text:
# Study of 𝐵→𝜓(2𝑆)𝐾 and 𝐵→𝜓(2𝑆)𝐾^∗(892) decays

## Abstract

Color-suppressed decays of $`B`$ mesons to final states with $`\psi (2S)`$ mesons have been observed with the CLEO detector. The branching fractions for the decays $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$, $`B^+\psi (2S)K^{}(892)^+`$, $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$, and $`B^0\psi (2S)K^{}(892)^0`$ are measured to be $`(7.8\pm 0.7\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$, $`(9.2\pm 1.9\pm 1.2)\times 10^4`$, $`(5.0\pm 1.1\pm 0.6)\times 10^4`$, and $`(7.6\pm 1.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$, respectively, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The first measurement of the longitudinal polarization fraction is extracted from the angular analysis of the $`B\psi (2S)K^{}(892)`$ candidates: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.45\pm 0.11\pm 0.04`$. Our measurements of the decays $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$ and $`B^+\psi (2S)K^{}(892)^+`$ are first observations.

preprint:   CLNS 00-1688 CLEO 00-17

S. J. Richichi,1 H. Severini,1 P. Skubic,1 A. Undrus,1 S. Chen,2 J. Fast,2 J. W. Hinson,2 J. Lee,2 D. H. Miller,2 E. I. Shibata,2 I. P. J. Shipsey,2 V. Pavlunin,2 D. Cronin-Hennessy,3 A.L. Lyon,3 E. H. Thorndike,3 C. P. Jessop,4 H. Marsiske,4 M. L. Perl,4 V. Savinov,4 X. Zhou,4 T. E. Coan,5 V. Fadeyev,5 Y. Maravin,5 I. Narsky,5 R. Stroynowski,5 J. Ye,5 T. Wlodek,5 M. Artuso,6 R. Ayad,6 C. Boulahouache,6 K. Bukin,6 E. Dambasuren,6 S. Karamov,6 G. Majumder,6 G. C. Moneti,6 R. Mountain,6 S. Schuh,6 T. Skwarnicki,6 S. Stone,6 G. Viehhauser,6 J.C. Wang,6 A. Wolf,6 J. Wu,6 S. Kopp,7 A. H. Mahmood,8 S. E. Csorna,9 I. Danko,9 K. W. McLean,9 Sz. Márka,9 Z. Xu,9 R. Godang,10 K. Kinoshita,10,***Permanent address: University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221 I. C. Lai,10 S. Schrenk,10 G. Bonvicini,11 D. Cinabro,11 S. McGee,11 L. P. Perera,11 G. J. Zhou,11 E. Lipeles,12 S. P. Pappas,12 M. Schmidtler,12 A. Shapiro,12 W. M. Sun,12 A. J. Weinstein,12 F. Würthwein,12,Permanent address: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. D. E. Jaffe,13 G. Masek,13 H. P. Paar,13 E. M. Potter,13 S. Prell,13 V. Sharma,13 D. M. Asner,14 A. Eppich,14 T. S. Hill,14 R. J. Morrison,14 H. N. Nelson,14 R. A. Briere,15 G. P. Chen,15 B. H. Behrens,16 W. T. Ford,16 A. Gritsan,16 J. Roy,16 J. G. Smith,16 J. P. Alexander,17 R. Baker,17 C. Bebek,17 B. E. Berger,17 K. Berkelman,17 F. Blanc,17 V. Boisvert,17 D. G. Cassel,17 M. Dickson,17 P. S. Drell,17 K. M. Ecklund,17 R. Ehrlich,17 A. D. Foland,17 P. Gaidarev,17 L. Gibbons,17 B. Gittelman,17 S. W. Gray,17 D. L. Hartill,17 B. K. Heltsley,17 P. I. Hopman,17 C. D. Jones,17 D. L. Kreinick,17 M. Lohner,17 A. Magerkurth,17 T. O. Meyer,17 N. B. Mistry,17 E. Nordberg,17 J. R. Patterson,17 D. Peterson,17 D. Riley,17 J. G. Thayer,17 D. Urner,17 B. Valant-Spaight,17 A. Warburton,17 P. Avery,18 C. Prescott,18 A. I. Rubiera,18 J. Yelton,18 J. Zheng,18 G. Brandenburg,19 A. Ershov,19 Y. S. Gao,19 D. Y.-J. Kim,19 R. Wilson,19 T. E. Browder,20 Y. Li,20 J. L. Rodriguez,20 H. Yamamoto,20 T. Bergfeld,21 B. I. Eisenstein,21 J. Ernst,21 G. E. Gladding,21 G. D. Gollin,21 R. M. Hans,21 E. Johnson,21 I. Karliner,21 M. A. Marsh,21 M. Palmer,21 C. Plager,21 C. Sedlack,21 M. Selen,21 J. J. Thaler,21 J. Williams,21 K. W. Edwards,22 R. Janicek,23 P. M. Patel,23 A. J. Sadoff,24 R. Ammar,25 A. Bean,25 D. Besson,25 R. Davis,25 N. Kwak,25 X. Zhao,25 S. Anderson,26 V. V. Frolov,26 Y. Kubota,26 S. J. Lee,26 R. Mahapatra,26 J. J. O’Neill,26 R. Poling,26 T. Riehle,26 A. Smith,26 C. J. Stepaniak,26 J. Urheim,26 S. Ahmed,27 M. S. Alam,27 S. B. Athar,27 L. Jian,27 L. Ling,27 M. Saleem,27 S. Timm,27 F. Wappler,27 A. Anastassov,28 J. E. Duboscq,28 E. Eckhart,28 K. K. Gan,28 C. Gwon,28 T. Hart,28 K. Honscheid,28 D. Hufnagel,28 H. Kagan,28 R. Kass,28 T. K. Pedlar,28 H. Schwarthoff,28 J. B. Thayer,28 E. von Toerne,28 and M. M. Zoeller28

1University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

2Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

3University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

4Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309

5Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

6Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

7University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712

8University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539

9Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

10Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

11Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

12California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

13University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

14University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

15Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

16University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0390

17Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

18University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

19Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

20University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

21University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

22Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

23McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

24Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850

25University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

26University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

27State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

28Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Studies of the decays of $`B`$ mesons to $`\psi (2S)`$-meson final states contribute to knowledge of hadronic $`B`$-meson decays, which involve both the weak and strong interactions. The ARGUS collaboration observed the decay $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$  with a branching fraction $`(18\pm 8\pm 4)\times 10^4`$ and obtained upper limits for the branching fractions of the other $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ modes . The CLEO collaboration subsequently measured the branching fraction $`(B^+\psi (2S)K^+)=(6.1\pm 2.3\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$ and determined more stringent upper limits for the other $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ branching fractions . Recently, the CDF collaboration measured the branching fractions $`(B^+\psi (2S)K^+)=(5.6\pm 0.8\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$ and $`(B^0\psi (2S)K^0)=(9.2\pm 2.0\pm 1.6)\times 10^4`$ .

Of the decays $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$  reported here, the modes involving a neutral $`B^0`$ meson decaying to a $`CP`$ eigenstate can be used, in a manner similar to that for their $`J/\psi `$ analogues, to measure the $`CP`$-violation angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity quark-mixing triangle. Measurements of the modes $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ can also contribute to tests of the factorization hypothesis  and phenomenological techniques employed in several models that predict the ratios of vector to pseudoscalar kaon production and the longitudinal polarization fraction in $`BJ/\psi K^{()}`$ and $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ decays . Absolute branching fractions have been calculated by combining these phenomenological approaches with inputs from experiment . Nonfactorizable contributions to the decay amplitudes can provide substantial corrections to these predictions . Both improvements in the accuracy of the experimental measurements and the observation of new modes can help in differentiating between models and understanding the role of any nonfactorizable corrections .

In this Rapid Communication we report measurements of all four decays $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$, including the first observation of the decays $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$ and $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$. We also present the first angular analysis of the decays $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$ and $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$, which leads to a determination of the longitudinal polarization fraction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The measurements reported in this Rapid Communication supersede the previous CLEO results .

The data used in this analysis were collected from $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions on or near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) with two configurations of the CLEO detector, CLEO II and CLEO II.V.

In CLEO II , the momenta of charged particles were measured in a tracking system consisting of a 6-layer straw-tube chamber, a 10-layer precision drift chamber, and a 51-layer main drift chamber, all operating inside a 1.5 T solenoidal magnet. The main drift chamber also provided a measurement of the specific ionization ($`dE/dx`$) of charged particles. For CLEO II.V, the innermost wire chamber was replaced with a three-layer silicon vertex detector , and the argon-ethane gas of the main drift chamber was replaced with a helium-propane mixture. A 7800-crystal CsI calorimeter detected photon candidates and was used for electron identification. Muon candidates were identified with proportional counters placed at various depths in the steel absorber. The total integrated luminosity of the data sample at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ energy is 9.2 fb-1, corresponding to the production of $`9.7\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs. A data sample of 4.6 fb-1 recorded 60 MeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ energy was used for continuum non-$`B\overline{B}`$ background evaluation. The Monte Carlo simulation of the CLEO detector is GEANT-based . Simulated events for the CLEO II and CLEO II.V configurations are processed in the same manner as data.

