text:
# A theoretical analysis of the systematic errors in the Red Clump distance to the LMC

## 1 Introduction

The determination of the Star Formation Rate (SFR) and Age-Metallicity-Relationship (AMR) of the stellar populations in a generic galaxy is a fundamental step in order to understand galactic formation mechanisms. In addition to this, a reliable determination of the SFR and AMR in galaxies with a resolved stellar population is necessary if their distance is to be determined by means of the Red Clump (RC) method (Paczynski & Stanek 1998).

The relevance of RC stars (helium burning stars where helium ignited in an electron degenerate core, plus helium burning stars of higher masses but of similar absolute magnitude) as distance indicators stems from the fact that $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes allow an extremely accurate calibration of the average RC brightness in the solar neighbourhood (with an uncertainty of only $`\pm `$0.03 mag, see e.g. Stanek & Garnavich 1998; Alves et al. 2002), and that the RC is easily recognizable in the Colour-Magnitude-Diagram (CMD) of intermediate-old stellar populations. The determination of the absolute magnitude of the local RC in a given passband $`\lambda `$, $`M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, and the apparent magnitude $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ of the RC in a given stellar population is not difficult, since in both the Hipparcos database of nearby stars, and in CMDs covering even a small fraction of a nearby galaxy, one finds several hundreds of clump stars, easily identifiable from their CMD location. As proposed by Stanek & Garnavich (1998), a non-linear least-square fit of the function

$$N(m_\lambda )=a+bm_\lambda +cm_\lambda ^2+d\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}m_\lambda )^2}{2\sigma _{m_\lambda }^2}\right]$$
(1)
to the histogram of stars in the clump region per magnitude bin provides the value of $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ and its associated standard error.

The local RC absolute brightness is known with high accuracy, whereas the dependence of the RC brightness on the SFR and AMR of a generic stellar population has been the subject of many papers published in the last 5 years. Cole (1998), Girardi et al. (1998), Sarajedini (1999) and, in great detail, Girardi & Salaris (2001, Paper I), Salaris & Girardi (2002, Paper II), Percival & Salaris (2003, Paper III) have conclusively demonstrated that the brightness of RC stars in a given passband shows a non-monotonic, complicated dependence on age and metallicity. On average, the $`V`$\- and $`I`$-band magnitude of RC stars are more sensitive to \[Fe/H\] and age than the $`K`$-band, but the reverse is true for high ages and low metallicities. Differences up to $``$0.3 mag with respect to the local RC are possible for particular combinations of age and metallicity.

The approach we followed in Papers I, II and III to study the age and metallicity dependence of the RC brightness has been based on the use of stellar models (Girardi et al. 2000) in a purely differential way. By means of a population synthesis algorithm we have computed a syntethic CMD of the local RC by using the SFR and AMR by Rocha-Pinto et al. (2000a,b – see detailed discussions in Paper I, II and III) and derived $`M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}`$ from fitting eq. 1 to our data. Once the SFR and AMR of another observed stellar population are specified, they are employed to compute the appropriate CMD and derive $`M_{\lambda ,galaxy}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}`$. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}=M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}M_{\lambda ,galaxy}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}`$ we call the population correction. To determine the absolute magnitude of the RC in the selected population one has to subtract this theoretically determined $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ from the observed absolute brightness of the local RC, $`M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, determined from $`Hipparcos`$ data. As for the distance, once the mean apparent magnitude of the RC in a given photometric band, $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, is measured in the population under scrutiny, its distance modulus is easily derived by means of $`(mM)_0=m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC}}A_{m_\lambda }+\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, $`A_{m_\lambda }`$ being the interstellar extinction.

In Paper III we used a sample of Galactic open clusters with a range of \[Fe/H\] and ages in order to test empirically the accuracy of our $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ determinations. The distances to the clusters have been determined from a purely empirical Main Sequence-fitting technique, by using a large sample of field dwarfs with accurate $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes and \[Fe/H\] values; in this way absolute magnitudes $`M_{\lambda ,cluster}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ of their RC stars have been determined and reliably tied to $`Hipparcos`$ parallaxes. The empirical differences $`M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC}}M_{\lambda ,cluster}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ have been then computed and compared with our predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ on a cluster by cluster basis. Our analysis has shown that our theoretical population corrections do reproduce accurately their empirical counterparts, with no statistically significant offset, nor trend with respect to either \[Fe/H\] or age. Since these $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ values for single-age, single-metallicity systems are the building blocks for computing corrections in the case of a more complicated SFR and AMR, the accuracy of the population corrections to external galaxies will therefore depend entirely on how accurately their SFR and AMR have been determined.

In this paper we will discuss in detail the case of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). The LMC plays a fundamental role in establishing the extragalactic distance scale, since the zero point of the Cepheid Period-Luminosity (P-L) relationship – the cornerstone of the cosmological distance ladder – is set by the LMC distance. The value of the Hubble constant determined by the $`HST`$ extragalactic distance scale key project (Freedman et al. 2001) is based on a zero point for the Cepheid P-L relationship obtained assuming a LMC distance modulus equal to $`(mM)_0=18.50\pm `$0.10.

The LMC is probably also the external galaxy for which there is the largest number of data from which one can derive the SFR and AMR. In Paper I and II we provided the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ for the LMC in the Johnson $`V`$-, Cousins $`I`$\- and Bessel & Brett $`K`$-band, computed using recent determinations of the LMC star formation history. Our population corrections coupled to the local RC calibration provide a LMC distance modulus $``$18.50 (Alves et al. 2002; Paper II; Paper III). This distance strongly supports the Cepheids P-L zero point assumed by the $`HST`$ key project.

The question we wish to address here for the first time is: what is a realistic systematic uncertainty associated with our $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ correction for the LMC ? Some estimates of this uncertainty have appeared in the literature (e.g., $`\pm `$ 0.03 mag for the $`K`$-band, according to Alves et al. 2002, or a more pessimistic general evaluation of $`\pm `$0.15 mag by Pietrzyński, Gieren & Udalski 2003), but a rigorous analysis of this issue is still lacking.

To address this problem we will produce theoretical CMDs for the LMC field stellar population, by spanning a range of proposed SFRs and AMRs. The results of our simulations will be compared with photometric data of RC stars and metallicity determinations of red giants belonging to the inner regions of the LMC; the aim is to determine the possible range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ allowed by observations of the evolved intermediate-old population. It is very probable that some of the AMR and SFR combinations allowed by the evolved stars can be ruled out by constraints imposed by earlier evolutionary phases; in this case, our determination of the systematic error on the RC luminosity will be a safe upper limit to the real uncertainty.

In Sect. 2 we discuss our population synthesis computations for the various SFR and AMR assumed; in Sect. 3 we test the results from our simulations against RC photometric constraints, whereas in Sect. 4 we study the constraints posed by metallicity estimates of red giant stars. Our final results and conclusions are presented in Sect. 5.

## 2 CMD simulations and results

As in our previous paper we will base the discussion of the model behaviour on the Girardi et al. (2000) set of evolutionary tracks and isochrones. Different sets of models in the literature present systematic luminosity differences for the core helium burning stars that have passed through the helium flash (ages larger than $``$0.5 Gyr) – which are the stars belonging to the observed RC populations – due mainly to the different values of the helium core mass at the flash (see, e.g., Salaris, Cassisi & Weiss 2002); however, the variation of their brightness with respect to age and metallicity is much more consistently predicted by theory (Castellani et al. 2000; Salaris et al. 2002). The main results of this paper will be based on the strictly differential use of the model predictions.

Theoretical CMDs have been computed by interpolating among Girardi et al. (2000) models according to a specified SFR and AMR, assuming a Salpeter Initial Mass Function (IMF) with exponent $``$2.3. We have tested the effect of varying the IMF exponent by $`\pm `$0.5 around this ‘canonical’ value, and we found the the resulting RC brightness in $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$ is affected at most at the level of 0.01 mag (in the case of the $`V`$-band). In all our synthetic CMDs we have included a 1$`\sigma `$ gaussian photometric error of 0.02 mag to simulate typical photometric errors (the exact value of this quantity does not affect at all the results of our investigation), as well as a given spread around the mean AMR. The RC of the synthetic CMDs is populated typically by $``$1500 objects.

All the simulations discussed in this paper – which are summarized in Table 1 – produce a RC that, with the inclusion of the photometric error, well reproduces the approximately round and featureless shape of the observed $`I(VI)`$ CMDs of the LMC (see Fig. 1 for the result of a typical simulation); in particular, they resemble the many CMDs presented by the OGLE group (e.g., Udalski et al. 2000).111We remark that, under excellent photometric conditions and with homogeneous reddening, the observed LMC clump may present substructures which are predicted by theory, as discussed in Girardi (1999).

