of mutually orthogonal vectors: $`\{ij^\pm ,kl^\pm \}`$, where $`\{i,j,k,l\}=\{1,2,3,4\}`$. Call such a 4-set quadruple. Each quadruple relates to one of the three partitions of the 4-set $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$ into pairs. Call a three mutually orthogonal roots of $`D_4`$ by a triple. Each triple $`t`$ is contained in a uniquely determined by $`t`$ quadruple $`q_tt`$.

Consider the following two maximal unimodular systems contained in the root system $`D_4`$: the graphic system $`A_4e`$, where $`e`$ is any vector of $`A_4`$, and the cographic system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$. The system $`A_4e`$ represents the graphic matroid of the graph $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and the system $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ represents the cographic matroid of the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$. There are many ways to choose in $`D_4`$ vectors forming the unimodular systems $`A_4e`$ and $`K_{3,3}^{}`$. We choose the vectors as follows. The 6 vectors $`ij^{}`$, $`1i<j4`$, form the graphic system $`A_3`$ representing the graphic matroid of the complete graph $`K_4`$. If the vertices of $`K_4`$ are denoted by the numbers 1,2,3,4, then the vector $`ij^{}=e_ie_j`$ represents the edge $`(ij)`$ connecting the vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$. Now suppose that the vertex 5 of $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is not connected with the vertex 1 of its subgraph $`K_4`$. Then we can relate the vectors $`12^+`$, $`13^+`$, $`14^+`$ to the edges (25), (35), (45), respectively. It is easy to verify that the 9 vectors $`ij^{}`$, $`1i<j4`$, $`1i^+`$, $`2i4`$, form the unimodular system $`A_4e`$. This unimodular system consists of the following three triples of mutually orthogonal vectors: $`(ij^{},ij^+,kl^{})`$, $`ij=12,13,14`$, corresponding to three partitions of the 4-set $`\{i,j,k,l\}`$ into pairs.

The graph $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is planar. It has three vertices of degree 4 and two vertices of degree 3. The 9 edges of this graph are partitioned into the following two orbits (1) and (2) of the automorphism group of $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$:

(1) 3 edges with both end vertices of degree 4; they are represented by the roots $`23^{}`$, $`24^{}`$, $`34^{}`$;

(2) 6 edges with end vertices of degree 3 and 4; they are represented by the roots $`12^\pm `$, $`13^\pm `$, $`14^\pm `$.

If we delete in the graph $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$ the edge (24), we obtain the planar graph $`G_5:=K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$. The vertices 1, 2, 4, 5 of the graph $`G_5`$ have degree 3 and form a 4-cycle with edges (12), (25), (45), (14). The vertex 3 has degree 4 and it is adjacent to the four vertices of the 4-cycle by edges (13), (23), (35), (34). Now, we consider the dual graph $`G_5^+`$ which is isomorphic to original one. Let the vertices of the 4-cycle of the $`G_5^+`$ be $`a,b,c,d`$ in this order along the 4-cycle. Then edges of this 4-cycle, corresponding to the edges (13), (23), (35), (34) of $`G_5`$, have the following pairs of end vertices, respectively: $`(ab),(bc),(cd),(ad)`$. The vertex $`v`$ of degree 4 is adjacent to the vertices $`a,b,c,d`$ by edges, corresponding to the edges (14), (12), (25), (45) of $`G_5`$, respectively. The four last edges form a 4-cocycle of $`G_5^+`$. The 8 vectors $`12^{}`$, $`13^{}`$, $`14^{}`$, $`23^{}`$, $`34^{}`$, $`12^+`$, $`13^+`$, $`14^+`$ related to the edges of $`G_5`$ and $`G_5^+`$ represent the graphic matroid of $`G_5`$ and the cographic matroid of $`G_5^+`$. The cographic matroid of $`G_5^+`$ is a submatroid of $`K_{3,3}^{}`$.

The graph $`G_5^+`$ is obtained from $`K_{3,3}`$ by the contraction of one of its edges. The operation opposite to the contraction of an edge of the graph $`K_{3,3}`$ is the splitting of the vertex $`v`$ of degree 4 in $`G_5^+`$ into two adjacent vertices $`v^{}`$ and $`v^{\prime \prime }`$. This splitting is such that the vertex $`v^{}`$ is adjacent to the vertices $`a`$ and $`c`$, and the vertex $`v^{\prime \prime }`$ is adjacent to the vertices $`b`$ and $`d`$. We obtain the complete bipartite graph $`K_{3,3}`$ with mutually non-adjacent vertices $`b,d,v^{}`$ of one part and mutually non-adjacent vertices $`a,c,v^{\prime \prime }`$ of other part. The vectors related to edges $`(av^{})`$, $`(cv^{})`$ and $`(bv^{\prime \prime })`$, $`(dv^{\prime \prime })`$ are $`14^{}`$, $`12^+`$ and $`12^{}`$, $`14^+`$, respectively. Since $`12^+14^{}=14^+12^{}=24^+`$, we should relate the vector $`24^+`$ to the edge $`(v^{}v^{\prime \prime })`$.

We see that this representation of the cographic matroid $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ is obtained from the representation of the graphic matroid of the graph $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$ by changing the vector $`24^{}`$ into the vector $`24^+`$.

Call a unimodular subsystem $`UD_4`$ unextendible if the set $`U\{r\}`$ is not unimodular for all $`rD_4U`$.

###### Proposition 4

Up to isomorphism, the root system $`D_4`$ contains exactly the following 3 unextendible unimodular subsystems: a quadruple, $`A_4e`$, and $`K_{3,3}^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`q=\{ij^{},ij^+,kl^{},kl^+\}D_4`$ be a quadruple. Obviously it is a unimodular system. It is a basis of the space $`𝐑^4`$. Any root $`rD_4q`$ has a unique non-integer representation in this basis. So, the system $`q\{r\}`$ is not unimodular for all $`rD_4q`$. Hence, each quadruple of $`D_4`$ is an unextendible unimodular subsystem of $`D_4`$.

This implies that any other unimodular subsystem of $`D_4`$ does not contain a quadruple. Consider a set $`U=t_1t_2t_3`$ of three mutually disjoint triples. Obviously, $`U`$ is a maximal subset of $`D_4`$ not containing a quadruple. (Note, there are $`4^3=64`$ such sets.) We show that $`U`$ is a unimodular system isomorphic either to $`A_4e`$, or to $`K_{3,3}^{}`$. Obviously, these systems are unextendible.

Each triple $`tU`$ is complemented by a unique root $`r_tD_4`$ up to the quadruple $`q_t`$. Label the set $`U`$ by the triad $`(r_1,r_2,r_3)`$ of these complementing roots. For example, the following set $`U=\{ij^{},ij^+,kl^{}:ij=12,13,14\}`$ is labeled by the triad $`(34^+,24^+,23^+)`$.

The automorphism group of the root system $`D_4`$ consists of the following operations: permutations of indices, changing a pair of indices $`(ij)`$ by the complementing pair $`(kl)`$, reversing the sign of a unit vector $`e_ie_i`$. The collection of all triads is partitioned into two orbits of the automorphism group. One orbit consists of triads with even number of minus signs. Another orbit contains triads with odd number of minus signs. The sets $`U`$ labeled by triads of these two orbits are isomorphic to unimodular systems $`A_4e`$ and $`K_{3,3}^{}`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote the zonotopes related to a unimodular system $`U`$ by $`Z(U)`$. Since the deletion of the vector $`24^{}`$ from $`A_4e`$ and the vector $`24^+`$ from $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ provides the same unimodular system $`U(K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏})`$, the contraction of the edge zones of $`Z(A_4e)`$ and $`Z(K_{3,3}^{})`$ corresponding to $`24^{}`$ and $`24^+`$, respectively, provides zonotopes, which are both isomorphic to $`Z(U(K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}))`$.

## 6 Sums of $`P_V(D_4)`$ with zonotopes

The sums $`P_V(D_4)+Z(A_4e)`$ and $`P_V(D_4)+Z(K_{3,3}^{})`$ are primitive parallelotopes. Their projections along a closed edge zone into three-dimensional space are drawn in Figs.II and III of \[De29\]; see also \[De38\]. Their Delaunay numbers are $`N_D=2`$ and $`N_D=3`$. In Figs.II and III, the closed edge zones of these parallelotopes are denoted by numbers 1,2,3,…,8,9. The number 9 corresponds to the edge zone, along which the parallelotope is projected. Any non-primitive parallelotope is obtained from these two ones by contracting some closed edge zones. Some edges are denoted by $`0i`$, $`1i8`$. This means that after the contraction of the edge zone with number $`i`$ the edge with number $`0i`$ is contracted to an edge of $`P_V(D_4)`$ which is denoted by 0.