Candidates for the decays $`B^+\psi (2S)K^{()+}`$ and $`B^0\psi (2S)K^{()0}`$ are reconstructed via the decays $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ stands for $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs. The $`K^+`$ and $`K^0`$ mesons are reconstructed in their $`K_S^0\pi ^+`$, $`K^+\pi ^0`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`K_S^0\pi ^0`$ modes.

Electron candidates are identified by their calorimeter energy deposition, which must be consistent with their measured momenta and their specific ionization in the drift chamber. Electrons may be accompanied by radiative photons emitted in the narrow cone along the momentum direction of the electron. The recovery of these photons improves the invariant mass resolution and results in a 20% relative increase in the $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ reconstruction efficiency . At least one muon candidate is required to penetrate five nuclear interaction lengths of material, whereas the other candidate must penetrate at least three nuclear interaction lengths. In the decays $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass is required to be greater than 0.4 GeV/$`c^2`$, as motivated by the measured $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass spectrum . For $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ candidates in the dielectron final state we use an asymmetric mass criterion to take into account the radiative tail: $`100<M_{e^+e^{}}M_{J/\psi }<50`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`140<M_{e^+e^{}}M_{\psi (2S)}<60`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. The dimuon candidate mass is required to be within 50 (60) MeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`J/\psi `$ $`\left(\psi (2S)\right)`$ mass.

Candidate $`K_S^0`$ mesons are reconstructed from pairs of oppositely charged tracks with vertices separated from the primary interaction point with at least 3 standard deviations. Candidate $`K^{}`$ mesons are required to have a $`K\pi `$ invariant mass within 80 MeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`K^{}`$ mass . For the charged kaon candidates from $`K^{}`$ decays, the $`dE/dx`$ and time-of-flight information (at least one source of identification must be available) must be consistent with a kaon hypothesis to within two standard deviations.

Photon candidates are defined as energy clusters in the calorimeter of at least 60 MeV in the barrel region, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.80`$, and 100 MeV in the end cap region, $`0.80<|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.95`$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle with respect to the beam axis. Each photon candidate must have a lateral profile of energy deposition consistent with that expected of a photon. In addition, we do not use the fragments of a nearby large shower as photon candidates. The $`\pi ^0`$ candidates are reconstructed from photon pairs with at least one photon from the barrel region and an invariant mass within 3 standard deviations of the PDG $`\pi ^0`$ mass . The $`\pi ^0`$ mass resolution is calculated from the known angular and energy resolutions of the calorimeter.

For the modes with a neutral pion in the final state, the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle must be greater than $`\pi /2`$, which effectively eliminates the low momentum neutral pion background. The $`K^{}`$ helicity angle, $`\theta _K^{}`$, is the polar angle of the $`K`$ meson in the $`K^{}`$ rest frame relative to the negative of the $`\psi (2S)`$ direction in that frame.

The $`B`$ candidates are selected by means of two parameters: the difference between the energy of the $`B`$ candidate and the beam energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE(\psi (2S))+E(K^{()})E_{\mathrm{b}eam}`$, and the beam-constrained $`B`$-candidate mass, $`M(B)\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{b}eam}^2\stackrel{}{p}_B^2}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ is the momentum of the $`B`$ candidate. The $`B`$ candidate must be within the $`\pm 3`$ standard deviation signal region ( Table I ) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ vs. $`M(B)`$ plane.

After the $`B\psi (2S)K^{}`$ event selection, 10 $``$ 20 % of the events have more than one $`B`$ candidate in the signal area. In these cases, we select the $`B`$ candidate with minimum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_i\mu _i)^2/\sigma _i^2`$, where $`\mu _i`$ is a central value of the measured parameter $`x_i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ is its uncertainty ($`B\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}K^{}`$ and $`B\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}K^{}`$ were considered different modes). The following parameters were used where available: the masses of the $`\psi (2S)`$, $`K^{}`$, $`K_S^0`$, and $`\pi ^0`$ candidates, and the identification significance of the kaon candidates from $`K^{}`$ decays and the pion candidates from the $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. The distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ vs. $`M(B)`$ for the six different $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ decays after all selection criteria are applied are shown in Fig. 1.

The principal sources of background are misreconstructions of a different $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ mode or $`B\psi (2S)K\pi \pi `$ modes, combinatorial background from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ decays that do not contain a $`\psi (2S)`$ daughter, and continuum non-$`B\overline{B}`$ decays.

Contributions from miscellaneous $`B`$ decays with $`\psi (2S)`$ decay products are estimated using the Monte Carlo simulation of $`B\overline{B}`$ events in which one of the $`B`$ mesons decays exclusively in the selected mode. The following modes are considered for calculations of background from misidentified $`B`$ decays to states with charmonium: $`B\psi (2S)K`$ processes with branching fractions obtained in this Rapid Communication (before correcting for this background); $`B\psi (2S)K^{}`$ processes with similarly obtained branching fractions and non-resonant contributions to the $`K^{}`$ reconstruction not considered; and $`B\psi (2S)K\pi \pi `$ decays with the value of the branching fraction consisting of that for inclusive $`B\psi (2S)X`$ production , after the subtraction of $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ decay contributions.

The combinatorial background is estimated with fits of the beam-constrained $`B`$ mass distributions in data. The background shape is obtained with events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband areas: $`0.05<|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<0.15`$ GeV. As a check, the combinatorial background is also estimated using the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo sample with $`B\psi (2S)X`$ decays excluded. The results of the two methods agree within statistical uncertainty. The results on signal and background yields are summarized in Table I. Lepton universality is assumed in calculations of the efficiencies for the $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ mode.

The decays $`B\psi (2S)K^{}`$ are a transition from a pseudoscalar to a pair of vector mesons. The fraction of longitudinal polarization is extracted from the distribution of the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle. The distribution of the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle is given by  $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _K^{}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma })+2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _K^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Fig. 2 shows the $`K^{}`$ helicity angles for the $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$, $`K^+K_S^0\pi ^+`$; $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$, $`K^+K^+\pi ^0`$; and $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$, $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ candidate events in data. The $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$, $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$ data are not used in the polarization measurements because the lack of statistics precludes a reasonable understanding of the background. The curves show the results of the binned likelihood fit to the data. The fit function includes the variable $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and a fixed amount of background, as listed in Table I. The signal shapes in the fit function for decays with the extreme values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ and 1 are extracted from Monte Carlo simulation. The detector resolution in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}`$ is $``$0.06, which is significantly smaller than the bin width. The background shape is estimated using the events from sidebands in the $`M(B)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ plane. The results for the fraction of longitudinal polarization, with statistical uncertainties only, are $`0.64\pm 0.22`$, $`0.38\pm 0.23`$, and $`0.40\pm 0.14`$ for the decays with $`K^+K_S^0\pi ^+`$, $`K^+K^+\pi ^0`$, and $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ final states, respectively. The correctness of the fit is checked by fitting Monte Carlo generated distributions with a known value of the longitudinal polarization fraction. The probabilities to get greater likelihood values than the observed value are 88, 12, and 10 % for these $`B`$ modes, respectively.

The acceptance and efficiency are evaluated with a simulated sample of $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ decays. The contributions to the systematic error come from the uncertainty in the reconstruction efficiency due to track finding (1% per track), lepton and kaon identification (3% per candidate), $`K_S^0`$ finding (2% per candidate), $`\pi ^0`$ reconstruction (3% per candidate), background evaluation (Table I), as well as from uncertainties in the $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`J/\psi `$ branching fractions . The Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty is at least a factor of 10 smaller than the statistical uncertainty of the data. Equal production of charged and neutral $`B`$-meson pairs in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays is assumed. In cases of decays $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, the additional systematic uncertainty of 2% comes from the uncertainties involved in the generation of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass spectrum. For the modes with $`K^{}`$ daughters, the efficiency depends on the helicity composition of the final state due to the fact that the momenta of the $`K^{}`$ decay products are correlated with the helicity angle. The uncertainty in $`K^{}`$ helicity adds a small contribution of 1% to the systematic uncertainty (the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ result obtained in this Rapid Communication is used for this estimate). The major sources of systematic uncertainty in the longitudinal polarization fraction measurement are the uncertainties in the fitting procedure (10, 10, 15 %), background estimates (5, 15, 5 %), and differences in detection efficiencies for decays with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ and 1 (5, 5, 5 %) for modes with $`K^+K_S^0\pi ^+`$, $`K^+K^+\pi ^0`$, and $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ final states, respectively.

The results of the measurements are summarized in Tables II and III. The branching-fraction results are $`(B^+\psi (2S)K^+)=(7.8\pm 0.7\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$, $`(B^+\psi (2S)K^+)=(9.2\pm 1.9\pm 1.2)\times 10^4`$, $`(B^0\psi (2S)K^0)=(5.0\pm 1.1\pm 0.6)\times 10^4`$, and $`(B^0\psi (2S)K^0)=(7.6\pm 1.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$. These values supersede the previous CLEO results  and are in agreement with the CDF measurements . Assuming isospin invariance, we make the first measurement of the longitudinal polarization fraction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the decays $`B\psi (2S)K^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.45\pm 0.11\pm 0.04`$, and measure the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar meson production to be $`R_{\psi (2S)}(B\psi (2S)K^{})/(B\psi (2S)K)=1.29\pm 0.22\pm 0.05`$. Table IV compares experimental results for $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with theoretical predictions . The predictions for $`R_{\psi (2S)}`$ of Deshpande and Trampetic  and Neubert and Stech  are inconsistent with our measurement.