We have considered a set of SFRs and AMRs for the LMC, as displayed in Figs. 2 and 3, which cover the actual range of empirical determinations. The SFR by Holtzman et al. (1999 - H99) displayed in Fig. 2 as a solid line, has been obtained from deep CMDs (including Main Sequence stars) of the bar fields, coupled to the theoretical AMR by Pagel & Tautvaisiene (1998 – PT98) shown as filled circles in Fig. 3. This combination of SFR and AMR constitutes our ‘reference’ model. There is general consensus about the fact that the SFR of the LMC field had a marked increase around 2-4 Gyr ago (see, e.g., the discussion by Dirsch et al. 2000 and references therein), as prescribed by our reference SFR. However, the exact amount of this increase is somewhat subject to uncertainty; as an extreme case we therefore assumed that the increase has been negligible, hence the constant SFR displayed as a dotted line in Fig. 2, which approximates well (for the age range relevant to RC stars) the SFR determined by Smecker-Hane et al. (2002) for a disk LMC field. The opposite extreme case is to assume a negligible (i.e. zero) SFR until $`24`$ Gyr ago, and then a constant one; we choose therefore a SFR constant between now and 4 Gyr ago, and equal to zero before (dashed line in Fig. 2). Moving the upper age limit from 4 Gyr down to 2.5 Gyr does not influence the results about the evolved stars in our simulations, for the reasons discussed later on. It is important to remark that a SFR larger in the first Gyrs of galaxy evolution can be ruled out by the observed shape of the RC in the $`I(VI)`$ CMD. This is the case, for example, for the SFR by Dolphin (2000), which is characterized by a formation rate higher in the first 4 Gyr of the galaxy evolution, than between 0.5 and 2.5 Gyr ago; as discussed in Paper I – and noticed also by Dolphin (2000) – the resulting RC morphology is at odds with the observations. In fact, it shows a substantial tail of stars bluer than the main body of the RC, which are not observed (this tail is particularly pronounced in the $`K`$-band, and it is not observed in this photometric band either). This result is independent of the AMR used; in fact, we obtain the same blue tail when using either the Dolphin (2000) AMR or the PT98 one (the AMR provided by Dolphin is similar to PT98 results for ages less than $`23`$ Gyr whereas it approaches the more metal poor AMR by Dirsch et al. 2000 at higher ages – see below for more details about the LMC AMR ).

We have also tested the recent SFR determined by Smecker-Hane et al. (2002) for a bar field, obtained assuming essentially the PT98 AMR. This SFR is not very different from the H99 one and we have verified that it provides the same RC brightness (as well as mean \[Fe/H\] and age) as the H99 SFR when the same AMR is used.

As for the AMR, we have employed the already mentioned PT98 one, plus two other determinations found in the literature. The first one is from Dirsch et al. (2000 – DI00), displayed as open circles in Fig. 3; it is based on photometric metallicity determinations of samples of field red giant stars (from Strömgren photometry), coupled with ages determined from isochrone fitting, and predicts much lower metallicities at a given age than the PT98 results. The second one is the AMR by Dopita et al. (1997 – DP97), shown as open squares in Fig. 3, which is based on spectroscopy of planetary nebulae, and modelling of the hot central stars to determine their age; this AMR appears to be slightly more metal rich on average than the PT98 one222DP97 determine abundances of $`\alpha `$-elements which we transformed into Fe abundances assuming a scaled solar metal distribution; see e.g. the discussion in DI00.. We have also checked the AMR proposed by Olsen (1999), based on the AMR of LMC star clusters of various ages. This AMR predicts metallicities that are intermediate between PT98 and DP97 for the age range relevant to RC stars, and the results of the simulations behave accordingly.

Starting from these choices of AMR and SFR we have computed 3 sets of galaxy population models, each set made up of 3 models with the same choice of AMR, and for the 3 alternative SFRs; all computed models are summarized in Table 1. Set I has been calculated by employing the PT98 AMR, set II has made use of the DI00 AMR, and set III the DP97 one. The suffix $`a`$, $`b`$ or $`c`$ denotes the choice of the SFR; $`a`$ corresponds to the H99 SFR, $`b`$ to a constant one, $`c`$ to a SFR constant for the last 4 years of galaxy evolution and zero before.

The ‘reference’ model is model I$`a`$, computed with our standard assumption about SFR and AMR, that is – as in our previous papers – the SFR by H99 and the AMR by PT98; we have added a Gaussian spread by 0.10 dex to this AMR, however the precise value of this spread does not affect appreciably the results.

Figure 4 shows, as an example, the histogram of the number of stars per magnitude bin in the RC region for this reference model I$`a`$ of the LMC population. By fitting equation 1 to these histograms we determine $`M_{\lambda ,LMC}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}`$ in $`V`$, $`I`$ and $`K`$; by using the value of $`M_{\lambda ,local}^{\mathrm{RC},\mathrm{theory}}`$ from our simulations of the solar neighbourhood ($`M_{K,local}^{RC,theory}=1.54`$, $`M_{I,local}^{RC,theory}=0.17`$, $`M_{V,local}^{RC,theory}=0.84`$) we then computed $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$. Typical errors on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\lambda ^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ as obtained from the gaussian fitting to the RC number counts are equal to $``$0.01 mag. The full results for our ensemble of simulations are summarized in Table 1.

The distributions of age and metallicity of RC stars are displayed in Figs. 5 and 6. It is evident, from a comparison with Fig. 2, that the age distribution does not follow exactly the SFR; this occurrence has already been discussed in detail in Paper I and stems from the fact that for RC stars the ratio between Main Sequence and helium burning timescales is not constant, but decreases for increasing stellar mass (hence decreasing age). This explains the large increase in the number of RC stars with ages lower than about $`2.02.5`$ Gyr, which is larger than what is expected on the basis of the adopted SFR alone. The \[Fe/H\] distribution is characterized by a mean metallicity equal to \[Fe/H\]$``$0.40 which corresponds, according to the adopted AMR, to a mean age of about 1.6 Gyr.

It is interesting to notice in Figs. 5 and 6 that, in the case of a model with the same AMR but constant SFR (model I$`b`$), the age (mean age of RC stars equal to $``$2.0 Gyr in this model) and \[Fe/H\] distribution of RC stars is not altered dramatically with respect to the reference model. The contribution of the older (and more metal poor) generations of stars is still extremely small, due to the already mentioned trend with mass of the ratio between helium burning and Main Sequence timescales. The RC \[Fe/H\] distribution displays in model I$`b`$ a mean value \[Fe/H\]$``$0.44, less than 0.05 dex lower than in case of our reference SFR, and a similar shape. The corresponding values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\lambda ,LMC}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$ reported in Table 1 show an overall variation of less than 0.05 mag; the precise amount of this variation and its sign depend critically on the exact distribution of age and \[Fe/H\] for the RC stars, due to the complex and non monotonic behaviour of the clump brightness as a function of age and \[Fe/H\] (see the in depth discussions in Paper I, II and III), and can’t simply be estimated by comparing the average \[Fe/H\] and average age of RC objects.

With model I$`c`$ we can explore the opposite extreme case in which the SFR at ages up to 4.0 Gyr ago is constant, whereas it is equal to zero for older ages. It is evident from Table 1 that the change in the RC brightness is again very small, of the order of a few hundredths of magnitude; the average \[Fe/H\] of the clump stars is equal to $``$0.39 dex, basically coincident with the reference value, the average age is $``$1.4 Gyr (see Figs. 5 and 6). Similar results concerning the effect of the SFR choice are obtained when considering the other sets of models, II and III.

We can therefore conclude that for all cases where the SFR is not decreasing from the start of the galaxy formation, the precise shape of the SFR is not a very critical factor in determining the RC properties; moreover, the relevant age range of RC stars is between $``$0.5 Gyr and 2–3 Gyr (see also discussion in Paper I). For a given choice of the AMR, even enhancing the existing uncertainties about the SFR of the LMC, the associated variation of the RC brightness is within $``$0.05 mag – in fact, in the $`K`$-band this variation is no more than 0.01 mag.

We turn now to the effect of the AMR choice. The PT98 AMR employed in models I$`a`$,$`b`$ and $`c`$ comes from theoretical computations of the LMC chemical evolution which reproduce the average metallicity distribution of LMC clusters. In models II$`a`$,$`b`$ and $`c`$ we have used instead the more empirical AMR of DI00. The corresponding results presented in Table 1 show a consistent variation of the RC brightness in the $`V`$\- ($``$0.15 mag brighter), $`I`$\- ($``$0.10 mag brighter) and $`K`$-band ($``$0.04 mag fainter) with respect to the corresponding models in set I. These variations are due to the much lower metallicities (difference of the order of 0.3 dex) predicted by the adopted AMR for the age range of RC stars, which is still between $``$0.5 and $`23`$ Gyr, since the RC age distribution is not appreciably changed with respect to the results of set I. As discussed in Paper II, an overall lower \[Fe/H\] makes RC stars brighter in $`V`$ and $`I`$, but fainter in $`K`$.

The simulations for our set III adopt the AMR by DP97. This AMR appears to be slightly more metal rich on average than the PT98 one. The results for the RC brightness behave accordingly, with the $`V`$ and $`I`$ magnitudes fainter on average by $``$0.1 and $``$0.05 mag than the models in set I, whereas the $`K`$ magnitude is practically unaffected.

This comparison highlights the important role played by the AMR. In fact, these different estimates of the LMC AMR can produce sizable variations of the RC brightness, at least in the $`V`$ and $`I`$ photometric bands; the $`K`$-band absolute magnitude is much less sensitive even to these large \[Fe/H\] variations. The present uncertainty on the AMR of the LMC stellar population provides therefore the largest contribution to the uncertainty on the RC population corrections for this galaxy in the $`V`$ and $`I`$ photometric bands.