Figs.II and III show that the contraction of the edge zone 4 in $`P_V(D_4)+Z(A_4e)`$ and the edge zone 6 in $`P_V(D_4)+Z(K_{3,3}^{})`$ gives the same parallelotope. Comparing the numbers of edge zones of this parallelotope in Figs.II and III, we obtain their correspondence, shown in Table below. Besides, in this Table the vectors of the unimodular systems representing $`A_4e`$ and $`K_{3,3}^{}`$ are given.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{Fig}.\mathrm{I}& 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 9& \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{Fig}.\mathrm{II}& 2& 1& 5& & 7& 8& 3& 4& 9& 6\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{roots}& 23^{}& 14^{}& 12^{}& 24^{}& 34^{}& 13^{}& 12^+& 13^+& 14^+& 24^+\end{array}$$

We see that the edge zones 1, 4 and 5 of Fig.I contains edges of the same orbit (1) of the automorphism group of $`K_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Hence the contraction in $`P_V(D_4)+Z(A_4e)`$ of any edge zone of this orbit gives isomorphic parallelotopes. The parallelotope with contracted edge zone 1 is the parallelotope of \[De29\] with the Delaunay number $`N_D=21`$. This parallelotope is $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U(K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}))`$.

Note that for zonotopes $`Z(U)`$, which are parallelotopes, it is not important whether the summing vectors are orthogonal or not. A parallelepiped and a cube have the same L-type. But an orthogonality of summing vectors in $`Z(U)`$ affects heavenly onto the L-type of the sum $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)`$. This implied by the fact that any two orthogonal roots do not belong to a 2-face of $`P_V(D_4)`$. Hence the sum $`P_V(D_4)+S(r)+s(r^{})`$, where $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are orthogonal, obtains a new 2-face spanned by $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ contrary to the case, when $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are not orthogonal.

Facets of $`P_V(D_4)`$ are octahedra whose edges are roots of $`D_4`$. Each octahedron has four pairs of opposite parallel triangle faces and six pairs of parallel edges, which are parallel to six distinct roots. This six roots are partitioned into three pairs of orthogonal roots. Each triangle contains one representative root from these three pairs. Each of the six roots belongs to four triangles.

For a facet $`F`$ of $`P_V(D_4)`$, let $`R(F)`$ be the set of the six roots parallel to edges of $`F`$. In this case, when edges are parallel to roots, the facet vectors are given by (2). The facet vector $`e_k`$, $`1k4`$, defines a facet $`F`$, such that $`R(F)=\{ij^\pm :i,jk\}`$. This is the root system $`D_3`$, which is isomorphic to $`A_3`$. The facet vector of another type $`\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^4\epsilon _ie_i`$, where $`\epsilon _i\{\pm 1\}`$, defines a facet $`F`$, such that $`R(F)=\{ij^{\epsilon _i\epsilon _j}:1i<j4\}`$.

Note that, for each pair $`(r,r^{})`$ of orthogonal roots, there is a facet $`F`$ of $`P_V(D_4)`$, such that $`r,r^{}R(F)`$.

Let $`U=U(G)`$ be a unimodular system of roots representing a subgraph $`GK_5\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or $`U=K_{3,3}^{}`$. Let $`\pi (U)`$ be the set of maximal pairs of orthogonal roots in $`U`$. A pair $`(r,r^{})U`$ of orthogonal roots in $`U`$ is called maximal if there is no root in $`U\{r,r^{}\}`$ which is orthogonal to both the roots $`r,r^{}`$. Let $`\tau (U)`$ be the set of triples of mutually orthogonal roots in $`U`$. Recall that each triple $`t\tau (U)`$ uniquely determines the fourth root $`r_tD_4`$, such that $`r_t`$ is orthogonal to all roots of $`t`$.

Recall that $`P_V(D_4)`$ has 24 facets (it is a 24-cell) and all its 16 belts are 3-belts.

###### Proposition 5

Let $`Z(U)=_{rU}S(r)`$. Then it holds:

(i) the sum $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)`$ has $`|\pi (U)|`$ 2-belts and $`16+3|\tau (U)|`$ 3-belts;

(ii) the sum $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)`$ has $`24+2|\tau (U)|`$ facets;

(iii) the sum $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)+S(r)`$ is a parallelotope for all $`rD_4`$ such that $`rr_t`$, $`t\tau (U)`$.

Proof. Let $`F`$ be a facet of $`P_V(D_4)`$ and $`rR(F)`$. The facet $`F`$ is transformed to the facet $`F+S(r)`$ in the sum $`P_V(D_4)+S(r)`$. (Here $`S(r)`$ is a segment of the line parallel to the root $`r`$.) The facet $`F+S(r)`$ has also 4 pairs of parallel faces. But the four triangles of $`F`$ containing an edge parallel to $`r`$ are transformed into trapezoids with two edges parallel to $`r`$.

Now consider the sum $`P(r,r^{}):=P_V(D_4)+S(r)+S(r^{})`$, $`r,r^{}R(F)`$. If $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are not orthogonal, then the facet $`F+S(r)+S(r^{})`$ has also 4 pairs of parallel faces. The two parallel faces which contains edges parallel to both the roots $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are transformed into pentagons. The two pairs of faces having edges parallel only one of these two roots are transformed into two pairs of trapezoids. One pair of parallel faces is not changed.

If $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are orthogonal, then each face of $`F`$ has only one edge parallel to one of these roots. Hence, each face is transformed into a trapezoid. There are two opposite vertices of $`F`$ which are not incident to the edges parallel to these roots. These vertices are transformed into new square faces $`Q`$ of $`F+S(r)+S(r^{})`$. So, this facet has now 10 faces.

This shows that the L-type of the sum $`P_V(D_4)+S(r)+S(r^{})`$ depends on whether $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are orthogonal or not. Besides, if $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are orthogonal, then there are two pairs of opposite facets which are transformed into polyhedra with 10 faces. These four facets form a new 2-belt. So, each pair of orthogonal roots in $`U`$ generates a 2-belt.

Let $`t=(r,r^{},r^{\prime \prime })\tau (U)`$. Consider the sum $`P_t:=P(r,r^{})+S(r^{\prime \prime })`$. Let $`F`$ be a facet such that $`r,r^{}R(F)`$. Then $`r^{\prime \prime }R(F)`$. Let $`Q`$ be the quadrangle face of $`F+S(r)+S(r^{})`$. Then $`Q+S(r^{\prime \prime })`$ is a cube. It is a new facet of $`P_t`$. This facet, its opposite and the facets of the 2-belt of $`P(r,r^{})`$ form a new 3-belt $``$. But the cube $`Q+S(r^{\prime \prime })`$ has 3 pairs of opposite faces, and each pair of its faces generates a 3-belt. Hence, for each $`t\tau (U)`$, the parallelotope $`P_t`$ has additionally three belts. We proved (i) and (ii).

For $`t\tau (U)`$, the root $`r_t`$ is orthogonal to the new facet $`Q+S(r^{\prime \prime })`$. So, $`r_t`$ is the facet vector of this facet. Obviously, $`r_t`$ is not orthogonal to any facet vector of the new 3-belt $``$. By Proposition 2, $`P_t+S(r_t)`$ is not a parallelotope. Since the facet vector of the transformed facet $`F+Z(U)`$ is the same as the facet vector of $`F`$, we obtain (iii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Table 2 shows the 35 unimodular systems $`U`$ of roots sums of which with $`P_V(D_4)`$ are parallelotopes. Maximal pairs and triples of mutually orthogonal roots are distinguished by parentheses. Besides of used above denotations of graphs, $`H_k`$ denotes the skeleton of a $`k`$-dimensional parallelepiped. As in Table 1, $`N_D`$ denotes the Delaunay number of the parallelotope $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)`$ and $`m`$ is the number of roots in $`U`$. The parallelotope, missed by Delaunay and found by Shtogrin, is denoted by St. The fifth column gives dimension of the added zonotope $`Z(U)`$. Note that dim$`Z(U)`$ is equal to the rank of the graph $`G`$, which is represented by the unimodular system $`U`$.