In summary, we have studied all four decays $`B\psi (2S)K^{()}`$ with the $`B^0\psi (2S)K^0`$ and $`B^+\psi (2S)K^+`$ modes observed for the first time. The first measurement of the longitudinal polarization fraction is extracted from an angular analysis of the $`B\psi (2S)K^{}`$ candidates. The $`B^0\psi (2S)K^{()0}`$ decays are expected to play a significant role in future CP violation measurements.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. I.P.J. Shipsey thanks the NYI program of the NSF, M. Selen thanks the PFF program of the NSF, A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program, M. Selen and H. Yamamoto thank the OJI program of DOE, M. Selen and V. Sharma thank the A.P. Sloan Foundation, M. Selen and V. Sharma thank the Research Corporation, F. Blanc thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation, and H. Schwarthoff and E. von Toerne thank the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung for support. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Classical Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice: a Monte Carlo simulation

## I Introduction

The introduction of frustration to magnetic systems leads to extra degeneracy for the ground state in addition to the degeneracy resulting from the symmetry of magnetic Hamiltonian. The larger this additional degeneracy, the more likely frustration is to cause dramatic changes in the magnetic properties of the system, such as the absence of long range order even at the lowest temperature. Geometrical frustration has been one of the key issues in magnetism for at least twenty years. A recent wave of theoretical papers  as well as publications dealing with Monte Carlo simulation  has emphasised the unusual magnetic properties of geometrically frustrated systems. The question of whether the frustration leads to a disordered gapped state or to long-range Neél type order in different types of geometry is still under debate. Current efforts seem to be concentrated around two types of lattices: the Kagomé lattice  and the pyrochlore lattice . Recently has it been established that the pyrochlore lattice represents the only simple system for which the additional degree of freedom caused by the frustration is extensive – it is proportional to the number of spins involved .

The growth of theoretical interest in the pyrochlore lattice, a lattice of corner-sharing tetrahedra, is driven largely by experimental discoveries . There are many chemically clean pyrochlores (some of which may be produced as single crystals ) with different types of magnetic atoms and interactions, which allows one to pick the most suitable one for study and for comparison with a particular theoretical model. By studying the phenomenon in general a much better understanding of the magnetic properties of individual compounds can be achieved. The same reasoning applies to another geometrically frustrated system - an antiferromagnet on a Kagomé lattice, where SrCr9pGa12-9pO19 , jarosites  and some other compounds  provide quite a variety of model systems.

Gadolinium gallium garnet, Gd3Ga5O12, is a unique example of an antiferromagnet on the garnet lattice. There are no other compounds matching its magnetic properties. In GGG (space group Ia$`\overline{3}`$d) the magnetic Gd ions are located on two interpenetrating, corner-sharing triangular sublattices, where the triangles of spins do not lie in the same plane – the angle between two nearest triangles is equal to the angle between the diagonals of a cube, 70.5 (see Fig. 1). In this compound the triangular arrangement of the nearest spins is combined with complete exchange isotropy (the single-ion anisotropy is negligibly small ) and with a relatively strong dipole-dipole energy. Although the magnetic properties of various garnets have been thoroughly studied during the past half century, the analogy between any of them and GGG is not straightforward. All other magnetic garnets order at some low temperature, while GGG does not. No long range magnetic order has been detected in GGG down to 25 mK , while other gallium garnets based on Dy, Nd, Sm and Er, rather than Gd, have been found to be magnetically ordered at temperatures below 1 K . The nearest analogy to GGG would probably be found among the Mn-based garnets, where the single-ion anisotropy is also very small. However two similar magnetically isotropic garnets, Mn3Al2Ge3O12 and Mn3Al2Si3O12 , also order. Most likely this is due to the presence of relatively strong next-to-nearest exchange interactions. If and when the degeneracy of the ground state is removed and the system undergoes a phase transition to a long-range ordered state, almost all complications disappear. The magnetic ground state and the main interactions are known from experiment and theoretical calculations are straightforward. Numerical estimates exist to at least the accuracy that experiments currently attain. However a theoretical model describing adequately the magnetic properties of GGG still has to be developed.

This paper presents the results of classical Monte Carlo simulations of the magnetic properties of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice. While some of the initial results related to the GGG have been briefly reported in our neutron scattering papers , where they have been used to explain the obtained experimental data and also to predict possible experiments, here we take a more general approach to the problem. We address issues which are a not necessarily directly related to GGG, but are interesting from a theoretical point of view, e.g. we discuss properties of a model which includes nearest-neighbour exchange interactions only. Where possible we compare with the results of simulations for the pyrochlore and Kagomé lattices and show, that an antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice is yet another highly frustrated magnetic system exhibiting a number of unusual and intriguing properties.

## II Simulation Models

We consider the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{}=\underset{}{}J_{ij}𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣+D\underset{}{}\left[\frac{𝐒_𝐢𝐒_𝐣}{r_{ij}^3}3\frac{(𝐒_𝐢𝐫_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}})(𝐒_𝐣𝐫_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}})}{r_{ij}^5}\right],$$
(1)
where the spins $`𝐒_i`$ are classical, three-component vectors on the Gd3+ sites of a garnet lattice, S=7/2 as in GGG. The first term is the exchange interaction, the second term is the dipole-dipole interaction between the magnetic moments.

The original idea to simulate the magnetic properties of GGG using MC methods belongs to Kinney and Wolf , who calculated the temperature dependence of the specific heat and by comparing the results with the experimental data have obtained the amplitudes of the nearest and next to nearest neighbour exchange interactions $`J_1`$, $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$. More recently Schiffer et. al calculated the magnetic phase boundary and have investigated the magnetic structure of GGG in an applied field . We use the same value of the nearest exchange constant as Kinney and Wolf , $`J_1=0.107`$ K, because it produces good estimates for the temperature dependence of the susceptibility and also for the saturation field of the magnetisation . However, as will be shown later, the values of $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ quoted in Ref.  are not essential: as long as they are small in comparison with $`J_1`$, they do not change significantly the predicted magnetic properties of GGG and therefore can not be reliably determined from the MC simulations.

The strength of the dipole-dipole interaction, $`D`$, is defined by the distances between the $`i`$th and $`j`$th spins. In GGG the Gd3+ sites are separated by $`\frac{\sqrt{6}}{8}a=3.781`$ Å, where $`a=12.349`$ Å is the lattice constant at low temperature. Therefore we use $`D_{dd}=0.0457`$ K for the strength of the nearest-neighbour dipolar interaction. It is very important and at the same time very difficult to simulate reliably such a long range interaction as the dipole-dipole one. For some simpler lattices, for example, a 2D-square lattice , or for highly anisotropical systems, such as spin ice pyrochlores , the Ewald summation technique can be used to treat the long-range nature of the dipole-dipole interaction. In case of Heisenberg spins located on the complicated lattice of GGG, however, there is no option but to introduce a cut-off range, $`R_0`$, and to neglect the dipole-dipole interaction for all distances larger than $`R_0`$. Previous simulations have restricted the dipole-dipole interaction to a third neighbour , while in our model $`R_0`$ has been extended to include the fourth neighbour. We have also made several test runs to compare the simulation results for this model with both shorter (to a third neighbour) and also longer (ten neighbours) cut-off ranges and have found no significant difference, which suggests that this model describes the dipolar force reasonably well. The dipolar interaction between two magnetic moments decays as $`\frac{1}{R^3}`$, the number of neighbours in a shell $`\delta R`$ is proportional to $`R^2`$, therefore the dipole-dipole energy should decay only relatively slowly, as $`\frac{1}{R}`$. In reality, however, the extension of the cut-off range from a third neighbour to a fourth one does not change significantly either the total dipolar energy, nor the overall system energy. A possible answer to this puzzle might be related to the fact that all magnetic interactions in GGG, including the dipolar one, are frustrated: the contribution of the individual magnetic moments to the total system energy is mutually cancelled or nearly cancelled, therefore for each magnetic moment only the local surroundings influence the choice of magnetic orientation. Similar observations have been made during recent Monte Carlo simulations on pyrochlore lattice which included long-ranged dipole-dipole as well as short-ranged exchange interactions .

MC simulations have been performed for lattice sizes $`L\times L\times L`$, with $`L=3`$ to 9 unit cells, containing 648 to 17496 spins. Significantly larger lattice sizes, than previously used, have ensured that the magnetic correlation length in the disordered phase does not exceed the system size. Simulations with larger lattice sizes have improved the resolution of the calculated scattering function, $`S(Q)`$, in an applied magnetic field allowing us to resolve clearly individual magnetic Bragg peaks. A standard Metropolis algorithm with periodic or open boundary condition has been employed; up to several millions Monte Carlo steps per spin (MCS) were performed at the lowest temperatures. Where possible an attenuation factor $`\delta S`$ has been introduced in such a way that roughly 50% of the attempted spin moves were accepted , which has resulted in a dramatic increase of the spin relaxation rate. For the simulations in a magnetic field this procedure has been abandoned to permit the system to make abrupt structural changes.