## 3 Comparison with RC photometry

A first empirical check for the RC population corrections set by the evolved intermediate-low mass stars is the observed value of the difference between the RC brightness in different photometric bands; if the sensitivity of the RC absolute magnitude to the input SFR and AMR is very different in the two bandpasses, this kind of comparison tests the adequacy of the adopted population model. We have considered the RC magnitude difference between $`I`$ and $`K`$ – hereafter $`D_M`$ – based on the Pietrzyński & Gieren (2002) $`K`$-band observations of OGLE-II fields I and II (which we transformed to the Bessel & Brett system by adding 0.044 mag to their published value, e.g. Pietrzyński & Gieren 2002 and Alves et al. 2002), and the corresponding $`I`$-band data from Udalski et al. (1999); the adopted extinction comes from the reddening maps by Udalski et al. (1999), coupled with the extinction law by Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998). The reddening maps are based on the hypothesis of homogeneous stellar populations in all OGLE-II fields (which basically cover the LMC bar and parts of the inner disk), so that the RC absolute magnitude (the $`I`$-band is used) is assumed constant, and brightness differences are only due to reddening differences. The reddening zero point is set by a series of independent determinations based on other reddening indicators, and has an estimated uncertainty of 0.02 mag (a recent analysis by Tammann, Sandage & Reindl 2003 confirms the adopted reddening zero-point within this formal uncertainty). The hypothesis of homogeneous RC populations – at least from the point of view of the chemical abundances that, for the range of possible SFRs for the LMC, are the main factor in determining the RC brightness – in the bar and inner disk is supported by the results from Bica et al. (1998), and will be used in the rest of the paper, where data from the inner disk and bar fields will be treated as if belonging to the same stellar population. It is also important to stress that differences are found when outer LMC fields are considered (e.g. the discussions in Bica et al. 1998; Olsen 1999; Cole, Smecker-Hane & Gallagher 2000).

Figure 7 displays the comparison between observed and predicted $`D_M`$ for the three sets of models discussed in the previous section (the predicted $`I`$ and $`K`$ absolute magnitudes have been obtained by subtracting from the observed local RC absolute magnitude the appropriate theoretical population corrections summarized in Table 1); the error bar includes (by adding them in quadrature) the errors reported in Table 1, plus the contribution due the random errors on the observed RC brightness in $`K`$ and $`I`$ (which are of the order of $`\pm `$0.01 mag – see, respectively, Pietrzyński et al. 2003 and Udalski 2000), the zero point uncertainty of 0.02 mag on the adopted reddening maps (Udalski et al. 1999), the zero point error on the $`K`$ ($`\pm `$0.03 mag according to Pietrzyński & Gieren 2002) and $`I`$ ($`\pm `$0.02 mag, Udalski et al. 1999) magnitudes, and the 0.01 error on the photometric transformation to the $`K`$ Bessel & Brett system (see Pietrzyński & Gieren 2002).

It is interesting to notice that, at first glance, the three different determinations of the LMC AMR produce models which nicely bracket the observed value of $`D_M`$, confirming our hypothesis that they constitute realistic extreme cases for the LMC true AMR. The models belonging to set I reproduce better the empirical constraints, whereas set II provides values too low (by slightly more than the 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainty), and set III values slightly too high. It goes without saying that, in case of set II and III results, the distances obtained from, respectively, the $`K`$ and $`I`$ RC magnitudes, will therefore differ at the level of about 1$`\sigma `$ or slightly more.

Again, the AMR plays the major role in determining the result of this comparison. The choice of the SFR has only a minor impact, as can be deduced from the fact that the points belonging to the same set of models are very close to each other. Within each set of models the H99 SFR (models I$`a`$, II$`a`$ and III$`a`$) produces the lower theoretical $`D_M`$ value, whereas a constant SFR throughout the galaxy lifetime gives origin to the higher $`D_M`$. It is clear that models I$`a`$ (our assumed reference model in this paper and in our previous papers) and I$`c`$ provide the best match of the empirical data.

Another possible constraint to combine with the previous one, is the magnitude difference between $`V`$ and $`K`$ or ($`V`$ and $`I`$), due to the fact that $`V`$ is on average the most sensitive passband to metallicity and age (hence to SFR and AMR) for RC stars. However, very recently Alves et al. (2002) found a large discrepancy (of the order of 0.10 mag) between their $`V`$ magnitudes and the OGLE-II results for LMC stars, whereas their $`K`$ magnitudes are in agreement with those of Pietrzyński & Gieren (2002), and also their $`HST`$ $`I`$-band data are consistent within the OGLE-II ones within the $`HST`$ photometric zero point uncertainty of 0.02 mag. In light of this uncertainty, we preferred at this stage not to use any constraint coming from $`V`$-band RC photometry.

## 4 Comparison with chemical abundance determinations

Cole et al. (2000) published results of metallicity determinations for a sample of red giants (including asymptotic giant branch stars above the tip of the red giant branch) brighter than the RC in an inner disk field of the LMC. They obtained photometric metallicities (from the Strömgren $`m_1(by)`$ diagram, which is insensitive to stellar ages, coupled to the calibration by Hilker 2000) for a large sample of giants, recalibrated onto Ca II IR triplet spectroscopic measurements of a subsample of 51 objects, tied to the Carretta & Gratton (1997) spectroscopic metallicity scale for globular clusters. In Fig. 8 the best fit Gaussian of the derived metallicity distribution is showed (arbitrarily normalized); this has a mean value of \[Fe/H\]=$``$0.60, and a 1$`\sigma `$ dispersion of 0.20 dex. Systematic errors at the 0.1–0.2 dex level are possible, according to the authors. Mean metallicities of LMC field red giants which are consistent with the Cole et al. (2000) values, within the systematic uncertainty on the zero point, have been obtained by Larsen, Clausen & Storm (2000) from Strömgren photometry, and by Bica et al. (1998) from the Washington $`CT_1`$ system.

The metallicity distribution by Cole et al. (2000) is compared in Fig. 8 with the results from the red giants in models I$`a`$, II$`a`$ and III$`a`$; a different choice of the SFR for a given selected AMR does not appreciably change the \[Fe/H\] distribution of bright red giants, as was the case for RC stars.

As for the comparison of the photometric $`D_M`$ discussed in the previous section, the three different determinations of the AMR produce a metallicity distribution of bright red giants that nicely brackets the observed one. The distribution from our reference model I$`a`$ resembles the observed one; the mean \[Fe/H\] is \[Fe/H\]$``$0.50, well within the uncertainty on the Cole et al. (2000) results. Small variations of the dispersion around the assumed AMR may improve the comparison, but they do not alter at all the predicted RC levels.

The DP97 AMR (model I$`b`$) provides an average \[Fe/H\]$``$0.40, still within the uncertainty associated with the empirical result, whereas metallicities obtained with the the DI00 AMR yield a mean value \[Fe/H\]$``$0.90, a bit too low, even considering the observational systematic errors. This result is very similar to what was found from the photometric comparison, where the results with the DI00 AMR where also discrepant by slightly more than 1$`\sigma `$.

It is also very important to compare, before concluding this section, the estimate of LMC red giant metallicities obtained from spectroscopy and from the observed red giant CMD location. Authors working on the tip of the red giant branch distance scale (e.g. Lee, Freedman & Madore 1993; Salaris & Cassisi 1998) use the $`(VI)`$ colour of the red giant branch to estimate the mean metallicity of red giants in the population under scrutiny; a metallicity is assigned to the observed dereddened colour of the red giant branch by using relationships calibrated on Galactic globular clusters with direct spectroscopic metallicity determinations. In the case of the LMC, \[Fe/H\] values between $`1.0`$ and $`1.3`$ dex are found (e.g. Lee et al. 1993; Salaris & Cassisi 1998; Sakai, Zaritski & Kennicutt 2000). These metallicities are lower by about 0.4 dex than the Cole et al. (2000) result.

This discrepancy is however only apparent; the reason is that Galactic globular cluster stars have ages of the order of 12 Gyr (e.g. Salaris & Weiss 2002), while our simulations show that bright red giants in the LMC (the ones observed by Cole et al. 2000) have average ages of the order of 1.7–1.9 Gyr . These much younger ages shift the location of the red giants to the blue with respect to the globular cluster counterpart at the same \[Fe/H\], thus causing an underestimate of the LMC red giants’ metallicity when deduced from their CMD colour333see also Davidge (2003) for a similar conclusion in case of red giants in the disk of NGC 6822..

This explanation is clearly supported by Fig. 9, where we show the LMC red giant location as deduced from our reference model (we display, for the sake of clarity, only red giant stars up to the red giant branch tip), and the location of 12.5 Gyr old isochrones (from the same Girardi et al. 2000 models used in our simulations) of various metallicities. It is evident that, when using the colour of the red giants compared to the globular cluster counterpart, we would obtain a \[Fe/H\] value of the order of $``$1.0, whereas, due to the age effect discussed above, the real average \[Fe/H\] is about $``$0.60.

This difference between the age of LMC stars at the tip of the red giant and the age of their Galactic globular cluster counterpart can have an impact on their use in determining the LMC distance; we will fully address this topic in a forthcoming paper.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

In the previous sections we have shown how multiband photometry of RC stars and metallicity determinations of red giants consistently indicate that the three different AMRs used to compute our three sets of models bracket the actual LMC AMR, and that the PT98 AMR is its best representation. Models obtained with the DI00 and DP97 AMR constitute conservative lower and upper limits to the LMC AMR.