For to compare Tables 2 and 1, we add the last column. In this column $`N_D^0`$ denotes the Delaunay number $`N_D`$ of the corresponding zonotopal parallelotope $`Z(U)`$ if dim$`U`$=4; $`N_D^0=a_i`$, $`1i5`$, denotes a 3-dimensional zonotopal parallelotope if dim$`U`$=3; and $`N_D^0=\alpha ,\beta _1,\beta _2`$ denotes a 2-dimensional zonotopal parallelotope if dim$`U`$=2. Note that

$`a_1`$ denotes a permutohedron = a truncated octahedron;

$`a_2`$ denotes an elongated dodecahedron;

$`a_3`$ denotes a prism with a hexagonal base;

$`a_4`$ denotes a rhombic dodecahedron;

$`a_5`$ denotes a parallelopiped with mutually orthogonal edges;

$`a_5^{}`$ denotes a parallelopiped with a pair of parallel rectangle facets;

$`a_5^{\prime \prime }`$ denotes a parallelopiped without rectangle facets;

$`\alpha `$ denotes a centrally symmetric hexagon;

$`\beta _1`$ denotes a rectangle;

$`\beta _2`$ denotes a parallelogram without orthogonal edges.

Table 2. Zonotopes $`Z(U)`$ such that $`P_V(D_4)+Z(U)`$ is a parallelotope

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & & \\ N_D\hfill & m\hfill & \text{roots of the unimodular system }U\hfill & \text{graph}\hfill & \text{dim}U& N_D^0\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill & 10\hfill & A_4\hfill & K_5\hfill & 4& 1\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 2\hfill & 9\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+,23^{})\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 4\hfill \\ 3\hfill & 9\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^+),(14^{},14^+,23^{})\hfill & K_{3,3}^{}\hfill & 4& 19\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 20\hfill & 8\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^+,23^{})\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & 4& 6\hfill \\ 21\hfill & 8\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & K_52\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 5\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 22\hfill & 7\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟑}\hfill & 4& 10\hfill \\ 23\hfill & 7\hfill & 34^{},(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+,23^{})\hfill & C_{2221}\hfill & 4& 9\hfill \\ 24\hfill & 7\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),14^+\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & 4& 7\hfill \\ 25\hfill & 7\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^+,23^{})\hfill & K_4+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 8\hfill \\ 26\hfill & 7\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & K_5\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & 4& 7\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 27\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+),14^+\hfill & C_{321}\hfill & 4& 12\hfill \\ 28\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+,24^{}),14^+\hfill & C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 13\hfill \\ 29\hfill & 6\hfill & (13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+,23^{})\hfill & C_{222}\hfill & 4& 11\hfill \\ 30\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & C_{221}+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 13\hfill \\ 31\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^{},12^+),(13^{},13^+),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & C_{222}\hfill & 4& 11\hfill \\ 32\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^{},24^{}),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & C_3+C_3\hfill & 4& 16\hfill \\ 33\hfill & 6\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^+,24^{}),(14^+,23^{})\hfill & K_4\hfill & 3& a_1\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 34\hfill & 5\hfill & 12^+,(13^{},13^+,24^{}),14^+\hfill & C_3+2\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 17\hfill \\ 35\hfill & 5\hfill & (12^{},12^+,34^{}),13^{},14^+\hfill & C_5\hfill & 4& 15\hfill \\ 36\hfill & 5\hfill & (13^{},13^+,24^{}),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & C_4+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 14\hfill \\ 37\hfill & 5\hfill & (12^{},12^+),(13^{},13^+),14^+\hfill & C_4+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 14\hfill \\ 38\hfill & 5\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^{},13^+),14^+\hfill & C_3+2\times \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 4& 17\hfill \\ 39\hfill & 5\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),(13^+,24^{}),14^+\hfill & C_{221}\hfill & 3& a_2\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 40\hfill & 4\hfill & (13^{},13^+,24^{}),14^+\hfill & 4\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_4\hfill & 4& 18\hfill \\ 41\hfill & 4\hfill & 12^+,(13^{},13^+),14^+\hfill & 4\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_4\hfill & 4& 18\hfill \\ 42\hfill & 4\hfill & (12^+,34^{}),13^+,14^+\hfill & C_3+\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & 3& a_3\hfill \\ 43\hfill & 4\hfill & (13^+,24^{}),(14,14^+)\hfill & 4\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_4\hfill & 4& 18\hfill \\ 44\hfill & 4\hfill & (13^{},13^+),(14^{},14^+)\hfill & C_4\hfill & 3& a_4\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 45\hfill & 3\hfill & (14^{},14^+,23^{})\hfill & 3\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_3\hfill & 3& a_5\hfill \\ 46\hfill & 3\hfill & (13^{},13^+),14^{}\hfill & 3\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_3\hfill & 3& a_5^{}\hfill \\ 47\hfill & 3\hfill & 12^+,13^+,14^+\hfill & 3\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_3\hfill & 3& a_5^{\prime \prime }\hfill \\ \mathrm{𝐒𝐭}\hfill & 3\hfill & 34^{},13^+,14^+\hfill & C_3\hfill & 2& \alpha \hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 48\hfill & 2\hfill & (14^{},14^+)\hfill & 2\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_2\hfill & 2& \beta _1\hfill \\ 49\hfill & 2\hfill & 13^+,14^+\hfill & 2\times \mathrm{𝟏}=H_2\hfill & 2& \beta _2\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ 50\hfill & 1\hfill & 14^+\hfill & \mathrm{𝟏}=H_1\hfill & 1& \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ 51\hfill & 0\hfill & & 24\mathrm{cell}\hfill & & \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Evidence for 𝑩⁺→𝝎𝒍⁺𝝂

## I Introduction

The magnitude of $`V_{ub}`$ plays an important role in probing the unitarity of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix ref:1 . At present, experimental constraints on $`|V_{ub}|`$ come mainly from the analysis of the decay $`BX_ul\nu `$. Both inclusive approaches (sensitive to all $`X_ul\nu `$ final states within a given region of phase space) and the exclusive reconstruction of specific final states have been attempted. For the latter, Belle has previously obtained preliminary results for the decays $`B\pi l\nu `$ and $`B\rho l\nu `$ ref:2 . This article presents a study of the decay $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$, which has not been observed so far ref:3 .

Using a 78 fb-1 dataset recorded on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (85.0 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events), events with a single (undetected) neutrino are selected and the neutrino momentum is inferred from detector hermeticity. The neutrino candidate is combined with an identified lepton (electron or muon) and an $`\omega `$ (reconstructed through $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$) and the final state is reconstructed. The $`B\omega l\nu `$ yield and the remaining background are determined by a binned maximum likelihood fit.

## II Experimental procedure

### II.1 KEKB and the Belle detector

Belle is located at KEKB, an asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating at the center-of-mass energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. The detector is described in detail elsewhere ref:5 . It is a large-solid-angle magnetic spectrometer that consists of a three-layer silicon vertex detector (SVD), a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel threshold Čerenkov counters (ACC), a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF), and an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a super-conducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field.

The responses of the ECL, CDC ($`dE/dx`$) and ACC detectors are combined to provide clean electron identification. Muons are identified in the instrumented iron flux-return (KLM) located outside of the coil. Charged hadron identification relies on the information from the CDC, ACC and TOF sub-detectors.

### II.2 Dataset

The $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ dataset used for this study corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 78.13 fb-1 and contains $`(85.0\pm 0.5)10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ events. Continuum background is subtracted using 8.83 fb-1 of data taken below the resonance.

A full detector simulation based on GEANT is applied to Monte Carlo events. This analysis uses background Monte Carlo samples, equivalent to about three times the integrated luminosity. Monte Carlo data for the signal decay, $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$, are generated with three different form-factor models: ISGW2 (quark model ref:6 ), UKQCD (quenched lattice QCD calculation ref:7 ) and LCSR (light cone sum rules ref:8 ). To model the cross-feed from other $`BX_ul\nu `$ decays, Monte Carlo samples generated with the ISGW2 and the De Fazio-Neubert model ref:8b  are used.

### II.3 Neutrino reconstruction

Events passing the hadronic selection are required to contain a single lepton (electron or muon) with a c.m. momentum $`p_l^{}`$ greater than 1.3 GeV/$`c`$. In this momentum range, electrons (muons) are selected with an efficiency of 92% (89%) and a pion fake rate of 0.25% (1.4%).

The missing four-momentum is computed for selected events,

$`\stackrel{}{p}_{miss}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_{HER}+\stackrel{}{p}_{LER}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{}{p}_i,`$
$`E_{miss}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{HER}+E_{LER}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E_i,`$ (1)
where the sum runs over all reconstructed charged tracks and photons. The indices HER and LER refer to the high energy and the low energy rings, respectively. To reject events in which the missing momentum misrepresents the neutrino momentum, the following selections are applied. Events with a large charge imbalance are eliminated, $`|Q_{tot}|<3e`$, and the direction of the missing momentum is required to lie within the ECL acceptance, $`17^{}<\theta _{miss}<150^{}`$. The missing mass squared, $`m_{miss}^2=E_{miss}^2\stackrel{}{p}_{miss}^2`$, is required to be consistent with the neutrino hypothesis, $`|m_{miss}^2|<3`$ GeV2/$`c^4`$.