The magnetic field is assumed to be applied along the $`(100)`$ direction unless otherwise stated.

## III Results and discussion

### A Zero external field properties

We begin by addressing the issue of the phase transition at low temperature in zero magnetic field. In GGG no sign of long range magnetic order has been found down to 25 mK , moreover, frustration induced spin freezing has been suggested at temperatures below 125 - 135 mK on the basis of single crystal magnetisation measurements: the susceptibility is frequency dependent, and the static magnetisation is different for field cooling and zero field cooling . However, neutron scattering experiments show that at the lowest temperatures the magnetic system is not frozen completely . It rather behaves as a mixture of a liquid and solid states.

The first thing to notice is that the simulation model, which includes only nearest-neighbour exchange, $`J_1`$, does not show any sign of a phase transition down to at least $`T=1`$ mK (which is less than 0.1% of the exchange energy $`JS^2`$). Several measured quantities show that the system remains in a spin-liquid (or, following Villain , a cooperative paramagnet) phase: averaging over sufficiently long time gives zero magnetic moment on each site, the scattering function $`S(Q)`$ does not show any sharp peaks, the magnetic correlation length $`Q(r)<𝐒(0)𝐒(r)>`$ does not exceed the system size (see Fig. 2). In fact, close inspection of Fig. 2 reveals that correlations are very small beyond the first unit cell. In addition there is no obvious maximum or cusp in the heat capacity temperature dependence (see Fig. 3). To test the suspicion that at low temperature Monte Carlo simulations are not effective enough in allowing the system to reach equilibrium, we have checked whether the simulation results depend upon the starting conditions. No difference in results have been noticed when starting calculations from an initially random or a 120-degree planar triangular state.

The low-temperature specific heat itself is an important thermodynamic quantity, whose value is sensitive to the presence of zero modes  and quartic modes . In the pyrochlore lattice each quadratic mode contributes $`k_B/2`$ to the heat capacity, each quartic mode $`k_B/4`$ and zero modes do not contribute at all, thus reducing the zero-temperature specific heat to 3$`k_B`$/4 , while in Kagomé lattice it is reduced to 11$`k_B`$/12 . Our initial calculation on a relatively small system with periodic boundary conditions showed that $`C(T=0)`$ was indistinguishable from unity within the accuracy of the simulations. However, prompted by the comparison with the Kagomé and pyrochlore lattice results, we have performed much longer Monte Carlo runs on much bigger systems with open boundary conditions (we use open boundary conditions in order to avoid the imposition of periodicity on a potentially incommensurate magnetic system). As can be seen from Fig. 3, $`C(T=0)0.94(2)`$ with the accuracy of the calculation sufficiently high to claim that it is actually below unity. There is no significant difference in $`C(T=0)`$ calculated for systems of $`5\times 5\times 5`$ and $`9\times 9\times 9`$ containing 3000 and 17496 spins respectively.

The introduction of the dipolar interactions slows down the spin-relaxation process. Fig. 4 displays the time dependence (time is measured in MCS) of the autocorrelation function $`A(t)=\frac{1}{N}<𝐒_i(0)𝐒_i(t)>`$ for the two models: with (bottom) and without (top) dipolar forces. The model which includes dipole-dipole interactions does not show noticeable relaxation by $`T=50`$ mK, while the model with only nearest exchange interactions is still relaxing even at an order of magnitude lower temperature. The difference between the autocorrelation function for these two models is evident at all temperatures below 0.5 K, which approximately coincides with the nearest neighbour dipolar energy, $`D_{dd}\times S^2`$.

Dealing with very slow relaxing spin systems and a potential spin-glass transition it is essential to ensure that the simulation time is longer than the equilibration time. In practice the first $`t_0`$ MCS are used only for equilibration and then calculations and averaging are carried out during the next $`t_0`$ steps. An estimation of an appropriate value of $`t_0`$ could be obtained following the procedure introduced by Bhatt and Young , where the spin-glass susceptibility, $`\chi _{SG}`$, has been calculated in two different ways. In the first method we calculate an overlap between two uncorrelated sets of spins which approaches $`\chi _{SG}`$ from below, if $`t_0`$ is shorter than the equilibration time. In the second approach the four-spin-correlation function is calculated, which approaches $`\chi _{SG}`$ from above, if $`t_0`$ is small. The $`t_0`$ is considered to be long enough and the results are accepted only if the two estimates of $`\chi _{SG}`$ agreed. In a GGG model which includes both exchange and dipolar interactions $`t_0`$ becomes enormously long at low temperatures. In fact even during the runs with $`t_0=10^6`$ MCS the results showed no agreement between the two approaches for all temperatures below $`T=100`$ mK. Therefore the results of calculations in zero field for a model which includes dipole-dipole interactions could not be considered as reliable below this temperature. The problem of long equilibration times is removed by the application of an external magnetic field.

The results of the simulations with the model, which takes into account only the nearest neighbour exchange interaction, $`J_1`$, fits well the experimental neutron scattering function $`S_p(Q)`$ at all temperatures above 140 mK . The neutron scattering function $`S_p(Q)`$ for a powder sample is calculated as:

$$S_p(Q)=f(Q)^2\underset{i,j}{}<𝐒_i𝐒_j>\frac{\mathrm{sin}(Qr)}{Qr},$$
(2)
where $`f(Q)`$ is the magnetic form factor. $`S_p(Q)`$ has several broad diffuse scattering peaks (see Fig. 5 in Ref. ), whose intensity increases as the temperature decreases in agreement with the experiment. The introduction of the dipole-dipole interaction at these temperatures does not change $`S_p(Q)`$ significantly.

A somewhat unexpected results have been obtained earlier  for a single crystal neutron scattering function, calculated as:

$$S_{xt}(Q)=(f(Q)\underset{n}{\overset{N}{}}𝐪_ne^{i𝐐r_n})^2,$$
(3)
where $`𝐪_n`$ is the magnetic interaction vector. Even at temperature well above $`T=140`$ mK, where there is no problem from very long equilibration times, $`S_{xt}(Q)`$ demonstrates a tendency to form incommensurate peaks around integer positions in the reciprocal space (see Fig. 4 in Ref. ). The intensity of these incommensurate peaks is much lower than the expected intensity of the true long-range order Bragg peaks, and their width is determined by the system size. The exact position of these peaks in reciprocal space is not fixed, it may change from one “snap shot” of $`S_{xt}(Q)`$ to another. Only after averaging significantly large amount of the “snap shots” (from several dozens to several hundreds) a clear picture of the short-range incommensurate magnetic order was obtained. However, this is most likely to be an artificial effect caused by the periodic boundary conditions: when they are removed, the effect of splitting seems to disappear. Top panel of Figure 5 shows simulated single crystal neutron scattering intensity of GGG in the $`(hk0)`$ plane at $`T=0.2`$ K.

Another interesting aspect of this study is to investigate how the ratio of exchange to dipolar interactions influences properties of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice. In GGG $`J_1`$ is about twice the strength of $`D_{dd}`$ and there is no magnetic order, while in Mn-based garnets  the ratio $`J_1/D_{dd}`$ is slightly higher and they do order. For instance, in Mn3Al2Ge3O12, which undergoes an antiferromagnetic phase transition to a 120-structure at $`T_N=6.65`$ K, the $`J_1=0.57`$ K  is more than ten times stronger than $`D_{dd}`$ in GGG. Our simulation shows that this fact alone could not lead to the appearance of the long-range magnetic order. In a model, where $`J_1`$ has been increased up to a hundred times keeping the $`D_{dd}`$ value fixed, the ground state remained disordered. However, the introduction of the next-to-nearest exchange interaction with a value cited in , $`J_2=0.12`$ K, does make a difference: the system immediately undergoes a phase transition to a LRO state, which reveals itself clearly both as a cusp in a heat capacity temperature dependence and as peaks in the scattering function, $`S(Q)`$.

### B Magnetic properties in an applied field

As has been mentioned above, in an applied magnetic field the problem of long equilibration times is much less severe, which gives us an excellent opportunity to investigate the magnetic phase diagram of GGG in detail. A phase transition to a LRO state in magnetic field was detected by calculating the specific heat temperature dependence in constant field or by calculating its field dependence at constant temperature. Figures 4 and 5 in Ref.  give examples of such calculations. The position of the specific heat maximum is not sensitive to the introduction of the relatively weak next-to-nearest exchange interactions (such as were quoted in Ref. , $`J_2=0.003`$ K and $`J_3=0.010`$ K), neither does it show any visible size-dependence. In the field dependence of the specific heat, only one anomaly corresponding to the upper transition field is well-pronounced, while there is no obvious anomaly corresponding to the lower transition field, which agrees with previous MC simulations .

In order to reproduce accurately the experimentally observed phase diagram of GGG, the simulation model must include nearest neighbour exchange interactions and also dipolar forces. However, even in the model including only nearest neighbour exchange more accurate calculations revealed signs of the phase transitions in a magnetic field. Fig. 6 presents the magnetisation curves and also their derivatives at $`T=1`$ mK for such models. Before reaching a saturation point at $`H1.7`$ T, the raw magnetisation shows a relatively small change of the slope around $`H0.6`$ T, which is not really a striking feature and therefore has passed unnoticed in our earlier calculations. In the susceptibility curves, however, a clear minimum is present at $`H0.6`$ T. We believe that this minimum in susceptibility corresponds to the appearance of a collinear long-range ordered state induced by an applied magnetic field. In complete agreement with the theory , which analyses an order by disorder mechanism in various highly frustrated antiferromagnets, an ordering happens only around a special value of the magnetic field - one third of the saturation field in case of a garnet lattice.