We have also discussed how, in general, a constant SFR, or a SFR not decreasing with time, are necessary to reproduce the RC morphology; within this constraint, once the AMR is fixed, the difference $`D_M`$ between the RC $`I`$ and $`K`$ magnitude is very weakly dependent on the SFR, albeit the individual $`I`$ and $`K`$ values may change slightly. The metallicity distribution of RC stars and of red giants is not greatly affected by the adopted SFR, but it is, of course, very sensitive to the AMR. The average age of RC stars is typically $``$1.5 Gyr, whereas the average red giant age is about 1.7–1.9 Gyr. Due to this relatively low age of the red giants, metallicities derived from the dereddened colour of the LMC red giant branch are subject to a bias towards values which are too low.

To gauge the possible range of values for the LMC population corrections, and therefore for the absolute RC brightness in the LMC, we can consider the combinations of SFR and AMR allowed by our sets of models which produce the brightest and dimmest RC. The errors on the $`D_M`$ values (see Fig. 7) are 1$`\sigma `$ errors, and the error on the zero point of the RGB metallicities (from Cole et al. 2000) we interpret, to be conservative, as a 1$`\sigma `$ error. The reference model I$`a`$ fits reasonably well the central values for the observed $`D_M`$ and mean \[Fe/H\] of the red giants, therefore the difference between the brightness of the reference model with respect to the brightest and dimmest combination of SFR and AMR provides a conservative estimate of the 1$`\sigma `$ error bar on the theoretical population corrections.

In general, a single combination of SFR and AMR cannot produce the brightest (dimmest) RC in all three photometric bands, due to the opposite behaviour of the RC in the $`K`$-band with respect to the $`I`$ and $`V`$ ones. The range of values of the RC absolute magnitude (as determined by subtracting the value of the appropriate theoretical population correction from the local observed RC absolute magnitudes ) is easily estimated from the data in table 1; the brightest RC in $`V`$ and $`I`$ is found in model II$`a`$, whereas the brightest RC in $`K`$ is provided by models I$`c`$ and III$`c`$. Model III$`b`$ shows the dimmest RC in $`V`$ and $`I`$, and the dimmest RC in $`K`$ is obtained from all three models of set II (DI00 AMR).

The last step of our analysis is to provide a final estimate of the LMC distance with the corresponding random and sytematic errors. Our ‘best’ estimate will be obtained from the $`K`$-band RC brightness of the reference model, which is the passband least sensitive to reddening uncertainties and also shows overall the smallest systematic uncertainty (see Table 1). By employing the dereddened $`K`$ magnitude from Pietrzyński & Gieren (2002) we obtain a distance modulus and associated 1$`\sigma `$ error bar (which is determined by adding in quadrature the errors on photometry, reddening and calibration discussed in Sect. 3, plus an error on the population corrections of $`{}_{0.04}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.01}`$ mag) $`(mM)_{0,LMC}=18.47\pm 0.01(random)_{0.06}^{+0.05}(systematic)`$ (a +0.01 mag geometric correction to the LMC barycentre as discussed in Pietrzyński & Gieren 2002 has been also applied). The distance modulus obtained from the corresponding $`I`$-band data using only the $`I`$-band calibration is $`(mM)_{0,LMC}=18.44\pm 0.01(random)\pm 0.09(systematic)`$, in agreement with the $`K`$ result, but with a larger error bar (we considered the same sources of error as for the $`K`$-band case, with the exception of the error deriving from the transformations between different $`K`$ bands).

We have also employed, as a consistency check, the multiband method applied by Alves et al. (2002) to derive both distance and reddening to an inner disk LMC field not covered by Udalski et al. (1999) reddening maps. The simultaneous determination of the apparent distance moduli in the three photometric bands allows one to estimate reddening and distance at the same time, by imposing that all three apparent distance moduli must provide the same unreddened distance. From Alves et al. (2002) data and our reference model population corrections we obtain $`(mM)_{0,LMC}=18.49\pm 0.09(random)_{0.05}^{+0.02}(systematic)`$ (we applied a correction of $``$0.013 mag for the distance to the LMC barycentre, as in Alves et al. 2002) in beautiful agreement with the result obtained from the dereddened $`K`$-band data by Pietrzyński et al. (2003), albeit with a somewhat larger error bar. The random error is the error we obtain from the multiband fitting procedure using the absolute magnitudes obtained from our models, including the error on the observed RC magnitude (random and photometric zero point) and the error on the local RC absolute brightness; the systematic error has been derived by taking into account the maximum and minimum distance obtained by applying this method and the model combinations displayed in Table 1. What we have termed as random error contains in this case also the systematic error due to the calibration of the local RC and the photometric zero point. Due to the fact that the local RC brightness and the photometric zero point error in all of the three bands are used simultaneously to determine both reddening and distance, it is difficult to disentangle their systematic effect on the distance only, and their errors – if included in the systematic budget – definetely cannot be added in quadrature to the systematic error due to the population corrections.

The derived average reddening to the observed field is $`E(BV)=0.08\pm 0.03(random)_{0.04}^{+0.06}(systematic)`$. This value is consistent with the Galactic foreground reddening in this direction, $`E(BV)=0.06\pm `$0.02 (see Alves et al. 2002). We have also checked the consistency between the reddening obtained with this method and the reddening maps by Udalski et al. (1999). The idea, based on the Udalski et al. (1999) procedure, is to determine the difference between the observed $`I`$ magnitude of Alves et al. (2002) and the corresponding quantity provided by the OGLE-II fields I and II with known reddening (E(B-V)=0.152). Once the Schlegel et al. (1998) extinction law is adopted, and an intrinsic difference by 0.02 mag due to geometrical effects is accounted for, we can therefore determine the reddening of Alves et al (2002) field on the same scale as the OGLE-II maps. From this procedure we obtain $`E(BV)=0.11\pm `$0.02, in agreement, within the error bars, with our previous result.

To conclude, we have provided a best estimate of the LMC distance modulus from the RC method, $`(mM)_{0,LMC}=18.47\pm 0.01(random)_{0.06}^{+0.05}(systematic)`$, where the systematic error has been realistically and carefully determined, based on the actual photometric and spectroscopic observations of the LMC stellar population. The size of this systematic error is small and highlights the fact that, when observations are able to constrain the SFR and AMR of the population under scrutiny, and provided the population corrections are appropriately computed as discussed in our series of papers, the RC method (especially in the $`K`$-band, in the case of the LMC) can provide accurate distances.

## Acknowledgments

SMP acknowledges financial support from PPARC.


format: text

text:
# Non-Transitive Quantum Games

## Abstract

Non-transitivity can arise in games with three or more strategies $`A,B,C`$, when $`A`$ beats $`B`$, $`B`$ beats $`C`$, and $`C`$ beats $`A`$, ($`A>B>C>A`$). An example is the children’s game “rock, scissors, paper” ($`R,S,P`$) where $`R>S>P>R`$. We discuss the conditions under which quantum versions of $`R,S,P`$ retain the non-transitive characteristics of the corresponding classical game. Some physical implications of non-transitivity in quantum game theory are also considered.

Recent years have witnessed a rapid growth of interest in quantum game theory, motivated in part by potential applications to quantum computing. Quantum games are generally derived from the corresponding classical games by introducing some inherently quantum mechanical feature (such as superposition of states or entanglement), which can be incorporated in more than one way. In a 2-player game, where each player has two pure strategies available, a widely discussed scheme for entanglement is that due to Eisert, Wilkins, and Lewenstein (EWL) . The object of the present paper is to discuss 2-player games with three pure strategies ($`A,B,C`$) using the EWL formalism for entanglement. The novel feature of such games is that they allow for the possibility of non-transitive strategies ($`A>B>C>A`$). It is well known that non-transitivity arises in classical games  and in real-world applications, and can lead to surprising -and seemingly paradoxical - outcomes. This naturally leads to the question of whether similar non-transitive effects arise in quantum versions of classical games and, if so, whether similarly unexpected effects can be present at the quantum level.

A simple 2-player, 3-strategy game is the children’s choosing game “rock ($`R`$), scissors ($`S`$), paper ($`P`$)” in which rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, and paper beats rock ($`R>S>P>R`$). A payoff matrix for the 3 strategies of this zero-sum game is shown in Table I. (Quantum games with $`3\times 3`$ payoff matrices and larger have have been discussed by Wang, et al. .) We can formulate a quantum analog of this game by using the EWL entanglement formalism. In the quantum version of this game the strategies $`R`$, $`S`$, and $`P`$ are represented by three matrices which act on qubits from which payoffs are determined. The quantum game can be played as follows: In the absence of entanglement each player (Alice and Bob) is given a separate copy of the same qubit which is in one of three orthogonal states denoted by $`|100`$, $`|010`$, or $`|001`$. Without loss of generality we assume that the same qubit is used for the initial state in every game. This qubit can then be manipulated by any of three matrices denoted by $`R`$, $`S`$, and $`P`$, each of which rotates the initial state into one of the three orthogonal states. Once both players have implemented their strategies ($`R`$, $`S`$, or $`P`$), the final qubits for both players are compared using the payoff matrix in Table I. An examination of this Table shows that $`R>S>P>R`$. In the EWL formalism the qubits are entangled by an operator before the players act on them with $`R`$, $`S`$, or $`P`$, and then disentangled afterwards. Since the EWL entanglement operator commutes with any direct-product combination of $`R`$, $`S`$, and $`P`$, the net effect of introducing entanglement in this manner is to produce a quantum game whose outcomes are identical to those of the corresponding classical game.