After applying these cuts, the resolution in $`p_{miss}`$ is around 140 MeV/$`c`$ for generic $`BX_ul\nu `$ events. As the energy resolution is worse than the momentum resolution, the neutrino four-momentum is taken to be $`(p_{miss},\stackrel{}{p}_{miss})`$. The efficiency of the combined event selection and neutrino reconstruction cuts is about 17% for $`BX_ul\nu `$ events.

### II.4 Final state reconstruction

Pairs of $`\gamma `$’s are combined to form $`\pi ^0`$ candidates ($`E_\gamma >30`$ MeV, $`120<m(\gamma \gamma )<150`$ MeV/$`c^2`$). The decay $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ (branching ratio: $`(89.1\pm 0.7)`$ref:9 ) is reconstructed from all possible combinations of one $`\pi ^0`$ with two oppositely charged tracks. Combinations with a charged track identified as a kaon are rejected and the following selections are imposed: $`p_\omega ^{}>300`$ MeV/$`c`$, $`703<m(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)<863`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. Combinations located far from the center of the Dalitz plot are removed by requiring the Dalitz amplitude, $`A|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\times \stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|`$, to be larger than half of its maximum value.

The lepton in the event is combined with the $`\omega `$ candidate and the neutrino, and the lepton momentum requirement is tightened, $`1.8<p_l^{}<2.7`$ GeV/$`c`$. To reject combinations inconsistent with signal decay kinematics, the cut $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{BY}|<1.1`$ is imposed,

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{BY}=\frac{2E_B^{}E_Y^{}m_B^2m_Y^2}{2p_B^{}p_Y^{}},$$
(2)
where $`E_B^{}`$, $`p_B^{}`$ and $`m_B`$ are fixed to their nominal values, $`\sqrt{E_{HER}E_{LER}}`$, $`\sqrt{E_B^2m_B^2}`$ and 5.279 GeV/$`c^2`$, respectively. The variables $`E_Y^{}`$, $`p_Y^{}`$ and $`m_Y`$ are the measured c.m. energy, momentum and mass of the $`Y=\omega +l`$ system, respectively. For well-reconstructed signal events, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{BY}`$ is the cosine of the angle between the $`B`$ and the $`Y`$ system and lies between $`1`$ and $`+1`$ while for background, a significant fraction is outside this interval.

For each $`\omega l\nu `$ candidate, the beam-constrained mass $`m_{bc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ are calculated ($`E_{beam}^{}=\sqrt{E_{HER}E_{LER}}`$),

$`m_{bc}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(E_{beam}^{})^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\omega ^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_l^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_\nu ^{}|^2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`E_{beam}^{}(E_\omega ^{}+E_l^{}+E_\nu ^{}),`$ (3)
and candidates in the range $`m_{bc}>5.23`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<1.08`$ GeV are selected. On average, 2.5 combinations per event satisfy all cuts and we choose the one with the largest $`\omega `$ momentum in the c.m. frame. This choice is correct in 77% of the cases.

### II.5 Continuum suppression

The background from continuum $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ events, $`q=u,d,s,c`$, is suppressed using three variables that exploit the fact that, in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame, the two $`B`$ mesons are produced nearly at rest and that therefore $`B\overline{B}`$ events are nearly spherical while continuum events have a more jet-like topology. These variables are:

* The ratio $`R_2`$ of the second to the zeroth Fox-Wolfram moment ref:10 . This ratio tends to be close to zero (unity) for spherical (jet-like) events. (The cut $`R_2<0.4`$ is imposed at the event selection level.)
* The cosine of $`\theta _{thrust}`$, where $`\theta _{thrust}`$ is the angle between the thrust axis of the $`\omega l`$ system and the thrust axis of the rest of the event.
* A Fisher discriminant that selects events with an uniform energy distribution around the lepton direction ref:11 . The input variables are the charged and neutral energy in nine cones of equal solid angle around the lepton momentum axis.

A cut on the likelihood ratio combining the three variables is imposed. This selection is 56% efficient for $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$ events while it eliminates 92% of the continuum background remaining after the $`R_2<0.4`$ cut.

### II.6 The fit

The signal yield and the remaining background are determined by a binned maximum likelihood fit in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ vs. $`m(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$ plane taking into account the finite Monte Carlo statistics ref:12 . 9 bins in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (bin width: 240 MeV) and 8 bins in $`m(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$ (bin width: 20 MeV/$`c^2`$) are used. This fit is performed simultaneously in three bins of lepton momentum, $`1.8<p_l^{}<2.1`$ GeV/$`c`$, $`2.1<p_l^{}<2.4`$ GeV/$`c`$ and $`2.4<p_l^{}<2.7`$ GeV/$`c`$.

Five components are fitted to the data: the $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$ signal, $`BX_ul\nu `$ background, $`BX_cl\nu `$ background, fake and non-$`B`$ decay lepton background and continuum. The shapes of the first four components are determined from simulation, while the shape of the continuum component is given by the off-resonance data. The normalizations of the $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$, the $`BX_ul\nu `$ and the $`BX_cl\nu `$ components are floated in the fit, while the other components are fixed (Table 1, Fig. 1).

## III Result and systematic uncertainty

The fit is repeated for each of the three form-factor models available for $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$. For each model, the signal yield, $`N(B^+\omega l^+\nu )`$, is determined and the branching ratio, $`(B^+\omega l^+\nu )`$, is calculated accordingly using the relation (Table 2)

$$N(B^+\omega l^+\nu )=N(B^+)\times (B^+\omega l^+\nu )\times (\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)\times (ϵ_e+ϵ_\mu ).$$
(4)
$`N(B^+)`$ is the total number of charged $`B`$ mesons in the data, $`(\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)=(89.1\pm 0.7)\%`$ ref:9  and $`ϵ_e`$ ($`ϵ_\mu `$) is the model-dependent selection efficiency for $`\omega e\nu `$ ($`\omega \mu \nu `$) candidates. Averaging over the three models (giving equal weight to each), a branching fraction of $`(1.29\pm 0.39)10^4`$ is obtained. The spread around this average value, which amounts to $`0.2810^4`$, is used as an estimate of the form-factor model uncertainty.

The quadratic sum of the experimental systematics (listed in Table 3) is $`0.2110^4`$ or 16.4% of the branching fraction. The largest contribution is the uncertainty in the $`X_ul\nu `$ cross-feed. It is estimated by separately varying the fraction of $`B\pi l\nu `$ and $`B\rho l\nu `$ decays (that are expected to dominate in the high $`p_l^{}`$ region) within their respective experimental uncertainties. For the cross-feed from other $`BX_ul\nu `$ decays, the fit is repeated modeling this component once with the ISGW2 (fully resonant $`BX_ul\nu `$) and once with the De Fazio-Neubert model (fully non-resonant $`BX_ul\nu `$). Half of the difference between these two extreme cases is assigned as a systematic uncertainty.

The next largest component is the uncertainty in the neutrino reconstruction, track finding and cluster finding efficiency. Other contributions taken into account in the calculation of the systematic error are: $`X_cl\nu `$ cross-feed (estimated by varying the fraction of $`BD^{}l\nu `$ in the $`X_cl\nu `$ component), lepton identification, the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events and the uncertainty in the $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ branching fraction.

## IV Conclusion

We have studied the decay $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$ using 78 fb-1 of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ data (85.0 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events). The final state was reconstructed using the $`\omega `$ decay into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and detector hermeticity to infer the neutrino momentum. The signal yield and the remaining background were estimated by a binned maximum-likelihood fit. Repeating the fit for three different $`B^+\omega l^+\nu `$ form-factor models and averaging the result, $`155\pm 47`$ signal events are found, corresponding to a branching fraction of $`(1.3\pm 0.4\pm 0.2\pm 0.3)10^4`$, where the errors are statistical, systematic and estimated form-factor uncertainty, respectively. (This result is preliminary.)

## V Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 01324; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Momentum distribution of a trapped Fermi gas with large scattering length

## Abstract

Using a scattering length parametrization of the BCS-BEC crossover as well as the local density approximation for the density profile, we calculate the momentum distribution of a harmonically trapped atomic Fermi gas at zero temperature. Various interaction regimes are considered, including the BCS phase, the unitarity limit and the molecular regime. We show that the relevant parameter which characterizes the crossover is given by the dimensionless combination $`N^{1/6}a/a_{ho}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of atoms, $`a`$ is the scattering length and $`a_{ho}`$ is the oscillator length. The width of the momentum distribution is shown to depend in a crucial way on the value and sign of this parameter. Our predictions can be relevant for experiments on ultracold atomic Fermi gases near a Feshbach resonance.