In GGG, that is in a model which includes the dipolar forces, an ordered magnetic structure induced by an applied field is characterised by the appearance of a nonzero average value of the perpendicular component of local magnetisation. The field dependence of parallel and perpendicular components of local magnetisation at constant temperature is shown on Fig. 7, while Fig. 8 shows its temperature dependence in constant field. The two sets of curves on each of these figures reflect the fact that in applied magnetic field the 24 Gd sites are split unequally into two different symmetry sites – “A” and “B” sites in the notation of Ref. . When the field is applied along the $`(001)`$ direction, the 8 “A” sites (represented by solid symbols on Fig. 7 and 8) are of higher symmetry than the 16 “B” sites (represented by open symbols). Clearly, $`<M>_{xy}`$ on the “A” sites serves as on order parameter for the transition from a paramagnetic state into an antiferromagnetically ordered state. Spins on the “B” sites, however, retain a nonzero value of the perpendicular component of magnetisation even in the paramagnetic state. This effect is caused by the dipole-dipole interaction.

In order to avoid problems with possibly many metastable states the calculations were always started at high temperatures and fields and then the system annealed as it came into equilibrium at the desired field and temperature for measurement. However, even taking these precautions the problem of long equilibration times at low-temperature low-field region was unavoidable. Therefore an abrupt jump of magnetisation around $`H=0.25`$ T clearly visible on Fig. 7 is most likely to be an artificial result.

Even without detailed knowledge of the magnetic structure in a field we can check how stable it is to the introduction of second and third next to nearest exchange interactions, $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$. This has been done by calculating the neutron scattering function $`S_p(Q)`$ for a $`3\times 3\times 3`$ system according to formula (2). The results suggest that the magnetic order is rather stable in all four quadrants in the $`J_2J_3`$ plane. The structure does not change when $`J_2=0.003`$ K and $`J_3=0.010`$ K are introduced corresponding to the values quoted in Ref. .

In an applied magnetic field, where LRO is developed, the formula (2) is no longer valid. Although it unambiguously shows the appearance of magnetic Bragg peaks, their intensity is not calculated correctly. However the overall field dependence of the intensity mimics extremely well the experimental data . There are two different groups of magnetic peaks, ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic. The intensity of the former group is growing in lower fields and saturating in a higher field. The intensity of the latter group also grows in lower fields reaching a maximum at around $`H=1`$ T and then decreases in higher fields and disappears above $`H=2`$ T. Exactly the same behaviour has been seen by simulating single-crystal scattering intensity according to formula (3). Bottom panel of Fig. 5 shows the results of such calculations for $`H=1.06`$ T and $`T=200`$ mK. In an applied magnetic field a set of strong and sharp Bragg peaks replaces diffuse magnetic scattering observed in zero field. One interesting aspect of the calculations must be emphasised here: the relative intensity of the symmetry related antiferromagnetic peaks, such as, for example, $`(210)`$ and $`(120)`$, is not constant in time. The intensity of each peak may change arbitrarily at any time from almost zero up to maximum value, while the sum of two peaks intensities remains constant.

The only discrepancy between the Monte Carlo results and the neutron scattering data in magnetic field is the presence in the later of an incommensurate peak located between two antiferromagnetic peaks, $`(200)`$ and $`(210)`$. While this incommensurate peak is clearly visible in the neutron scattering data , neither $`S_p(Q)`$ nor $`S_{xt}(Q)`$ (including a model where the magnetic field is applied along the $`(110)`$ and $`(111)`$ directions) demonstrates peaks at an incommensurate position. The reason for the discrepancy remains unknown at the moment.

## IV Conclusions

To summarise, we have presented the results of classical Monte Carlo simulations for the low temperature behaviour of the frustrated antiferromagnet on a garnet lattice. We have studied several different models, paying particular attention to two of them. The first model, which includes only nearest-neighbour exchange interactions, does not order down to lowest temperature, neither does it show any signs of spin-freezing. Calculations of the zero-temperature specific heat for such model suggest the presence of soft modes. The indications of the phase transition into an ordered (presumably collinear) state have been found at low temperature in applied magnetic field around a third of the saturation field. The experimentally measured properties of GGG including the H vs. T magnetic phase diagram are consistent with our findings for the simulation model which includes nearest neighbour exchange interactions and also dipolar forces. A perpendicular component of local magnetisation serves as an order parameter for the phase transition in an applied field.

In conclusion we discuss several questions, which have been considered in this article, but which most certainly require further theoretical investigations.

Firstly, both the low-temperature specific heat, $`C(T=0)`$, and the single crystal scattering function, $`S_{xt}(Q)`$, are unusually sensitive to the boundary conditions. The influence of particular boundary conditions on the appearance of soft modes and incommensurate peaks in $`S_{xt}(Q)`$ needs to be examined further.

Secondly, in the ordered state only the total intensity for the pairs of a symmetry related antiferromagnetic Bragg peaks, remains constant, while the intensity of an individual peaks may change. Could this behaviour be related to the energy-free motion of long chains of magnetic moments, similar to what happens in the Kagomé lattice, or is it a sign of the domain walls movement?

We are grateful to J. T. Chalker, M. J. P. Gingras, M. J. Harris, C. L. Henley, P. C. Holdsworth, R. Moessner and M. E. Zhitomirsky for discussions and other valuable contributions and also to J. N. Reimers for his help with the computer calculations on the initial stages of the project.


text:
# RHO MESON PROPERTIES IN NUCLEAR MATTER FROM QCD SUM RULES**footnote *Presented at the Conference on Strong and Electroweak Matter (SEWM 2000), Marseille, France, 14-17 June 2000. To be published in the Proceedings. Based on work done in collaboration with S. Mallik.

## 1 Introduction

It is believed that the mass and width of particles in a medium differ from their values in the vacuum. Such an effect might be observable in various physical systems such as the transition from a quark-gluon plasma to the hadronic phase in the early universe or in the interior of neutron stars. Furthermore, such conditions are created in heavy ion collisions at present and future colliders.

In order to analyze these systems, it is necessary to obtain a good theoretical understanding of the properties of the particles in a medium, for instance of the $`\rho `$-meson. There are various approaches and models in the literature which predict the behavior of the mass and width of the $`\rho `$-meson as function of the temperature and the density. We will use here the method of QCD sum rules which has been quite successfully applied in the vacuum case . This approach was later extended to finite temperature and density .

Since the medium breaks Lorentz invariance, more operators and unknown condensates enter on the QCD side of the sum rules (operator product expansion) and also the hadronic side (spectral function) is only poorly known in the medium. Nevertheless, one can perhaps gain insight into the chiral phase transition from experimental data on $`\rho `$-mesons in the medium, since these sum rules relate the mass and width of the $`\rho `$-meson to condensates like $`\overline{q}q`$, which serves as an order parameter of chiral symmetry breaking.

Most previous studies  found at zero temperature a drop of the $`\rho `$-meson mass of about 10-20% at nuclear saturation density $`\overline{n}_s`$, although in Ref.  no significant shift was observed. In view of these conflicting results we want to scrutinize here and in Ref.  on some aspects of QCD sum rules in the medium.

## 2 Operator product expansion and spectral representation

We consider the ensemble average of the $`T`$-product of two vector currents

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=id^4xe^{iqx}T\left(V_\mu ^a(x)V_\nu ^b(0)\right),$$
(1)
with $`V_\mu ^a(x)=\overline{q}(x)\gamma _\mu (\tau ^a/2)q(x)`$. The ensemble average is defined by $`O=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{exp}(\beta (H\mu _BN))O]/\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{exp}(\beta (H\mu _BN))]`$ where $`\beta =1/T`$. The nucleon chemical potential has been denoted by $`\mu _B`$ and the QCD Hamiltonian and the nucleon number operator by $`H`$ and $`N`$, respectively. The invariant decomposition of $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ is given by

$$𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=\delta ^{ab}(Q_{\mu \nu }T_l+P_{\mu \nu }T_t),$$
(2)
with $`P_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+(q_\mu q_\nu /q^2)(q^2/\overline{q}^2)\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu \stackrel{~}{u}_\nu `$ and $`Q_{\mu \nu }=(q^4/\overline{q}^2)\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu \stackrel{~}{u}_\nu `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\mu =u_\mu \omega q_\mu /q^2`$ and $`\overline{q}=\sqrt{\omega ^2q^2}`$. The amplitudes $`T_{l,t}`$ are functions of $`q^2`$ and $`\omega =uq`$. We have introduced the four-velocity of the medium $`u_\mu `$, in order to formally restore Lorentz invariance which is broken by the medium.

The sum rules are obtained by equating the short-distance expansion of the product of the two currents in Eq. (1), which results in a series of condensates of QCD operators, with the spectral representation for the invariant amplitudes $`T_{l,t}`$, where various intermediate hadronic states will contribute.