If a game is repeated many times, a competitor may elect to play any of $`R,S,`$ or $`P`$ in each game, and in such a circumstance quantum games can be formulated in which payoff functions unique to quantum mechanics may result. If the probabilities for the actions $`R`$, $`S`$, or $`P`$ are $`p_R`$, $`p_S`$, and $`p_P`$ respectively, a player is said to be adopting a mixed strategy. Two ways of incorporating mixed strategies in quantum games can be considered, and these lead in general to different outcomes. In one approach, $`p_R`$, $`p_S`$, and $`p_P`$ are simply the classical probabilities of using each of the quantum operators $`R`$, $`S`$, or $`P`$. By contrast, the second approach combines the operators $`R`$, $`S`$, or $`P`$ and the respective probability amplitudes into a single matrix. The difference in the two constructions can be illustrated in the $`2\times 2`$ case (Alice’s $`2`$ choices $`\times `$ Bob’s $`2`$ choices): In the former approach each player would have only two options ($`N=noflip`$ and $`F=flip`$) for each game,

$$N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
which act on the initial game state, either $`(10)`$ or $`(01)`$. Assigning a classical probability $`p`$ to using $`N`$ and $`(1p)`$ to using $`F`$ would then define a mixed strategy. It should be noted that other choices for $`N`$ and $`F`$ are interesting to study, but we shall restrict our discussion to those given in Eq. (1). This entanglement technique requires that a player make a choice in each game. A maximized entanglement operation, $`J`$, can be introduced into such a game that commutes with any direct-product combination of $`N`$ and $`F`$ but does not commute with a general matrix,

$$J=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(NN)+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(FF),$$
(2)
where $`NN=N(Alice)N(Bob)`$, etc.. Payoff functions for both players unique to quantum mechanics are possible if either player cheats by using neither $`N`$ nor $`F`$.

In the second approach the actions available to each player, along with the probability amplitudes for selecting them, are built into the single unitary matrix $`U`$,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{p}& \sqrt{1p}\\ \sqrt{1p}& \sqrt{p}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(3)
Once $`p=p(\theta )`$ has been chosen, a game can be played many times without the player making any future decisions. An entanglement matrix for such a game was provided by EWL,

$$J=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(NN)+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(F^{}F^{}),$$
(4)
where

$$F^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Before turning to the 3-strategy case we note that although some properties of quantum games are identical to those of classical games, the EWL entanglement technique can lead to payoff functions that cannot be reproduced in a classical game. Consider a situation where each player introduces an additional phase, $`\varphi `$, to his/her play:

$$U(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)$$
(6)
The final expected payoff function, $`\overline{\$}_a`$, for Alice is

$`\overline{\$}_a`$ $`=`$ $`a_{11}[c_a^2c_b^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi _a+\varphi _b)]`$ (10)
$`+a_{10}(c_as_b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _as_ac_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi _b)^2`$
$`+a_{01}(s_ac_b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _bc_as_b\mathrm{sin}\varphi _a)^2`$
$`+a_{00}[s_as_b+c_ac_b\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _a+\varphi _b)]^2,`$
where $`\varphi _a(\varphi _b)`$ is the additional phase for Alice(Bob), $`c_a=\mathrm{cos}\theta _a`$, $`s_a=\mathrm{sin}\theta _a`$ and the $`{}_{}{}^{}a_{}^{}`$s are Alice’s payoff coefficients. For non-zero but fixed values of $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\varphi _b`$ Alice’s payoff is non-linear in $`p_a=c_a^2`$, whereas a classical $`2\times 2`$ game produces only payoff functions that are linear in $`p_a`$.

The $`2\times 2`$ EWL entanglement formalism can be easily shown to work equally well with either formulation of a mixed strategy. However, in the $`3\times 3`$ case (2 players with 3 choices each), these approaches require different entanglement matrices as we now discuss. We begin by exhibiting the $`3\times 3`$ analog of the operators $`N`$ and $`F`$ in Eq. (1) which we take to be:

$$U_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),U_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),U_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where $`[U_2,U_3]=0`$. The players use these matrices in different spaces to act on initial wave functions such as $`|11=(100)_a(100)_b`$. The analog of the first approach for constructing a mixed strategy is for each player to assign classical probabilities $`p_i`$ to each of the $`U_i`$ where $`p_i=1`$. (Other choices for these matrices lead to identical results.) The commutativity of $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ and $`U_3`$ can be exploited to create a mixing matrix similar to that of EWL.

In direct analogy to Eq. (2), a choice for the unitary entanglement matrix, $`J`$, that commutes with any direct product combination of these three matrices is:

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_1U_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_2U_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}U_3U_3`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\frac{1}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}\\ 0& \frac{1}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{1}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0\\ \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}\\ 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{1}{3}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}& 0\\ \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{2}{3}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}\end{array}\right),`$ (22)
where $`U_1U_1U_1(Alice)U_1(Bob)`$, etc.. The entanglement matrix in Eq. (12) is designed to be used in a game where players randomly select an action for each game based on classical probabilities associated with a defined mixed strategy. This matrix entangles the qubits while still obeying the appropriate commutation relations,

$$0=[J,U_iU_j]i,j.$$
(23)
Unlike the $`2\times 2`$ case, an initial eigenstate does not become fully entangled by this matrix. The initial state $`|11`$, for example, is transformed into

$$J|11=\frac{1}{3}|11+\frac{2}{3}|00+\frac{2}{3}|11.$$
(24)
If each amplitude is denoted as $`c_i`$, then the degree of entanglement (as measured by von Neumann entropy), $`E`$, is:

$$E=\underset{i}{}|c_i|^2\mathrm{log}_3|c_i|^2=0.88$$
(25)
where log base 3 is used to ensure that maximum entanglement corresponds to $`E=1`$.

A generic entanglement matrix can be constructed for an $`N\times N`$ game. Let $`U_1`$,$`U_2`$,…$`U_N`$ ($`U_iU_j=U_{i+j}`$, $`U_i^{}=U_i`$ and $`U_{N+1}=U_1`$) be commuting and orthogonal matrices, each capable of directly transforming an initial state into an eigenstate of some specified Hamiltonian. The elements of each matrix are taken to be either $`0`$ or $`1`$. If $`J`$ is assumed to have the form

$$J=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _iU_iU_i,$$
(26)
then

$`JJ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _iU_iU_i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _j^{}U_j^{}U_j^{},`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`𝟙𝟙{\displaystyle \underset{𝕜=\mathrm{𝟙}}{\overset{}{}}}|\alpha _𝕜|^\mathrm{𝟚}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝕚=\mathrm{𝟙}}{\overset{}{}}_{𝕚𝕛}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝕛=\mathrm{𝟙}}{\overset{}{}}}\alpha _𝕚\alpha _𝕛^{}𝕌_𝕚𝕌_𝕛^{}𝕌_𝕚𝕌_𝕛^{}.`$ (28)
Unitarity requires that (1)

$$1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\alpha _k|^2,$$
(29)
and (2) that

$$0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\alpha _i\alpha _j^{}U_iU_j^{}U_iU_j^{}.$$
(30)
If $`sij`$, then the second unitarity condition becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _{s+j}\alpha _j^{}U_sU_ss[1,N1],`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`U_sU_s{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _{s+j}\alpha _j^{}s[1,N1],`$ (32)
or

$$0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _{s+j}\alpha _j^{}s[1,N1].$$
(33)
For the $`N=3`$ case, $`\alpha _1=1/3`$, $`\alpha _2=\alpha _3=2/3`$ is one solution to the the unitarity requirements. For the general $`N\times N`$ case, the combination of Eqs. (29) and (33) thus leads to an expression for the $`\alpha _i`$ in Eq. (26), and hence to an appropriate expression for $`J`$.

The $`3\times 3`$ game that we consider is “rock, scissors, paper” (R,S,P) shown in Table I which has the interesting non-transitive property ($`R>S>P>R`$). As shown in the Table, a payoff of $`+1`$ has been assigned to winning, $`1`$ to losing, and $`0`$ for both in case of a tie. It is well known that in a $`2\times 2`$ game such as the “prisoner’s dilemma”, a player using a quantum strategy can improve his/her expected payoff provided that his/her opponent continues to use a classical strategy. The question then arises whether this can also happen in a $`3\times 3`$ game which is non-transitive at the classical level. To address this question we note that the generic matrix, $`\widehat{J}`$,

$`\widehat{J}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1U_1U_1+\alpha _2U_2U_2+\alpha _3U_3U_3`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a& 0& 0& 0& c& 0& 0& 0& b\\ 0& a& 0& 0& 0& c& b& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& a& c& 0& 0& 0& b& 0\\ 0& 0& b& a& 0& 0& 0& c& 0\\ b& 0& 0& 0& a& 0& 0& 0& c\\ 0& b& 0& 0& 0& a& c& 0& 0\\ 0& c& 0& 0& 0& b& a& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& c& b& 0& 0& 0& a& 0\\ c& 0& 0& 0& b& 0& 0& 0& a\end{array}\right)`$ (44)
has no effect on the payoff matrix because it transforms eigenstates to others with identical payoffs. It follows from this discussion that the matrix $`J`$ in Eq. (12), which satisfies all the criteria for a mixing matrix in $`3\times 3`$ games, produces outcomes for the quantum version of the non-transitive game $`R,S,P`$ which are identical to those for the classical game. Since this conclusion also holds for the generic matrix $`\widehat{J}`$ in Eq. (34) (assuming unitarity), we can conclude that the quantum versions of $`R,S,P`$ constructed from $`J`$ or $`\widehat{J}`$ will retain the non-transitive behavior present in the classical game. We emphasize, however, that the application of $`J`$ or $`\widehat{J}`$ to other $`3\times 3`$ games can be expected to produce quantum games whose outcomes are generally different from those of the corresponding classical game.