Recent experiments on ultracold atomic Fermi gases near a Feshbach resonance, have pointed out the crucial role played by two-body interactions. Spectacular effects concern the hydrodynamic behaviour exhibited by the expansion after release of the trap thomas ; regal ; bourdel  and the evidence of molecular formation for positive values of the scattering length jin ; salomon . These experiments open important perspectives towards the realization of the superfluid phase in Fermi gases, whose critical temperature has been predicted to be significantly enhanced by resonance effects holland ; timmermans ; griffin , and towards the study of the BCS-BEC crossover Leggett ; NS ; SRE ; ERS  and of many-body effects in the presence of a Feshbach resonance combescot ; bruunpeth ; stoof .

The purpose of this paper is to point out that an important diagnostics of the state of the system across the resonance is the atomic momentum distribution whose shape, at low temperature, is very sensitive to the size and sign of the scattering length. The momentum distribution can be directly measured in these systems either by suddenly switching off the scattering length and imaging the expanding atomic cloud bourdel , or by Bragg spectroscopy MIT .

In this paper we will consider a Fermi gas of two spin species. The interspecies interaction is characterized by the s-wave scattering length $`a`$ which will be assumed to be larger than the effective range $`r_0`$ of the interaction. Furthermore we will also assume that the relative momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$ between the colliding atoms is smaller than $`\overline{/}r_0`$. If the scattering length $`a`$ is large and positive a weakly bound molecule forms in the vacuum with binding energy $`E_b=\mathrm{}^2/ma^2`$ and size $`a`$ note4 . A peculiar feature of the resonance is that when $`k|a|1`$ the scattering amplitude $`f`$ is unitarity limited and $`fi/k`$, independent of the value of $`a`$ LanLif .

In the many-body problem the above lengths should be compared with the average distance between particles proportional, at $`T=0`$, to the inverse of the Fermi wavenumber

$$k_F=(6\pi ^2)^{1/3}n_\sigma ^{1/3},$$
(1)
where the densities $`n_\sigma `$ of the two species will be taken equal. By assuming that both the average distance between particles and the modulus of the scattering length are larger than the effective range $`r_0`$, the effects of interactions will not depend on the actual value of $`r_0`$, but only on the combination $`k_Fa`$.

For small and negative values of $`k_Fa`$, a homogeneous gas at zero temperature exhibits a BCS superfluid phase, whose momentum distribution differs very little from the step function $`\theta (k_Fk)`$ of the non-interacting Fermi gas.

When either the value of the scattering length or of the density increases, correlations become more and more important. Eventually, in the unitarity limit $`k_F|a|1`$, the configuration of the system is expected to exhibit a universal behavior, independent of the actual value of $`a`$ heiselberg . When we move to the side of the Feshbach resonance where the scattering length is large and positive, bound molecules of size $`a`$ would form in the vacuum. However if $`a`$ is still much larger than the interparticle spacing the actual state of the many-body system will be very different. Only when $`k_Fa`$ becomes smaller than unity will these molecules not be perturbed by the medium and behave just as independent bosons. In this limit the atomic momentum distribution is expected to become $`1/(k^2a^2+1)^2`$, corresponding to the momentum distribution of atoms inside molecules.

In the following we shall work at $`T=0`$ and take into account the effect of the harmonic trapping. This is important because the actual values of the densities, and hence of $`k_F`$, realized in experiments depend in a crucial way on the trapping parameters. We use the model developed in ERS  to investigate the BCS-BEC crossover at $`T=0`$, which accounts for all the regimes introduced above (BCS limit, unitarity limit, BEC molecular limit) with a unique tuning parameter fixed, in uniform gases, by the combination $`k_Fa`$. This approach consists of a generalization of the gap equation and the number equation of the usual BCS theory to the whole resonance region, and corresponds to using the saddle point approximation for the zero temperature partition function.

Eliminating as usual the bare interatomic potential in favor of the scattering t-matrix in the vacuum, one obtains the result

$$\frac{m}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}=\frac{1}{V}\underset{𝐤}{}\left(\frac{1}{2ϵ_k}\frac{1}{2E_k}\right)$$
(2)
for the gap equation,where $`ϵ_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, $`E_k=\sqrt{(ϵ_k\mu )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap parameter and $`V`$ is the volume of the system. The number equation, on the other hand, takes the form

$$n_\sigma =\frac{1}{2V}\underset{𝐤}{}\left(1\frac{ϵ_k\mu }{E_k}\right).$$
(3)
The two equations form a closed set of equations in the unknowns $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mu `$ and can be solved for a given value of $`k_Fa`$. The approach is reliable when $`k_Fa0^\pm `$ with $`|a|r_0`$, and approximate in the region $`k_F|a|1`$.

It is immediate to see that the particle distribution of atoms of either species is given by the expression

$$n_k=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ_k\mu }{E_k}\right),$$
(4)
and corresponds, in the usual Bogoliubov theory of Fermi superfluids, to $`n_k=|v_k|^2`$ where $`v_k`$ are the Bogoliubov amplitudes. The above expression for $`n_k`$ is only valid for values of $`k`$ smaller than the inverse of the effective range $`r_0`$. The values of $`k`$ can however be much larger than $`1/a`$ since we assume $`ar_0`$.

Solutions of equations (2) and (3) are available for the whole range of values of $`k_Fa`$ marini ; bertsch . Particularly simple solutions exist in the limits $`k_Fa0^\pm `$. In the BCS limit ($`k_Fa0^{}`$) the solutions are well known: $`\mu ϵ_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }8e^2ϵ_F\mathrm{exp}(\pi /2k_Fa)`$, with $`ϵ_F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$ being the Fermi energy. Notice that, since the present theory neglects the fluctuations in the number-density and spin-density, the Gorkov correction to the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not included gorkov ; heispeth . However, this has no major relevance for the calculation of the particle distribution which in this limit is close to the free-gas value.

In the BEC limit instead one finds $`\mu \mathrm{}^2/2ma^2+2\pi \mathrm{}^2an_\sigma /m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(16/3\pi )^{1/2}ϵ_F/\sqrt{k_Fa}`$. The first term in the chemical potential is simply $`E_b/2`$, i.e. the molecular binding energy per atom. By rewriting the second term as $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2a_Bn_\sigma /m_B`$, where $`a_B=2a`$ and $`m_B=2m`$, one can see that this accounts for the mean field molecule-molecule interaction energy note3 . The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ instead plays the role of an order parameter for the molecular Bose-Einstein condensate (see for example strinati ).

In both the BCS and BEC limits $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is much smaller than the abolute value of the chemical potential, so that the particle distribution can be expanded in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/|\mu |`$. In the BCS limit the lowest order in the expansion is simply the free Fermi step function, and it is enough to stop at this level for the considerations which follow. In the BEC limit one instead finds the result

$$n_𝐤=\frac{4}{3\pi }(k_Fa)^3\frac{1}{(k^2a^2+1)^2}.$$
(5)
This is proportional to the square of the Fourier transform of the molecular wavefunction $`\psi (r)=(1/r)\mathrm{exp}(r/a)`$, indicating that in this limit the particle distribution arises from the motion of atoms inside the molecules, and the prefactor accounts for the fact that there are $`n_\sigma `$ molecules per unit volume.

Let us now consider the most interesting unitarity limit where $`k_Fa\pm \mathrm{}`$. The left hand side of Eq. (2) vanishes, and this reduces to an implicit equation for the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$. A straightforward calculation marini ; bertsch  gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu 1.16`$ and from Eq. (3) one finally finds the results $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.69ϵ_F`$ and $`\mu 0.59ϵ_F`$. In the unitarity limit the proportionality of the chemical potential and of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`ϵ_F`$ can be deduced from general dimensional arguments and follows from the fact that $`a`$ is no longer a relevant scale in the problem. In this limit the chemical potential is often written in the form $`\mu =(1+\beta )ϵ_F`$ where, in our case, $`\beta 0.41`$. It is interesting to compare this prediction with the results of more elaborated approaches. A recent microscopic calculation based on quantum Monte-Carlo techniques gives the value $`\beta =0.56`$ carlson , while the theory of resonance superfluidity based on saddle-point approximation yields the value $`\beta 0.35`$ holland1 . The value of $`\beta `$ has also been the object of recent experimental investigations in trapped Fermi gases at finite temperature, through the study of the release energy thomas ; bourdel .