The short distance expansion of $`𝒯_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ including all operators up to dimension four can be found in Ref. . The availability of the four-vector $`u_\mu `$ allows one to construct new operators as compared to the vacuum case. In addition to the usual operators $`1,\overline{q}q=\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d,G^2\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{\mu \nu a}`$, there are two new operators $`\mathrm{\Theta }^qu^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^qu^\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^gu^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^gu^\nu `$. Here $`G_{\mu \nu }^a,a=1,\mathrm{},8`$ are the gluon field strengths and $`\alpha _s=g^2/4\pi `$, $`g`$ being the QCD coupling constant. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{q,g}`$ are the quark and the gluon parts of the traceless stress tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^q=\overline{q}i\gamma _\mu D_\nu q\frac{\widehat{m}}{4}g_{\mu \nu }\overline{q}q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^g=G_{\mu \lambda }^cG_\nu ^{\lambda c}+\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }G_{\alpha \beta }^cG^{\alpha \beta c}`$, where $`\widehat{m}`$ is the quark mass in the limit of SU(2) symmetry. We will take into account the mixing of the operators $`\mathrm{\Theta }^q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^g`$ under the renormalization group.

At finite temperature and chemical potential, we can use the Landau representation  of the amplitudes $`T_{l,t}`$, which is a spectral decomposition in $`q_0`$ at fixed $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$

$$T_{l,t}(q_0,|\stackrel{}{q}|)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑q_0^{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}T_{l,t}(q_0^{},|\stackrel{}{q}|)}{q_0^{}q_0iϵ}\mathrm{tanh}(\beta q_0^{}/2),$$
(3)
up to subtraction terms. There will be contributions in the integral from various intermediate hadronic states, first of all from the $`\rho `$-meson. The effects of the medium can be parametrized by employing the operator relation

$$V_\mu ^a(x)=m_\rho ^{}F_\rho ^{}\rho _\mu ^a(x),$$
(4)
where $`m_\rho ^{}`$ and $`F_\rho ^{}`$ denote the in-medium mass and width of the $`\rho `$-meson. This will generate the usual $`\delta `$-function contribution in $`\mathrm{Im}T_{l,t}`$.

Moreover, in the nuclear medium there will be a contribution from $`N\overline{N}`$ intermediate states. In the vacuum this contribution is small, coming from the cut beginning at threshold, $`q_0^2=4m_N^2+|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$. However, in the nuclear medium the currents can also interact with real nucleons to give rise to a short cut around the origin, $`|\stackrel{}{q}|<q_0<+|\stackrel{}{q}|`$. The evaluation of this contribution can be found in Ref. .

Following Refs.  we ignore the states $`N\overline{N}^{}`$ with resonances $`N^{}`$. Furthermore, below we will restrict ourselves to sum rules at finite nuclear density but at zero temperature, therefore the $`2\pi `$ contribution will be eliminated after subtracting out the corresponding vacuum sum rules.

## 3 Sum rules

We obtain the sum rules by equating the spectral representation and the operator product expansion for the two invariant amplitudes $`T_{l,t}`$. As usually done in the literature , we take the Borel transform of both sides in order to enhance the contribution from the lowest lying resonance, here the $`\rho `$-meson, and to suppress the contributions from higher dimensional operators. In general, this can only be achieved within a certain region for the so called Borel parameter $`M`$. In contrast to earlier work  we subtract the vacuum sum rules, assuming that the contribution from the QCD continuum will practically drop out in this way. For $`T0`$ and $`\mu _B>0`$ the $`2\pi `$ contribution will also cancel and we obtain the following sum rules in the limit $`|\stackrel{}{q}|0`$ where the expressions simplify considerably:

$`\overline{F_\rho ^2e^{\frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{4m_N^2}^{4\mu _B^2}}𝑑s(1e^{\frac{s}{M^2}})\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_N^2}{s}}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_N^2}{s}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{O}}{M^2}},`$ (5)
$`\overline{m_\rho ^2F_\rho ^2e^{\frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{4m_N^2}^{4\mu _B^2}}𝑑sse^{\frac{s}{M^2}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_N^2}{s}}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_N^2}{s}})`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{O},`$ (6)
with

$$O=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{m}\overline{q}q+\frac{G^2}{24}+\frac{2}{11}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }+\lambda (M^2)\frac{8}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^q\mathrm{\Theta }^g\right),$$
(7)
where $`\overline{O}=O0|O|0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }^q+\mathrm{\Theta }^g`$. The mixing under the renormalization group is taken into account by $`\lambda (M^2)=(\alpha _s(\mu ^2)/\alpha _s(M^2))^{d/2b}`$ with $`d=\frac{4}{3}(\frac{16}{3}+n_f)`$ and $`b=11\frac{2}{3}n_f`$. We will take $`\mu =1\mathrm{GeV}`$ below.

In the linear density approximation, we expand the mass and width and the condensates up to first order in the nucleon number density $`\overline{n}`$,

$$m_\rho ^{}=m_\rho (1+a\frac{\overline{n}}{\overline{n}_s}),F_\rho ^{}=F_\rho (1+b\frac{\overline{n}}{\overline{n}_s}),\overline{O}=C\overline{n},$$
(8)
where $`\overline{n}_s=(110\mathrm{MeV})^3`$ denotes the nuclear saturation density. The coefficient $`C`$ in Eq. (8) is given by

$$C=\frac{\sigma }{2}\frac{1}{27}(m_N\sigma )+\frac{3}{22}m_N\left(A^q+A^g+\lambda (M^2)(\frac{8}{3}A^qA^g)\right),$$
(9)
where $`\sigma =p|\widehat{m}(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)|p/(2m_N)45\mathrm{MeV}`$ denotes the sigma term . The constants $`A^{q,g}`$ are defined by $`p|\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{q,g}|p=2A^{q,g}(p_\mu p_\nu \frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }p^2)`$. From parton distribution functions  one obtains the values $`A^q=0.62`$ and $`A^g=0.35`$.

From the sum rules (5) and (6) we finally obtain the expressions

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}_s}{2F_\rho ^2}}e^{\frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}}[C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N}})e^{\frac{4m_N^2}{M^2}}],`$ (10)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}_s}{2F_\rho ^2}}e^{\frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}}[C{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m_N}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2}{M^2}}))e^{\frac{4m_N^2}{M^2}}].`$
## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

In Fig. 1 we have plotted the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ as function of the Borel parameter $`M.`$

We note that there is no sign of constancy of $`a`$ and $`b`$ in any region of $`M.`$ We thus conclude that the sum rules in Eqs. (5) and (6) cannot give any reliable information about the density dependence of $`m_\rho `$ and $`F_\rho `$.

We have included only operators up to dimension four in the sum rules above, but taken into account their mixing which is numerically relevant for $`M^2\mu ^2`$. Contributions from higher dimensional operators should, however, be relatively small for $`M^2>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. A more detailed analysis is in progress .

Therefore, the failure of our subtracted sum rules can presumably be traced to the hadronic spectral side which is not adequately saturated. In fact, higher resonance states $`N\overline{N}^{}`$ will also contribute a cut for $`q^2(m_N^{}m_N)^2`$. The problem with the inclusion of such contributions is, however, that more unknown couplings and masses will enter in the medium.

The sum rules at finite density are given by the vacuum sum rules perturbed by small terms proportional to the density. Since the vacuum sum rules are stable , this guarantees the stability of the sum rules at finite density as observed in previous work . In contrast, the subtracted sum rules above are much more sensitive to errors in or omissions of any terms.

## Acknowledgments

This article is based on joint work with S. Mallik. I would like to thank H. Leutwyler and P. Minkowski for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.

## References


text:
# Nonadditivity of Bipartite Distillable Entanglement follows from Conjecture on Bound Entangled Werner States

\[

## Abstract

Assuming the validity of a conjecture in Ref.  we show that the distillable entanglement for two bipartite states, each of which individually has zero distillable entanglement, can be nonzero. We show that this also implies that the distillable entanglement is not a convex function. Our example consists of the tensor product of a bound entangled state based on an unextendible product basis with an entangled Werner state which lies in the class of conjectured undistillable states.

\]

One of the central goals of the theory of bipartite quantum entanglement is to develop measures of quantum entanglement. For pure states, this problem is largely solved. One can formulate a set of basic requirements  which give rise to a unique measure  which is the von Neumann entropy $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$ of the reduced density matrix $`\rho =\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{A}|\psi \psi |`$ of the pure state $`|\psi `$. For mixed states, all measures that obey the desirable requirements have been shown to lie between the regularized entanglement of formation $`E_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )=lim_n\mathrm{}E_f(\rho ^n)/n`$ where $`E_f(\rho )`$ is the entanglement of formation of $`\rho `$ , and the distillable entanglement $`D(\rho )`$ (see Refs.  for proper definitions of $`D`$). The special role of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`D`$ among the possible entanglement measures for mixed states is emphasized by the fact that they have a direct physical interpretation; they measure the entanglement costs of making the state $`\rho `$ asymptotically from pure states  and the amount of pure entanglement that can be extracted from $`\rho `$ asymptotically respectively. Even though these measures are of central importance in the theory of bipartite entanglement, various open questions exist about their basic properties.