Since the survival of non-transitivity in the quantum domain is a fundamental feature in $`3\times 3`$ games, we present an alternative proof of this result which clarifies some of the underlying assumptions. We assume that Alice uses a strategy (which is separable into a product of ’classical’ and ’quantum’ operators), $`Q^{}=U_iQ`$, for every game and that Bob uses some ’classical’ strategy $`U_j`$. In this case, the final game state is

$$|\psi _f=J_b^{}[U_iQU_j]J_b|11.$$
(45)
If $`|\psi _{jq}J_b^{}[Q𝟙]𝕁_𝕓|\mathrm{𝟙𝟙}`$ then the final state becomes

$$|\psi _f=U_iU_j|\psi _{jq}.$$
(46)
Non-transitivity survives because Bob is still able to win regardless of what Alice does: he can turn any advantage that Alice creates with $`Q`$ into an advantage to himself simply by choosing another $`U_j`$. It is important to note that, unlike the “prisoner’s dilemma”, the use of quantum strategies by both players cannot be mutually beneficial to both players because the game is zero sum.

In the preceding discussion we considered non-transitive $`3\times 3`$ games in a framework analogous to that following Eq. (1) in the $`2\times 2`$ case. We turn next to a quantum formulation of $`3\times 3`$ games analogous to that following from Eq. (3). It can be shown that the preceding proof of non-transitivity survives for this formulation as well. The matrix that can be used to transform an initial eigenstate into any other eigenstate is generated by the following matrices, which are Hermitian and unitary,

$$H_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),H_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(47)
Each player can use the matrix $`U(x,y)`$,

$`U(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ixH_1}e^{iyH_2}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{ix}\mathrm{cos}y& ie^{ix}\mathrm{sin}y& 0\\ i\mathrm{sin}y\mathrm{cos}x& \mathrm{cos}x\mathrm{cos}y& ie^{iy}\mathrm{sin}x\\ \mathrm{sin}y\mathrm{sin}x& i\mathrm{sin}x\mathrm{cos}y& e^{iy}\mathrm{cos}x\end{array}\right)`$ (52)
to transform an initial state, $`|1=(100)`$, into any other state to simulate a pure strategy. For this choice of $`U(x,y)`$ the additional phases that have been introduced have no net effect on probabilities or payoff functions. The choices of $`x`$ and $`y`$ define a player’s mixed strategy in a $`3\times 3`$ game, just as the choice of $`\theta `$ \[Eq. (3)\] does in the $`2\times 2`$ game. $`U(x,y)`$ satisfies the commutation relation $`0=[U(x,y),F^{\prime \prime }]`$, where

$$F^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2& 2\\ 2& 1& 2\\ 2& 2& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(53)
Because $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`U(x,y)`$ commute, so do $`F^{\prime \prime }F^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`U(x_a,y_a)U(x_b,y_b)`$, where $`x_a`$ and $`y_a`$ ($`x_b`$ and $`y_b`$) define Alice’s (Bob’s) mixed strategy. This suggests the introduction of the following (maximally entangled) mixing matrix,

$$\overline{J}=e^{i\pi /4F^{\prime \prime }F^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[𝟙𝟙𝕚𝔽^{\prime \prime }𝔽^{\prime \prime }]$$
(54)
which commutes with any $`U(x_a,y_a)U(x_b,y_b)`$. The matrix $`\overline{J}`$ in Eq. (54) is the exact $`3\times 3`$ analog of the entanglement matrix used by EWL in their discussion of the “prisoner’s dilemma”. There is considerable freedom on the part of each player in how he/she chooses to deviate from $`U(x,y)`$, since a variable equivalent to $`\varphi `$ can be introduced into a player’s transformation matrix in numerous ways.

In summary, we have developed a formalism for dealing with entanglement in $`3\times 3`$ quantum games, when each player adopts a mixed strategy. Although this formalism can be applied to any $`N\times N`$ game, our focus in this paper has been on the simplest non-transitive $`3\times 3`$ game. As noted above, classical non-transitive games are of great interest, since they can lead to seemingly paradoxical results in real-world examples. One of the central results of the present paper is that non-transitivity survives in the quantum versions of the corresponding games. This naturally raises the question of whether similar apparent paradoxes can arise in physically realizable quantum systems. Although this question cannot be answered definitively at the present time, physical systems exist which exhibit the non-transitive features of both the “voter’s paradox” and the “Penney paradox”. As we discuss elsewhere, tables of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients have properties similar to those of the magic square, whose non-transitive properties underlie the “voter’s paradox”. It is thus possible that interesting non-transitive effects may arise in ensembles of particles with non-zero angular momenta whose behavior can be modeled by the $`3\times 3`$ non-transitive games that we have presented here.

The authors wish to thank Dennis Krause for many helpful discussions. The work of M.L.S was supported in part by the Wabash College Byron K. Trippet Research Fund and the work of E.F. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC 02-76ER01428.


text:
# Three-Body Interactions in Many-Body Effective Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

A general principle of *any* effective low-energy theory is that if a system is probed or interacts at low energies, resolution is also low, and fine details of what happens at short distances or in high-energy intermediate states are not resolved . In this case, it is easier and more efficient to use low-energy degrees of freedom for low-energy processes. The short-distance structure can be replaced by something simpler (and wrong at short distances!) without distorting low-energy observables. There are many ways to replace the structure; an illuminating way is to lower a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on intermediate states.

Consider nucleon-nucleon scattering in the center-of-mass frame (see Fig. 1). The Lippmann-Schwinger equation iterates a potential that we take originally as one of the $`\chi ^2/\text{dof}1`$ potentials. Intermediate states with relative momenta as high as $`q20\text{fm}^1`$ may be needed for convergence. Yet the data and the reliable long-distance physics (pion exchange) only constrain the potential for $`q3\text{fm}^1`$.

We can cut off the intermediate states at successively lower $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; with each step we have to change the potential $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to maintain the same phase shifts. This determines a renormalization group (RG) equation for $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . We see in Fig. 1 that at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.1\text{fm}^1`$, corresponding to 350 MeV lab energy, the potentials have all collapsed to the same low-momentum potential (“$`V_{\mathrm{low}k}`$”). The net shifts are largely constant in momentum space, which means they are well represented by contact terms and a derivative expansion. This observation suggests a local Lagrangian approach. We also note that the high-momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence for two-nucleon scattering appears as powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only (no logarithms).

The low-energy data is insensitive to *details* of short-distance physics, so we can replace the latter with something simpler without distorting the low-energy physics. Effective field theory (EFT) is a local Lagrangian, model-independent approach to this program. Complete sets of operators at each order in an expansion permit systematic calculations with well-defined power counting. The program is realized as described in Ref. , which we apply to a basic many-body system, the dilute Fermi gas:

1. *Use the most general Lagrangian with low-energy dof’s consistent with global and local symmetries of the underlying theory.* For a dilute Fermi system, this takes the form (with omitted derivative and higher many-body terms):

$$_{\mathrm{eft}}=\psi ^{}\left[i\frac{}{t}+\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2M}\right]\psi \frac{C_0}{2}(\psi ^{}\psi )^2\frac{D_0}{6}(\psi ^{}\psi )^3+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
2. *Declare a regularization and renormalization scheme.* For a natural scattering length $`a_s`$ (e.g., hard spheres where $`a_sR`$, the sphere radius), dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction (DR/MS) are particularly advantageous . A simple matching to the effective range expansion for two-body scattering determines the two-body coefficients ($`C_i`$) to any desired order. For example, $`C_0=4\pi a_s/M`$.
3. *Establish a well-defined power counting;* e.g., the energy density $``$ in powers of $`k_\mathrm{F}a_s`$:

and so on. The rules yield

$$=\rho \frac{k_\mathrm{F}^2}{2M}\left[\frac{3}{5}+\frac{2}{3\pi }(k_\mathrm{F}a_s)+\frac{4}{35\pi ^2}(112\mathrm{ln}2)(k_\mathrm{F}a_s)^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(2)

The calculation of the energy density is far easier in the EFT approach than in conventional treatments . For example, each additional $`C_0`$ vertex simply brings a single power of $`k_\mathrm{F}a_s`$. The contribution for each diagram is a coefficient with all of the dependence on the short-range scale (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1/R`$) times a multi-dimensional integral that is simply a geometric factor (and which is conveniently evaluated even at high order using Monte Carlo integration).