The predictions of the theory for the particle distribution of a uniform gas are reported in Fig. 1, which shows that during the transition from the ideal gas (dashed line) to the molecular limit (full line) across the unitarity limit (long-dashed line) the atomic momentum distribution varies in a dramatic way, reflecting the critical role played by two-body interactions. This behavior of the momentum distribution was first pointed out in NS ; SRE . More recently, it has been investigated in griffin1  and, in the unitarity limit, by the authors of carlson . In particular the results of carlson  rather well agree with the curve of Fig. 1 for the unitarity limit. The width of the momentum distribution ranges from $`k_F`$ in the BCS limit to $`1/a`$ in the BEC regime. Notice that for the value $`k_Fa=0.5`$ reported in the figure, the momentum distribution calculated by solving Eqs. (2) and (3), is practically indistinguishible from the “molecular” formula (5).

In trapped configurations we shall calculate the momentum distribution by introducing the local semiclassical particle distribution

$$n_𝐤(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ_k\mu (𝐫)}{E_k(𝐫)}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ and $`\mu (𝐫)`$ are obtained by solving Eq. (2) and (3) with the local value of the density. The momentum distribution is then evaluated by integrating the particle distribution in coordinate space:

$$n(𝐤)=\frac{d^3r}{(2\pi )^3}n_𝐤(𝐫).$$
(7)
The momentum distribution coincides with the particle distribution function only in a uniform system, where one has the simple relation $`n(𝐤)=Vn_𝐤`$. A fundamental ingredient for the calculation is the density distribution, whose shape can vary very much depending on the regime considered and on the trapping parameters note1 . In the following the density profile will be determined using a local density approximation, based on the solution of the equation

$$\mu =\mu (n_\sigma (𝐫))+V_{ext}(𝐫).$$
(8)
In the deep BCS limit the particle distribution is given by the free distribution. For harmonic trapping one finds the well known results $`n_\sigma (𝐫)=n_\sigma (0)[1(r/R_{TF}^0)^2]^{3/2}`$ for the density profile, where $`R_{TF}^0=(48N_\sigma )^{1/6}a_{ho}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi radius, and $`n_\sigma (0)=(4N_\sigma /3\pi ^4)^{1/2}a_{ho}^3`$ is the central density. $`N_\sigma `$ is the number of fermions in each internal state, and $`a_{ho}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$ the harmonic oscillator length, with $`\omega =(\omega _x\omega _y\omega _z)^{1/3}`$. The momentum distribution takes the following form

$`n(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{(R_{TF}^0)^3}{6\pi ^2}}\left(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_F^0}}\right)^2\right)^{3/2},`$
where the Fermi wavenumber satisfies the relation

$$k_F^0a=(48)^{1/6}N_\sigma ^{1/6}\frac{a}{a_{ho}},$$
(9)
and coincides with the value obtained using Eq. (1) with the central density $`n_\sigma (0)`$.

In the unitarity limit the density profile has the same form as in the ideal case, since the chemical potential in the uniform system has the same power law dependence on the density ($`\mu n^{2/3}`$). The only difference with respect to the ideal case is an overall rescaling factor: $`\mu =(1+\beta )ϵ_F`$, resulting in a contraction of the Thomas-Fermi radius according to the law $`R_{TF}^0R_{TF}^0(1+\beta )^{1/4}`$. Similarly, the central density is rescaled according to $`n(0)n(0)(1+\beta )^{3/4}`$ and consequently the Fermi wavenumber, calculated in the center of the trap, is fixed by

$$k_Fa=\frac{(48)^{1/6}}{(1+\beta )^{1/4}}N_\sigma ^{1/6}\frac{a}{a_{ho}}.$$
(10)
The momentum distribution (7) can then be calculated by integrating (6), employing the corresponding values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mu `$ and the rescaled density profile. After introducing the dimensionless variable $`\stackrel{~}{r}=r/(1+\beta )^{1/4}R_{TF}^0`$ one finds the result:

$`n(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(R_{TF}^0)^3(1+\beta )^{3/4}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}^2`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(k/k_F^0)^2(1+\beta )^{1/2}f(\stackrel{~}{r})}{\sqrt{[(k/k_F^0)^2(1+\beta )^{1/2}f(\stackrel{~}{r})]^2+(1+\beta )^1[f(\stackrel{~}{r})(\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_F)]^2}}}\right),`$
where $`f(\stackrel{~}{r})=1\stackrel{~}{r}^2`$, $`\beta =0.41`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_F=0.69`$.

Let us finally discuss the molecular BEC limit. To the extent that the condition $`k_Fa1`$ is satisfied in the center of the trap, one can use the molecular distribution function (5) everywhere and the resulting momentum distribution will be consequently given by

$$n(𝐤)=\frac{a^3N_\sigma }{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{(k^2a^2+1)^2}.$$
(12)
Also in this case it is important to calculate the quantity $`k_Fa`$ in terms of the relevant parameters of the trap, and to this purpose one has to determine the density profile. The leading density dependent term $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2an_\sigma /m`$ in the chemical potential arises from the molecule-molecule mean-field interaction. This corresponds to the usual interaction term in the Gross-Pitaevskii theory for bosons interacting with scattering length $`a_B=2a`$. In this limit the local density approximation yields the $`T=0`$ Thomas-Fermi profile

$$n_\sigma (𝐫)=n_\sigma (0)\left(1\frac{r^2}{R_{TF}^2}\right),$$
(13)
where

$$n_\sigma (0)=\frac{1}{4\pi aa_{ho}^2}\left(\frac{15N_\sigma a}{2a_{ho}}\right)^{2/5},$$
(14)
is the central density and $`R_{TF}=a_{ho}(15N_\sigma a/2a_{ho})^{1/5}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi radius. The use of the local density approximation is justified since the Thomas-Fermi parameter $`N_\sigma a/a_{ho}`$ is much larger than unity. In deriving the above expressions we have assumed that atoms and molecules are trapped with the same oscillator frequency $`\omega `$. Consequently the boson harmonic oscillator length is given by $`a_{ho}/\sqrt{2}`$. By evaluating the Fermi momentum at the center of the trap one finally finds

$$k_Fa=2.2\left(N_\sigma ^{1/6}\frac{a}{a_{ho}}\right)^{4/5}.$$
(15)
The quantity $`k_Fa`$ should be sufficiently small in order to apply result (12) for the momentum distribution. It is remarkable that in all of the regimes the product $`k_Fa`$, related to the gas parameter $`na^3`$, is fixed by the combination $`N_\sigma ^{1/6}a/a_{ho}`$. This quantity then permits to characterize the various regimes exhibited by the interacting Fermi gas. The universality of this combination is a consequence of harmonic trapping, and of the fact that the equation of state $`\mu /ϵ_F`$, evaluated in the uniform phase, has been assumed to be a function of $`k_Fa`$. The above discussion also shows that the value of $`k_Fa`$ is rather insensitive to the value of $`N_\sigma `$.

In Fig. 2 we plot the momentum distribution calculated for three different values of $`N_\sigma ^{1/6}a/a_{ho}`$. The distributions are normalized to unity and momenta are expressed in terms of $`k/k_F^0`$ where $`k_F^0`$ is the Fermi wavevector of a non-interacting gas. Although these results are based on the approximate theory of Leggett ; NS ; SRE ; ERS , they provide a first useful estimate of the momentum distribution which might stimulate new experimental investigations as well as more sophisticated and self-consistent theoretical calculations.

Let us finally discuss the experimental possibilities to measure the momentum distribution and to probe the behavior of the system across the resonance. The technique developed in salomon  to quickly turn off the scattering length and to immediately release the trap is well suited for this purpose. If the magnetic field is switched off in times shorter than the inverse of the binding energy $`\mathrm{}^2/ma^2`$, the molecules are suddenly dissociated and the atoms will expand ballistically. If instead the scattering length is switched off adiabatically the system will form deeper molecular states characterized by microscopic sizes. The imaging of the expanding atomic cloud provides a direct measurement of the momentum distribution of the initial correlated configuration. An important feature emerging from our results (see Figs. 1 and 2) is the presence of large $`k`$ components in the momentum distribution, with the consequent suppression of $`n(k)`$ at small $`k`$. These large $`k`$ components, whose presence is more and more pronounced as one leaves the ideal Fermi gas condition $`k_Fa0^{}`$, affect sizably the release energy of the atomic cloud fixed by the kinetic energy note2 .

If one instead releases the trap by keeping the scattering length on, the scenario of the expansion will be completely different. In this case one expects that the expansion will be governed by the laws of hydrodynamics. This will be the case both at zero temperature, where the system is superfluid, and above $`T_c`$ if $`k_F|a|1`$ due to the resonant effect in the collisional cross section. Under these conditions the expansion will be anisotropic menotti  if the confining trap is not symmetric and the release energy, as well as the shape of the expanding cloud, will be determined by the equation of state of the gas. In the unitarity limit the release energy is given by $`E_R/N_\sigma =(3/8)(1+\beta )^{1/2}(6N_\sigma )^{1/3}\mathrm{}\omega `$, while in the molecular regime the expansion will be similar to the one of a dilute Bose gas and one predicts $`E_R/N_\sigma =(1/7)(15N_\sigma a/a_{ho})^{2/5}\mathrm{}\omega `$.