There exists one class of bipartite density matrices for which it is known that even though a state $`\rho `$ in this class is entangled, the distillable entanglement $`D(\rho )=0`$. This class of states is characterized by the fact that the states do not violate the Peres-Horodecki criterion, i.e. $`(\mathrm{𝟏}T)(\rho )0`$, where $`T`$ is matrix transposition in a chosen basis. It was shown in Ref.  that this implies that $`D(\rho )=0`$. Let us call these states PPT (“Positive Partial Transpose”) bound entangled states. Researchers have considered whether this kind of bound entangled state can play a role in quantum information processing; for example, it can be proved that PPT bound entangled states are a useless resource in protocols of quantum teleportation  and also superdense coding . On the other hand, it has been found that bound entanglement can be used to quasi-distill a single free entangled state , something which is not feasible without this additional resource. In this Letter we will present an even stronger effect that bound entangled states can have; states which are conjectured to be undistillable become distillable by adding PPT bound entanglement. Let us refer to these conjectured bound entangled states as NPT (“Negative Partial Transpose”) bound entangled states. This family of states was considered in Ref.  and . The states do violate the Peres-Horodecki criterion, however they seem to lose this property when trying to squeeze the entanglement (distill) into a smaller set of states. Let us state the conjecture which was made in Ref.  and :

###### Conjecture 1

 Given is the class of Werner states  in $`_3_3`$:

$$\rho _W(\lambda )=\frac{1}{8\lambda 1}\left(\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\lambda +1}{3}H\right).$$
(1)
Here $`H`$ is the swap operator, i.e. $`H|i,j=|j,i`$ for all states $`|i,j`$ where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{}3`$. The state $`lim_\lambda \mathrm{}\rho _W(\lambda )`$ is separable and for any finite $`\lambda 0`$ $`\rho _W(\lambda )`$ is entangled and violates the Peres-Horodecki criterion. It is conjectured that for all $`\lambda 2`$ the state $`\rho _W(\lambda )`$ is undistillable, i.e. $`D(\rho _W(\lambda ))=0`$.

Before reviewing the evidence for this conjecture, let us recall the condition for distillability:

###### Theorem 1

 The density matrix $`\rho `$ is distillable, i.e. $`D(\rho )>0`$, if and only if there exists an $`n>0`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(|\psi _2\psi _2|(\mathrm{𝟏}T)(\rho ^n)\right)<0,$$
(2)
where $`|\psi _2_A_B`$ is a state with Schmidt rank 2 and $`T`$ is matrix transposition in any basis.

The evidence in support of the conjecture is the following. If we set $`n=1`$ in Theorem 1, one can prove that Eq. (2) is nonnegative for all states $`\rho _W(\lambda )`$ with $`\lambda 2`$. Furthermore, for $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$ numerical evidence for the nonnegativity for Eq. (2) has been found for these states. Also it has been proved that for every finite $`n`$ in Theorem 1, there exists a finite $`\lambda `$ for which Eq. (2) is not satisfied. The evidence, even though it is convincing, is not conclusive.

In this letter we consider the distillability properties of a pair of states, one of which has PPT bound entanglement and one which has (conjectured) NPT bound entanglement. Surprisingly we find that the distillable entanglement of the pair can be nonzero. Thus

$$D(\rho _1\rho _2)>0,D(\rho _1)=0,D(\rho _2)\stackrel{\mathrm{conjectured}}{=}0,$$
(3)
which is an extreme example of nonadditivity of the distillable entanglement known as “superactivation”  assuming that the conjecture holds. Examples of superactivation of bound entanglement have previously been found in a multipartite system . The strict superaddivity that we find here, seems even more surprising since we expect that fewer incomparable resources and states exist in the bipartite case.

This nonaddivivity has an added consequence, namely the entanglement measure $`D`$ will not be convex if Conjecture 1 holds. Let us take the states $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ for which Eq. (3) holds and mix them in this way:

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\rho _1(|11|)_A+\frac{1}{2}\rho _2(|22|)_A.$$
(4)
Convexity of $`D`$ would imply that

$`D(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D(\rho _1(|11|)_A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D(\rho _2(|22|)_A)`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{conjectured}}{=}0.`$ (6)
However, we can show that $`D(\rho )>0`$. To distill the mixture, Alice first measures the label $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ on many copies of $`\rho `$. This will give Alice and Bob a supply of both $`\rho _1`$ as well as $`\rho _2`$ which can be distilled since $`D(\rho _1\rho _2)>0`$. We must conclude that demanding convexity of an entanglement measure, as was done in Ref. , is too constraining .

Another consequence of the result is a nonzero lower bound on the entanglement of formation of $`\rho _2`$. From Proposition 3 in Ref.  we have that the distillable entanglement of $`\rho _2`$, assisted by bound entanglement (e.g. state $`\rho _1`$ for which $`D(\rho _1)=0`$) is a lower bound for the regularized entanglement of formation $`E_{\mathrm{}}(\rho _1)`$, or $`E_{\mathrm{}}(\rho _1)D(\rho _1\rho _2)>0`$. And, note that if Conjecture 1 holds, the same is true for state $`\rho _1`$, i.e. $`D(\rho _1)=0`$, but $`E_{\mathrm{}}(\rho _1)D(\rho _1\rho _2)>0`$ which would provide an additional example of irreversible asymptotic entanglement processing .

The distillable state $`\rho =\rho _1\rho _2`$ also provides the first nontrivial example of a density matrix which satisfies the reduction criterion , i.e. $`\mathrm{𝟏}_A\rho _B\rho 0`$ and $`\rho _A\mathrm{𝟏}_B\rho 0`$, while it is distillable. This follows from the fact that both $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ satisfy the reduction criterion (otherwise they would be distillable) and the fact that any tensorproduct of states that by themselves satisfy the criterion, satisfies the reduction criterion as well .

For our PPT bound entangled state we choose a bound entangled state in $`_3_3`$ based on an unextendible product basis (UPB) . In particular, in Ref.  the $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}`$ UPB was introduced and the corresponding bound entangled state $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$. The unextendible product basis is given by five vectors

$$|v_iv_{2imod5},i=0,\mathrm{},4,$$
(7)
where

$$|v_i=N(\mathrm{cos}(2\pi i/5),\mathrm{sin}(2\pi i/5),h),$$
(8)
and $`N=2/\sqrt{5+\sqrt{5}}`$ and $`h=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\sqrt{5}}`$. The bound entangled state $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ is equal to

$$\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{𝟏}\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}|v_i,v_{2imod5}v_i,v_{2imod5}|).$$
(9)
Our choice of the NPT bound entangled state is the Werner state $`\rho _W(\lambda )`$ in $`_3_3`$. The partial transpose of this state is

$$(\mathrm{𝟏}T)(\rho _W(\lambda ))=\frac{1}{8\lambda 1}\left(\lambda \mathrm{𝟏}(\lambda +1)|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\right),$$
(10)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}_i|ii`$.

We will show that there exists a vector $`|\psi _2`$ which has Schmidt rank 2 with the property

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(|\psi _2\psi _2|[\mathrm{𝟏}T](\rho _W(\lambda )\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}})\right)<0,$$
(11)
for a certain range in $`\lambda `$. From Theorem 1 it then follows that $`\rho _W(\lambda )\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ is distillable. The vector $`|\psi _2_{A_1,B_1}_{A_2,B_2}`$ can be parametrized as

$$|\psi _2=\underset{i,j}{}|i,j|\psi _{ij},$$
(12)
where the vectors $`|\psi _{ij}`$ are of the form

$$|\psi _{ij}=|x_i|y_j+|z_i|u_j,$$
(13)
due to the fact that $`|\psi _2`$ has Schmidt rank 2 over a cut in $`A_1,A_2`$ versus $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$. Here the vectors $`|x_i,|y_i,|z_i,|u_i`$ are unnormalized arbitrary vectors in $`_3`$, to be fixed later. We will not be concerned with the normalization of the vector $`|\psi _2`$ since this is irrelevant for the sign in Eq. (11).