## 2 Inevitability of Three-Body Interactions

Naively, it would appear from (2) that the energy density is a power series in $`k_\mathrm{F}a_s`$. In fact, the polynomial in $`k_\mathrm{F}a_s`$ is disrupted by three-body contributions. (The following contributions assume the spin/isospin degeneracy is greater than two.) These emerge *inevitably* in the form of logarithmic divergences in 3–to–3 scattering (left two diagrams):

$`\stackrel{}{}`$

The divergence is easily isolated and in dimensional regularization the amplitude is

$$𝒯_{33}^{\mathrm{ln}}=iM^3(C_0)^4\frac{4\pi 3\sqrt{3}}{8\pi ^3}\left[\frac{1}{D3}2\mathrm{ln}\mu +\mathrm{}\right].$$
(3)
Changes in the parameter $`\mu `$ are absorbed by the three-body coupling $`D_0(\mu )`$, yielding an RG equation that is easily solved for the $`\mu `$ dependence of $`D_0`$ since $`C_0`$ is constant:

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }D_0=M^3(C_0)^4\frac{4\pi 3\sqrt{3}}{4\pi ^3}D_0(\mu )=D_0(1/a_s)+M^3(C_0)^4\frac{4\pi 3\sqrt{3}}{4\pi ^3}\mathrm{ln}(a_s\mu ).$$
(4)
The $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu )`$ dependence from $`D_0(\mu )`$ in the energy (fourth diagram) must be canceled, which tells us for free there is a term in the energy density proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(k_\mathrm{F}a_s)`$ with the *same* coefficient as the $`\mathrm{ln}(a_s\mu )`$ term in Eq. (4) \[see Ref.  for the complete details\]. While the logarithm is determined, $`D_0(1/a_s)`$ is not: two-body data alone is insufficient!

We can further exploit the general structure of the renormalization group equations to identify additional logarithms (and powers of logarithms) . The scale $`\mu `$ only appears in logarithms, which means that matching $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dimensions in the RG equations is very restrictive. The couplings have dimension $`C_{2i}4\pi /M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2i+1}`$ and $`D_{2i}4\pi /M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2i+4}`$, so the RG equation for the coefficient $`C_0(\mu )`$ can only have one $`C_0`$ on the right side, which in turns tells us to look for log divergences in 2–to–2 diagrams with a single $`C_0`$:

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }C_0=aC_0\text{tree-level only; no log divergence}a=0C_0=\text{const.}$$
(5)
For the three-body, no-derivative coefficient $`D_0(\mu )`$, we reproduce the form found above:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}D_0`$ $`=`$ $`a(C_0)^4+bC_0C_2+cC_0C_2^{}+dD_0b=0,c=0,d=0\text{(3–to–3 tree level)}`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_0}{d\mathrm{ln}\mu }}=a(C_0)^4D_0(\mu )=a(C_0)^4\mathrm{ln}\mu +const.`$
If the right side has $`D_0\mathrm{ln}\mu `$, then the coefficient goes like $`(\mathrm{ln}\mu )^2`$, and so on .

## 3 Observables

An example of how subtle model dependence is clearly identified by the EFT arises when considering occupation numbers, which are typically treated as many-body observables. In a uniform system with second-quantized creation and destruction operators $`a_𝐤^{}`$ and $`a_𝐤^{}`$, the momentum (occupation) distribution is $`n(k)=a_𝐤^{}a_𝐤^{}`$, which measures the strength of correlations (Fig. 2, left). It is said to be measurable in $`(e,e^{}p)`$ on a nucleus. But is $`n(k)`$ an observable?

The status of potential observables can be tested using local field redefinitions, such as $`\psi \psi +\alpha (4\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)(\psi ^{}\psi )\psi `$ with arbitrary $`\alpha `$; if $`\alpha 𝒪(1)`$ this is “natural” . (These field redefinitions are analogous to, but not the same as, unitary transformations.) Such a redefinition induces both two-body off-shell vertices (triangles) *and* three-body vertices. It can be shown that the energy density is model independent (i.e., independent of $`\alpha `$) *if* all terms are kept :

In this example, the one-body kinetic term generates the triangle vertex under the redefinition while the two-body no-derivative term generates the three-body vertex (open circle). If the three-body terms are omitted, then the energy would depend on $`\alpha `$ (even though the different forces reproduce the same two-body phase shifts) and then one might be fooled into thinking that $`\alpha `$ can be determined by comparison to experiment. The energies for different $`\alpha `$’s would lie along a “Coester line,” which is just a form of model dependence (“off-shell ambiguities”) made manifest by the EFT .

There are similar induced contributions to the momentum distribution, with the additional issue that the corresponding operator is changed by redefinitions and there is no preferred definition (there is no Noether current, as for the fermion number) . These induced contributions correct the impulse approximation when analyzing $`(e,e^{}p)`$ experiments, mixing vertex corrections (exchange currents) and initial and final state interactions in an $`\alpha `$-dependent way (see Fig. 2 right). This means that the distribution $`n(k)`$ is not directly accessible; more generally, experiment cannot resolve ambiguities in momentum distributions within a calculational framework based on low-energy degrees of freedom. Instead the distributions are auxiliary quantities defined only in a specific convention; they are useful within this convention but are not observables (this is analogous to quark distributions in deep inelastic scattering). However, the ambiguities have a natural size ; if they are negligible then the momentum distributions are effectively observables.

## 4 Current Trends in Many-Body EFT

The EFT tools and techniques offer many new possibilities for the systematic and model-independent calculation of many-body systems; the examples here involving three-body interactions are just a sampler. When contributions to three- and higher-body scattering from multiple short-distance two-body scatterings have logarithmic divergences at large intermediate-state momentum, they are not resolved and three-body interactions *must* be included to avoid model dependence. Careful consideration of the regulator dependence turns a necessity into a virtue, providing valuable information about the analytic structure of observables. The second example illustrated how local field redefinitions are a clean tool for assessing potential observables. Simple rule: if a calculated quantity depends on a transformation parameter $`\alpha `$, it is either not an observable or you’ve forgotten some contribution. These transformations also demonstrate explicitly how different two-body forces are associated with different three-body forces.

Other topics under current investigation include nonperturbative EFT and applications to finite systems. The effective action formalism has been used for a nonperturbative large N expansion in Ref.  and work is in progress to extend the EFT approach to large $`a_s`$ that was initiated by Steele . A merger of density functional theory (DFT) and EFT is presented in Ref. , with on-going work on long-range forces, pairing, and a systematic gradient expansion. Some planned applications are energy functionals for nuclei far from stability and superfluidity in trapped fermionic atoms. Other groups are adapting chiral perturbation theory to many-body systems  and there is an EFT program for bosonic systems by Braaten, Hammer, and collaborators .


text:
# Cyclotron Resonance in Ferromagnetic InMnAs/(Al,Ga)Sb Heterostructures

thanks: Author to whom correspondence should be addressedthanks: Present address: Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan.thanks: Present address: Institute of Experimental Physics, Warsaw University, Hoza 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland.thanks: Present address: PRESTO, Japan Science and Technology Corporation, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan.

## Abstract

We report the observation of hole cyclotron resonance (CR) in InMnAs/(Al,Ga)Sb heterostructures in a wide temperature range covering both the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases. We observed two pronounced resonances that exhibit drastic changes in position, linewidth, and intensity at a temperature higher than the Curie temperature, indicating possible local magnetic ordering or clustering. We attribute the two resonances to the fundamental CR transitions expected for delocalized valence-band holes in the quantum limt. Using an 8-band k$``$p model, which incorporates ferromagnetism within a mean-field approximation, we show that the temperature-dependent CR peak shift is a direct measure of the carrier-Mn exchange interaction. Significant line narrowing was observed at low temperatures, which we interpret as the suppression of localized spin fluctuations.

preprint: HEP/123-qed

The interaction of free carriers with localized spins plays an important role in a variety of physical situations in metals anderson ; kittel ; hewson . Carriers near a magnetic ion are spin-polarized, which can mediate an indirect exchange interaction between magnetic ions. The carrier-induced ferromagnetism realized in Mn-doped III-V semiconductors ohno  has provided a novel system in which to study itinerant carriers interacting with localized spins in the dilute limit. Various mechanisms have been suggested but the microscopic origin of carrier-induced ferromagnetism is still controversial theory . One of the unanswered questions is the nature of the carriers, i.e., whether they are in the impurity band ($`d`$-like), the delocalized valence bands ($`p`$-like), or some type of mixed states.

Here we report a clear observation of hole cyclotron resonance (CR) in ferromagnetic InMnAs/(Al,Ga)Sb, demonstrating the existence of delocalized $`p`$-like carriers. In addition, this is the first CR study in any ferromagnet covering temperatures ($`T`$’s) both below and above the Curie temperature ($`T_c`$) grimes . CR is a direct method for determining carrier effective masses and therefore the nature of the carrier states. In all samples studied, we observed two resonances, both of which exhibited unusual $`T`$-dependence in position, intensity, and width. The lower-field line showed an abrupt reduction in width with a concomitant decrease in resonance field above $`T_c`$. The higher-field line, which was absent at room $`T`$, suddenly appeared above $`T_c`$, rapidly grew with decreasing $`T`$, and became comparable to the lower-field resonance at low $`T`$. We ascribe these lines to the two fundamental CR transitions expected for delocalized holes in the valence band of a Zinc-Blende semiconductor in the magnetic quantum limt. We developed an 8-band k$``$p theory, including full valence band complexities and treating ferromagnetism within a mean-field approximation. Results show that the $`T`$-dependent CR peak shift is a direct measure of the carrier-Mn exchange interaction.