So far the discussion has been restricted to zero temperature. An interesting question concerns the behavior of the momentum distribution at finite temperatures. For temperatures just above $`T_c`$, the momentum distribution can be determined through the calculation of the single particle Green’s function by summing the particle-particle ladder diagrams along the lines of NS . In particular, for negative scattering length and $`k_F|a|1`$, where $`k_BT_cϵ_F`$, one finds that the momentum distribution of the free Fermi gas is slightly broadened due to thermal effects. In the opposite molecular regime ($`a>0`$ and $`k_Fa1`$) one recovers the momentum distribution (5) of atoms inside molecules, provided the binding energy of the molecule is much larger than the temperature $`\mathrm{}^2/ma^2k_BT`$. In fact at the critical temperature for the Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules one finds $`k_BT/|E_B|=0.22(k_Fa)^2`$, and the thermal dissociation of molecules is negligible if $`k_Fa`$ is sufficiently small.

In conclusion, in this paper we have reported a first calculation of the momentum distribution of a harmonically trapped two-component Fermi gas as a function of the scattering length in the BCS-BEC crossover. We expect that the large deviations from the ideal Fermi gas distribution can be addressed experimentally in systems close to a Feshbach resonance.

We thank A. Perali for useful comments.


text:
# Heating process in the pre-Breakdown regime of the Quantum Hall Effect : a size dependent effect

## 1 Introduction

Ten years after its discovery by Klaus von Klitzing , the Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) was used to conserve the unit of the electric resistance. In the plateau regime, $`\rho _{xx}=0`$ and $`\rho _{xy}=R_K/i`$ where $`R_K=h/e^2`$ (h - Planck constant, e - electron charge, $`i`$ \- filling factor (number of occupied Landau levels)) for the temperature approaching zero. The value of the von Klitzing constant $`R_K`$ has been used as the standard of resistance by many laboratory of metrology, because the relative precision of its measurement is better than $`10^9`$. However, the current must be very well controled because a sudden breakdown of the QHE occurs if it exceeds a certain limit. Above this critical current, the system becomes unstable, and the longitudinal resistance $`\rho _{xx}`$ changes abrubtly by several orders of magnitude . This effect has been attracting interest by a steadily community of researchers . In the present review we are interested in the pre-breakdown regime, i.e. in the heating phenomenon which is observable before breakdown of QHE. We studied precisely for the first time, the voltage drop between the source contact and the adjacent voltage contact in the QHE regime, using a well specified configuration for the measurement. This paper is organized as follows. After this introduction, we present the samples and the set up of our measurements. In section 3, we present and discuss the results. We show that the dimensions of the samples influence drastically the measurements of the contact voltage drop in this pre-breakdown regime.

## 2 Samples and Configurations

### 2.1 Samples

Samples investigated in this review are GaAs/GaAlAs heterojunctions grown on 3 inches wafers by Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD) technique. This procedure allows us to obtain a good homogeneity of the electronic density. Starting from the substrate, a 600 nm thick undoped GaAs buffer layer is firstly deposited. It is followed by an undoped Al0.28Ga0.72As spacer layer whose thickness is respectively 22 nm and 14.5 nm for PL175 and PL173 heterostructures. Then a 40 nm thick 1018 cm-3 Si-doped AlxGa1-xAs layer is realized, with a gradual decrease of x up to 0.28 for PL175 and a homogenous value (x=0.28) for PL173 . Finally an n-type 12 nm GaAs cap layer covers the structure to improve the quality of ohmic contacts. After the realization of the 300 nm thick delimiting mesa, the AuGeNi ohmic contacts are evaporated and then annealed at 450 oC.

All samples were processed into a Hall bar. They have six independent lateral contacts in addition to the source and drain contacts, as described in Fig. 1. Table 1 resume the characteristics of the samples. They were mounted on a sample holder and placed inside a Variable Temperature Insert (VTI), in a 16 T superconducting magnet. All experiments were performed at 4.2 K and 1.5 K.

### 2.2 Configuration for the measurements

All the measurements have been carried out only at the i=2 plateau. In the QHE regime, the magnetic field $`B`$ strongly bends the potential profile. If a D.C current is applied between contacts 1 (source) and 5 (drain) and for B positive (+B, see Fig. 1), electrons enter the two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) by one corner of the source (Entry Corner) and leave it by the opposite corner (Exit Corner) of the drain. Around the center of the plateau $`i=2`$, one measures the Hall voltage between the current contacts 1 and 2 : VH=V12=(h/2e2) and Vc=0 for low current levels. A bref illustration is presented in Fig. 1.

The existence of electron entry and exit corner has been reported for the first time by Klaus et al.  using an optical FIR technique that allows to observe the high electric field zones in the sample. They have shown that the Hall potential is concentrated on a very narrow region whose caracteristic length is 10 $`\mu `$m. Kawano et al.  used a spatially resolved detector to measure the FIR emission of the sample under QHE regime, and reported on the same location of hot spots. However at higher current levels, a new region, located in the vicinity of the source contact, emits also a FIR radiation. This additional signal dominates at high level currents. This shows that a heating process takes place along the edge source contat, above a critical current. This specific heating process exists while the sample is still in the QHE regime and constitutes the subject of our investigations.

Starting from the configuration of measurement shown in Fig.1, we have used the four different configurations that can be deduced from this one by reversing the polarities of both current and magnetic field. In the Buttiker Landauer notations, one can easily name the four configurations by using the contacts labels shown in Fig. 1 : Vij,kl is the voltage drop Vkl measured when the current Iij is injected from i to j. The contact resistance is therefore measured in the four configurations : V51,18(B), V15,54(B), V51,12(-B) and V15,56(-B). The corresponding longitudinal voltage drops are : V51,76(B), V15,32(B), V51,34(-B) and V15,78(-B). In our experiments, we have studied the four configurations for each Hall bars, and obtained well reproducible features of these voltage drops. We can then deduce that the pre-breakdown regime exhibits very stable characteristics and is therefore the consequence of a specific heating regime that we will discuss now.

Measurement of Vc and Vxx were made simultaneously as a function of the current and for fixed magnetic field, so that we can compare the critical current for the threshold of Vc and Vxx for different Hall bar widths . For a given value of magnetic field, which corresponds approximatively to the center of plateau i=2, we did measurements of Vc(I) and Vxx(I). Then we have slightly changed the value of B and make again the same measure again, always taking care to never overpass the breakdown, that would have induced hysterisis and non reproductible data as yet observed .

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 Medium size samples

We first comment the results obtained for the samples of width 200 $`\mu `$m and 400 $`\mu `$m. In Fig. 2 we have reported the measurements of $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{V}_{51,18}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}_{\mathrm{xx}}=\mathrm{V}_{51,76}`$ versus current, for samples PL175 and PL173 of width W=200 $`\mu `$m. The temperature was T=1.5K. First, we observe an abrupt jump of voltage drop $`V_c`$ for both samples that allows us to define a critical current Ic for Vc : Ic=40 $`\mu `$A for PL175 and Ic=25 $`\mu `$A for PL173. This shows that a local breakdown occurs at the vicinity of the current contact, well before the onset of Vxx in the entire 2DEG. Indeed the critical current for the breakdown (called Ib) is Ib=250 $`\mu `$A for PL175 and 120 $`\mu `$A for PL173. Kawano et al have already commented the particular behavior of this contact resistance, that we clarify here by a systematic study. In fact, in their study, Kawano et al. have precisely reported on the Far Infra Red emission which appears in the same zone and for the same current level. It is therefore clear that a heating phenomenon due to the presence of high electric field takes place near the source, in the pre-breakdown regime.

We will discuss in the following the size of this heating region. It is necessarily an extended area. Indeed, it is established that the breakdown needs to developp a sufficiently large domain of high electric field. In that case, electron holes pairs can be created according to the Boot-strap electron heating model . By investigating smaller samples (width smaller than 100$`\mu `$m) Komiyama et al. have deduced that the minimum length scale to developp the breakdown is larger than 100$`\mu `$.