It was noted in Ref.  that the density matrix $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ is invariant under partial transposition $`\mathrm{𝟏}T`$. Using this fact and the parametrization of $`|\psi _2`$ we can express Eq. (11) (dropping the factor $`1/(8\lambda 1)`$) in terms of the vectors $`|\psi _{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\lambda _i|\psi _{ii}\psi _{ii}|\frac{\lambda +1}{3}_{i,j}|\psi _{ii}\psi _{jj}|\right]\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}+\hfill \\ \lambda \mathrm{Tr}_{ij}|\psi _{ij}\psi _{ij}|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
We make a choice for the vectors $`|\psi _{ij}`$ which results in

$$\begin{array}{c}|\psi _2=2|0,2|v_4,v_3+\frac{1}{2}|2,0|v_3,v_1+\hfill \\ 2|1,2|v_1,v_2+\frac{1}{2}|2,1|v_2,v_4+\hfill \\ |0,0|v_4,v_1|1,1|v_1,v_4+\hfill \\ |2,2(|v_3,v_3|v_2,v_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
It can easily be checked that this choice corresponds to setting

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|x_1=|z_1=2|y_0=2|u_0=|v_1\hfill \\ |x_0=|z_0=2|y_1=2|u_1=|v_4\hfill \\ 2|x_2=|u_2=|v_3+|v_2\hfill \\ 2|z_2=|y_2=|v_3|v_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Now we observe the consequences for Eq. (14). Since we have chosen the states $`|\psi _{ij}`$ for $`ij`$ to be either equal to the zero-vector or to one of the UPB vectors, Eq. (7), we ensure that the last term in Eq. (14) is 0. We then use that the inner products of the remaining vectors with respect to the state $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ are given by

$`v_1,v_4|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|v_1,v_4={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}}1,`$ (17)
$`v_4,v_1|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|v_4,v_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}}1,`$ (18)
$`v_4,v_1|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|v_1,v_4={\displaystyle \frac{7+3\sqrt{5}}{8}},`$ (19)
$`\psi _{22}|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|\psi _{22}=\sqrt{5}2{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{5}}{4}},`$ (20)
$`\psi _{22}|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|v_4,v_1={\displaystyle \frac{2+\sqrt{5}}{4}},`$ (21)
$`\psi _{22}|\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}|v_1,v_4={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{5}}{4}}.`$ (22)
Here $`|\psi _{22}=|v_3,v_3|v_2,v_2`$. Hence it follows that Eq. (14) equals

$`\psi _2|[\mathrm{𝟏}T](\rho _W(\lambda )\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}})|\psi _2=`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\lambda (17\sqrt{5}37)+2010\sqrt{5}).`$ (24)
This expression is negative when

$$\lambda <\frac{10\sqrt{5}20}{17\sqrt{5}37}2.3300.$$
(25)
Thus this solution provides a proof that in the range $`\lambda [2,2.3300)`$ the state $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}\rho _W(\lambda )`$ is distillable.

The solution that we have constructed analytically may not be optimal. We have carried out a numerical study, see Fig. 1, evaluating the minimum value of Eq. (11) while varying the parameter $`b`$ which is related to $`\lambda `$ by $`\lambda =(b+1/3)/(8b4/3)`$, or $`b(1/6,1/5]`$ when $`\lambda (\mathrm{},2]`$. As the figure shows, the activation effect is extremely small (all density matrices and states are normalized here, unlike in the analytical procedure above) and seems to vanish before we reach the boundary with the set of separable Werner states (see also ). It is possible that by using two or more states $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ for the activation we obtain a negative expectation value for smaller values of $`b`$.

The activation of $`\rho _W(\lambda )`$ by $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ is not an effect particular to $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$. The strategy to minimize Eq. (14) can very likely be generalized to other bound entangled states based on unextendible product bases. We can always put the last term to zero, by choosing the states $`|\psi _{ij}`$ to be either 0-vectors or UPB-vectors. This gives us some additional constraints for the states $`|\psi _{ii}`$, but the number of free parameters will be still quite large.

In conclusion, pending the proof of conjecture 1, we have determined an essential new and surprising property of the distillable entanglement, namely its capacity to be nonadditive. It is clear that it would be highly desirable to prove the conjecture, but that goal remains elusive for the moment.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank David DiVincenzo, Paweł Horodecki and Debbie Leung for interesting discussions. JAS and BMT acknowledge support of the ARO under contract No. DAAG-55-98-C-0041.


text:
# Exploring the Multi-Wavelength, Low Surface Brightness Universe

## 1. Introduction

Looking at large scale images (i.e., several degrees or more), one is immediately drawn to the high density of small galaxies, especially at high Galactic latitude, which are often strongly clustered. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of these galaxies have optical surface brightness distributions that are nearly identical to the terrestrial sky (Freeman 1970, Disney 1976). This interesting point, unless it is the manifestation of a cosmic coincidence, is most easily explained by accepting that current surveys suffer from an implicit surface brightness selection effect (see Disney 1998 for a stimulating discussion). As a result, untold numbers of galaxies remain uncatalogued with many important consequences.

For example, while the theoretical predictions of models of hierarchical structure formation have been successful in predicting the observed properties of the high redshift universe, they tend to over-predict the number of observed local group galaxies (Klypin et al. 1999). This situation can be viewed as either a failure of the models, or a failure of the observations, possibly due to selection effects. In addition, galaxies which have low surface brightness (LSB) distributions have enormous cosmological implications (e.g., Impey & Bothun 1997), yet, they are relatively unexplored, primarily due to the intrinsic selection effects in finding them. For example, LSB galaxies constitute an unknown fraction of mass (both baryonic and dark matter) which must be accounted for when determining $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In order to address these questions, we have initiated a project to reprocess the Digitized Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (DPOSS, Djorgovski et al. 1998) optical photographic plate data in effort to find previously unknown, low surface brightness objects (Brunner et al. 2001). Our techniques are complimentary to normal data reduction pipeline techniques in that we focus on the diffuse emission that is ignored or removed by more traditional algorithms (see also, Armandroff et al. 1998). This requires a spatial filtering which must account for objects of interest, in addition to observational artifacts (e.g., bright stellar halos). As part of this project, we have developed a novel background enhancement technique to look for new low surface brightness sources (see Figure 1 for a demonstration). Additional aspects affecting low surface brightness galaxy research in the context of a virtual observatory are addressed elsewhere (see, e.g., Schombert, J. in this volume).

## 2. The Technique

Overall, the software pipeline we developed utilizes publicly available software tools, such as SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), to generate our final candidate lists. With this technique, we can easily apply the same process to additional datasets, either individually or jointly, in a full multi-wavelength exploration of parameter space.

Briefly, our software pipeline performs the following steps.

* Pull raw DPOSS $`F`$ and $`J`$ plate scan footprints off on-line storage.
* Mosaic full plate images.
* Apply Vignetting correction to full plate mosaics.
* Process the full plates to produce a background map, an object map, and a bright star catalog.
* Process the background map using optimized convolution kernel, using the object map as a pixel mask, to detect background variations.
* Eliminate bright stellar halos using the bright star catalog.
* Combine candidate lists from J and F plates to remove candidates that arise from individual plate defects.
* Visually classify candidates according to assigned classes (e.g., planetary nebula, dwarf spheroidal galaxy, low surface brightness galaxy, etc. )

In the past, non local group LSB galaxies were identified by visually inspecting POSS-I or POSS-II sky survey plates (e.g., Schombert et al. 1995). Previously, this process, particularly automated approaches, was hampered by the unknown vignetting corrections, the plate mosaicing process, as well as the sheer amount of data that needs to be explored. As part of the Digital Sky project, a technology demonstrator for a future National Virtual Observatory, these types of problems are being tackled, and algorithmic solutions are close to being implemented. We, therefore, plan to extend the automated low surface brightness survey to target the unexplored population of low surface brightness disk galaxies (see Figure 2 for a demonstration).

The technique we have developed can be easily applied to other large imaging surveys, e.g., the SDSS and 2MASS surveys, in an effort to further explore the low surface brightness universe. In addition, this work can be naturally extended to included additional wavelength information from supplemental surveys in order to improve the source classification (see, e.g., Brunner, R. this volume) since Astronomical objects have different source characteristics, including surface brightness and morphology, at different wavelengths. Other, complimentary projects are also being applied to the DPOSS data in order to extract the maximal amount of information from this photographic plate data (see, e.g., Sabatini et al. 2000).

## 3. Contaminants

Sometimes the background enhancement procedure picks up objects which, while interesting in their own right, are not the objects of primary interest. Primarily these objects are either planetary nebulae, stellar clusters, interacting galaxies, or galaxy clusters (see Figure 3 for a montage). All of these candidates are flagged due to the presence of low surface brightness features: the nebula itself, the combined stellar halos, the tidal interactions, and the cD envelope, respectively.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was made possible in part through the NPACI sponsored Digital Sky project and a generous equipment grant from SUN Microsystems. RJB would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Fullam Award for facilitating this project. Access to the DPOSS image data stored on the HPSS, located at the California Institute of Technology, was provided by the Center for Advanced Computing Research. The processing of the DPOSS data was supported by a generous gift from the Norris foundation, and by other private donors.

## References

Armandroff, T.E., Davies, J.E., & Jacoby, G.H. 1998, AJ, 116, 2287.

Bertin, E., & Arnout, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393.

Brunner, R.J., Roth, N., Hokada, J., Gal, R., Mahabal, A.A., Odewahn, S.C., & Djorgovski, S.G. 2001, AJ, in preparation.

Disney, M. 1976, Nature, 263, 573.

Disney, M. 1998, In B. Mclean, editors, The Proceedings of the $`179^{th}`$ IAU on New Horizons from Multi-Wavelength Sky Surveys, IAU Conference Series, Kluwer Academic Press.

Djorgovski, S.G., Gal, R.R., Odewahn, S.C., de Carvalho, R.R., Brunner, R.J., Longo, R., & Scaramella, R. 1998, In Wide Field Surveys in Cosmology, 14th IAP meeting, Eds. Frontieres.

Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811.

Klypin, A., Kravtrov, A.V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82.

Impey, C., & Bothun, G. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 267.

Sabatini, S. Scaramella, R., Testa, V., Andreon, S., Longo, G., Djorgovski, S.G., de Carvalho, R.R. 2000, In the Proceeding of the XLIII SAIt National Conference Mem. Soc. Astr. It., in press, astro-ph/9909436.

Schombert, J.M., Pildis, R.A., Eder, J.A., & Oemler, A. 1995, AJ, 110, 2067.