The samples were In1-xMnxAs/AlyGa1-ySb single heterostructures containing high densities ($``$1019 cm-3) of holes. They were grown by low temperature molecular beam epitaxy on GaAs (100) substrates tom . Unlike the $`n`$\- and $`p`$-type films we studied earlier matsuda ; zudov ; matsuda1 ; sanders\_jap , the samples in the present work showed ferromagnetism. Sample characteristics are summarized in Table I. Sample 1 was annealed at 250C after growth, which increased the $`T_c`$ by $``$10 K hayashi . We performed CR measurements using ultrahigh pulsed magnetic fields ($`B`$’s) generated by the single-turn coil technique zudov ; nakao . We used circularly-polarized radiation with wavelengths of 10.6 $`\mu `$m, 10.2 $`\mu `$m, 9.25 $`\mu `$m (CO2 laser), and 5.527 $`\mu `$m (CO laser), and the transmitted radiation was detected using a fast HgCdTe detector. A multi-channel digitizer recorded the signals from the pick-up coil and the detector.

Figure 1 shows the transmission of the 10.6 $`\mu `$m beam through sample 1 at various $`T`$’s as a function of $`B`$. From room $`T`$ down to slightly above $`T_c`$, a broad feature (labeled ‘A’) is observed with almost no change in intensity, position, and width with decreasing $`T`$. However, at $``$68 K, which is sill above $`T_c`$, we observe quite abrupt and dramatic changes in the spectra. First, a significant reduction in linewidth and a sudden shift to a lower $`B`$ occur simultaneously. Also, it increases in intensity rapidly with decreasing $`T`$. In addition, a second feature (labeled ‘B’) suddenly appears $``$ 125 T, which also rapidly grows in intensity with decreasing $`T`$ and saturates, similar to feature A. Note that the temperature at which these unusual sudden CR changes occur ($`T_c^{}`$) is higher than $`T_c`$.

The observed unusual $`T`$-dependence is neither specific to this particular wavelength ($`\lambda `$) used nor to the sample measured. We observed essentially the same $`T`$-dependent behavior in all the samples studied. Figure 2(a) shows low-$`T`$ CR traces for three samples at 10.6 $`\mu `$m. Both features A and B are clearly observed but their intensities and linewidths vary from sample to sample. Figure 2(b) displays the $`\lambda `$-dependence of the CR spectra for sample 2. We can see that both lines shift to higher $`B`$’s with decreasing $`\lambda `$ (i.e., increasing photon energy), as expected. Figures 2(c) and 2(d) show data at different $`T`$’s for sample 1 measured at 9.25 $`\mu `$m and 5.52 $`\mu `$m, respectively. The $`T`$-dependence observed at these shorter $`\lambda `$’s is similar to what was observed at 10.6 $`\mu `$m. The observations of CR with essentially the same masses in samples with different buffer layers (GaSb or AlSb) exclude the possibility of hole CR in the buffer. We also confirmed the absence of CR in a control sample which consisted of only a GaSb layer grown on GaAs. All these facts confirm the universality of the effects we observed and their relevance to ferromagnetic order.

The clear observation of CR indicates that at least a fraction of the holes are delocalized. This is in agreement with our measurements on low-$`T_c`$ films matsuda1 ; sanders\_jap , which showed similar two resonance spectra althrough the resonances were much broader and $`T`$-dependence was much weaker. However, extensive earlier attempts to observe CR in GaMnAs matsuda2  did not detect any sign of resonant absorption within the $`B`$ and $`\lambda `$ ranges in which both light hole (LH) and heavy hole (HH) CR in GaAs were expected. This fact indicates that the holes in GaMnAs are strongly localized, that the mixing of $`p`$\- and $`d`$-like states makes the effective masses of holes extremely large, or that scattering is too strong to satisfy $`\omega _c\tau >1`$. In any case, it appears that the carriers mediating the Mn-Mn exchange interaction are considerably more localized in GnMnAs than in InMnAs, consistent with recent optical conductivity hirakawa  and photoemission experiments okabayashi .

Feature A becomes strikingly narrow at low $`T`$’s. The estimated CR mobility is 4$``$5 $`\times `$ 103 cm2/Vs, which is one order of magnitude larger than the low-$`T`$ mobilities measured by the Hall effect (see Table I). We speculate that this is associated with the suppression of localized spin fluctuations at low $`T`$’s. A similar effect has been observed in (II,Mn)VI systems brazis . Spin fluctuations become important when a band carrier simultaneously interacts with a limited number of localized spins. This occurs, for example, for magnetic polarons and for electrons in (II,Mn)IV quantum dots. The strong in-plane localization by the magnetic field may also result in a reduction of the number of spins which a band carrier feels, thus increasing the role of spin fluctuations.

It is important to emphasize that the $`T`$ at which the significant spectral changes start to appear ($`T_c^{}`$) is consistently higher than $`T_c`$ in all the samples. This fact may be explainable in light of a recent Monte Carlo study schliemann , which suggested that short-range magnetic order and finite local carrier spin polarization are present for temperatures substantially higher than $`T_c`$. A more recent theoretical study elbio  explicitly predicts the existence of $`T_c^{}`$, corresponding to clustering. Any such local order should result in modifications in band structure, which in turn modify CR spectra.

In order to further understand the effects of ferromagnetism on band structure, we used an 8$`\times `$8 k$``$p model with $`s(p)`$-$`d`$ exchange interaction taken into account zudov ; ntype . Each state is specified by two indices, $`(n,\nu )`$, where $`n`$ is the Landau quantum number and $`\nu `$ labels the eigenvectors within each Landau manifold. Peak A can be identified as the HH($``$1,1) $``$ HH(0,2) transition sanders\_jap ; sanders\_josc . We attribute the $`T`$-dependent peak shift to the increase of carrier-Mn exchange interaction resulting from the increase of magnetic ordering at low $`T`$. Our calculated CR spectra are shown in Fig. 3(a) for bulk In0.91Mn0.09As with only a minimal broadening of 4 meV. The figure shows the shift of peak A with decreasing $`T`$. Note that the peak in a bulk system occurrs at room $`T`$ at $``$40 T as opposed to the heterostructures where the resonance occurs at $``$50 T due to quantum confinement/strain.

It is easy to obtain an exact analytical expression for this shift since it involves only the lowest two manifolds in our model ($`n=1`$, which is 1 dimensional, and $`n=0`$, which factors into two 2$`\times `$2 matrices for $`k_z=0`$). Furthermore, to simplify the final expressions, we neglect the small terms arising from the interaction with remote bands. With these simplifications, the cyclotron energy (at the center of the Landau subbands) has the form:

$`E_{CR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_g}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}xS_z(\alpha \beta )`$ (1)
$`+\sqrt{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_g}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}xS_z(\alpha \beta )\right]^2+E_p\mu _BB},`$
where $`E_g`$ is the energy gap, $`E_p`$ is related to the Kane momentum matrix element $`P`$ as $`E_p=\frac{\mathrm{}^2P^2}{2m_0}`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are $`s`$-$`d`$ and $`p`$-$`d`$ exchange constants, and $`xS_z`$ is the magnetization per unit cell.

In the field range of our interest ($`40`$ T), $`\sqrt{E_p\mu _BB}`$ is in the same order as $`\frac{E_g}{2}`$, while the exchange interaction is much smaller even in the saturation limit. Expanding the square root in (1), we obtain the final expression

$$E_{CR}\frac{E_g}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\delta }1\right)+\frac{1}{4}xS_z(\alpha \beta )(1\delta ),$$
(2)
where $`\delta =E_g/(E_g^2+4E_p\mu _BB)^{1/2}`$.

If we assume that the $`T`$-dependence of $`E_g`$ and $`E_p`$ is small, it follows from Eq. (2) that the peak shift should follow the $`T`$-dependence of $`S_z`$. This shift directly measures the carrier-Mn exchange interaction. To obtain quantitative agreement with the experiment, one should calculate $`S_z`$ by taking into account the possibility of short-range ordering, as discussed above schliemann ; elbio . This effect could substantially modify the band structure at low $`B`$. At high $`B`$, however, this effect should be smoothed out by the field-induced magnetic ordering. In the following we neglect this effect and calculate $`S_z`$ via standard mean-field theory ashcroft , solving the transcendental equation

$$S_z=SB_S\left(\frac{gS}{kT}\left[\mu _BB\frac{3kT_cS_z}{gS(S+1)}\right]\right),$$
(3)
where $`g`$ is the free electron $`g`$ factor, $`B_S`$ is the Brillouin function, and $`S=\frac{5}{2}`$ is the spin of the magnetic ion.

The $`T`$-dependence of the resonance field, calculated using Eqs. (2)-(3), is presented in Fig. 3(b). Parameters used in the calculation are $`x`$ = 0.09, $`T_c`$ = 55 K, $`E_g`$ = 0.4 eV, $`E_p`$ = 21 eV, and $`\alpha \beta =1.5`$ eV. It shows that from room temperature to 30 K the the resonance $`B`$ decreases by $``$20%, approximately the result observed in the experiment. In addition, we find that the shift is nonlinear with $`T`$ and the main shift occurs at $`T`$’s well above $`T_c`$, which is also consistent with the experiment.

We gratefully acknowledge support from NSF DMR-0134058 (CAREER) and DARPA MDA972-00-1-0034 (SPINS). CJS also acknowledges support from NSF DMR-9817828. We also thank A. H. MacDonald, S. J. Allen, and E. Dagotto for useful discussions.