We think that the high field domain reaches the edge of the sample because the resistance between the current contact and the first voltage contact is affected. To prove this more convincingly, we have dressed the graph of the variation of the critical current for both contact voltage drop and longitudinal voltage drop versus filling factor ($`i`$). Samples PL175 and PL173 with differents width Hall bar are concerned (see Fig. 3). One observes, for all samples, that the critical current of longitudinal voltage drop (Ib) is maximum at the center of plateau ($`i=2`$). Nachtwei et al.  have also observed same results in 2D systems with periodic and aperiodic antidots array. Here, for the first time, we observe that the critical current of the contact resistance (Ic) does not depend on the magnetic field (filling factor) in the plateau regime. Then it is clear that the local breakdown near the contact is different from the breakdown in the entire 2DEG, due to the presence of a domain of high electric field.

### 3.2 Large samples

A particular behavior for Ic(i) and Ib(i) was observed for wide Hall bars. In Figure 4, we report behavior of criticals currents Ic and Ib versus filling factor $`i`$. For sample PL175 with W=800 $`\mu `$m, we observe that Ic and Ib are maximum in center of the plateau. For sample PL173 with W=1600 $`\mu `$m, we have the same result but the value of Ic is now higher than that of Ib.

It is obvious then that the critical currents $`I_c`$ and $`I_b`$ have the same variation with filling factor. This proves that the heating process in both regions are identical. Hence the high field zone has a size which is smaller than 800$`\mu `$m, because it does not affect the equilibrium of edge states on the edge of the samples. Then we can have an estimated length for this high electric zone, which is certainly several hundreds of microns, but less than 800 $`\mu `$m : tipycally around 500$`\mu `$m. This constitutes a new characteristic dimension of the heated region in the pre-breakdown regime.

## 4 Conclusion

A new measurement protocol has been used to characterize the pre-breakdown regime of the QHE. We have characterized for the first time the voltage drop across the contact and dressed the graph of the variation for its critical current with the filling factor. Large samples exhibited a different behavior than medium size ones. We can therefore deduce an estimated length for the extended domain of high electric field, which is appears near the source. The propagation and extension of the high electric field domain remains of course to be further studied. We propose that the Bootstrap electron heating model should be proper to describe this phenomenon. This work was granted by the Bureau National de Métrologie.


text:
# Reply by N. Dinh Dang to the Comment by A. Rabhi

## Abstract

It is pointed out that the “exact” solutions given in the recent Comment by A. Rabhi on the paper \[N. Dinh Dang “Energies of the ground state and first excited $`0^+`$ state in an exactly solvable pairing model”, Eur. Phys. Jour. A 16 (2003) 181\] do not correspond to the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level pairing model. Other issues raised in the Comment reiterate the discussions already published in the original paper by N. Dinh Dang.

In Ref. Dang (1) several approximations, namely the BCS approximation, Lipkin - Nogami method, random-phase approximation (RPA), quasiparticle RPA (QRPA), the renormalized RPA (RRPA), and renormalized QRPA (RQRPA), are tested by calculating the ground-state energy and the energy of the first excited $`0^+`$ state using the well-known exactly solvable model with two symmetric levels interacting via a pairing force. The author of the recent Comment Comment (2) discusses three points of Ref. Dang (1), namely (A) the boson mapping in Sec. 4.1.1, (B) the approximations leading to the RPA matrices (58) – (61) and those obtained in Ref. Hagino (3), and (C) the approximation (75).

(A) The author of Comment (2) claimed that the one-boson energy $`\omega _{\mathrm{RPA}}^{(b)}`$ given by Eq. (53) of Dang (1) is erroneous. As the proof he introduces two “exact” solutions for the $`0^+`$ energy in Fig. 1 of Comment (2). However, these “exact” solutions are completely different from the standard exact solution of the well-known two-level model under consideration, which has been obtained using the SU(2) algebra in many papers \[See Sec. 2 and Fig. 3 of Ref. Dang (1), or Refs. Hogaasen (4, 5), e.g.\]. In particular, as has been mentioned at the end of Sec. 4.1.1 of Dang (1), the solution given by Eq. (53) of Dang (1) is exactly the same as that obtained for the first time by Hogaasen-Fledman in Ref. Hogaasen (4) using the space-variable technique. The author of the Comment Comment (2), however, fails to reproduce the boson and exact solutions by Högaasen-Feldman, saying that he does not understand it 111The derivation in Eqs. (2) - (10) in the Comment Comment (2) was actually sent by Dinh Dang to Rabhi after the latter failed to reproduce the result of Eq. (53) of Dang (1) as well as that obtained by Hogaasen in Hogaasen (4).

(B) Sec. 4.1.2 just discusses two approximations (62) and (63). The former is based on the exact commutation relations in Eq. (10) and leads to the matrices (58) – (61). The latter leads to those in Ref. Hagino (3). The difference is the factor of 2 in the denominator of the second term at the right-hand side of Eq. (58) in Dang (1) and the corresponding term in Eq. (38) of Hagino (3). The omission of $`q`$-term was considered in Dang (1) also as a possible approximation, which leads to the appearance of the spurious mode as has been pointed out in Dang (1) and repeated by the author of Comment (2). It is worthwhile to study this approximation since there have been numerical calculations within the RPA neglecting the so-called scattering terms, which have the same origin as that of the $`q`$-term considered here (See the discussion in (b) on page 185 of Dang (1)). In such calculations the parameters of the effective interaction are usually readjusted in such a way that that the energy of the spurious mode is zero to compensate for such effect \[See, e.g. Ref. Soloviev (6)\]. To my knowledge, there is no exact way to take into account the scattering term within the QRPA so far. Approximations to take into account the scattering term lead to the extended QRPA ERPA (7) or modified QRPA MRPA (8).

(C) The approximation (75) in Dang (1) has been introduced so that one can compare the exact solution, the phonon solution obtained within the fermion formalism in Sec. 4.1.2 with that obtained within the one-boson mapping in Sec. 4.1.1. The conclusion is that the exact solution can be approximately considered as a mixture of superfluid and normals fluid states as developed in Sec. 4.3. In this sense the approximation (75) mixes $`N\pm 2`$ states.

The RPA operator for the additional mode in the present two-level model is Ring (9)

$$Q_\mathrm{a}^{}=X_2A_2^{}Y_1A_1^{}.$$
(1)
The one for the removal mode is

$$Q_\mathrm{r}^{}=X_1A_1^{}Y_2A_2^{}.$$
(2)
It is clear that neither $`Q_\mathrm{a}^{}`$ nor $`Q_\mathrm{r}^{}`$ conserves the particle number on each level because, according to the exact commutation relations in Eq. (5) of Dang (1), they do not commute with $`N_i`$ ($`i=`$1,2), except for $`X_i=`$ 0 or $`Y_i=`$ 0. So doesn’t the operator $`Q^{}=Q_\mathrm{a}^{}+Q_\mathrm{r}^{}`$ in Eq. (75) except for $`X_i=Y_i=`$ 0. However, in the boson formalism, based on the mapping (49) and (50) of Dang (1) with $`𝐛_1=𝐛_2=𝐛`$ as has been discussed in the Comment Comment (2), one obtains the boson images of these commutation relations as follows

$$[N_1,Q_\mathrm{a}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[2\mathrm{\Omega }2𝐛^{}𝐛,X_2𝐛^{}Y_1𝐛]=2X_2𝐛^{}2Y_1𝐛,$$
(3a)
$$[N_2,Q_\mathrm{a}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[2𝐛^{}𝐛,X_2𝐛^{}Y_1𝐛]=2X_2𝐛^{}+2Y_1𝐛,$$
(3b)
$$[N_1,Q_\mathrm{r}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[2\mathrm{\Omega }2𝐛^{}𝐛,X_1𝐛Y_2𝐛^{}]=2X_1𝐛+2Y_2𝐛^{},$$
(3c)
$$[N_2,Q_\mathrm{r}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[2𝐛^{}𝐛,X_1𝐛Y_2𝐛^{}]=2X_1𝐛2Y_2𝐛^{},$$
(3d)
Summing up Eqs. (3a) and (3b), one finds

$$[N_1+N_2,Q_\mathrm{a}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[N,Q_\mathrm{a}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=0.$$
(4)
Summing up Eqs. (3c) and (3d), one finds

$$[N_1+N_2,Q_\mathrm{r}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=[N,Q_\mathrm{r}^{}]_\mathrm{b}=0.$$
(5)
Hence

$$[N,Q^{}]=[N,Q_\mathrm{a}^{}+Q_\mathrm{r}]=0.$$
(6)
These results show that, in the boson formalism, although the additional and removal operators do not conserve the particle number $`N_i`$ on each level, they do conserve the total particle number $`N=N_1+N_2`$. So does the operator $`Q^{}=Q_\mathrm{a}^{}+Q_\mathrm{r}^{}`$ because of Eq. (6).

In conclusion, the present Reply clarified several issues raised in the recent Comment Comment (2) on the paper Dang (1) regarding the RPA and QRPA for an exactly solvable pairing model.